My Journey Into The Catholic Church

[Thinkingstuff]

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!

Not meaning to sound bad here either, but the main problem is that you've misapplied and misinterpret scripture based on a Man made tradition whether he is Calvin, Armenius, Luther, Wesley, and the many other thousands of denominations who all have their personal interpretation which of course others vehemently disagree. However studying history you will find that I hold to the view that has been consistently held over the 2,000 years of the faith.

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!

Not at all. Mormons were stated in the 1800 and came out of Protestantism as did the JW. Roman Catholicism Can be traced back to the begining. I can quote ECF who held the same teachings I espouse. Neither the Mormons nor JWs can do that. Also you must rely on your own perspective of what scripture teaches. And pray tell what do you do when you disagree with another protestant about what scriptures says? What authority do you appeal to? None. Thus you can only appeal to yourself and maybe your most recent pastor.

In the end you are no more adept at determining the proper interpretation of Scrpture than anyone else with an opinion. And here is the thing you can't say its has been the consistent teaching of Christians from the begining because if you read all the early christian writings they would disagree with you about baptism, covenants, justification, and so on and so forth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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?

Let me ask you a question in the same vein as you asked yours. Why do you need to read scripture? If you are saved by faith alone then you have faith for heaven. Throw out the bible! You don't need it!!!! Throw out prayer you don't need it! Why? Because you have faith alone. No need for Christian discipline! Why? Because you have faith alone. In fact following your logic. No need to work at not sinning. Why? Because you already have faith alone. So go ahead and sin because you have assurance of your salvation because you have faith!

Now is this what you really believe? I don't know about you but I need to constantly be in Christ. Constantly be surrounded by his grace so that I can move on in sanctity as I grow closer to him.

I want to live by and in the Holy Spirit. How about you?

 

[DHK]

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. Which it was assumed that Abraham would teach and develop his son's faith. We see this also reflected in Deut And the failing in Judges 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 Thus with the traditional view of Family commitments and the ancient view of Covenants Peter says 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.

That is all total nonsense.
First Christianity is not Judaism. Remember that on the Day of Pentecost it was 3,000 JEWS that were saved. They had to forsake Judaism to become Christians. Paul had to forsake Judaism to become a Christian. He was only a Jew in the flesh, that is he belonged to a nation, not a religion.

Baptism does not take the place of circumcision. Since salvation is by faith, how would baptism take place of circumcision for a female. By that logic no female could be saved. Salvation would be excluded for all females.

Baptism in the Scripture ALWAYS followed salvation by faith. There is no scriptural incident in the Bible where baptism preceded faith in the gospel.
There is no scriptural example where any infant was ever baptized. Neither of these events are in the Bible. They are man-made heretical doctrines.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is all total nonsense.
First Christianity is not Judaism. Remember that on the Day of Pentecost it was 3,000 JEWS that were saved. They had to forsake Judaism to become Christians. Paul had to forsake Judaism to become a Christian. He was only a Jew in the flesh, that is he belonged to a nation, not a religion.

Baptism does not take the place of circumcision. Since salvation is by faith, how would baptism take place of circumcision for a female. By that logic no female could be saved. Salvation would be excluded for all females.

Baptism in the Scripture ALWAYS followed salvation by faith. There is no scriptural incident in the Bible where baptism preceded faith in the gospel.
There is no scriptural example where any infant was ever baptized. Neither of these events are in the Bible. They are man-made heretical doctrines.

It is clear you fail to recognize that 1) Jesus was a Jew. 2) The OT and Judaism proceeds Christianity. 3) It is from the Jewish people and faith which Jesus comes to us. 4) Jesus teaches from a Jewish perspective. 5) Judaism is foundational to Christianity. 6) That the 3,000 Jews who converted did not consider themselves less Jewish rather they thought themselves more completed in that they had found their long awaited Jewish Messiah. As can be seen in scriptures as the Apostles continued in temple prayer even after Pentecost in Acts 3:1

One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.

and finally 7) It is out of Judaism that Christianity comes we even have their scriptures which we call the Old Testament. So in summary it is not "nonsense". You are close to what Marcion wanted to do. Throw out the OT and only keep selected writings from Paul. But the bible should be taken as a whole in which the OT shows forms and foreshadowing the New Covenant.

 

[Matt Black]

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."

First off, I haven't been able to find the bit in my Bible where Peter calls baptismal regeneration a 'damnable heresy'. Please direct me to chapter and verse. I have however found the bit where he teaches baptismal regeneration: I Peter 3:21. It's there in very plain English. Paul reinforces this in Gal 4:27 - baptism unites us with Christ and clothes us with Him.

 

[Matt Black]

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?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you are saved by faith alone; the Bible does say that you are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24-26). So your 'faith alone' doctrine is non-Biblical.

 

[Matt Black]

Baptismal regeneration denies that Jesus saves.

No it doesn't.

That is a damnable heresy.

Then Peter didn't get your memo. Guess my Bible teaches 'damnable heresies' then and I'd better ditch it. What would you want me to put in its place?

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.

I'm afraid you're the one who grossly misunderstands Scripture to the point of this becoming absurd and ridiculous. You have however got one bit right whether by accident or design I know not: Nicodemus would indeed have understood the reference to water in Jn 3:3-6 as referring to the Temple and Essenes' ritual cleansings (baptisms) to wash away their sins. This is echoed in I Jn 5:7-8 (with or without the controversial Trinitarian ellipsis). Water is water. Word is word. Water=/=word.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No it doesn't. Then Peter didn't get your memo. Guess my Bible teaches 'damnable heresies' then and I'd better ditch it. What would you want me to put in its place?
I'm afraid you're the one who grossly misunderstands Scripture to the point of this becoming absurd and ridiculous. You have however got one bit right whether by accident or design I know not: Nicodemus would indeed have understood the reference to water in Jn 3:3-6 as referring to the Temple and Essenes' ritual cleansings (baptisms) to wash away their sins. This is echoed in I Jn 5:7-8 (with or without the controversial Trinitarian ellipsis). Water is water. Word is word. Water=/=word.

That's a very good Point Matt. And I also wanted to Point out to Yeshua1 that even in Baptismal regeneration it is still Jesus who saves and not the water itself. Its just that baptism is the means by which Jesus chose to extend his grace but it must be done in faith.

 

[KJVRICH]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you are saved by faith alone; the Bible does say that you are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24-26). So your 'faith alone' doctrine is non-Biblical.

lets look at more of James chapter 2
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

to me the context of this is, that because we are saved by faith, we show that we have commited our life to Jesus Christ, being first saved by faith then helping the poor the hungry the naked...etc like we see in the gospel of Matthew 25:
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

we do good works because we are saved, not in order to be saved. To me these are not the same. The RCC teachs that sacraments are necessary to be saved, necessary for salvation. Again to me the context of James is that...ok you are saved now follow in the footsteps of Jesus, we dont say "We Believe" and then still have our old ways of living and doing things. this is just my opinion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

we do good works because we are saved, not in order to be saved. To me these are not the same. The RCC teachs that sacraments are necessary to be saved, necessary for salvation. Again to me the context of James is that...ok you are saved now follow in the footsteps of Jesus, we dont say "We Believe" and then still have our old ways of living and doing things. this is just my opinion.

So then using your language can I therefore say:"Since doing good works is a result of your salvation, are you therefore not saved if you are not doing good works?"

And if I can? Noting that the Catholic Church teaches that

Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. - 1991 CCC

What then is the difference? After all James says

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

the obvious answer of course is no.

 

[DHK]

No it doesn't. Then Peter didn't get your memo.

Peter did; perhaps you didn't. Look what Peter is speaking of: false teachers; false teachers who are teaching damnable heresies such as baptismal heresies which send people to hell because it is not the way of salvation.

Guess my Bible teaches 'damnable heresies' then and I'd better ditch it. What would you want me to put in its place?

Ditch the false doctrine that you believe and learn to rightly divide the word of truth.

I'm afraid you're the one who grossly misunderstands Scripture to the point of this becoming absurd and ridiculous. You have however got one bit right whether by accident or design I know not: Nicodemus would indeed have understood the reference to water in Jn 3:3-6 as referring to the Temple and Essenes' ritual cleansings (baptisms) to wash away their sins. This is echoed in I Jn 5:7-8 (with or without the controversial Trinitarian ellipsis). Water is water. Word is word. Water=/=word.

Water is used for cleansing. We agree on that.
But baptism is never symbolic as cleansing. That is where we disagree.
There are two things that baptism is symbolic of:
1. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
2. The believer's death to sin and his resurrection to a new life in Christ, as described in Romans 6:3,4.
This is why baptism always takes place after a person has actively put their faith in Christ. It is never administered to an infant in the Bible.
The very word baptidzo means immersion, the method that was always used in the early church.
It did not mean cleansing of sin, ever. Thus to coerce that meaning in John 3:5 is eisigeses and very biased. It does not fit. Water does mean something but it is not baptism.

As the Scripture I gave you points out it is the Word of God.
The text is speaking of the new birth, being born again.
There are two places in the Bible where we are commanded to be born again. Here, and in 1Pet.1:23.
Here it says one is born of water and of the Spirit.
In 1Pet.1:23 it says one is born again of the Word of God, making the water representative of the cleansing action of the Word of God.
Jesus said "You are clean through the Word that I have spoken unto you."

 

[Alive in Christ]

Sure coulda fooled me!!!

Me too. The Goddess is alive and well.

 

[Walter]

So then using your language can I therefore say:"Since doing good works is a result of your salvation, are you therefore not saved if you are not doing good works?"

And if I can? Noting that the Catholic Church teaches that What then is the difference? After all James says the obvious answer of course is no.

Some would object to your "that" in James 2:14. I understand the word 'that' was added in by translators because they assume it belongs there? I have noticed "that" has been the crux of many sola fide arguments.

 

[Walter]

Alive in Christ: Aren't you also the same board member that started a thread with a picture of a monstrance dipicting Mary as the ark of the Covenant -with the Eucharistic Host in the center of it- and you declaring that this was 'proof' Catholics 'worship' Mary? It was then pointed out that what was being worshipped was indeed Jesus Christ and not the Virgin Mary.

 

[DHK]

Some would object to your "that" in James 2:14. I understand the word 'that' was added in by translators because they assume it belongs there? I have noticed "that" has been the crux of many sola fide arguments.

Not really.
Here is the verse:

James 2:14 τι το οφελος αδελφοι μου εαν πιστιν λεγη τις εχειν εργα δε μη εχη μη δυναται η πιστις σωσαι αυτον

dunatai is the verb meaning "is possible" or could, might, etc.

"he" is a particular negative. It denotes not only a negative but a definite negative.

And then "pistis" is the word for faith.

Here is what Robertson says on this part of the verse:

Can that faith save him? (mê dunatai hê pistis sôsai auton;). Negative answer expected (mê). Effective aorist active infinitive sôsai (from sôzô). The article hê here is almost demonstrative in force as it is in origin, referring to the claim of faith without works just made.

Also Strong's lexicon says this just about the particular word "he"

μη me may a primary particle of qualified negation (whereas 3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverb) not, (conjunction) lest; also (as an interrogative implying a negative answer (whereas 3756 expects an affirmative one)) whether:—any but (that), X forbear, + God forbid, + lack, lest, neither, never, no (X wise in), none, nor, (can-)not, nothing, that not, un(-taken), without. Often used in compounds in substantially the same relations. See also 3362, 3363, 3364, 3372, 3373, 3375, 3378.
See Greek 3756

Note here, it is a primary particle, like a definite article. Our definite article in English is "the". Or at least that is what we usually use. Thus "the faith" or "that faith."

 

[Alive in Christ]

Walter...You posted...

Alive in Christ: Aren't you also the same board member that started a thread with a picture of a monstrance dipicting Mary as the ark of the Covenant -with the Eucharistic Host in the center of it- and you declaring that this was 'proof' Catholics 'worship' Mary? It was then pointed out that what was being worshipped was indeed Jesus Christ and not the Virgin Mary.

If it was in the last month or so it wasnt me as I have not been online during that time.

If it was before that time it *might* have been me, as I concider it my responsability to expose the great errors and blasphemies of the false church of Rome.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Baptismal regeneration is a harmful doctrine. It makes people trust in something besides their faith for spiritual rebirth. Plus, to tie spiritual rebirth to an outward ritual gives rise to all kinds of false and superstitious doctrines and practices, such as the washing away of original sin, and emergency baptisms.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Baptismal regeneration is a harmful doctrine. It makes people trust in something besides their faith for spiritual rebirth. Plus, to tie spiritual rebirth to an outward ritual gives rise to all kinds of false and superstitious doctrines and practices, such as the washing away of original sin, and emergency baptisms.

This I completely agree with. Harmful & Extremely Dangerous to the soul. Only the Holy Spirit can eliminate original sin.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Polish easter traditions

Now talk about Rituals .... POLISH & EAST EUROPEAN Easters . The traditional blessing of the food. Brought to the Church at Easter (actually Saturday). You bring a basket of food. Blown Eggs are colored (sometimes with wax & geometrical designs) (takes a skill very rare these days), Bread-Paska, ham, etc. Poles & Slovaks take special pride in preparing a decorative basket with white linens or a lace napkin, decorated with sprigs of boxwood. Slovaks have a special affinity for the pussy willow --- guess its a spring thing. In fact, green budding twigs were believed to have magical powers. And again the plum Sliv Liqueur & the beer with Kielbasi & the potato salads.

As far as easter food & traditions are concerned ....I liked this branch of the family the best.:love2:

 

[Walter]

Now talk about Rituals .... POLISH & EAST EUROPEAN Easters . The traditional blessing of the food. Brought to the Church at Easter (actually Saturday). You bring a basket of food. Blown Eggs are colored (sometimes with wax & geometrical designs) (takes a skill very rare these days), Bread-Paska, ham, etc. Poles & Slovaks take special pride in preparing a decorative basket with white linens or a lace napkin, decorated with sprigs of boxwood. Slovaks have a special affinity for the pussy willow --- guess its a spring thing. In fact, green budding twigs were believed to have magical powers. And again the plum Sliv Liqueur & the beer with Kielbasi & the potato salads.

As far as easter food & traditions are concerned ....I liked this branch of the family the best.:love2:

YUUUUUMMMM!!! :applause: