Prayer clothes?

In that case, I am left wondering what you (Jerome) mean by the term "Reformed Baptist". Your link about Evangelicals and liturgical traditions took me to a site that doesn't include the word "reformed" at all.

So what change in theology did the man you mentioned make when he "went Reformed"? And what biblical backing did he give for that practice known as "the Stations of the Cross"?

Out of interest, I have just tried a Google search: "Stations of the cross" "Reformed baptist". This brought up "about 15,200 results", but when I restricted my search to pages from the UK, I got just 137 (a far greater discrepancy than could be accounted for by America's larger population), and many of those seem to be sites that do not mention Reformed Baptists, but include phrases such as: "the backing of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, United Reformed, Baptist and Black-Led Churches" (and that wasn't in the context of stations), and critiques of the film, The Passion of Christ. I couldn't find one that actually mentioned a Reformed Baptist church practicing "The Stations", though I admit I didn't visit each of the 137 sites.

So perhaps (a) Reformed Baptists participating in/promoting the "Stations of the cross" happens in America, but not here, or (b) your definition of "Reformed Baptist" differes from mine.

 

Did You read the whole story?
Eli, and both of his sons died premature deaths.
The Ark of the Covenant was stolen from Israel.
Israel was soundly defeated in war.
Why? Because of the ungodly influence of its spiritual priesthood who would not lead the nation in righteousness.

 

I was thinking about becoming a priest. Then I got saved. That is when I started studying the Bible. Most of the doctrines that I studied in the Bible contradicted what I had been taught all my life in the RCC. The biggest difference is that:
1. Salvation is by faith, whereas the RCC always and to this day teaches salvation is by works. Every religion in the world teaches salvation is by works, and every religion in the world is sending people to hell because of it. Salvation by faith, by faith in Christ alone, is the only way to salvation and the RCC rejects the basic foundational truth.

2. Salvation is personal. When I found Christ, I didn't find a religion, I found a relationship. It was Someone that saved me, not Something (like the RCC), which the RCC claims. This is the other big mistake that the RCC makes. Without the RCC a person cannot be saved.
Now pay attention here. That is not Christianity's claim. That is the claim of the RCC and every false cult that has existed ever since.

Okay, let's look at the book of Acts and see how it looks:

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)
--The word was preached (see context), the word was heard, the word was received (they were saved), and after that they were baptized.

After salvation and baptism, there was now the local church at Jerusalem. What did they do?
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)
1. Most important was doctrine. That is first. They continued steadfastly in doctrine.
2. Fellowship. They gathered together. Fellowship with other believers is important. Going back to verse 41, these people were all first saved, and then baptized (not the other way around).
3. Then they had the Lord's Table.
4. Then they prayed.

The only difference between that and a Baptist service is that we may not have the Lord's service as much as they did, especially at that time, for they were meeting every day. But then the average Catholic doesn't go to mass every day either.
Note also: This was very informal. There is absolutely no liturgy here. It is informal teaching. The bulk of it is teaching (doctrine). Then fellowship. There is no liturgy in fellowship. You get together and meet each other and try to get to know people, and know their needs. That is what fellowship is. It is impossible to have fellowship and liturgy at the same time.
There may be some "ceremony" in the Lord's Table.
And then there was a time of prayer. This too could have been very informal. Prayer is not to each other, but always to God. He alone is to be praised.
--There is no similarity between this and the RCC at all.

How about here:
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)
--That is about six hours of preaching right there. They did celebrate the Lord's Table. That, maybe would have taken half an hour, but the rest was preaching.

When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11)
--Eutychus was healed, they broke bread, ate, and again he preached for at least five more hours. Does that sound like the good old RCC Mass to you--eleven or so hours of preaching. I have never heard of the Catholics doing that. I have been in all night prayer meetings, all day preaching meetings, in some of our Baptist churches.
But the priests usually give a dainty little homily, a sermonette of sorts, and is sure not to step on anyone's feet, is always politically correct.
--No. The Mass is not like the NT service in any way, shape or form.

That is what your literature tells you to say. But it is not true.
First, Peter (petros) means stone.
Second (petra) means massive rock. Jesus would build his church upon the Rock, the chief cornerstone, Himself. Peter would be but a pebble in that church. To be sure he would be one of the foundational stones, but the Bible itself declares Christ as the chief cornerstone, and all the apostles and prophets are equal in value in making up the rest of the foundation.

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Ephesians 2:20)

The keys have nothing to do with Isaiah. The keys represent knowledge.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. (Matthew 23:13)
--The door to the kingdom of heaven was shut to the common man because the Pharisees, who had the key (of knowledge), the way of salvation, had not taught the people.
Look again:

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luke 11:52)
--This time it is the lawyers that he points out. They have done the same thing. You have taken away the key of knowledge.
They will not enter into heaven; and those that were going to enter in, they hindered. Jesus cursed them ("woe unto you.")

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Luke 22:32)
Context!! Jesus was telling Peter he was going to deny him. He is giving him encouragement. He tells him that He has prayed for him that his faith will not fail him. He tells him this, at this time, to give him words of encouragement. You have it all wrong. Otherwise, Peter could have become the greatest failure ever!

No, that is not what it says. "If you love me, feed my sheep." The same message is repeated three times. Don't read anything more into this than what is written. This same message is for every pastor. Every pastor is to feed his sheep. There is nothing special here. In fact Peter repeats the same truth in Acts 20 as he speaks to the Ephesian elders, telling them to feed the flock at Ephesus, and he also gives the same advice in his epistles. It was general advice to a spiritual leader, as Peter was supposed to be, but was not (at that moment) acting like one.

Do you just cut and paste from a Catholic source or do you actually read what you paste? Be truthful.
The context is local church discipline. If you had read the passages you would have seen that for yourself. It has nothing to do with Peter. Peter is not even mentioned in Matthew 18.

The authority was never given to the apostles. It was given to local churches as per Mat.18:17. Verse 18 does not refer to apostles. It refers to the members of the church.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:17)
--It is the local church that makes the decision, and the local church that is referred to in verse 18. You didn't even read the passage did you. It was just a lousy cut and paste job.
So is the rest of your post.

 

DHK, first of all much of what I write is not 'cut and paste' I read the Holy Bible daily . Now about your descrption of the Mass as compared to Acts , it looks so much more like the Catholic Mass the more that I go back and read it over. It contains doctrine, community, sacred rite [ bread ]

The Acts of the Apostles mentions ten distinct episodes of Christian baptism. 3 of those episodes involve the baptism of a single person, while the other 7 describe the baptism of a larger group of people . Of those larger groups of baptismal candidates , at least 4 explicitly included the members of a single household.
1- The 3,000 baptized on the first Pentecost {Acts 2: 38-41]
2- the bap. that Philip performed in Samaria [ v 8;12]
3- '' of Simon Magus [ v 8:13 ]
4- '' of the Eunach [ v8:36-38 ]
5- " of the household of Cornelius v 10:47-48... also Acts 11:14-18.
6- '' of Saul v 9:18; 22:16.
7 '' lydia and her household acts 16;13-15 ]
8- " the Phil. jailer ..hosehold [ 16:33 ]
9- " of Crispus, his household ,and many Corinthians [ 19; 3-5 ]
First let me remark that no case in Acts do we find any explicit reference to whether a given baptism was performed by immersion or infusion. This is not particularly surprising , since by the time that Luke wrote Acts , baptism was well -established as a rite[ or ordinance, if you prefer ] of the Church. As a result , luke draws a clear distinction between Christian baptism and its precursor, the baptism of John [ Acts 1:5, 22; 10:37, 11:16; 13:24; 18:25; 19:3-4 ] So too, luke alludes to baptism's role in washing away sins [ Acts 2:38; 22:16] without elaboration , suggesting that the reception and dissemination of an early sacramental theology of baptism was already well-advanced. All of this is to say that Luke did not need to describe in great detail the rites of baptism in the early Church because his audience already understood that rite perfectly well as one of the central and distinctive features of Christian praxis. I can also make a preliminary remark on what baptism does "NOT " mean in Acts but it would take me too long and besides you haven't yet accepted any of the truth from my writings , it is all in vain.
DHK, if you was a Catholic, which I believe that you were but I don't believe that you was ready for accepting Jesus back then until later years. Jesus was always there waiting for you but you weren't ready. I know ,same thing happened to me.I often use a borrowed quote from one of the early Christians '' twenty-five years ago I found Jesus then twenty-five years later I found His Church ".

 

This is what is so difficult for me. It appears that you believe your 'best friends' have not got the right relationship with Jesus Christ and if they died today would go to hell? Do they know you believe that about them? My aunt is one of my best friends and in no way could I conclude that she isn't trusting Jesus to save her and she left the Baptist Church for the Catholic Church. I know it is against BB rules to speculate on anothers salvation, but 'Thinkingstuff' and 'Lakeside' both have given testimony that they had what we would call a typical Baptist's born-again experience. I don't know what else a person could conclude other than they are lying as I believe most of us believe in Eternal Security. 'Thinkingstuff' came to his decision to return to the Catholic Church after extensive study of church history and Catholic teaching. Everything he has posted leads me to believe He has the 'right' relationship with the Lord, but you say he must not really be saved? What else are we to conclude by your statements.

 

What is wrong with the "Stations of the Cross".....it is a prayerful meditation of the Passion of Our Lord. It has been an exclusive RCC thing for a long time and I must admit to being startled when I saw an Anglican church with them once.....admittedly a High Church but still..

 

The church mentioned in the article is Second Baptist of Houston, one of the most prominent of the Southern Baptist Convention.


More, straight from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary website:

"I have personally visited some or all of the Stations of the Cross a dozen times, and several times have led groups in celebrating the Lord's Supper at the site of Gordon's Calvary and the Garden Tomb. Walking this sorrowful pathway is a moving spiritual experience as one contemplates the terrible suffering involved in the sacrifice Jesus Christ made." —James R. Wicker, associate professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

 

What exactly do you think Jesus meant when he established His Church, Jesus said "my church' in Matt. 16 !5-19, and how many different churches do you think he formed , surely not the thousands of churches we find since the days of the Reformation, with everyone of them different from one another.And do you really think that He taught His apostles that all they had to do was "accept Jesus into your heart' or say something similar ,and that was it ,now go sit on your duff and do nothing ,I don't think so . In no way is it as all you non-Catholic believe it to be. Jesus expects us to live with Faith in Him and the Catholic definition of 'good works' not your understanding of works and faith.Or by faith alone with the Bible alone.
As a Catholic I understand the Church in terms of a hierarchical structure, with definite authority given to it by Jesus in the person of Peter and therefore to his successors. We see in Scripture much evidence that Jesus gave personal attention to the apostles, preparing them to minister after he was no longer with them. “Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me” (Lk 10:16). There was no reason for Him to prepare them for only their lifetime. The early Church Fathers verify this. The early Church does not fall into the Baptist vision of a structure-less, sacrament-less body of believers. It was hierarchically structured and sacramental. The canon of the New Testament, on which Baptists base all their faith, is the product of this Apostolic Church.

 

annsni,you wrote :" Jesus established His church - not an earthly church but the His body. There's a difference between an organized church body and the body of Christ. Organized church bodies contain those who are dead and alive - the church that Christ established contains nothing dead. You are equating an earthly thing with a heavenly thing - you can't compare the two.

My Answer-
I AGREE, God said he was the God of the living not of the dead. that is why Jesus the perfect Son has taken His Blessed Mother to Heaven with him along with some others.


annsni you wrote:"Jesus and His disciples taught one thing: faith. That is all that is needed to be saved. There is a difference between salvation that begets works and works that beget salvation. The Catholic church believes in the latter - true believers believe in the former"

My Answer-
First of all, the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God's favor.

Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:23 to give credence to his new doctrine.

But your question deals with John 3:16. Yes, this passage does speak of the saving power of faith, but in no sense does it diminish the role of obedience to Christ in the process of getting to heaven.

In fact, it assumes it. Just as Fundamentalists overlook the rest of the chapter in connection with what being born of water and the Holy Spirit really means--they ignore the water part, which refers to baptism--they also overlook the context when interpreting Christ's words about obtaining eternal life in John 3:16.

In John 3:36 we are told, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."

This expands on John 3:16. It is another way of saying what Paul says in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Although we cannot earn God's unmerited favor by our good works, we can reject his love by our sins (that is, by our evil works) and thereby lose the eternal life he freely offers us in Christ.

 

They have nothing to do with salvation.
They appeal to the emotions, the carnal part of oneself.
They also fall under the category of idolatry according to the Ten Commandments.

 

Bread is bread. You eat it. Your body breaks it down into glucose. That is C6H12O6. Three chemicals. Nothing sacred about three chemicals. It is not a "rite." You are reading into the Bible something that is not there. That is a Catholic word with a specific Catholic meaning. The Bible speaks of fellowship not community--for community has a specific meaning among the RCC. There is no mass in the Bible; there never was.
Instead of going to the vast number of Catholic websites look in an unbiased encyclopedia:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Mass

The music that is used in High Masses in particular. Where did it come from?

There is no mass in the Bible. It started in the 6th century, and the RCC didn't even begin until the 4th. You have been deceived by reading RCC propaganda.

Every instance of Baptism is by immersion.
There is no instance of baptism by any other method but by immersion.
There is no instance of anyone ever being baptized who first did not put their faith in Christ.
There is no instance of an infant ever, ever, being baptized.
The word baptize means immersion. Even the Greek Orthodox Church recognizes this fact and baptizes by immersion to this day.

Yes there was a difference. But what in your mind was the difference?

1. The Bible never teaches that baptism washes away sin--never!!
2. There is no such thing as "sacramental theology" in the NT. Prove it.
3. How much of a ceremony or sacrament was there when 3,000 were baptized by immersion in one day?
4. It was not well-advanced. The people that were baptized on that day--The Day of Pentecost were all Jews, some of them, no doubt, had taken part in crucifying Christ (part of the crowd yelling "Crucify him! Crucify him!"). There were about 100,000 Jews at that Feast Day. 3,000 of them got saved. Baptism was a foreign practice. For all of them it was a first time event, unless they had been baptized by John. But it is not likely that they all had.

Do you always stay in your own dream world? Get out of the RCC brainwashing material and look in some actual Biblical material.
The Book of Acts is a history book of the beginning of the churches, and the beginning of the works of the Apostles. This is during the time of the Apostles. No one understood everything perfectly well. No one! The entire book shows a transition of Christianity coming out of Judaism into full-fledged Christianity. Acts 2, they met in the Temple. But that couldn't last long. Then they met in the synagogues, until they got kicked out of those. Often we read of them meeting in houses after that. There is a progression. It is a history book. At the end we find Paul, a prisoner, yet able to live in his own hired house and receive visitors whom he was able to teach.

It is vain when you don't stick with the Word of God, literally.

You are deceived. In 20 years I never heard a gospel message in the RCC. They don't teach that message, and never have. It is not a matter of being ready. It is a matter of what do they teach. They teach a false message, a message if you believe--it will not take you to heaven. Good works sends you where every other religion sends you--to an eternity without Christ. And that is what the RCC teaches: salvation through works.

The RCC teaches today that salvation is through the RCC. A current Bishop published "The Church is Jesus." That is blasphemous, and shows that their teaching has not changed.

The RCC is not and never has been "His Church." It isn't a church at all. It is a business organization out to deceive people:

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. (2 Peter 2:3)

 

Carnal part of oneself, What!!!, carnal; where not talking here about any Jimmy Swaggart caught in sin ,crying while holding up the Holy Bible. Where talking about people showing their respect and sympathic emotions directed toward "Jesus", not to themselves. So , by your own admission you believe that unless the appeal is directed at oneself for his/her salvation that it is good, but it would be useless to show appreciation toward Jesus in the form of the 'Stations of the Cross . ' So selfish salvation is good you're saying?

 

Yes, selfish gratification thinking that some emotional feeling of bowing down before an idol is going to help you in some way. That is selfish. It centers around you. It has nothing to do with Christ.

Here is what Christ said:
God is Spirit; he that worships him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
What you do is commit idolatry. You enjoy the carnal effect.
Instead of maintaining the discipline of prayer that Christ requires, you bow down in front of these images. Images are more tangible. You can see what you are praying to. But that is what makes it idolatry.

God is spirit. There is nothing that is to be made of his image whatsoever, and nothing else to be bowed down except to him. If that is disobeyed it is idolatry. Read the Ten Commandments--the Bible's version. You will find them in the first few verses of Exodus 20. The Catholic's usually post an abbreviated version which isn't always accurate.

 

Nice try

I would worried more about those that engage in bibleidolatry.

How many people pray before a Bible.?

How many hold the Bible up in their hands while they pray.

Some people will after reading the Bible, bow their heads in the direction of the Bible and began praying.

Answer me this.

A. How many hours to do you spend praying to God?
B. How many hours do you spend reading the Bible?

If the answer to B is greater than the answer to A, then you're are guilty of BibleIdolatry.
Also these verses show that God does permit the use of religious statues and images , so long as we avoid idolatry. Ex 25;18-20
Ex. 26 v 1
Num. 21:8-9
1 Kings 7; 23- 29
1 kings 6: 23-28
Col. 1 v 15