Non-Catholics on these boards...

[Pax]

Little Mary:

Could someone please explain to me why this is such a big issue with non-Catholics? The Catholic Church teaches salvation by Grace and that you cannot be saved by Faith alone or Works alone…
Again, WHY is this such a big issue?

I read a statement by a prominent protestant author. It could have been R.C. Sproul but I’m not really sure. He basically said that if the protestant churches eventually align themselves with catholic teaching on justification, then it is essentially over for protestantism.

Clearly, the issues of sola scriptura and salvation by faith alone are essential to protestant beliefs. If either of these two fall they know it’s over. These are the two areas that represent the biggest stumbling blocks for non-catholics. Oddly enough, both of these positions are contrary to scripture yet protestants claim to make all of their proclamations by scripture alone.

 

[Ric]

Britta:

I love scripture and search daily. Actually, my point was really more about interpretation rather than baptism.

I know some very smart, God fearing, Jesus loving people (Catholic and Protestant) take the exact same scriptures and interpret them in completely different ways on any given point. How can anyone “know” the Truth of what Jesus taught?

Just because I read a passage and understand it one way does not mean it is God’s Truth. His Word must be read in context. There is so much more to it than that.

We know the Holy Spirit guides us. Why would the Holy Spirit guide so many people in so many different directions?

BTW, this is for anyone - what is the difference in being a junior member and a regular member? I am new to the boards.

Thanks.

Yes, it is true (sad to say) that there are many different interpretations from Scripture of many given passages. But one thing for sure is that if we come to the Scriptures in prayer and open to the Holy Spirit and most of all leaving our own intentions out we will come to the truth in the Scriptures. My post was really about that. When I said for (whoever it was) to search the scriptures, if you did so you would find out that there is not one example of water baptism before one’s salvation. (after Jesus’ resurrection).

But many denominations (including the RCC) does place man’s “tradition” equal to or above the Scriptures and that is where we get all of the other interpretations that conflict the the other denominations.

Is the truth able to be known? Yes! But we must come to the Scriptures open to the Holy Spirit and without our own prejudgements or traditions.

God Bless!

 

[Ric]

Shari:

Jesus is our redemer. So I take it that you don’t think salvation can be lost?

Different topic and thread.

But yes, one can not loose their salvation after they truly receive salvation.

 

[Pax]

Ric:

When Jesus was talking about being born of water, He was refering to natural birth from the mother’s womb. This is where we understand the fact of the first birth and the second birth (second birth being one who is “born again” from John 3:3).

Sorry Ric, but this an utter fabrication that is contrary to the context of scripture. This view does violence to the passage in which Jesus tells Nicodemus that a man must be born anew in baptism. Clearly, the bag of waters interpretation cannot be true. First of all, those who make the case for the interpretation do not offer any evidence that the Jews described childbirth in terms of the bag of waters. We know that Jesus was talking about the water of baptism because the scriptures that immediately follow the meeting with Nicodemus say that, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea: there he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22). The subsequent verses also mention that John the Baptist was nearby baptizing because there was an abundance of water. Baptism has always been associated with water, whereas childbirth in Jewish usage was more likely associated with blood. A biblical foundation for this latter point is found in John 1:12-13 where we read, “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

 

[Ric]

Pax:

If baptism doesn’t save then the apostle Peter must have been fibbing when he said that *baptism now saves you * (see 1 Peter 3:21).

If anyone is interested, I have reseached and compiled all of the New Testament verses on baptism and will be glad to email the file upon request. To suggest that baptism is unneccessary demonstrates why you can’t interpret scripture on your own.

If you study the different views of baptism in the various christian denominations you find an array of beliefs. The truth is, no one can say that they are not influenced by their church traditions and teachings. Moreover, the disunity among christians proves the point about interpretation. Stick with the historical church and read what the earliest christians had to say about the subject. I think someone like St. Ignatius of Antioch who was ordained by the apostle John has a better handle on the meaning of scripture, than any non-catholic pastor of today. Check out what the early church fathers thought about baptism, eucharist, confession and all the other teachings that the catholic church has lovingly preserved for two thousand years.

**Look closely at 1 Peter 3:21, it states that the water symbolizes baptism:

1 Peter 3:21

(ASV) which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

(BBE) And baptism, of which this is an image, now gives you salvation, not by washing clean the flesh, but by making you free from the sense of sin before God, through the coming again of Jesus Christ from the dead;

(CEV) Those flood waters were like baptism that now saves you. But baptism is more than just washing your body. It means turning to God with a clear conscience, because Jesus Christ was raised from death.

(Darby) which figure also now saves you, even baptism, not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the demand as before God of a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(DRB) Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(ESV) Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(GNB) which was a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you. It is not the washing off of bodily dirt, but the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(GW) Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life.

(HNV) This is a symbol of immersion, which now saves you–not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah,

(ISV) Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(KJV) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

(LITV) Which antitype now also saves us, baptism (not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

(MKJV) which figure now also saves us, baptism; not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

(MRC) And corresponding to that, immersion now saves you–not the putting away of filth from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah,

(NIV) and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(WEB) This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you–not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(Webster) The like figure to which, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: **

 

[Pax]

Ric:

Yes, it is true (sad to say) that there are many different interpretations from Scripture of many given passages. But one thing for sure is that if we come to the Scriptures in prayer and open to the Holy Spirit and most of all leaving our own intentions out we will come to the truth in the Scriptures. My post was really about that. When I said for (whoever it was) to search the scriptures, if you did so you would find out that there is not one example of water baptism before one’s salvation. (after Jesus’ resurrection).

But many denominations (including the RCC) does place man’s “tradition” equal to or above the Scriptures and that is where we get all of the other interpretations that conflict the the other denominations.

Is the truth able to be known? Yes! But we must come to the Scriptures open to the Holy Spirit and without our own prejudgements or traditions.

God Bless!

Every denomination believes that its teachings are bible based. Moreover, they believe their teachings and interpretations of scripture are the correct ones. Their confidence rests on the belief that the Holy Spirit will lead them unto all truth. Disunity, however, demonstrates that something is radically wrong with this picture, but it is safe to say that it is not the Holy Spirit that’s at fault. The fault must somehow be with the believers and their teachers.

Most teachers and believers love the Lord and are sincere in their beliefs. Possession of the truth, however, is not a logical consequence of sincerity. In order to possess the truth you must be guided by a reliable source. We must remember Paul’s instructions to Timothy. “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands,”(1 Timothy 5:22). Through the laying on of hands the apostles and successors transmit the gift of the Holy Spirit found in ordination. Paul instructs Timothy to follow the pattern of sound words and teaching that he gave him. Moreover, Paul tells Timothy to guard the truth and to remember what he had been taught and what had been entrusted to him by the Holy Spirit.

Finally, Paul tells Timothy to “Continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it…”(2 Timothy 3:14). Like Timothy, we must know from whom we have learned the faith. It is imperative that we choose a teacher that is both faithful and competent. Many believe that shopping for a church that teaches what they already happen to believe is a good way to find a church. This is contrary to another of Paul’s instructions to Timothy where Paul says, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths”(2 Timothy 4:3-4). We cannot trust ourselves to choose what teachings to believe, but there is a way to safely choose our teachers. In the church Jesus established, ordination and the laying on of hands has been an unbroken succession and practice from the time of the apostles. Each knew his teacher to be true, and so it is today. The teachers we choose must be those that trace their lineage through the laying on of hands in that unbroken chain all the way back to the apostles. It is through the teaching authority of the Church that the truth is safeguarded and preserved. It is for this reason that Jesus built his church and declared that the jaws of death would not prevail against it.

It is illogical and contrary to scripture itself to suggest that the bible alone is the source of truth and authority. It is illogical because scripture requires interpretation to be understood, and it is contrary to scripture because the bible never claims that authority for itself. Instead scripture tells us that it is “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”(1 Timothy 3:15).

 

[Ric]

Little Mary:

And how often does he do that?

Not often, but it has happened.

 

[Pax]

**
Look closely at 1 Peter 3:21, it states that the water symbolizes** baptism:

This is a terrible affront to the word of God and is totally lacking in sound exegesis. The reference in 1 Peter 3:21 is typology. The verse in no way says that water symbolizes baptism. The passage makes reference to Noah and the Ark and how they “were saved through water.” Likewise baptism now saves you.

 

[La_Chiara]

Ric, it is odd that you and Protestants in general reject Tradition. It is to “Tradition”–that is the oral testimony of the earliest disciples and followers of Chris–that we owe the Christian religion. Believers in “sola scriptura” can not disavow Tradition because the New Testament came from Tradition–from the oral testimony of the earliest Christians. The New Testament was preserved by the sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church and written down and codified by the Catholic Churchmany years after Christ died and many years after the original disciples died. So in believing in “sola scriptura” you have to believe in the Catholic Church and itsTraditions.

 

[1962Missal]

Ric:

When Jesus was talking about being born of water, He was refering to natural birth from the mother’s womb. This is where we understand the fact of the first birth and the second birth (second birth being one who is “born again” from John 3:3).

Two requests:

1. Given the ringing endorsement of material reality that is our Lord’s incarnation, please explain your reluctance to view matter as a vehicle for grace. “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
2. Please cite post- Apostolic references from the first three Christian centuries that support your amniotic fluid theory. The primary sources only, please.

Justin

 

[Hesed]

I’m not Roman Catholic.

I was raised Roman Catholic, 12 years of parochial education. I also had two wonderful Roman Catholic parents.

I never came to understand or receive God’s grace in the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sure that I never truly understood Roman Catholic theology totally, just what I was taught in school and at home, which from my standpoint was a system of human merit, regardless of the lip service to Jesus’ death on the cross.

I’m here because I love to discuss theology, and I want to understand how some seemingly cognizant people can become Roman Catholic – especially after (some of them) coming from a Reformed Protestant background of “sola scriptura.”

I’m sure I can learn a lot from Catholics, and maybe I can also share my own insights and help someone see the truth.

To me, I see it as a big shame to have so many good intentioned, even truly God-fearing people, straying from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ, and adding so many traditions that take away from the message of God’s grace in Christ. I’m sure many on this board can do a whole buch of theological gymnastics to try to prove their presuppositions and force Scripture to say what it doesn’t. What it comes down to for me is: having a lasting peace with God that is not based on my performance or works, but on what is truly a sure thing – the atoning substitutionary death of my Savior. Why would anyone want to add to that or to Christ’s High Priestly office with indulgences, Mariology, purgatory, and the like. It truly bewilders me.

I’m not a professional apologist or theologian. I’m just a lay person who tries to learn as much as I can. All I can say is that I never heard the resurrecting voice of the Good Shepherd in the Roman Catholic Church. The simple gospel, without all the smell and bells, and without all the distracting superstitions, is what did it for me.

It also troubles me how a person, who knows what the Lord Jesus taught about Kingdom leadership through his words and example, could ever submit to a Pope with all his pomp. Can you imagine Paul or Peter ever allowing people to treat them the way Roman Catholics treat the Pope. Does anyone think that Pete the Fisherman would wear such a ridiculous hat? Well anyway, I hope to make some friends here and have some meaningful discussions.

 

[Ric]

Hesed:

I’m not Roman Catholic.

I was raised Roman Catholic, 12 years of parochial education. I also had two wonderful Roman Catholic parents.

I never came to understand or receive God’s grace in the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sure that I never truly understood Roman Catholic theology totally, just what I was taught in school and at home, which from my standpoint was a system of human merit, regardless of the lip service to Jesus’ death on the cross.

I’m here because I love to discuss theology, and I want to understand how some seemingly cognizant people can become Roman Catholic – especially after (some of them) coming from a Reformed Protestant background of “sola scriptura.”

I’m sure I can learn a lot from Catholics, and maybe I can also share my own insights and help someone see the truth.

To me, I see it as a big shame to have so many good intentioned, even truly God-fearing people, straying from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ, and adding so many traditions that take away from the message of God’s grace in Christ. I’m sure many on this board can do a whole buch of theological gymnastics to try to prove their presuppositions and force Scripture to say what it doesn’t. What it comes down to for me is: having a lasting peace with God that is not based on my performance or works, but on what is truly a sure thing – the atoning substitutionary death of my Savior. Why would anyone want to add to that or to Christ’s High Priestly office with indulgences, Mariology, purgatory, and the like. It truly bewilders me.

I’m not a professional apologist or theologian. I’m just a lay person who tries to learn as much as I can. All I can say is that I never heard the resurrecting voice of the Good Shepherd in the Roman Catholic Church. The simple gospel, without all the smell and bells, and without all the distracting superstitions, is what did it for me.

It also troubles me how a person, who knows what the Lord Jesus taught about Kingdom leadership through his words and example, could ever submit to a Pope with all his pomp. Can you imagine Paul or Peter ever allowing people to treat them the way Roman Catholics treat the Pope. Does anyone think that Pete the Fisherman would wear such a ridiculous hat? Well anyway, I hope to make some friends here and have some meaningful discussions.

Welcome Hesed.

 

[Shari]

Ric:

When Jesus was talking about being born of water, He was refering to natural birth from the mother’s womb. This is where we understand the fact of the first birth and the second birth (second birth being one who is “born again” from John 3:3).

Now if this is not taking scripture out of context I don’t know what is. Let me help here:John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him," amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" Now this is actually a poor use of words. The original is born anough(not sure on the spelling) it means from above or can also be translated again. John 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born again?” It is here that Jesus understands Nicodemus takes it to mean again. That is why He clears it up. John3:5 Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Now unless Jesus is going to walk around and look for puddles of amniotic fluid, he means WATER. Now a little futher on it John 6:22 it speaks of Jesus baptizing in Aennon near Salim for there was much WATER there. I don’t understand how it could be taken as any thing else.

 

[Little_Mary]

Ric:

Not often, but it has happened.

Once you’ve come home to the Catholic church, you won’t have to worry about that kind of thing anymore!

 

[Shari]

**
Look closely at 1 Peter 3:21, it states that the water symbolizes** baptism:

Catholics believe baptism is a sacrament, and a sacrament is a visable sign of an invisible grace. Here you have water, the visible sign of washing, signifiying the washing away of the sins. And I don’t think Jesus would have said what he said in John3:6 if it was only going to be that way until the resarection. No he was laying the foundation for after.

 

[Ric]

Little Mary:

Once you’ve come home to the Catholic church, you won’t have to worry about that kind of thing anymore!

Sorry, but I can honestly say that I will never become a member of the Roman Catholic church.

I was married in a Roman Catholic church and was going to become a member, but after what I learned about the RCC’s teachings right after my marriage to my wife - is a whole story to it’s self. I might start a thread on the subject soon.

 

[Little_Mary]

Ric:

Yes, it is true (sad to say) that there are many different interpretations from Scripture of many given passages. But one thing for sure is that if we come to the Scriptures in prayer and open to the Holy Spirit and most of all leaving our own intentions out we will come to the truth in the Scriptures.
But many denominations (including the RCC) does place man’s “tradition” equal to or above the Scriptures and that is where we get all of the other interpretations that conflict the the other denominations.

Is the truth able to be known? Yes! But we must come to the Scriptures open to the Holy Spirit and without our own prejudgements or traditions.

God Bless!

Ric, Ric, Ric, you seem to contradict yourself here. If you are certain that you can come to the truth solely by prayerfully reading the scriptures, then protestant churches should not have preachers. Just let a passage from Scripture be read and then follow with a moment of silence so that the Holy Spirit can touch each individual. I wonder how many denominations there would be if we all did THAT??

But wait, even with preachers, it seems this method of (attempting to) receive the Holy Spirit and interpret Scripture has resulted in an excess of 25,000 protestant denominations. Maybe it’s time to go back to square one aka The Catholic Church.

Everything you know about driving a car did not come from the owner’s manual.

Regarding your statement about tradition, RC Tradition is not man’s tradition, it is part of the church that Jesus started. BTW, you can go to any RC Mass anywhere in the world on any given day and get the same message. No conflicts there at all. Catholics take all passages from the bible within context. Nothing is ever twisted to make it say something that it doesn’t.

 

[Little_Mary]

Ric:

Sorry, but I can honestly say that I will never become a member of the Roman Catholic church.

I was married in a Roman Catholic church and was going to become a member, but after what I learned about the RCC’s teachings right after my marriage to my wife - is a whole story to it’s self. I might start a thread on the subject soon.

Never say never, Ric.

Fair warning, the rosary is a very powerful prayer, and I am sure there are many being said for you these days. In fact if that is true, you are very fortunate!

 

[Shari]

Ric:

Sorry, but I can honestly say that I will never become a member of the Roman Catholic church.

I was married in a Roman Catholic church and was going to become a member, but after what I learned about the RCC’s teachings right after my marriage to my wife - is a whole story to it’s self. I might start a thread on the subject soon.

I thought that too, 8 yrs ago. I was actually very anti-catholic. But look at me now. I guess the Holy spirit knows what he’s doing. There is hope for you. I will pray, that the Holy Spirit leads you were he wants you and that you are open enough to follow.

 

[Little_Mary]

Pax:

I read a statement by a prominent protestant author. It could have been R.C. Sproul but I’m not really sure. He basically said that if the protestant churches eventually align themselves with catholic teaching on justification, then it is essentially over for protestantism.

Clearly, the issues of sola scriptura and salvation by faith alone are essential to protestant beliefs. If either of these two fall they know it’s over. These are the two areas that represent the biggest stumbling blocks for non-catholics. Oddly enough, both of these positions are contrary to scripture yet protestants claim to make all of their proclamations by scripture alone.

Pax, just want to thank you for your reply. I was really becoming frusturated over that one. I am new to all of this only having signed on a day or so ago. I am learning a lot and at the same time feeding a strong desire to defend my faith.