Baptists and the Virign Mary.

[Wryetui]

Neither Scripture nor history will bear this out as you claim. Calling us a neoprotestant sect is against the rules. Should I report you or will you follow the rules of the forum? You are not allowed to teach here so quit trying to. While I understand your frustration with Joe don't lump him in with all Baptists and don't allow your frustration to cause you to break the rules.

A question was asked and answered clearly from a Baptist, not Joe, so that should be the end of the story.

I didn't mean it to be an insult at all, it's just fact. You are neo-protestant, the same as pentecostals, jehova's, mormons, adventists... Because you are formed in a protestant way but away in time from the original protestant reform (calvinism, lutheranism and even anglicanism), and you are a sect like the other neoprotestants I named because that's the groupation's name, a sect or a cult, you are not a Church united in communion, sorry if I sounded disrespective, I assure you it wasn't my point at all to insult you baptists.

 

[tall73]

Our teachings ar very different. First of all, you have to understand that I do not consider the Bible as the sole authority, but only among the Holy Tradition of the Church. The Holy Tradition means the teachings that are alive in the Church of Christ (Orthodox) but are not in the Bible because they were not written (how could them? The Bible is not a journal). Mary never died, she was bodily taken to Heaven after her dormition. This isn't written in the Bible because she died after the final writing of the Revelation, so where to put it? But is present on the writings of the Church. I am not a baptist so I will not post here as much as I could because it will lead to senseless slurs and dogmas from people that do not know a little bit of history (as proven with a user) so if anyone want to know he can start a thread in TAW or a conversation with me.

Take it to the forum designed for such debate
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/mariology-hagiography.726/

 

[twin1954]

I didn't mean it to be an insult at all, it's just fact. You are neo-protestant, the same as pentecostals, jehova's, mormons, adventists... Because you are formed in a protestant way but away in time from the original protestant reform (calvinism, lutheranism and even anglicanism), and you are a sect like the other neoprotestants I named because that's the groupation's name, a sect or a cult, you are not a Church united in communion, sorry if I sounded disrespective, I assure you it wasn't my point at all to insult you baptists.

I am not insulted as I know why you say such things. But as I said history will not bear your view out so you are basing it on the presuppositions that you were taught.

But others may be insulted, especially by calling us a cult, so I suggest that you desist in trying to teach here. I will not report you but others may. Don't get into trouble with the powers that be on this forum for such a petty thing.

 

[Wryetui]

I am not insulted as I know why you say such things. But as I said history will not bear your view out so you are basing it on the presuppositions that you were taught.

But others may be insulted, especially by calling us a cult, so I suggest that you desist in trying to teach here. I will not report you but others may. Don't get into trouble with the powers that be on this forum for such a petty thing.

I wasn't insulting anyone so there is no reason why someone would get insulted. I am not taught by anyone but I rather read an acquire things by myself, so if I said what I said is practically because history do support these things and they are taken from history itself, if you say otherwise then I don't know what history do you read.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

While you are correct in your assessment of the book you are mistaken in the view of Baptists historically concerning the teachings of the RC. Baptists have historically been anti-Catholic.

Let us not confuse the derogatory opinions of SOME disgruntled Baptists with the attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church by Baptist Church leaders with more than a minimal education in Christian theology and history, and a love and appreciation for Christians regardless of differences in opinion.

The reasons for this are easily seen in the differences between Baptist doctrine and RC doctrine. The only way to reconcile the two is by complete compromise. A simple study of RC doctrine and practice will bear this out. The RC doctrine of baptismal regeneration, seven sacraments, putting tradition on par with the Scriptures, the poop as the head of the church and many more that I could name make it impossible to fellowship and agree with the RC.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is greater than the difference between Roman Catholic theology (when correctly understood by Protestants) and Baptist theology. May I suggest that you read the commentary on the Greek text of Romans by the Roman Catholic Jesuit scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and that you also read the exegetical commentary on Romans by Baptist scholar Thomas R. Schreiner (http://www.sbts.edu/academics/faculty/thomas-r-schreiner/ )? One thing that you will immediately notice is that Schreiner cites Fitzmyer’s commentary about 430 times! Fitzmyer is one of the most read and appreciated scholars of Romans today among Baptist scholars. The same, except for the books of the Bible that they wrote on, is true of Roman Catholic scholars Raymond E. Brown (who before his death in 1998 was a guest speaker in Baptist churches), and Luke Timothy Johnson. Brown, it may be noted, had more severe critics among some Roman Catholics than he did among Baptists. Nonetheless, ultra conservative Baptists believe that Brown was too liberal, while liberal Baptists criticize him for being excessively cautious in his redaction criticism of the Gospel According to John, and believe that Roman Catholic scholar Rudolf Schnackenburg was (he died in 2002) very much more realistic in his 1,700+ page commentary on the Gospel According to John. That these men were (before they died) or are Romans Catholics is a minor issue among Baptist scholars—and it should be a minor issue among all Baptists.

Indeed, the strongest anti-Catholic sentiments among Baptists have nearly always been held by those Baptists who were the least knowledgeable about Roman Catholicism and the Bible. Among Baptists who are very knowledgeable about both, a loving and close fellowship with Roman Catholics is a common reality.

About a month after I began my first pastorate in a huge metropolis, the rector of the Roman Catholic Cathedral invited me for a chat. That chat lasted for an hour and a half, and his secretary did not allow our conversation to be interrupted by so much as a single telephone call. Never before or since has any pastor showed to me the respect and love that was shown to me by that priest. Although he was the senior pastor of the largest congregation in the metropolis, he to took 90 minutes out of his busy schedule to get to know me and to learn what I believed regarding the Scriptures as a fellow pastor. Those 90 minutes was the most blessed fellowship that I have ever experienced with another brother in Christ!

My Baptist denomination ordains women and allows them to pastor churches. I believe with all of my being that that is an abomination. Does praying to a brother or sister who has passed on to glory even begin to compare with such an abomination? I do not believe that it does. I have never prayed to the deceased because I do not feel a need to do so, but I have never seen the practice harm anyone, and neither Jesus nor any writer in either the Old or the New Testament wrote against the practice. We have instructions and examples in the Bible regarding how to pray, and although they do no mention praying to saints or to the Virgin Mary, they do not teach against it.

 

[Alithis]

Thanks Avid for replying to me.

So from what I can gather(I need to work on my Theology a bit more ) is that prayers to Mary are another way of praying. It's like asking a friend to pray for you.

With that being said, if any healing or miracle comes from a prayer to anyone, the power performing the miracle will be of God, since Mary nor Saints have power to do so.

I have a feeling I just didn't make sense lol.

no it is not like asking a friend to pray for you .. it is attempting to contact a disembodied spirit -it is forbidden. ( a person that has since died .) it is trying to access and influence the father through another means and not through the door who is the lord Jesus .he who said" no man comes to the father but through me ."
it is also faithless because it displays the the one praying does not believe God can hear their prayers .it is an insult to the father to ask a person who has died from this earth and who cannot hear you to pray for you .it is saying to the father ..you cannot hear me you cannot directly help me i don't believe your word . it is faithless and in its faithlessness it is SIN .it is wrong on so many levels .

 

[Wryetui]

For further information, I would like anyone who wants to know about the Church from the beginning, the uncorrupted christian dogmas that still exist today in the Church and everything else, would read this book: Church History by Eusebius http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.html, so you can see with your eyes that I am not taught wrong and my prejudices are not talking through me, but rather history.

Also, the service of Baptism used in Orthodox churches has remained largely unchanged for over 1500 years. This fact is witnessed to by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), who, in his Discourse on the Sacrament of Baptism, describes the service in much the same way as is currently in use.

 

[twin1954]

Let us not confuse the derogatory opinions of SOME disgruntled Baptists with the attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church by Baptist Church leaders with more than a minimal education in Christian theology and history, and a love and appreciation for Christians regardless of differences in opinion.

Your emphasis on education is pointless. I have studied both church history and Baptist history and have a love for those things as well and hold the common Baptist view concerning the RC church. It isn't an opinion of some disgruntled Baptists but the historical view held across centuries. Yours is the modern one. Yours is the liberal idea that Roam Catholicism is Biblical when it is very easily shown not to be. You don't have to be a scholar to learn or be a teacher in spiritual things. Education is often more of a detriment than an asset to those who think it is the end all of being a preacher or pastor. God equips His men not other men. An education is useful but it isn't a requirement and the academic is most often useless in the real world of giving comfort to the saints and putting shoe leather on theology. Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing but neither does it make one an expert in spiritual things. More often the simple man is the most useful.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is greater than the difference between Roman Catholic theology (when correctly understood by Protestants) and Baptist theology. May I suggest that you read the commentary on the Greek text of Romans by the Roman Catholic Jesuit scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and that you also read the exegetical commentary on Romans by Baptist scholar Thomas R. Schreiner (http://www.sbts.edu/academics/faculty/thomas-r-schreiner/ )? One thing that you will immediately notice is that Schreiner cites Fitzmyer’s commentary about 430 times! Fitzmyer is one of the most read and appreciated scholars of Romans today among Baptist scholars. The same, except for the books of the Bible that they wrote on, is true of Roman Catholic scholars Raymond E. Brown (who before his death in 1998 was a guest speaker in Baptist churches), and Luke Timothy Johnson. Brown, it may be noted, had more severe critics among some Roman Catholics than he did among Baptists. Nonetheless, ultra conservative Baptists believe that Brown was too liberal, while liberal Baptists criticize him for being excessively cautious in his redaction criticism of the Gospel According to John, and believe that Roman Catholic scholar Rudolf Schnackenburg was (he died in 2002) very much more realistic in his 1,700+ page commentary on the Gospel According to John. That these men were (before they died) or are Romans Catholics is a minor issue among Baptist scholars—and it should be a minor issue among all Baptists.

I don't need to read those men as I have read others who were considered RC scholars as well as many of the official RC documents outlining their decrees and teachings. I know what they believe and why. That is why I cannot fellowship with them. Nor do I need an education from you as to what I ought to think. It is obvious that in most things you are liberal in your theology and will compromise truth.

Indeed, the strongest anti-Catholic sentiments among Baptists have nearly always been held by those Baptists who were the least knowledgeable about Roman Catholicism and the Bible.

That is a false accusation that has no proof.

Among Baptists who are very knowledgeable about both, a loving and close fellowship with Roman Catholics is a common reality.

A false claim that again only serves to discredit your view. It has been my experience that the most knowledgable among Baptists are the most outspoken against the RC.

About a month after I began my first pastorate in a huge metropolis, the rector of the Roman Catholic Cathedral invited me for a chat. That chat lasted for an hour and a half, and his secretary did not allow our conversation to be interrupted by so much as a single telephone call. Never before or since has any pastor showed to me the respect and love that was shown to me by that priest. Although he was the senior pastor of the largest congregation in the metropolis, he to took 90 minutes out of his busy schedule to get to know me and to learn what I believed regarding the Scriptures as a fellow pastor. Those 90 minutes was the most blessed fellowship that I have ever experienced with another brother in Christ!

That is an argument from emotion and is invalid. We all know that even RC folks can be nice people.

So you are willing to overlook the many blatant and downright blasphemous teachings of the RC just because a "priest" was nice to you?

My Baptist denomination ordains women and allows them to pastor churches. I believe with all of my being that that is an abomination.

Then you must not deem it important enough to not compromise your conscience in the matter and leave the denomination.

Does praying to a brother or sister who has passed on to glory even begin to compare with such an abomination?

Of course not. No one says that it does. Once more you are making an argument from emotion that is invalid.

I do not believe that it does. I have never prayed to the deceased because I do not feel a need to do so,

Good for you.

but I have never seen the practice harm anyone

I suspect that you have never been to Mexico or many of the Central and South American countries where RC is the predominant religion. ,

and neither Jesus nor any writer in either the Old or the New Testament wrote against the practice. We have instructions and examples in the Bible regarding how to pray, and although they do no mention praying to saints or to the Virgin Mary, they do not teach against it.

An argument from silence. Very educated of you. You know as well as I do that an argument from silence proves nothing. You are grasping at straws hoping that your educated manner will tip the point in your favor. Sorry but no cigar my friend.

 

[twin1954]

I wasn't insulting anyone so there is no reason why someone would get insulted. I am not taught by anyone but I rather read an acquire things by myself, so if I said what I said is practically because history do support these things and they are taken from history itself, if you say otherwise then I don't know what history do you read.

Your intention and how it is perceived are not the same thing in most cases. While I understand that to you it ought not be an insult because you think it is true it is to those who do not. How would you feel if I called Eastern Orthodox a sect and a cult?

 

[baptist4life]

Princetonguy, you continue to amaze me with your posts. I have been a Baptist my entire life. I KNOW what Baptists believe. They DO NOT believe the things you are posting. I suspect some dishonesty here. You strongly support, and defend, a RC doctrine, which goes against everything a true Baptist believes.

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (not Hyslop) began as a religious pamphlet published in 1853 with the subtitle, The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. This pamphlet was expanded in 1858 and published as a book in 1919, 54 years after the author’s death in 1865.

In this extensively footnoted book, Hislop presents his phony conspiracy theory in which it is falsely believed that the Roman Catholic Church is a continuation of the idolatrous teachings of ancient pagan Babylon. Therefore, the book is a favorite among Jehovah’s Witnesses who love to quote from any book, no matter how inaccurate, to criticize historical Christianity. It is also a favorite among some radicalized Christian Fundamentalists who suffer from the delusion that Roman Catholicism is a pagan religion. However, mainstream Baptists and other Christians have almost unanimously ignored it as maliciously false anti-Catholic propaganda. A few Christian evangelicals, however, have written and published rebuttals to Hislop’s nonsense. One of these evangelicals is Ralph Woodrow:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2808-a-profile-in-integrity-ralph-woodrow

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-connection.html



Jehovah’s Witnesses also Baptize people, but they are NOT Baptists. John the Baptist baptized people, but he was not a Baptist Christian—he was a Jew!

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (not Hyslop) began as a religious pamphlet published in 1853 with the subtitle, The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. This pamphlet was expanded in 1858 and published as a book in 1919, 54 years after the author’s death in 1865.

In this extensively footnoted book, Hislop presents his phony conspiracy theory in which it is falsely believed that the Roman Catholic Church is a continuation of the idolatrous teachings of ancient pagan Babylon. Therefore, the book is a favorite among Jehovah’s Witnesses who love to quote from any book, no matter how inaccurate, to criticize historical Christianity. It is also a favorite among some radicalized Christian Fundamentalists who suffer from the delusion that Roman Catholicism is a pagan religion. However, mainstream Baptists and other Christians have almost unanimously ignored it as maliciously false anti-Catholic propaganda. A few Christian evangelicals, however, have written and published rebuttals to Hislop’s nonsense. One of these evangelicals is Ralph Woodrow:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2808-a-profile-in-integrity-ralph-woodrow

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-connection.html



Jehovah’s Witnesses also Baptize people, but they are NOT Baptists. John the Baptist baptized people, but he was not a Baptist Christian—he was a Jew!

 

[tall73]

it is also faithless because it displays the the one praying does not believe God can hear their prayers

I understand your overall take in your post, but this part I am confused on. Do you take this position when asking other believers to pray on your behalf? Or do you not ask other believers to pray on your behalf?

 

[tall73]

Princeton Guy, my father was Catholic, and all his family on that side. I studied EO teachings for a while as well, and at one point considered attending. I really enjoy the historic background of their faith. I dialogued a good deal for a time in GT with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and at the time the one active Oriental Orthodox poster in GT. While I do have respect for them, I still cannot agree with the appropriateness of veneration of icons, etc.

I can understand your appeal to learn more about their faith, and Christian history. And frankly, I couldn't tell if Joe was doing his usual not reading the other persons post or just messing with the guy when he kept calling him Catholic. So I get the frustration from the poster.

However, I think statistically the majority of Baptists would not currently be, and have not been, sympathetic to the teaching of veneration of the saints or Mary. If you have survey data to say something else, please post it. I can understand you appealing for more friendly dialogue and learning about each others views, but I am not sure how you can characterize the majority of Baptists as anything but opposed to veneration.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have studied both church history and Baptist history

Your own words in your posts prove that this statement is not true—at least not to a significant degree. Indeed, as you have also posted, you refuse to read both Baptist and Roman Catholic scholars in order to learn what they believe, and what they believe about each other. Furthermore, in your posts you falsely and maliciously accuse me of being a modern liberal. However, EVERYONE who is familiar with today’s conservative, evangelical Baptist theology and the views expressed in my posts knows for an incontrovertible fact that my views are conservative, evangelical Baptist views.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Princetonguy, you continue to amaze me with your posts. I have been a Baptist my entire life. I KNOW what Baptists believe. They DO NOT believe the things you are posting. I suspect some dishonesty here. You strongly support, and defend, a RC doctrine, which goes against everything a true Baptist believes.

The beliefs of our founding Baptist forefathers, and the beliefs of Arminian and Wesleyan Baptists today, are very similar to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church today. The only significant differences have to do with the papacy, water baptism, and the Virgin Mary. On these three points, I agree with the Baptist position; and I disagree with the Roman Catholic position. However, the Roman Catholic position on water Baptism is solidly based upon the Bible, but the Baptist position is based upon Baptist tradition. That is why the view on water baptism held by Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians is much closer to the Roman Catholic view than it is to the Baptist view. It should be noted, however, that some, but not many, Baptists agree with the Roman Catholic view on water baptism—but I am NOT one of them!


I have been a conservative, evangelical Baptist pastor and teacher for more than twelve years, and I know that the very large majority of Baptists have a general idea of what their local congregation believes, but have a very inaccurate idea of what other Baptists believe.

 

[tall73]

The only significant differences have to do with the papacy, water baptism, and the Virgin Mary.

Isn't that last one the one under discussion? If you acknowledge the disagreement, what is the issue?

 

[tall73]

However, the Roman Catholic position on water Baptism is solidly based upon the Bible, but the Baptist position is based upon Baptist tradition. That is why the view on water baptism held by Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians is much closer to the Roman Catholic view than it is to the Baptist view. It should be noted, however, that some, but not many, Baptists agree with the Roman Catholic view on water baptism—but I am NOT one of them!

Did something get confused in this post? You say the Catholic view is solidly based on the Bible, and the Baptist on tradition.....yet you believe the Baptist?

 

[Alithis]

The beliefs of our founding Baptist forefathers, and the beliefs of Arminian and Wesleyan Baptists today, are very similar to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church today. The only significant differences have to do with the papacy, water baptism, and the Virgin Mary. On these three points, I agree with the Baptist position; and I disagree with the Roman Catholic position. However, the Roman Catholic position on water Baptism is solidly based upon the Bible, but the Baptist position is based upon Baptist tradition. That is why the view on water baptism held by Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians is much closer to the Roman Catholic view than it is to the Baptist view. It should be noted, however, that some, but not many, Baptists agree with the Roman Catholic view on water baptism—but I am NOT one of them!


I have been a conservative, evangelical Baptist pastor and teacher for more than twelve years, and I know that the very large majority of Baptists have a general idea of what their local congregation believes, but have a very inaccurate idea of what other Baptists believe.

sprinkling ? lol

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Princeton Guy, my father was Catholic, and all his family on that side. I studied EO teachings for a while as well, and at one point considered attending. I really enjoy the historic background of their faith. I dialogued a good deal for a time in GT with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and at the time the one active Oriental Orthodox poster in GT. While I do have respect for them, I still cannot agree with the appropriateness of veneration of icons, etc.


To me, it seems to be a bit inappropriate—but not a sin to practice it. Moreover, I can understand a logical reason for the practice. In the very early days of the church, especially in rural areas, a large portion of the Christian congregations were not able to read the Bible or any other literature—but they could “read” the icons. For example, the “stations of the Cross,” typically 14 of them, were of great help to the illiterate in worship and prayer, and it seems only logical to me that they would be venerated by the people who were so very much helped by them.


I think statistically the majority of Baptists would not currently be, and have not been, sympathetic to the teaching of veneration of the saints or Mary. If you have survey data to say something else, please post it. I can understand you appealing for more friendly dialogue and learning about each others views, but I am not sure how you can characterize the majority of Baptists as anything but opposed to veneration.

I know very few illiterate Baptists who have had the experience of being greatly helped in their worship and prayer by the “Stations of the Cross.” Indeed, I know very few Baptists who have any idea whatsoever why Roman Catholics came to venerate icons—and why they still do. Surely not very many Baptists appreciate the veneration of icons, but I do not believe that very many well educated Baptists are “opposed” to the practice to anywhere near the extent to which much less well educated Baptists are opposed to the practice. Do I have any data from actual surveys that supports this opinion? No, I do not, but neither have I ever seen it to be an issue among well educated Baptists.

By the way, thank you for your very kind and considerate post!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Isn't that last one the one under discussion? If you acknowledge the disagreement, what is the issue?

The issue, from my perspective, is the malicious, visceral hated for the Roman Catholic Church and her people on the part of Baptists who are, in my opinion, sinfully ignorant and sinfully unwilling to make a sincere and objective effort to learn the truth.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Did something get confused in this post?
No.

You say the Catholic view is solidly based on the Bible, and the Baptist on tradition.....yet you believe the Baptist?

Yes, that is correct. I believe whole-heartedly in the Baptist view—even though it is based upon Baptist tradition and experience rather than upon the Scriptures. Peter was correct at the time that he taught, but….