Questions for Understanding Baptist and Catholic Practice

Dylan Akers

New Member
May 22, 2015
4
2
31
✟8,727.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Hi everyone,

Since I became a practicing Christian five years ago, I have been a member of a Baptist church. However, as I've read Scripture, prayed, listened to prominent pastors, and discussed with Christian friends, I've found more compelling evidence, conviction, alignment with my beliefs, and peace of conscience for Catholicism than the Baptist faith, or at least, Calvinistic Baptist faith. This to say, my questions are:

1. Has anyone experienced this?
2. Why are you Baptist, or at least Protestant? And how well do you understand and have read what Baptists mean by their doctrines?
3. Why do you reject Catholicism? And how well do you understand and have read what Catholics mean by their doctrines?
4. Why do you think Christians leave the Baptist faith and go to Catholicism?

Thank you!

*Update: Two more questions:
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Baptist church?
6. What do you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Catholic Church?
 
Last edited:

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi dylan,

As a born again believer in the one true and living God, I choose to worship with a baptist denomination on a fairly regular basis and I am a member (if that means anything) with a local baptist fellowship. I'm not, however, a baptist. I'm a born again believer in the one true and living God and I have found that as corporate worship goes, I find the baptist fellowships to be generally in line with what I understand the early fellowships of the church (60-150AD) to have been like.

Now, that's not to say that they likely had the guitars and the big grand pianos and the cavernous worship centers that so many baptist fellowships seem to have. I'm speaking of the teaching and the way in which their meetings are handled. I find, and I've studied the Scriptures for a number of years, that what is generally taught from the pastor of most baptist fellowships is much more in line with the Scriptures than what is taught from the catholic pastors. While I'm not foolish enough to think that all the people that worship with either denomination are all 'saved', as the modern fellowships like to put it, I believe that what is taught between the two denominations regarding what the Scriptures say about being born again is more correct among the baptist fellowships.

I also take fairly serious issue with some of the 'doctrine' of the catholic fellowships that I just can't reconcile with what I read in the Scriptures. I don't, for example, put a single ounce of faith in the belief that there is some line of popes that extends back to anyone referenced in the Scriptures. Having read quite a bit on the history of the various popes, there just isn't anyway that most of them were God's vicars upon the earth.

The bit about leaders in the fellowships being unmarried is another doctrine of the catholic fellowships that I just can't reconcile with the Scriptures. Peter had a wife! The issue of leaders in the fellowships and marriage is actually mentioned in the Scriptures, and as I read it, they seem to condemn the act of making rules against marriage. Paul does write that it is good for a man not to marry, but there is then no condemnation for anyone getting married. He just merely states that marriage tends to divide a man's attention from God. He doesn't then make some blanket statement that would be understood that any leader of a fellowship shouldn't be married.

That God has given the fellowships an authorization to deem some marriages valid and other marriages not, is also not a practice that I can't reconcile with the Scriptures. Paul writes that even if someone is married to an unbeliever that they should stay married unless the unbeliever wants to leave. I actually don't find any reference in the new covenant Scriptures that the event of getting married was ever some part of the responsibility of the 'church' to perform. People seemed to have just gotten married and it was more of a family event. It doesn't seem to be until around 5AD that christian fellowships began performing and sanctioning marriages. However, the catholic organization believes that they can annul marriages that were not handled properly as they deem as the proper way to handle a marriage. Not in the Scriptures, my friend. In the Scriptures, when a man takes a woman to be his wife, it's a life long commitment whether their actual ceremony was in a worship building or a doctor's office.

There are a number of other 'doctrines' that are practiced within the catholic organization that I find fairly questionable as well. It seems to me, much like in Israel, the hierarchy of the catholic organization has practiced the exact same thing that Jesus rebuked the rabbis and scribes of in the Jewish religious practices of his day. That they tie up bundles upon the backs of their new converts with a bunch of rules and regulations that honestly don't seem to me to be grounded in the word of God, but rather in the minds of men. Jesus spoke of the Jewish leaders forsaking the commands of God to fulfill their own commands and regulations.

If you have other questions I'll be glad to try and answer them individually, but suffice to say, that as far as your general questions in your OP, I find most baptist fellowships to be more in line with the teachings of the Scriptures than the catholic fellowships. My encouragement for you would be to just pray about it. If you are born again, God's Spirit will convict you of both sin and righteousness.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi again dylan,

In rereading your post I see that you mention calvinism. Look, you can throw calvinism out the window as far as I'm concerned. Don't practice 'calvinism', practice the true faith that comes from God to us through His Scriptures and His Spirit. My encouragement, steer clear of most of the 'ism's' of any fellowship. Most of them are like what Paul was rebuking the early fellowships for when they were saying one to another, "Oh, I follow this person..." or another saying that they follow someone else. Follow Jesus and what he has told you in the Scriptures.

It's fine to read and understand what Calvin believed or any of the other christian practitioners in the past, but don't ever let some personal religious conviction of someone else, supplant the teaching and instruction of the Scriptures. Nearly every writer found in the new covenant warns us fairly strongly about false teachers. Be wary and understand that those teachers can be found everywhere and in every fellowship. It bothers me to converse with someone and hear them say, "Well, this is what so-and-so believed." I don't really care what so-and-so believed. I want to know what Jesus believed. What God's word encourages me to believe

Finally, just because the particular fellowship that you worship with doesn't teach or understand everything the way that you believe it should be, isn't necessarily a reason to change in your choice of denomination with which to worship with. One of the other things I like about the baptist fellowships is that they are pretty autonomous, also what I believe the early fellowships were like. They generally align with a few basic creeds, but what is taught and practiced from individual fellowships can differ quite a bit. You may just need to move out of the one that you are enjoined with if they seem to be bent towards calvinism over the Scriptures.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

:sighing:
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,351
8,748
55
USA
✟686,995.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think one aspect of the differences between Catholics and Baptists that is often overlooked is the difference between the view of separation of Church and state.

Baptists believe in separation of Church and state whereas Catholics have no issues with the intertwining of Church and state...

This is a very large difference that leads to further differences most people don't often think of..

This difference can lead outsiders to see it as completely different Gods being worshipped - one who is busy setting up an earthly kingdom versus the other who is busy with the Kingdom that is not of this world..
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ml5363
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟120,394.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi everyone,

Since I became a practicing Christian five years ago, I have been a member of a Baptist church. However, as I've read Scripture, prayed, listened to prominent pastors, and discussed with Christian friends, I've found more compelling evidence, conviction, alignment with my beliefs, and peace of conscience for Catholicism than the Baptist faith, or at least, Calvinistic Baptist faith. This to say, my questions are:

1. Has anyone experienced this?
2. Why are you Baptist, or at least Protestant? And how well do you understand and have read what Baptists mean by their doctrines?
3. Why do you reject Catholicism? And how well do you understand and have read what Catholics mean by their doctrines?
4. Why do you think Christians leave the Baptist faith and go to Catholicism?

Thank you!

*Update: Two more questions:
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Baptist church?
6. What do you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Catholic Church?
1. I haven't experienced this. I have had doubts but I am fairly good at disregarding them.

2. I am looking to become Baptist because I have listened to Baptist preaching, this might seem stupid at first but think about it.

I developed an interest in Christianity I had never had through listening to it. I believe this is because I was hearing the word of God and correct doctrine. I think there is a difference between just having an interest in Chrisitian things and living a Christian life and actually being a Christian. I am a Christian I just have not been baptized yet.

I believe I've seen enough scripture to see that salvation is by faith.

3. I don't even really look into Catholicism. If I had to give some reasons it would be they do things which aren't in the Bible and they're a huge church. Doesn't the Bible say few are going to heaven?I'm not saying I won't look into it just for research but atm I'm just learning from my Bible and hopefully attending a Baptist church.

4. To be honest my only thought on this is that they're not born again and/or deceived.

5. Strengths of the Baptist Church are sticking to The Bible and their works of bringing others to Christ. Weaknesses are when individual churches don't stick to the Bible.

6. I don't know if there are any. Some of their worship music is nice, like
Da Pacem Domine (chant) and Pie Jesu. I don't even know if I should listen to it. Can anyone tell me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: baptist4life
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟201,456.00
Faith
Christian
Hi everyone,

Since I became a practicing Christian five years ago, I have been a member of a Baptist church. However, as I've read Scripture, prayed, listened to prominent pastors, and discussed with Christian friends, I've found more compelling evidence, conviction, alignment with my beliefs, and peace of conscience for Catholicism than the Baptist faith, or at least, Calvinistic Baptist faith. This to say, my questions are:

1. Has anyone experienced this?
2. Why are you Baptist, or at least Protestant? And how well do you understand and have read what Baptists mean by their doctrines?
3. Why do you reject Catholicism? And how well do you understand and have read what Catholics mean by their doctrines?
4. Why do you think Christians leave the Baptist faith and go to Catholicism?

Thank you!

*Update: Two more questions:
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Baptist church?
6. What do you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Catholic Church?
I take it that either you're not well read in scripture (study it, don't just read it), or you don't really know what the Baptist faith is, or you don't really know what the Catholic faith is.

But you provided so little information, like what points in particular do you see scripture siding with Catholicism, and does it do so on all essential points (like how to get saved)?
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Since I became a practicing Christian five years ago, I have been a member of a Baptist church. However, as I've read Scripture, prayed, listened to prominent pastors, and discussed with Christian friends, I've found more compelling evidence, conviction, alignment with my beliefs, and peace of conscience for Catholicism than the Baptist faith, or at least, Calvinistic Baptist faith.

So it's specifically Calvinism that you object to? Why?

4. Why do you think Christians leave the Baptist faith and go to Catholicism?

They don't, much. More the other way.

religiousswitching2.gif
 
Upvote 0

Dylan Akers

New Member
May 22, 2015
4
2
31
✟8,727.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for your responses! This site is already much more helpful than Quora. I’ve written a novella worth of information below specifying my thoughts for those who asked me to clarify what it is about Catholicism I’m finding convincing, so I understand (and encourage) you to respond to what you’re confident or have time or feel like responding to.

By “practicing Christian” I want to clarify that I’m making a distinction between a nominal Christian (someone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn’t take seriously the disciplines of being a Christian) and a serious Christian.

I understand and do not disagree that we need to be born-again spiritually to love God. I did not grow up going to church except on Easter and Christmas and the occasional Sunday. It wasn’t until God started to strip away the things I valued most to help me realize that it was Him I was looking for. My life has completely changed since becoming a Christian. However, as I’ve read the Bible more (twice through completely, the New Testament at least 3, some books more than that), ironically, I’ve become more convinced that the RCC is the true church. This isn’t easy for me and I don’t want anyone presuming that it is. I’m handling the evidence as I read it, seeking counsel, and praying through it.

Here’s a bit of where I’m coming from:

First, the Catholic Church doesn’t adhere to sola scriptura, therefore its understanding of divine revelation is not limited to what has been revealed through the Bible. This claim makes sense to me because the Scripture often used to claim the Bible’s supreme authority, 2 Timothy 3:16, only claims that Scripture is God-breathed, which I understand to mean as being completely true and without contradictions, and useful. These claims do not imply that the believer will understand Scripture perfectly as they read it and do not need help in interpreting it or is enough for the entire authoritative basis of their life.

Second, Protestant churches claim that the Bible is the highest authority, yet still follow traditionally agreed upon doctrines not mentioned in Scripture (Trinity, Incarnation). Why, then, are some interpretations of Scripture rooted in tradition accepted while others are rejected? To me, that risks ignoring good evidence. For instance, purgatory has good evidence in Matthew 12:32, Matthew 5:25-26, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, baptism and salvation has good evidence in Acts 2:38, John 3:5, and Mark 16:16, and transubstantiation has good evidence in John 6:48-52, 54-56.

Third, Protestant churches claim that the Bible is the highest authority. Yet, to me, it’s convincing that this claim ought to be questioned since the Bible was compiled by the body of the Church. Yes, God foreknew what He wanted to reveal to His creation and used a combination of oral tradition and writing to give this revelation to us, but it’s more convincing to me that He, in cooperation with the Church He established, revealed what He wanted in Scripture through willing, divinely inspired disciples, and instituted the Church to provide correct interpretation, regulate changes, and guard against heresies without changing the fundamental message of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

Regarding cooperation with God, I have not yet found an issue with faith and works salvation because to me, that’s what all believers act out in their lives. If it were truly faith alone, which is confusingly used synonymous with belief, then all must do is profess my faith once and then I can go on my merry, sinful way. No Scripture-based Baptist, or Protestant church believes or teaches this claim. Therefore, it makes more sense to me that these works matter because we will eventually be judged by them and that judgement has two possible endings, whether we’ve professed faith in Jesus Christ or not. I’m not convinced that it’s better to conclude that previously professing Christians who have fallen away were “never Christians at all” because who’s to say whether they believed at one time? I am also not convinced that this doctrine (faith and works) deprives God of glory due to Him or elevates us to a position reserved for Him or denies that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t enough for my debts; rather, it reinforces God’s persistent interaction with me and His desire to sanctify me and all people. Hebrews 6, James 2:24, and 5:17-20 are Scriptural references.

The least amount of Scripture I have investigated is the saints and the Virgin Mary. From my readings of Scripture, the Virgin Mary is at the very least, a spectacular and unique human being. As I understand the intercession of the saints, I do not see a downside to speaking to saints as friends, not worshiping them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,626
Canada
✟745,552.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
In Catholic theology it's salvation by grace + active sanctification via the sacraments. It's not by works but it is a mix of the two.

rcc-justification-flow.jpg


Notes and quotes from chapter 7 of Schaff’s History of the Christian Church. (Schaff had a killer beard!)THE SACRAMENTARIAN CONTROVERSIES: 101. Sacerdotalism and Sacramentalism.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy:

The Catholic system of Christianity, both Greek and Roman, is sacramental and sacerdotal. The saving grace of Christ is conveyed to men through the channel of seven sacraments, or “mysteries,” administered by ordained priests, who receive members into the church by baptism, accompany them through the various stages of life, and dismiss them by extreme unction into the other world. A literal priesthood requires a literal sacrifice, and this is the repetition of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross offered by the priest in the mass from day to day. The power of the mass extends not only to the living, but even to departed spirits in purgatory, abridging their sufferings, and hastening their release and transfer to heaven.

The Reformed Church:

The Reformers rejected the sacerdotal system altogether, and substituted for it the general priesthood of believers, who have direct access to Christ as our only Mediator and Advocate, and are to offer the spiritual sacrifices of prayer, praise, and intercession. They rejected the sacrifice of the mass, and the theory of transubstantiation, and restored the cup to the laity. They also agreed in raising the Word of God, as the chief means of grace, above the sacraments, and in reducing the number of the sacraments. They retained Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as instituted by Christ for universal and perpetual observance.

Lutheranism:

The Lutheran Confession is, we may say, semi-sacramental, or much more sacramental than the Reformed (if we except the Anglican communion). It retained the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, with the rite of exorcism, and the corporal presence in the eucharist. The Augsburg Confession makes the sacraments an essential criterion of the church. Luther’s Catechism assigns to them an independent place alongside of the Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. It adds to baptism and the Lord’s Supper confession and absolution as a third sacrament. At a later period, confirmation was restored to the position of a quasi-sacrament as a supplement of infant-baptism.

Zwingli and Calvin Agree:

Zwingli and Calvin reduced the sacraments to signs and seals of grace which is inwardly communicated by the Holy Spirit. They asserted the sovereign causality of God, and the independence of the Spirit who “bloweth where it willeth” (John 3:8). God can communicate his gifts freely as he chooses. We are, however, bound to his prescribed means. The Swiss Reformers also emphasized the necessity of faith, not only for a profitable use of the sacrament (which is conceded by the Lutherans), but for the reception of the sacrament itself. Unworthy communicants receive only the visible sign, not the thing signified, and they receive the sign to their own injury.

On Things That Differ:

These theories are not isolated; they proceed from different philosophical and theological standpoints, and affect other doctrines. Luther was not quite wrong when he said to Zwingli at Marburg “You have a different spirit.” Luther took his stand on the doctrine of justification by faith; Zwingli and Calvin, on the doctrine of divine causality and sovereignty, or eternal election. Luther proceeded anthropologically and soteriologically from man to God, Zwingli and Calvin proceeded theologically from God to man.

The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is the outgrowth of a magical supernaturalism which absorbs and annihilates the natural and human, leaving only the empty form. The Lutheran doctrine implies an interpenetration of the divine and human. The commemorative theory of Zwingli saves the integrity and peculiar character of the divine and human, but keeps them separate and distinct. The eucharistic theory affects Christology, the relation of church and state, and in some measure the character of piety. Lutheranism inclines to the Eutychian, Zwinglianism to the Nestorian, Christology. The former fosters a mystical, the latter a practical, type of piety.

Calvin’s View According to Schaff:

Calvin, who appeared on the stage of public action five years after Zwingli’s, and ten years before Luther’s, death, advocated with great ability a eucharistic theory which mediates between the Lutheran realism and the Zwinglian spiritualism, and which passed into the Reformed confessions Luther had to deal with Zwingli, and never came into contact with Calvin. If he had, the controversy might have taken a different shape; but he would have maintained his own view of the real presence, and refused the figurative interpretation of the words of institution.

With the doctrine of the eucharist are connected some minor ritualistic differences, as the use of the wafer, and the kneeling posture of the communicants, which the Lutherans retained from the Catholic Church; while the Reformed restored the primitive practice of the breaking of bread, and the standing or sitting posture. Some Lutheran churches retained also the elevation of the host; Luther himself declared it a matter of indifference, and abolished it at Wittenberg in 1542.

Online source.
 
Upvote 0

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,724
✟188,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
...I've found more compelling evidence, conviction, alignment with my beliefs, and peace of conscience for Catholicism than the Baptist faith, or at least, Calvinistic Baptist faith.
1. Has anyone experienced this?

No. Quite the opposite.

2. Why are you Baptist, or at least Protestant? And how well do you understand and have read what Baptists mean by their doctrines?

I see Baptist doctrine as the most fundamental of Christian doctrines. It generally doesn't elaborate as much as others, but what it does proclaim is usually the indisputable essence of Christianity. I am protestant, if nothing else, because I have found a measure of truth in many protestant denominations, which I do not find in the Catholic or Orthodox faiths.

3. Why do you reject Catholicism? And how well do you understand and have read what Catholics mean by their doctrines?

I reject Catholicism for communicating with the dead, bowing before statues and worshiping Mary. I believe that patron saints are an adaptation of patron gods, that statues are a continuation of idols and that Mary filled the pagan need for a goddess. I have yet to meet a Catholic who could articulate a complete and congruous doctrine, which is why I believe I understand Catholic doctrine as well as your average Catholic.

4. Why do you think Christians leave the Baptist faith and go to Catholicism?

I've never seen it.

5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Baptist church?

Weakness: they don't hold to every truth.
Strength: what they do hold to is always truth.

6. What do you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Catholic Church?

Strength: they claim to have an original and undivided church.
Weakness: they claim to have an original and undivided church: their ways originate with the takeover of Rome with all of its paganism, and their claim of unity has divided them from the rest of Christianity with a far greater chasm than the little divisions for which they mock the Protestant denominations.
 
Upvote 0

Bumble Bee

Disciplemaker
Nov 2, 2007
27,632
5,382
33
Held together by Jesus and coffee
✟697,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
MOD HAT ON
This thread has undergone a small clean. In future posts, please refrain from making flaming remarks toward denominations when discussing why you do not adhere to that denomination.
MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

ml5363

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
518
219
41
Tennessee
✟28,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi everyone,

Since I became a practicing Christian five years ago, I have been a member of a Baptist church. However, as I've read Scripture, prayed, listened to prominent pastors, and discussed with Christian friends, I've found more compelling evidence, conviction, alignment with my beliefs, and peace of conscience for Catholicism than the Baptist faith, or at least, Calvinistic Baptist faith. This to say, my questions are:

1. Has anyone experienced this?
No
2. Why are you Baptist, or at least Protestant? And how well do you understand and have read what Baptists mean by their doctrines?
Baptists try to stick with Christ the head of church and being more Christ like, not on rites,rules, rituals
3. Why do you reject Catholicism? And how well do you understand and have read what Catholics mean by their doctrines?

Can't get past one man governing us all, confession to a priest..that's Jesus, the being the one true church garbage...church is not a building or organization. .but a group of believers..also dislike the fact that Christian is automatic labelled Catholic..not...Peter didn't go around controlling all of the churches, nor did he listen to people's confessions and tell to do penance
4. Why do you think Christians leave the Baptist faith and go to Catholicism?

Not sure

Thank you!

*Update: Two more questions:
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Baptist church?

Basic following of Jesus, spreading the gospel
Trying to be if the world unfortunately. Not spreading gospel..
6. What do you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of practice within the Catholic Church?
Dedicated
Too legalistic
 
Upvote 0