Posted on 08/23/2013 9:25:47 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
BEAUMONT, Texas – As Hispanic populations across the United States, many of which are traditionally Catholic, continue to increase, so do opportunities for Southern Baptist churches to address the spiritual questions of current and former Catholics.
Hispanics made up 38.1 percent of the population of Texas in 2011, the U.S. Census reports. This reflects a nearly 10 percent increase since 2006, when Hispanics accounted for 35.7 percent of all Texans, according to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts’ office.
The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) has 193 cooperating churches listing Spanish as their primary or secondary language. Many of their members are former Catholics. Churches in southeast Texas such as Beaumont’s Calvary Baptist also attract people from French Catholic traditions, much like their neighbors in Louisiana a few miles east.
How, then, can a Baptist church, with sensitivity and wisdom, integrate former Catholics who have converted to evangelical faith?
In Beaumont, Texas, Calvary Baptist Church offers a Catholic Connection class twice annually. About 200 people have taken the four-week class since it began five years ago.
“We use the class to help people from a Catholic background understand the differences between the Catholic faith and the Protestant religion and our church’s beliefs,” said Cliff Ozmun, Calvary’s minister of education.
“It is not a formal pathway for new members,” Ozmun said, “but almost every term we offer it, people do join the church and are baptized.”
The Catholic Connection class is not intentionally promoted in the wider Beaumont area. “It is aimed at the Calvary community,” Ozmun emphasized. When enough from Calvary express interest, the class is offered.
“The class is not an evangelism tool for us. It is comparative theology,” said Ozmun, who noted that the last time the Catholic Connection class was offered, four individuals from a local group of Catholic apologists attended for the purpose of, in their words, providing “the Catholic response.”
“By the fourth week, they commended us,” Ozmun said. “It was not because we aligned with Catholic doctrine but because we taught the contrast in such a respectful way. They felt we were accurately presenting Catholicism.”
One person from the Catholic group even later approached Ozmun in a restaurant to say how much he had enjoyed the class.
Bill Morgan, Calvary’s minister to median adults, wrote the Catholic Connection class curriculum. Jim Robichau, a lay leader and former Catholic, teaches the course.
“We focus on a handful of things,” said Ozmun, including the authority of the Bible, the completeness of the canon, concepts of baptism, the purpose of communion, the doctrines of heaven and hell and the nature and role of confession.
Since Catholics and Baptists differ at several key doctrinal points, Mike Gonzales, SBTC director of language ministries, recommends focusing on the nature of the salvation experience when discipling former Catholics.
“A new believer who comes out of a Catholic background needs to understand that salvation is a spiritual experience” and not the result of adherence to the sacraments, Gonzales said.
“Scripture makes it clear that Jesus is the only mediator to God,” Gonzales added, citing 1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:6, John 10:9-10, Acts 4:12 and Hebrews 4:14-16.
Gonzales recommends discipling former Catholics with either Henry T. Blackaby’s Experiencing God or John MacArthur’s Fundamentals of the Faith in addition to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 confessional statement which is heavily referenced with scripture. Still, he noted, discipling former Catholics is much like discipling any new believers, Gonzales said.
“Discipling former Catholics is a process, not a program,” said Bruno Molina, SBTC language evangelism associate. Molina, a former Catholic himself, helps lead Hillcrest en Español, a Spanish fellowship at Hillcrest Baptist Church in Cedar Hill, just south of Dallas.
Integrating those from a Catholic background into Baptist fellowships is “not a matter of going through so many lessons” or simply helping them find their spiritual gifts, Molina said. “It must entail encouraging them to stay in the Word so they understand that everything flows from the Word, not just tradition (about the Word).”
Potential pitfalls occur when the old faith traditions collide with the new. Tension can arise as those with a longtime Catholic identity relate to family members and friends.
“It’s important to encourage former Catholics not to exclude themselves from previous relationships,” said Molina, who recalled his own experience with his traditionally Catholic family after he had trusted Christ as Savior.
“When I came home from the Army and was going to explain the gospel to my dad, I was so excited. I didn’t realize at the time that when I thought they heard that God loved them and had a plan for their salvation, what they really heard was that I was rejecting their culture and the way they had raised me,” Molina explained.
Despite the tension, it is important for former Catholics to include Catholic family members in celebrations of faith, Molina said. For example, while asking Catholic family members to attend one’s adult baptism may be awkward, it should be encouraged.
“That is a great opportunity to testify and help the family understand and experience true Christian fellowship,” Molina said.
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).
Thanks, Claud. Time for some realism here. The gospel of John, Chapter 6 clearly states that after Jesus told his disciples the they must eat his flesh and drink his blood - or they would not have life within them, many left. But when Jesus, being sad, asked his apostles, “Will you also leave?”, the response was “Lord, to whom should we turn? You have the words of everlasting life.”
A very honest and humble answer...and I am in the same position. We pray for illumination from the Spirit, in the confidence that it will all become clearer on the other side of the veil.
That being said, I have lived in a heavily Catholic, 3rd world country, and I can guarantee you that, at the time that I was living there,the sacraments were sort of a magic formula to gain heaven to a lot of the parishioners.
I understand. If the sacraments are received with devotion then yes, they can bear us to heaven. If, though, people are receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin, if they are Confessing without true contrition, then they are in for a rude awakening. As Paul says in 1 Cor 11, eating and drinking unworthily brings judgment upon oneself.
Well said.
As for "Petros" being used in the Koine Greek, the word "Petra" (big rock, boulder) wasn't suitable for a masculine name. As an analogy, if Jesus were to give you a name indicated that you belonged to Him, He might call you "Christian" but He wouldn't call you "Christine" --- He's trying to indicate your vocation, not give you a new gender identity.
It's not persuasive that Jesus would change Simon's name in order to say "Thou art Rock; but let's ignore that, because upon some other Rock I will build My Church."
There is every reason to think that the metaphor "Rock" includes Jesus Christ the Cornerstone, and Simon the Kephas, and the twelve apostles whom Christ designated as the foundation stones of His church (Revelation 21:14) and every one of us ("You are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple" 1 Peter 2:5).
In other words, "rock" is used in different, but related senses to designate our different but related roles in the Church, this 'rock' for one role and that 'rock' for another.
Simon actually had his name changed, which is always a big deal in the Bible, since it indicates how God sees you. God addresses Abraham as the "Father of Nations"; He addresses Israel as the "God-wrestler"; he addresses Gideon as "Valiant Warrior" in order to reveal what He sees them to be. And what does He see that Simon Bar-Jonah will be?
"Thou art Kephas, and upon this rock I will build My Church."
Of course your church, as well as all the Christians churches I know of,was founded by Christ. That is not the question. In Scripture, Peter usually spoke and was spoken to first. There is little doubt that he, as well as John and James, were his most trusted disciples. I think Ocam’s Razor is best here: the simplest answer is probably correct, and the simplest answer is what Jesus actually said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”. Maybe that is why there are so many images of Peter in the 2nd and 3rd Century Catacombs by some of the earliest Christians, who were closer to the source than we are.
If Peter was the first pope and the head of the Church why didn’t he take a position of authority over the other disciples? If the Lord had indeed presented the Apostle Peter as the (supposed) head of the remaining Apostles - and in their presence – then what would have been the point of such a query-argument by the Disciples? And why didn’t Christ respond to their query by stating that Peter was indeed their superior? Not only did the Lord not mention anything like Peter’s primacy, but He actually reassured them that during His Second Coming, all twelve of them would be seated on twelve thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mathew 19: 28, Luke 22: 30).
Exactly...
And the apostles already tried to pull that on Jesus..."Jesus, who is the greatest apostle"??? "Settle down boys, the greatest one will be the least"..."No pope for you guys"...
Jesus commissioned Paul to go to Rome, not Peter...And Paul never mentioned Peter...Paul never saw Peter...
And where's Peter's Church in the scriptures??? It ain't there...
“Now let’s suppose the sacraments *are* a spiritual experience. Then what?”
We point and laugh. How many Catholics baptized as infants were actually regenerated, and had any care or love for God later in life? My whole family was baptized Catholic, and I can’t think of any that aren’t whoremongers, drunks, drug addicts, or have some other problem, with no real love of God or care for God. My aunt was a devil, yet received the Eucharist every week and will die in good standing with your religion. She is a holy roller in your church, going above and beyond, yet she lies like she breathes despite all those sacramental experiences. How spiritual is the Roman Catholic Eucharist, really, when such devils do not die when they eat Christ or are quickened by the “spiritual” nature of your sacraments?
The simple truth is, that there is no spirituality implicit in any of these sacraments. The quickening of the soul must occur in the individual, and this only by the Holy Spirit, not effected through any so-called sacrament.
Sorry, but you aren’t reading John 6 right.
““They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.” (Augustine, Tractate 25)
If Christ was just telling us to eat the Eucharist, why would He respond to the Jews, who asked them how they might fulfill His words, that to believe on Him is the work that God requires? As Augustine observes, it is faith which Christ joins us to, not the carnal eating of flesh and blood.
Well sure it is...Jesus called Peter a rock...Pete was solid as a rock, as compared to a piece of wood...But Peter wasn't 'THE' Rock...
Peter is a part of the Body, just as the rest of us Christians are...Peter was not the head...And the neck is part of the body...
Peter was commissioned as an apostle to travel the world and preach to the Jews...No doubt in the middle of Acts when he left for parts unknown, he did just what he was told...And he was not told to go plant himself in Rome for over a decade...
Exactly! You got it! Peter wasn't "the" rock, he was "this" rock --- this rock Jesus was talking about when he changed his name, and said upon "This" rock He would build His Church.
" Peter is a part of the Body, just as the rest of us Christians are...Peter was not the head...And the neck is part of the body..."
Absolutely true once again. Jesus is the Head, and all the rest, including Peter, and Mary, and you and me, are part of the Body. If you want to think of him as the "neck," there's a good deal of sense in that.
"Peter and he was not told to go plant himself in Rome for over a decade.."
Your statement is of doubtful relevance, since none of the Apostles were told "exactly" where to go. It's not as if Jesus said, "OK, Thomas, you got to Madras; John, you go to Ephesus, then to Patmos; James, to Spain; James Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, to Egypt" etc." No, they went where they could, where they were needed, and sometime, where they were taken.
That's how it happens that Peter was in Rome. Our Lord predicted that he would be bound, and he would be taken where he would rather not go. That's how he came to be arrested, imprisoned in Rome, and ultimately martyred in that city, like Paul.
He was told to "feed the lambs" and "feed the sheep," and also to "strengthen the brethren," which he did even in prison. Rome came to have prominence in the Church, not because it was the leading city of the Empire (that worldly tatus passed to Byzantium/Constantinople)-- but because it was the city where the great Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred and buried.
There is no evidence that Peter was ever at Rome.
Actually, when Jesus had ideals times to pick out Peter as his number one man to go to, he did. Repeatedly.
At the Last Supper--- surely a significant time ---Jesus told Peter to "strengthen the brethren." This is a commission of service to the rest of the Apostles and the rest of the Christian community: Peter is given this as his especial ministry personally.
And after the Resurrection --- surely a very significant time --- Jesus tells him, with great solemnity signified by the three-times repetition, to "feed His lambs" and "feed His sheep." This is making Peter the chief shepherd, the one in charge of feeding the brethren with the truths of the Faith. This is an appointment of particular importance, because Jesus will soon ascend into heaven.
IAll the Apostles are, in a related sense, shepherds too: but St. Peter is appointed shepherd in the very words of Scripture --- a shepherd of shepherds, feeding both the "lambs" and the "sheep" --- feeding young and old -- and to him, only, was given this very personal call from the Lord Himself.
And you can say this with a straight face, he is being given his commission? The significance of the three times is a rebuke to Peter for the three times he denied his Lord. As far as the other, He is reassuring that Peter has not been booted from the Apostleship for his treason. He is to continue in The Great Work of evangelizing the world. Nothing to suggest he is greater than the others. Nothing.
Fixed it for you.
Many have a share in this pastoral role. Even parents. (My wn pastor once told me I had given someone a "pastoral" reply --- I felt very pleased about that.) But nobody can deny that Peter was picked out individually, not to be a despot of some sort, but to be a good shepherd who could "strengthen the brethren."
As Jesus said.
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.