"God became man so that we might become God"

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

Carson:

Yes, because Jesus didn't command all Christians to "do this in remembrance of me", but only his Apostles...

I'm sure that's why Paul tells the "regular" Christians "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor 11:26) Face it, Jesus commanded all Christians to "do this."

The Lord’s Supper is the equivalent of the Old Testament Passover feast, in which the sacrificed paschal lamb was consumed (1 Cor. 5:7-8).

I wouldn't say "it's equivalent." It is the fulfillment of the Passover, and therefore so much better.

In the original Greek, Luke 22:19 ("Do this in remembrance of me") is "Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin". The Greek word "poiete" (do) is also translated as "offer" in Exodus 29:38, and the Greek word "anamnesin" (remembrance) has the sacrificial overtone of a memorial offering such as its use in Hebrews 10:3.

Heb 10:3 has nothing to no with a "memorial offering" but with the fact that the sacrifices of the Old Testament only offered temporary atonement by covering. The animal offered by the High Priest covered the people's sins for a year; therefore, with the sacrifice of the next year on Yom Kippur there was a remebrance of sins caused by the "vanishing" of last year's covering. It was not a "memorial sacrifice," nor was this "remembrance" a deseriable thing but rather it was a side-effect of the imperfection of the sacrifice. Furthermore, anamnesis does not mean "memorial sacrifice," but you merely infer this from your incorrect understanding of Hebrews 10:3.

Concerning the word poiete, I think you may be mistaken about this LXX rendering. The word poiete normally means "do" or "make" - perhaps the reading in the LXX of the passage you refer to is "make an offering" and you mistook the word poiete being used as "make" as if it were being used for "offering"? I'd look into that if I were you. In any case, I'd be more at ease with a New Testament example; I don't put much stock in the LXX.

(Mat 1:24) Then Joseph being raised from sleep [offered (poiete)] as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

(Mat 3:3) For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, [offer (poiete)] his paths straight.

 

[Carson Weber]

Solah, my brothah,

I'm sure that's why Paul tells the "regular" Christians "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor 11:26) Face it, Jesus commanded all Christians to "do this."

Bro, where is your evidence that Paul commanded the Christians to preside over the celebration? Where is your evidence that every Christian said the words of Jesus, "This is my body" to consecrate the bread?

Paul says, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup". Of course every Christian is to eat and drink. Of course!

I wouldn't say "it's equivalent." It is the fulfillment of the Passover, and therefore so much better.

Amen brother. And what happened in the Passover? The sacrificial Lamb is consumed.

Heb 10:3 has nothing to no with a "memorial offering" but with the fact that the sacrifices of the Old Testament only offered temporary atonement by covering.

I'm not attempting to demonstrate that Jesus' words allude to or have a connection with the content of Heb 10:3, but that the words Jesus is using have sacrificial overtones.. that they aren't simply words of a happy intellectual, cognitive remembrance.

The word poiete normally means "do" or "make" - perhaps the reading in the LXX of the passage you refer to is "make an offering" and you mistook the word poiete being used as "make" as if it were being used for "offering"? I'd look into that if I were you

Per your request, I will present the Ex 29:38 literally in the LXX:

"Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two lambs" (Ex 29:38, RSV)

"kai [and] tauta [this/these] estin [be/exist/happen/present] a [who/that/which/what] poihseiV [do/make/offer] epi [upon] tou [this/these/that] qusiasthriou [altar] amnouV [lamb] eniausiouV amwmouV [unblemished] duo [two]" (Ex 29:38, LXX)

I don't put much stock in the LXX.

Considering the numerous quotes from the LXX by NT authors, esp. Paul, you should.

 

[Chrissy]

C.S. Murphy,

The Bible says "He that believeth AND IS BAPTISED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

So we shouldn't think that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. God TOLD YOU to believe, and He TOLD YOU to be baptised, didn't he?

... Why do you only want to do one of the things He has told you?

Now for the thief on the cross... Circumstances of course made it impossible for the thief to be baptised. God is not a legalist and He doesnt require us to do the impossible.

The Bible commands us to follow the example of Jesus I Peter 2:21 and Jesus Himself was baptised "in the Jordan" (John 3:23).

Jesus also said "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, BAPTISING THEM.... teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19,20

Why would you think that if Jesus told you to do something, it's alright to just disregard what He said and say "I believe"? You believe what? If you really believe in Jesus you will do what He tells you to do. Heb:5:9: ...He (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" .Jesus isnt the author of salvation to all who say "I believe" and disobey Him.

"Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Acts 2:38 "Repent and be converted that your sins be blotted out" Acts 3:19

So does this mean we wont have remission of sins if we are not baptised? Sounds that way to me! Will our sins be blotted out if we arent? No.
Lk:6:46: And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?


Romans 6:4-6
"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.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

The entire meaning of Baptism represents the Believer following Christ into His death, burial and resurrection. The symbolism is perfect. We close our eyes, go down into the "watery grave" to a new life in Christ as if resurrected with Christ. The big difference between Christianity and every other religion is that in these 3 acts is made it possible all that God desires to do for us. To be baptised shows that we understand this process.

Acts 22:16 "Why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16 do we answer, NO I DONT THINK IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE "I Believe!"

I dont think this idea would go over real well with God, do you? really?



Think of what God Himself said to JESUS when He was baptised! "This is My beloved Son, in whom I AM WELL PLEASED". Matt. 3:17 The Bible says that those who really love the Lord will always strive to please Him (I John 3:22; I Thess. 4:1)

And whether or not it sounds like "works" to you, that doesnt change the fact that Jesus said this:

Jn:14:21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

If you DO WHAT HE SAYS it shows you love Him and you will be loved of His Father.

Although with all of this in mind, still, Baptism itself cannot change the heart of man. it is a symbol of that change. A man may go down into the water and come up a wet sinner with no repentance. It cannot change or regenerate anyone. It is the Holy Spirit that changes us. But the Bible says we must be born of the Spirit and of water. Also, Baptism does not guarantee salvation. Salvation only comes as a free gift from Jesus Christ when one experiences the new birth. But baptism is symbolic of a true conversion and unless conversion precedes baptism, the ceremony is meaningless.

Most importantly, BAPTISM IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF OPINION. It is the opinion of Jesus that matters and He said:

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" John 3:5


LIKE MARRIAGE


Ephesians 4:22-24 "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man , which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man , which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

Baptism is a public testimony that the repentant sinner has been forgiven and cleansed by Jesus (I John 1:9) and that his sinful past is behind him.
Galatians 3:27 says "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ ."


A person who has been baptized publicly acknowledges that he has taken Christ's name (Christ-ian), as in marriage... just as a bride announces the taking of her husband's name at the time of the wedding. To do this, to take on Christ's name in marriage by baptism, we are making a vow to Him...

1. not entered into unless the candidate is determined to be faithful through thick and thin.

2. approached with full understanding of what all it will involve.


We have to be willing to make a COMMITTMENT ... A VOW to Christ, and not just say "I believe".

Do you say we dont have to get publically married either and that "its just a piece of paper, anyway and doesnt matter to God"? It would be like as if a man you claimed to love asked you to marry him but you dont want to do it publically, and/or tell him that you really don't need to go through the ceremony at all.

Mt:10:33: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

--]
Joshua 6 tells the story of the Israelites marching around the city once each day for 6 days. Then on the 7th day, they marched around 7 times, blew their horns, and then shouted. The walls of Jericho fell flat just as God had promised. Was their victory due to their own meritorious works or was it a gift of God?

Joshua 6:2 says that it was a gift. But God told them that they had to do something in order to receive that gift. Hebrews 11:30 says, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been encircled for seven days." It came by faith, but they did not receive it until they marched around the wall and shouted as God had TOLD them to do.

Likewise, salvation for us today is certainly a gift that comes by faith. The Bible says that the walls of Jericho fell by faith, but it happened when they marched and shouted just as God said to do. The Bible also says that we today are given salvation by grace through faith, but it happens when we do as we are TOLD and are baptized for the remission of sins.

[ February 25, 2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Chrissy ]

 

[Chrissy]

On the other hand, we dont want...

Dead Formalism


Unbelieving Israel, not having the righteousness which is of faith, and so not appreciating the great sacrifice that Jesus had made, sought righteousness by virtue of the offering itself and because of the merit of presenting the offering.

They perverted every form of service and everything which God had appointed to be the means of expression to a living faith and which could not have any real meaning except by the living presence and power of Christ Himself in the life. Then they heaped upon these things ten thousand traditions, exactions, and hair-splitting distinctions of their own invention, and all, in a vain hope of attaining to righteousness.

And yet for all this conscious spiritual dearth in their own lives there was still enough supposed merit (by means of rounds of ceremony, or today we could say "sacraments")to cause them to count themselves as righteous.

When the Lord counts a man righteous, he is actually righteous before God, and by this very fact is separated from the worldling. But this is not because of any "merit" of his own or of anything that he has done. It is altogether because of what He has done. And the man for whom this has been done never regards himself as better than anybody else but rather in the light of the righteousness of God that is freely imparted to him, he, viewing himself in comparison, willingly counts others better than himself. Phil. 2:3.


Whether we disobey God and think it unnecessary to be baptised and "just believe", or whether we obey God, be baptised -yet live a life of injustice and oppression, malice and envy, variance and emulation, backbiting and talebearing, hypocrisy and meanness, boasting of their obedience to God in doing the sacraments, their hearts filled with murder and their tongues crying loudly for the blood of One of their brethren, as did the Pharisees ... yet they could not cross the threshold of a Roman tribunal "lest they should be defiled!" ...either way, sacraments mean nothing.



"I hate, I despise your feast days and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer Me burnt-offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them, neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs, for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream" Amos 5:21-24.


"Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. to what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.

"Wash ye, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isa. 1:10-18.

The Lord Himself had appointed all of these feast days and solemn assemblies, sacraments, yet- says He hates them and will not accept them. Their songs, their grand display-- He called "noise," and wanted it taken away. It was hypocrisy and a mere "display" with no real change of heart.

The Lord Himself should abide in our hearts and work righteousness in the life.

God wants no vain show.

We are not to have hollow pretense or a dead formalism to cover up for the lack of righteousness or for the iniquity of a carnal heart. Nothing but the washing away of the sins by the blood of the Lamb of God and the purifying of the heart by living faith--nothing but this could ever make these things acceptable to Him who appointed them.

Either thing is empty vain profession. Some say "I believe" and others say "I partake of sacraments"

without a true transformation of heart by the Holy Spirit, both of these things mean nothing to God.

 

[Chrissy]

To ANYBODY:

HI

I just wanted to ask a question. I really dont know much about the Roman Catholic idea of the "sacraments" and what their ideas are about them. But I grew up in the Catholic church... but really just have vague memories of it.

What I wanted to ask is this...

Do Catholics believe that just by having the baptismal water "touch" them, that this actually does something to them to make them holy? Can someone please explain to me just what they believe about this?

And also, a long time ago I remember seeing this verse in the Bible. I remembered it because of the Bible book "Haggai" and it was an unusual named book so it stuck in my mind. Anyway would this verse have any bearing on the Catholic idea of the sacraments, or not?


Hag:2:12: If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.

Im talking about things like the "Holy water"... and like that...

 

[Chrissy]

Okay this is scary :-/

I just typed in something into the search engine to find out more about the Catholic idea of baptism, and look what I found as I was reading... from:


http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0389.asp

New life, new birth, new light


" To be baptized is to be given new birth and new life (John 3:5). It is interesting to note that some of the early baptismal fonts had the shape of "a womb," to emphasize the new birth/new life aspect of the sacrament.

This image is related to the darkness-light theme that is also associated with Baptism (Hebrews 6:4). In birth we emerge from the darkness of the womb to the bright light of a new world. Some early initiation liturgies had the baptismal candidates first turn to the west—where the sun sinks into darkness—to renounce Satan, and then turn to the east—the direction of dawning light—to accept Christ ."

--------- why does that remind me of this?

Ezekiel chapter 8

12: Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.
13: He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.
14: Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
15: Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these .
16: And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east .

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
[QB] C.S,

Carson are you trying to say that Jesus was referring to something other than the promise of Heaven to the thief?

What did Jesus say?

"Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Lk 23:43)

Where did Jesus go that day? Where was Paradise for the just on the day of Good Friday?

My friend I hope you are not claiming that the theif was not headed for heaven? Now I would like for you to think about one thing here, do you not feel handicapped by having to recite exactly what your "church" has told you to say. As for me I feel that I am truly blessed for being able to think on my own and not to work from a script written by men robed in red but rather to be able to speak from words written by one whose blood ran red for you and me.

What about Cornelious when Peter went to his house and many received the HS without being baptised in water.

God has bound his action to the sacraments, but God himself is not bound to the sacraments. "The wind blows where it wills" (John 3:8).

Charismatic gifts are distinct from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul, which alone brings about our salvation and sanctity. I've seen unrepentant sinners who knew that they were without the grace of Christ receive and experience charismatic gifts, and it was those charismatic gifts that lead them to conversion and subsequent faith in Christ.

So are you disclaiming their conversion experience or does the church tell you to say that they were only saved when they were later baptised?


Excuse me, Pastor Murphy, but I believe Jesus made the ritual!

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks DAMNATION upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor 11)

Now Carson I know who originated the ritual I should clarify my words to say that man has misused and abused the beautiful symbol which Christ has left for us to observe. To line up little children and pretend to feed them God sounds to me like someone was on a power trip. Is this supreme rule over the lives of your church brethren possibly what has empowered and enabled the great pedophile priest movement?
Murph

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi C.S,

My friend I hope you are not claiming that the theif was not headed for heaven?

My brother, rest assured, I do think the good thief went to heaven. The ultimate question, which you have skipped around, is where Jesus went "today". Was it heaven?

do you not feel handicapped by having to recite exactly what your "church" has told you to say.

Church's Church has neither handicapped nor hindered my freedom of thought any more than Peter, Paul, John, and Jude handicapped their congregations when they taught the divine revelation handed to them once for all (See Jude 3). Unless, of course, you feel like divine revelation isn't binding upon your conscience as a man who professes Jesus Christ!

Dogma paves the path for freedom! Only when I know infallibly that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man through right interpretation of the Scriptures by an Apostolic Authority (compare the Jehovah's Witnesses, Neo-Arians, Christadelphians, and Latter-Day Saints as well as numerous individual Protestants who deny orthodox Christology) can I then develop a detailed High or Low Christology without falling into heresies such as Arianism, Ebionism, Apollinarianism, Monophysitism, and Nestorianism.

So are you disclaiming their conversion experience or does the church tell you to say that they were only saved when they were later baptised?

Why would I need to disclaim their conversion experience? Does conversion equal the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? This requries a distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace. Actual grace moves us to repent, but it isn't God's life indwelling our very souls. It is in baptism, the sacrament of faith and conversion, that we receive the new life of the Spirit.

As Peter preached in his first catechesis:

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

man has misused and abused the beautiful symbol which Christ has left for us to observe.

Go to a Catholic Mass, my brother, and write down exactly what the pastor recites during the Eucharistic Liturgy and compare the words of the liturgy to the words of Institution recorded by the Synoptics and Brother Paul. You'll find an identical match!

Do you teach your congregation, following Paul, that if when they receive the bread, that if they don't rightly judge the body, they will bring damnation upon themselves?

To line up little children and pretend to feed them God sounds to me like someone was on a power trip.

Your argument isn't with I, nor any other Catholic, nor any Coptic Orthodox, nor any Russian Orthodox, nor any Synodal, nor any Jacobite, nor any Syrian Orthodox, nor any Byzantine Orthodox, nor any Ukranian Orthodox, nor any Greek Orthodox.

Your argument is with Jesus of Nazareth, who said, "This is my body" and with Paul who said, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

And, accordingly, if your Christology is orthodox, you confess that Christ's body is hypostatically united to his divinity.

Is this supreme rule over the lives of your church brethren possibly what has empowered and enabled the great pedophile priest movement?

Changing the subject to a whole other can of worms, which I'm sure you have very little knowledge of (this is common among non-Catholics who try to use the media's propaganda in changing the subject away from doctrine to muddle issues)?

There is less likelihood that a Catholic priest will be a pedophile (0.3 %) than a married man (3 to 8%).

This statistic comes from the best and most current study of this issue, Pedophiles and Priests by Philip Jenkins, a non-Catholic (Oxford University Press, 1996). Jenkins shows that true pedophilia, that is, sexual contact between an adult and pre-pubescent child, is very rare in the Catholic priesthood. Jenkins also explains how the media artificially exaggerates these numbers in their reporting.

The Christian Science Monitor recently pointed out that the majority of sexual-abuse allegations in America occur in Protestant churches. There are 3,500 sex-abuse allegations a year — roughly 70 a week in Protestant churches according to the Christian Ministry Resource Survey. Remember, these are churches where married clergy and volunteers predominate.

living in Christ,

Carson

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
[QB] Hi C.S,

My friend I hope you are not claiming that the theif was not headed for heaven?

My brother, rest assured, I do think the good thief went to heaven. The ultimate question, which you have skipped around, is where Jesus went "today". Was it heaven?


****Murph Carson what you are skipping is that the theif went to heaven so apparently your theory that salvation hinges on baptism is flawed.

So are you disclaiming their conversion experience or does the church tell you to say that they were only saved when they were later baptised?

Why would I need to disclaim their conversion experience? Does conversion equal the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? This requries a distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace.

**** Murph I don't think I am aware of multiple graces, Jesus told Paul that His grace is sufficent. I believe His grace is sufficent for all things and definately salvation. If you will recall the whole situation surrounding cornelious was set in motion by Christ so are you implying that when the Holy Spirit entered them that Christ was not also able to save to the uttermost those who believed.

It is in baptism, the sacrament of faith and conversion, that we receive the new life of the Spirit.

****Murph so Carson does the church teach that the HS entered them and then retreated and then returned at baptism?


Do you teach your congregation, following Paul, that if when they receive the bread, that if they don't rightly judge the body, they will bring damnation upon themselves?

**** Murph I am certain that I don't know enough about the Rc church but I was under teh impression that you believe you are actually ingesting the body of Christ, I believe you mentioned this above. The difference in what I teach and that is that we teach partaking of teh bread is a symbol of partaking of Christs body and blood.

Is this supreme rule over the lives of your church brethren possibly what has empowered and enabled the great pedophile priest movement?

Changing the subject to a whole other can of worms, which I'm sure you have very little knowledge of (this is common among non-Catholics who try to use the media's propaganda in changing the subject away from doctrine to muddle issues)?


****Murph Now brother I suppose you are correct that I did jump to a different subject but I do wonder if thie power trip has given rise to this horrible situation. Now I agree that the media is not always trustworthy but how many cases of priest child sex does it take for us to recognize a pattern.

There is less likelihood that a Catholic priest will be a pedophile (0.3 %) than a married man (3 to 8%).This statistic comes from the best and most current study of this issue, Pedophiles and Priests by Philip Jenkins, a non-Catholic (Oxford University Press, 1996).

****Murph I suppose this is why the newspapers are filled with Married men raping young boys.

Jenkins shows that true pedophilia, that is, sexual contact between an adult and pre-pubescent child, is very rare in the Catholic priesthood. Jenkins also explains how the media artificially exaggerates these numbers in their reporting.

****Murph I will have to take his word for it but to classify this as only pre-pubescent seems like a way to divide some of the multitude of cases of priestly rape amoung children. Is he possibly tring to say that priestly rape of those children who have already reached puberty is O.K.


The Christian Science Monitor recently pointed out that the majority of sexual-abuse allegations in America occur in Protestant churches. There are 3,500 sex-abuse allegations a year — roughly 70 a week in Protestant churches according to the Christian Ministry Resource Survey. Remember, these are churches where married clergy and volunteers predominate.

****Murph Now Carson that is funny

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Chrissy:
[QB] C.S. Murphy,

The Bible says "He that believeth AND IS BAPTISED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

So we shouldn't think that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. God TOLD YOU to believe, and He TOLD YOU to be baptised, didn't he?

... Why do you only want to do one of the things He has told you?

****Murph Thank you Chrissy now to your view that since the bible says to do it we must do it for salvation, what about Jesus telling us to "be ye therefore perfect" have you done that Chrissy? I have not but thankfully I don't have to because Christ has already done so. I feel baptism is very important and I feel that every committed christian should desire to follow Christ in baptism by submersion but I don't believe it is a componant of salvation. Paul told the jailor in acts 16 to believe on the Lord and he would be saved. Then later that night he was baptized but the conversion had already occurred and this inspired him to follow Christ in baptism.

Now for the thief on the cross... Circumstances of course made it impossible for the thief to be baptised. God is not a legalist and He doesnt require us to do the impossible.

I dissagree because you have earlier quoted a passage on baptism that you portray as being without exception and now you say God will make an exception. I could possibly agree with this except that according to you and Carson salvation occurs only at baptism so the theif could not have been saved.

Why would you think that if Jesus told you to do something, it's alright to just disregard what He said and say "I believe"? You believe what? If you really believe in Jesus you will do what He tells you to do. Heb:5:9: ...He (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" .Jesus isnt the author of salvation to all who say "I believe" and disobey Him.

***Murphy Once again I call attention to " be ye therefore perfect" The whole issue really revolves around is Jesus able to save and keep those who He has saved or are we dependant on some good deeds or correct steps.

So does this mean we wont have remission of sins if we are not baptised? Sounds that way to me! Will our sins be blotted out if we arent? No.
Lk:6:46: And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

****Murph I was saved on Sunday night Nov 18th but wasn't baptised until two weeks later now if I had died on the 19th would I have went to heaven? Yes and not because you say God makes exceptions but because when I repented of my sins and called upon Him for salvation He saved me and filled me with the HS as His earnest money. Then at my baptism I made a statement to all present that I had followed Christ in watery baptism.


Acts 22:16 "Why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16 do we answer, NO I DONT THINK IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE "I Believe!"

I dont think this idea would go over real well with God, do you? really?

***Murph You misunderstand I have never said it was not important only that it is not essential to salvation. Concerning tarrying if your church believes as you do, do they immediately baptise anyone who accepts Christ so they won't slip thru teh net incase they were to die?


Jn:14:21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

If you DO WHAT HE SAYS it shows you love Him and you will be loved of His Father.

****Murph Once again Be ye therefore perfect.

Although with all of this in mind, still, Baptism itself cannot change the heart of man. it is a symbol of that change. A man may go down into the water and come up a wet sinner with no repentance. It cannot change or regenerate anyone.

****Murph AMEN finally we agree!!!!

It is the Holy Spirit that changes us. But the Bible says we must be born of the Spirit and of water. Also, Baptism does not guarantee salvation. Salvation only comes as a free gift from Jesus Christ when one experiences the new birth. But baptism is symbolic of a true conversion and unless conversion precedes baptism, the ceremony is meaningless.

****Murph Once again amen except for the water and blood theory. Jesus said to Nicodemus " ye must be born again" Born of the spirit is ofcourse the new birth but In my view born of water is speaking of the natural birth as when the water breaks just prior to birth.

 

[Carson Weber]

C.S.,

Carson what you are skipping is that the theif went to heaven so apparently your theory that salvation hinges on baptism is flawed.

If I believed salvation hinged on water baptism, then I would have to deny that all the saints enumerated in Hebrews 11 were not saved; I would also have to deny that the Good Thief was saved. Accordingly, I do not believe that salvation hinges upon water baptism.

All men who are saved are saved by Christ. As I've said, God has promised us salvation in the sacraments (sacramentum = oath; the word is borrowed from the oath that the Roman soldiers had to swear in entering the Roman military), but God is not bound to his sacraments. He can save those who have not been baptized, even though they are without the sacrament.

How can you enter into a Covenant without swearing an oath? It is our baptism by which we enter the New Covenant in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I don't think I am aware of multiple graces

Take, for instance, the charism of tongues. Does tongues equal sanctity? If I speak in tongues and have not love, am I holier than the one who loves as Christ loved us? I should hope not!

And are tongues a grace? Yes! Is the Holiness of the Spirit a grace? Yes! One is actual and one is sanctifying. One moves me; the other indwells me.

If you will recall the whole situation surrounding cornelious was set in motion by Christ so are you implying that when the Holy Spirit entered them that Christ was not also able to save to the uttermost those who believed.

Christ may have chosen to give the indwelling of the Spirit before they were baptized along with the charismatic gifts. Or, Christ may have chosen to the charismatic gift of tongues given to Cornelius before He gave the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by the normal, ordinary means: in their water baptism.

We receive the indwelling of the Spirit in the same way that Christ was anointed; in his baptism in the Jordan, when the Holy Spirit descended upon him and the Father declared Jesus his beloved Son with whom he is well pleased. As well, in our baptism, we are given the Spirit of adoption, and so the Father looks upon us, who have received the righteousness of God in Christ, and declares us his beloved children with whom he is well pleased.

so Carson does the church teach that the HS entered them and then retreated and then returned at baptism?

The Church does not have a definitive teaching on each passage of Scripture. I am free to interpret this passage as I choose, as long as it does not contradict other Bible passages or the faith that has been handed down once for all to the saints (See Jude 3).

I am certain that I don't know enough about the Rc church but I was under teh impression that you believe you are actually ingesting the body of Christ, I believe you mentioned this above.

Absolutely!

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks damnation upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor 11)

But, I am not digesting the accidents or form of Christ's body, but the substance of Christ's body. The reality of Christ's body remains veiled in the sacrament because the accidents or form of the bread does not change. I confess transubstantiation, not transformation.

The difference in what I teach and that is that we teach partaking of teh bread is a symbol of partaking of Christs body and blood.

And how can a symbol bring damnation upon you if you do not discern the body? Pray tell, how does Paul's statement make any sense to you?

how many cases of priest child sex does it take for us to recognize a pattern.

Again, I will reiterate that you do not know what you are talking about.

There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men. The use and abuse of children as objects for the sexual gratification of adults is epidemic in all classes, professions, religions, and ethnic communities across the globe, as figures on child pornography, incest, and child prostitution make abundantly clear. Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.

Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia -- homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent -- comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).

In the wake of the current crisis in the Church, other religious denominations and non-religious institutions have admitted to having similar problems with both pedophilia and ephebophilia among the ranks of their clergy. There's no evidence that Catholic prelates are more likely to be pedophiles than Protestant ministers, Jewish leaders, physicians, or any other institution in which adults are in a position of authority and power over children.

your brother,

Carson

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I do not believe that salvation hinges upon water baptism.


How can you enter into a Covenant without swearing an oath? It is our baptism by which we enter the New Covenant in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

***Murph*** Now Carson which is it either you don't think baptism is the hinge of ones salvation or you believe that we cannot enter the new covenmant without it.


And are tongues a grace? Yes! Is the Holiness of the Spirit a grace? Yes! One is actual and one is sanctifying. One moves me; the other indwells me.

****Murph*** The HS both moves and indwells me.

He gave the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by the normal, ordinary means: in their water baptism.

***Murph*** Funny how Jesus said God would give the Holy spirit to those who ask not those who get wet.13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Luke 11:13


I am certain that I don't know enough about the Rc church but I was under teh impression that you believe you are actually ingesting the body of Christ, I believe you mentioned this above.

Absolutely!


***Murph** for us it is a symbol of His body we don't believe we are actually eating a piece.


And how can a symbol bring damnation upon you if you do not discern the body? Pray tell, how does Paul's statement make any sense to you?

***Murphy*** I have no problem understanding that wrong response to a symbol can be just as important to God. When Moses held up the serpant in the wilderness the people were saved from the bite of the serpant and it was a picture of Christ so if God brings relief thru proper recognition of a symbol I am certain He could award punishment for failing to do so.

***Murph***how many cases of priest child sex does it take for us to recognize a pattern.[/b]

Again, I will reiterate that you do not know what you are talking about.

There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men. The use and abuse of children as objects for the sexual gratification of adults is epidemic in all classes, professions, religions, and ethnic communities across the globe, as figures on child pornography, incest, and child prostitution make abundantly clear. Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.

Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia -- homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent -- comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).

In the wake of the current crisis in the Church, other religious denominations and non-religious institutions have admitted to having similar problems with both pedophilia and ephebophilia among the ranks of their clergy. There's no evidence that Catholic prelates are more likely to be pedophiles than Protestant ministers, Jewish leaders, physicians, or any other institution in which adults are in a position of authority and power over children.

****Murph*** while I am not surprised at your defense of the priests I am amazed that you would go to such lengths to try and make their actions seem par for the course of adults. As to your persistance in not accepting them as pedophiles is it possible that many of the children have grown to teen age and young adulthood and are no longer classified the same as they were when the rapes began?

Murph

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi C.S.,

Now Carson which is it either you don't think baptism is the hinge of ones salvation or you believe that we cannot enter the new covenmant without it.

Everyone can be saved only through the New Covenant (including those saints enumerated in Hebrews 11), and as Catholics, we recognize that the normal way to enter the New Covenant is through water baptism because in order to enter into a covenant, you must enter through an oath. We also recognize that there are irregular ways to enter the New Covenant. These are called "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood", as I have already mentioned.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. Whether this is by water, blood, or desire for the individual Christian, it is up to God alone to know. He gives us water baptism so that we may be assured of our entrance into the New Covenant.

The HS both moves and indwells me.

And I as well. Yet, the indwelling presence is a separate matter from his movement.

This can easily be demonstrated by viewing the sinner who is moved to repentence and resists the Holy Spirit:

"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you" (Acts 7:51).

The Holy Spirit moves without indwelling. It is the same with the charismatic gifts of the Spirit. Those who are not "saved" can receive charismatic gifts - gifts which are not dependent upon the indwelling presence of the Blessed Trinity in one's soul.

Funny how Jesus said God would give the Holy spirit to those who ask not those who get wet.

Why is that "funny"?

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

Notice that Jesus is speaking of the Father giving gifts (charisms) of the Holy Spirit to his children. One cannot be a child of God without having first been reborn by "water and Spirit" (Jn 3:5). This statement of Jesus presupposes that the children who are asking for the charisms (that is, gifts: hence, charismatic) are already children of God, that is, born again.

I'm not saying that unsaved people can't receive charismatic gifts. What I am doing is putting Jesus' statement in its rightful perspective, wherein it can't be misused for prooftexting.

for us it is a symbol of His body we don't believe we are actually eating a piece.

I understand very well what you believe. I believe the same, but more. The Eucharist is truly a symbol! The question is whether this symbol also conveys the reality of God's own inner life or whether it is merely a symbol.

St. Paul doesn't say that the bread is a symbol of Christ's body. He says that partaking of the cup and bread is a participation in the blood and body of Christ! That means that somehow the bread and the wine are our means of actually, really, and truly participating in the very real and substantial body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)

I have no problem understanding that wrong response to a symbol can be just as important to God.

I would suggest that a better understanding of the covenant is required in this matter.

Reception of the Eucharist is one's renewal by oath of their baptismal covenant with God the Father in Jesus Christ, the sacrificial victim. When one commits perjury by renewing their baptismal oath in partaking of the covenant sacrifice (sacramentum in English is "oath") in a desecrating fashion, one receives the curse of the covenant, which is condemnation or damnation:

"For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks damnation [krima] upon himself" (1 Cor 11:29).

This is perjury on a supernatural level.

while I am not surprised at your defense of the priests I am amazed that you would go to such lengths to try and make their actions seem par for the course of adults.

Instead of "not being surprised" and "being amazed", I encourage you to read and assimilate the facts I have handed you.

That's the honest thing to do Pastor M.

The dictionary defines a bigot as "one intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions" (Copyright 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary; emphasis mine). I'm not calling you a bigot. I abhor name-calling. What I am doing is showing you that the nature of a bigot is what both of us need to stray from. We need to look at facts and have those facts alter our perspectives from whimsical opinion.

The Lord bless you and keep you. May He show His face to you and have mercy. May He turn His countenance to you and give you peace. The Lord bless you!

Carson

[ March 01, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[BobRyan]

Carson

Everyone can be saved only through the New Covenant (including those saints enumerated in Hebrews 11), and as Catholics, we recognize that the normal way to enter the New Covenant is through water baptism because in order to enter into a covenant, you must enter through an oath. We also recognize that there are irregular ways to enter the New Covenant. These are called "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood", as I have already mentioned.[/b]

The RCC teaches that "the NEW COVENANT in my blood" is reference to the RC Mass ALONE and that NO non-Catholic is therefore saved by the NEW Covenant - but must be saved ANOTHER WAY.

You admit freely above - that in fact ALL must be saved by the New Covenant EVEN in the OT - since there IS NTHER WAY.

You are not far from the truth.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Carson Weber]

The RCC teaches that "the NEW COVENANT in my blood" is reference to the RC Mass ALONE and that NO non-Catholic is therefore saved by the NEW Covenant - but must be saved ANOTHER WAY.

It is statements like the one above Bob that causes me not to respond to your posts. You don't listen, and you don't care for others' remarks. You tell Catholics what they believe, and you disregard what Catholics tell you. In fact, I'll bet you won't even listen to this post; you'll probably post some "rebuttal" with closed ears. *sigh* Goodnight brother.

 

[BobRyan]

Carson - reread your post above. you did not answer anything that I posted.

My point - that the New Covenant IS taken to be the Catholic Mass - "The New Covenant in My blood" by the RCC stands without objection by your own church.

I am simply ADDING a comment that YOU have now admitted to the Protestant view - that in fact the New Covenant is the ONLY way of salvation.

Both Dr Carrol of EWTN and the late Fr. Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest have quoted documents showing that the RCC DOES consider the New Covenant to be confined to the RC mass. Are you denying that?

This just isn't that hard. I am sure your professors will be glad to share this with you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
We also recognize that there are irregular ways to enter the New Covenant. These are called "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood", as I have already mentioned.

***Murph*** I thought the bible says there is ONE baptism.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. Whether this is by water, blood, or desire for the individual Christian, it is up to God alone to know. He gives us water baptism so that we may be assured of our entrance into the New Covenant.

****Murph*** But John says that we can know, sounds like one is trying to hain heaven by good works if they don't have assurance of their salvation.


Notice that Jesus is speaking of the Father giving gifts (charisms) of the Holy Spirit to his children. One cannot be a child of God without having first been reborn by "water and Spirit" (Jn 3:5). This statement of Jesus presupposes that the children who are asking for the charisms (that is, gifts: hence, charismatic) are already children of God, that is, born again.

***Murph*** First of all I dissagree that this verse is solely intended for the saved and I also dissagree with your view on born of water as being water baptism. When Jesus spoke these words to Nicodemus he was discussing being born again and I feel His reference to water was speaking of the natural birth and the birth water that breaks before delivery.

I'm not saying that unsaved people can't receive charismatic gifts. What I am doing is putting Jesus' statement in its rightful perspective, wherein it can't be misused for prooftexting.

***Murph are you claiming that I am doing so?


while I am not surprised at your defense of the priests I am amazed that you would go to such lengths to try and make their actions seem par for the course of adults.

Instead of "not being surprised" and "being amazed", I encourage you to read and assimilate the facts I have handed you.

That's the honest thing to do Pastor M.

***Murph I believe the honest thing is to accept facts and not try to make a defense for such a horrible act, I know you are not responsible
for the actions of a priest but why defend them adn try and paint all clergy into their corner.


The dictionary defines a bigot as "one intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions" (Copyright 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary; emphasis mine). I'm not calling you a bigot. I abhor name-calling. What I am doing is showing you that the nature of a bigot is what both of us need to stray from. We need to look at facts and have those facts alter our perspectives from whimsical opinion.

****Murphy Now I appreciate your self control sir but please don't give a definition of a reprobate and then say " I'm not calling you one"
If I must be a bigot for calling the priesthood on it's practice of raping children then I accept the title. Concerning looking at facts it is hard to do when some won't accept them even if documented in court records.
Murph

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi C.S.,

I thought the bible says there is ONE baptism.

It does. What does that mean in the context of the passage in which it appears?

But John says that we can know, sounds like one is trying to hain heaven by good works if they don't have assurance of their salvation.

From Crossing the Tiber, written by Stephen K. Ray, a Baptist convert to the Catholic faith and author of http://www.catholic-convert.com -

"I want to raise a question in regards to the great proof text 1 John 5:13 where John begins the Epilogue to his first epistle. It is often used as a verification that one ‘knows’ for sure they have eternal life. It is often asked of Catholics, ‘Do you know you are going to heaven, are you positive of eternal life?’ To which the Catholic usually stumbles around and looks foolish as the great proof text is clearly read. I would make two points: first, 1 John 5:13 begins the epilogue to the epistle and the intent of John’s letter was primarily to defend the true Faith against the heresies of the Gnostics who said one needed special knowledge (implying a knowledge the Christians did not have) to have eternal life. John is refuting the Gnostics and comforting the Christians that they did have the true knowledge and the true knowledge was the true and only way to eternal life. It was not meant as a proof text between those who hold eternal security and those who deny it. It had a higher purpose which had little to do with the question of eternal security or absolute knowledge and confidence of eternal life. This is born out in the second point I would like to make and that is the verse, as the epilogue, may very well be a summary of the preceding document. It should be noted that the conditional word ‘if’ is used 21 times in the preceding text and could very well be saying, ‘If you understand and abide by the conditions of this letter, if you love one another, if you avoid sin, if you believe in the Son, etc. etc., you may know that you have eternal life. It is probably meant to be a Moral Certainty of which the preceding pages gives you a yardstick to measure yourself by. John Stott says in his commentary The Epistles of John, ‘They (the recipients of John’s letter) had been unsettled by the false teachers and become unsure of their spiritual state. Throughout the epistle John has been giving them criteria (doctrinal, moral, social) by which to test themselves and others. His purpose was to establish their assurance.’ But at the same time, could they securely rest in their absolute assurance of salvation if their lives were not living up to the ‘criteria’ John gave them? One should be cautious in reading too much into a text without understanding its context, and the rest of Christian teaching."

I also dissagree with your view on born of water as being water baptism. When Jesus spoke these words to Nicodemus he was discussing being born again and I feel His reference to water was speaking of the natural birth and the birth water that breaks before delivery.

Pastor, You feel that his reference to water is not of Baptism but of fluids pertaining to the amniotic sac?

I don't know if you're aware of this, but not a single Christian writer within the first 1,500 years of Christianity advanced this idea. In fact, I have quotations from early Christian writers from every major geographic region throughout the early Church that interprets John 3:5 as referring to baptism.

Christ Himself is baptized in John 1:31-34 (also, Matthew 3:16). When He is baptized, the heavens are opened and the Holy Spirit descends upon Him in the form of a dove. Jesus didn’t need to be baptized. In fact, St. John the Baptist exclaimed that he needed to be baptized by Christ. (Matthew 3:14)

The Lord was baptized to show us the way of salvation (Luke 1:77), the way the heavens are opened to us, and the way Holy Spirit descends upon us.

In John 3:22, immediately after Christ’s "born again" discourse to Nicodemus, what does He do?

He and His disciples go out into the countryside and begin to baptize.

Here are the events in sequence:

1. Christ is baptized,

2. He gives the "how to be born again" discourse,

3. He baptizes the disciples and commissions them to go out and baptize.

4. The disciples of Christ are seen baptizing.

Clearly, in view of the context of these passages, Christ’s words in John 3 mean that water baptism is the way one is born again.

Saying that the "water" spoken of in John 3:5 is amniotic fluid goes way beyond stretching the context of this passage, "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5).

Jesus is clearly speaking of the event of water baptism, the effects of which were depicted for us in His own baptism: He went down into the water, the Holy Spirit descended on Him, the voice of the Father was heard saying, "This is My beloved Son, with Whom I am well pleased."

This my dear brother is the sacrament of baptism, this is how we become adopted sons and daughters in the Body of Christ, this is how we become brothers and sisters of our Savior Jesus Christ, and this is how we receive the free un-earned, un-merited gift of salvation.

I believe the honest thing is to accept facts and not try to make a defense for such a horrible act

Amen!

I know you are not responsible for the actions of a priest but why defend them adn try and paint all clergy into their corner.

I'm not defending the sin of any man. What I am doing is showing you that this particular scandalous sin you are using to attack my form of Christianity with is not specifically a "Catholic" phenomenon that is somehow tied to authority or celibacy.

Now I appreciate your self control sir but please don't give a definition of a reprobate

I did not give you the definition of a reprobate, but of a "bigot".

Will you assimilate the facts? Are you even listening to me?

God bless,

Carson

 

[BobRyan]

Carson
I did not give you the definition of a reprobate, but of a "bigot".

Will you assimilate the facts? Are you even listening to me?

hmm. A little something for everyone eh?

IF the RCC does NOT insist that the Catholic MASS IS the New Covenant such that it WILL allow that non-Catholic communion services ARE ALSO offering entrance into the New Covenant - I would like to hear it stated using the Term "New Covenant" as it is used when referring to the Catholic Mass.

So far - you have not shown that.

TEST Case:
Further - IF it WERE true that the RCC considered the non-Catholic communion service to BE THE NEW Covenant - there would be no problem in having an ecumenically spirited Catholic participate in a non-Catholic commion INSTEAD of Catholic MASS - on any Sunday of their choosing.

Problem Defined:
The RCC states that the "problem" is that there is NO entrace into the New Covenant OUTSIDE of the Catholic Mass - and the non-Catholic communions DO NOT constitute the New Covenant in any form. RATHER another "non-New-Covenant" avenue of salvation is needed for those seeking it OUTSIDE the Catholic MASS.

So far - nothing has been stated here to show that the RCC views the New Covenant to be found OUTSIDE the Catholic MASS although it DOES admit to salvation outside of the Catholic Mass.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
[QB] Hi C.S.,

I thought the bible says there is ONE baptism.

It does. What does that mean in the context of the passage in which it appears?

***Murph you are the one who says there are multiple baptisms i just raised the question that I felt it wasn't biblical.

But John says that we can know, sounds like one is trying to gain heaven by good works if they don't have assurance of their salvation.

From Crossing the Tiber, written by Stephen K. Ray, a Baptist convert to the Catholic faith and author of http://www.catholic-convert.com -

But at the same time, could they securely rest in their absolute assurance of salvation if their lives were not living up to the ‘criteria’ John gave them? One should be cautious in reading too much into a text without understanding its context, and the rest of Christian teaching."

***MUrph Sounds like a works based(catholic)doctrine to me.

Clearly, in view of the context of these passages, Christ’s words in John 3 mean that water baptism is the way one is born again.

***Murph Not so clearly to some but if you are content with it then so be it.

I know you are not responsible for the actions of a priest but why defend them adn try and paint all clergy into their corner.

I'm not defending the sin of any man. What I am doing is showing you that this particular scandalous sin you are using to attack my form of Christianity with is not specifically a "Catholic" phenomenon that is somehow tied to authority or celibacy.

***Murph well stop defending them then.

Now I appreciate your self control sir but please don't give a definition of a reprobate

I did not give you the definition of a reprobate, but of a "bigot".

Will you assimilate the facts? Are you even listening to me?

***Murph yes I am listening to you that is why I didn't appreciate being called a bigot.
Murph