Words not in Scripture - Trinity, Incarnation, others?

A Baptist friend says that there are elders, deacons and Apostles mentioned in he Bible. That Jesus handpicked Apostles and that in the one case the Apostle’s chose a successor to the 12.

He denies bishops as sucessors of the Apostles. Says you can’t find the word priest in the Bible. Denies prebyter means priest. And on.

What are some words fundamentalists use besides Trinity and Incarnation that are not in the Bible? I wanted to come back to him with this but would like to have more than just these 2 words.

[quote=Tobias2]A Baptist friend says that there are elders, deacons and Apostles mentioned in he Bible.

Point out that there are bishops mentioned as well. 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1:7-9, etc. (often translated ‘overseer’, but the Greek word is episkopos).

The threefold distinction of bishop/priest/deacon in the NT simply isn’t as obvious/clear/overtly stated as it later became (mostly between bishop and priest) - probably because the words for Church offices had other meanings before and were re-purposed for their Christian usages, and that process of meaning-shift wasn’t yet complete when the NT was written.

(Also maybe because the Apostles were still around doing a lot of the ‘bishop’ things?)

The word “Bible” itself.

“Sinner’s prayer”
“personal relationship”
“altar call”
“faith alone”
“grace alone”
“bible alone”
“laid it on my heart”

In short, much of which they proclaim and practice. What is in the bible that they do not do?

“confess your sins to one another” - not even close.
“Eat my Body and drink My Blood” - not crackers or cupcakes and grape juice
“baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” - do not believe that baptism cleanses the soul
“baptism now saves you” - is only ceremonial for many of them
“brought out bread and wine” - not grape juice
“the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” - for them it’s the bible
“if he will not listen to two or three, take it to the Church” - they do not have such authority
“no matter of scripture prophecy is of any private interpretation” - that’s all they have!

Their beliefs could not, and did not exist until the bible was separated from the Church and misinterpreted.

Forgive me if I go a little off subject.

I would propose that you ask yourself what it is you are trying to accomplish with such a dialogue with this Baptist friend.

Are you aiming to convert him into a Catholic?

If yes, do the bishops and pope recommend that we undertake to convert Baptists into Catholics?

Are aiming to show that your religion is better than his religion? Is this a case of what St. Augustine called “libido dominandi,” the will to dominate? The will to dominate is a natural impulse in all human beings. It is not something supernatural or holy at all. This impulse is what drives the worlds of Capitalism., Professional and Collegiate Sports and much of Politics.

When you wrote that you were looking for terms to “come back” with to your Baptist friend, it sounded to me like you wanted to WIN your arguments with him. The desire to WIN is “libido dominandi.” As far as I can see, arguments between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians NEVER accomplish anything good, except to prepare people to be good debaters, politicians or lawyers.

Are you aiming to provide your Baptist friend with some accurate information about the Catholic Faith? If so, that seems in keeping with the pope and the bishops want us to do. Many non-Catholic have many understanding about the Catholic Faith.

At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic bishops and popes inaugurated the new Ecumenical Movement. As I understand it, it means that Catholics are no longer to focus on converting non-Catholic Christians to Catholic Christians, but rather both sides are to learn more about each others faiths and customs, and attempt to develop a greater respect, appreciation and understanding of each other’s Christian traditions and theology. I believe Blessed John Paul II stressed this over and over throughout his long term in the office of Peter. I know of no instance of any pope or bishop since the Vatican II Council trying to convert any non-Catholic Christian into becoming a Catholic. Just last week the current pope met with the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, and it was reported that they emphasized points of commonality and ways the Catholic Church and the Church of England could world together, prayer together, and grow most closely together. With the advent of the Catholic Ecumenical Movement (in about 1965), the old effort to convert all non-Catholic Christians into Catholics came to an end. That is my understanding. This is, I think, what any Catholic bishop will tell you. The New Evangelization launched by Blessed John Paul II is not about converting non-Catholic Christians into Catholics.

Sometimes I hear both Catholics and non-Catholic Christians talking and arguing in a way that suggested that the believe in “Salvation by Doctrine.” In other words, they seem to believe that salvation and sanctification comes about as a result of holding beliefs that are 100% orthodox as defined by the Catholic Church. In past, this “Salvation by Doctrine” position does seem to have been emphasized by both Catholics and non-Catholic Christians. Both sides persecuted heretics with great ferocity. But nowadays, I believe the Catholic bishops and popes no longer take that approach. Rather, I think the emphasis nowadays on both side is on formulas that might be called “Salvation by Holiness” or “Salvation by Repentance and Faith” or “Salvation by Accepting Responses to the Graces of God,” or “Salvation by Love” (love God and love neighbor, which Jesus said was the “greatest commandment”). I don’t think the Catholic bishops and popes nowadays really dwell on doctrinal orthodoxy as a vital or the most important thing to achieving personal holiness. I believe the Catholic Church, in a de facto sense, recognizes that there are now and always have been “saints” among members of non-Catholic Christian communities, as well as among non-Christians and even atheists.

The Second Vatican Council said that non-Catholic Christians ALREADY are members of the one true Church. Here’s a quote from that Council:

“The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

In short, your Baptist friend and your ARE members of the SAME CHURCH. You ARE BROTHERS in the one true Faith.

Awesome! I don’t think “slain in the spirit” or “barking”, “crying” or “laughing in the spirit” is either.

Bible. :slight_smile:

Bartolome, fantastic post! We need to recognize our commonalities, not dwell on our differences. Jesus is at the center of all Christians’ hearts and minds. Yes, there are different ways of understanding and living out the greatest Gift ever given. If we were all guided by the commandment of love ( agape, the only unconditional of the four main Greek terms for love) then we would be so much closer to the church universal that we are commanded to strive for. One thing I learned from some Mennonite friends is that there are all sorts of defenses against attacks, but no defense against love.

Did you not assume the OP’s motives? What if he is trying, charitably, to lead a brother to the fulness of truth?

We must not lapse into relativism or universalism here. Not all are going to be saved. Truth is truth. Many other denominations teach that abortion is fine; contraception is fine; divorce and re-marriage is fine, co-habitation is fine; fetal stem-cell research is fine; euthanasia is fine; in-vitro fertilization is fine, same-sex unions are fine, and the list goes on and on. Doctrine matters. If it does not, why have it?

Among other reasons, I chose the Catholic Church because I knew that her teachings were the most difficult of all denominations. Examined on that basis alone (coupled with our Lord’s words), it places her closer to the truth. All of the other denominations are easier to join and easier to believe. Some readily validate an unrepentant life, just like finding the wide path.

When did Baptists start doing that stuff?

Lightfoot (commentary on the Phillipians) contends that an overseer and an elder (presbyter) are in fact the same office…:slight_smile:

One lady when she first heard the word “agape” she thought it was “guppie” and said “How do you love a guppie”?:rotfl:

Baptists are welcome in those “churches”.

And, by what authority does he make that claim?

A bishop is a priest…and? The offices were a bit more fluid in the beginning and later on developed to what we see and know today. Nothing wrong with development.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.