I'm not a Catholic because

[andrewstx]

Well, I am an evangelical Christian, I do not know how you came to the conclusion that Evangelical Christians think of themselves as the only Christians. I have yet to meet one who thinks that, but I am sure there are at least a few. I believe many Catholics are Christians. However, I have met many Catholics who believe that only their Catholic Church is the only true Church of Jesus Christ.

Well, we are Christians only. We are not muslims, nor Jews, Secular Humanists nor any other religion. How about Catholics. Do not all Catholics also consider themselves Christians.

But tell me, do you believe that there are many genuine non-Catholic Christians?

And I agree with you. There is the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit by which we enter into a personal relationship with God, with Whom we talk with Him and walk with Him, daily.

Yes, we agree with the Catholics that Baptism is very important, for through Baptism we enter into the protections of the New Covenant and the New Laws of Jesus Christ by becoming true Christians.

Let me ask you a question Andrew, if we evangelicals enter Heaven en mass - as evangelicals, would you be disappointed?

Well that is good.

I would never be disrespectful toward the woman who was Jesus mother on earth. She was truly blessed to be the one to give birth to Jesus, and for Mary and Joseph to be the earthly parents raising the boy named Jesus, our Messiah…

But I also believe Mary bore many children with Joseph, her husband, as mentioned in the NT, because the Greek words clearly mean that Jesus had male and female - brothers and sisters. I see this as a wonderful thing.

I do not believe that Catholic saints are omniscient and omnipresent

I do not believe Peter is the chief cornerstone of the Christian Church. Jesus only called Simon ‘Petros’, meaning a rock. Then Jesus said that on this ROCK (Petra) I will build my Church. That Rock is Jesus, and Jesus used the name Petra to highlight that the Rock is Himself, not Petros, upon whom the church will be built upon. as foretold, and acknowledged by Peter in his first letter. Peter has this honor because he was the apostle who first acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah.

I do believe that we are not save because of our perfect knowledge or deeds.

So we do have our differences, but both Catholic and and Evangelicals will be saved by simply by accepting that Jesus is the perfect Lamb of God whose Blood has washed away all our sins for all time, and whom enter into a daily fellowship with God, who will transform our very nature that we may do the good that God has always wanted us to do. And by following 1 John 1-10.

And we also have the Laws of Jesus Christ of the New Covenant to guide our walk with God and with each other. It is a joy to be a Christian.

.
Telestia my computer seems to have BAD problems. For example I don’t mean to reply to this post, but that is what comes up when I clicked reply to another post and I got this.

In my reply I was trying to reply to your post,and it came out all messed up!

Let me just say this: I was raised in a denomination that said all you had to do to be Christian is just get saved or “accept Jesus as your personal saviour”. Baptism was optional and you could do it after your sins were already forgiven. I was raised Baptist.
and then I went to live with my dad (parents divorced when I was very young).

My dad was a member of the church of Christ denomination AND they really taught they were the only Christians, they called members of other churches “non Christians”. Of course their and only their schools and etc were called Christian.

I did get one thing from the cofc and that is baptism is neccesary to become Christian, and they baptised me by dunking.

When I became a Catholic Christian I was not rebaptised, We do believe there are other Christians.

That explains my sensitivity to “just Christian”, my backgound. Evangelicals seem to mean they are the only Christians by not using the name of their denomination. There are Catholic schools, Episcopal schools and Lutheran schools.

But the chruch of Christ and evangelicals seem to use the term Christian to imply they are the only Christians and not Baptist, Pentecostal as well.

I mean no hostility to you, youare my sibling (sister or brother) in Christ. We just dissagree on some things but we both have Jesus and that’s the most important thing.communicating more difficult.

By the way I have had a stroke, and that may make comm

 

[krahnicles]

Understand that this is what you learned as to how it happens.

No, I’m afraid you don’t understand. What I am describing is the thing that happened. And the way it wound up happening for me is actually different from what I learned as far as what the timing should be like. But that’s a different story.

What you learned may not be true.

That wound up being somewhat true in my particular case, but I’m not talking about what I learned. I’m talking about what happened. Say it with me, CopticChristian,

What happened, happened.

When I tell you “This is what happened,” that is exactly what I mean. Don’t twist those words.

I learned something different and I believe it to be true.

All right, baby, here’s the 64,000 dollar question. That thing you learned about regeneration and the thing you believe about how the timing should coincide with being baptized…Can you confirm it with a reality check? Can you look back at what actually happened and affirm that the real-life assessment of what God did to you and when He did it to you does, in fact, match up with what you were taught?

If you were baptized as an infant, I suppose you believe something that cannot be confirmed. How lucky for you! But if you were not baptized as an infant, let’s see if we can get that confirmation, shall we? Take me as an example.

I was not baptized as an infant. And in the reality of what actually ACTULLY in fact happened…I was not regenerated at that time. I was regenerated at a completely different time. I know that’s when I was regenerated because that’s when I was regenerated. It’s not a time when I simply believe I was regenerated- it was the time when God actually did something called “regenerate me.” That’s the reality of what the timing was for me. I can’t believe something different because the thing I “believe” is confirmed by reality. The reality of my regeneration was not faith-based, it was an experience that I was fully aware of. It’s impossible for me to believe that happened at some other time because I would be forcing myself to believe something that isn’t true.

Let’s say you were baptized on December 6th, 1974. I’m making up a random date, but let’s say that’s it. You know you were baptized on that date because- duh, you were baptized on that date. It would be foolish and unreasonable of me to ask you to believe something different. You can’t believe something different because your “belief” is really a lot more like a fact.

In the same way, let’s say I was regenerated on a date that’s several years removed from when I was baptized. I can’t remember exactly what the date was, but let’s say it was June 18, 2006. (It might be a little off, but it’s close enough for this example). I know that’s when I was regenerated because that is, in fact, when I was regenerated. I know what you’re thinking, I recited a prayer and tried to convince myself I was feeling something. That’s not what happened. That happened way back in the early '90’s, and that wasn’t God regenerating me. That was nothing. I think I know what else you’re thinking- I probably prayed a more specific prayer in June of 2006 and presto, God immediately “did” what I asked him to do. That wasn’t it, either- I’d been asking for regenerative transformation in very specific terms since early 2005. June of 2006 was when God actually did it, though.

So you say this is merely a “belief” based on “what I learned.” You are incorrect, sir. This is the factual reality of my life, and it’s based on what happened. God regenerated me in June of 2006. And I was baptized in '03 or '04, somewhere in there. And no, I don’t “believe” I was baptized in that general time frame because someone “taught me” I was baptized at that time. I’m giving you factual data here: I was baptized in the early part of last decade, and I know this is true because that’s when I was baptized. I was regenerated in the middle to late part of last decade, and I know that’s true because that’s when I was regenerated. I have facts that are based on reality. Based on your comments, however, I suspect that you have nothing more than belief without evidence. This may be true of you, but it’s not true of me.

I believe you are wrong. What you might consider is where this teaching came from and how in time you can trace it backwards to see where it came from…

The teaching I’m most familiar with is the one where you ask God to come “into your heart” and transform you into His likeness, and when you do that with sincerity, He immediately does so. But that’s not what happened. I was regenerated in June of 2006 after several months of prayer, doubt and disappointment, and this isn’t based on some teaching- it’s based on God regenerating me in June of 2006. You want to know where I trace it back to, so I can see where it came from? I trace it back to June of 2006, and it came from God regenerating me.

then you might understand and not be so flippant…with your “this is how it happens man”.

I’m not being flippant. I’m very serious about this. As per your request, I traced it back to see where it came from. (Like I didn’t know). But you can see it now, too. It goes back to June of 2006, and guess what? That’s when God regenerated me and transformed me from a non-Christian into a Christian. Plus, if it matters to you, I was baptized several years before that.

And that is exactly what happened. Man.

Arrogance and pride will serve you poorly, particularly when the foundation upon which you put forth ideas is at best shaky.

My foundation is shaky? And your foundation is so solid, right? What’s your story- you were baptized as an infant and you believe God regenerated you at that time because you implicitly trust someone who taught you that while you were growing up? Please.

 

[joe370]

krahnicles, other than the word of God, and your God given intellectual prowess it doesn’t sound like you really need any outside influence, church teaching office or otherwise, to keep you transformed into Jesus’ likeness and of course on the spirit guided path of doctrinal truth? Absolutely No sarcasm intended my friend. Is that an accurate assessment?

The teaching I’m most familiar with is the one where you ask God to come “into your heart” and transform you into His likeness…

 

[David89]

The one thing that I do not understand is how Protestants believe that the Church teachings are wrong, and their Church is right.

If one follows logically from this they are claiming that the correct interpretation of the “truth” did not start until their Church began teaching.

So if the first split occurred in 1500 by Luther who invented the doctrine of sola scriptura,then the earliest a Protestant can say the truth was being taught was 1500AD.

If that is the case they are also claiming that everyone before the creation of their denomination or at least the teaching of sola scriptura was wrong. Which would include the early church and the apostles themselves!

It makes me want to tear my hair out. I dont get how someone could believe something like that

Feel free to enlighten me

 

[joe370]

krahnicles, the CC is not trying convert all non-Catholics to Catholicism if they want nothing to do with catholicism. The CC is only interested in those non-Catholics reaching out to the CC. There is no catholic fallback plan man; you are paranoid. If you don’t want to belong to the CC then don’t.

Sure unity is truly the goal of the CC; see John 17. SO WHAT… You say the “Catholic monarch” wants universal reign then why are you even here at CAF?

Why are you really here at CAF if not to learn about the catholic faith???

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

I remind some of our newer Protestant members, you are on a Catholic forum. A certain amount of respect is required.
Please observe the rules of the forum below.

 

[PJM]

=krahnicles;8494970]Quick addendum: One more reason why I’m not Catholic. Basing my Christian identity on things that God has actually done to me is way better than getting baptized, observing that God (evidently) did absolutely nothing based on that cue, and forcing myself to believe God did something to me while keeping it a complete secret from me.

Great question!

After one has accepted Jesus as both God and man *, and is Bpatized *, and is in the state og grace: KNOWN as fact as I go to Confession at least monthly *, and with God’s grace I am chaititable in thought, word and deed; further I know what God teaches, and expects and with His grace do all of it, so at this instant I AM saved meaning if I were do drop dead right now; after Purgatroy; I would get to heaven.

I AM in the process of being saved because; like most [if not all], I am still a sinner, and therefore still in need of the gracrs of Faith; Hope and Charity. And of course the Sacrament of known forgivness: Catholic and Bible commanded [John 20:19-23] forgiveness of sin.

As for your position: It’s YOURS NOT GODS! Wanna choose which will matter in the end? Either your in charge or God is in charge. And the responsibility can’t be shared.

God Bless you,
Pat

Salvation dear freind is NOT about “feeling good” BUT of “being good” [meaning knowning and then living what God Commands]

One who" forces themselves to believe in God" is 1. Not paying attenion to the wonders of creation that surround us 2.kidding themselves BUT NEVER GOD 3. Lacks true faith and understanding. 4. is likely prideful and obstaniate? And therefore at GREAT risk of attaining there salvation.

God Bless you,
Pat***

 

[PJM]

=krahnicles;8494939](me)The way Catholics interact with Protestants seems to have improved to some extent, but it’s still not the kind of thing that suits God.
(PJM)And this is based on or because?

Because we’re supposed to be unified. How would you say our unity is doing?

Agreed on the concept but NOT your understanding of it. BUT you could make me a believer IF you can shaowm be in the bible even One Time where God approved of other gods; any faith beliefs other than His or more than Christ ONE church. ONE CAN"T ignore that as there are over 100 references to ONE in the NT alone. And As the Bible was written more than a THOUSAND years before your beliefs were birthed by man. So dear friend, make me a believer or accept what I share

Once again, the Keys to the Kingdom are plural whereas the Key to the House of David is singular. Did you look up the references to the singular key yet? If you did, you should know who has that key and where it is

Same story but a different plot Your right in that there are mutiple keys: what this actually means is that salvation is utterly impossible by any one “thing.” Salvation is a process; clearly ONLY Peter and the CC have the fullness of this truth becaue that was and continues to be God’s WILL. The reference here includes ALL of the following [and even this is not a complete list]. Christian Baptism, Faith, Hope, Charity, Grace, Obediece of the commandments [all of them] and to the Church Christ has put in charge, including the Primacy of Peter and Marian beliefs, good works and remaining without unconfessed / uinforgivren Mortal sins [which requires the Sacrament of Confession…John 20:19-23].

God permits only One God [Him] Only One set of Faith-beliefs [His as taught by Peter; holder of the Key to RIGHT Understanding, and always ONLY One Church: the ONLY ONE Jesus himself founded. = JUST ONE:thumbsup:

This was primarily in reference to early Christians who favored the Tanakh as the basis for the OT, especially the early Jewish converts to Christianity. So PJM, when Jerome spent a good deal of his early adulthood near Jerusalem studying Hebrew and living with a group of Jewish converts to Christianity (and in the process, joining them in favor of the Tanakh as the basis for the OT canon), what label would you affix to those Christians if not “catholics”?

ALL who accepeted and lived the above beliefs encompased in the “One” certainly were are are to be considered Catholics with One God; One [oan only One set of faith-beliefs] under the leadership of Rome and the Pope. Jerome is no more entitled to dictate to "the Church [singular] than are you or me. He was able to OFFER his opinion: Rome has no abligation to accept it.

Last I checked, kings never had the right to unilaterally jerk an archbishop around and force him to break communion with Rome.

King Henry VIII also had “no right to divorce and remarry”. Didn’t stop him from doing that either. I woun’t go futher on Henry as it chages the topic. Start a new thread and let me know about and I’ll be happy to discuss it.

And since all Christians belong to that one body (and also that ONE CHURCH), this clearly means Christ’s One Body and Christ’s One Church extend WAAAAAY beyond Roman Catholicism.

That my friend is your necessary BUT impossible to accept understanding. As the bible referenes to ONLY One Faith, One God and One Church occoured more tham 1000 YEARS before you came along. To be a part of the One chirch MANDATES in an absolute sense ONLY one set of faith-beliefs. Not many thousands of self informed views.

No, that’s absolutely not what you get when using my logic. You have no business saying “your wrong!” when you’re this far off base about what my logic is

I have asked mutiple times. IF Iam show whrere it says so in the bible?.

So PJM. How do you know God has saved and is saving you? Is this based on something that God actually did, or is it based on something that you believe is

I answered this in detail on a post just moments ago.

God Bless you,

Pat

 

[PJM]

=Telestia;8497055]I believe you are confused.

I have a real relationship with Jesus. I love Him, and He loves me. And His perfect love cast out all fears. I fear not because He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world. If HE is for me, who can harm me, or separate us.

When He takes me in His arms
He speaks to me so low
I see my life en rose

He tells me words of love,
Every Day these words,
And this does something to me.

He has entered my heart,
With a happiness,
Of which I know the cause,

It’s Him for me, and me for Him, in my life,
He tells me this, everyday, of my life,

And these things become apparent,
Then I sense in me, my beating heart.

I thought that love was just a word
They sang about in songs I heard
It took your death to reveal
That I was wrong and love is real

TTFN

Telestia

My friend PLEASE understand I’m not being a smart alec in my comments.

What YOU [or anyone not already a Catholic chooses] to believe is nice; but UNLESS IT ACTAULLY is what God teaches, what God commands us to accept and believe; its nearly worthless expect as a starting point to actually learning and then living the SINGULAR Truths that are Gpd’s not some mortals view of what is necessary for ones salvation.

Always and everywhere the BIBLE and God require our belief in One God; One set of faith beliefs [entrusted to the RCC by God himself] and only One Church: that which Jesus Himself founded: the RCC. JUST ONE:thumbsup:

Either God is completely in charge or you are. The responsibility can’t be split. Love is a GREAT place to start.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[CopticChristian]

It matters because when you use one set of words vs. another set of words, it indicates that you’re talking about two different things. One set of words is “the Key to the House of David,” which Jesus possesses and has never given to anyone. The other set of words is “the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,” and Jesus gave these keys to all His disciples.

These are different things. That’s why it matters. It also matters because PJM told me the CC possesses the ONE KEY to the Kingdom (he even used all caps), and this is demonstrably false. When there is just one Key to speak of, Jesus possesses it in Isaiah, He still possesses it in Revelation, and there’s no evidence (Biblical or otherwise) that He transferred possession of this Key to anyone else.

Let me see if I understand what you’re saying: The key of the chief steward is equivalent to the Key to the House of David, and just so we’re clear, Jesus possesses this Key in both Isaiah and Revelation and He never gives it to anyone. Is that right so far?

This is ok, insofar as the Key to the House of David (always possessed by Jesus and given to no one else) is equivalent to the Key to the Davidic Kingdom.

No. It’s not the same language. The Key to the House of David is handled with different language than the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and it’s a bigger difference than one being singular and the other plural (although that is more significant than what you’re allowing for). The difference is this: The Key to the House of David is always possessed by Jesus and it’s given to no one else. The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are given to Peter and they’re also given to the rest of the disciples. (Future reference- you should mention that; the way you handled this made it look like you were trying for deception by omission). Anyway…that’s one of the main differences. The singular Key goes nowhere, whereas the set of Keys is put in the hands of many different people and it goes everywhere.

I keep saying the Key to the House of David is a completely different thing from the Keys to the Kingdom. So of course one doesn’t negate the other when completely different language is used to describe what they are and what’s done with them; this actually reinforces my point. Which is, once more with feeling: The Key to the House of David is a completely different thing from the Keys to the Kingdom. Are you making this connection?

That would be really silly, and it’s also not what happened. You know why? Because the Key to the House of David is a completely different thing from the Keys to the Kingdom, so when Jesus gave the Keys to Peter and the rest of the Disciples, He wasn’t giving them the Key to the House of David. That one belongs to Him alone.

This is just more evidence of different language used for the Key of David as opposed to the Keys to the Kingdom. Here’s that difference.

“What he opens no one shall shut”- that’s the Key to the House of David. Reinforced on multiple occasions, at that.

“What he opens no one shall shut”- words that are not used to describe what is conferred on the recipients of the Keys to the Kingdom of God. Instead, this language is used: " Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν· ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ." Put into an accurate English translation, it says this: “Amen/Again, I say to you- what(so)ever you bind upon (the) earth must be what has already been bound in heaven, and what(so)ever you loose upon (the) earth must be what has already been loosed in heaven.” Again, this language is used on several different occasions.

But the important thing is…they’re different keys, and different language is consistently used throughout. The grammatical structure and word selection of ἔσται δεδεμένα/ἔσται λελυμένα is especially interesting for several reasons- one, because it’s so rare; two, because it’s so difficult to translate; and three, because the only time anything of the sort shows up anywhere in the Bible, it’s explicitly associated with the Keys to the Kingdom.

Again, different language. This language is unique to the singular Key (open and no one shall shut), whereas that language is unique to the Keys to the Kingdom (ἔσται δεδεμένα/ἔσται λελυμένα). Different key/s, different language, completely different habits of distribution.

You may want to read the following book…" Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy "…Butler, Dahlgren, Hess. You can find it on Amazon.

amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546

You can see Scott Butler on YouTube debating this topic. You don’t have to agree however it will give you the insight you do not have now and clarify the position you are arguing against poorly. I was a witness to the writing of this book. These guys are just a trio of good Catholics that met regularly and hashed the book out. Scott is my Daughters GodFather. I met these men at The Byzantine Church in San Diego when I was living there.

Try it you’ll like it.

 

[CopticChristian]

There is a reason I ask that way. I support unity, but at the same time, I accept the reality that some of us are non-Catholic while others are Catholic. But…we should still try to be unified. The general vibe I get from Catholicism is that you guys are in favor of unity, insofar as you’re able to convert all non-Catholics to Catholicism. You see ecumenism without conversion as relatively healthy when compared to fighting, but you don’t really see it as unity. Thus, you favor unity, but not as a goal in and of itself. What you really favor is the universal reign of your Catholic monarch, and unity is used as the pretext for that.

So here’s what I want to ask that I haven’t had a chance to ask a Catholic to this point: If you’re truly in favor of unity among all Christians, both Catholic and non-, what is your fallback option if converting all of Christianity to Catholicism doesn’t work out? (And let’s be honest, it’s not going to work out). You see, if you have a fallback option of some kind, that means you’re truly committed to unity as a goal in and of itself. But if you insist that there is no plan B and universal conversion to the RCC is the only way, that means universal conversion is the real goal and unity is the pretext- that is to say, “unity” is the reason given in justification of a course of action (converting everyone). Also, “unity” is not the real reason- you really just want to convert everyone.

Would you like to demonstrate that unity is truly your goal and you’re not just using it as a pretext? Tell me about your fallback option. If you have one, you’re not guilty of pretexting.

He was speaking to all of His disciples in Matthew 18.

I think you missed something important in this whole thing: Jesus is the chief steward. He is the one who possesses the Key to the House of David, and He gives it to no one. He has it because His Father gave it to Him. Alone.

The Keys to the Kingdom, on the other hand, represent something completely different. And once again, the Key to the House of David and the Keys to the Kingdom are completely different things.

I’m glad you know about those. When speaking to Protestants in the future, would you please omit inaccurate statements like the one you initially made? And you could also include distinct communions prior to the Council of Chalcedon.

Really? Ok. How about this. Part of the fallout of the Great Schism was a more-vertical shift in the organization of the CC in the West. It became less conciliar than it had ever been, and the result was a complete lack of transparency on any level that allowed for a uniquely huge amount of abuse that a more conciliar setup would curtail- if not in the short term, at least in the long term. These changes were largely made by popes that were good men and good leaders (ie., Innocent III), but these changes were the kind that further upset an already-kind-of-poor balance of power that allowed for later abuses to go unchecked. There were a number of steps on the way to the breaking point- first, good men (and a few bad men) made some bad changes to how the Magisterial leadership was structured. Then some bad men demonstrated that corruption and abuse could generally go unchecked. Next, this intriguing possibility got the attention of the most corrupt and abusive people on the planet, and they took advantage. Then when the tipping point was nearly reached…the Black Death swept over Europe and turned it into a post-Apocalyptic hellscape. Anything along the lines of a Reformation was tabled in favor of survival. But once Europe bounced back, the abuses were still there and the Reformation was back on. And then it happened. For people like Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, doctrinal issues and abuses were the primary concern. For everyone else, it had to do with money, nationalism, consolidating their own power, an urbanizing shift that made the abuses of Catholic leadership more apparent to a larger number and wider range of judging eyes…all kinds of reasons. Usually not doctrinal, for the vast majority of lay dissenters. Although those things were still important to men like Luther- he shared those concerns as well. It’s a really large component of the 95 Theses. But there were also doctrinal issues of importance to him, and this was not true for most of the anti-Rome folks in the HRE.

The main reason this is unique to Western Catholicism is this: It’s structured in the worst possible way and bad people eventually took full advantage of it. No other system of apostolic leadership is structured in such an abuse-friendly way (including Catholicism of the first millennium). Given enough time, that kind of ticking time bomb is eventually going to go off, and trust was broken beyond repair. If you’re looking for one single reason why you never saw a bomb explode anywhere else, it’s because no one else re-structured their leadership that badly. They weren’t perfect, but they didn’t screw themselves up to such a great extent that a Reformation (or Revolt, if you want) was inevitable.

You may want to investigate and read the dialogues that the Catholic Church has had with Anglicans, Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, etc…Unity starts with worship. Unity is centered on the Eucharist. The fallback option is the Eucharist…unity starts with worship…It is the Church of the living God and for the answer to be different you would have to consider that options are…unity starts with the Eucharist…

 

[CopticChristian]

No, I’m afraid you don’t understand. What I am describing is the thing that happened. And the way it wound up happening for me is actually different from what I learned as far as what the timing should be like. But that’s a different story.

That wound up being somewhat true in my particular case, but I’m not talking about what I learned. I’m talking about what happened. Say it with me, CopticChristian,

What happened, happened.

When I tell you “This is what happened,” that is exactly what I mean. Don’t twist those words.

All right, baby, here’s the 64,000 dollar question. That thing you learned about regeneration and the thing you believe about how the timing should coincide with being baptized…Can you confirm it with a reality check? Can you look back at what actually happened and affirm that the real-life assessment of what God did to you and when He did it to you does, in fact, match up with what you were taught?

If you were baptized as an infant, I suppose you believe something that cannot be confirmed. How lucky for you! But if you were not baptized as an infant, let’s see if we can get that confirmation, shall we? Take me as an example.

I was not baptized as an infant. And in the reality of what actually ACTULLY in fact happened…I was not regenerated at that time. I was regenerated at a completely different time. I know that’s when I was regenerated because that’s when I was regenerated. It’s not a time when I simply believe I was regenerated- it was the time when God actually did something called “regenerate me.” That’s the reality of what the timing was for me. I can’t believe something different because the thing I “believe” is confirmed by reality. The reality of my regeneration was not faith-based, it was an experience that I was fully aware of. It’s impossible for me to believe that happened at some other time because I would be forcing myself to believe something that isn’t true.

Let’s say you were baptized on December 6th, 1974. I’m making up a random date, but let’s say that’s it. You know you were baptized on that date because- duh, you were baptized on that date. It would be foolish and unreasonable of me to ask you to believe something different. You can’t believe something different because your “belief” is really a lot more like a fact.

So you say this is merely a “belief” based on “what I learned.” You are incorrect, sir. This is the factual reality of my life, and it’s based on what happened. God regenerated me in June of 2006. And I was baptized in '03 or '04, somewhere in there. And no, I don’t “believe” I was baptized in that general time frame because someone “taught me” I was baptized at that time. I’m giving you factual data here: I was baptized in the early part of last decade, and I know this is true because that’s when I was baptized. I was regenerated in the middle to late part of last decade, and I know that’s true because that’s when I was regenerated. I have facts that are based on reality. Based on your comments, however, I suspect that you have nothing more than belief without evidence. This may be true of you, but it’s not true of me.

I’m not being flippant. I’m very serious about this. As per your request, I traced it back to see where it came from. (Like I didn’t know). But you can see it now, too. It goes back to June of 2006, and guess what? That’s when God regenerated me and transformed me from a non-Christian into a Christian. Plus, if it matters to you, I was baptized several years before that.

And that is exactly what happened. Man.

My foundation is shaky? And your foundation is so solid, right? What’s your story- you were baptized as an infant and you believe God regenerated you at that time because you implicitly trust someone who taught you that while you were growing up? Please.

You cannot prove anything you say with a reality check so we have a stalemate. You are a self centered human that chooses to live the history of the world in your lifetime. I appreciate your lack of understanding of going back in time. Now that you have run the history of your life, take the next step and look at the history of your ideas and what you believe…

Thoughts are transmitted in time. You may want to investigate and read some books on this. You do not have to agree however you should know that the secular world knows this and uses it. If true then you should know it and use it…“Virus of the Mind” is a book on that subject. You do not have to accept anything except the reality…that as we know that the Jews said…“hear oh Isreal, the Lord our God is One” was transmitted in time from generation to generation and you believe it…think about this for some time.

 

[krahnicles]

I remind some of our newer Protestant members, you are on a Catholic forum. A certain amount of respect is required.
Please observe the rules of the forum below.

Hi, newer Protestant member here. In this Catholic forum, is the same level of respect required from Catholic members? Or is it a different level of respect? More specifically, is “contempt for Catholicism” and “contempt for non-Catholic Christianity” judged in a way that’s equitable?

The reason I ask is because I’m getting my cues on acceptable behavior from the people I’m talking to. If I am being held to a much higher standard than them, it’s a lot better for both of us in the long run if you just tell me that right up front.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, I’m afraid you don’t understand.

All right, baby, here’s the 64,000 dollar question. My foundation is shaky? And your foundation is so solid, right? What’s your story- you were baptized as an infant and you believe God regenerated you at that time because you implicitly trust someone who taught you that while you were growing up? Please.

Hi. I’m new. I don’t know much about Catholicism (or this forum) so the answer might change over time. As of right now, though, I’m just not. I don’t think it’s a big deal. Catholic is another kind of Christian, except in my experience, most Christians primarily care that other people are Christians. And then Catholics sometimes seem to care more about Catholicity than Christianity. I don’t think that’s right, so I wouldn’t want to be someone who does that.

Are you aware that Christ only founded one new Faith? [Mt. 16:15-19]

Yes. That Faith is called Christianity. Do you understand the difference between Christianity and Catholicism?

Quote:

One New Church and that is the precise reason we Catholics seem to be so bull-headed.
Perhaps you seem bull-headed because you are bull-headed, and there actually is something wrong with the way you’re doing things.

Quote:

We ARE doing it God’s way. Not modified to suit me, you, or anyone BUT God

The way Catholics interact with Protestants seems to have improved to some extent, but it’s still not the kind of thing that suits God.

Quote:

I don’t think either of these things are entirely accurate. The RCC isn’t even the oldest of the apostolic churches, and it’s certainly not the only one. Also, you have to differentiate between Jewish Christians who favor the Tanakh as the basis for canonicity and Greek/Roman Christians who favor the Septuagint in some way, don’t you? Or do you just refer to all of them as catholic?

I am not sure what you are doing here posting. You started out saying you knew little to nothing about the Catholic Church and yet in your bashing you appear to know a distorted Protestant view you learned from somewhere. You cannot say you did not learn it from somewhere because all learning comes from somewhere. Like the Bible it did just suddenly appear in your conscience. You have not asked any questions you want answered. You just spit out your ignorant distortions and ingorantly believe that you have made a point. The point you have made is that you lack education and Charity.

Why are you here?

 

[cheese_sdc]

I’m not a Catholic because:

I’ve never experienced the supposed loving God of Christianity; and even if I had; I don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus; and even if I did, I don’t believe in the primacy of the Pope; and even if I did, I don’t believe in inerrancy of scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not a Catholic because:

I’ve never experienced the supposed loving God of Christianity; and even if I had; I don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus; and even if I did, I don’t believe in the primacy of the Pope; and even if I did, I don’t believe in inerrancy of scripture.

No love…of God…

Jesus is not divine…

Pope is not prime…

Scripture is errant…

So you remain misinformed…I can live with that…

 

[cheese_sdc]

No love…of God…

Nope. And finally admitting that was more freeing than one can imagine.

 

[CopticChristian]

Nope. And finally admitting that was more freeing than one can imagine.

I appreciate honesty without agenda. It is sad for me and liberating for you. Everyone needs love.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by krahnicles
There is a reason I ask that way. I support unity, but at the same time, I accept the reality that some of us are non-Catholic while others are Catholic. But…we should still try to be unified. The general vibe I get from Catholicism is that you guys are in favor of unity, insofar as you’re able to convert all non-Catholics to Catholicism. You see ecumenism without conversion as relatively healthy when compared to fighting, but you don’t really see it as unity. Thus, you favor unity, but not as a goal in and of itself. What you really favor is the universal reign of your Catholic monarch, and unity is used as the pretext for that.

So here’s what I want to ask that I haven’t had a chance to ask a Catholic to this point: If you’re truly in favor of unity among all Christians, both Catholic and non-, what is your fallback option if converting all of Christianity to Catholicism doesn’t work out?

***My dear friend in Christ;

Neither my preference or yours matter. It’s God’s Church, God Himself and God’s single set of faith beliefs that will get us to heaven or hell. We choose. ***

 

[PJM]

=CopticChristian;8500175]Hi. I’m new. I don’t know much about Catholicism (or this forum) so the answer might change over time. As of right now, though, I’m just not. I don’t think it’s a big deal. Catholic is another kind of Christian, except in my experience, most Christians primarily care that other people are Christians. And then Catholics sometimes seem to care more about Catholicity than Christianity. I don’t think that’s right, so I wouldn’t want to be someone who does that

My friend you are FAR to generous in giving us Catholics “free choice.” The Bible and therefore Catholics understand Just One God; Just One set of Faith beliefs now entrusted by Jesus to Peter and the RCC. and only One Church: the One he founded. [Mt. 16:18-19; Mt. 28:19-20 and John 20:19*22].

But is nice to have yo join us anyway WELCOME!

Pat