Fundamentalism

[Cath.orProtes]

St.Eric:

show me where the bible says that being born again means all one has to do is accept Jesus as a “Personal Lord and Savior”.).

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. - ROMANS 10:9

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - ROMANS 10:13

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; - ACTS 3:19

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. - 2 CORINTHIANS 5:17

 

[Alfie]

Cath.orProtes.?:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. - ROMANS 10:9

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - ROMANS 10:13

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; - ACTS 3:19

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. - 2 CORINTHIANS 5:17

Amen… no need for purgatory. Our sins are as far away from us as the East is from the West.

 

[Cath.orProtes]

Alfie:

Amen… no need for purgatory. Our sins are as far away from us as the East is from the West.

Well on that note;

when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; - HEBREWS 1:3

 

[AquinasXVI]

Alfie:

So should death find us right now, do we have perfect ethos to enter Heaven and see God face to face in this instant? Or, do we like a wedding, prepare and ‘get dressed up’ for the occasion?

Purgatory is simply the ante room-to prepare ourselves and scrub off all imperfections in our soul prior to meeting HIM.

in XT.

 

[Robin]

George Waters:

You are right! Too many people do not do their own research, they just believe want they want to believe or what some one said without checking it out for themselves. I did my homework for years and by God’s grace He brought me home to His Church!

Peace,

George

I hear you George! Your story sounds exactly like mine, only I offered
God a challenge. “If you want me back in the Church than help me find my way back”- I done extensive and intensive study of my own. The first thing He lead me to was “Catholic Answers”.

Rob

 

[mastda]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. - JOHN 5:39

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. - ACTS 17:11-12

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 TIMOTHY 3:14-17

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. - ROMANS 15:4

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - 1 CORINTHIANS 2:9-16

Hey Cath.orProtes.?, This is so good that you can go to an anti catholic website, copy and paste these verses on a Catholic Website. You know why you did this because all your protestant anti-catholic websites and all your anti-catholic friends are convincing you that us Catholics do not read the bible and we do not know these above verses. So you think that by coming on this site you will give us some startling revelation and all of us will say “Wow, I didn’t know that! I have officially attended my last mass!”

Am I alone or are other Catholics on this forum just as bothered by protestants coming on this website quoting the same set of verses over and over again. I hope this does not come out wrong but I really would like to see an intelligent and innovative discussion thread on the Apologetics forum instead of the posts where anti-catholics just come on just to insult and ridicule us. Is there any way the moderators can just delete any posts that have any hateful anti-catholic undertones?

 

[Cath.orProtes]

(show me where the bible compells us to use private interpretation, show me where the bible says it is the sole rule of faith, and finally, show me where the bible says that being born again means all one has to do is accept Jesus as a “Personal Lord and Savior”.)

I am not sure why I am being attacked by mastda? I just registered today, reviewed this thread and answered the above.

Why so harsh? I have not attacked or ridiculed. My moniker is the question I posse to myself as I am a Catholic struggling with my church’s teaching. Your response is evident of the same response I have gotten from others when I pose the same questions. I receive no answers, just attacks. Hence, my tendency to leave the church. Are these scriptures in some way repetitive? I wouldn’t know. I guess that is what is bothering me, what those scriptures say.

Sorry if you took it as an attack. Thank you for the welcome.

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

Cath.orProtes.?:

I am not sure why I am being attacked by mastda? I just registered today, reviewed this thread and answered the above.

Why so harsh? I have not attacked or ridiculed. My moniker is the question I posse to myself as I am a Catholic struggling with my church’s teaching. Your response is evident of the same response I have gotten from others when I pose the same questions. I receive no answers, just attacks. Hence, my tendency to leave the church. Are these scriptures in some way repetitive? I wouldn’t know. I guess that is what is bothering me, what those scriptures say.

Sorry if you took it as an attack. Thank you for the welcome.

I think you should do some searches on these forums with those topics and passages, I can assure you that they’ve been discussed over and over again very thoroughly. the threads on them will hopefully help answer your questions very sufficiently…I think it can just frustrating to get the same “attacks” over and over again, even if they are not meant to be attacks at all.

 

[Thinkin_Leavin]

I have read those verses. In reading them they do raise some questions. I am told that I cannot understand their true meaning. It confuses me.

I have been taught allot of bad history regarding the Catholic Curch in my social class (yes it is a Catholic High School), this confuses me as well. Indulgences, the inquisition, the crusades, apparent inappropriate behavior by past popes (hundreds of years ago).

 

[mastda]

Cath.orProtes.?:

I am not sure why I am being attacked by mastda? I just registered today, reviewed this thread and answered the above.

Why so harsh? I have not attacked or ridiculed. My moniker is the question I posse to myself as I am a Catholic struggling with my church’s teaching. Your response is evident of the same response I have gotten from others when I pose the same questions. I receive no answers, just attacks. Hence, my tendency to leave the church. Are these scriptures in some way repetitive? I wouldn’t know. I guess that is what is bothering me, what those scriptures say.

Sorry if you took it as an attack. Thank you for the welcome.

I did not use the word attacked, you did. It just that you guys use all the same verses all the time. Why dont you guys go to the main Catholic Answers website www.catholic.com and research our beliefs first. Then after getting educated why we believe what we believe, you can come on these forums and intelligently question our beliefs. Most of us Catholics on this board are willing to engage in an **intelligent **discussion as it keeps us sharp and confirms why we are Catholics. Notice I bolded “intelligent” as not knowing our beliefs but putting them down is considered ignorant.

In regards to your refered to “attacks”, here is what you wrote in one of your first posts. You tell me who came on this forum attacking? I will put it in bold italics.

I guess one could say, “To be deep in The Lord Jesus Christ is to become a Protestant”.

Are any of you familiar with Johnm Schroeder? I would be interested in hearing if what he says is correct.

Here is a snippet of an email he wrote:

***One of the marks of a cult is a supreme leader who claims - but does not have - special powers and favor from God. A second mark is this leader’s absolute control over the teachings and doctrines followers must believe, even if the Bible says otherwise. At the AD 1870 First Vatican Council, Bishop Josip Strossmayer, in a speech acknowledged by the Catholic Encyclopedia as having taken place, exposed the papacy as an office created by men, not Jesus. ***

By the way, welcome to the forums.

 

[mastda]

Thinkin' Leavin:

I have read those verses. In reading them they do raise some questions. I am told that I cannot understand their true meaning. It confuses me.

I have been taught allot of bad history regarding the Catholic Curch in my social class (yes it is a Catholic High School), this confuses me as well. Indulgences, the inquisition, the crusades, apparent inappropriate behavior by past popes (hundreds of years ago).

I issued you a challenge above in post #138, did you think about it?

Also, who told you that you cannot understand the true meaning of those verses? I would be confused too.

I suspect from your posts that you are really thinking about leaving the Catholic Church, I hope not and I will be praying for you. Personally, I think questioning is great. Anything worthwhile should get questioned but if you are going to use past history of the Catholic Church as one of the reasons for leaving, I ask you to please look at the past history of the church you are joining.

 

[St.Eric]

Cath.orProtes.?:

I guess one could say, “To be deep in The Lord Jesus Christ is to become a Protestant”…

What appears to you to be Catholic “bashing” is, in reality, aggressive “witnessing” in the hope of shaking Roman Catholics out of the complacency that prevents them from comparing Catholic doctrines with the infallible and unchanging Scriptures. Once a Catholic can be motivated to do what the Bereans did under Paul’s preaching, that is, “search the Scriptures,” it is not long until they come to realize that the Catholic Jesus is not the Jesus of Scripture, and salvation is not to be found in any of the various religions."…Jesus said He is the door (gate), not the pope or Catholicism.

That is exactly what the Catholic Church did…it searched the scriptures and with the power of the holy spirit put together the canon of the bible…If you beleive in the authority of the Bible then you also beleive in the authority of the Catholic Church (wether you acknowledge it or not)…for without the church you would have no scripture and you would not know what what was divinely inspired and what was not.

“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he who is outside of the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the Bishop and the Presbytery and the Deacons does not have a clean conscience.” St. Igantius of Antioch A.D. 110. St. Ignatius was a hearer of the apostle John who was the author of biblical books including Revelation.

 

[St.Eric]

Cath.orProtes.?:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. - ROMANS 10:9

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - ROMANS 10:13

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; - ACTS 3:19

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. - 2 CORINTHIANS 5:17

Let’s go to the very words of Christ when he was talking with Nicodemus. Nicodemus asks the Lord how a man should be born again. Nicodemus states that we cannot climb back into our mother’s womb and come out again. And the Lord says to him, “Verily Verily, I say, unless you are born again of the water AND the spirit…”
So to beleive in Christ is to hold his commandments. And his commandment is to be born again of the spirit AND the water. Paul assumed this when he was speaking. To beleive in Christ is to hold to his commandments. One of which was to be born of the water and the spirit, another of whcih was to eat his flesh and drink his blood…

“They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are parishing in their disputes.It would be better for them to have love so they might rise again. It is right to shun such men, and not even to speak about them- neither in public or private.”
St. Igantius of Antioch A.D. 110 disciple of St. John. (how could have St. John, the author of revalations, tought St. Ignatius wrong? )

 

[Cath.orProtes]

St.Eric:

Let’s go to the very words of Christ …One of which was to be born of the water and the spirit,

This again is a subject under much debate.

The following is from the Plains Baptist Challenger, October 1982 —

All sorts of controversy have been waged over the meaning of this passage. The first thing to do is to carefully read John 3:1-12. Note some of the wrong interpretations and theories:

I. THE WRONG THEORY THAT WATER BAPTISM IS MEANT

One entire denomination interprets this passage to mean that one must be immersed to be saved. “Born of water” to them means being immersed. This passage is pressed into teach-ing baptismal regeneration.

Why This Isn’t True:

1. Because baptism isn’t under con-sideration at all in the conversation that is taking place. Nothing else in the chapter indicates that baptism was being discussed.
2. Because if baptism were meant, then in less than a minute Jesus contradicted himself by putting salvation upon the basis of faith. (See verses 16,18, 36.) This is of course ridiculous to assume.
3. Because to assume that baptism is referred to is to wreck the teaching that salvation is “by grace through faith … not of works” (Eph 2:8)
4. Because to assume that baptism is referred to, is to make the New Testament teach two ways of salvation, for certainly the thief saved on the cross was not im-mersed. Certainly Cornelius was saved before he was baptized. These cases prove that sal-vation precedes baptism. The person who teaches baptismal salvation is bound to teach that Christ and his work must be plussed with water and works. But salvation is not by “water works.”

II. THE THEORY THAT “WATER” HERE MEANS “THE WORD”

The idea is that water is a symbol of the Word of God. This would make the passage to mean, “except one be born of the Spirit and the Word …” Many good and reverent students of the Bible hold this view. While we have no quarrel with those who hold such a view, we do not believe that this theory is the correct one. Why?

1. Because we believe that if Jesus had meant “word” he would have said so plainly.
2. Because they were not talking about the Word.
3. Because such an interpretation re-quires that one go outside this Scripture for the key to the meaning whereas we believe that the key to the passage is right in the passage itself.

WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE CORRECT MEANING

We believe that this passage means this: that a person must be born of the flesh [or naturally] and likewise of the Spirit [super-naturally] in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Why we believe this:

1. Because it is certainly true that one must be born twice to enter the Kingdom.
2. Because in the very next breath, Jesus makes plain that He is speaking of two births—flesh and spirit. He says, “That which is born of the flesh of the flesh, and that which born of the Spirit is Spirit.” It seems to us that he clearly gives his own explanation of his meaning.
3. Because the point of confusion in the mind of Nicodemus was the matter of the con-trasting births. His words in verse 4 make clear his point of misunderstanding. Jesus had to say to him in substance, “I am not talking about the physical birth … one must be born in that way, and yet also in another way to get into the kingdom of God.”
4. Because according to Bible scholars, the writings of the Jewish rabbis often refer to the natural birth as a “water birth” for reasons which any physician can make clear.
5. Because we believe that the obvious and simple meaning is in this case, as generally, the true meaning.

The link this was cut and pasted from is here:

wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns256.html

“They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are parishing in their disputes.It would be better for them to have love so they might rise again. It is right to shun such men, and not even to speak about them- neither in public or private.”
St. Igantius of Antioch A.D. 110 disciple of St. John. (how could have St. John, the author of revalations, tought St. Ignatius wrong? )

I would be interested in finding out more quotes from St. Igantius of Antioch. Where could I find the complete article this was taken from, other comments he made etc… Who translated it into english? etc…

Thanks and I look forward to your reply.

 

[St.Eric]

Cath.or.protest.

I think we can get past the water controversy by examinging what the Church beleived for 1500 years. There wasn’t any debate until Luther arrived on the scene. As for me, what really swayed my beleif was taking a look at the first Christians, the ones taught by the very apostles, and what they beleived. When you do this, you can’t help but to see the truth in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Hence my quote from John Henry Newman on my signature line.
Yes, St. Ignatius is well worth reading. Great stuff. The quote you questioned above was taken from his letter to teh Smyrnaens circa. A.D. 110. You can find it and the writings of many of the early Church fathers in “The Faith of the early Fathers” by William A. Jurgens. It is a 3 volume set covering the writings from the pre-Nicene and Nicene eras to the end of the Patristic period. The whole set sells for around $50.00.

 

[St.Eric]

Let’s not forget that Christ himself was baptised in water by John the Baptist. Why would Christ himself do this if not to be an example and affirm John and his baptising ways. If John was baptising in folly, surely Jesus would have used his encounter with John as a preaching opportunity to let him and everyone else know that there was no need to be baptised in water. But he didn’t. He affirmed the practice and necessity of it by doing it himself.

 

[scylla]

Cath.orProtes.?:

All sorts of controversy have been waged over the meaning of this passage. The first thing to do is to carefully read John 3:1-12. Note some of the wrong interpretations and theories:

I. THE WRONG THEORY THAT WATER BAPTISM IS MEANT

One entire denomination interprets this passage to mean that one must be immersed to be saved. “Born of water” to them means being immersed. This passage is pressed into teach-ing baptismal regeneration.

Why This Isn’t True:

1. Because baptism isn’t under con-sideration at all in the conversation that is taking place. Nothing else in the chapter indicates that baptism was being discussed.
2. Because if baptism were meant, then in less than a minute Jesus contradicted himself by putting salvation upon the basis of faith. (See verses 16,18, 36.) This is of course ridiculous to assume.
3. Because to assume that baptism is referred to is to wreck the teaching that salvation is “by grace through faith … not of works” (Eph 2:8)
4. Because to assume that baptism is referred to, is to make the New Testament teach two ways of salvation, for certainly the thief saved on the cross was not im-mersed. Certainly Cornelius was saved before he was baptized. These cases prove that sal-vation precedes baptism. The person who teaches baptismal salvation is bound to teach that Christ and his work must be plussed with water and works. But salvation is not by “water works.”

This is reading a belief in “faith alone” back into the text to reinterpret it a different way.

What is important is not just look at the Bible and try and figure out what the Bible is trying to say. There is either one truth or not, so to determine that this isn’t a valid interpretation is saying you have an true belief that must be held, or in other words an infallible belief. If this is true then it must be something believed by Christians since the beginning.
If you are truly seeking the truth then look to the beginning to see if this was part of the original teaching of Jesus or something that has recently come up as a belief.
I cut out #2 because this post is too long,
Cath.orProtes.?:

II. THE THEORY THAT “WATER” HERE MEANS “THE WORD”
WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE CORRECT MEANING

We believe that this passage means this: that a person must be born of the flesh [or naturally] and likewise of the Spirit [super-naturally] in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Why we believe this:

1. Because it is certainly true that one must be born twice to enter the Kingdom.
2. Because in the very next breath, Jesus makes plain that He is speaking of two births—flesh and spirit. He says, “That which is born of the flesh of the flesh, and that which born of the Spirit is Spirit.” It seems to us that he clearly gives his own explanation of his meaning.
3. Because the point of confusion in the mind of Nicodemus was the matter of the con-trasting births. His words in verse 4 make clear his point of misunderstanding. Jesus had to say to him in substance, “I am not talking about the physical birth … one must be born in that way, and yet also in another way to get into the kingdom of God.”
4. Because according to Bible scholars, the writings of the Jewish rabbis often refer to the natural birth as a “water birth” for reasons which any physician can make clear.
5. Because we believe that the obvious and simple meaning is in this case, as generally, the true meaning.

The link this was cut and pasted from is here:

wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns256.html

I would be interested in finding out more quotes from St. Igantius of Antioch. Where could I find the complete article this was taken from, other comments he made etc… Who translated it into english? etc…

Thanks and I look forward to your reply.

Hello, I have been reading this thread and it is pretty interesting. Welcome to the site and feel free to PM me if you have some questions regarding views on fundamentalism.

Ignatius of Antioch lived about the year 100 and wrote several epistles before being killed by the Romans.
There are plenty of books containing much writing of early Christians and there is a lot we know about the early Church it’s beliefs and understanding of the Scripture.

One thing to not regardless of the commentary of the Plains Baptist Challenger, no Christians understood Baptism as symbolic until I believe Calvin introduced the idea. It could have been someone else in his time period as there were many different ideas coming up depending upon ones interpretation.

Here is a link to check out for yourself early Christian writings.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.htm

The commentary might be slightly biased as it is Calvin College but I posted a link to a non-catholic site to show an honest portrayal of truth.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[scylla]

I think it is much easier to read early Christian writings by downloading them to PDF and reading them there.

Click on the PDF link, it is about a 6MB. The commentary is Calvinist based it seems and tries to dismiss any Catholic connotations from the text, but it is a good reference to read and it is free.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Cath.orProtes]

Thank you, my further issues will have to be a new thread…please look and respond as appropriate.

 

[Cath.orProtes]

I don’t know if it is in the right place or not but a new thread “Teaching of the Catholic Church I am having trouble with…that make me doubt others.” under Apologetics.

Responses are welcome.