The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[Iscool]

“You guys claim you couldn’t find the Trinity in the scriptures”

this is news to me, who claims that?

Your religion does...It took them 400 years to determine that there was a Trinity...

You haven't been involved in the numerous threads where your cohorts challenged us to find the Trinity in the scriptures???

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

congrats on taking my test, as i did yours. i am feeling generous as a result and give you an “A” for effort and a big “F” for content. let’s see why.

you say we have no need to single out Baptists since this is a “common doctrine of Christians and has been since it began”
THIS IS FALSE, IT IS THE DEPARTURE OF THE BAPTISTS FROM THE COMMON TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION BELIEVED FOR 1,500 YEARS THAT REQUIRES BAPTISTS TO BE SINGLED OUT. in fact, the Reformers were not shy in attacking the new doctrines invented by the Baptists in the 16th century.
next, you go off the tracks by equating Christian baptism with Jewish rituals and the baptism done by John. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER AS WE SEE CLEARLY IN ACTS 19:5. When Jesus commanded baptism in Matthew 28, there is only ONE BAPTISM FOR THE CHRISTIAN AS PAUL EXPLAINS IN EPHESIANS 4.
so you failed to show where the NT teaches there are two seperate baptisms for the Christian, one Spirit and one water. again, Paul tells us there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM.
you also failed to show WHY JESUS COMMANDED BAPTISM? you attempt to say 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism “symbolically represents” a pledge.... YOU CAN NOT FIND THE WORDS “SYMBOL” OR “REPRESENTS” IN 1 PETER 3:21 OR ANY OTHER VERSE THAT DISCUSSES BAPTISM. 1 PETER 3:21 DEFINITIVELY DECLARES BAPTISM DOES NOW SAVE YOU, NO SYMBOLISM!!
next you keep using the unscriptural term “water baptism”, the Bible only uses the term BAPTISM. why does the Bible only use the term Baptism? BECAUSE, AS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN, THERE IS ONLY ONE BAPTISM. ( NOT TWO AS THE BAPTISTS INVENTED IN THE 16TH CENTURY)
now, let’s look at more verses and see if they ever say Baptism is “symbolic”:
Acts 2:38 - no symbolism there “nst”
Acts 22:16 - nst
Mark 16:16 - nst
Galatians 3:27 not only no symbolism, but Paul declares those baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Ephesians 5:26 - nst
Romans 6:3 - nst
Titus 3:5 - nst not only no symbolism, but again Paul tells us we are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:12 - nst
1 Corinthians 12:13 nst
these are only some verses,but you get the point. THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VERSE THAT TEACHES BAPTISM IS SYMBOLIC.
THIS IS WHY NO ONE BELIEVED BAPTISM WAS SYMBOLIC FOR 1,500 YEARS. THE DEVIL TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE REFORMATION TO COME UP WITH THIS ONE.
next, you point to Cornelius and his peeps as an example of someone being told to be baptized as a first act of obedience. REALLY???? neither Peter or anyone else told Cornelius to be baptized as a first act of obedience. AGAIN, NO ONE IN THE BIBLE WAS EVER TOLD THIS, BUT ONCE YOU REJECT BAPTISM IS FOR REGENERATION, YOU MUST MAKE UP SOME OTHER REASON JESUS COMMANDED IT. NO ONE HEARD OF THIS CONCEPT UNTIL THE 16TH CENTURY. BTW,NO MENTION IN ACTS 11 THAT HE BAPTIZED THEM, BECAUSE LUKE ASSUMES IF YOU READ ACTS 11, YOU READ ACTS 10. AND IF YOU READ ACTS 10, YOU READ ACTS 2:38 WHERE LUKE QUOTES PETER AS TELLING THE JEWS BAPTISM IS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT.
as far as you saying baptism is an outward sign, AGAIN NO SCRIPTURES ARE PROVIDED WHICH STATE THIS, AND I PROVIDED PLENTY OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAY OTHERWISE. the OT contained types and shadows, once Jesus came, the types and shadows were done away with. Baptists will have us believe Jesus instituted useless ceremonies, but the Church has believed otherwise for 2,000 years.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT????
TRUE CHRISTIANS, REAL FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHRIST OBEY JESUS WHEN HE PRAYED WE BE ONE, WE FOLLOW PAUL THAT WE HAVE NO DISSENSION AMONGST US, THAT WE MAINTAIN THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT? WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? JESUS TELLS US IN JOHN 17, “SO THAT THE WORLD MY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SENT ME...”

i see the fruit of the Baptist teaching that the Church had a mass apostosy every time i talk to a Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Adventist, etc. etc.
I CHOOSE TO OBEY JESUS AND ACCEPT THE FAITH CHRISTIANS HAVE HELD FOR 2,000 YEARS.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Don’t kid yourself, I’ve read Ephesians numerous times...

just goes to show without the Holy Spirit, the natural man can’t understand spiritual matters.

[aruanan]

Your religion does...It took them 400 years to determine that there was a Trinity...

Where did you get that idea? You're not talking about the First Council of Nicea, are you?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“What traditions are those, specifically, and how do you know? How is the source verified and how do we know that it was passed down accurately”

well, since the Church received the teachings, you must be taught by the Church to know them.

how do we know they were passed down accurately? The Holy Spirit guides and leads the Church into all truth, as Jesus promised He would.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

for the record, the RM posted this without any input from me. i never have and never will, report a post to the RM. if it were up to me, i would let anyone post what they want, Jesus told us by their fruits you will know them.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“The ordinance was solely for the purpose of a public expression of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and a commitment to follow Him in newness of life.”

can either one of you just provide ONE VERSE in the Bible that teaches this?

as an aside, i do find it interesting that someone will give an “Amen” to one who denies the Trinity and keeps the Sabbath. but when it comes to attacking historical, orthodox and Biblical Christianity, i guess the enemies of the Church don’t mind having strange bed fellows!

[Iscool]

“What traditions are those, specifically, and how do you know? How is the source verified and how do we know that it was passed down accurately”

well, since the Church received the teachings, you must be taught by the Church to know them.

LOLOLOLOL...Awwww, c'mon...You can tell us...We'll keep the secret... HaHaHaHaHa....

And it's so secret that they didn't even tell you, eh???? HaHaHaHa...

[boatbums]

Thank you for those verses. It should not be any surprise that some "religious" people think in terms of "pigeon holes". They hear a word, i.e.; baptism, and immediately think it can only mean the water baptism ordinance, rite, sacrament, of THEIR church. Those who sincerely study the Word of God know that Scripture uses such a word to mean more than one thing.

When I was baptized as a baby into the Roman Catholic Church, all they did was pour some water on my head and say the "words" and it meant I was now a Christian, a Catholic Christian. The water baptism of Scripture was actually a dunking of the whole body of a person who had made a personal decision to believe in Christ and to follow Him. I never had this choice given to me but had something done to me. When I really DID come to saving faith in Jesus Christ, I was baptized again. Now, which baptism was the genuine one? Which baptism REALLY symbolized my coming to saving faith in Christ? Was I baptized into Christ and receive the Holy Spirit when the rite was performed or when I made a personal choice to receive Christ? I think Scripture is clear that it is faith that saves us and NOT acts we perform to symbolize that faith to others.

[Cronos]

as an aside, i do find it interesting that someone will give an “Amen” to one who denies the Trinity

they also support Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. over Catholics. Next you can expect such people would also support Obama liberals etc. as long as they attack Catholicism...

[Natural Law]

"...as long as they attack Catholicism..."

A vibrant and faithful Church is a continuing testimony to the errors of Protestantism. All one need do is to see that the target of their attacks is not secular socialism, radical feminism, the abortion industry or even militant Islam, to understand their motivations are not in line with promoting the Gospel, but in advancing their own self esteem. Pray for them.

Peace be with you

[metmom]

*Just trust us.*

Sure. And I’ve got some real nice waterfront property in FL to sell you.

Honest.....

[boatbums]

as an aside, i do find it interesting that someone will give an “Amen” to one who denies the Trinity and keeps the Sabbath. but when it comes to attacking historical, orthodox and Biblical Christianity, i guess the enemies of the Church don’t mind having strange bed fellows!

What are you talking about?

[Cronos]

1l1f1b is talking about the tendency of certain folks who will align themselves with those who say the Trinity is false, with Unitarians (remember Reg?), Jehovah’s witnesses, etc. as long as they join in a diatribe against Catholicism. So, boatbums, is it ok for someone to claim sola scriptura and say the Trinity is a fabrication? or a Jehovah’s Witness or Unitarian point of view, which are both based on strict ss —> would you align yourself with them against orthodoxy?

[boatbums]

1l1f1b is talking about the tendency of certain folks who will align themselves with those who say the Trinity is false, with Unitarians (remember Reg?), Jehovah’s witnesses, etc. as long as they join in a diatribe against Catholicism. So, boatbums, is it ok for someone to claim sola scriptura and say the Trinity is a fabrication? or a Jehovah’s Witness or Unitarian point of view, which are both based on strict ss —> would you align yourself with them against orthodoxy?

I don't care who it is if what they are saying is TRUE. Do y'all have it in your heads that only certain people are allowed to criticize Catholicism? What you call "aligning" with someone is usually no more that than just happening to agree with them about a specific thing. What you categorize as being a problem of sola scriptura is no such thing at all. Athanasius disputed heretics by appealing to the SAME Scripture those he opposed said they did and he defeated false doctrine by knowing the Scripture BETTER than they did.

If the topic of a RF thread concerns the doctrine of the Trinity, I have no qualms at all discussing with whoever is on where I may or may not differ with them. What I see happening with "certain folks" is the tendency to label another person falsely based upon how a comment is stated and they then follow that person around across threads with the same false accusations - even when the accused has made statements that clarify what may have been misinterpreted. You have been guilty, yourself, of doing just that and, apparently, you are teaching others to do the same.

OLOFOB hasn't been here long enough to know about conflicts that went on two or three years ago, but he is cuing off your own accusations that have been proven false - yet you don't seem to make any effort to correct him. Why is that? Is it because such can be added to an arsenal for future flaming?

Perhaps if these dialogs can be seen for what they really are - a discussion of different beliefs - and not a war that requires choosing sides, we might all get more out of it. You should try it sometime.

[boatbums]

1l1f1b is talking about the tendency of certain folks who will align themselves with those who say the Trinity is false, with Unitarians (remember Reg?), Jehovah’s witnesses, etc. as long as they join in a diatribe against Catholicism. So, boatbums, is it ok for someone to claim sola scriptura and say the Trinity is a fabrication? or a Jehovah’s Witness or Unitarian point of view, which are both based on strict ss —> would you align yourself with them against orthodoxy?

Also, it wasn't that long ago that you and a few other Catholics banded/aligned with a professed agnostic (who has since been banned)repeatedly against non-Catholics. Was it okay to band together with them as long as they joined you in diatribes against Protestantism?

[Cronos]

with a professed agnostic (who has since been banned)repeatedly against non-Catholics

Stretching the truth more than a little bit, eh? Firstly, kostka was not a "professional" agnostic

secondly, he is orthodox and having a crisis of faith, or rather, had a crisis of faith.

Thirdly, he argued with you on facts, not on interpretation, and on that you lost, repeatedly

fourth -- I will agree with an agnostic on facts, not on theology -- do you agree with a Unitarian on his denial of Christ's divinity?

Why band with a Unitarian or non-Trinitarian just because they are non-Catholic? Is this some sense of "let's band with anyone and everyone who isn't of orthodoxy"?

[Cronos]

with a professed agnostic (who has since been banned)repeatedly against non-Catholics

Stretching the truth more than a little bit, eh? Firstly, kostka was not a "professional" agnostic

secondly, he is orthodox and having a crisis of faith, or rather, had a crisis of faith.

Thirdly, he argued with you on facts, not on interpretation, and on that you lost, repeatedly

fourth -- I will agree with an agnostic on facts, not on theology -- do you agree with a Unitarian on his denial of Christ's divinity?

Why band with a Unitarian or non-Trinitarian just because they are non-Catholic? Is this some sense of "let's band with anyone and everyone who isn't of orthodoxy"?

[Cronos]

boatbums disputed heretics

Really? So you would call the unitarians and non-Trinitarians as heretics too? Or ss-brothers?

[Cronos]

Perhaps if these dialogs can be seen for what they really are - a discussion of different beliefs - and not a war that requires choosing sides,

I've told you before to go and talk to your non-Trinitarian pals and ask them why they say

• To keep the gullible parents in bondage to the Catholic religion
• So it s WIDE gate that the massive Catholic religion is looking for to enter thru to its final destination...
• They seem to be well versed and experienced in sex and relationships...Just not the hetero kind...

I've told you this before and still if someone wants to hang with these folks, that's their problem

go and pick the log out of your own eye boatbums before commenting on the mote in ours....