Mel Gibson, The Passion of Jesus Christ, and Baptists

[donnA]

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/paschal.html

 

[donnA]

The Sacraments are the salvation of those who use them rightly, and the damnation of those who misuse them. St. Augustine


Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the Sacrament of Baptism is able to exist not only within the Catholic Church but also among heretics [...] but outside the Catholic Church it cannot be of any profit; nay, just as within the Church salvation is conferred through the Sacrament of Baptism upon those who believe rightly, so too, outside the Catholic Church, ruin is heaped up for those who were baptised by the same Baptism if they do not return to the Church. For it is the unity as such of this ecclesiastical society that avails unto salvation, so that a man is not saved by Baptism if it were not given in that place where it is necessarily to be administered. St. Fulgentius

http://www.romancatholicism.org/sacramen.html

 

[donnA]

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."


And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

 

[donnA]

Baptisms are celebrated during the Sunday Eucharist. Since all sacraments are the actions of the Church making the salvation of Jesus present in a particular way, it is more than appropriate that the parish community be present for sacramental celebrations, especially Baptism

http://207.170.218.66/sacraments.htm

 

[donnA]

Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."520

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them....

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2E.HTM

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. the Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. the fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P33.HTM

 

[donnA]

From what I've seen from various cathoilic sites some believe all the sacraments are necessary for salvation,a nd some believe only the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. Either way, they believe in sacraments for salvation. None of these is Christ alone. But Christ plus.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
I am very aware that true faith is not blind. It is true, as you state, that the object of CHRISTIAN faith is Jesus Christ the Saviour. Therefore, the object of both Protestant and Catholic faith is the same. We are both Christians.

It has been my experience that very very few Catholics are saved, and the Catholic Church as a whole is not a Christian religion. The object of most Catholics' faith seems to be Mary, and not Christ. Consdider the rosary. There is more devotion given to Mary then to Christ. The object of your faith is not Christ alone. You have many saints that you pray to. The object of both Protestants and Catholics is not the same.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to get at when you say that other books attest to the crucifixion and then turn around and say that many men have written about the life of Christ using only the Bible. I'm sure both are true and that both can be done, but either way still requires a measure of faith based solely on the subject matter.

Faith is confidence based on the word of another. In this case faith is confidence based on the Word of God. If (in the context of the movie being discussed), there are scenes for which Mel Gibson's imagination is the only basis of fact, why should I put my faith blindly in Mel Gibson, when I can put my faith in the Bible instead. After all, as I have mentioned, neither history nor the Bible speaks of birds plucking out eyes of the thief railing on Jesus. Believing in such is simply blind faith--faith without a factual basis.

Also, teaching someone about the Lord by your perspective would seem difficult. Not everyone shares our faith that the Bible is true and flawless. Many would call the Bible itself a ridiculous mythological story to make us feel better about ourselves (I've heard it!). Still I fail to see what you are trying to get at.

You originally said: "You are asking for evidence that is impossible to give." To which I replied:
"Am I asking for evidence that is impossible to give? No."
All the evidence that I need of the life of Christ is in the Bible. That is my point. I don't need to add extras as I mentioned above. I don't have to make up stories as I go along, embellishing that which is not there.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BTW, you are just plain wrong about the Bible originally containing the Apocrypha. I have already been through that with the Catholics on another thread. There is no possible way that those books were ever contained in the early Bibles, seeing that they were rejected by Jews and early Christians alike. Even Josephus attests to the fact that they were not in the O.T. canon.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

This should clear that up for you.</font>[/QUOTE]That URL has so many inconsistencies and contraditions in it that it is amazing that the moderators allow it. It is simply Catholic revisionism. Think of it this way. The apocryphal books were written between 210 B.C. (Book of Sirach) and 70 A.D. (Baruch). The Jewish canon of Scripture had closed by 400 B.C. Even the council at Jamnia admits to that. Yet the Catholics would have us believe that books written as late as 70 A.D. (well after 70% or more of the New Testament was already completed) should now be added to the Old Testament. Amazing!

Josephus.....Let's consider the source for a moment.

1. He associated himself with the majority party of Pharisees. The man already seems fishy.

2. Was sent to persuade Galileans to join a revolt against Rome. This doesn't sound like a very godly trait to me. Whatever happened to giving God what is God's and giving Ceaser what is Ceaser's?

3. Characteristically blamed others for his failures. Hmmmmmm.....

Aaaah, let us do consider Josephus then for a minute.
1. His identification with the Pharisees makes this man "fishy?" You mean you call his character in question like the Judaizers called the Apostle Paul in question--he used to be a Pharisee too.
Guilty by association. That is a new one.
Josephus was an outstanding Jewish historian, who accurately recorded the events of his day. Do we dismiss him because he was Jewish. This is anti-semitism. His works serve to be some of the most outstanding works in history.

2. "This doesn't sound like a very godly trait to me. Whatever happened to giving God what is God's and giving Ceaser what is Ceaser's?"
--He is a Jewish historian. We don't claim that he is a Christian, or born again. An unsaved Jew is just as ungodly as an unsaved Muslim. They both need Christ. What is important is the history that he wrote which is very valuable to us today.

3. "Characteristically blamed others for his failures. Hmmmmmm....."
So again, you attack his character in order to attack his work. I think you have your homework cut out for you.

No, the above are examples of the power and providence of God. The Apocryphal books are not written like the rest of the Word of God with same reverence for God. They are written like stories made up by man, fairy tales; unlike the inspired history of God's chosen people.

I disagree.

But with no good reason. Some of the Apocryphal books, like Maccabees are historical; but others contain outright heresy and are used to justify Catholic doctrine such as purgatory. All the books were never accepted by the Jews, protestants, or early Christians. They have only been accepted by the Catholic Church.

I have read the "Biblical fairy tales" of the Apocrypha, and I have read the even bigger apocryphal fairy tales that Carson posted such as the Protoevengelium of James, which Carson considers to be Scripture. I know what I believe. I know what the Scripture is. It is the 66 books of the Bible which God has preserved for us today. The Catholics prefer to believe otherwise and choose to add to the Word of God. That is their prerogative, but it is wrong.
DHK

All the books were preserved. Luther felt the need to remove them because they didn't fit his religious views.

Yes, they were all preserved. So are the books of Milton, Shakespeare, Chaucer, and many others.
Beouwolf is preserved too. Do you consider it an inspired work? Part of the inspired canon of Scripture? It would fit right in there with Baruch.
Preserved does not mean inspired.
DHK

 

[frozencell]

It has been my experience that very very few Catholics are saved, and the Catholic Church as a whole is not a Christian religion. The object of most Catholics' faith seems to be Mary, and not Christ. Consdider the rosary. There is more devotion given to Mary then to Christ. The object of your faith is not Christ alone. You have many saints that you pray to. The object of both Protestants and Catholics is not the same.

And it has been my personal experience that a lot of Baptists have the "I know God and He knows me and that's good enough" mentality. But I am not acting on personal experience alone. I also questioned the rosary and was given a very concise and logical answer. The prayer to Mary direct our attention to Jesus Christ, just as her entire life did. Also, you have many people you ask to pray for you, don't you? Brothers? Sister? Friends? Other relatives? There is nothing unbiblical about asking someone to pray on your behalf. The object of and sole worship to anyone or anything in the Catholic religion is God.

Faith is confidence based on the word of another. In this case faith is confidence based on the Word of God. If (in the context of the movie being discussed), there are scenes for which Mel Gibson's imagination is the only basis of fact, why should I put my faith blindly in Mel Gibson, when I can put my faith in the Bible instead. After all, as I have mentioned, neither history nor the Bible speaks of birds plucking out eyes of the thief railing on Jesus. Believing in such is simply blind faith--faith without a factual basis.

Okay. But there is nothing unbiblical about putting something like that in the movie. As someone said earlier, extra-biblical is not anti-biblical. He was not adding to the teachings of Christ (which is what the whole "do not add or subtract" thing is referring to) and the act of this bird is not going to cause anyone to fall from their faith or prevent anyone from coming to know faith in Christ Jesus. Your salvation is not hinged on whether a bird ate someone's eyes, so why the big fuss? Life becomes very dull when you spend it picking apart trivial matters.

All the evidence that I need of the life of Christ is in the Bible. That is my point. I don't need to add extras as I mentioned above. I don't have to make up stories as I go along, embellishing that which is not there.

Then you must also be so staunchly against the original "Jesus" film, because if you didn't add something to make the movie longer then it would be maybe 5 minutes.

That URL has so many inconsistencies and contraditions in it that it is amazing that the moderators allow it. It is simply Catholic revisionism. Think of it this way. The apocryphal books were written between 210 B.C. (Book of Sirach) and 70 A.D. (Baruch). The Jewish canon of Scripture had closed by 400 B.C. Even the council at Jamnia admits to that. Yet the Catholics would have us believe that books written as late as 70 A.D. (well after 70% or more of the New Testament was already completed) should now be added to the Old Testament. Amazing!

I'm afraid these "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" you claim that is so much "revisionism" is only your own stubbornness in the Baptist way. If you will not accept any other references than what you have sitting on your own bookshelf then I'm afariad all I can do is pray that God illuminates the truth for you in a very profound way.

Aaaah, let us do consider Josephus then for a minute.

I am in no way anti-semitic.

But with no good reason. Some of the Apocryphal books, like Maccabees are historical; but others contain outright heresy and are used to justify Catholic doctrine such as purgatory. All the books were never accepted by the Jews, protestants, or early Christians. They have only been accepted by the Catholic Church.

The reason that Martin Luther threw out the books were because they didn't fit in to his religious views, especially purgatory. It's very convenient to get rid of those references because then all you have to do is hide behind the "It's not in the TRUE Bible" line. And have you ever stopepd to think that maybe the reason they sound so different is because you are not used to reading them??? I read the book of Wisdom several times and it sounds almost exactly the same as Proverbs to me! Hmmmm............

Yes, they were all preserved. So are the books of Milton, Shakespeare, Chaucer, and many others.
Beouwolf is preserved too. Do you consider it an inspired work? Part of the inspired canon of Scripture? It would fit right in there with Baruch.
Preserved does not mean inspired.
DHK

As I said about an earlier post similar to this one, it is unnecessary and baited.

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by DHK:
...It has been my experience that very very few Catholics are saved, and the Catholic Church as a whole is not a Christian religion. The object of most Catholics' faith seems to be Mary, and not Christ. Consdider the rosary. There is more devotion given to Mary then to Christ. The object of your faith is not Christ alone. You have many saints that you pray to. The object of both Protestants and Catholics is not the same...

DHK, with respect, you fail to understand Roman Catholic doctrine, teaching and practice. And you claim an omniscient power that only God has. How do you know the 'state' of a Roman Catholic's soul, and on what basis are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian religion?
You said, "consider the rosary." Okay, I will. But you obviously have not 'considered' it fairly. The Rosary points to Jesus. And 'praying to saints' is not WORSHIPPING them. It is asking them to pray for us here on earth. Yes, you could go 'straight to Jesus'. But then, when you're in 'trouble' why do you ask OTHERS to pray for you, when you could simply go 'straight to Jesus'? In my opinion, a 'Christian' could give his life to Christ, fall in to deep sin or apostasy, lose his salvation, yet all-the-while trust that he's still 'in' because of his adherence to 'once saved always saved'. THAT is a dangerous doctrine!!! I don't agree with every 'jot and tittle' that comes out of Rome, BUT, I find much-more to agree with than not. I'm afraid I probably couldn't say the same of you.

 

[A_Christian]

Jude:

All the problems that the "ROMAN" Catholic church has experienced has ALWAYS had at its root the IDOLATRY of CHURCH WORSHIP.

What I mean by that is the belief to be "right" with GOD, one must attend the "right " church.

The "right" church has ALL the "right" answers.
The "right" church holds all the "right" keys.
The "right" church is in perfect communion with GOD's will.
The "right" church has GOD's full endoursement.
The "right" church has the authority to manipulate.

The problem with all this is as you yourself demonstrate by your implication. When is a person SAVED and how does a person know if he lost his salvation? Many suppose that it is by attending the "RIGHT" church. This becomes circle reasoning and demonstrates my point.

A person who becomes an adopted child of GOD (which IS what salvation is) cannot be divorced
(and GOD does HATE divorce for that very reason). Divorce is TOTALLY contrary to what GOD teaches concerning his relationship to us. HE is committed FOREVER once we receive HIM.

THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF SAVED INDIVIDUALS WORSHIPING IN PAIRS OR MORE. THE CHURCH IS A LIVING ORGANISM OF ALL THE CHOSEN TOGETHER STILL ALIVE. There is no church in heaven. There is presently, only the souls of all individuals who were chosen of GOD before the foundations of the earth and have passed on BEFORE the "Catching Away". They will be united with a NEW body and will be raised from the dead and caught away FIRST. Then those still living will be caught away and their bodies will be changed in transit.

Salvation has NOTHING to do with MY WORKS. My rewards have EVERYTHING to do with WORKS. Salvation and Reward are two entirely different things; unfortunately, the some churches seem bent on their confusion. Again, this comes with church worship and selective "saint glorification".

The simple fact is, when I have seen the errors of my ways. When I give up being the one in charge of my destiny. When I realize that EVERYTHING I attempt on MY OWN abilities gets screwed-up. When I know where I'm heading without GOD and ask GOD to forgive me and direct me and save me by the atonement of Jesus Christ, GOD sends HIS HOLY SPIRIT to indwell me and takes EVERYTHING I've ever done or will do and apply it to HIS SON's account. THEN GOD begins a work THROUGH me. That work isn't finished until the day I die, and that work isn't under the control of any "church". It is personal---between GOD and ME.

This is where I see your mistake and error. Rest in the Lord Jesus Christ and not that of any church. You may lose your direction but not your Salvation. You may lose rewards but not your Salvation. You may attend a varity of churches but they cannot destroy what doesn't belong to them----your Salvation.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Jude:
DHK, with respect, you fail to understand Roman Catholic doctrine, teaching and practice. And you claim an omniscient power that only God has. How do you know the 'state' of a Roman Catholic's soul, and on what basis are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian religion?

I do not fail to understand the RC doctrine, teaching and practice. I was there, for 20 years--a Catholic. I spent countless hours praying to Mary. It is very much unlike a protestant or Baptist (that I am now) asking for someone else to pray for me. The analogy is ridiculous. It is apples and oranges. The Hail Mary is a prayer TO Mary, just as one prays to Christ. I was just as knowledgeable, if not more, than the average Catholic of my time. The fact is that most Catholics don't know the finer points of RC theology as is discussed on this board. They are not walking encyclopedias of their faith. I know this from my own experience with Catholics, as I go door to door and encounter many Catholics whom I talk to about Christ, and their faith. They no little of either. It is not a Christian religion. Any relgion that teaches that one must get to heaven by works and not by the grace of God, or the work of Christ is not Christian. They have paganized that which is Christian.

You said, "consider the rosary." Okay, I will. But you obviously have not 'considered' it fairly. The Rosary points to Jesus. And 'praying to saints' is not WORSHIPPING them. It is asking them to pray for us here on earth. Yes, you could go 'straight to Jesus'. But then, when you're in 'trouble' why do you ask OTHERS to pray for you, when you could simply go 'straight to Jesus'? In my opinion, a 'Christian' could give his life to Christ, fall in to deep sin or apostasy, lose his salvation, yet all-the-while trust that he's still 'in' because of his adherence to 'once saved always saved'. THAT is a dangerous doctrine!!! I don't agree with every 'jot and tittle' that comes out of Rome, BUT, I find much-more to agree with than not. I'm afraid I probably couldn't say the same of you.

I already addressed your point about prayer and the rosary. The Bible says that prayer (worship) belongs to God alone. The Catholics pray to (worship) Mary. Asking a friend to pray is not the same as praying to a friend or worshipping him. I don't worship anyone but God. Catholics worship Mary and other saints. That is necromancy and idolatry. It is praying to the dead.
And yes, when I am in trouble I go to the Lord in prayer. Who else would I go to? He is the first one that I go to. After that I may ask others to join with me in prayer. That is a far cry from praying to the dead and asking the dead to pray for you--a horrible thing that God condemns outright.
DHK

 

[neal4christ]

The Prophecy spoken of in Rev.22:18-19 begin in Genesis 3:15

I would enjoy hearing your support for this interpretation. To put your mind at ease, I do not agree with adding or taking away from God's Word, but I would not use the verse you used to base my argument on. Also, is Genesis 1:1-3:14 exempt somehow? A lot of adding and subtracting takes place there as well.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[neal4christ]

Now if some kind soul will point out to me where I "discussed" version in my post I will be very careful to avoid making the same mistake in the future

Charlie,

I did not accuse you of discussing versions. Please reread my post. You implied that somehow
Diane was discussing versions when you wrote:

I notice "NKJV" in your profile, shouldnt you in fairness to the rules delete this?

The rule you make reference to regards discussion (I assume from Diane's post). I was simply pointing out to you that she was not discussing anything by giving the version reference in her profile, so your suggestion to her was not reasonable. That is all.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[frozencell]

The "right" church has ALL the "right" answers.
The "right" church holds all the "right" keys.
The "right" church is in perfect communion with GOD's will.
The "right" church has GOD's full endoursement.

I'm glad to see that you understandw this. This is just a basic religious principle, execpt the last one where you seem to have jumped the tracks. I'm sure God has a "right" church with the "right" answers. And I stand by the fact that it is my church. If you really believed what you were saying you wouldn't have affiliated yourself with the Baptist church, or any other for that matter.

I do not fail to understand the RC doctrine, teaching and practice. I was there, for 20 years--a Catholic. I spent countless hours praying to Mary. It is very much unlike a protestant or Baptist (that I am now) asking for someone else to pray for me. The analogy is ridiculous. It is apples and oranges. The Hail Mary is a prayer TO Mary, just as one prays to Christ. I was just as knowledgeable, if not more, than the average Catholic of my time. The fact is that most Catholics don't know the finer points of RC theology as is discussed on this board. They are not walking encyclopedias of their faith. I know this from my own experience with Catholics, as I go door to door and encounter many Catholics whom I talk to about Christ, and their faith. They no little of either. It is not a Christian religion. Any relgion that teaches that one must get to heaven by works and not by the grace of God, or the work of Christ is not Christian. They have paganized that which is Christian.

Actually, I know quite a few Catholic encyclopedias. If you wish to step out of your comfort zone for a while, I would like to extend an invitation to visit phatmass.com. They also have an extensive apologetics section where I'm sure any questions that they can answer will be answered by this research.

I already addressed your point about prayer and the rosary. The Bible says that prayer (worship) belongs to God alone. The Catholics pray to (worship) Mary. Asking a friend to pray is not the same as praying to a friend or worshipping him. I don't worship anyone but God. Catholics worship Mary and other saints. That is necromancy and idolatry. It is praying to the dead.
And yes, when I am in trouble I go to the Lord in prayer. Who else would I go to? He is the first one that I go to. After that I may ask others to join with me in prayer. That is a far cry from praying to the dead and asking the dead to pray for you--a horrible thing that God condemns outright.

Pray - To make a fervent request or entreaty.

Worship - To honor and love as a deity.

No good Catholic with their head on straight would ever consider Mary a deity.

 

[Debby in Philly]

Originally posted by frozencell:
I also questioned the rosary and was given a very concise and logical answer. The prayer to Mary direct our attention to Jesus Christ, just as her entire life did. Also, you have many people you ask to pray for you, don't you? Brothers? Sister? Friends? Other relatives? There is nothing unbiblical about asking someone to pray on your behalf.

The folks we ask to pray for us aren't dead.

 

[A_Christian]

I affiliate myself with fellow saved individuals. Actually, while I've attended several "Baptist" church groups, I presently attend an Independent Fundamentalist church with no fear of reprisals from GOD. He led me to the church I attend.

My salvation doesn't depend on what church I attend nor the message of the minister.

 

[frozencell]

My salvation doesn't depend on what church I attend nor the message of the minister.

So why don't you go to a Mormon church sometimes, too, if the message being taught doesn't matter. I'm not sure Jesus totally agrees with you on this point.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
The folks we ask to pray for us aren't dead.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Was James telling a lie; or just ignorant about death? How do you explain this verse, and what is your defintion of death.

Mary is dead. The apostles are dead. When Saul prayed to Samuel he sought out the witch of Endor, who he thought could talk to the departed spirits of the dead. Dead people have no bodies and will not have bodies until the resurrection. Praying to the dead is necromancy--condemned in the Bible. This is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church. Understand very clearly: you pray to the dead: else what does dead mean??
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
Pray - To make a fervent request or entreaty.

Worship - To honor and love as a deity.

No good Catholic with their head on straight would ever consider Mary a deity.

I see you like taking definitions from a secular dictionary to support your position. The old dichotomy trick of giving prayer one definition when it fits your purposes, then another defintion when it fits your purposes--a trick well known. Why not get down to the basics of what worship and prayer really are by avoid using the secular and get your definitions from a Bible dictionary which you should have done in the first place:

Prayer: The most direct expression of the religious nature in its communion with God. From earliest times man has prayed and the race has never outgrown it. The Bible cites many examples (Genesis 4:26; 20:17; 25:21; Exodus 32:11). Prayer expresses the innate conviction of the soul of the personality of God. It is instinctive with man, but rationally grounded in the Word of God.

Analytical Bible Dictionary.

What is prayer? It is the most direct expression of the religious nature in its communion with God. In other words it is worship. Prayer and worship belong only to God. The Catholic Church practice both idolatry and necromany according to the Bible.
DHK

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by frozencell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My salvation doesn't depend on what church I attend nor the message of the minister.

So why don't you go to a Mormon church sometimes, too, if the message being taught doesn't matter. I'm not sure Jesus totally agrees with you on this point. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't go to a mormon church because they place their faith and trust in Moroni. They believe in salvation by works and particular church attendance (church idolatry). They consider the proclamations of their prophet to supersede the word of GOD (prophet worship). They place family life above everything (Ancestral worship).
They accept additional "revelation" as superior to the Word of GOD. They are a CULT. They are not of CHRIST.