If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by BloodWashed:

My baptist friend drug me along to church with her, and I got saved.

Drugging resistant people is a good way to get them to church.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by BloodWashed:

The main issue with Catholocism is that the Church rejects the faith alone doctrine. As my username states, I am a blood washed Christian. When I got saved, I got washed in the blood and my sins were gone. I don’t need baptism, I don’t need confirmation, I don’t need confession, I don’t need Mary. I need the blessed Lord Jesus.

All right. You state the anabaptist belief well. Not to rub it in your face or anything, but there are sola fide Protestants who do believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation. Among them would be Martin Luther, that guy who discovered sola fide and who I think even Anabaptists would not regard as unsaved.

 

[BloodWashed]

there are sola fide Protestants who do believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation. Among them would be Martin Luther, that guy who discovered sola fide and who I think even Anabaptists would not regard as unsaved.

What is sola fide exactly? I’m not familiar with the term.

Seeing as I’m not God, I don’t know if Luther was saved. I hope he was. But what I do know is that he became a heretic as soon as he suggested that you must have baptism to be saved. Keep in mind Baptists are not protestants. Protestants are from the reformation, Bible-believers have always been around. I object just as much to a Protestant as I do a Catholic who says you need anything other than the Precious Blood to go to heaven. In fact, if my preacher stoof up and said you need baptism, I’d call him a heretic.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

My reasons for leaving Catholicism have absoloutely no personal weight and are completely biblical. I was raised Catholic, and I became an atheist somewhere between 14 and 15, and was an atheist for about a year and a half. My baptist friend drug me along to church with her, and I got saved. Understand this: I /hated/ Christianity in its entirety for that year and a half when I was an atheist, and the Lord Jesus has changed me into just as much of a Bible-thumper as the young people who were raised in my Independant Baptist church.

I take offense to the statement that Christians are trying to do things on their own terms and not on God’s by rejecting Catechism. What are you going to do with the Bible? The Bible simply SCREAMS rejection of the Roman Catholic Church.

As a former Independent Fundamental Baptist who is now Catholic, I hear more of the Bible in one Mass than I did in 3 services a week at my Baptist church. It was the Catholic Church who, led by the Holy Spirit, canonized the 27 books you have in your KJV New Testament.

The main issue with Catholocism is that the Church rejects the faith alone doctrine. As my username states, I am a blood washed Christian. When I got saved, I got washed in the blood and my sins were gone. I don’t need baptism, I don’t need confirmation, I don’t need confession, I don’t need Mary. I need the blessed Lord Jesus.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

You might want to take a look at Ephesians 2:10. And James 2:14-24. And Matthew 25. And Philippians 2:12-13. Just for starters.

The Apostle Paul wrote that. What are you going to do with Ephesians 2:8-9? Those two verses say you’re saved by FAITH, not of works that I hath done.

But it does not say “faith alone”

I’m sorry, but I refuse to take the word of the Pope over the word of my Lord who died for me.
I could write essays more, and I will if challenged to, but this is the major issue with Catholicism verses the blood washed church. And excuse me if someone posted this, but I wasn’t about to read all those pages.

Sounds like you’ve bought into the anti-Catholic propaganda that Baptists seem to thrive on. I’m so sorry to hear that.

 

[awantz]

It means your only hurting yourself if you let me or anyone else stop you from seeking the truth. I was only trying to help someone when you jumped in with your attitude.

IF your really sincere about unity then ignore everything else and study the Catholic Faith in sincerity and you’ll see the beauty in it.

I don’t know what denomination you belong to but look in any encyclopedia and it will tell you when and by whom it was started.

I’m not letting anyone stop me from doing anything. My attitude!? Excuse me, but I seem to remember you having a bit of an attitude yourself.

I am sincere about unity and I have studied the Catholic Faith. I attend a Catholic church every sunday. I have attended RCIA. I have gone to confeesion. I have studied the Catholic church.

I belong to an independant non-denominational church and my pastor’s wife used to be Catholic. I know who my church was started by.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by BloodWashed:

What is sola fide exactly? I’m not familiar with the term.

Seeing as I’m not God, I don’t know if Luther was saved. I hope he was. But what I do know is that he became a heretic as soon as he suggested that you must have baptism to be saved. Keep in mind Baptists are not protestants. Protestants are from the reformation, Bible-believers have always been around. I object just as much to a Protestant as I do a Catholic who says you need anything other than the Precious Blood to go to heaven. In fact, if my preacher stoof up and said you need baptism, I’d call him a heretic.

Sola fide means “[justification by] faith alone.” It was and is one of the primary, fundamental beliefs of historic Protestantism. Luther connected justification by faith alone with baptism, since it was through baptism that the believer received the grace of faith. Although I am less knowledgeable of John Calvin and Zwingli, I know that they too focused on the need for baptism, since many of the early Anabaptists broke away from Zwingli and Calvin on this issue. Some broke away from Luther, too–one group called the Swenkfelds or something like that.

It sounds like your church is “succesionist”, meaning that your church believes that there always have been baptists since the time of Christ. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[BloodWashed]

As a former Independent Fundamental Baptist who is now Catholic, I hear more of the Bible in one Mass than I did in 3 services a week at my Baptist church. It was the Catholic Church who, led by the Holy Spirit, canonized the 27 books you have in your KJV New Testament.

You might want to take a look at Ephesians 2:10. And James 2:14-24. And Matthew 25. And Philippians 2:12-13. Just for starters.

But it does not say “faith alone”
Sounds like you’ve bought into the anti-Catholic propaganda that Baptists seem to thrive on. I’m so sorry to hear that.

I don’t know what kind of Baptist church you went to, but it is much different from mine. I also don’t know what kind of Catholic church you’re going to that you’re getting any Bible. My preacher reads from the Bible all the time, we all bring our own Bible, and we are encouraged to read it daily.

Now on the the questioned scriptures. Ephesians and James both say that we ought to do good works BECAUSE we’re saved, not to GET saved Are We Justified by Faith and Works?

Matthew 25 deals with endtimes and the tribulation and all that good stuff. I’m not precisely sure of everything it touches on, but this link faithalone.org/news/y1988/88march1.html describes it pretty well. I’m not sure if this guy believes in the pre-trib rapture, however, so I’m not sure I can agree with everything he says.

Philippians says to work out youre OWN salvation. This is dealing with once someone gets washed in the blood (God’s salvation) becoming spiritual instead of carnal.

Jesus is the Lord God in the flesh. He cannot lie. He said “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Not whosoever gets baptized, becomes a church member, feeds the poor. Whosoever believeth.

And the Catholic Bible, if I remember correctly, comes from the Alexandrian documents while my KJV comes from textus receptus, so I don’t see what they have to do with eachother.

And for the poster who asked, yes my church does believe that the Bible-believers have been around all along. My church is called Baptist, but I slightly object to the term, and prefer Bible-believer. I don’t believe in any religion–I believe in the savior.

 

[Madaglan]

And the Catholic Bible, if I remember correctly, comes from the Alexandrian documents while my KJV comes from textus receptus, so I don’t see what they have to do with eachother.

And for the poster who asked, yes my church does believe that the Bible-believers have been around all along. My church is called Baptist, but I slightly object to the term, and prefer Bible-believer. I don’t believe in any religion–I believe in the savior.

Most Catholic Bibles use the Vulgate (the ancient Latin version of the Bible) as their primary source, while also making use of ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, in addition to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT during the time of Jesus).

You are right about the KJV being translated from the textus receptus, or the ancient Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I don’t know what kind of Baptist church you went to, but it is much different from mine. I also don’t know what kind of Catholic church you’re going to that you’re getting any Bible. My preacher reads from the Bible all the time, we all bring our own Bible, and we are encouraged to read it daily.

I told you, it was an Independent, Fundamental, pre-millenial, KJV-only church. We’d hear a few verses of Scripture and then 30+ minutes of preaching on those few verses. The Catholic Mass is almost all word-for-word from Scripture.

Now on the the questioned scriptures. Ephesians and James both say that we ought to do good works BECAUSE we’re saved, not to GET saved Are We Justified by Faith and Works?

Exactly what the Catholic Church teaches! If someone is trying to work their way to Heaven and has no faith, they’re not gettin’ there! Faith and works are two sides of the same coin.

Matthew 25 deals with endtimes and the tribulation and all that good stuff. I’m not precisely sure of everything it touches on, but this link faithalone.org/news/y1988/88march1.html describes it pretty well. I’m not sure if this guy believes in the pre-trib rapture, however, so I’m not sure I can agree with everything he says.

Read the end of Matthew 25, please. The part about the sheep and the goats and who is who, and why.

Philippians says to work out youre OWN salvation. This is dealing with once someone gets washed in the blood (God’s salvation) becoming spiritual instead of carnal.

I’m talking about verse 13, “For it is God who worketh in you,” any works that we do (not OT works of the Law) are God working IN us, not us in our own strength working our way to Heaven.

Jesus is the Lord God in the flesh. He cannot lie. He said “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Not whosoever gets baptized, becomes a church member, feeds the poor. Whosoever believeth.

Jesus did say to baptize - it was one of the last things He said as He ascended into Heaven! He said in Mark 16 that “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:” He said in Matthew 25 that doing things like feeding the hungry and clothing the naked was the same as doing it for Him. Sounds like it might be kinda important to Him that we do these things!

And the Catholic Bible, if I remember correctly, comes from the Alexandrian documents while my KJV comes from textus receptus, so I don’t see what they have to do with eachother.

Are you aware that Catholic monks copied the manuscripts that created the Textus Receptus for you? The Catholic OT is the same as the Septuagint, the Scriptures that Jesus used. If they’re good enough for Jesus, they’re good enough for me!

And for the poster who asked, yes my church does believe that the Bible-believers have been around all along. My church is called Baptist, but I slightly object to the term, and prefer Bible-believer. I don’t believe in any religion–I believe in the savior.

That’s historically impossible, since the Bible in its complete, bound form didn’t begin to be written until about 30 years after Christ ascended into Heaven, and over the course of 350 years there were hundreds of Gospels and epistles all claiming apostolic authority. How could someone be a “Bible-believer” when there wasn’t a complete, canonized Bible until 398 AD?

 

[BloodWashed]

I told you, it was an Independent, Fundamental, pre-millenial, KJV-only church. We’d hear a few verses of Scripture and then 30+ minutes of preaching on those few verses. The Catholic Mass is almost all word-for-word from Scripture.

Exactly what the Catholic Church teaches! If someone is trying to work their way to Heaven and has no faith, they’re not gettin’ there! Faith and works are two sides of the same coin.
Read the end of Matthew 25, please. The part about the sheep and the goats and who is who, and why.

I’m talking about verse 13, “For it is God who worketh in you,” any works that we do (not OT works of the Law) are God working IN us, not us in our own strength working our way to Heaven.

Jesus did say to baptize - it was one of the last things He said as He ascended into Heaven! He said in Mark 16 that “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:” He said in Matthew 25 that doing things like feeding the hungry and clothing the naked was the same as doing it for Him. Sounds like it might be kinda important to Him that we do these things!

Are you aware that Catholic monks copied the manuscripts that created the Textus Receptus for you? The Catholic OT is the same as the Septuagint, the Scriptures that Jesus used. If they’re good enough for Jesus, they’re good enough for me!

That’s historically impossible, since the Bible in its complete, bound form didn’t begin to be written until about 30 years after Christ ascended into Heaven, and over the course of 350 years there were hundreds of Gospels and epistles all claiming apostolic authority. How could someone be a “Bible-believer” when there wasn’t a complete, canonized Bible until 398 AD?

Now I’m not sure if I’m clear on where each of us stands on grace/faith/works.

Grace/Faith: Necessary to go to heaven
Works: Only pleasing to God if done by someone on their way to heaven, and in no way necessary to get there.

Yeah, we read a passage of Bible and then have the preaching. But Jesus didn’t just recite scriptures: He preached on them.

I know Jesus said to baptize, but he never said it was necessary. If there is a verse that says it is necessary, it is probably talking about the baptism of spirit.

And as for all the Bible versions, I’m no scholar. I believe that the Lord preserved his word in the KJV, and that’s good enough for me. And when I said Bible-believers have always been around, ok you got me on a technicality. I guess maybe I did mean Baptists. Again, I’m not a historian.

 

[Madaglan]

Are you aware that Catholic monks copied the manuscripts that created the Textus Receptus for you? The Catholic OT is the same as the Septuagint, the Scriptures that Jesus used. If they’re good enough for Jesus, they’re good enough for me!

Well, the official text of the Latin Church is the Latin Vulgate, but that aside, I believe it was Pope Leo XIII (or maybe Pius XII) who said that the Vulgate and the Septuagint are doctrinally compatible, and that the Vulgate does not misrepresent anything in the Septuagint.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Well, the official text of the Latin Church is the Latin Vulgate, but that aside, I believe it was Pope Leo XIII (or maybe Pius XII) who said that the Vulgate and the Septuagint are doctrinally compatible, and that the Vulgate does not misrepresent anything in the Septuagint.

Right - the Latin Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint.

Graham’s Where We Got the Bible is a fascinating read.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Pixie Dust:

Right - the Latin Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint.

Graham’s Where We Got the Bible is a fascinating read.

I’d have to double check the history of translation. St. Augustine in his *City of God *writes a little on the Septuagint and the Vulgate that Jerome was working on. Unless I am mistaken, the Vulgate was first put together by St. Jerome, who worked closely with Jewish scholars in Palestine. There were other Latin versions of the Old and New Testaments in circulation before the Vulgate. So, I think Jerome may have translated the Vulgate more from the Hebrew texts in conjunction with the already-existent Latin texts, rather than from the Greek Septuagint–at least for the OT-- but I may be wrong. For the NT he probably used the Greek Septuagint more, considering it was the norm in the early Church.

I read Graham’s book a number of years ago. It was interesting when I read it.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Now I’m not sure if I’m clear on where each of us stands on grace/faith/works.

Grace/Faith: Necessary to go to heaven
Works: Only pleasing to God if done by someone on their way to heaven, and in no way necessary to get there.

That’s not what Jesus says in Matthew 25.

Yeah, we read a passage of Bible and then have the preaching. But Jesus didn’t just recite scriptures: He preached on them.

Well, yeah, we have preaching too. But we let the Word of God speak for Himself, rather than some man’s idea about what He is saying.

I know Jesus said to baptize, but he never said it was necessary. If there is a verse that says it is necessary, it is probably talking about the baptism of spirit.

How can you tell the difference?

And as for all the Bible versions, I’m no scholar. I believe that the Lord preserved his word in the KJV, and that’s good enough for me.

Well what in the world did people do for a Bible before 1616? (The 1611 KJV contained all 73 books that Catholic Bibles have, you know…what’s that verse in Revelation about adding to or taking away from the writings? )

And when I said Bible-believers have always been around, ok you got me on a technicality. I guess maybe I did mean Baptists. Again, I’m not a historian.

It was because I became a student of history and the beliefs of the early Church that I am no longer a Baptist. Baptists were not really “around” until 1609, if you know Church history and not a revised history where Baptists claim all sorts of heretics as “baptist” types just to get a line back to the apostles. Do some homework on those groups like the Montanists, Albigensians, and Paulicians. They weren’t Baptist!

 

[BloodWashed]

Matthew 25 deals with post-tribulation judgment, and that’s way too confusing for me to think about at this hour. I need to talk to my friends dad before I can say anything about that, because I’ll end up saying something wrong.

And as for telling the difference between baptism of water and spirit: John the Baptist said that he baptized with water, but the one who came after him would baptize with spirit. Baptizing with spirit is the same as getting born again.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Pixie Dust:

Well what in the world did people do for a Bible before 1616? (The 1611 KJV contained all 73 books that Catholic Bibles have, you know…what’s that verse in Revelation about adding to or taking away from the writings? )

To be fair, those books were considered Apocrypha early on [in Protestant England], and not esteemed as highly as the other books.

 

[BloodWashed]

To be fair, those books were considered Apocrypha early on [in Protestant England], and not esteemed as highly as the other books.

Yeah, as far as those other books, I have absoloutely no idea. I haven’t even read all the 66 books in my KJV yet, because I’ve only been saved since September. The only thing I really know about how we chose our books is that for the old testament we used anything Jesus quoted…and that’s about as far as my study has gone

 

[Pixie_Dust]

To be fair, those books were considered Apocrypha early on [in Protestant England], and not esteemed as highly as the other books.

I’m aware of that, but my point is that they hesitated to formally remove them from the canon altogether. Must’ve been a reason for that. Prior to that time the only people who rejected the deuterocanon were the Jews who also rejected Jesus as their Messiah. But I’m preachin’ to the choir here.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by BloodWashed:

And as for telling the difference between baptism of water and spirit: John the Baptist said that he baptized with water, but the one who came after him would baptize with spirit. Baptizing with spirit is the same as getting born again.

Jesus later says in John 3:5, “I tell you the truth, no person can enter the kingdom of god unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

If one only needs to be baptized with the spirit to enter into the kingdom, then why would Jesus mention water?

 

[BloodWashed]

Jesus later says in John 3:5, “I tell you the truth, no person can enter the kingdom of god unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

If one only needs to be baptized with the spirit to enter into the kingdom, then why would Jesus mention water?

Water as in the water that comes out of the mother’s womb when the baby is born. He’s saying you need to be born twice: physical and spiritual birth.