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. 

[metmom]

hmm, “water baptism” that’s an interesting term. i have searched the NT and i don’t ever find this term in any of the 27 books. i see “baptism” or “baptize” many many times, but i never see “water baptism”

You know, I never saw *water baptism* either. Why did the Catholic church make up that we have to be baptized by water for the forgiveness of our sins.

it makes me think that this is not a mistake or oversight on the users part. it makes me think the user sticks the word “water” in front of baptism to make the reader think there must be some “non-water” baptism.

You don't think there's some non-water baptism?

Read and learn....

John the Baptist's words (you know.... the guy who Jesus said was the greatest human to ever have been born of women.)

Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Acts 1:4-6 4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

And the CCC talks about a baptism of desire.

What was that they teach about ONE baptism again??????

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

1. the concept itself is condemned in the Scriptures
Where?

2 Thessalonians 2:15

SO THEN, BRETHERN, STAND FIRM AND HOLD TO THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU WERE TAUGHT BY US, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH OR BY LETTER.

this one verse smashes the 16th century fable of “sola scriptura” right out of the water. the oral teaching of the Apostles was to be obeyed EQUALLY with the written word.

the other proof against “sola scriptura” is that without the Apostolic Tradition, we would have no clue over which books are canonical and which are not. every time you open up your 27 book NT, you honor Catholic Tradition, without even realizing it.

[metmom]

Ouch.....

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

You know, I never saw *water baptism* either. Why did the Catholic church make up that we have to be baptized by water for the forgiveness of our sins

Acts 2:38 and peter said to them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS; AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

V41 SO THOSE WHO RECEIVED HIS WORD WERE BAPTIZED....

no “water baptism” mentioned, only baptism.

BTW - still waiting for proof of your Catholic rite differences on salvation. something tells me i will be waiting a looooong time.........

[metmom]

jvette, what our friends do not seem to comprehend is hristians [sic] are commanded to keep the Apostolic tradition, which was communicated by either letter or word of mouth.

What was communicated by letter is Scripture.

What was communicated by word of mouth is what? And how do you know?

[count-your-change]

One great thing about the age we live in is the ready availability of the Scriptures to all. And not surprisingly lovers of Scripture are saying, “Show me” from the Scriptures.

If a doctrine cannot be found there then it is still to be accepted because...”We have the authority to say it is so and always have”.

Thus does the Catholic Encyclopedia lean on “households” and a comparison to circumcision as a support for infant baptism.

In the quotes you show I couldn't help but the weasel words that would any...any pronouncement to be rationalized into a non-statement.

“This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

But this priest wasn't expounding doctrine’ or ‘It wasn't on faith and morals’ or ‘It is an opinion but binding upon the faithful to accept’...and so on.

In the end if an organization is never wrong then self correction is impossible, only self justification.

““He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“What was communicated by word of mouth is what? And how do you know”

thank you for making my point perfectly! WITHOUT THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE APOSTLES TAUGHT ORALLY. THAT IS WHY THE CHURCH WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO TEACH AND THE SCRIPTURES CONTAIN NO EXAMPLES OF ANYONE READING THE SCRIPTURES AND COMING TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH OR WITHOUT THE CHURCH TEACHING.

i’ll give you two:

1. infant baptism
2. worship on the first day of the week.

[Jvette]

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Did Philip misunderstand that baptism by water was not necessary? And why, after Philip had proclaimed to the eunuch about Jesus, did the eunuch wish to be baptized in the water?

[metmom]

And so, some say baptism, some say no baptism.

Which is a far sight better than what the Catholic church does when it says that on one hand baptism saves and on the other hand baptism doesn't save.

At least the non-Catholic denominations are INTERNALLY consistent. Even if they disagree with each other, they aren't disagreeing with themselves.

Some say bodily resurrection, some say only spiritual resurrection.

Who says that?

Some say Jesus was truly God, but not truly man or..... Truly man but not Truly God.

Who says that?

Some say those who are saved has been predestined, some believe those who recite the sinners prayer are saved, some believe that everyone will be saved.

Who says that?

Some believe in an actual heaven, some don’t. Some believe in an actual hell, some don’t.

Who says that?

Please give us the names of the denominations which disagree on those issues.

[Jvette]

Google any one of those doctrines and you will find vigorous defense of them against those who deny them. I’ll be honest, I can’t keep all the different denominations straight, and many Christians, rejecting the sound and accepted doctrines handed down by the Church, claim no denomination. And yet, they all claim Scripture as their firm basis, as supposedly led by the Holy Spirit.

I have no interest in ferreting out which denominations claim which heresies, it is enough for me to know that the heresies exist and the remedy for erroneous beliefs is the teaching authority of the Church.

If you believe that Jesus resurrected bodily and so shall we, thank the Catholic Church.

If you believe that Jesus was True God and True Man, thank the Catholic Church.

If you believe in the Trinity, God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thank the Catholic Church.

I could go on, but just these few of the very heart of the Christian’s faith undermines all the claims of individualism in the Body of Christ.

[daniel1212]

"it’s hard to engage with someone who themselves is the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.

Thank you for the confirmation of what i said, as contrary to us, it is Rome who presumes to be the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, and autocratically so, infallibly defining herself to be assuredly infallible.

tell me this, are you fallible or infallible when YOU DECIDE WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY?"

Your question presumes that Rome is so consistently so perspicuous that you never decide what it means, which you do, but the answer to your question is no, not as being assuredly infallible as in the impossibility of erring (though even a pagan can speak Truth: Acts 17:28), , as we cannot presume more than what Scripture affirms, and in no place is that promised a per Rome's doctrine, nor in any place was it necessary for writings to be established as Scripture and truth preserved, and thus the N.T. church was established upon Scriptures that were already authoritative, due to its Divine qualities and attestation, which in principle enabled the establishment of a canon. Nor does being the instrument and steward of Scripture, and recipient of Divine promises of presence, guidance and perpetuation, and having historical decent make an office assured infallible. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; cf. Mt. 23:2 etc.)

Instead, what Scripture teaches it veracity based upon conformity with Scripture in text and in power, and thus the church is built upon an itinerant Preacher, (1Cor. 3:11) who was rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mk. 11:28-33) but who established His claims upon Scripture and the power of God it testifies to, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

And thus our claim to veracity can only be by appeal to the only transcendent material source on earth that is the assuredly wholly inspired Word of God, in text and in power, versus the merely human documents of Rome which claim to be protected from error. It was upon appeal to the hearts and consciences of men by Scriptural means of text and power that souls were saved and knew they had eternal life. (Acts 17:11; 1Jn. 5:13) Though hearts are fallible, Christ and the N.T. presumed they could discern truth, and thus they appealed to them with Scripture and the power of God it affirms.

This means does see division due to competition, but requires authority to be established and falsehood overcome Scripturally, not by self-proclamation and or deceit and the power of the sword of men, and SS-type churches manifest a common contention for core truths, as well as disagreement, as said,

Meanwhile, as said and as has been substantiated, within Catholicism there are also many formal divisions and disagreements, and confusion in Rome, even as to how many infallible decrees there are, and the meaning of teachings. Moreover, under sola ecclesia are the most critical false gospels, as both Rome and cults operate under such.

However, as in times past, rather than considering the log in your own eye, you reiterated your questions and assertions and which have already been answered and refuted. And while i have answered many of your questions, once again you refuse to answer pertinent questions just asked, such as.

What is the basis for your assurance that Rome is what she claims?

Do you even believe Protestants can be saved if they do not convert to Rome?

Or is it alone the Body of Christ [including Vatican Two Catholics]?

Are the Orthodox also outside the true church seeing as they deny papal infallibility and more?

Now here are 2 more, are you fallible or infallible when you decide what the magisterium says, and (as you must give implicit assurance of faith to it), how many infallible pronouncements are there.

If you will not clearly answer these then you can only expect your monologue.

[Rashputin]

"Christianity did well for 400 years before the Pharisees invented the ‘catholic’ church."

ROTFLMAO . . .

So Catholics refuse to accept the Septuagint Christ and the Apostles quoted and instead accept the Pharisee canon of Scripture?

It's Catholics who preach the same heresy as Core, a heresy God Himself struck down Core and his followers for preaching?

It's Catholics who refuse to accept that Christ had the authority to found His Church and leave it in the hands of His Apostles?

It is interesting how often some non-Catholic use exactly the same tactics as democrat fascists to try and hide from the facts or change the topic away from their own lies and propaganda. Someone who preaches what the Pharisees preached, believes the Messiah has to come again before Judgment Day same as the Pharisees did, abandons the same Scripture Pharisees abandoned to avoid agreeing with Christians, then turns around and calls someone else a Pharisee.

LOL, not only is it funny, the fact that it's such a transparent attempt to twist the facts makes it even funnier. Of course, they say to never ascribe to conspiracy something that can be explained by just recognizing the stupidity of the source, so maybe it's not the same Alynsky tactics as the fascists, maybe it's just another example of pure stupidity and total spiritual blindness.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

LOL, i asked a simple question and of course, NO ANSWER IS GIVEN. old habits never die.

i have no idea what “ROME” is, Rome is a city in Italy.

the Catholic Church is what it is since Jesus can’t lie. as St Augustine observed, he would not believe the Gospel were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

i am sure Protestants will be saved, if they hold to the Catholic Faith.
the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ on earth.
the Orthodox have Apostolic Succession, they believe the Catholic Faith.
i am not infallible about anything and i have no idea how many infallible pronouncements there have been.

now i answered all your questins, let’s see if you can return the courtesy:

are you infallible when YOU decide what the Scriptures teach?
since the Scriptures do not contain a table of contents, on what basis do you decide which books are canonical and which are not?
can you name one Christian that believes what you do about baptism and the Lord’s Supper from the 2nd or 3rd century?
what year did first 66 book Bible first appear on earth and who compiled the 66 books together?

[daniel1212]

You are now trying to make a one to one correspondence btwn circumcision and baptism, which Col. 2:11,12 and the NT does not make, as seen by the conditions required for baptism.

The facts remain that the Holy Spirit never records infants being baptized, but explicitly states that repentance and whole-hearted faith are required for baptism, and where further details are provided as to whole households being baptized, it states they all believed, an act requiring an ability infants do not have, not being able to morally “refuse the evil, and choose the good.” (Is. 7:16)

I commend the motive behind paedobaptism, but it is a tradition of men, and the more you strive to defend it from scripture then the more destitute the case becomes.

And the fact is that the teaching is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, as despite whatever Rome may say about the authority of Scripture, it is only what she infallibly says it or Tradition or history means that carries any authority, and warrants assent of faith.

[count-your-change]

“The facts remain that the Holy Spirit never records infants being baptized, but explicitly states that repentance and whole-hearted faith are required for baptism, and where further details are provided as to whole households being baptized, it states they all believed, an act requiring an ability infants do not have, not being able to morally “refuse the evil, and choose the good.” (Is. 7:16)”

This is not an esoteric or convoluted argument, it is the simplest and most natural understanding of how person became followers (and therefore practitioners) of the Way.

But the real point that is so lost in these verbal fisticuffs is that if we worship the God of truth we will pursue that truth of His word.

So to the point at hand...where do the Scriptures lead us?

[Iscool]

Play your childish game with someone else...I’ve already posted enough information to you for clearly understand my position on the Trinity...

[mitch5501]

"So to the point at hand...where do the Scriptures lead us?"

What a great question CYC!

The Scriptures lead us back to the very beginning of time and space.To the One who in the beginning created all things.They lead us to Him who created us in His own image,to Him who calls us,who justifies us,who considers us precious,who loves us,who died for us,who saved us,who will raise us up.They lead us within the veil and through the dark glass to that glorious realm no more than the length of a man's arm away yet invisible to our physical senses.They lead us to the end of time and space and beyond to eternity.They also lead us to the mirror.They are the message of the Creator,the cosmic observer,to those He made in His own image.The scriptures are an extra-terrestrial artefact that lead us to the source of all life.To it's own author,the Alpha and the Omega.To the Lord Jesus Christ.

Maybe they lead us to a million destinations along our way to the ultimate one.It's what they do.They lead.

Did I exaggerate too much? Is it even possible to exaggerate where the Word is concerned? It will not return to Him void.It will accomplish what He sends it to do.Sometimes that sounds like a threat.

Thanks in advance for letting me rant.

God bless

[Iscool]

Leviticus 16:17 There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.

The head of the household made atonement for ALL of his household. I have not rejected what has been said regarding baptism, rather I have asserted that the head of the household acted/spoke for his children.

Oh please!!! You have referenced the high Priest of Israel going into the tabernacle, thru the Vail, and sacrificing blood on the Mercy seat, FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL...

The death of Jesus ELIMINATED that sacrifice...The veil thru which no man could pass has been ripped asunder so that we all can pass thru and the blood of Jesus has replaced the blood of the bulls and goats and sheep that was in the OT need for an atoning blood sacrifice...

Now, our only requirement for atonement is that we consciously accept and trust Jesus as our Savior...

And so when one interprets Scripture one way and another does so differently, there is an appeal to be made to determine the right understanding of Scripture.

It's not a matter of interpreting scripture...It's a matter of believing what is clearly written...And you give a perfect example...

You take a verse in the OT that clearly speaks of the one who is responsible for the atonement of Israel and try to move it into 2012 and apply it to the head of YOUR household to justify baptism of babies while ignoring all the references in the NT that reject the notion...

You have shown nothing from Scripture to refute that, but have been shown from numerous writings that the ECFs knew that it was a tradition from the earliest days.

I (we) have shown tons of verses that you reject...

That is why the Church is so important and if one is unafraid to follow history, one would see that there were certainly differing interpretations of Scripture from the beginning, but always it was the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth who spoke the last word on the debate.

There is no fear involved at all...And I follow history...That's why I reject your religion...

You have access to a bible...When your religion told you to use Lev. 16:17 as your proof text, all you had to do was to read the verse to see that your religion was lying to you...And they convinced you that you can't believe your own eyes...

I began this conversation asking the question about how it is that so called Bible churches could have such diverse interpretations of such import as baptism verses no baptism.

Like your religion, they have chosen to ignore scripture in many places and insert their own versions...

[Iscool]

“And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. “ (Acts 16:32-34)

To All that were in his house, including any children/infants.

Perhaps you nod off before you can finish a string of verses together and miss what's at the end...

The end of the verse destroys any notion that there were any babies in the house...

All who were in the house believed along with the father...Babies don't have that capacity...

[Hegewisch Dupa]

You must be new here, oLofob; the point of the religion forum for some is never to ask another about their beliefs, but rather to instead tell others what is is they believe. It is, not coincidently, not unlike the Klan, which exists more to disparage others rather than promote the empty shell that is itself.