Featured Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity

Your entire post here more than proves my point. Through the ECF came many of the heresies that the RCC and others hold today. Our doctrine must come from scripture not from man. You have adequately documented why we should not used the ECF for our guide, our support for doctrine. Sola scriptura is very important and taught by Paul in Acts 17:11.

Nobody? That is a universal negative. It is a fallacious statement and cannot be proven. How can one go back into history and prove that absolutely no one believed that baptism was not necessary for salvation. You cannot. You are simply looking in the wrong places. There were many that did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Of course. Anyone who would dare to "rebaptize" an infant would be considered a heretic by the Catholic Church. He would be banished and his writings burned. But in truth he would be the true believer not the RCC.

I don't turn a blind eye. I turn a blind eye to selective quoting. There are many that are more familiar with the writings of the ECF than I am. I don't spend my time there. But they are quite capable of refuting your quotes.

Might doesn't make right. The majority isn't always right. We don't argue from a position of numbers.

Absolutely baptism is a work. Man does it; man receives it. God does not do the baptizing does He?

You don't believe in salvation by grace alone. Baptism is a work, and so are all the sacraments. They are things you do. You keep doing them to maintain your salvation, just like going to confession, doing penance, etc.

It doesn't have to use those exact words. This is the most ridiculous claim from the RCC that I have ever heard and yet they persist in it.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--What do you think it means? If it meant faith plus works, it would have said so. But it doesn't. It is faith and faith alone. Context gives it that meaning.

 

Walter,

Let me ask you this, you are pointing to the writings of the early church "fathers" as evidence to support baptismal regeneration, don't you think they might be unreliable as Paul prophesied and warned, "29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30)? Paul clearly and correctly prophesied a falling away would occur from within the church by the church's own teachers, therefore to rely on writings after Paul's departure would be highly unwise.

 

And, don't you think there should exists at least some historical evidence that anyone that anyone believed in your purely symbolic view of baptism? Something, somewhere in the Early Church? There was no controversy about it and there certainly was controversy over doctrines and those writings survived. Maybe those are what St. Paul was pointing to, eh? DHK, said that writings about a position differing from baptismal regeneration would never have survived.
All the heretical writing would have been burned, eh? Explain to me how the writings of the Gnostics managed to survive. How about Montanism? Those writings managed to survive. The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two.aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality. This was around the 3rd century, at a time when you claim the 'evil Catholic Church' had evolved. But, those heretical writings managed to survive. How do we know about Arianism? How about Pelagianism? Nestorianism?

Claims that the Catholics destroyed the writings of those who did not believe in baptismal regeneration are ludicrous. They aren't there because there are no such writings. If there were you would be very quick to present them. No, church history does not support baptist succession-ism. Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist succession-ism are conceding that the "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:
'Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)
I applaud Baptists like McColdrick for desiring to be part of the Church Christ established, and then, with gentleness and reverence point them away from fallacious history to actual history, and let the evidence speak for itself. For as convert, John Henry Newman wrote: to be steeped in history, is to cease to be Protestant.
For years, I believed that the Catholic Church was a cult, just like you. I took the time to actually study the teachings of the Church and not rely on what I was taught in my Baptist college about Catholicism.

 

I was brought up in a Baptist family, came to Christ (repented of my sins and trusted Christ as my Savior and Lord) at the age of eleven and was taught that if something is Catholic it has to be wrong.
Liturgy is definately part of Catholic worship and so it was to be rejected as ritualistic and repetitive praying. As an evangelical I thought the symbolism and ritual of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran or any high church as devoid of meaning, empty, rote, and mindless. Of course there have been cases or even tendencies at times for people to lose track of the meanings of their religious practices, and to do them without thinking about why they do them– but Baptists do this too– sometimes even with their prayers, devotions, church-going, etc. To say that all symbolic ritual in the Catholic church is rote and thoughtless ritualism is as uncharitable as someone saying that evangelicalism is legalistic unthoughtful literalism which practices bibliolatry with no concern for making a concrete difference in this world. But I digress!
I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant and that became increasingly evident to me as I studied the book of Hebrews. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.

As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.

Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.

 

There are many other reasons why I and other former evangelicals convert to Catholicism. One reason is: Certainty. To have certainty and knowledge of truth leads many evangelicals to look elsewhere beyond all the doctrinal differences and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” within evangelical churches. I had the desire for certain knowledge, this is something I could not find within evangelical churches. If I were to ask ten evangelicals what their churches teach about marriage and divorce, how many different answers might I get?

Another reason for conversion was that I wanted to be connected to the ENTIRE history of the Christian Church and not just from the Reformation forward. As I have said in the above post, I do not buy into Baptist succession-ism as their is a lack of historical evidence for it. Baptists trying to connect themselves to various groups that split from Catholicism prior to the Reformation falls short. Their beliefs and practices were closer to Catholicism than present day Baptists. The Waldenses are an example.

Also, I have issue with the "interpretive diversity” that occurs in evangelicalism, I prefer to accept the authority of the Catholic Church instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of evangelical pastors and theologians. The authority that is found in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has been consistant for two thousand years. The non-ending threads on the BB pitting Christian against Christian over doctrine many times resulting in either board members directly or indirectly questioning each others salvation and the myriad of denominations created because of such squabbling is evidence enough of the dangers of 'interpretive diversity' or 'individual interpretation' of scripture.

It was a long journey into the Catholic Church as I have had to overcome much mis-information I was given as a Baptist plus I wanted to be sure my decision was made prayerfully and that Catholic teaching did not contradict scripture. I have had to face judgement and even some shunning from family which has been particularly painful. For the most part, my family (mostly Baptist) has not been willing to discuss this with me and has concluded that I 'must not have ever been really saved to begin with'. I hope this changes over time. Since my decision to worship and practice the Catholic Faith I have grown in my prayer life and have gained victory over some of the habitual sins of my life. I can certainly say that I've come a long way spiritually since becoming Catholic.

 

If you are able to receive the truth I will give it to you. Realize that you do some selective quoting, that is the quotes that Scott Hahn and the such would have you to quote.
Realize that many of the quotes are taken out of context.
Realize that these works have been translated, and because of the way they are worded they are often ambiguous and can be taken more than one way.

Thomas Armitage, author of "A History of the Baptists" says:

Lange, in his History of Protestantism, alleges that: “The baptism of new-born infants was altogether unknown to primitive Christianity.” The writers of the second age imply the same thing, when they speak of the baptized. Justin Martyr says they are “convinced,” “believe the Gospel to be true,” pray and “fast for their former sins”; Hermas, that they “trust in the cross”; Irenaeus, that they are “cleansed of their old transgressions”; and Tertullian declares, “We are not washed in order that we may cease from sinning, but because we have ceased, because we have already been washed in heart. … The divine grace, that is, the forgiveness of sins, remains unimpaired for those who are to be baptized; but then they must perform their part, so as to become capable of receiving it.”

Now note this. The reason for infant baptism was the recent development of baptismal regeneration. It was unknown before infant baptism. The two went hand in hand. They started baptizing infants because they thought that baptism would save. That was the thinking; they didn't want their infants to go to hell, and therefore baptized them. Before that time baptismal regeneration was unheard of. Before Tertullian baptismal regeneration was unheard of. Tertullian lived from 155 to 240 A.D.

 

The Catholic Church has never stopped the practice of persecuting true Christians

http://www.worthynews.com/22468-mexico-seven-evangelicals-jailed

 

Hmmm, your source wants to quote Justin Martyr but he conveniently ignores what else he said about baptism:
In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes:

“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.)

 

The problem is the same problem as it always has been ever since the time of Constantine when the RCC originated. Mexico is a Catholic country. For all intents and purposes you have a state religion where religion and politics are mixed together, as it was in the time of Constantine, and most of British history (Bloody Mary of Tudor, for example). The Kings and Queens swore their allegiance to the pope and if the citizens didn't follow they paid with their blood. The same is happening all over again.

 

That is what I said about the ambiguity of the language of the time. That is what you are led to believe by the way it is written. If you dig deeper I believe you will find that Justin Martyr did not believe that at all. He was speaking symbolically.

 

So, Protestants are not guilty of hanging and torturing Catholics, eh? Or, do you ignore that part of history?

The government in Mexico is hardly pro-Catholic. And, Catholicism is hardly a state religion. That is absurd! The government has long been anti-Catholic. The PRI began the 1930s with severe persecution of the Mexican Church. The Mexican Catholic Church as the decade unfolded found itself substantially impaired. Seventy some odd years of Catholic persecution by the government, DHK. Do some research before you makes such statements! This is what my sister told me about the region you have mentioned. She said that Evangelical Christians in Chiapas have borne the brunt of most of the lawlessness there but by no means all of it. They are frequently expelled from their homes and villages because they refuse to drink alcohol or to participate in local syncretistic festivities where large amounts of alcohol are consumed. The locals...btw...are a hybrid type of Catholic...not Traditional Catholics as we know them. They practice a lot of their native superstitions that have been part of their culture before Christianity came to Mexico despite the Catholic Church condemnation of this practice. The powerful local leaders, or caciques, who control the alcohol industry fear a considerable decrease of their earnings and see these Christians as threat to their power. The village authorities often expel the Protestants or threaten them with arrest or other abuse. Roman Catholic Christians or authorities who speak out against the expulsions have also been driven away

 

OK, that is your view or twist on things. But from the link I gave you here is what the truth of the matter is:

"It is simply unconscionable for the state and federal governments of Mexico to repeatedly ignore the arbitrary arrest and expulsion of their own citizens by local governments on the basis of religious belief," said Isaac Six, ICC's Advocacy Director. "We know that the federal government -- as well as the State of Chiapas -- was warned days in advance that the Evangelical community in Leyva Velazques was under threat, yet even after seven individuals were thrown in prison for their religious beliefs, action was not taken. This blatant abdication of responsibility has, for decades now, sent the message to rural villages across Mexico that if you have a problem with someone from another faith, you can simply force them to convert or leave. Today, hundreds of men, women, and children are homeless in Mexico because they chose to follow their beliefs, and because their government refused to act...."

It is unconscionable that the government simply sits idly by and watches the arrest of its own citizens. The government is responsible. So is the RCC in whose name this is done. People are not free to follow their own beliefs for two reasons: 1. lack of action of the government, 2. lack of action of the RCC, of whom these people claim to be.

The first line of the article states:
(Worthy News) - Seven Evangelical Christians in Chiapas, Mexico, were imprisoned on Dec. 15 after refusing to convert to Catholicism.
--Who else but the Catholic Church would have them forcefully convert to the Catholic Church?

 

You choose to believe the Catholic Church is behind these expulsions & forced conversions and I showed you it is not. I believe you are so blinded by your hatred of the Catholic Church (and you have admitted you hate it) that you choose to believe that the Church is behind it. My sister is a Baptist, btw, and she told me the Catholic Church has condemned what the local leader/caciques are trying to do. She has no reason to lie and spends considerable time in the region.

 

Walter, is it true the board no longer allows Catholics to participate if they were not first Baptists? If this is the policy, I do not agree with that policy as there could be saved Catholics.

On a side note, I and and both sides of all my family were Roman Catholics. They are Polish and like most Polish people from Chicago grew up Catholics. Only my immediate family (parents, brother, sister) left the church due to their doctrine conflicting in regards to salvation with the New Testament. ( I know you believe it does not). However, I do have a question for you, my mother before she met my father was a Catholic nun. The entire time she was in the convent (many years) she was never instructed or suggested by church authorities to read the Bible, nor did she, why do you think this is? Do you think a typical Baptist church encourages their members to read the Bible? What was your experience in this regard when you were a Baptist? Also, both of my parents knew nothing in regards to the purpose of the, birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ (the atonement) despite being baptized members of the church, regular mass attenders, attenders of confessional, and in a family in which both sides were all practicing Catholics, do you think the message was being preached, but they all "just didn't get it" until they read the Bible or is it just left out all together?

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Here is what another report says:

http://www.worthynews.com/18254-pro...rsecuted-for-refusing-to-renounce-their-faith

I didn't write these articles. These are legitimate news reports. Catholics have used the law to compel evangelicals to participate in Roman rituals.

 

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/its-what-you-do.96855/

 

A nun would attend mass, matins, terce, diurnum, vespers, and compline each and every day. At each of those 'offices' (services) there are Old Testament, Psalms, Epistle & Gospel readings. In fact, within a year the entire bible is covered. There is no way, unless a person is ignoring the readings, that a nun is not 'instructed in or hearing' the bible. Now your mom might not have been attentive, I don't know. I know Catholics & Baptist that would not be able to tell you the writers of the four Gospels and attend church regularly. My baptist neighbors next door don't attend church but think they really don't need to because 'we got saved years ago'. There are many cultural Catholics and Protestants around. You probably saw your share of them in church yesterday or today. And, brother Joe, I would encourage you to attend a mass as simply a spectator and observe yourself the place the bible (liturgy of the Word of God) takes at mass. The reading and proclamation of the Word of God takes up the majority of the time spent in church.

As far as my experience as a Baptist, I was fortunate to attend a church where the Word of God was the focus of the service. I was a committed Christian throughout my early years and eventually graduated from a Baptist college. I very much appreciate my Baptist background and education although I no longer agree with some of the theology. I believe Catholics and Baptists (and most Protestants) agree on Christology though.

BTW, I am currently taking a bible study (along with 129 other Catholics of my parish) using a bible study on the Gospel of Luke by Rosalind Moss who is from a Jewish background & converted to the Catholic Church after 18 years as an evangelical. She was a staff apologist with Catholic Answers but has since entered a convent.

It was mentioned in a previous post about my being here as an apologist. I'm flattered but nothing could be further than the truth. I have long come here to enter discussions many times having nothing to do with Catholic doctrine. I love this board and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I do think it is important to point out errors regarding or misrepresentations of the Catholic faith.

 

Individual, misguided Catholics and Evangelicals have acted badly in Chiapas. However, the Catholic Church HAS CONDEMNED the actions of these misguided people. I provided proof of this. Nowhere in the articles you linked to does it say the Catholic Church is the author of this. You are just wanting so badly for the Church to be persecuting 'true Christians' that you have concluded 'it must be Catholic authorities behind it' instead of individuals. I see you continue to ignore the fact that Catholic Churches have been burned and Catholics murdered as well.