“To say someone who never thinks about Catholicism defines themselves as “Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can” is just stupid.”
So you say, but that is a rather accurate summation of what happened in the 16th century and beyond. Even in the 19th century a Russian Orthodox theologian said Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same coin. Now, he was saying that both Catholics and Protestants were wrong, of course, but he also was strongly implying that Protestants and Catholics were the opposites of one another.
“Someone who never thinks about A cannot be striving to be the opposite of A.”
That’s not necessarily true. It isn’t that modern Protestants might be doing that, but that it happened historically and that Protestants even today judge certain things to be off base – not necessarily because of it smacks of Catholicism in itself, but because it smacks of what they have always been taught was wrong.
“Baptists try to follow the Bible.”
Try? Why don’t they just do it? What you’re really saying is they follow their interpretations of the Bible.
“We never discuss what Catholicism is, nor does anyone I’ve met in 40 years CARE.”
Okay, then at your next discussion mention any of the following:
1) “Guys, I’ve been studying John 6 and I’ve come to the conclusion that the “flesh” Jesus is talking about people eating really is His flesh. What do you think about that?”
2) “I’ve been studying the phrase “obedience of faith” in Paul and I’ve come to the conclusion that Paul means we receive grace for not only our faith but also the works which God starts in us and which we co-operate. What say you on that?”
3) “You know I’ve really been thinking and praying about Luke’s description of the interaction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the angel Gabriel, and I’ve come to the conclusion that her response to him – since she was not punished with muteness – must mean that she had never intended to have a conjugal relationship with Joseph. What do you think about that?”
How many minutes will go by before the word “Catholic” comes up?
“The ONLY standard I’ve ever heard discussed in Baptist discussions on what we should believe is “What does the Bible say”.”
R-I-G-H-T. Like I said, mention any of the things I numbered above and see what happens.
“Sorry, but our theological world doesn’t revolve around you.”
Maybe not, but that was not the case in the 16th century. Again, mention any of the things I numbered above and see what happens.
“In terms of defining what we should accept or reject, you don’t even exist.”
If we didn’t exist, you wouldn’t exist – and neither would the New Testament.
“You might as well suggest we are trying to be different from Hinduism.”
So you’re claiming to be a pagan group ultimately descended from pagan Hindus? Do tell.
“How many minutes will go by before the word “Catholic” comes up?”
Probably quite a few. I had spent nearly 40 years as a Baptist before I saw ANYONE try to impose the Lord’s Supper on John 6. All the Baptists I know believe believing faith requires the result of a changed life. And since the New Testament regularly mentions the brothers and sisters of Jesus, the idea that she never had sex with Joseph would be laughed at, without any discussion of Catholics.
You see, when the Bible is your standard, you don’t define what you believe by what others believe, be they Mormon or Catholic. When challenged, you simply reach for the Bible and see what it has to say.
“If we didn’t exist, you wouldn’t exist – and neither would the New Testament.”
Sorry, but we would. The Pope didn’t write the scriptures. The Old Testament was accepted in its Protestant form by Jesus & the Apostles & the Jews. The New Testament was largely settled by 150 AD, although each congregation had the option of deciding which books it accepted. Since the Roman Catholic Church did not come up with a binding list until the Council of Trent, and since the Council of Trent refused to determine if the Apocrypha was good for doctrine, even the Roman Catholic Church has never authoritatively settled the doctrinal status of all the books it would put in the Bible.
“So you’re claiming to be a pagan group ultimately descended from pagan Hindus? Do tell.”
You are not a child, so please do not act like one. The point, as any adult would see, is that we look to NEITHER group to give us ideas on doctrine. We reject you ideas of infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, etc - but we do so, not because of Luther, but because of Scripture. That is why the Catholic Church had a hissy fit over vernacular translations getting into the hands of common folks - reading scripture and taking it at its obvious meaning drives a person away from many Roman Catholic practices.
When scripture is your guide, you don’t worry about the doctrines of Catholics, Hindus or some sect of baptists. You worry about what the Word of God says. It is a positive approach, not a negative one.