My Journey Into The Catholic Church

[KJVRICH]

The two are not mutually exclusive. However, Catholicism does not teach that you can do works to make God owe you salvation rather we are being saved so that we can, in the strength of God's grace, do good works.

if a person does not participate in the sacraments of the RCC do they have salvation?

 

[KJVRICH]

The two are not mutually exclusive. However, Catholicism does not teach that you can do works to make God owe you salvation rather we are being saved so that we can, in the strength of God's grace, do good works.

if a person does not participate in the sacraments of the RCC, do they have salvation ?

 

[DHK]

The two are not mutually exclusive. However, Catholicism does not teach that you can do works to make God owe you salvation rather we are being saved so that we can, in the strength of God's grace, do good works.

If that were the bottom line there would be no infant baptism.
If that were the bottom line baptism would not be equated with the new birth, which is heresy.
If that were the bottom line then the Catholics would not be urged to "pray the rosary" in order to lessen the time for their loved ones to be in purgatory. (more works)
If that were the bottom line the Catholic religion would believe that the blood of Christ would be sufficient enough to cover all sins, to cleanse us from all our sins, making purgatory null and void.

There is much, much more.
But the RCC is a religion of works and not based on faith and grace.
This is evident to all who will examine it with an open and unbiased mind.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

if a person does not participate in the sacraments of the RCC, do they have salvation ?

To explain to you how the Catholic Church views the Sacraments so that you undersand it I must ask you a question because the two are related. If a person does not participate in devotions, prayer, or attend a church service, do they have salvation? You may say possibly. And so also I say it is so. It is possible. However, lack of participation (though not a proof) could be evidence that a person is not repentant or converted to God. Or how you would think of it in this manner and so you might say:"This is evidence that a person was never 'saved' to begin with." Where we would both agree lack of participation in these simple Christian disciplines may be evidence of a heart not turned towards God but not necissarily definatively so depending on the circumstances.

The sacraments are means by which we open ourselves to God's grace and allow for him to work in our lives. So you question sounds to me like this: Are you saved if you don't allow God's grace to work in your life?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If that were the bottom line there would be no infant baptism.

Not true. Infant baptism is the sign of the New Covenant equating baptism with Circumcision as Paul does in Colosians 2: 11-12

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

which that New Covenant is applied to believes extending to their faimilies as Peter said in Acts 2:38-39

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself

If that were the bottom line baptism would not be equated with the new birth, which is heresy

Not heresy at all but the direct teaching of Jesus himself.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Where water here is referrencing baptism. As we can see in Paul recounting his conversion experience where he said

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

If that were the bottom line then the Catholics would not be urged to "pray the rosary" in order to lessen the time for their loved ones to be in purgatory.

Calling Christians to prayer hardly makes it "worked based". And praying for the perfection of those who are saved is no different than you praying for the spiritual growth of one of your Church Members.

If that were the bottom line the Catholic religion would believe that the blood of Christ would be sufficient enough to cover all sins, to cleanse us from all our sins, making purgatory null and void

Again not true on two counts. 1) We believe the blood of Christ is sufficient to atone for our sins. And 2) purgatory isn't about atoning but about finishing our sanctification in Perfection or to properly order every aspect of our being. We believe in an ontological change whereas you hold to a covering over in which the person is still disordered. Luther's "snow covered dung" is insufficient as still under the snow is dung there is no ontological change in his view but rather a shell game which "hides" our disorder. Pergatory then finishes us in perfection as only perfection is allowed in heaven.

There is much, much more.

It is clear there is much, much more about Catholic thought which you don't know.

But the RCC is a religion of works and not based on faith and grace.

Which this statement proves my point so clearly.

This is evident to all who will examine it with an open and unbiased mind.

Which clearly you do not possess.

 

[KJVRICH]

To explain to you how the Catholic Church views the Sacraments so that you undersand it I must ask you a question because the two are related. If a person does not participate in devotions, prayer, or attend a church service, do they have salvation? You may say possibly. And so also I say it is so. It is possible. However, lack of participation (though not a proof) could be evidence that a person is not repentant or converted to God. Or how you would think of it in this manner and so you might say:"This is evidence that a person was never 'saved' to begin with." Where we would both agree lack of participation in these simple Christian disciplines may be evidence of a heart not turned towards God but not necissarily definatively so depending on the circumstances.

The sacraments are means by which we open ourselves to God's grace and allow for him to work in our lives. So you question sounds to me like this: Are you saved if you don't allow God's grace to work in your life?

so if you need to open yourself up to God's grace through the sacraments, is that not a "save" yourself belief system? rather than
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

 

[DHK]

Not true. Infant baptism is the sign of the New Covenant equating baptism with Circumcision as Paul does in Colosians 2: 11-12 which that New Covenant is applied to believes extending to their faimilies as Peter said in Acts 2:38-39

I have spent the time looking this one up in your Catechism and verifying it in the documents of Vatican II. I can do it again if you wish.
Baptism = new birth. Look it up for yourself.
That is as heretical as one can get.
You know as well as I do that the RCC teaches baptismal regeneration which is, what Peter calls, a "damnable heresy."
It is a work, and not by grace, not through faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

so if you need to open yourself up to God's grace through the sacraments, is that not a "save" yourself belief system? rather than
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

I don't see how that follows. Let me ask you this question to make the point. In order to be saved do you need to believe? Do you not therefore allow yourself (or opened) to be convinced (by the grace of God) of the truth of the Gospel? Are you saying that being open to God working in our life is a "save yourself system"?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

To explain to you how the Catholic Church views the Sacraments so that you undersand it I must ask you a question because the two are related. If a person does not participate in devotions, prayer, or attend a church service, do they have salvation? You may say possibly. And so also I say it is so. It is possible. However, lack of participation (though not a proof) could be evidence that a person is not repentant or converted to God. Or how you would think of it in this manner and so you might say:"This is evidence that a person was never 'saved' to begin with." Where we would both agree lack of participation in these simple Christian disciplines may be evidence of a heart not turned towards God but not necissarily definatively so depending on the circumstances.

The sacraments are means by which we open ourselves to God's grace and allow for him to work in our lives. So you question sounds to me like this: Are you saved if you don't allow God's grace to work in your life?

Quakers and Salvation Army members see no need of Catholic sacraments or any other kind. So you think they're not saved?

 

[KJVRICH]

I don't see how that follows. Let me ask you this question to make the point. In order to be saved do you need to believe? Do you not therefore allow yourself (or opened) to be convinced (by the grace of God) of the truth of the Gospel? Are you saying that being open to God working in our life is a "save yourself system"?

I am saying, if your belief is that the performing of the sacraments are nessasary for salvation,(RCC teaching) that is a save yourself system, your are not excepting God's Gift. if for example it is your birthday and grandma puts $50 bucks in a card for you it is a gift.....but if there are strings attached...the $50 is yours for your birthday...if you cut the grass and wash the car first....that is really not a gift is it? the same thing in the RCC...faith in Jesus Christ....but also...baptisim...and confirmation...and confession (and do penance)....communion...etc... 8

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have spent the time looking this one up in your Catechism and verifying it in the documents of Vatican II. I can do it again if you wish.
Baptism = new birth. Look it up for yourself.
That is as heretical as one can get.
You know as well as I do that the RCC teaches baptismal regeneration which is, what Peter calls, a "damnable heresy."
It is a work, and not by grace, not through faith.

First of all I'm saying "Not true" to your statement which you said "if that were the end there would be no infant baptism." That is not true. And I'm also saying "not true" that the Catholic perspective of baptism is a heresy. And Certainly Peter did not call "Baptismal Regeneration" a "Damnable Heresy". Which is your invalid attempt to take scripture out of its context. What Peter did call "damnable heresies" are false teachings by people trying to subvert the christian Church. However, it wasn't applied to baptismal regeneration. If you look at that same Chapter Peter actually points out what damnable heresy he is talking about. 1) Deny Jesus

even denying the Master who bought them

2) teaching sensuality

And many will follow their sensuality

. So what does Peter actually say about baptismal regeneration? Well he's clear in 1 Pet 3

when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you

This is what the Catholic Church actually teaches about baptism

Baptism is the sacrament of faith. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60

60 Cf. Jn 3:5. Which I referenced earlier Ie.. Water and the Spirit

He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them... this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments...Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit...Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit. The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.

 

[Yeshua1]

The two are not mutually exclusive. However, Catholicism does not teach that you can do works to make God owe you salvation rather we are being saved so that we can, in the strength of God's grace, do good works.

Do you hold that we are fully and completely justified before God based upon the Cross of Christ, that the ONLY thing God requires to get saved is to receive Jesus by faith alone?

Not water baptism, not sacraments, that for one to get saved requires faith ALONE?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am saying, if your belief is that the performing of the sacraments are nessasary for salvation,(RCC teaching) that is a save yourself system, your are not excepting God's Gift.

I think I know where your problem is in understanding. But correct me if I am wrong. You think sacraments work like magic. They don't. If you don't first have faith the sacraments are useless. They are activities which are to no avail. Like the act of reading. The fact that one can read doesn't mean they will get saved. Now for those who have faith reading specifically the bible it is the very word of God. For those who have no faith the bible is just another book. Let me continue to use the bible as an example. The bible is the word of God. We are agreed about that I hope. God gave us his word freely. It is a gift. Yet, in order to assertain what the word of God is you must read it. Does that mean reading the bible is a work? No. However, all the great stuff in there is not available to me unless I read it. Now let me use your example

If for example it is your birthday and grandma puts $50 bucks in a card for you it is a gift.....but if there are strings attached

Misconseption here. Sacraments aren't "attached strings". I think of them as in your example spending that $50 bucks.

...the $50 is yours for your birthday

Yes and I can do with it what I want. But what good is the gift if you never use it?:

it is the gift of God

If that is the case then why not use it?

 

[Yeshua1]

First of all I'm saying "Not true" to your statement which you said "if that were the end there would be no infant baptism." That is not true. And I'm also saying "not true" that the Catholic perspective of baptism is a heresy. And Certainly Peter did not call "Baptismal Regeneration" a "Damnable Heresy". Which is your invalid attempt to take scripture out of its context. What Peter did call "damnable heresies" are false teachings by people trying to subvert the christian Church. However, it wasn't applied to baptismal regeneration. If you look at that same Chapter Peter actually points out what damnable heresy he is talking about. 1) Deny Jesus 2) teaching sensuality . So what does Peter actually say about baptismal regeneration? Well he's clear in 1 Pet 3
This is what the Catholic Church actually teaches about baptism

Peter did NOT teach that we receive remission for original or any other sin in water baptism, as he stated that ONLY pointed towards the One who did save us, Jesus!
.
The blood of jesus cleanses and washes away sin, NOT the water!

 

[DHK]

First of all I'm saying "Not true" to your statement which you said "if that were the end there would be no infant baptism." That is not true.

It is true. If salvation involves faith, as you previously said, then that would end it all. Infants are incapable of having faith. Are the Catholics so blind that they cannot see that? How much of the gospel can an infant understand so that he can also understand his necessity to be baptized? How much faith can he have to put in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which he now understands? That is so ludicrous. The Catholic Church fails on this one point alone. This is a religion of works and not of faith. Infant baptism is a work. There is no faith involved whatsoever. Infants are incapable of having faith in something they cannot understand.

And I'm also saying "not true" that the Catholic perspective of baptism is a heresy. And Certainly Peter did not call "Baptismal Regeneration" a "Damnable Heresy".

Peter called the teachings of the false teachers damnable heresies. He didn't have to list them all. He said that they came "making merchandise of the people." There is no greater religious organization than the RCC who has made merchandise of the people by selling indulgences, fake relics (enough wood from Jesus cross to build a cathedral), holy icons, etc.

Which is your invalid attempt to take scripture out of its context. What Peter did call "damnable heresies" are false teachings by people trying to subvert the christian Church.

And what do you think they do?

However, it wasn't applied to baptismal regeneration.

It can be seeing all the doctrines that baptismal regeneration affects.

If you look at that same Chapter Peter actually points out what damnable heresy he is talking about. 1) Deny Jesus 2) teaching sensuality . So what does Peter actually say about baptismal regeneration? Well he's clear in 1 Pet 3

Baptismal regeneration denies that Jesus saves. That is a damnable heresy.

This is what the Catholic Church actually teaches about baptism

Baptism is the sacrament of faith. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 Quote:
60 Cf. Jn 3:5. Which I referenced earlier Ie.. Water and the Spirit
He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them... this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."

See the last bolded part.
First, water does not equal baptism. That I have already pointed out. In Jesus explanation to Nicodemus the last thing that Nicodemus would be thinking of would be baptism. He was a ruler of the Jews, a teacher or rabbi. His mind would go to the OT or the Temple, both of which associate water with cleansing.
Psalm 119:9,11: Wherewithal shall a young man "cleanse" his way?
By taking heed thereto according to they word.

John 15:3 Your are "clean" through the word I have spoken unto you.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

The Scripture explicitly says that we are born again through the Word (water) and the Spirit. Those are the only two agencies by which a person is born again. Baptism has nothing to do with it. It is a contradiction of the word of God and only shows your misunderstanding of these Scriptures.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Do you hold that we are fully and completely justified before God based upon the Cross of Christ,

Depends on how you define terms. But it is Jesus Christ that Justifies me.

that the ONLY thing God requires to get saved is to receive Jesus by faith alone?

Well since this "faith alone" statement contradicts the bible

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

I would have a problem with this statement. Especially since it is the only place in the bible where the word faith and the word alone are mentioned together.

Not water baptism,

Jesus said

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God

and Peter said

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you

not sacraments

Jesus said

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you

that for one to get saved requires faith ALONE?

Jesus never said that. And in fact Jesus says

Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned

23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Peter did NOT teach that we receive remission for original or any other sin in water baptism, as he stated that ONLY pointed towards the One who did save us, Jesus!
.
The blood of jesus cleanses and washes away sin, NOT the water!

Don't take it up with me. Take it up with Peter. I'm just quoting him and this is what he said.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think I know where your problem is in understanding. But correct me if I am wrong. You think sacraments work like magic. They don't. If you don't first have faith the sacraments are useless. They are activities which are to no avail. Like the act of reading. The fact that one can read doesn't mean they will get saved. Now for those who have faith reading specifically the bible it is the very word of God. For those who have no faith the bible is just another book. Let me continue to use the bible as an example. The bible is the word of God. We are agreed about that I hope. God gave us his word freely. It is a gift. Yet, in order to assertain what the word of God is you must read it. Does that mean reading the bible is a work? No. However, all the great stuff in there is not available to me unless I read it. Now let me use your example

Misconseption here. Sacraments aren't "attached strings". I think of them as in your example spending that $50 bucks. Yes and I can do with it what I want. But what good is the gift if you never use it?: If that is the case then why not use it?

why do I need extra Grace, for omce I received jesus by faith alone, he gave me His JHoly spirit, so what will sacramnets do for me Jesus and the Spirit cannot do?

What scriptures even support additional sacramental gracings from god in the Bible?

 

[Yeshua1]

Not meaning to sound bad here, but the main problem is that you misapply and misinterprete the scriptures, for Rome views the Bible passages strictly thru the viewpoint of MUST teach what they hold, NOT what it actually teaches!

Reasoning with one really into Roamn theology much akin to Mormon/JW, as its what their church teaches period, and force the bible to say that!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is true. If salvation involves faith, as you previously said, then that would end it all. Infants are incapable of having faith.

You have been decieved by the American Culture of personal indpendence. The Poet had it right when he said no man is an Island unto themselves. Go back to Genesis. God created us in community with the family unit being the base level. Let me follow Paul using Abraham as an example. When God convented with Abraham what did he require of Abraham.

“I am God Almighty;[a] walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you..“As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised"

Which it was assumed that Abraham would teach and develop his son's faith. We see this also reflected in Deut

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise

And the failing in Judges

And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers. And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel

Yet this covenant of circumcision by Abraham's covenant with God wasn't just for Abraham but also for his children. 8 day olds don't have faith either but they were made to covenant despite the fact. And this covenant of circumcision is connected to the New Covenant in Baptism because Paul says

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism

Thus with the traditional view of Family commitments and the ancient view of Covenants Peter says

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children

With the same expectation that those adults who have faith would pass on their faith to their children who will themselves act in faith in the covenant passed on to them.