30,000+ protastant denominations

Karl Keating does just that in his book "Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Chrisitans"

You can buy it here:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/bookrack/author_keating.asp

You fail to understand the difference between a doctrine (a belief) and a discipline (how one lives or practices that belief).

Boettner has the same lack of discernment.

It's a long list. How many items on the list would it take to convince you that Boettner is not a very good source?

 

Yes, i did look yours over, very nice web page.
And you made me feel like a "boy" again
(i turn 60 next Thursday)

 

"Well now, I thought 1 Peter 3:21 did quite a good job of it which you failed to address."

I Peter 3:21 is rather simple in the Greek text. In the first part, "Corresponding to that," is the word used that we use for antitype (antitupon).[/b]</font>[/QUOTE]I always get a kick out of an attempt to go back to the Greek, when I would prefer to go along with scholars to translate it to the English the best way they can, they being a lot smarter then I am on this.

Therefore, why do we not see "immerse" in the place of "baptism" in all of the Catholic/Protestant translations of the New Testament?

By the way, does pouring the water from above onto a person qualify as "washing"? Must "dipping" or a total immersion be required? If so, how was Paul baptized? How was the jailer and his whole household baptized, if indeed, the prison was no where near a flowing stream or river?

So when all is said and done, you end up with "this prefigures immersion which saves you now"?

Am I missing your point here? Is not Peter describing a ceremony, which involves water (prefigured from the fact that a few were "saved" in the Ark) that "saves us"?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

Yes, i did look yours over, very nice web page.
And you made me feel like a "boy" again
(i turn 60 next Thursday)

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you are just a young "whipper snapper"!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

So perhaps you found one you would disagree with. Would you mind refuting the rest if you could and show me where I am wrong with references so I can look them up for myself as well?

We do know there was a Council of Toulouse and the Bible was forbidden by that council. So it had to be placed on some kind of list. Yes, there is a forbidden list of boks that did come later in 1559.

I really don'tknow what there is to hate other than when someone or some entity tries to take God's place. God is still the final authority. He has authority over all people and all authorities. He is the authority.

I have Catholics in Bible studies that I have led for about 29 years now.

In one town I lived in you would think the RCC pastor was a Baptist. He gave a sermion and at the end he gave an invitation for people to receive Christ. The church ws very well attended,

Phil 2:10,11. "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

It is the truth that sets us free. So why shouldn't through our dialog be able to come up to the truth.

I grew up going to the Catholic Church. As I got older I began to question some of the changes. I asked, "If God does not change, why does the Catholic Chruch change its doctrine?" I always got some kind of feeble explanation trying to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. Finally my mother (who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school) told me that at one time she believed many of those things but no longer did. Later I considered being a Catholic priest. But then I asked what was the purpose of a priest not being married. As I studied history I ralized that early in the RCC church a number of the priests were married. And so it seems that the RCC is in a constant doctrinal change. But God has not changed during that time.

If you were truly interested in seeking the truth you would cetainly take a look at one says in opposition to your faith. There is not one of us that could be wrong at times. Maybe it takes someone else to point out our wrongs.

So often we don't like what is said about what we believe. Neither did I when I was challenged about what Catholics believed because I was one of them.

Proverbs 27:17 says, "Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."

So if I am wrong I am asking you to show me where I am wrong and refute everything I had listed.

Fair enough? </font>[/QUOTE]G2B2,


Are you related to R2D2. I like the sliding truth scale. "well it wasn't put on the list of forbidden books but it was on some list for certain." Bible reading was prohibited in Toulouse because the Albegesians were twisting the scriptures in such a manner that fornication was considered a good. Scriptures will still read in Church and the ban on Bible reading was lifted once the heresy subsided. Tell me how much good was the Bible doing for those who were using it to justify there perversions.

I would refute them all if I thought you were open to what I have to say. Let's just do two more. Candles and the sign of the cross are not doctrine. Oh, one more. Let's do this. You have thrown out the accusations so you provide the supporting evidence first and then I will refute it. This to prove that you didn't just blindly follow some writings of a man which you protestants always say the Bible forbids (and it is apparent you did). Fair enough.

" As I studied history I ralized that early in the RCC church a number of the priests were married. And so it seems that the RCC is in a constant doctrinal change. But God has not changed during that time. "

You are proving your ignorance once more. YES THERE WERE MARRIED PRIESTS. In fact there are today. (gb = at this moment.). In fact married priests are allowed in the eastern rites. There are married priests in the western rite who have come in to the Catholic Church from other religions such as Anglicanism. About 500 of them came in to the Catholic faith in the 1990's when their Church started allowing women as priests. A Lutheran priest who was married was allowed to become a priest in my town recently. Celibate priesthood is a discipline, not a doctrine so perhaps you don't know as much as you claim about Catholicism.


"It is the truth that sets us free. So why shouldn't through our dialog be able to come up to the truth. "

Because you are not open to it.

"If you were truly interested in seeking the truth you would cetainly take a look at one says in opposition to your faith."

I have Lorainne Boetners Roman Catholicism and have read as much as didn't bore me to tears. Had a protestant pastor send me Mike Gendron's book, can't remember the name offhand. He's a former Catholic like you. Read the whole thing cover to cover. The one part sticks in my mind where he talks about being a faithful Catholic who "lead a hedonistic lifestyle". That kind of says alot. Sorry about your Mom.

Blessings

 

Here, gbzip, let me drive this large truck (In this case, from Boettner Garbage Company) full of cowpies, dead cats and rotten fish and dump it on your front lawn, and then you defend yourself and justify to me why each individual cowpie, dead cat or rotten fish does not belong on your lawn and maybe then I'll remove that particular item. That is, if you're interested in seeking the truth...

Sounds like fun!!!

 

What is it "symbolic" of when Jesus actually comes right out and makes it an important ingredient (along with the "Spirit") that has one be "born again"?

DHK, I am actually shocked that you would make such a statement! Jesus declares someting that would have us be "born again," yet you sluff it off as simply "something," not defined. It is "something" we obviously see that is applied somehow that one is thus saved! And it went sailing right over your head that quickly?

Simply incredible!

DUH!!!

No wonder Christ took it to be "symbolic" in the nature of what it does, cleanse us of our sins! Not "symbolic" in that it is performed as a sign to others that one is saved (as an optional thing to do) but rather while it does indeed, save, the "symbol" of what it does is perfectly expressed is a substance that has been mankinds "universal solvent" from the time man first walked on the earth! </font>[/QUOTE]Concentrate on this one point. Many paganreligions of the world believe that water washes away sin, but Christianity is not pagan, and Chrisianity does not believe that water washes away sin. It is a pagan belief, church fathers not withstanding.

The Bible does not contradict itself:
Jer.2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

Take as much water as you please. Use soap. Use the strongest possible soap ever invented--lye (nitre)in those days, and much soap, and yet it will not, and can never wash away your sins. Water does nothing but make you wet. Baptism does nothing but make you wet. Water can not take away sins. Ask Jeremiah. I am sure Jesus knew of these Scriptures. And I am sure He believed them. He was not superstitious as some modern day religions aree. H20, 2 Hydrogens atoms mixed with one oxygen atom does not take away the sin of mankind.

But the blood of Jesus Christ does. The blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins.

Heb.9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Heb.9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb.9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

1John 5:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

It is the blood of Christ that cleanses us from all sin. No where does the Bible teach that water cleanses us from sin. That is pure superstition, a pagan belief held to by the Catholic Church.

In John 3, it teaches:
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the spirit is spirit."
Every man is born of the flesh. But not every man is born of the Spirit--the Holy Spirit of God. Therefore you must be born again. It is a voluntary decision you must make. No infant can decide to be born again.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

If you receive Him, you become His child, by believing on His name, and you become born into His family--a child of God--born of God; born again. It takes believe. It takes receiving Christ as one's Saviour. There is no water involved here.

One is born again by the Spirit of God, as it is presented through the Word of God, the two agencies which are involved in the new birth.
DHK

 

It is too bad that you can only answer him with drivel like this, and not answer the Scripture that he has presented you.
DHK

 

It is too bad that you can only answer him with drivel like this, and not answer the Scripture that he has presented you.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Sad, isn't it?

 

MikeS,

'Originally posted by MikeS: Here, gbzip, let me drive this large truck (In this case, from
Boettner Garbage Company)

Ray is saying, 'What you fail to understand is that many of these great books were written by serious men and women who were preparing their dissertation for their Th.D. or Ph. D. degrees. There is very little slippage between truth and some ideas that fall below this bar. These people have very carefully studied the subject that they are writing about and when the degree is granted the post-graduate person, it means that the paper was checked and evaluated by two or even a board of professors from bonified seminaries.

Some candidates for the designated degree have to go before professors who give them an oral examination where many questions are thrown at the candidate to see if they know what they are talking about.

People don't write dissertations as a game for bashing either Catholics or Protestants; but these scholars will expose error wherever they find it. If it is not in the Bible, the Word of God, you are going to hear about it.

Dr. Windisch in his book, "The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount," on page 157 says,

'Theological exegesis accepts the New Testament and every part of it as a testimony and a gift to the church. It looks for the authoritative Word of God in this literature and lays emphasis on the fact that this "Word" is from God and for this reason bears the stamp of genuine authority and spiritual power.' {The Westminster Press, Philadelphia} Dr. Hans Windisch was the late professor of theology at the University of Halle-Wittenberg.

Mike, understand when you reject the exegesis or explanation of the Bible, you in fact are ejecting the Lord God from your mind. When this is done He can never move into your heart and life, the way He desire to by way of expressing Himself and His ways to you. To reject His written Word is to reject the Living Word, meaning, Jesus Himself.

 

Ray,

Boettner is a hateful bigot, a Jack Chick with a thicker book, who never met a lie or slander against the Catholic Church that he didn't like. I won't dignify him by treating him like he's a serious author. I will not respond to any hateful, bigoted "sources" other than to denounce them as hateful and bigoted.

The "doctrine" of Wax Candles! What a joke!

 

Boettner is Scripture?

 

Boettner is Scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]What, you never read the Book of Wax?

 

Ray,

How is it that you know so much about all of this. Could it be that you pastored a United Church of Christ for 23 years. Your post sure adds credence to that bio I posted. Now tell me how can a man who is against abortion and homosexuality preach in the UCOC for 23 years? What is your stand on the trinity? How did that book on Salvation of yours sell. I can't find it availible anywhere on the net so my guess is it was a flop.

Blessings

 

So perhaps you found one you would disagree with. Would you mind refuting the rest if you could and show me where I am wrong with references so I can look them up for myself as well?

We do know there was a Council of Toulouse and the Bible was forbidden by that council. So it had to be placed on some kind of list. Yes, there is a forbidden list of boks that did come later in 1559.

I really don't know what there is to hate other than when someone or some entity tries to take God's place. God is still the final authority. He has authority over all people and all authorities. He is the authority.

I have Catholics in Bible studies that I have led for about 29 years now.

In one town I lived in you would think the RCC pastor was a Baptist. He gave a sermon and at the end he gave an invitation for people to receive Christ. The church was very well attended,

Phil 2:10,11. "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

It is the truth that sets us free. So why shouldn't through our dialog be able to come up to the truth.

I grew up going to the Catholic Church. As I got older I began to question some of the changes. I asked, "If God does not change, why does the Catholic Chruch change its doctrine?" I always got some kind of feeble explanation trying to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. Finally my mother (who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school) told me that at one time she believed many of those things but no longer did. Later I considered being a Catholic priest. But then I asked what was the purpose of a priest not being married. As I studied history I ralized that early in the RCC church a number of the priests were married. And so it seems that the RCC is in a constant doctrinal change. But God has not changed during that time.

If you were truly interested in seeking the truth you would cetainly take a look at one says in opposition to your faith. There is not one of us that could be wrong at times. Maybe it takes someone else to point out our wrongs.

So often we don't like what is said about what we believe. Neither did I when I was challenged about what Catholics believed because I was one of them.

Proverbs 27:17 says, "Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."

So if I am wrong I am asking you to show me where I am wrong and refute everything I had listed.

Fair enough? </font>[/QUOTE]G2B2,


Are you related to R2D2. I like the sliding truth scale. "well it wasn't put on the list of forbidden books but it was on some list for certain." Bible reading was prohibited in Toulouse because the Albegesians were twisting the scriptures in such a manner that fornication was considered a good. Scriptures will still read in Church and the ban on Bible reading was lifted once the heresy subsided. Tell me how much good was the Bible doing for those who were using it to justify there perversions.

I would refute them all if I thought you were open to what I have to say. Let's just do two more. Candles and the sign of the cross are not doctrine. Oh, one more. Let's do this. You have thrown out the accusations so you provide the supporting evidence first and then I will refute it. This to prove that you didn't just blindly follow some writings of a man which you protestants always say the Bible forbids (and it is apparent you did). Fair enough.

" As I studied history I ralized that early in the RCC church a number of the priests were married. And so it seems that the RCC is in a constant doctrinal change. But God has not changed during that time. "

You are proving your ignorance once more. YES THERE WERE MARRIED PRIESTS. In fact there are today. (gb = at this moment.). In fact married priests are allowed in the eastern rites. There are married priests in the western rite who have come in to the Catholic Church from other religions such as Anglicanism. About 500 of them came in to the Catholic faith in the 1990's when their Church started allowing women as priests. A Lutheran priest who was married was allowed to become a priest in my town recently. Celibate priesthood is a discipline, not a doctrine so perhaps you don't know as much as you claim about Catholicism.


"It is the truth that sets us free. So why shouldn't through our dialog be able to come up to the truth. "

Because you are not open to it.

"If you were truly interested in seeking the truth you would cetainly take a look at one says in opposition to your faith."

I have Lorainne Boetners Roman Catholicism and have read as much as didn't bore me to tears. Had a protestant pastor send me Mike Gendron's book, can't remember the name offhand. He's a former Catholic like you. Read the whole thing cover to cover. The one part sticks in my mind where he talks about being a faithful Catholic who "lead a hedonistic lifestyle". That kind of says alot. Sorry about your Mom.

Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]I can remember a nun tellin us that the mark of a Catholic Chruch was that a candle would be burining. Is that not a teaching (a doctrine)

Websters defines doctrine as a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.


I am fully aware that there are married priests and women priests as well. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember why they allowed married priests and women priests. That proves the point of the doctrine of celibacy exactly. The very thing you wrote goes against what the doctrine of celibacy advocates. So are you saying that the RCC is now gong against its own claims of truth. If the Pope has always been infallible, did his infallibility change so that he could accept a modern doctrine and throw away the old. Or are these conditonal doctrines? When I was in catechism it was presented as absolute and not conditional. So what is it now?

I can remember in 1960 we were given an English Bible and was told that we were permitted to read it now. So did the ban on the Bible go until 1960? I also read about the issue of the Bible not being permited to be read during the middle 1800's as well. So if the ban was lifted it was still in force practically at that time.

You wrote, "Candles and the sign of the cross are not doctrine."

The definition of doctrine is teaching. From what I can remember I was told along with the rest of the catechism class that one should never enter the altar area without first making the sign of the cross at several points. We were also told that as we entered the sanctuary we were to dip our fingers in the holy water.

For penance I was to say so many "Hail Mary's and so many Our Father's. I didn't know that according to 1 John that forgiveness was quite like that.
1 John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Who is "He?"

1 John 2:1,2, "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

When I was in catechism I was told that the priest was Jesus' representative on earth. What does that say about the priests who have fallen to sexual sin and has been uncovered lately. All have sinnned. No one is exempted. So how can a priest who is a sinner just like everyone else be Jesus'representative on earth. In my personal discussions it has been amazing how many have told me the number of things they don't agree with.

It sounds as if you are in the same boat. I find that refreshing to have people who can think for themselves.

It sounds to me that you don't agree with celibacy. I know of many Catholics that don't agree with the RCC. They want to see change.


Why doesn't the RCC admit to some of its wrongs and press ahead. It would be better off.

You asked for supporting evidence for those positions. It is written in many history books od the RCC. I am sure you could findit out as well. The seminary I attended had the largest theological library in the US. There were Catholic priests while I was there doing research. We had a number of primary sources. They were books written and published by the particcular denominations. While I was a student I read numerous books written by the RCC to find out for myself about things that protestants mentioned. I don’t remember finding one false accusation by credible sources. Where do you think people get information about the history of the RCC.. The RCC has kept records over time.

There were two Pope John XXIII’s The first was from 1410-1415 the next one was from 1958-1963. There were two Gregory VIII’s one was from 1118-1121 the other was 1187.

Anybody know what ever happened to John XX?

Let’s take the doctrine of indulgences. I am wondering how anyone can think that money can raise a person from purgatory and on into heaven. Is that kind of like saying the rich are truly richer because they can release a soul from purgatory and into heaven.

How would you refute the doctrine of indulgences. Luther made a big enough issue of it that it started the reformation. Apparently enough people believed what he stood for. There were those who protected him from harm as well when it came to his defense before the RCC.

In regards to a hedonistic lifestyle. Man, that’s low. I know of some very godly people who are Catholics and those who are not. I also know of some who are hedonistic that are Catholics and those who are not. I don’t see that as an issue. I see the issue about the doctrines of the RCC and how they have been added to. That is my main beef. I just don’t see how they agree with scripture as God inspired it.

 

"Well now, I thought 1 Peter 3:21 did quite a good job of it which you failed to address."

I Peter 3:21 is rather simple in the Greek text. In the first part, "Corresponding to that," is the word used that we use for antitype (antitupon).</font>[/QUOTE]I always get a kick out of an attempt to go back to the Greek, when I would prefer to go along with scholars to translate it to the English the best way they can, they being a lot smarter then I am on this.

Therefore, why do we not see "immerse" in the place of "baptism" in all of the Catholic/Protestant translations of the New Testament?

By the way, does pouring the water from above onto a person qualify as "washing"? Must "dipping" or a total immersion be required? If so, how was Paul baptized? How was the jailer and his whole household baptized, if indeed, the prison was no where near a flowing stream or river?

So when all is said and done, you end up with "this prefigures immersion which saves you now"?

Am I missing your point here? Is not Peter describing a ceremony, which involves water (prefigured from the fact that a few were "saved" in the Ark) that "saves us"?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila - [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]You mentioned, "Therefore, why do we not see "immerse" in the place of "baptism" in all of the Catholic/Protestant translations of the New Testament?

Tradition. So much follows the tradition of the Anglicans when they translated the King James Bible. To avoid a translation in conflict with their doctrine of infant baptism they chose a transliteration of the Greek word.

The best way I can think of how to answer you is that I Peter 3:21 refers back to something else. It is an antitype. I believe it is referring back to the salvation of Noah and the flood. Baptism in the context of the NT did represent a type of salvation. Then the writer goes on to say that immersion saves you and then he qualifies what kind of immersion he is talking about. He is talking about the kind that the early church practiced. When a person in the NT times was baptized it meant that they could have been executed for believing in Jesus and naming Christ as their Lord. The emperor was considered the lord. For someone to name Christ as his Lord meant that Christ was named as master or Lord and the emperor as lord was renounced. The emperor could have had the person who was baptized immediately executed. So it is easy to see that when one believes under those circumstances and names Christ as Lord, they are saved. The early church did not separate baptism and salvation as we do. Baptism was the proof of your confession and proclamation of faith in Jesus and naming Him as Lord.

Acts 2:38 would be the same way.

Acts 2:38, “38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

 

Er, ah, sir, I don't think so...

You see, the doouay-Rheims Catholic bible, an English translation, came out about 2 years before the Authorized 1611 King James bible, the bible of the Anglicans.

The translators of this Catholic bible were exiled English Catholic priests in France. They use the word "baptism" since that seems to have been the best word to describe the original Greek.

Peter is talking about those who were in "prison" from the Old Testament times, even those who were righteous before the Lord (the gates of heaven being closed to everyone because of the great sin of our original parents) and thus when Christ died on the cross, He went to them first to "preach" (save) that they could not enter heaven. He then picked an era in Old Testament times, the great flood, by which 8 were saved and in this "place of waiting" that Christ would come to to "preach." He likened them to have been saved by water, being in the Ark. He then sees this as a harkening to the times Peter is speaking, his present time, that what happened then "prefigured baptism" of the present day Peter speaks. Had Peter gone no futher in his writing, there would be little clue as to the salvific nature of baptism. But what Peter said was, "this prefigures baptism, which saves you now."

That little tail on his sentence says it all!

You need not worry about the context here as it is it's own context! What does baptism do? Why it SAVES YOU NOW!

HUH!!?? A "type" of salvation? What other kind is there? Why is the couplet "repent and be baptized" so prevalant in the New Testament? Why, in His final command to His apostles before He ascended to the Father in heaven does Christ say, "Make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" sum up so completely what the apostles mission is in this world, with such a great emphasis on baptism, if it is only a simple OPTIONAL ceremony we can perform to show others that we are now Christians (hoping a cover the majority of Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians here, knowing full well that the salvific nature of baptism is a prominant belief in mainstream Protestantism.)

Would you kindly explain this a bit more to me, as I don't see this at all in 1 Peter. What kind of baptism do you think the early church practiced, my friend? All the pictures I see of Jesus being baptized is Him standing about knee deep in the Jordan river (a very shallow river, I understand) and John pouring the water upon him from a container!

Non sequitur. So what? Many were baptized within their own houses, as most probably Paul was, when the scales fell from his eyes and then he was immediately baptized. Also, the Jailer and his whole household (which probably included an infant or two) was likewise baptized!

And even for the un-baptized Catechumens (those under instruction in the faith) were slaughtered in the arenas of pagan Rome, baptized "in their own blood" as the Church declares. In other words, baptism had little to do with Christians or Christiand to be, being persecuted!

I don't know where you are going with all of this, but I do agree that unfortunately, salvation is seen as a separate issue from baptism. In my former church, the baptismal tank, and enormous copper lined tank, sat empty for two years, dry as a bone, never seeing a baptism! Baptism was an OPTION, not a requirement!

I wonder what Christ thinks that his words of Matthew 28:19 are disregarded so completely...

Same way what? Oh, that salvation and baptism is intertwined? Of course!

I see here occasion by Peter to hammer in, what it takes to be saved, where believing in Christ requires also one to be baptized! Baptism is the climax of the act to come to Christ in believing in Him, declaring an allegance to Him.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

I would urge those on both sides who have not looked at the World Christian Encyclopedia [ed. David Barrett] to do so. Though it is a large book that many will not choose to invest in, it is very often available in the religious reference sections of university libraries. It is a good legitimate work with broad collaboration through the religious community. But any attempt to compare religious groups that vary as greatly as Roman Catholics (in which each congregation is part of one church) and Baptists (in which each congregation is a whole church) will meet with only limited success, and each person undertaking such a task will do so with their own criteria. Nevertheless, with that understanding, it is a quite worthwhile reference. Page 15 of WCE gives a breakdown of the approach used. To present the statistics, contrasts, and comparisons, WCE first divides Christianity into 7 major blocs thusly (1) Roman Catholic; (2) Protestant; (3) Orthodox; (4) Non-White Indigenous; (5) Anglican; (6) Marginal Protestant; and (7) Catholic [Non-Roman]. These 7 major blocs are subdivided into 156 ecclesiastical traditions. These traditions break down into, for example, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Methodist, et.al for the Protestants, and so forth. Within these blocs, and especially traditions, the Global Membership Chart on p. 14 will show that over 15,000,000 people are considered "doubly-affiliated" (that is, members in more than one bloc or tradition), and some 7 million are "disaffiliated" (still counted by their churches though they have abandoned their church affiliation). In the 156 traditions, they find 1.8 million "worship centres" (congregations) and "1018 million active, practising church members" (evidently those who attend a service at least annually).

 

"I can remember a nun tellin us that the mark of a Catholic Chruch was that a candle would be burining. Is that not a teaching (a doctrine)"

Man ya haven't got a clue. No it is a (t) tradition that a candle is placed outside of the tabernacle indicating that the Eucharist is present. Your just making a fool out of yourself defending such silly positions. Would you please look wax candles up in the Baltimore Catechism. Here is a link for you.



"I am fully aware that there are married priests and women priests as well. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember why they allowed married priests and women priests. That proves the point of the doctrine of celibacy exactly. The very thing you wrote goes against what the doctrine of celibacy advocates. "

It's not doctrine. It's practice or discipline.
You just don't get the difference do you. Practice can change as in the Mass going from latin to english. It is not a part of the deposit of the faith to have an all celibate priesthood, though it is a part of it to have celibate priests. You of course won't understand that either.

"So are you saying that the RCC is now gong against its own claims of truth."

You ignore the fact that the Eastern Rite Churches in commuion with Rom have always allowed married priests. So that is not what I am saying at all.

" If the Pope has always been infallible, did his infallibility change so that he could accept a modern doctrine and throw away the old. Or are these conditonal doctrines? "

You just don't get it. Not everything is doctrine. By the way there are very few infallible statements by Popes. Most are by councils. There is discipline and there is doctrine.

"When I was in catechism it was presented as absolute and not conditional. So what is it now?"

What Catechism. Baltimore, Hardon, ... Neither do any others. The Balitmore Catechism makes no mention of mandatory priestly celibacy. It is doctrine that celibacy in general is the more desirable state in life. The Popes by this doctrine impose the discipline of priestly celibacy on the Latin Rite Churches. You keep ignoring the fact that the Byzantine Rites have always had a married priesthood. Thus your position is invalid. You are simply proving that you did not understand Catholicism ever.

"I can remember in 1960 we were given an English Bible and was told that we were permitted to read it now. So did the ban on the Bible go until 1960?"

More nonsense. Would you like me to look up quotes from various Popes and councils encouraging the reading of the Bible by the laity. There was even indulgences long before 1960 for reading scripture at least 15 minutes a day. I have seen Jerusalem Bibles prior to 1940 with this indulgence inside the front cover. Pope Leo XIII granted such an indulgence long before 1960. I believe it was in the mid 1800's.

"I also read about the issue of the Bible not being permited to be read during the late 1800's as well. So if the ban was lifted it was still in force practically at that time. "

Well now Pope Leo's indulgence proves you wrong.
Here is an article that makes nonsense out of all you say in this regard.

http://www.present-truth.org/Library/Magnificat%20TOC.htm

You wrote, "Candles and the sign of the cross are not doctrine."

"The definition of doctrine is teaching. "

That is the definition you choose to use. The Church says that doctrine is truths about Christ passed on through oral tradition and scripture. Can the Church not define it's own practices and disciplines?


The rest of your post is generally nonsense.


"It sounds to me that you don't agree with celibacy. I know of many Catholics that don't agree with the RCC. They want to see change."

Actually I do. Sorry.


"Why doesn't the RCC admit to some of its wrongs and press ahead. It would be better off."

You would do well to cut your losses also after that last post of yours in which you proved yourself to have no legitimate knowledge of the Catholic Church.

" Let’s take the doctrine of indulgences. I am wondering how anyone can think that money can raise a person from purgatory and on into heaven. Is that kind of like saying the rich are truly richer because they can release a soul from purgatory and into heaven. "

More ridcule of something you have never had any clue about. Why bother with an answer.

"How would you refute the doctrine of indulgences."

Why would I. It is still in full force. They have just removed money as a part of them. Generally they are prayers and works of charity(also called love, something you apparently don't know much about).

" Luther made a big enough issue of it that it started the reformation. Apparently enough people believed what he stood for. There were those who protected him from harm as well when it came to his defense before the RCC. "

So my question is who protected the people German government when Luther told them to slaughter the peasants to the tune of 100,000.


Blessings

 

If baptism always means immersion, what is the meaning of Acts 16:14-15? Lydia came into the faith and Paul baptized not only here but entire family, which could have included children and/or an infant. Keep in mind baptism was ministered not only to Lydia who gave her life to the Lord.

Another problem for immersionists is found in I Corinthians 1:16. The whole house of Stephanas was baptized into the Christian faith.