Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
Then I guess your "knowing" they don't deny the body and blood is just as empty.
Really, some people would be much better debaters if they weren't so knee-jerk vindictive.
PugetSoundSoldier:
Well, all salvation is from Christ, through the Church, which is his body. So, yes Christ has given the Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox Church, the fullness of the means of salvation via the Sacraments or what the East refers to as the Holy Mysteries. Given that most Protestant confessions stil baptize in the Holy Trinity, believe in the incarnation of Christ, paschal mystery, they are by virture of Baptism, Christian and thus related to the Church, which is Christ’ body and thus can be saved.
In addition, the Catholic Church does not say definitively who is in hell, as that is not for the CHurch to decide as that is only in God’s providence. In addition, I should have clarified that not all Protestants here go after Catholics with a vengeance. But notice the Threads that present a Protestant Position don’t have every Catholic on this forum launching flame attacks. However, if you look at the Catholic threads, they tend to get the full shot.
PugetSoundSolider, I have heard of Methodist, and I guess Free Methodist means you are somewhat of a independent Methodist, not in communion with the United Methodist Church? Again, some Methodist lean more to the Anglican Traditon, since they are an offshoot from the church of England, some are more Arminian in there doctrine, some more Weslyan, etc.
driftdiver: Ok, you are a Baptist, which also means you can have theological leanings that are Arminian or perhaps Calvinist.
Now, looking at your 2 traditions, most Methodist I know of use the Creed in their services, they also have Liturgical form of worship, although not maybe to the level of Lutherans and Anglicans, and of course certaintly not to the degree as Catholics and Orthodox. I think Methodist have historically baptized infants, have more of heiarchial structure, etc.
Baptist on the other hand, at least my experience in the Southern United States, which is the only place I have ever lived, are historically anti Creeds, anti Liturgy, and anti infant Baptism, just top of my head, which are in my humble opinion, 3 major theological differences between your 2 traditons.
In closing, I have never said everything in Protestantism is wrong. In fact, it is often said that Protestantism is corrrect in most of what it affirms, but is usually wrong in what it rejects and at there are some Protestant confessions who don’t, as a matter of doctrine, state that Catholics are going to Hell, which the Catholic Church agrees with.
You really are vindictive, aren’t you? If you’d look at what I was responding to, it turns out that the previous poster was doing exactly that which you ascribe to me. I completed the lesson of Christ, which included the explanation of what it means to be born again.
You enjoy your game of gotcha?
driftdiver:
With respect to this part of your post “What bugs me and possibly many others is when Catholics lay the claim that they are the only way to salvation or that their priests are equal to Christ. Some catholics agree to disagree when challenged and others throw insultspost”
I don’t know of any Catholic that claims a priest is equal to Christ. I think you are terribly mistaken if you believe that or, also, some Catholic who believes that is obviously clueless, and again, I don’t know of any Catholic I have ever met, I am in my 40’s, nor have I ever seen a Catholic on this forum, or any other that I frequent make that claim.
Stop projecting.
Are you really so myopic as to think I'm going to see something different when I read it again?
You might well be facing the typical--and grotesque--distortion of alter Christus.
The only post of yours I’ve can find on this thread posting scripture is 410, with Matt 16:13-19.
“13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
So lets look at that passage, and particularly verse 19.
But before we do, lets also add Matthew 18:
“15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Also John 20:
“Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
This throws some light on Matthew 16.
Verse 16:18, as best as this unlearned Baptist figures it:
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Common Baptist interpretation is that Jesus used a play on words. Peter means rock, and he had just made a leap of faith that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And it is this faith that Jesus will build his Church upon. Furthermore, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” I’ve read that Jews of that day would understand ‘the gates of hell’ to refer to death, and death would not prevail against faith such as Peter demonstrated.
I realize this is NOT the interpretation the Catholic Church uses. However, I think it harmonizes better with all the rest of scripture, which does NOT indicate Peter was supreme over all the other Apostles.
However, I cheerfully grant that Peter was an extraordinary fellow, whose role in the foundation of the church cannot be denied or minimized. But supreme over all the Apostles, and with his successors as Bishop Supreme forever? That seems quite a stretch!
Another interpretation is that this verse was fulfilled when Peter preached at Pentecost, and then led the way for Gentiles to follow God.
Now, verse 19:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
To this, he adds the other disciples & believers in Chapter 18:
“18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
I conclude all believers are added, since it says “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
This is the ministry of the church. Some say it refers to church discipline, since that is the topic that immediately precedes it. The 2-3 refer to the ones who went with you in verse 16. That makes sense to me, since Paul wrote, “11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” - 1 Cor 5.
Certainly, it is hard to believe it applies ONLY to Peter, since a much broader group was given the same power in Matthew 18 & John 20.
Hope this helps. I’ve had a bloody nose much of the day (clumsiness, not violence) and really hadn’t paid any attention to these verses until a few days ago.
Really? Where does the scripture say that?
I’m a pretty clumsy fellow myself.
Some of it is quite violent.
The Real Presence is not a “minor point”.
If you take the Bible at its word, it says that the Body and Blood is Christ is in Communion.
Now we can argue till the day is done about how, but it is very difficult to say one believes in what the Word says and then disregard it when it doesn’t fit our sense of logic. Bad things happen then.
I would expand that Jesus said that anyone who believes in him would be saved; I think most Protestant denominations consider baptism and communion integral expressions of a person's faith, but just that - an expression. It is by faith we are saved, not by baptism or by communion.
Free Methodism grew out of the more conservative movement of Methodism back in the 1840s over the issue of slavery. Specifically, Free Methodists were completely opposed to slavery of any form, as well as the typical traditions of selling of pews, paying for prayers to others, etc. We tend to be quite Armenian/Wesleyan, along with the Nazarenes, for example.
Today, it is related to the United Methodists by the fact we share the last name...;) Free Methodists are a very conservative denomination which emphasizes a personal relationship with Christ.
We - like most evangelical denominations - hold to the inerrancy of the Word of God. We also believe that a man's salvation is between him and God; as such, we have an open communion. Anyone who professes faith in God can take communion, as it is between them and God, not the church and them.
The primary focus of the church is evangelism, predominantly though overseas missions and education. A high percentage of Free Methodists are teachers who live their faith. We also have very large and fruitful missions field in South America, Africa, and India.
In closing, I have never said everything in Protestantism is wrong. In fact, it is often said that Protestantism is corrrect in most of what it affirms, but is usually wrong in what it rejects and at there are some Protestant confessions who don’t, as a matter of doctrine, state that Catholics are going to Hell, which the Catholic Church agrees with.
I think most of the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants are over positions of dogma, not fundamental theology; I know, I was raised as a Catholic and have Catholic clergy and educators in my family! :)
It is when things like "no salvation outside the Church", or "your church is only 200 years old" that these things arise. Protestants are Christians, and are part of the church from AD33; that we have different dogma and a different ways of worship should not cause division.
There is no need to "call Protestants back to the Church"; we never left. We just worship in a different way, with some small - but not critical - doctrinal issues.
MY dogma!
I'm talking Bible here, and you haven't brought a single verse to justify your denial of the clear, plain, meaning of Christ's own words which have been interpreted by other scriptures...you don't even bring credible alternative verses to explain eating his flesh and blood.
I say it is minor because communion is not required for salvation. Is partaking in communion required to enter the presence of God?
I’ve been a Baptist since shortly after my conversion. Being both a military brat and a 25 year veteran, I have often worshiped in Chapels with services led by Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists.
We do differ on a variety of issues. MOST of the Baptists I know say believers baptism is the way to go - but that if a believer thinks his baptism as an infant suffices, then A) he won’t be allowed to become a member of a Baptist Church, but B) he is still a Christian - just lacking a bit in understanding. For my part, I wasn’t baptized until I was in High School, so NO Protestant has ever argued against my baptism. If I understand bdeaner correctly, Catholics wouldn’t deny my salvation either, since I was baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (it was a somewhat old-fashioned Amerian Baptist who baptized me).
I don’t know much about Methodist doctrine, but suspect that we differ more on form of worship than genuine content. The Methodists here will have to correct me if I’m wrong - it has been a long time since I had a Methodist for a Pastor.
Obviously, there are always exceptions. I once visited a Fundamental Bible Baptist Church in Texas...the pastor started preaching about how NO ONE in his congregation would EVER accept ANY translation but the KJV, and how anyone who did would burn in hell. I was a bit worried that I would have to fight my way out, swinging my New English Bible left and right!
In like manner, I’ve been told by Catholics that I was destined to burn in hell for not being Catholic, and that we were saved by being really good and trying hard, and would see if we were good enough on Judgment Day.
In an age where Michael Jackson is adored, can we be surprised that many church-goers are just that, and nothing more?
Readers of this thread can believe you, or Christ (John 6).
Do you see anything in the verses you have cited that precludes the normative Catholic understanding?
Yes, your dogma. Considering you refuse to acknowledge the clear explanation of bieng “born again” that Christ gave - just a verse after your cherry-pick - there is no way you will ever accept any Biblical explanation of why the Last Supper is symbolic, not literal.
Those with an open mind will accept that both interpretations are valid; both traditions - transubstantiation and symbolism - lay equal claim. Meaning both positions are positions of dogma.
And those with an open mind will understand that it is a relatively minor point since Christ does not make communion a requirement to salvation.
Why would a Catholic accept such lies?
Except for John 6.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.