Pentecostal View Towards Catholics?

[tafan]

Can a Catholic give a reply to this?

Being born of water and Spirit can “happen” in “a way” as our infants, when we Baptize them. Let me rephrase… it does happen, when we bring them to His Baptism. Yet this is only the Infant stages of the Christian life. It is not until reaching the age of reason, that a person is able to make a conviction to believe. This moment of “accepting” in belief is no less significant than the Water Spirit Baptism received in infancy. It is also a moment of birth. The two experiences are both necessary in the beginnings of the Christian life.

So too, is the necessity for Water/Spirit Baptism for the person who believes and has not been Baptized as an infant.

rcwitness, thanks for the response, but I was wanting a response from benhur, him being a non-Catholic. BTW, I disagree with your statement “This moment of “accepting” in belief is no less significant than the Water Spirit Baptism received in infancy”. For one thing, I doubt if it ever really occurs in a moment. Secondly, it certainly seems to me that your wording places the sacrament of Baptism, at least as it applies to infants, as only a “temporary fix”, something that almost has efficacy until the age of reason.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

ltwin: “The Assemblies of God (which is Pentecostal) and the Methodists definitely do not teach Once Saved Always Saved nor do they teach the only condition for salvation is recital of a sinner’s prayer. They utilize prayer in conversion, but they do not treat it as a magical ritual that eternally seals a person with salvation.”

Think again. These events happened at a C3 Church which is Assembly of God – which, you yourself, claim is Pentecostal. Very much so, they believe in OSAS. The formula I stated (1,2,3,4) is nearly a word for word quotation from the pastor at this C3 Church during a sermon he gave. Magic Ritual, oh yeah! All the pastor cared about is whether the prayer was said – and 36 years ago was good enough! Seriously!

I could give you the pastor’s name and location of the church but it would probably not be appropriate on a public forum like this. I heard and experienced these things myself. This is not second-hand testimony. (And that was only the beginning of multiple errors.) Maybe your church holds to different beliefs and practices under the Pentecostal umbrella – but that’s not what I experienced at an Assembly of God church.

BenHur: I prefer to stick with St. Peter myself and his powerful sermon and instruction as to how to be saved in Acts 2. This is what my Catholic faith teaches and believes. v. 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 gifts of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ "

With respect to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 and the need to be born anew or born from above (born of water and of the spirit). Catholics believe Jesus was referring to baptism – a regeneration of water and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, water was used during the baptism and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove came down upon Jesus. Protestants, on the other hand, do not believe that these passage refer to baptism but rather to some sort of spiritual rebirth/ conversion.

Lest you think repentance and baptism is all there is … allow me to reassure you that that is merely a beginning. What comes after that initial conversion is “come, follow me” as a joyful and intentional disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The problem with Protestantism: If no agency in the Church is divinely authorized to teach in God’s name and thus empowered to teach infallibly, then one man’s doctrinal purity is another man’s heresy, and nobody is authorized to say otherwise with any authority save their own opinion. It is all individual interpretation and private judgment!

 

[57classic]

It is this total lack of a unified doctrine that is making it difficult to carry on a conversation with my particular non-denominational Christian. He attends Cowboy Church where it is like a group of good friends at a meal sharing not only the food (communion) but also God’s word, they laugh, they cry, they pray together and when it’s over nobody wants to go home.

They believe it is the Lord’s Supper because “where two or more are gathered in My name, I am there”. They don’t need no (sic) “priest in funny looking clothes mumbling big, funny sounding, religious words”.

Then he threw a verse at me cautioning me about knowledge: “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” and wondered if I loved the Church more than I love Jesus because the Catholic Church didn’t die for my sins, Jesus did.

After looking at the context of the above verse 2 Timothy 3:7 in the link he provided, I saw what he was really saying (because I know him well) was that as a woman, I am too weak to know the truth because I am a “woman weighed down by sin, led by various desires.”

I put an end to the conversation, I refuse to try to dialog with a person who spouts verses without context and also refuses to be logical or see that the Church needs to be logical and reasonable.

How can a person even converse with that kind of thinking much less attempt to show the beauty of traditional religion. I was planning on appealing to art, architecture, music but he’s “just a simple kinda guy” and doesn’t want to think past what he knows to how it all came to be.

 

[Kliska]

It is this total lack of a unified doctrine that is making it difficult to carry on a conversation with my particular non-denominational Christian. He attends Cowboy Church where it is like a group of good friends at a meal sharing not only the food (communion) but also God’s word, they laugh, they cry, they pray together and when it’s over nobody wants to go home.

They believe it is the Lord’s Supper because “where two or more are gathered in My name, I am there”. They don’t need no (sic) “priest in funny looking clothes mumbling big, funny sounding, religious words”.

Then he threw a verse at me cautioning me about knowledge: “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” and wondered if I loved the Church more than I love Jesus because the Catholic Church didn’t die for my sins, Jesus did.

After looking at the context of the above verse 2 Timothy 3:7 in the link he provided, I saw what he was really saying (because I know him well) was that as a woman, I am too weak to know the truth because I am a “woman weighed down by sin, led by various desires.”

I put an end to the conversation, I refuse to try to dialog with a person who spouts verses without context and also refuses to be logical or see that the Church needs to be logical and reasonable.

How can a person even converse with that kind of thinking much less attempt to show the beauty of traditional religion. I was planning on appealing to art, architecture, music but he’s “just a simple kinda guy” and doesn’t want to think past what he knows to how it all came to be.

If I may… I’ll just say we need both of those things in the Church. We need the fellowship and the actual connection of the people, of our brothers and sisters praying, laughing, talking, weeping, eating together. We also need the structure of something like a liturgy in the RCC to connect ALL brothers and sisters everywhere. As a protestant I know I can get the fellowship at most of my local churches, but I’ve come to recognize I can’t get a full connection with the whole body worldwide or to harness the “power” (for lack of a better word) of our whole family singing the same songs, praying the same prayers, etc… Is that enough to changes churches, probably not, but it may be a way for him to “get it” a little more.

A second thought is to remind him that Jesus indeed is the focus of love and worship, but also that the church IS the body of Christ, that those times he is fellowshipping and feels so close to others, that that is the Body of Christ working. You can’t separate Jesus from His Body, but indeed you worship Christ as Christ, not the Church, but the Church is His Body and His family.

 

[57classic]

If I may… I’ll just say we need both of those things in the Church. We need the fellowship and the actual connection of the people, of our brothers and sisters praying, laughing, talking, weeping, eating together. We also need the structure of something like a liturgy in the RCC to connect ALL brothers and sisters everywhere. As a protestant I know I can get the fellowship at most of my local churches, but I’ve come to recognize I can’t get a full connection with the whole body worldwide or to harness the “power” (for lack of a better word) of our whole family singing the same songs, praying the same prayers, etc… Is that enough to changes churches, probably not, but it may be a way for him to “get it” a little more.

A second thought is to remind him that Jesus indeed is the focus of love and worship, but also that the church IS the body of Christ, that those times he is fellowshipping and feels so close to others, that that is the Body of Christ working. You can’t separate Jesus from His Body, but indeed you worship Christ as Christ, not the Church, but the Church is His Body and His family.

YES!!! AMEN AND ALLELUIA that is what I need to tell him! My prayer for all of us is to find the fellowship we need and the unity of structure that puts extra power in unified worldwide prayer.

 

[ltwin]

Think again. These events happened at a C3 Church which is Assembly of God – which, you yourself, claim is Pentecostal. Very much so, they believe in OSAS. The formula I stated (1,2,3,4) is nearly a word for word quotation from the pastor at this C3 Church during a sermon he gave. Magic Ritual, oh yeah! All the pastor cared about is whether the prayer was said – and 36 years ago was good enough! Seriously!

Perhaps you misinterpreted his meaning? The Assemblies of God specifically rejects OSAS. Please check out the Assemblies of God Bylaws, Article 9 of which is on “Doctrines and Practices Disapproved.” The very first doctrine that is rejected is “unconditional security.” For your convenience and edification, I’ll quote the relevant passage, page 139:

Section 1. Unconditional Security

In view of the biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6); in view of the Bible’s call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost.

I could give you the pastor’s name and location of the church but it would probably not be appropriate on a public forum like this. I heard and experienced these things myself. This is not second-hand testimony. (And that was only the beginning of multiple errors.) Maybe your church holds to different beliefs and practices under the Pentecostal umbrella – but that’s not what I experienced at an Assembly of God church.

My church shares the same basic beliefs on salvation that all other mainstream Pentecostal churches share: "Salvation is received through repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ . . . The inward evidence of salvation is the direct witness of the Spirit . . . The outward evidence to all men is a life of righteousness and true holiness" (AG Statement of Fundamental Truths).

 

[3_Dog_Night]

I took notes of the various sermons. The pastor said what he said. I heard what I heard. I have no doubt whatsoever as to what he taught. Perhaps the pastor is not/ was not aware of the AG Bylaws and the AG Statement of Fundamental Truths as you are!

Frankly, I was not impressed. Each sermon had five (if that) scripture verses from The Message as “window dressing” along with such topics as “Dream Your Dreams,” “Unclutter Your Life,” “Learn How to be An Optimist” and “Improved Relationships 101.”

We enjoyed the Easter Bunny and the Minions, accompanied by SNL comedy, the cast of Star Wars (Princess Leigh too!) appearing in the middle of the service for the Apple Watch give away and a Frisbee throw in the sanctuary to welcome newcomers.

The music was an ear piercing rock bank with cool multi-colored light display. My friend has a service dog; the music hurt the dog’s ears (some dogs howl with that type of noise) and the lights + wild pattern carpet gave my friend a migraine with nausea/ vomiting.

All in all, I would say my experience of that church was a smashing success! Not! The entire thing was a fiasco and a circus – literally. Pure performance; total entertainment! I walked away; this version of Protestant Christianity had little, if any, credibility.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness, thanks for the response, but I was wanting a response from benhur, him being a non-Catholic.

I understand. I do care enough to acknowledge the common ground Catholics and Anabaptists share in the necessity of belief for the person of the age of reason, even if he/she was Baptized or not.

BTW, I disagree with your statement “This moment of “accepting” in belief is no less significant than the Water Spirit Baptism received in infancy”. For one thing, I doubt if it ever really occurs in a moment. Secondly, it certainly seems to me that your wording places the sacrament of Baptism, at least as it applies to infants, as only a “temporary fix”, something that almost has efficacy until the age of reason.

I will agree that it may not be such a moment (always). Even as much as becoming a person of the age of reason, is not so much an exact moment in time, but a maturing process. What is important, is belief and conversion of heart.

Yes, Infant Baptism is only a temporary fix, if one denies the faith as a mature person. It’s not magic and does not trump disbelief. It is the forgiveness of sins and acceptance into the Covenant.

 

[benhur]

Thanks for the clarification. If you could humor me again: What exactly is a “born again experience” or a “saving encounter with Christ”?

Hi tafan.

Well, it is when you receive the gift of faith that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Savior of the world , including one’s self. It when when all things become “new” and one sees the kingdom, and understands one’s place in it.

Being in the right church and doing all its rites/sacraments does not do it as evidenced by Nicodemus. You know a priest may not necessarily be born again apparently.

For sure when one finally is born of God , they then are water baptized, for we only baptize believers, and you can’t believe unless you have been regenerated, born again, the new man come to life, unless of course you believe a good thing dwells in us when we are born in the flesh, that we can proclaim Him as Savior *in the flesh *and that righteously, where Christ can illumine , even dwell, in the flesh (as if we did not need to be born of the spirit).

Blessings

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Well, in my part of the world, the only Catholics I knew had relocated from some other part of the country, and they were all either ex-Catholics, or nominal Catholics who hadn’t received any catechesis worth mentioning. If you asked them whether they were Christian, their answers were something along the lines of “um … I’m … Catholic?” … as if there was an either/or distinction between the two.

Given my own theologically sketchy upbringing, I couldn’t have put it in quite these terms back then … but of all my numerous “Catholic” acquaintances, not a one was a Christian in anything like what you’d call the Nicene sense of the word. I had to assume that this was the rule, rather than the exception, and didn’t find out any differently until after the Internet was invented. In fact–it embarrasses me to say this, and it probably speaks more of my own rotten luck than anything else … but I haven’t yet met in person a Catholic who actually believed in anything like the existence of God, or the divinity of Jesus, or anything else remotely Nicene. Now that there’s an Internet I understand there are exceptions, but it’s easy to get a mistaken impression in these parts.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Benhur: “For sure when one finally is born of God , they then are water baptized, for we only baptize believers, and you can’t believe unless you have been regenerated, born again, the new man come to life, unless of course you believe a good thing dwells in us when we are born in the flesh, that we can proclaim Him as Savior in the flesh and that righteously, where Christ can illumine , even dwell, in the flesh (as if we did not need to be born of the spirit).”

Ben, you might want to do a little reading of Reformation history. What the founders of the Reformation believed and practiced bears little resemblance to what Protestants believe and practice today. If you lived in Calvin’s Geneva Switzerland and didn’t baptize your child, you would have been thrown in jail and tortured until you repented. To withhold baptism from children was to withhold salvation. You might consider checking out the writings of Dr. David Andres who is a professor/ scholar of the Reformation.

Additionally, what the early Christians/ early Church believed and practiced also bears little resemblance to what modern day Protestants believe and practice. Yes, it is true there are Catholics who are nominal and who do not know their faith – but that is equally true of Protestants as well. Apathy and ignorance are not strictly “Catholic traits” but are shared by many. You might consider checking out David Bercot’s Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. It is an eye-opening look into the writings of the early Church Fathers.

 

[benhur]

Benhur: “For sure when one finally is born of God , they then are water baptized, for we only baptize believers, and you can’t believe unless you have been regenerated, born again, the new man come to life, unless of course you believe a good thing dwells in us when we are born in the flesh, that we can proclaim Him as Savior in the flesh and that righteously, where Christ can illumine , even dwell, in the flesh (as if we did not need to be born of the spirit).”

Ben, you might want to do a little reading of Reformation history. What the founders of the Reformation believed and practiced bears little resemblance to what Protestants believe and practice today. If you lived in Calvin’s Geneva Switzerland and didn’t baptize your child, you would have been thrown in jail and tortured until you repented. To withhold baptism from children was to withhold salvation. You might consider checking out the writings of Dr. David Andres who is a professor/ scholar of the Reformation.

Additionally, what the early Christians/ early Church believed and practiced also bears little resemblance to what modern day Protestants believe and practice. Yes, it is true there are Catholics who are nominal and who do not know their faith – but that is equally true of Protestants as well. Apathy and ignorance are not strictly “Catholic traits” but are shared by many. You might consider checking out David Bercot’s Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. It is an eye-opening look into the writings of the early Church Fathers.

Hi t,

Well I dont want to react to Catholicism as a reformer.nor react to reformers

I certainly would object to Calvin Geneva stuff that u mention and probably some Rome pope stuff on the matter…from my understanding not sure if early church infant baptism was taught to be regenerational…so just because infant baptism is mentioned doesn’t mean Geneva/Rome had it right a millennia and a half later…the working of the spirit is first usually without man’s hands.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi t,

Well I dont want to react to Catholicism as a reformer.nor react to reformers

I certainly would object to Calvin Geneva stuff that u mention and probably some Rome pope stuff on the matter…from my understanding not sure if early church infant baptism was taught to be regenerational…so just because infant baptism is mentioned doesn’t mean Geneva/Rome had it right a millennia and a half later…the working of the spirit is first usually without man’s hands.

Blessings

I think maybe a distinction here should be that Baptism is the formal/normal means of accepting/receiving forgiveness of sins through Christ’s merit. It isn’t an act of the minister that produces forgiveness, but the Spirit of God “over the water” to deliver the personal effect of His forgiveness. To receive is to freely be given, to reject is to withold His gift.

 

[benhur]

I think maybe a distinction here should be that Baptism is the formal/normal means of accepting/receiving forgiveness of sins through Christ’s merit. It isn’t an act of the minister that produces forgiveness, but the Spirit of God “over the water” to deliver the personal effect of His forgiveness. To receive is to freely be given, to reject is to withold His gift.

Hi rc,

Formal as in formality ? Formality because the sentiment/reality is previously deposited , experienced, known ? Again, only a believer is baptized, and in believing the assurance, the effect is a reality. Yet the closest verse to show the need to show forth the effect is to confess with the mouth as Paul states, or as many verses say, to be baptized, confessing the Godhead in the gospel…now of course an infant is an entirely different thing, which we were discussing…and of course He can inhabit and shape what He likes , even rocks as the Lord once said…yet we must be careful of “formality” even mechanics/ritual of new birth, even avoid extreme Calvinism or extreme predestination, cause and effect, presupposing that God must regenerate even hover over the water of infant baptism…not forgetting that the OT sign of circumcision and its shortcomings, and as to infants now, they too must later be baptized in the heart.

Thanks rc

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Formal as in formality ? Formality because the sentiment/reality is previously deposited , experienced, known ?

Yes, in the case of the mature recipient of the Gospel message. The inner working of the Spirit comes in many ways unseen by flesh and blood. He works through our conscience, Natural Law, and the Gospel message, which all help convict and give understanding.

Baptism is the personal reception of the Forgiveness which the Gospel invites and offers freely. To deny Baptism is to retain the sins Jesus died to forgive.

Again, only a believer is baptized, and in believing the assurance, the effect is a reality.

That is the Anabaptist doctrine. We bring our children to Christ’s grace and Spirit through Baptism, in His Trinitarian name. We are also promising to raise our children in the faith that we put our trust, hope and service to, so that when they are able to understand the grace of Jesus, they will give thanks for what they freely received.

Yet the closest verse to show the need to show forth the effect is to confess with the mouth as Paul states, or as many verses say, to be baptized, confessing the Godhead in the gospel…now of course an infant is an entirely different thing, which we were discussing…and of course He can inhabit and shape what He likes , even rocks as the Lord once said

Keep in mind what Baptism accomplishes… the personal reception of the promise of forgiveness of sins. This results in a clean conscience and the assurance of a right standing before God.

…yet we must be careful of “formality” even mechanics/ritual of new birth, even avoid extreme Calvinism or extreme predestination, cause and effect, presupposing that God must regenerate even hover over the water of infant baptism

We must also be careful to believe that He is true to His promise. “Do not hinder the children from coming to Me…”

…not forgetting that the OT sign of circumcision and its shortcomings, and as to infants now, they too must later be baptized in the heart.

They, too, must believe the Gospel of Christ’s grace, sacrifice (death), Sonship, forgiveness, Divinity, consubstantial being with the Father, resurrection, and eternal life. If they do not, they no better off than a man who hears the Gospel, believes, but neglect to partake of the command to receive Baptism in His Name (save that he is ignorant of the command, or prevented against his converted will). That man denies the faith through his disobedience to God’s call to be washed by water and Spirit. It is his soul that rejects forgiveness.

However, the Protestant world has sometimes clouded the call to Baptism. Many are raised with an inaccurate understanding. Namely, that Baptism is merely an outward “gesture” to follow Jesus, and that not all Christians are ready to make that “public statement”, but nevertheless, may believe and be walking in a right standing with Him. It probably does lessen the culpability of those who only know this doctrine. Still, it damages the whole of Christ’s mission and clarity. It is a distortion that compromises the action in the believer and believers family practice.

The flip side of that coin, is the Catholic hypocrate, who is content (and perhaps even proud) for observing the form of our religion, yet denying it’s inner call to conversion, suffering, perseverance, and love of God and brother.

Thanks rc
Blessings

And peace to you as well, ben

 

[benhur]

BenHur: I prefer to stick with St. Peter myself and his powerful sermon and instruction as to how to be saved in Acts 2. This is what my Catholic faith teaches and believes. v. 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 gifts of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ "

Hi 3,

Good verse and certainly could be taken that sins are not forgiven until water baptism. Some folks took this to far and postponed baptism till late in life to make sure sins were forgiven.

For sure , Peter spoke to folks who probably were not baptized by John nor the apostles later with Jesus. Baptisms occurred for at least three years to five of six with John. The pharisees and many stood on the sideline and did not “believe”, were not baptized. So they not only needed to repent of His crucifixion , but of this refusal of the waters. So those folks for sure needed to be forgiven of their sins of unbelief and refusal to be baptized , by believing and being baptized.

But for others I would be careful and not say your sins are not forgiven if you do not water baptize, for indeed even if you cry out to the Lord , you will be saved

With respect to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 and the need to be born anew or born from above (born of water and of the spirit). Catholics believe Jesus was referring to baptism – a regeneration of water and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, water was used during the baptism and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove came down upon Jesus. Protestants, on the other hand, do not believe that these passage refer to baptism but rather to some sort of spiritual rebirth/ conversion.

Yes, we know Jesus did not need to be baptized but was for other reasons. There was no indwelling of the Holy Ghost in Nicodemus time, hence not the primary meaning of the text, nor was there regeneration thru water (preparation, sanctifying yes) . While in hindsight I can understand baptismal views, it is not in the text. And there are even texts that can show the Spirit is first received then one is baptized (Cornelius).

Again, I believe the text juxtaposes the flesh and the spirit, and being born of water and being born of the spirit, that the flesh is born of water (as Nicodemus almost humorously brings up of reentering his mothers womb).

Whatever is suggested in the text about being born again, it must be an OT teaching, one that a “leader” of Israel, a rabbi, should know, and was chided for not knowing. Folks in the OT were born again, regenerated, born of God, of the Spirit. They were not only commanded to be circumcised but to be circumcised of the heart.

The problem with Protestantism: If no agency in the Church is divinely authorized to teach in God’s name and thus empowered to teach infallibly, then one man’s doctrinal purity is another man’s heresy, and nobody is authorized to say otherwise with any authority save their own opinion. It is all individual interpretation and private judgment!

Yes a problem and a strength, because it does not deny that some do get it right, and that *freely, *and for sure by a miracle. Think of it, that out of 30,000 views some (many) get it right, and one must conclude that by the Spirit, and not by a top down institution.

Tell me, did Peter give his private interpretation, or an individual interpretation, as to whom is Jesus when he was asked? Indeed did not Jesus ask for their individual understanding of the matter, apart from divinely authorized “agency” ? In the end the Father speaks to the individual, and if it lines up with other believers, presbyters, bishops, and councils, great, then just maybe the Father also spoke the same to them also. This is Invisible and Stronger than any agency. In fact it is what the visible agencies should be led by.

So it is still your individual opinion, your interpretation, that the agency is the CC, or that she is right on this matter, or that matter. No different than any P or O, that their respective "opinions’’ are correct.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Good verse and certainly could be taken that sins are not forgiven until water baptism. Some folks took this to far and postponed baptism till late in life to make sure sins were forgiven.

Yes, “some folks” believe and practice many wrong things. It doesn’t mean it’s what the Church has Confirmed as right.

For sure , Peter spoke to folks who probably were not baptized by John nor the apostles later with Jesus. Baptisms occurred for at least three years to five of six with John. The pharisees and many stood on the sideline and did not “believe”, were not baptized. So they not only needed to repent of His crucifixion , but of this refusal of the waters. So those folks for sure needed to be forgiven of their sins of unbelief and refusal to be baptized , by believing and being baptized.

We don’t know that none of the Pharisees received Baptism.

Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sad′ducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

But for others I would be careful and not say your sins are not forgiven if you do not water baptize, for indeed even if you cry out to the Lord , you will be saved

Can one cry out to the Lord and neglect the Lord’s answer to be Baptized, and yet still be saved?

Yes, we know Jesus did not need to be baptized but was for other reasons. There was no indwelling of the Holy Ghost in Nicodemus time, hence not the primary meaning of the text, nor was there regeneration thru water (preparation, sanctifying yes) . While in hindsight I can understand baptismal views, it is not in the text. And there are even texts that can show the Spirit is first received then one is baptized (Cornelius).

Yes, the Church does not say that a person cannot receive the Spirit unless they be Baptized first. It is actually the Spirit who convicts to receive Baptism.

Again, I believe the text juxtaposes the flesh and the spirit, and being born of water and being born of the spirit, that the flesh is born of water (as Nicodemus almost humorously brings up of reentering his mothers womb).

Are you referring to amniotic fluid? If so, do you have any early Church writings claiming this?

Whatever is suggested in the text about being born again, it must be an OT teaching, one that a “leader” of Israel, a rabbi, should know, and was chided for not knowing. Folks in the OT were born again, regenerated, born of God, of the Spirit. They were not only commanded to be circumcised but to be circumcised of the heart.
Yes a problem and a strength, because it does not deny that some do get it right, and that *freely, *and for sure by a miracle. Think of it, that out of 30,000 views some (many) get it right, and one must conclude that by the Spirit, and not by a top down institution.

Born of water and Spirit means receiving the life of Christ. This initially happens through Baptism. Baptism is referred to as an elementary doctrine, in Hebrews 6. We should be moving on… right? But here we are, hashing out differences. It makes me wonder if it’s not wrong to debate these things, sometimes.

Tell me, did Peter give his private interpretation, or an individual interpretation, as to whom is Jesus when he was asked? Indeed did not Jesus ask for their individual understanding of the matter, apart from divinely authorized “agency” ? In the end the Father speaks to the individual, and if it lines up with other believers, presbyters, bishops, and councils, great, then just maybe the Father also spoke the same to them also. This is Invisible and Stronger than any agency. In fact it is what the visible agencies should be led by.

What was really going on at this meeting? Why was Jesus asking these questions? I believe He was putting forward the important issue of the time (not to say that question doesn’t always have a place in all generations). But here they were, all 12 Apostles, with the Lord. It was like a “Magisterial Council”. But Jesus never “needed” man’s (name removed by moderator)ut. He wasn’t looking for man’s (name removed by moderator)ut. He was looking for the man who would Confirm the faith for the Council. It was like a practice council. “This is what the people say… what do you say?” He then reveals what Peter’s role will be, for when the Church is established, and He returns to the Father.

So it is still your individual opinion, your interpretation, that the agency is the CC, or that she is right on this matter, or that matter. No different than any P or O, that their respective "opinions’’ are correct.

If the Protestant and Orthodox churches were able to convey their position with one, united and officially represented voice, then your case might be stronger. As it is, there are so many “individualistic opinions” within Protestantism (and yes, they are even opposed to one another, fundamentally) that there is no way to settle significant matters, which truly cause division.

The Catholic faith honors the Scriptural way to resolve matters that would otherwise divide: “Bring it to the Church”. Just as Jesus told them, regarding sins against one another, and the issue of circumcision at the Council.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Are you referring to amniotic fluid? If so, do you have any early Church writings claiming this?
l.

 

[CatholicSheila]

I was raised pentecostal and my family are still pentecostal. Both my brothers, their wives and parents as well as extended family. Quite a few pastors in the family including a brother, two cousins and my late grand father.

My experience is that most do not consider us Christian. I was raised that Catholics were not Christian. The belief is that we pray (read: worship) saints. We worship Mary. The Eucharist is sacrilege. We follow the Pope and not Jesus. Those are the big things that ensure we are not Christian.

I converted in 2009. At the time I got a very mixed response. No one was happy. Some refused to come to the Easter Vigil. Others came despite their opposition. The general belief at that point is that if I am Christian it is despite the fact that I am Catholic not because my Catholic faith is actually Christian. I think the hope was that they would ‘pray me out’. As the years have passed, that view has changed. Those who attended will now openly say that Catholics are Christian. My brother that was most strongly opposed (not the pastor interestingly) recently told me that whilst he “disagrees with a lot of the Catholic
doctrines, the Catholic Church does not deny the fundamentals and are Christian”. That is a huge change from 5 years ago when Catholics were not Christian and I was actively excluded from the religious discussions that the family had.

What I found interesting then, and still now, is that none of them have ever asked me why I converted. If they were converting to something they were taught, and believed, for a long time wasn’t Christian, I would wonder why. Yet no body ever asked.

 

[rcwitness]

I was raised pentecostal and my family are still pentecostal. Both my brothers, their wives and parents as well as extended family. Quite a few pastors in the family including a brother, two cousins and my late grand father.

My experience is that most do not consider us Christian. I was raised that Catholics were not Christian. The belief is that we pray (read: worship) saints. We worship Mary. The Eucharist is sacrilege. We follow the Pope and not Jesus. Those are the big things that ensure we are not Christian.

I converted in 2009. At the time I got a very mixed response. No one was happy. Some refused to come to the Easter Vigil. Others came despite their opposition. The general belief at that point is that if I am Christian it is despite the fact that I am Catholic not because my Catholic faith is actually Christian. I think the hope was that they would ‘pray me out’. As the years have passed, that view has changed. Those who attended will now openly say that Catholics are Christian. My brother that was most strongly opposed (not the pastor interestingly) recently told me that whilst he “disagrees with a lot of the Catholic
doctrines, the Catholic Church does not deny the fundamentals and are Christian”. That is a huge change from 5 years ago when Catholics were not Christian and I was actively excluded from the religious discussions that the family had.

What I found interesting then, and still now, is that none of them have ever asked me why I converted. If they were converting to something they were taught, and believed, for a long time wasn’t Christian, I would wonder why. Yet no body ever asked.

Interesting story, thanks for sharing. It is interesting how we sometimes judge harshly the things we don’t understand. And we don’t ask questions about things we don’t understand. It’s easier to assume something and not have to actually LOVE each other! Love is not easy.

When I converted (from E-Free/Non-denom) my mother said, “…but we raised you Christian!” But that was the worst of everything. I think it was more intimidation than not believing Catholics were Christian. It’s also just plain not knowing about the faith.

I think if every Christian would simply go to Mass for several months, a whole lot of people would realize how Christ centered and Scripture filled the faith really is!

P.S. So why did you convert?