Sincere question for catholics.

Please clarify, are you saying that you are perfect in God's eye now or only the moment that you die? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes I stand perfect before God, perfect in holiness and righteousness without any speck of sin whatsoever. When I was born again, Christ by the power of His Holy Spirit came and dwelt within me. He made me a child of God, and forgave all my sins (past, present and future.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,

At that point he took all my sins and put them under the blood to remember them no more. He cast them behind is back. He buried them in the depths of the deepest sea. As far as the east is for the west, so far are they removed.

1 John 1:7 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 not water (baptism) that washes away sin, it is the blood of Christ. It alone can wash away sin. All of my sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ, and henceforth I stand perfectly holy covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Now when God looks down upon me, even though I be a sinner (though a sinner saved by grace) He sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and not my sin. Thus I stand perfectily righteous in God's sight.

Now let me ask you the question: "If you were to stand before God right now, and He were to ask you the question: 'Why should I let you into my Heaven?' what would you answer?"
DHK

 

test

 

But Purgatory - if one believes in it and I'm not saying I do - is not a final destination; it's more of a 'transit camp'. Heaven is the final destination for all Christians. Purgatory, as I understand the Catholic doctrine, is nothing to do with salvation, but to do with sanctification; yes, we are justified and saved at conversion, but not yet sanctified, conformed to the imgae of God's Son. That process takes a lifetime; why should it not continue until its conclusion beyond death in some cases?

Let me throw out an additional question: The Apocrypha records instances of of prayers for the dead and asking the dead to intercede for the Jews ( I think it's in one of the Maccabean books - the Jews pray before the battle for Jeremiah to help them -and he does - and then pray after the battle for the souls of the soldiers who have fallen). Now, the Aprocrypha may not form part of the OT canon, but it certainly reflected Jewish religious practice at the time of Jesus. And yet, not one word in the entire NT condemning these practices - not from Jesus, not from Paul etc. I would have thought that if those Jewish practices were so wrong, that they would have been denounced at some point in the NT....so why no condemnation?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Originally posted by Living4Him:
So, do you all believe that those people who have had a NDE and have spoken of purgatory are all a bunch of nut jobs?


I know this is a little off the beaten path, but do you believe in dinosaurs? They aren't mentioned in the Bible.

Nut jobs? Not exactly, just deceived. They may have had a NDE that included being in purgatory, but it was not from God, but from Satan!!

Even if you believe that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible, we still cannot say there weren't any because their bones have been found. That proves they were here!!

Purgatory, on the other hand is mentioned nowhere in scripture, and is a total fabrication of the Catholic church.

Christianity teaches that you have your life on earth to get it right, (accept Jesus, live for Him, etc), then when you die, there is no more redemption for sin. It is over!! No holding tank somewhere so people that knew you can pray you into heaven.

Heb. 9-27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

After this the judgment; no holding tank to finish you up!!

Peace,

Tam

 

Paul is talking about two individuals (Apollos and Paul) with one planting and one watering. He is talking about their doctrine being based on the ONE foundation (PETRA) which is CHRIST.

He says that no evangelist can/should come preaching a gospel of ANY other type - that is based on ANYTHING as its foundation (Petra) OTHER than Christ.

The teaching was being debated in 1Cor 3 - with some saying they "Are of Apollos" and others saying that "They are of Paul".

Paul was showing that the TEACHING of BOTH Apollos and Paul was based on the SINGLE foundation of Christ!

Paul was only addressing the idea of people FOLLOWING a given evangelist. Paul was contrasting good and bad evangelism (teaching) by starting with the FOUNDATION (Petra) which is Christ and pointing out that some evangelist would come along BUILDING on that foundation with hay or stubble - and others with gold and silver.

THE CONTEXT is the teaching "substance" of each Evangelist that BUILDS on the ONE foundation of the church (petra) which is Christ alone.

THE WORK (as a msster builder or as a farmer planting and sowing) was TESTED. The MASTER builder (Paul calls himself this as HE provides gospel teaching to the church for the building up of the building) - is tested by fire IN THE DAY.

Nothing said about the BUILDER being tested by fire AFTER death!! (Which would be the "salient" point NEEDED to sustain a doctrine like Purgatory).

Obviously.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

The RC position is the one that seeks to use 1Cor 3 to sustain the doctrine of purgatory.

Yet there seems to be no interest in actually exegeting the actual words of the chapter?!!

Here they are again "with bold highlight" showing the focus on the MATERIAL teaching of the TWO evangelists in this case. And showing how OTHER evangelists might be expected to come along and BUILD ON that existing foundation adding either very vALUABLE teaching or worthless teaching.

What is not to get??

In Christ,

Bob

 

And what do you base this on?

Yes, Jesus blood covers a multitude of sin. So, do you believe that if you knowingly sin now, you don't have to asks God's forgiveness since you are born again?

There are several passages in the Bible which states that we must endure until the end.

Mt. 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Hebrews 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

Mt. 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Paul tells us: "For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

It is because of Christ's redeeming sacrafice that baptism is the way, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).

 

And what do you base this on?
</font>[/QUOTE]The Word of God, rightly divided. Not the verses that you have taken out of context and twisted according to suit your own preconceived ideas.


Romans 4:23-25 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

When I believed on Christ He justified me. That is the simple teaching of the Bible. It is given in the verses above, which are not scattered through the Bible, but are all in the same context speaking of the same thing.
Christ justified me through his blood when I believed on Him.

A simple definition of justification:
Just-As-If-I-Never-Sinned.

That is what my standing with God is. He looks down on me and sees me justified before Him. My sins are forgiven, under the blood of Christ. I am justified before Him:
just as if I never sinned.
DHK

 

It is because of Christ's redeeming sacrafice that baptism is the way, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5). </font>[/QUOTE]This is a Hindu belief, not a Christian belief. It is not supported in Scripture. You follow it by putting a few unexplained references after your statements. But you cannot demonstrate it through Scripture. The Hindus believe they can wash away their sins by bathing or baptizing themselves in the Ganges River--holy water to them. When the Catholic Religion was invented in the time of Constantine such pagan beliefs were incorporated into his brand of Christianity which became Catholicism--paganized Christianity. The concept had been around long before that, just not in true Biblical Christianity. It is a pagan concept that Jeremiah refers to in Jeremiah 2:22. He mocks at it. Water can never wash away sin. It is a superstition that the Bible does not teach. It is Hinduism.
DHK

 

"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. NOT (the magical) touch of (sacramental) waters to the skin - but rather the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience".

#1. When do we make the "Appeal to God"?? It must be prior to water Baptism - WHEN we choose to repent and choose to call upon God.

#2. If it is MY APPEAL that forms that life-changing act on my part - then it has nothing to do with "magic water" or Magic words from a Priest.

And yet the key evolution in CAtholic thought regarding Elders and Priests came around the idea of magic powers associated with sacraments. The "mysteries" as the pagans called them prior to the Christians adopting them in the days of Constantine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Really? Let's take a look.

Typology of Baptism, prefigurements from the Old Testament...

The Lord said to Moses, "Take the Levites from among the Israelites and purify them. This is what you shall do to them to purify them. Sprinkle them with the water of remission; then have them shave their whole bodies and wash their clothes, and so purify themselves." Num 8:5-6

"Any unclean man who fails to have himself purified shall be cut off from the community, because he defiles the sanctuary of the Lord. As long as the lustral water has not been splashed over him, he remains unclean. This shall be a perpetual ordinance for you." Num 19:20-21

"Sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed; wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow." Psalms 51:9

"Wash your heart from wickedness, O Jerusalem, that you may be saved." Jer 4:14

"For I will take you from among the Gentiles, and will gather you together out of all the countries, and I will bring you into your own land. And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh. And I will put My Spirit in the midst of you, and I will cause you to walk in My Commandments, and to keep My judgments and to do them." Ezek 36:24-27

"...And I will save them out of all the places in which they have sinned, and I will cleanse them, and they shall be My people, and I will be their GOD." Ezek 37:23

"In that day there shall be a fountain open to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; for the washing of the sinner, and of the unclean woman." Zech 13:1

The first mention of Baptism in the New Testament is in the story of John the Baptist

"...and they were Baptized by him in the Jordan." Matt 3:6

However, the Baptism by St. John was not yet a Christian Baptism, which began with Jesus Baptizing His disciples in John 3:22, and for all after the Resurrection of Christ. St John's was a Baptism of repentance.

"I indeed baptize you with water, for repentance. But He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to bear. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire."
Matt 3:11

It is to be noted that the same holds true for the Baptisms given by the Apostles also before the resurrection. It was not until Acts 2:3-4, when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, that they were able to perform the Baptism of Christ.
"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth." Acts 1:8.
"And there appeared to them parted tongues as of fire, which settled upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in foreign tongues, even as the Holy Spirit prompted them to speak." Acts 2:3-4.

Soon after the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles began Baptizing the people.

"But Peter said to them, 'Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'." Acts 2:38

"Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand." Acts 2:41.

"And now why do you delay? Get up and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name." Acts 22:16

By Baptism, we are baptized into Christ.
Romans 6:3-4
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

You really need new material Bob.

1. In the Catholic Church it is called the "Mystery" of Faith because it is hard for a mere human to fully grasp all of God's majesty and wonder. Let alone the Trinity, Incarnation, Resurrection, ect. We accept these things on faith.

2. Constantine had nothing to do with the start of Catholicism.

The documents of the Church Fathers and other Church writers. Hundreds of these documents clearly contain the words "Catholic Church", and are dated from 107 A.D.. That date is hundreds of years before Constantine's "Edict" was issued. Genuine historical writings in which the words "Catholic Church" appear, are in every century from 107, up to and beyond the Reformation, and to this very day.

"Roman Catholic", was not even coined until about 1200 years later in the 16th century, by Protestant reformers, especially Anglicans, because they wanted to retain the name "Catholic" for themselves.

And let's see what the Edict of Milan says:

It looks to me that Constantine was giving religous freedom to Christians.

 

Did "history change" last night??

Recall that the quote I gave was from an RC historian -- not one of my own.

And then there's "history".

The "mysteries" were in fact a pagan concept IN ROME that predates the adoption of paganism by the Roman church at the time of Constantine.

Well that is debatable.

The WORD "catholic" meant universal for a long time - it no longer means that since we have both Catholic and non-Catholic Christian churches today.

Obviously.

The point to get above - was the use of the term "mysteries" and the adoption of that concept BY the Roman church at the time of Constantine.

(Also note - historically the USE of that term IN Rome prior to that time by the pagans).

The complaint arose between the Christian and non-Christian Romans - that the Christian church did not have the "mysteries" as were common for the pagans. At the time of adoption of the pagan idols into the church - the pagan "mysteries" were also adopted.

How "coincidental".

In Christ,

Bob

 

While we're at it, lets just go on with everything else in Christiandom that have so called been "adopted from pagans"

1. Creation story
2. Adam and Eve
3. Easter
4. Christmas
5. Days of the week
6. Months of the year

The list goes on and on. You can find atheist who can show "proof" that all of these things were found in the pagan world before Judaism and Christianity

 

If it can be shown the Constantine predates the book of Genesis -- then show it.

 

My point is Bob, that if you want to say Catholicism is from pagan roots, then you might as well believe the atheist who claim that all elements of Christianity are from pagan origin.

 

My point is that I show a CATHOLIC HISTORIAN saying that the Catholic Church incorporated PAGANISM into the church.

This is NOT a case of going to the anti-Christian groups to hear their negative views of Christianity.

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

How much influence did this have on the RCC “really”?

This is a well published "Best selling" RC Historian who is PRO-Catholic... ADMITTING to history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

We have conservative well-known published statements from other Catholic Sources admitting to the same "paganization" of the RCC ...

Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand.

Pagan prayer methods.

..

Simply trying to "blame all this" on anti-christian or anti-catholic sources -- just won't wash.

This is "real" history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

context
Numbers 8:14 Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel: and the Levites shall be mine.
--The Lord was giving instruction to Moses how to separate the tribe of Levites apart from the other tribes for the service of God. If your application is right, then all other Israelites are unsaved and only the tribe of Levites could be saved. How ridiculous!! The purification process of the tribe of Levites has nothing to do with salvation, nor with baptism. There is no baptism in the Old Testament. A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for your own poof text of Scripture-twisting.

How do you think these verses have any thing to do with baptism, or the washing away of sins? They are instructions for those who have come in touch with a dead body. They were to remain "unclean" until they had "purified" or washed themselves, a good sanitary practice, don't you think??

Here is what the actual verse says:
Psalms 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
--Hyssop; a plant or shrub used in external cleansing, and emblem of internal purity.
I would like to see you take a bath or plunge yourself into "hyssop." Biblical baptism is always by immersion; in fact that is what the word means—immersion.
The picture of hyssop is a picture of blood, not of water. We are cleansed with the blood of the lamb. Hyssop does not have anything to do with baptism. You have no concept of Biblical interpretation. Hyssop was used to apply the blood to the door posts at the time of the first Passover before the death angel came and killed all the firstborn of the Egyptians who were not covered by the blood.

Exodus 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.

"Wash your heart from wickedness, O Jerusalem, that you may be saved." Jer 4:14
Are you seriously taking this verse literally as referring to baptism by water, and also to Israel's spiritual salvation? If so, keep reading, and tell me what this verse means:

Jeremiah 4:19 My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.
--Again, you take a verse out of its context and make it a pretext to suit your own heretical theology. There is no baptism here. The passage is speaking of a future time (a future judgement) in Israel's history. The intensity and severity of the coming judgment is described in verses 11-18. Jeremiah simply advises them to be prepared by getting their lives right with God. There is nothing here that has anything to do with baptism or even salvation. There is a coming physical judgement. The "saved" is speaking of being saved from the coming judgement—a physical salvation.

Ezekiel 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

Ezekiel 36:34-35 And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by. And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.
--Has this come to pass yet? It is good to read the context, isn't it? It is speaking of a time yet to come, the Millennial Kingdom, when Christ Himself will rule with a rod of iron from His throne in Jerusalem. That is yet to come. These verses have nothing to do with baptism or salvation. They deal directly with the Jewish nation, and are promises given to them. They are yet to be fulfilled.
Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God."

Why not quote the whole verse to show all on the board how you take Scripture out of its context??

Ezekiel 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
--Again, it refers to the Millennial Kingdom, and has nothing to do with baptism.

Look at what the verse really says. I don't know what you are quoting from.

Zechariah 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.
--There is no "for the washing of the sinner, and of the unclean woman." Are those your words?
As for the fountain that is being spoken of here, it is referring to Christ's blood. "There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins, and sinners plunged beneath that blood lose all their guilty stain."
This passage primarily speaks again of the Millennial Kingdom, and literally is applicable to the Jews, and only in a secondary application is applicable to the New Testament believer.

So much for your Old Testament references on Baptism.
DHK

 

And so?? Your point is??

The disciples baptized in the name of Christ before the resurrection. Are you saying that those baptisms were not valid??
John 4:1-2 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Not quite true—just your spin on things. They were not baptized until they had believed. Baptism always follows belief or faith.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
--That of course rules out infants immediately.

"forthe forgiveness of sins?
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
These two words "for" and "unto" are the same Greek word—eis in the Greek.
Why did John the Baptist baptize? –unto repentance? Does that mean in order that they may receive repentance?? Hardly! But rather on the basis of their repentance, or because of their repentance.
And so it is with Acts 2:38 where the same word is used. The repented and were baptized… on the basis of their sins being forgiven, not in order that their sins be forgiven. The word is used in exactly the same sense as it is used in Mat.3:11 ("because of")

Good verse! First believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then get baptized, and then become a member of the church. That is the Biblical order.

When do you think Paul was saved? When he was baptized? Or when he was on the road to Damascus? Care to give an honest answer, since his testimony is repeated three times in Scripture and he himself tells us when he was saved, and it wasn't at baptism. Thus we know that the verse has another meaning.

What are you waiting for now? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away as you call on his name.' (ISV)
The washing away of sins is always in connection with believing, never in connection with baptism.

This is one of the most instructional passages on baptism in the bible. It shows how baptism (immersion) is death to our old life of sin, and rising again to a new life in Christ. It imparts no grace at all. It simply gets you wet, for the simple reason that it is a picture. It is symbolic. Symbols and pictures do not impart grace. They have no magical powers. In respect to baptism Catholics believe as the Hindus do—that the magical powers of some kind of holy water washes away sin. This is pure superstition, not taught anywhere in the bible.
DHK