What's a clear, charitable "come-back" for protestants?

[FredSmith]

Freddie is a Protestant Christian.

Name calling does not help your cause.

 

[toaslan]

Hey, jmcrae, you good soldier, and Manny, hot stuff! Good look with the guy with his fingers in his ears talking away…

As to the OP, I liked Cat’s idea. Maybe in the blessing you could even include Our Lord’s high priestly prayer to His Father that all Christians be perfectly one… I realize you are not yet a priest. Maybe asking if they would accept a blessing from a student priest would, because humble, soften their hearts.

Lovely that you are thinking of all these encounters as opportunities–that attitude will keep you both effective and young.

God Bless you on your way.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Name calling does not help your cause.

You are a Protestant because you believe in the Bible Alone theory…

 

[jmcrae]

My grammar is fine thank you very much. There are times when I don’t have the time to edit them …]

Manny, there are times when I wish you would take the time - what is the rush?

 

[FredSmith]

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ

Literally? Does this mean that Roman Catholics have paramedics standing by to give CPR?

It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

Actually 1 Peter does.

Titus 3:5-7

Nothing about baptism here.

 

[FredSmith]

You are a Protestant because you believe in the Bible Alone theory…

OK. I’ll bite: what is the “Bible alone” theory?

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Been there. Debunked that.

Baloney. You reiterated your fallible interpretation.

And they’re welcome to their opinions, but the key word is “interpreted”. The great thing about interpreting something is that you can interpret it to mean anything you like.

If I have to pick between a follower of an actual disciple’s interpretation and yours, I’m going with the person closer to the source every time. I’m interested in being a part of Historical Christianity - not a cult.

That is why we rely on what the text says, not what we imagine it to say.

I do rely on what it says and not on your faulty interpretation.

I wouldn’t care if they all said it. As Christians, we don’t base our doctrine on “Early Church writers”. We base it on God’s word.

Well, you are clearly not basing your doctrine on the Bible as has been clearly demonstrated to any objective observer here. If you’re not interested in being orthodox in your beliefs, that’s up to you I guess. There are a lot of cults out there.

Good luck in Fred land. Say hello to the fairies and unicorns for me.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t. I go by what the text says.

The text says that baptism saves. It’s plain as day.

Not unecessary, just not a means of salvation.

Either it’s necessary or it’s not necessary. Which is it? (Salvation is the only necessary thing. All of the commandments of Christ are for our salvation; nothing else. He does not ask us to waste our time with things that are not necessary for our salvation.)

If I believed that, then why am I defending baptism so vigorously?

Are you? I have no idea what it is that you are defending; you seem to be on the attack.

 

[Mannyfit75]

And I notice that you left out the part of that verse that tells us that the salvation comes from calling on the name of the Lord.

The graces we received in baptism comes from the Lord himself. He sends out his graces through the sacrament of baptism. In the Sacrament, the grace of the Lord is at work.

Accepting Jesus Christ as savior and lord in order to be saved is just as Unbiblical as being baptized to be saved.

Jesus, Peter, and Paul and the other Apostles disagrees with you. Peter says, "Baptism now saves you. In Acts, when one of the people ask what they must do to be saved.

Let me quote it:

Acts 2:37-42:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the hear, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized everyone one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

That is very clear. I can go on and put more Scripture verses to prove my point, my friend.

That doesn’t negate the fact that nowhere in either of these verses are we told that baptism saves us.

I shall repeat Peter’s words. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves.” He said baptism saves and you say it doesn’t. Who is telling the truth here? You or Peter? I trust Peter more than you.

Where in that passage does Jesus say that baptism is required for salvation?

John 3:5. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you one of is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”

In baptism, we are born of water and we also received the Spirit. Jesus also commanded the Apostles to baptise everyone in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times now, this verse has nothing to do with baptism.

It does, you are just reading it through your Protestant lenses.

If that baptism is required for salvation, then why are they baptized after they’re born again?

You are born again in baptism. Once you are baptized, you are born again. You are only baptized once.

Accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" is just as unbiblical as the idea that we’re saved by being baptised. But that one is Unbiblical doesn’t make the other one true.

I don’t go by that. I go what Jesus taught through his Church. To be born again is to be baptized.

 

[jmcrae]

You are a Protestant because you believe in the Bible Alone theory…

No. He’s Protestant because he rejects the authority of Christ in His Church. “Bible alone” is just a by-product of this rejection.

 

[FredSmith]

The text says that baptism saves. It’s plain as day.

The text does not say that baptism saves. The Bible is very clear that we are saved by faith in Christ’s atonement, not religious rituals.

Either it’s necessary or it’s not necessary. Which is it?

Answered this one already.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, there are times when I wish you would take the time - what is the rush?

I like to rushing because it is my nature. You know me long enough to know that I never take my time.

When I do have the time, we always have that option to edit.

 

[FredSmith]

No. He’s Protestant because he rejects the authority of Christ in His Church.

I don’t reject the authority of Christ or of His church.

I just don’t believe your Unbiblical nonsense that the Roman Catholic church is the authority or “His church”.

 

[FredSmith]

The graces we received in baptism comes from the Lord himself. He sends out his graces through the sacrament of baptism. In the Sacrament, the grace of the Lord is at work.

Unbiblical.

Jesus, Peter, and Paul and the other Apostles disagrees with you. Peter says, "Baptism now saves you. In Acts, when one of the people ask what they must do to be saved.

Already debunked this claim several times.

John 3:5. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you one of is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”

This verse has nothing to do with baptism.

It does, you are just reading it through your Protestant lenses.

As opposed to you, who is reading it with a completely neutral lense, totally unbiased by your Roman Catholic brainwashing, right?

You are born again in baptism. Once you are baptized, you are born again. You are only baptized once.

That isn’t what the Bible says.

I don’t go by that. I go what Jesus taught through his Church. To be born again is to be baptized.

That isn’t what the Bible says.

 

[Mannyfit75]

OK. I’ll bite: what is the “Bible alone” theory?

The belief that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith concerning all matters of faith and moral. There is no church who have such authority only the Bible is the authority.

We Catholics believe that the Church is the only one who can properly interpret Sacred Scripture. We don’t believe in interpreting Scripture privately. Protestants Christians or Non-Catholic Christians always insist that Catholics ought to follow the Bible the way Protestants do.

As you know, there are 30,000 Protestant Christian denominations which base their belief on Sola Scriptura Theory. Their belief isn’t united. There is a lack of unity of belief. In Protestantism, we witness a fracturing form of Christian. A priest of mine call them an imperfect union with God because they don’t contain the fullness of faith, which can only be founded in the Catholic Church, whom Jesus Christ founded 2,000 yrs ago.

When it comes to teaching faith and moral, the Magisterium of the Church is One. It doesn’t teach any doctrine.

 

[FredSmith]

If I have to pick between a follower of an actual disciple’s interpretation and yours, I’m going with the person closer to the source every time.

And therein lies the difference between us: You say that you want the person allegedly “closer” to the source.

I’m talking about going directly to the source.

I’m interested in being a part of Historical Christianity - not a cult.

Then get out of Roman Catholicism.

Well, you are clearly not basing your doctrine on the Bible as has been clearly demonstrated to any objective observer here. If you’re not interested in being orthodox in your beliefs, that’s up to you I guess. There are a lot of cults out there.

I agree and Roman Catholicism is one of them.

Good luck in Fred land. Say hello to the fairies and unicorns for me.

Will do. Say hello to Satan for me.

 

[jmcrae]

The text does not say that baptism saves.

Explain to me again, as if I were a five year old, how “baptism now saves you” translates to “baptism doesn’t save you.” (Because I must have missed it the first time. I can’t find where you answered me, before.)

The Bible is very clear that we are saved by faith in Christ’s atonement, not religious rituals.

It is God who gave us the religious rituals. (Hence, “religious,” meaning “from God.”) Why would God give us these rituals, if they are not necessary for our salvation?

Jesus uses the rituals that He gave us as a pathway or conduit through which to give us the effects of His atonement. We cannot literally wash ourselves in Christ’s blood as the thief on the cross next to Him could. We have to have some other means for getting His blood on to us, so that we can be saved by it. That means is the seven Sacraments of the Church, including baptism.

 

[FredSmith]

As you know, there are 30,000 Protestant Christian denominations

This lie has been debunked many times.

Their belief isn’t united. There is a lack of unity of belief. In Protestantism

Actually, we’re very much united. That’s why we preach and teach in one another’s churches, cooperate on missions and social outreaches, and fellowship together.

 

[mozart-250]

Hi,

I have read all of the posts and suggestions and as a born again christian who goes to a non-denom church the only effective response is the one CAT offered.

All of the other responses will be perceived as arrogant and condescending.

Thanks CAT

I concur.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Unbiblical.

That’s according to you. I don’t trust you I trust Jesus Christ and His Church.

Already debunked this claim several times.

A debunked argument that is extremely weak.

This verse has nothing to do with baptism.

That’s according to your private interpretation.

As opposed to you, who is reading it with a completely neutral lense, totally unbiased by your Roman Catholic brainwashing, right?

I’m not brain washed. I know my faith just as any Catholic in here. I believe what the Church teaches because Jesus revealed it. He is one with his Church. You cannot separate the Church and Jesus, my friend. That is a false dichtomy.

That isn’t what the Bible says.

It is.

That isn’t what the Bible says.

It’s in John 3:5.