Are Catholics Born Again?

[jemfinch]

I tried responding twice and got kicked out. I think it was because of too long of a post

Yeah, the post length limit is annoying low here.

If the facts in my life have the explanation that you provide, there are several additional things I would must believe about my life that would be …er… very troubling.

Troubling for you, perhaps It’s always troubling when you look back and see that history may not have played out exactly as you remember it. I know – my (now) wife has been correcting my memory of history for years now, and it’s always disconcerting to be shown incorrect. But it definitely does happen.

• I would still have beens in my sins between November and May and had I died I would end up in hell.

I don’t see how that’s any more troubling than the fact that you were in your sins prior to November and yet you didn’t die. God is good, He’s not willing that any should perish, so He could have sustained and guarded your life between November and May just like He did between your birth and November. Where’s the trouble?

• The experience I had of being filled with the Holy Spirit was a sham and a counterfeit.

It’s a possibility, isn’t it?

• My testimony of saying I once was lost but had found Christ would have been a blatant lie. I would still have been in my sins.

It wouldn’t be blatant, because you didn’t think you were lying at the time. It’d be a matter of ignorance, not malice.

• God would have answered “No” when I asked him to forgive my sins

Throughout the Bible, God requires people to do things exactly as He requires they do it. Noah had to build the Ark to exact dimensions and out of a particular type of wood, he didn’t have an option otherwise. Moses had to say something to the rock instead of hitting it. The high priest had to cleanse himself appropriately in order to enter the holy place. Our God is a demanding God, a God who insists that His rules be followed and His requirements met. This didn’t suddenly change when Jesus died for our sins: indeed, Christ died for our sins because God is a demanding God, and it pleased Him to bruise Jesus.

In light of all this, why does it seem so troubling that God, who has shown us in Scripture, Apostolic Teaching, and the consistent preaching of the Church for 1500 years, might insist that you ask him for a good conscience through baptism, the one way He told us we could do that?

(and I would have difficulty squaring this with 1 John 1;9…if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John was writing to already-baptized Christians, not unbelievers. To take his words and apply them to unbelievers is to take them out of their direct, obvious context.

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

• God would have answered “No” when I asked Him to come into my life

Again, you’re presuming what you intend to prove. Your presumption here is that the Holy Spirit can’t work in the lives of people whose sins have not yet been forgiven, but this presumption is neither logical (for how would we ever repent if not moved by the Holy Spirit?) nor biblical.

(and I would have difficulty squaring this with Luke 11:13…if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.

And again we come to the issue of how a person is to ask God for the Holy Spirit. Certainly you wouldn’t expect God to hand out the Holy Spirit if someone asked with a spirit of deservedness, would you? “God, give me the Holy Spirit because I’m good and I deserve it.” If God chose not to answer a request of that sort, I don’t think anyone here would object. Even parents require their children to say “please”

You didn’t know it at the time, and most (not all) Protestants deny it these days, but God has shown us in the Bible how we are to ask for the forgiveness of sins and how we are to ask to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “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.” Baptism is the way God tells us to ask Him for the Holy Spirit.

When you said “God, please give me the Holy Spirit” in prayer, I’m certain you weren’t aware that you were asking God in a way He didn’t say you or anyone else could ask. You were saying, basically, “God, I decide how I’m going to ask for your Holy Spirit, and my decision is that I’m going to ask through prayer.” Is it so unreasonable an idea to think that God had mercy on you in your ignorance and ignored your unintentional insult, but continued to pour His grace upon you until you asked Him in the way He decided you should ask Him?

Again, I’m not arguing about the exact point at which you receive the Holy Spirit. I’m just saying that it’s not unreasonable in the least to think that God said, “No, not yet – not untli you’ve asked properly, and I’ll continue to pour my grace into you until do ask Me properly.”

• Any change in my life would have been the result of self-effort only, and not because of the Holy Spirit working in my life upon receiving him…

Not at all! You’re setting up a false dichotomy here. You’re saying that the Holy Spirit can’t work in your life unless you receive Him. That’s false! The Holy Spirit works in the hearts of many people who haven’t yet received Him. That’s how we’re initially brought to salvation in the first place. Wasn’t the Holy Spirit at work in Peter when he walked on the water? Wasn’t the Holy Spirit at work in the disciples Jesus sent when they healed people? And yet these people hadn’t yet received the Holy Spirit: they didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until Christ breathed on them after His resurrection!

I would have to believe all of this simply because I changed my theology to believe that you are regenerated on the point of Baptism.

No, again, I’m not arguing about when your sins were forgiven or when you received the Holy Spirit. I’m merely trying to make the point that the evidence you claim supports your belief (your “knowledge” you would call it) of the exact time and place of your justification, doesn’t actually support your claim. There are other explanations that are at least as reasonable as the one you’re providing. Explanation that don’t deny the clear teaching of Scripture and the historical beliefs of 1500 years of good Christians.

Too Long Again…

 

[jemfinch]

If the Bible were absolutely clear on this point, that would be one thing.

You keep saying that, but have you ever considered that for 1500 years, the Bible was completely, absolutely clear on this point? Even now, not only Catholics, but Orthodox, and hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of Protestants from several denominations have read the Bible and found it absolutely clear on this point.

Have you considered the possibility that the only reason you don’t find the Bible absolutely clear on this point is because you’ve spent so much time (years, perhaps?) believing the same thing about this issue that you might have become a tad myopic on it?

Let me give an analogy. I have lazy eye (amblyopia). That means one of my eyes (my right) is much weaker than the other (my left ) This wouldn’t be so bad in itself – I’ve got 20/20 vision in my left and 20/40 in my irght – but what makes it bad is the way my brain compensates for my right eye’s weakness. My brain simply refuses images from my right eye when they’re in a field of vision covered by my left eye. This has a number of effects, not the least of which is that I have significantly diminished three-dimensional vision because I effectively have only one eye for all my forward vision; my brain only “listens” to my right eye for that small part of its peripheral vision that my left eye can’t see. When I was child, my right eye worked worse than my left, so my brain compensated by ignoring (name removed by moderator)ut from my right eye and focusing (no pun intended ) on (name removed by moderator)ut from my left eye.

Could this be what happened to your “spiritual vision”? Could it be that you’ve spent so much time thinking about theology in only one way, from only one perspective, that you can no longer see it the other way, even if the other way is absolutely clear to the vast majority of Christians in the world today and throughout history? Could you have developed “spiritual lazy eye” such that the Bible is absolutely clear on this point and you just can’t see it because you’ve looked at it through the lens of your denomination for so long?

However, the Bible at best is ambiguous on this issue.

Just because a small group of Christians has managed to come up with an interpretation that seems to muddy the waters doesn’t mean the Bible is ambiguous on this issue.

Jeremy

 

[Zooey]

Zooey…

It is obvious that any future dialog beween the two of us will end in fruitlessness.

Hope still springs eternal here…that I might be able to break past the wall of prejudice, & persude you to find out what is true & what is fables.

I had concluded my arguments with John_Henry and fully intended to stop posting on this thread, but your comments showed me that you still didn’t have a complete understanding of repentance.

Au contraire; sadly, it appears that you do not understand repentance…since you say opposite things about it in each post.

Although my discernment warned me not to proceed any discussion with anyone else on this thread, I thought I could help you by my last post.

(a) I’m sorry, but it was obvious from the start that you did not know what you were talking about, in re Catholic belief & practice. If you had, we might have been able to have a fruitful discussion. (Not every talk leads to changing someones mind; hence, the presence of many non-Catholics like myself on CAF).
(b) I can’t think of any kinder way to reply to your offer of “help”, than to say: You :nope: don’t have anything to sell that would “help” me.
I hope & pray that you find your way to a clearer understanding of other Christians before trying again to inteact with us.

I should not have posted anymore on the subject, I apologize for that.

I will not continue in any further discussion on this subject since I already gave my closing arguments… I will pray that you will be convinced, and that since the truth was given to you, the Word of God will not return unto Him void.

Convinced? I began this convinced, & so I remain, that the Wesleyan/Arminian understanding is correct, & that your understanding is, sadly, wrong. (My Catholic friends here have, on the other hand, a faith & a hope that is a delight to see; this is, as I often say, the best Christian site on the net.

Mozart-250, I thank God for your testimony, I love to hear about people being saved.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Mozart, I agree that you have given a beautiful account of your own coming to faith. Perhaps I should have given a felllow Wesleyan believer more support…But really, you know, you seemed to be doing very nicely on your own!! So I stuck with trying to unconfuse the confused…
Ah well…Nice try, but no cigar.

God bless all here.

 

[jemfinch]

Bear in mind I am not a Church history expert. My knowledge is very armchair level.

That makes two of us

In the book of Acts, all baptisms recorded were almost simultaneous at the point of initial conversion. (I thought that was a trend only, but looking back the trend is unaminous). Now I am sure that logistically it took some time for 3,000 souls to be baptized in Acts 2:31. Still the experience to the convert of Faith in Christ/Baptism was very likely one experience.

It’s not just that they’re tied together: it’s that baptism was an essential part of becoming a Christian. There are only two places I know of in Scripture where it talks about getting “into” Christ: Romans 6, where it says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life;” and Galatians 3, which says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” In both places, we see that the way to get into Christ is to be baptized. This is why the Church teaches that to be in the Church, to be within the Body of Christ, a person must be baptized. This is also another reason the Church teaches that justification occurs at baptism: 2 Corinthians says, “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.” How do we get into Christ so that we may be said to be in Christ? We are baptized.

The deferred baptism I had would have been an anomaly back then.

Yes, it would have, to some degree. It’s worth noting though, that as early as the second century there was some delaying of baptism for catechesis; in the first recorded document on the liturgy (by whom, I can’t remember, though I’m guessing Justin Martyr), it’s noted that unbaptized people, even catechumens awaiting baptism, had to exit the gathering prior to the Eucharist.

They did not wait for the convert to be properly taught (or catechised). It was “Do you believe…yes…bang…you are baptized”. Read the Ethipian Eunuch (of course the Bible was not set in Maine during winter).

It’s also worth noting here that Philip did tell the Ethiopian Eunuch “the good news of Jesus”, which is about as much catechesis as they had at that early point in Church history.

(I wonder how the apostles would have handled cold climates. I wonder if they would have delayed baptism so I could be properly dunked or if they would have just poured warm water over me…eh my musings).

The Didache, which isn’t canonical, records that pouring or even sprinkling are allowed when running water cannot be found.

So the answer to that question becomes “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood”. In other words the martyr and the person with the premature death were forgiven their sins (and had the Holy Spirit) because as converts to Christ, they naturally would have desired baptism.

Yes; those extraordinary means of justification, whereas “Baptism of Water” is the ordinary means of justification. The sacraments were made for man, not for God; man is bound by them, but God is not. If man is to seek justification, he must seek it in the sacrament of baptism; if God is to give justification, He can do so however He chooses. But since God has told us to seek justification via baptism into Christ, the Church teaches that it is th ordinary means of receiving justification.

To you “Baptism of Desire” might look like a small loophole;

Not really; it’s just the difference between ordinary and extraordinary means of receiving grace.

Is it not an implicit acknowledgement that in the case of a deferred baptism you really receive the Holy Spirit and have your sins forgiven upon conversion.

It’s an acknowledgement that that’s possible. And I’m not arguing it’s impossible; I’m still only trying to show you that the evidence upon which you base your claim to knowledge of the exact moment at which your sins were forgiven doesn’t support your theology any more than it supports mine.

Jeremy

 

[mozart-250]

Have you considered the possibility that the only reason you don’t find the Bible absolutely clear on this point is because you’ve spent so much time (years, perhaps?) believing the same thing about this issue that you might have become a tad myopic on it?

I consider all the the time the possibility that I am myopic. That is one reason why I am here, to sanity check and challenge what I believe and adjust if necessary. If I always interact with clones of myself, how could that process take place (besides a gathering of exclusive absent minded professor types would be a nightmare) .

Of course you could be myopic also.

The reason why I say the Bible isn’t absolutely clear on the point…is…well because it isn’t. In the three “What shall I do” scriptures that I cited from the book of Acts one said “Repent and be Baptized”, a second said “Repent and Return”, a third said “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. That does not read clear and consistent to me, but then again I might be reading comprehension challenged (note: I agree with Catholics that the Bible is the inspired word of God…I am just making an observation that I hope anyone with 6th grade reading comprehension level would concur with (again unless I am the one challenged here))

I am still trying to figure out whether the differences here are nuanced or substantial (which is why I stuck my neck into the topic in the first place). I’m inclined to believe nuanced, but what do I know? If it is nuanced, I think I have thought of a better argument of your case for you that heretic Protestants like myself might find more credible.

An important part would be affirming my belief that I received the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins in November, not May, because really that is a non-negotiable with me. Other Catholics that I have interacted with on this issue have had absolutely no issue with my timelines.

Anyway, I think I probably have said my piece on the topic. Nice interacting and I have a couple things to mull over.

 

[jemfinch]

Unfortunately, my “piece” on the topic was prematurely cut off by a forum crash last night, so here comes the last piece (a response to your Scripture post):

I’ll make this short. Of course you quote Acts 2:38, Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And had I read all your posts before posting my responses, I might have been able to save a few characters

I have found three specific commands by the apostles in the book of Acts instructing their respective audience how to respond to the gospel message. The other two are:

• Acts 3:19. Peter again. Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the Lord (isn’t this repent and your sins will be forgiven)

This is a similar situation to Peter’s statement in 1 Peter 3. “Baptism now saves you.” Of course Baptism isn’t all that a person must do to be saved, otherwise Christians would just go around dunking people in water against their wills and filling the halls of heaven. But, whether for the sake of brevity or otherwise, “the whole story” isn’t told there: that belief is necessary, that good works are necessary, etc. Likewise with Acts 3:19: less than a chapter ago Peter was recorded as saying “Repent and be baptized…” Surely he’s just shortening his speech, not contradicting himself in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21, wouldn’t you say?

• Acts 16:31. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household

“…And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God.”

You stopped reading too early. It’s very clear (absolutely clear, I’d say ) that Paul continued preaching (“and they spoke the word of the Lord to him”) and told the jailer that he must be baptized. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the jailer have rejoiced at his initial belief? Why did he wait to rejoice until after his baptism?

There’s another hint in this passage, as well. Right after the jailer and his household is baptized, he rejoices with all his household “that he had believed in God.” I’m reminded of Jesus’ statement in John 3, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” Belief is contrasted, not with disbelief, but disobedience. To believe in Christ is to obey Christ, and to disobey Christ is to disbelieve him. That’s why the jailer didn’t rejoice until after he was baptized: his belief wasn’t real, it wasn’t complete until he’d obeyed Christ in baptism.

There is also an instance in the book of Acts (Acts 10:44-47) where the Holy Spirit fell upon the audience in the middle of the message before Peter even got to the part of instructing them what to do. Peter then figures out, how can we refuse the water for those who received the Holy Spirit as we did.

Again, I have no problem with extraordinary means.

Go figure. God pretty much does as He pleases.

Exactly.

That is His perogative, being deity.

Absolutely!

But it’s not our prerogative. Our responsibility isn’t to define new ways to ask God for justification or for the gift of the Holy Spirit, but instead to follow His directions. And His directions are clear: baptism is how we ask God for those things. If chooses to dispense His grace in other ways, amen! More power to Him (so to speak ). But if we mere men decide that we’re unhappy with the way He tells us to do things, we’d better have a change of attitude: we’re asserting a right we just plain don’t have.

I can point to Scripture after Scripture after Scripture that indicates that we are to be joined with Christ in baptism, forgiven of our sins in baptism, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and so on. You can’t point to a single one that says, “Say a prayer and receive these things.” Again, we’re not arguing about whether God can choose to dispense His grace differently. We’re arguing about whether man has the right to insist that He dispense His grace differently, or the evidence necessary to know that He has dispensed His grace extraordinarily in the past.

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

There might be others…the point being there is not one magic formula consistently recorded in Scripture.

So your response is to choose the one with the least biblical support and hope it’s right?

If it says in one place in the Bible, “Confess Christ and you’ll be saved,” and it says in another place in the Bible, “Be baptized into Christ and you’ll be saved,” you can very well bet I’m going to do both. And I’m certainly not going to teach others that one or the other is unnecessary for salvation.

I don’t think that either of us doubts that the apostolic message was consistent. I don’t think Peter’s sermons one day and Peter’s sermons another day contradicted each other. I think it’s far more likely that Peter’s sermon’s one day were recorded one way and Peter’s sermons another day were recorded differently, than that Peter’s theology actually changed substantially between those sermons. You seem to think that Acts 3:19 contradicts Acts 2:38, or otherwise clarifies it, but then you still have to deal with 1 Peter 3, where the very same person clarifies exactly what it is that baptism does: it saves us, by asking God for a clear conscience (i.e., forgiveness of our sins). It saves us like th ark saved Noah. I don’t think Peter could make his stance on baptism much clearer than that.

The second and third instances in Scripture do not mention baptism.

The third clearly indicates that Paul taught the jailer of the necessity of baptism, even if it doesn’t directly quote Paul saying it. And the second has good literary reasons for not emphasizing baptism, so we have to ask ourselves: is it, or is it not, the same Peter who, less than a chapter before, said “Repent and be baptized…for the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”?

Both sides can open their Bibles and with some degree of credibility anyway begin to make their cases.

When I open my Bible and make my case, I can pull verse after verse after verse that, alone, clearly makes my case for me. I can consider these verses in context and altogether and the case becomes even stronger. Not only that, but the case I’m making has been the belief of every orthodox Christian for 1500 years, and the belief held by the majority of Christians today, not to mention the belief held by every single Church with a valid apostolic succession, including the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself.

When you open your Bible, I know that you’re being nothing but sincere and truth seeking, but your verses are taken out of context and have presuppositions all over them. Your argument amounts to, “The Bible isn’t clear, so I can do whatever I want,” – but the doctrine you espouse simply isn’t found in Scripture. Not only that, but it’s a minority of Christians today who hold that doctrine and a vast minority in all of Christian history.

I won’t deny that you have “some degree of credibility.” I wouldn’t have typed tens of thousands of characters tonight if your argument wasn’t credible enough to warrant a response. But when it comes down to it, your argument, a theological novelty of the past few hundred years, simply can’t compete with the large corpus of clear Scripture passages I have to support the teaching of Catholic Church, and the huge corpus of historical writings affirming the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the vast majority of all Christians throughout history affirming the teaching of the Catholic Church. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your understanding of the ordinary means by which God justifies men.

(1) 1 John 1:9. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and rightous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrightousness

Written to Christians, and nothing about prayer is mentioned there; historically, it’s always been interpreted to refer to a vocal act of confession, not a prayer to God.

(2) The parable of the Pharasee and the Publican where the Publican went home forgiven while the Pharisee did not.

Not specifically focused on initial justification; the Catholic Church teaches, in fact, that post-baptismal forgiveness can be received by prayer (extraordinarily) as long as a commitment to go to confession to receive ordinary post-baptismal forgiveness is made. But that’s a story for another thread.

And this is off the top of my head. I’m quite sure there is more

Don’t forget that Jesus gave the apostles the authority and power to forgive and retain sins

(although I am beginning to get tired).

Lucky. That’s why I’m here I’ve got a new wife already asleep in bed but my mind was racing

(Final note: this was written last night, hence the anachronistic references to “tonight” and “beginning to get tired” )

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Of course you could be myopic also.

That’s true, and especially on this issue, since I was one of the minority of Protestants who believed in justification by baptism (though not in those particular theological terms) prior to my conversion to Catholicism several months ago.

But I still feel that you and I are saying fundamentally different things when it comes to this issue. It seems to me that I’m saying, “The Bible as a whole clearly teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation and is the ordinary point at which a person’s sins are washed away and the point at which he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.” It sounds to me like you’re saying, “The Bible is confusing on this matter, or at best ambiguous, so I’ll stick with my experience, or my denominational teaching.” When I bring up Bible verses, you don’t seem to have an interpretation of those verses that makes them consistent with your theology; you just give other verses that you say confuse the issue: but both you and I know that our theologies must be consistent with all of Scripture. For your theology to be at least remotely plausible, you can’t just counter the verses I give you with other verses: you must provide plausible explanations of why in the world Peter would say, “Baptism now saves you,” or “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” You need still to provide a plasible reason why Paul, even after believing, was told by Ananias, “Get up, be baptized, and wash your sins away.”

The reason why I say the Bible isn’t absolutely clear on the point…is…well because it isn’t. In the three “What shall I do” scriptures that I cited from the book of Acts one said “Repent and be Baptized”, a second said “Repent and Return”, a third said “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. That does not read clear and consistent to me, but then again I might be reading comprehension challenged

I wish I could’ve posted my last post last night so you wouldn’t have had to repeat yourself, but I’ll just let you reply to that post (the two above).

An important part would be affirming my belief that I received the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins in November, not May, because really that is a non-negotiable with me. Other Catholics that I have interacted with on this issue have had absolutely no issue with my timelines.

My primary issue with your timeline is that it’s not supported by Scriptural evidence or example. I’m not even arguing that your timeline is wrong: only that if it is right, it’s an extraordinary dispensation of God’s grace and should not be taken as normative, and certainly should not be preached as normal.

My secondary issue with your timeline is your claim to know when your sins were forgiven, since all the events that you’ve told me about could be entirely consistent with the ordinary Catholic timeline.

Nice interacting

You too, God bless

Jeremy

 

[SemperJase]

After reading this thread I see that you have brought more into this discussion than only baptism. You mentioned that “baptism is a work” implying that you reject works as part of salvation and that you believe in “faith alone”.

I wouldn’t say baptism is a work because it is a method of receiving grace (that is it is a work of God), but at the same time works are necessary for justification and as a matter of obedience. After all the only time the bible uses the term “faith alone” is when James tells us that man is not justified that way. As someone raised in a non-denominational “bible” church, I could never understand why we were taught to believe only what is in the bible, but then taught not to believe what the bible says about justification.

 

[Northwind]

This has been something that I have been re-thinking for myself for a long time now. I know that James mentions ‘faith alone’ but, the word ‘faith’ occurs ‘alone’ many times, as does ‘believe’. We have one instance of ‘faith alone’ but many instances of ‘faith/believe’ with no other qualifier such as baptize or works.

I can relate with Mozart on his salvation experiance. I was in the Air Force and know the day and hour I gave my life to Jesus. I spent the next several weeks with appointments to get baptized but something always came up. There is no doubt that during that time I had a distinct notion of what sin was and how it affected my life, something I never thought about before that night. I spent the next 4 years with the Navigators and immersed myself in bible study, discipleship and evangelization. I am Catholic today and there are still things I am working through, this being one of them.

 

[bibleapologist]

Amen! Northwind.

A word of advise… You know what Christ did in your life, you know you are saved (1 John 5:13). Do not let the philosophies of organized religion draw you away from Christ!

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[djrakowski]

Amen! Northwind.

A word of advise… You know what Christ did in your life, you know you are saved (1 John 5:13). Do not let the philosophies of organized religion draw you away from Christ!

“Organized religion” (in this case, the Catholic Church) is not synonymous with being drawn away from Christ. Don’t be so nasty.

Do you remember the conduct rules of these forums, specifically #7?

“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

Implying that Northwind has been drawn away from Christ by remaining Catholic is hardly respectful.

How would you react if I were to say the following in advice to Northwind about what you’re doing:

2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) - “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”