How far can one wander from the original Church and still claim to be Christian?

[PJM]

=Stillchecking;7884675]I’ve read this entire discussion and don’t understand a couple things. Is it true church teaching that in order to go to heaven I need to have been baptized in the Catholic Church before I die?

NO; but ONLY in the CC can one KNOW if they “merit” heaven [W/O ASSURANCE OF IT] based on knowing the condition of our own souls being cleansed of Sin through the Sacrament of Confession as COMMANDED by Jesus Himself in John 20:19-23. Protestants cannot KNOW with any certitude because it would have to require: 1. NO opportunity to know Jesus and HIS TRUTHS [Mt. 16:19, Jn. 14:16-17; Jn. 17:15-19]…GOD WILL JUDGE everyone on OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW being the same as knowing and denying HIS TRUTHS. 2. A “PERFECT” act of Contritution with a life style change as evidence of repentance. Again God Judges. So one can hope; but ONLY Catholics CAN KNOW

I’ve looked up all the bible references on baptism and I don’t see where it is required in order to go to heaven.

Allow me to assist you my friend:

John 3: 5, 36
[5] ***Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [BAPTISM] ***36 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.

**Mark 16:16 **

does say He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. But the prerequsite there is belief, which suggests that a person must be at an age of understanding.

**Jn. 3:5 **is the most precise explanation and it flows from the MOUTH of God Himself.

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

**ACTS 8: 29-32 **“And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?”

Two issues in your concerns: 1. Baptism has as it chief TWO effects a. Removal of ALL existing sins and the necessary payback caused by them 2. Entry into the Faith of Jesus Christ. [One God, One Faith, One church [**Eph. 4:1-7, 2: 18-22]

Faith is always a requirement. In the case of infants to insure their access to heaven the CHURCH [based on the powers granted to Her by God HIMSELF **[Mt. 16:19; John 20:19-22] allows the faith of parents and God-Parents to suffice until the child reaches the “age of reason

** 5-7 yrs.].** And yes God obligated Himself to accept the Teaching of the Church** [Jn. 14: 16-17; Jn.17; 15-19, Mt. 16:19]**

I can’t find one verse that suggests that baptizing a baby will help in any way get that baby/person into heaven.

Jn. 3:5 does.

Mark.1: 4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Acts.2: 38 “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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”

Out of space. If you’d like more info send me a PM

God Bless you,

Pat

PJM

 

[Stillchecking]

Elvisman, thank you for taking the time to answer my post, but no it is still not clear enough for me. My question is on the merits of baptizing infants and my point is that scripture indicates that first one believes and then one is baptized.

Matt. 28:19-20 does tell us to baptize others, but first make them disciples.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Water does not mean baptism here. It is the word of God that washes us with water. After all, what gives you your faith, that your forehead was once sprinkled with water, or the Bible?

Col. 2:12-13 That’s fine, I believe in baptism, but this passage doesn’t answer my question on baptizing infants, or counter my point that first one must believe and then go and be baptized.

1 Pet 3:21 Peter is talking to the believers in Jesus who would have subsequently been baptized. I believe Hitler was baptized a catholic, are you saying his baptism assured him heaven?

Acts 10:1-49 In verse 2 there it says Cornelius and all his household feared God…again, first faith then Baptism

Acts 11:13-14 **he will speak words to you by which you will be saved ** Again it’s the WORD that saves

Acts 16:23-24 I don’t see anything there on this subject

1 Cor. 1:16 Does not say infants, it says all his household, which was a household of people who first believed.

I’ve been to many many catholic funerals and over and over throuhout the mass and the graveside service, I hear the priest say “we are saved by baptism” It’s to make the family feel good, but it isn’t biblical.

 

[CMatt25]

1 Cor. 1:16 Does not say infants, it says all his household, which was a household of people who first believed.

Still, infants could not have been in the household?

 

[meltzerboy]

As an outsider (i.e. non-Christian), I would say there are two basic requirements at the minimum: belief in Jesus Christ as G-d (or son of G-d) and belief in the Trinity (Triune G-d). For most Christians, the latter belief is just as important as the former. However, for most Jews, the belief in Jesus Christ as G-d is the key element that defines being Christian. Still, many Jews do not differentiate that much and would consider Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals as all Christians. There is another thread on Messianic Jews, many of whom consider themselves as Jews who believe in the fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible by means of Jesus and the New Testament Scripture. Would they still be regarded as Christian even though they may not think of themselves as such? I also know that the Sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist, are mightily important in Christianity, so where would Quakers fit in, many of whom call themselves Christian?

 

[elvisman]

Still, infants could not have been in the household?

Sorry, but that’s a WEAK argument.
Show me where it says that household DIDN’T have small children and infants. It is preposterous to think that households don’t include children. Households - especially in the first century included the parents, grandparents, children and their families and servants

Also - as I stated in an earlier post:
When the disciples rebuked the children from approaching Jesus, He told them “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” (Matt 19:14, Luke 18:16). Those who would keep the Sacrament of Baptism from infants are doing precisely what Christ himself disapproved of.

Just as with the Old Covenant and circumcision, the faith of the parents/guardians will guide the baptized child in the faith with the help of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant.

Acts 2:38-39 explicitly says:
***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. ***
**For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” **

 

[PJM]

=Stillchecking;7892532]Elvisman, thank you for taking the time to answer my post, but no it is still not clear enough for me. My question is on the merits of baptizing infants and my point is that scripture indicates that first one believes and then one is baptized.

Matt. 28:19-20 does tell us to baptize others, but first make them disciples.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Water does not mean baptism here. It is the word of God that washes us with water. After all, what gives you your faith, that your forehead was once sprinkled with water, or the Bible?

My dear friend in Christ, If, IF, Baptism were not to include infants two things would be evident:

1. Such a VITAL instruction would be expressely articulated in the Bible,it’s NOT!
2. Either God would have to Have alow NO INFANT DIE for any reason until they had an opportunity “to get faith”; Or God would have to QUIT being God becasue He would be evil to allow innocent babies to die; and not even have an opportunity to know, love, and serve God. THIS OF COURSE IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY!

Where is the Good and Loving God that died “For All” in your logic?

And what does John3:5 Mean if it’s NOT WATER? That friend is frankly a silly position. Jesus say’s Water and He means something else… WOW!

Love and prayers friend,

Pat

 

[CMatt25]

Sorry, but that’s a WEAK argument.
Show me where it says that household DIDN’T have small children and infants. It is preposterous to think that households don’t include children. Households - especially in the first century included the parents, grandparents, children and their families and servants

Elvis, I don’t think I was clear enough in the post of mine you reference. I was asking Stillchecking if infants could not have been in the households? So I’m with you on this one. See contrary perhaps to popular belief, I’m not always arguing against what you say.

Peace.

 

[graceandglory]

There are many who claim the title “Christian”. I am curious as to how far one can depart from the teachings of the original Church before you would consider them not Christian. Where do we draw the line? Does rejection of the Trinity matter? Does rejection of the true presence in the Eucharist matter? How about Jesus as true God and true man?

Anyone who has been on this forum for even a short time has certainly run across a variety of beliefs, all of which, for the most part, are stated by those who call themselves Christian. Does just claiming to believe in Christ suffice? What is the minimum required in order to hold the title “Christian”?

I like your question. When I came back to the Catholic Church, people would quote to me, “Once Catholic, Always Catholic.” I was offended at the time because I completely distanced myself from association with the Catholic Church, and I would not have considered myself one. I was evangelical. I was a Christian. I knew that Jesus became my Savior when I was raised Catholic, and never had a born-again experience, but I couldn’t call myself one.

As for being Catholic through those years, while I didn’t practice as one, I never stopped believing. I reflect back on all the time I was away from the Church and wish I hadn’t left, just maybe found better Catholic to spend time with. I was always faithful, just ignorant.

 

[CMatt25]

I like your question. When I came back to the Catholic Church, people would quote to me, “Once Catholic, Always Catholic.” I was offended at the time because I completely distanced myself from association with the Catholic Church, and I would not have considered myself one.

You were offended by what the Church teaches ater you “came back”? You might not have considered yourself one but the Church still did. :yup: Peace.

 

[John_oxios]

That doesn’t make sense. How can you be a Catholic if you’re not in full communion with the Church?

They are baptized in The name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

CCC # 817
In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. "The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270—do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818
"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and t**he Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers **. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

 

[John_oxios]

I like your question. When I came back to the Catholic Church, people would quote to me, “Once Catholic, Always Catholic.” I was offended at the time because I completely distanced myself from association with the Catholic Church, and I would not have considered myself one. I was evangelical. I was a Christian. I knew that Jesus became my Savior when I was raised Catholic, and never had a born-again experience, but I couldn’t call myself one.

As for being Catholic through those years, while I didn’t practice as one, I never stopped believing. I reflect back on all the time I was away from the Church and wish I hadn’t left, just maybe found better Catholic to spend time with. I was always faithful, just ignorant.

Dear Grace and Glory,
anyone who is Baptized Catholic, can’t wipe that slate clean
“One Baptism for the forgiveness of sin”

CCC# 977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life.

Once Catholic Always Catholic.

I was watching a t.v. show in which the host was interviewing a bishop in a evangelical faith, the bishop was asked several questions which led to his childhood up bringing, in which he revealed that he born and baptized as Catholic… the host looked smiled and said, “you were baptized Catholic! Then you’re in!” The host and the bishop broke out in laughter.

God bless,
John

 

[Stillchecking]

You got to like what PMJ writes here, reread what PMJ posted:

per PMJ:** My dear friend in Christ, If, IF, Baptism were not to include infants two things would be evident:

1. Such a VITAL instruction would be expressely articulated in the Bible,it’s NOT!**

Excuse me PMJ, but if baptism of infants was as important as catholics say it is, it would be expressly written in the bible, more than once. It is not. Not once.

Baptism is well addressed in the bible. Faith is a pre requisite.

 

[John_oxios]

You got to like what PMJ writes here, reread what PMJ posted:

per PMJ:** My dear friend in Christ, If, IF, Baptism were not to include infants two things would be evident:

1. Such a VITAL instruction would be expressely articulated in the Bible,it’s NOT!**
   Excuse me PMJ, but if baptism of infants was as important as catholics say it is, it would be expressly written in the bible, more than once. It is not. Not once.

Baptism is well addressed in the bible. Faith is a pre requisite.

Hi Still checking,
maybe not explicit but it is implicit…
you’ve probably heard this before Christ and the Apostles being of Jewish tradition, circumcised their 8 day old infants to welcome to the nation, the Covenant.
Christ gave us a new covenant, why delay in bringing our infants to being members of our Church.
Why delay?

Act 22:16	And now why do you wait?  Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name"

Act 8:36 And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?”

What prevents us from baptizing infants born into Catholicism? Protestants? They weren’ t around til what the 16th century. and they tend to do the opposite of what the Church tradition & taught then out of rebellion against it.

There is nothing wrong with Baptizing infants, it is now a two thousand year old practice.

Let’s see what the bible does say about the Church:
RSV
Eph 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

1Ti 3:14,15 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

if the Bible is your sole authority, then it is the scriptures that tell us that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth,and it is through the Church this wisdom is made known.

Catholicism has and never will be a ‘Bible alone’ faith, just like The Hebrews before us who were not a Scripture only faith.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

You got to like what PMJ writes here, reread what PMJ posted:

per PMJ:** My dear friend in Christ, If, IF, Baptism were not to include infants two things would be evident:

1. Such a VITAL instruction would be expressely articulated in the Bible,it’s NOT!**

Excuse me PMJ, but if baptism of infants was as important as catholics say it is, it would be expressly written in the bible, more than once. It is not. Not once.

Baptism is well addressed in the bible. Faith is a pre requisite.

hi,

Just a short note, not everything Jesus had done alone could be written, How could the apostles known sixteen hundred yrs later people would Challenge what the Church had been doing all along? the New Testament is about Jesus Our Savior, the Gospel of John states:

Jhn 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
there is biblical evidence of things Jesus did in Paul s writing which are not written in the Gospel… but he does state they they were passed down to him, how? oral tradition,
But Protestants want proof of Church practices as if the holy Spirit isn’t guiding it, til Christ returns? If you believe the Holy Spirit left Christ Church til men rebelled against it, than you must not believe Holy Scripture.

1Cor 15: 3- 10, **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, **that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."
hen he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10) But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me."

This is written approx 53 a.d. There are No Gospels as yet written, yet Paul uses the rabbinical term “handing to you what I have received” (that’s oral Tradition)
… The Gospels are written to protect the witness of the Apostles and the early Church to Christ. John’s Gospel written in approx 95 a.d with Revelations. The Church taught not only by Word, but by example, imagery, and practice. and then the used the Gospels, as they came to be written not the other way around. Paper, ink were very expensive… education was for those who were wealthy… not everyone could read or write ergo they had to be told and shown… not everything could be written… but was more easily explained to those who would give ear… Faith comes by hearing…and is shown by practice.

God bless,
John

 

[graceandglory]

You were offended by what the Church teaches ater you “came back”? You might not have considered yourself one but the Church still did. :yup: Peace.

I was offended when I came back to the Catholic CHurch, that people would tell me “once Catholic, always Catholic.” I did not consider myself Catholic all those years away. As I grew as a Catholic, I realize that all those years I was just a separated Catholic. I was Catholic through and through, but didn’t realize it. I always want to be very honest with myself and others.

 

[graceandglory]

Dear Grace and Glory,
anyone who is Baptized Catholic, can’t wipe that slate clean
“One Baptism for the forgiveness of sin”

CCC# 977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life.

Once Catholic Always Catholic.

I was watching a t.v. show in which the host was interviewing a bishop in a evangelical faith, the bishop was asked several questions which led to his childhood up bringing, in which he revealed that he born and baptized as Catholic… the host looked smiled and said, “you were baptized Catholic! Then you’re in!” The host and the bishop broke out in laughter.

God bless,
John

But, when someone walks away from their Catholic faith, and no longer attends, or receives the Eucharist or any Sacraments, they have excommunicated themselves. That’s what I did.

 

[graceandglory]

“you were baptized Catholic! Then you’re in!” The host and the bishop broke out in laughter.

Awesome! I would have loved to see that interview!

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by PJM
we CANNOT judge salvation; but are to Judge works:

Still confused then why the Church has this in CCC 846.

“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

So take the person who once would have said they know the Catholic Church was necessary but no longer does. They might have had a change in beliefs and lets say they “do not remain” and they join a non Catholic ecclesial community.

“Could not” is a tense of “can not”.

So unless “could not” is taken as “might not” instead of “can not” those words still appear to me to be judging the salvation of that person.But if it’s “might not”, why bother in the first place to put those words in there? As “might not” can apply to many others.

GOOD POINT

We are permitted [even encouraged to judge] ACTIONS, BUT NEVER MOTIVES That is the right understanding of what you are quoting.

**Matt.7: 1 **"Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. 6 "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you. … 13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is ***narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. *** 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 ***Thus you will know them by their fruits. ***

God Bless, and THANKS for taking time to look it up in the Catechism.WELL DONE!

Pat

 

[John_oxios]

Awesome! I would have loved to see that interview!

Hi,
was Stephen Colbert, now I’m trying to track down the interview

 

[PJM]

=SteveVH;7889657]You’ve made some great points here. What I find wonderful and frightening at the same time is that the CC does have the fullness of truth, yet we have so many Catholics who choose not to obtain this truth in their own lives. They, above all, are more culpable than non-Catholics.

Thanks Steve; it is frighnting

Here is the Biblical foundation:

Heb. 6: 4-8

[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,

Meaning: Baptized; Holy Communion, and Confirmed into the Catholic Faith [creates a personal Covenant with that person and God],

[5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,

Have Head the singular Truths as explained CORRECTLY from the CC

**[6] **if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

If they freely choose to abandon God; expect God to react; back-off and wait for your return w/o granting you further grace assistance [unless someone else is praying for your conversion].

[7] For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.

For a SOUL so BLESSED is to be judged more harshly than the ingnorant!

[8] But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned

In effect this is the ONE unforgiveable sin: Denial of the CC is Denial of God Himself!

Yes former catholics are Satans GRAND SLAM hole-runs [not a typo]. May God have mercy on them.

God Bless,
Pat