Our roommate is infatuated with catholicism

[Hentenza]

because as he said scripture is one of the three authorities on matters of the faith.

Scripture IS the only authority. The other two are fallible.

 

[MrJim]

Scripture IS the only authority. The other two are fallible.

Hey Henry,
Wandering through~wouldn't you say the "properly interpreted" Scripture is only authority? Looking over dozens of denominations whose only authority is Scripture would seem to indicate there is something...missing.

 

[Hammster]

They eat Jesus, too. But they'll probably spin that as well.

 

[Mixolydian]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has undergone a clean up because it contained numerous debating posts by non-Baptists, which, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, is against CF rules. Just a friendly reminder, fellowship and questions by noncongregants are welcome, but not debate.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Hentenza]

Hey Henry,
Wandering through~wouldn't you say the "properly interpreted" Scripture is only authority? Looking over dozens of denominations whose only authority is Scripture would seem to indicate there is something...missing.

Hey Jim nice to see you. Actually misinterpreted scripture is a human fault not a scriptural fault. The scriptures are perfect but man isn't.

BTW- I've seen a lot more "missing" from those that advocate something else as coauthoritatice with scriptures (LDS comes to mind lol).

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

It matters, because there's the whole issue of : Did he accomplish his task successfully the first time?

If he did, there's no need to resacrifice him or re-present him.

Simply pointing out his initial work is sufficient.

I believe that Catholics would say that they do not re-sacrifice Jesus. He would be "re"presented by the fact that Catholics believe the Mass offers the body and blood of Christ which was given once on the cross but its effects spread throughout the future.

There is nothing wrong with Christians disagreeing on matters of theology (in itself), but I do believe that we are also obligated to make sure that we do not end in any way mischaracterize their beliefs.

Catholics believe that the work of Christ was accomplished once. Its effects have been given to us throughout time. When a Christian asks for forgiveness or dedicates himself to Christ, the work on the cross does not need to be reaccomplished... its effects have been made present in the sinner two thousand years later. I do not think anyone would deny that the saving work of Christ is presented in every sinner who turns to a life in Christ.
In the same way Catholics would say that the work on the cross is presented at every Mass, even though it was accomplished only once-- just as the work of the cross is made present in every sinner that repents, even though it was done only once.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Scripture IS the only authority. The other two are fallible.

Hey Jim nice to see you. Actually misinterpreted scripture is a human fault not a scriptural fault. The scriptures are perfect but man isn't.

BTW- I've seen a lot more "missing" from those that advocate something else as coauthoritatice with scriptures (LDS comes to mind lol).

During the Protestant reformation, Church tradition and the Magisterium were tossed into the wastebasket and the consequence has been the introduction into the Protestant Church of nearly every imaginable heresy and false teaching, not to mention the creation of hundreds of Protestant denominations, each one claiming that its own beliefs are taught in the Bible and that everyone who disagrees with those beliefs is teaching contrary to what the Bible teaches. I agree that the fault is not in the Bible, but in men—but the fallibility of man is a reality, and freed from the authority of Church tradition and the Magisterium, man has made a mess of interpreting the Bible.

As I shared in another tread (http://www.christianforums.com/t7558654-4/),

Most Christians who are not Baptists do not agree with:

The Baptist belief in autonomy of the local church
The Baptist belief in two ordnances
The Baptist belief in ordinances rather than sacraments
The Baptist belief in water baptism by immersion
The Baptist belief that infant baptism accomplishes nothing
The Baptist belief in the use of altar calls
The Baptist belief in the age of accountability
The Baptist belief in only two offices in the Church
The Baptist belief in the separation of Church and State

Even in our Baptist churches, we find an extremely wide spectrum of beliefs—everywhere from hyper-Arminianism to hyper-Calvinism; covenant theology to dispensationalism; free grace theology to Lordship salvation theology; premillennialism, amillennialism, post-millennialism, millennial exclusionism (and even various forms of millennial exclusionism); pretribulationism, midtribulationism posttribulationism, partial rapturism, and no rapture at all; and a widening range of beliefs regarding the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

What are the chances, from a mathematical or statistical point of view, that any particular Baptist church has any fewer errors in its theology than has the Roman Catholic Church? We all believe that that our widely differing beliefs are taught in the Bible, but it cannot be denied that that is not possible.

My Baptist denomination, one of the largest in the United States, believes that

The Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is the divinely inspired Word of God, the final written authority and trustworthy for faith and practice. It is to be interpreted responsibly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the community of faith. The primary purpose of the Bible is to point to Jesus Christ, the living Lord of the Church.

Although Baptists have produced numerous confessions to express our common understandings of Christian faith, we hold the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, as our final authority. We accept no humanly devised confession or creed as binding.
​

As a Baptist in that denomination, I enjoy the freedom and encouragement to interpret the Bible for myself, “responsibly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the community of faith.” Therefore, being under the authority of the Roman Catholic Magisterium would be very unacceptable to me. At the same time, I cannot deny the positive influence that it had up to the time of the Reformation—a time when Bibles were extremely expensive, very many people were illiterate, and the masses greatly benefited from the authority of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

What is the solution to the ever-increasing number of “Christian doctrines” based upon irresponsible interpretations of the Bible without the true guidance of the Holy Spirit? I believe that the solution involves very careful and prayerful exegesis of the Old and New Testaments in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with the benefit of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lexicons and grammars that give due attention to the grammar, vocabulary, and phraseology of each of the writers of the books of our Bible, and to the grammar, vocabulary, and phraseology of their contemporaries and predecessors. I also believe that the solution involves paying due attention to the writings of the Early Church Fathers because their writing tell us how the New Testament was understood by the Christians of the culture nearest to that of the writers themselves.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It matters, because there's the whole issue of : Did he accomplish his task successfully the first time?

If he did, there's no need to resacrifice him or re-present him.

Simply pointing out his initial work is sufficient.

The sacrifice of Christ is an accomplished work; the making of that sacrifice real in the hearts and minds of people is an ongoing process. During the years that I served as the senior pastor of an interdenominational church, we had a few Roman Catholics who fellowshipped with us, but neither I nor any of my associate or assistant pastors ever offered the Mass to them or anyone else. Instead, we attempted to make the sacrifice of Christ real in the hearts and minds of the people in our congregation through the teaching of the Bible and serving communion every Sunday morning. We did this because we believed that it was what the Bible tells us to do. Roman Catholics offer the Mass to their people because they believe that is what the Bible tells us to do. The Roman Catholics in our congregation attended Mass in a Roman Catholic Church, and they did not partake of communion with us because they chose not to. However, as an annual event, some of the Protestants in our congregation, along with the Roman Catholics, attended the Midnight High Mass at the Cathedral on Christmas Eve. I went with them, and it brought us closer together as a community of Christians.

 

[Fencerguy]

Scripture IS the only authority. The other two are fallible.

With no impertinence intended; by what authority do you declare this?

Hey Henry,
Wandering through~wouldn't you say the "properly interpreted" Scripture is only authority? Looking over dozens of denominations whose only authority is Scripture would seem to indicate there is something...missing.

true dat good sir

 

[Fencerguy]

They eat Jesus, too. But they'll probably spin that as well.

Have you ever wondered why they view communion that way? Have you ever looked to see their explanations for why they do things their way?

 

[Fencerguy]

It matters, because there's the whole issue of : Did he accomplish his task successfully the first time?

If he did, there's no need to resacrifice him or re-present him.

Simply pointing out his initial work is sufficient.

His work was sufficient the first time, no one will argue that.

How I have heard it explained is that; at the communion, the original sacrifice of Christ is remembered and offered to God as a reminder of what Jesus did for us?
I heard someone address this issue once with a couple of rhetorical questions: Doesn't Jesus Himself re-present His sacrifice to God all of the time? Whenever a soul asks for forgiveness for sins, doesn't Jesus say to the Father "look, my sacrifice on the cross is enough to forgive this person, remember what I did for them."
In essence, that is how the catholics view communion and the re-presentation of Christ's initial, all-sufficient sacrifice

 

[Hentenza]

With no impertinence intended; by what authority do you declare this?

It is God that gave us His special revelation. It is God that maintains it and preserves it. The scriptures are the only infallible, inspired word of God so the authority of scriptures in God given.

 

[Hentenza]

His work was sufficient the first time, no one will argue that.

How I have heard it explained is that; at the communion, the original sacrifice of Christ is remembered and offered to God as a reminder of what Jesus did for us?
I heard someone address this issue once with a couple of rhetorical questions: Doesn't Jesus Himself re-present His sacrifice to God all of the time? Whenever a soul asks for forgiveness for sins, doesn't Jesus say to the Father "look, my sacrifice on the cross is enough to forgive this person, remember what I did for them."
In essence, that is how the catholics view communion and the re-presentation of Christ's initial, all-sufficient sacrifice

There is no need for Christ to re-present His sacrifice to God. The sacrifice was a once and forever event. There is also no need for Christ to mysteriously or mystically turn Himself into a wafer through the invocation of a rite.

 

[Fencerguy]

It is God that gave us His special revelation. It is God that maintains it and preserves it. The scriptures are the only infallible, inspired word of God so the authority of scriptures in God given.

Again, by what authority do you declare this? Where does it say (book, chapter, and verse) That the Bible is the sole repository of God's revelation and teaching?

 

[Fencerguy]

There is no need for Christ to re-present His sacrifice to God. The sacrifice was a once and forever event.

So then when you ask for forgiveness of sins, why should God forgive you? Don't you yourself remind God of why He should forgive you? Don't you claim the blood of Jesus on the cross (thus re-presenting His sacrifice) in your request for forgiveness?

There is also no need for Christ to mysteriously or mystically turn Himself into a wafer through the invocation of a rite.

Says you; by what authority do you claim that Christ has nothing to do with a communion ritual?

 

[Hentenza]

So then when you ask for forgiveness of sins, why should God forgive you?

Because He said that if I confess my sins He will forgive me.

Don't you yourself remind God of why He should forgive you?

Nope. I trust in Him.

Don't you claim the blood of Jesus on the cross (thus re-presenting His sacrifice) in your request for forgiveness?

Nope.

Says you; by what authority do you claim that Christ has nothing to do with a communion ritual?

Jesus has everything to do with communion. We take communion in remembrance of Him so He is the reason why we take communion. However when we have the Lord's supper at my church Christ is already present so we don't need to invoke Him to populate the wafer.

 

[Fencerguy]

Because He said that if I confess my sins He will forgive me.

What has been done to allow God to forgive you?

Nope. I trust in Him.

What do you trust in?

Nope.

What do you claim then when you ask for forgiveness, why should God forgive you?

Jesus has everything to do with communion. We take communion in remembrance of Him so He is the reason why we take communion. However when we have the Lord's supper at my church Christ is already present so we don't need to invoke Him to populate the wafer.

so we just assume that He is present in the Church when we show up and communes with us in songs and stuff right?

Why would Jesus tell people about eating His flesh and drinking His blood?

 

[Hentenza]

What has been done to allow God to forgive you?

Christ died for my sins once. Just once.

What do you trust in?

Faith is trust. I have faith in the Son.

What do you claim then when you ask for forgiveness, why should God forgive you?

Because He teaches in scripture that if I confess my sins He will forgive them. Mmmm....I thought I answered this once before.

so we just assume that He is present in the Church when we show up and communes with us in songs and stuff right?

So Jesus is not God now? Is He not omnipresent? Does He need an invitation to come?

Why would Jesus tell people about eating His flesh and drinking His blood?

Analogy. Fortunately He cleared it out when He said that flesh profits nothing and that His words were spirit.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It is God that gave us His special revelation. It is God that maintains it and preserves it. The scriptures are the only infallible, inspired word of God so the authority of scriptures in God given.

The doctrinal points that you made in this post may be true, but the Bible itself does not teach them. Therefore, we ask, what is your authority for your belief in those doctrinal points?

2 Tim. 3:16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (NASB, 1995)

2 Tim. 3:16. All scripture is inspired by God and is {Or [Every scripture inspired by God is also]} useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (NRSV)

2 Timothy was written before much of the New Testament had been written, and, since Paul never quotes from any of the synoptic gospels, it is unlikely that he had copies of them. Moreover, when Paul quoted from the Old Testament, He usually quoted from a copy of the Septuagint that read quite differently from the Masoretic Text. Furthermore, Paul, being a Jewish Christian, would have considered the Old Testament writings to be Scripture, but probably not the New Testament writings that were not considered Canonical until well after Paul had died. Additionally, Paul, being a humble Christian, would not likely have considered any of his writings to be on par with any of the Old Testament writings—and, therefore, NOT Scripture.

Jude 1:14. It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
15. to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (NASB, 1995)

This passage includes a quote from a non-Canonical book, 1 Enoch, in which Enoch prophesied; that is, Enoch uttered words that were inspired by God Himself.

I believe in the inspiration of both the Old and the New Testament, as do most Baptists, but that belief is founded upon the nature and character of the writings (and upon additional evidence from archaeology, etc.) in the absence of any explicit statements in the Bible declaring that both the Old and the New Testament (and no other literature) are inspired. Furthermore, mere statements in any writing claiming that the writing is inspired are no proof that the writing is inspired.

 

[Hammster]

Have you ever wondered why they view communion that way? Have you ever looked to see their explanations for why they do things their way?

Why would that matter? I'm sure they have their reasons. They are wrong, though. And as a Baptist, you should know that.