Questions from a Pentacostal

[Burning4Christ]

I my self am a totally onfire christian and I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I try my best, with my broken fallen and carnal nature, to love all those are apart of the body of Christ. I seek to understand several Cathololic Doctrines that I personally do not share. I do not seek to argue or bring about a hatefull spirit in myself or others. I merely seek to understand where, biblically, the following doctrines come from. If there is no direct biblical justification then I would like to know any other justifications that may be used for them.

~The belief in Limbo, or purgetory.

~The belief in “trickling” baptism as opposed to the the way that jesus was baptisted in full emersion

~The high place that Mary has in catholic doctrine. Why is she prayed to? Why do many catholics beleive that she was sinless throughout her entire life?

~The high place that saints have in catholic belief. Why are they are called upon to ask for forgivness? Where does the process of calling someone a saint come from? as i understand it it is very long and involved.

~Why did the catholic church only alow the bible to be in latin for such a long time? I understand this may not be the beleif of the contemperary catholic church, but if anyone knows why this was done in the first place?

~Why is the bible not the only source of catholic doctrine?

~Why exactly what roles to the various councils through out the years have in influencing catholic doctrine?

~Why is it that the catholic church and the lutheran church are so at each others throats, and yet theologically the Lutheren church is the closest to Catholicism of any protostant denominations.

~Why does the pope hold such a high regard? why do people fall to his feet and kiss his hand as if he is higher than everyone on the planet? it says in Gods word that nobody is rightous, not even one. Why is a sinner treated as if he were perfect? Catholics may not believe that he his, it just seems that many treat his as if he is.

I seek biblical justfication for these questions, not papel decries, decisions of councils, or any other such justifications. Councils and Popes, although how ever wise they may be, if they establish a belief based not on Gods word but on there own wisdom, it is like a house built on sand (thats biblical by the way). Like I said, i do not seek a fight, I seek answers as to why these beliefs and practices have been established. Thank you all and I wish you all a blessed day.

With The love that christ calls us all to have,

Brendan Marchione

 

[1ke]

You need to post each question individually. Threads are supposed to be one single topic only. It is too difficult to try to answer multiple questions in one thread.

Post again, one at a time.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I my self am a totally onfire christian and I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I try my best, with my broken fallen and carnal nature, to love all those are apart of the body of Christ. I seek to understand several Cathololic Doctrines that I personally do not share. I do not seek to argue or bring about a hatefull spirit in myself or others. I merely seek to understand where, biblically, the following doctrines come from. If there is no direct biblical justification then I would like to know any other justifications that may be used for them.

~The belief in Limbo, or purgetory.

~The belief in “trickling” baptism as opposed to the the way that jesus was baptisted in full emersion

~The high place that Mary has in catholic doctrine. Why is she prayed to? Why do many catholics beleive that she was sinless throughout her entire life?

~The high place that saints have in catholic belief. Why are they are called upon to ask for forgivness? Where does the process of calling someone a saint come from? as i understand it it is very long and involved.

~Why did the catholic church only alow the bible to be in latin for such a long time? I understand this may not be the beleif of the contemperary catholic church, but if anyone knows why this was done in the first place?

~Why is the bible not the only source of catholic doctrine?

~Why exactly what roles to the various councils through out the years have in influencing catholic doctrine?

~Why is it that the catholic church and the lutheran church are so at each others throats, and yet theologically the Lutheren church is the closest to Catholicism of any protostant denominations.

~Why does the pope hold such a high regard? why do people fall to his feet and kiss his hand as if he is higher than everyone on the planet? it says in Gods word that nobody is rightous, not even one. Why is a sinner treated as if he were perfect? Catholics may not believe that he his, it just seems that many treat his as if he is.

I seek biblical justfication for these questions, not papel decries, decisions of councils, or any other such justifications. Councils and Popes, although how ever wise they may be, if they establish a belief based not on Gods word but on there own wisdom, it is like a house built on sand (thats biblical by the way). Like I said, i do not seek a fight, I seek answers as to why these beliefs and practices have been established. Thank you all and I wish you all a blessed day.

With The love that christ calls us all to have,

Brendan Marchione

Hey, your giving us a doctrinal dance.

Like 1ke, these questions can only be answered on individual threads.

I also like to add that catholic.com has tracts that answer your claim. Many of what you assumed are false misconceptions. I assumed you learn Catholicism from former Ex-Catholics or others who have no clue what Catholicism is all about.

 

[VociMike]

You need to post each question individually. Threads are supposed to be one single topic only. It is too difficult to try to answer multiple questions in one thread.

Post again, one at a time.

I agree, 9 questions in one thread is a a guarantee of thread collapse.

I would only say that your conditions are not justifiable. To demand bible-alone explanations is to misunderstand the Church that Christ founded, and the place of the bible within that Church. It is as if I asked you for a mathematical or legal proof, but I also restricted you to only using those mathematical or legal doctrines that can be found in the first half of the English language. It is an unreasonable restriction, just as your bible-alone restriction is unreasonable. The faith given us by God is not limited to the bible - hence the Apostles and their followers had the fullness of faith before a single word of the New Testament was written.

 

[disciple68]

Good day,
I’m glad 2c that ur at least ur willing to listen to our point of view. Most protestants I have met surprise me with their hostility.
I will try to u answer some of ur questions but will keep it short due to space.
I agree with mannyfit, that u have some misperceptions about Catholicism. I’ll try my best to provide u with accurate information. l understand that as a protestant u require sola scriptura answers so I will stick to holy scripture.
Limbo was never an “official” doctrine it was more of a theory, and was actually been done away with last year. Dont let any one tell you it was a Dogma cuz it wasn’t
Purgatory is alluded to in scripture in several places. True you wont find the word “Purgatory” in the Bible but then the Bible does not say that every thing you need to be a Christian is contained within it’s pages. (Sola Scripturan thats a whole other discussion)
Ask your self. If we are saved through faith alone not by deeds then why should there be a final judgement at all? Then read Rev. 20:13 and ask yourself. Where are the souls of the “saved” awaiting their final judgement?
In the very next verse death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire how can hell be thrown into itself ? Hades is not hell, it’s original meaning is a state of death. (this is the belife of the early chistians) The just und unjust dead are there awaiting judgement. In other words purgatory.
In 1 Cor. 3:12-17. “In these passages, Paul is talking about how God judges our works after death by using a string of metaphors (we are God’s building; works are good and bad materials, etc.). Paul says that if a person builds with good materials, he will receive a reward (verse 14). If he builds with a mixture of good and bad materials, his work is burned up, but he is still saved (verse 15). If he only builds with bad materials, he has destroyed the temple, and God will destroy him (verse 17).”
There many other examples, in 1 Peter 3:19, 4:6 Jesus visits the souls in “prison” and preached to them. This passage states that these souls were to be saved in the spirit so how can they be in eternally dammned to Hell?
Ask yourself this, when Jesus raised Lazarus. Where was Lazarus? was he brought back from heaven? Personally I’d be a bit upset Was he in hell? No hell is eternal damnation. The only logical answer is a 3rd temporay state. Also there are some Protestant denomonations that belive in Purgatory its not just Catholics. Even the Jews pray for the dead by eciting the Mourners Kaddish Jesus never disavowed them from this custom as he did some others. (Divorce being a good example) Even C.S. Lewis belived in purgatory. Belife in Purgatory is evident if you read the early church fathers but I want to stick with scripture only.
Wow I seem to have babbled on about only one subject there is so much more about this subject alone! that I want to share with you!!! let alone the others. I f you want you can email me and I will glady answer any question you have:thumbsup:
Mean time take care keep digging and studying God bless you
Meantime try this website. scripturecatholic.com

 

[deb1]

Please post seperate threads for each question. If not you will have a difficult time keeping up with the answers.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

One thing,and it’s a small thing, it’s spelled Pentecostal.

Please excuse me for correcting your spelling. Too many years as a parent.

JJ

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hello B4C and welcome to the forum

Why is the bible not the only source of catholic doctrine?

I seek biblical justification for these questions, not papel decries, decisions of councils, or any other such justifications. Councils and Popes, although how ever wise they may be, if they establish a belief based not on Gods word but on there own wisdom, it is like a house built on sand (thats biblical by the way).

Why hold us to a standard that you yourself do not keep?

God bless

 

[mercygate]

Hello B4C and welcome to the forum

Why hold us to a standard that you yourself do not keep?

God bless

C’mon! Burning4Christ didn’t come on with any hostility, and these are real questions for many. Let’s assume he’s for real – as he has been most gracious and informative on other threads.

 

[inthecloud]

Why did the catholic church only alow the bible to be in latin for such a long time? I understand this may not be the beleif of the contemperary catholic church, but if anyone knows why this was done in the first place?

~Why is the bible not the only source of catholic doctrine?

~Why exactly what roles to the various councils through out the years have in influencing catholic doctrine?

I believe that this questions should be answered first.
Tho explain why Catholics (and BTW Orthodox and Coptic Christians) do not believe in Sola Scriptura.

Then the other questions can be answered in turn or linked to previous answers.

The story of the Bible is one of the most fascinating things. And Councils played a role into that.

 

[jwashu]

B4C,

Let me first say that I’m excited that you are on fire for Christ and are seeking answers, correct answers to these questions.

As others have said though you will probably need to break them down into different threads.

You may also find the answers to many of these somewhere on these boards or at the main Catholic Answer’s website (www.catholic.com)

I want to point out a few things before you get started that you might want to take a step back and consider, in regards to Sola Scripture or Bible Alone… justifying every belief strictly from an interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

Please note that the Bible never says It’s the only authority. When It speaks of “scriptures” in the NT, it can only be referring to the OT since the NT did not exsit yet. Rather the Holy Scriptures says the Church is the Pillar of Truth.

Secondly realize that out of hundreds of texts, the 27 books we consider inspired were decided upon by Bishops loyal to Rome who accepted Papal authority.

Thirdly, remember that an accepted canon of New Testament scriptures was not decided upon until the 5th century. By that time the Church had grown to encompass an Empire. Christanity did this primarily through the oral traditions and preaching the word. During that time the Church also defended itself from many heresies (that as a Pentacostal you, by definition believe are heretical as well).

Good luck and my God bless your search and grant you wisdom!

Joe

 

[guanophore]

I my self am a totally onfire christian and I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I try my best, with my broken fallen and carnal nature, to love all those are apart of the body of Christ. I seek to understand several Cathololic Doctrines that I personally do not share. I do not seek to argue or bring about a hatefull spirit in myself or others. I merely seek to understand where, biblically, the following doctrines come from. If there is **no direct biblical justification **then I would like to know any other justifications that may be used for them.

Here is a false premise from which you are starting. As a Pentecostal, you may not know that all of Catholic Doctrine came before the New Testament was written. In fact, the Catholic Church was functioning for several centuries before the canon was completed in the fourth century. Therefore, it can safely be said that NONE of the catholic doctrines have “direct biblical justification”. They all proceed directly from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

In fact, Catholics wrote the Bible, so it reflects Catholic beliefs.

~The high place that Mary has in catholic doctrine. Why is she prayed to? Why do many catholics beleive that she was sinless throughout her entire life?

Don’t you ever ask anyone to pray for you? Don’t you believe that the effectual fervent prayers of a righteous person are of great value?

~Why did the catholic church only alow the bible to be in latin for such a long time? I understand this may not be the beleif of the contemperary catholic church, but if anyone knows why this was done in the first place?

It sounds like you are in for some valuable lessons in your own family history!

~Why is the bible not the only source of catholic doctrine?

I answered this above, and you can search the forums on Sacred Tradition an learn more also in the library using the link above.

Why does the pope hold such a high regard? why do people fall to his feet and kiss his hand as if he is higher than everyone on the planet?

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

it says in Gods word that nobody is rightous, not even one.

You have misunderstood this passage of scripture.

Why is a sinner treated as if he were perfect? Catholics may not believe that he his, it just seems that many treat his as if he is.

If you are from America, you may not be familiar with cultural customs in other places in the world where people bow, kneel, prostrate, or kiss objects of revered person. In America we no longer bow or give deference to our leadership as is still done in other parts of the world.

I seek biblical justfication for these questions, not papel decries, decisions of councils, or any other such justifications. Councils and Popes, although how ever wise they may be, if they establish a belief based not on Gods word but on there own wisdom, it is like a house built on sand (thats biblical by the way).

You are proceeding from a false belief that all of the Word of God can only be found in the Bible. Unless you are willing to look at other points of view, it is not likely that anyone here will be able to answer your questions satisfactorily.

Like I said, i do not seek a fight, I seek answers as to why these beliefs and practices have been established. Thank you all and I wish you all a blessed day.

With The love that christ calls us all to have,

Brendan Marchione

You say you are seeking answers, but only if they fit into the small box you have created. Just so you know up front, they will not.

 

[Fred_4]

Yes, Burning4Christ, seeking a Bible-only justification of Catholic doctrine is impossible. Not that Catholic doctrines are unbiblical, they are just formed from both Sacred Scripture (our Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the oral teaching of the apostles). Only some of the teaching of Jesus and his apostles was written down.

 

[Fred_4]

~The belief in “trickling” baptism as opposed to the the way that jesus was baptisted in full emersion

OK. I was just thinking… (I know… Scary, isn’t it!?) How would you as a Pentecostal use the Bible to justify baptism in any location other than the Jordan River? BTW… Catholic baptism is commonly performed by sprinkling, not “trickling.” No quotation marks necessary. Although the name “Jesus” should be capitalized I think…

 

[mercygate]

OK. I was just thinking… (I know… Scary, isn’t it!?) How would you as a Pentecostal use the Bible to justify baptism in any location other than the Jordan River? BTW… Catholic baptism is commonly performed by sprinkling, not “trickling.” No quotation marks necessary. Although the name “Jesus” should be capitalized I think…

Technically, we Catholics pour or immerse. We don’t sprinkle or dip rose petals in water and rub them on a baby’s head.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

~The belief in “trickling” baptism as opposed to the the way that jesus was baptisted in full emersion

I can actually answer this. The source is the bible.

First, immersion, there is actually not a single case of baptism in the bible that we can tell for sure was done by immersion. I know that will probably shock you, but thinking there is is reading things into the text that are not there, they are only in your mind. However, baptism by pouring or sprinkling, that actually is in the bible.

The first incident having to do with baptism in the bible is of course Noah and his family, now it’s not baptims as such but it prefigured baptism. You can note that while rain poured on the ark, it was never immersed. It was the rest of the world that was immersed.

The first actuall baptism recorded in the bible was the baptism unto Moses. 1Co 10:2 ESV
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

Now people misunderstand that, they try to draw pictures and illustration of how the Israelites were immersed. But you don’t have to, the Bible actually tells us the mode of baptism. Psa 77:17 ESV
(17) The clouds poured out water; the skies gave forth thunder; your arrows flashed on every side.

It was done by pouring rain on the people. Interestingly, this first baptism included infants. Deu 1:39 ESV
(39) And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Now what happened? Well the adults who carried the infants turned from God and perished in the wilderness, and the infants received the promise.

So the very first baptism in the Bible was by pouring or sprinkling, it included infants, and there was no once saved always saved.

Let’s look at another case where baptism is not by immersion. Luk 11:38 ESV
(38) The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.

The word translated “wash” is baptizo, baptism. The Pharisee was astonished Jesus did not baptize before eating. Well we know very well how this was done. Water was poured over the hands and down the arms, the hands are knuckled together and more water is again poured down.

Because here translators translate instead of transliterate, people miss that the meaning of the word baptism is wider than to be immersed. So far we’ve see a couple cases of pouring though the one could be thought as either pouring or sprinkling.

JJ

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Thanks to the Apocrypha, we have another case that shows the meaning of baptism. Sir 34:25 KJVA
(25) He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?

The word translated washeth in the KJV is again baptizo, baptism. And here’s a case where the writing of this word is very close in time to the New Testament, but slightly before, so we know the meaning again is broader than immerse. We know that because the cleansing, the baptism after touching a dead body is prescribed in scripture, and it’s by sprinkling. Both the person and the object are sprinkled.

Num 19:13-19 KJVA
(13) Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
(14) This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
(15) And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, is unclean.
(16) And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
(17) And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
(18) And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
(19) And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.

We see many of thes Old Testament baptisms refered to in Hebrews. Heb 9:10-23 ESV
(10) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(11) But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
(12) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
(13) For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
(14) how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
(15) Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
(16) For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
(17) For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
(18) Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
(19) For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
(20) saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”
(21) And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
(22) Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
(23) Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

It gives a general reference and then gives some examples where it’s actually sprinkling with blood that is the baptism. Since Aaron and his sons were sprinkled, and since Jesus’ baptism was not a baptism for the forgiveness of sins but rather for his installation as the new high priest, I’ve always kind of thought if was most likely Jesus was sprinkled.

JJ

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Anyway, by now I’m sure you are thinking but the text says Jesus was immersed. No, that’s a trick of a figure of speech. Mat 3:16 ESV
(16) And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;

People think went up from the water means coming up from being submerged but it doesn’t. You could translate it came away from and still be correct. It just means he walked away from the water. He could have gone down to the water, stood there and been sprinkled or had water poured on him (as all early art shows) and been come up out of the water. Matter of fact where we believe John the Baptist baptized Jesus there isn’t enough water to be immersed, except during the dangerous floods.

Anyway there is very similar language that shows all this again with Philip and the Ethiopian. Act 8:38-39 ESV
(38) And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
(39) And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

Notice it specifically says both went down, and both came up. Have you ever seen any minister baptize by immersing both the person he is baptizing and himself? I haven’t, if going down and coming up is evidence of immersion, then both should be immersed. But it’s not, it simply means they walked down to some water and came away from the water. And the area where this is believed to have occured doesn’t have a single source of water suitable for immersion.

So anyway, there you have it. Baptism does not mean immersion. Matter of fact, if you want to follow only what can be told from the bible, you better be sprinkled or poured upon because only those modes can be shown. But the meaning of the word does include immersion, so that’s okay too.

If you actually want to see the meaning of the word a fellow spent 20 years studying every occurance of the word baptizo and wrote 4 volumes on it. The cheapest place to get it is from Liberty Bookshop. You want volume 28 of their Reformation Bookshelf and specifically James W. Dales 4 volumes on Baptizo. libertybookshop.com/shop/customer/product.php?productid=16181&cat=0&page=

For $20 you can get all of Dale’s books and a bunch others on baptism. I really don’t know why this is a dispute anymore. The question has been settled by any reasonable scholarship that baptism does not mean immersion. Because the word doesn’t mean that, and the practice of the early church as recorded in both art and writing did not limit it to immersion.

And one more thing, while the meaning of baptism does not mean immersion, one thing it always means is that the object baptized is changed by the baptism. That is a part of the meaning of the word. You can even study the root word bapto and see that. Bapto started out meaning dipped but got broader over time. If you look it up you will see that it can also mean to dye. Now immersionists always think that means a big dye vat that you dip the object into. But if one actually studies it, you find crushing a berry in ones hand and staining it is referred to as bapto. It’s not the dipping, it’s the fact that the object is changed that is the foundational difference in bapto and baptism from the words that simply would mean to wet or wash.

Anyway, that’s probably enough.

JJ

 

[LSK]

I noticed that the OP has not been back - there have been some excellent answers given to your questions.

I would like to say one thing about Our Blessed Mother.

We believe that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, is the Woman spoken of by God in Genesis, described by Him as having emnity between herself and Satan.

If a person has any sin, they do not have emnity between themselves and Satan.

We also believe that because she was addressed as 'Full of Grace" by the Angel Gabriel, that refered to the fact that, by virtue of her Son’s sacrifice on the cross, she was saved from the stain of Original Sin. Because God (Jesus) acts outside of time and space as we know it, His eternal sacrifice saved His mother which in turn allowed for a perfect, sinless vessel by which The Word could be made flesh and dwell among us.

As for praying to her and with her, because we do not believe that a person’s life ends when their life on earth ends we know that Mary is in Heaven with her Son. She is as alive as you or I - more so, in that she has entered into perfect union with her Creator. Therefore, by virtue of her being alive, it is as possible for her to pray for us, her children as it is for you to pray for me - a fellow Christian. Asking Mary to pray for me is no different, in that sense, than me asking my mom to pray for me.

We also believe, by virtue of our baptism, that we have entered into the Body of Christ. He is the Head, we members make up His Body. Therefore, because all members of His Church are part of His Body we share in His resurrection. We are able, therefore, to pray for each other while still acknowledging that there is but one mediator between God and man - Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps you on your journey. Welcome to the forum, and May Jesus continue to guide you towards the fullness of Truth.

 

[guanophore]

I my self am a totally onfire christian and I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I try my best, with my broken fallen and carnal nature, to love all those are apart of the body of Christ.

Peace to you.

I seek to understand several Cathololic Doctrines that I personally do not share

Why?

I recommend you check the library link above with each of your topics. then, do a “search” for a thread on the topic you are interested in exploring

~The belief in “trickling” baptism as opposed to the the way that jesus was baptisted in full emersion

The Jordan was only ankle deep in most places, and in some places, up to the waist.

When Jesus “came up from the water” he climbed the bank of the river.

However, full immersion is preferred when possible. However, this has not always been possible. We have our instructions from a first century document called the Didache, that explains the details of baptism.