Catholics Come Home

Is this an example of 'early heresy'? Seems to be saying this was learned from the Apostles themselves.

'For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow...And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).

 

Like I said: One of the earliest heresies to enter Christendom.
It is one of the reasons I don't base my faith on the ECF. I wouldn't have any faith if I did. The Bible is my standard of truth. It is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. The ECF contradict each other. The Bible never contradicts itself. I know what the Bible teaches. I also know what heresies the RCC teach. I used to be one. Thank God I have been delivered.

 

I hope I'm not going off the trail here. I have read that it was the Reformers who separated sanctification from justification to a degree previously unheard of in Christian history. For example, church historian observed:
(bold mine)
"The significance of the Protestant distinction between justification and regeneration is that a fundamental intellectual discontinuity has been introduced into western theological tradition through the recognition of a difference, where none had previously been acknowledged to exist...Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout.
The Protestant understanding of the nature of justification thus represents a theological novum..."
Iustitia Dei, page 215
http://www.scribd.com/doc/​30830464/​mcgrath-iustitia-dei

Is their evidence that anyone in church history believed in these distinctive doctrines, such as baptismal regeneration and its relation to justification and sanctification before the Reformers?

 

Thinkingstuff...

You posted...

I find it almost impossible to believe mother Teresa ever was a christan at all, much less a great one.

She may very well have been a wonderfull humanitarian, but she was no christian.

Here is clear evidence....

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/mothther.htm

 

The link I posted above does not seem to be working, that was Alister McGrath in his book Iustitia Dei.

 

He is wrong. Why not try using some objective sources and not someone so biased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath


What do you think an Anglican would say?
Ask Matt Black? He is one. They agree with Catholics in more than 90% of everything.

 

Here is one little caviot of the RCC's that I find particularly interesting. All things are in addition to Christ. The roman catholic says, 'Of course we believe in Christ, but you must also believe in the Church (theres of course is the true & only real one), you must believe in the Virgin Mary, you must believe in the saints, you must believe in the priesthood (a Sacrament even) in addition'. Therefore I must and did, part company. Its always a Christ plus the Church, plus the Virgin Mary, plus the priests, plus the saints & so on. Christ alone is not enough & He does not stand in all His unique glory at the center. Oh I almost forgot about all the "observing days" with all those special beliefs (Holy Days of Obligation.... Assumption of Mary & Full Abstinence ("Chuck your Diocesan for all your current regulations, as if the Local bishop had the rules for your relationship with Christ")

So it's always CHRIST PLUS something & the RCC church gives that essential addition. So as the apostle puts it plainly ("For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love") The false teachings of the RCC will always demand that their adherents must add on some plus, some action on their own part.
FAITH IS NOT ENOUGH!

 

This is why I avoided this thread because of statements like this. You've already judged the person's eternity. My question to you is "How do you know what she professed to believe?" You don't site actual referrences and their context. Or is it just because She's affiliated with the Catholic Church? In short how do you personally know she didn't profess salvation in Christ alone?

I know what it means as Jesus explained it to Nicodemus and I know exactly what you believe it to mean. So yes I do know what it means.

Wrong DHK. Born again does not equal baptism. Baptism is one part of it according to the Catholic Church. Baptism is the physical property (or contractual signature) by which one becomes a member of the Kingdom. However this alone does not save. One must be given the Holy Spirit in response to faith. So born again means to the Catholic Church - Faith, Holy Spirit, Water Baptism.

Well, if you want to call Peter a heretic or Philip or the NT espousing this Heresy so be it. After all it seems to me you tend to make God after your own image. If you believe something God must adhere to it. I personally don't see it that way.

Its not. I've explained clearly 1) what the Catholic Church teaches and 2) what I believe. So when you get it right then you can claim I'm not born again. But then You would have proven once again that you've made God in your image since in fact you don't know if I've been born again. As I came to believe in Jesus by an evangelical witness and have seen the fruits of my life changing from one bound to sin to one under Jesus' Grace.

I believe the bible thank you. And the Catholic comentary on it is pretty good.

When you can show you know exactly what the church teaches then make your proclimations. However, you won't get very far with Baptism = Born again.

In fact they are diametrically opposed to you and what you think. Catholics and other protestants disagree with you. Even other baptists. And that each person is permitted (in your belief system) to flush out the truth for themselves by the Holy Spirit by reading scripture - shows me your view is just as valid as someone else in that you are no more an authority on what scriptures says than anyone else. Especially since we all are claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit.

Absolutely!

Now DHK, how many times must I give my testimony? How many times must I tell of my time at RVA? Why do I use RVA? Well because to be born again all factors must be engaged faith, Spirit, baptism. And I know I didn't receive faith until RVA.

 

I would like an actuall referrence and context about this statement. please. Thank you. The website you offered is heresay. I'd like an actual factual referrence to these exact words.

 

Really? So, Quakers and Salvationists are not born again? And yet they would strongly assert that they have had the one necessary baptism -- that by the Spirit into the Body of Christ.

But, by your belief, you couldn't account them as Christians. And yet the Quakers were "doers of the word" more than any other Christian church.

 

With all do respect to you and your experience, and with all the liberals misleading people you may be on target with your experience. However, let me clarify some things.

I'm not sure what you mean but let me break it down a little. First of all to have faith in Jesus is to have faith in his kingdom which he establishes. His Church. Jesus wants us to engage with him in his Church a baptist perspective would say churches but even they hold that the body of Christ extends past individual churches to the whole Christian community. It is still Jesus Christ and his body of believers. I don't see a real dichotomy here. The Catholic Church of course believes that it is apostolic and was established by Jesus himself. But in the first eccumenical council of all churches they held to a belief of a universal body of christ united in the Holy Spirit. And it is this The catholic Church holds to. As can be seen in the Nicean creed. You don't have to believe in Mary apart from the fact that she gave birth to Jesus as a Virgin. If you don't hold to the consept of the Immaculate conseption, or assumption, or anything else. That does not affect your salvation. You can believe she had kids after Jesus if you want just don't teach it as dogma. But you must believe she was a virgin and gave birth to the fullness of who Jesus is because that directly affects the Character of Jesus. And the Church teaches a universal preisthood of all believers. What you're getting mixed up with is the administrative clergy whom are called preist comming from the word Presbyter. They have a special administrative function as is noted in the NT. Nothing new there. However, the sacraments are instituted by Jesus Christ. All of them. Therefore these must be believed in and observed. Even baptist hold that Jesus instituted what they call ordinances which they've limited to only two 1)believers baptism and 2) the Lords supper. However, the NT shows the others quite distinctly and some churches even include footwashing as an ordinance.
However all belief are surounded by Jesus Christ and his teachings and institutions.

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

You seem to me like a person who has a grudge to settle. First of all. I never mentioned Quakers or Salvationist. I did not comment on their belief or ability to be born again. So it seems to me you're just picking a fight which I'm not interested in.

However, dispite the fact you are taking a advisarial role I will clear up for you a simple truth. Catholics Believe that protestants who have faith and maintain a Trinitarian view, a belief in the Virgin Birth, the life death and resurrection depicted in scriptures, a coming judgment, and life everlasting are indeed christians and may be saved through God's grace. Though the Catholic Church believes them to be without certain graces to help them in this life.

 

I have never been a Roman Catholic, but I take it that by "baptismal regeneration" you mean the notion mentioned in this prayer from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which follows immediately after an infant baptism (emphasis mine):

Then shall the Priest say,​

EEING now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.
​

If so, could you help me by pointing out where in the bible Philip or Peter did anything like that?

As far as Philip is concerned, the only times recorded in the bible when he baptised both specify that the candidates for baptism were already believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 8.12 refers to him baptising people at Samaria (my emphasis):

But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
​

Then there is the Ethiopian eunuch, in Acts 8.36-38 (again, my emphasis):

36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" 37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
​

What of Peter? Well, I know he preached baptism in Acts 2.38:

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
​

Then there was the household of Cornelius in Acts 10.47-48:

47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
​

I must have missed something, because in all the cases I have mentioned, the baptismal candidates already believed, they were already Christians.

 

Mother Theresa said this:
"If you are a good Muslim, then be a good Muslim; if you are a good Hindu, then be a good Hindu, if you are a good Catholic then be a good Catholic, etc."
--If that is the theology that she held: that salvation is not through Christ, then she certainly is not in heaven, is she?

It is quite apparent that you don't understand what Christ explained to Nicodemus, as per our discussions on this board.

The Catechism has some straightforward and clear statements:

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.
I'll take that one at face value.

Again you show a woeful lack of Biblical knowledge and understanding. There is not a verse in the Bible that teaches baptismal regeneration. You don't study your Bible much do you? You spend too much time in your Catechism and the ECF to find out what the Bible really teaches. Notice that Philip baptized after salvation. But your too busy calling people names to notice what the Bible says; your busy in your study of Catholic dogma.

Here it is again:
1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.
--If that is your belief you are not born again. That is not what the Bible teaches. That is what the RCC teaches, and they are diametrically opposed to each other.

Let's go on with the heresy of the RCC:

1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.
--This superstitious heresy, that baptism can forgive original sin is anti-biblical, and a doctrine of the devil. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can forgive sins. Water can never forgive sins. If this is what you believe you are not born again. The new birth has nothing to do with baptism, as the RCC claims.

Catholic commentaries are written by apostates.

I know what the Bible teaches on this subject which is more than you know. If some protestants disagree with me I am not concerned. I am not a Protestant.

Those are Catholic classes, right? Why would you sit under classes taught by heretics??

(Psa 1:1) Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

 

Thinkingstuff...

Regarding Mother Teresa's heretical beliefs, I posted this linked material in post 64 of this thread...

You took issue, claiming it was "hearsay" and asked for more documentation. It is not hearsy. Mother Teresa's heretical views rgarding this are well known.

Here is more documentation. The link is from the reputable catholic tv channel ewtn....

http://www.ewtn.com/motherteresa/words.htm

 

Citation please

Actually we will have to agree to disagree. I find the Scripture quite clear

The greek word for water is ὕδωρ which means water. It never means ambiotic fluid. In all the ancient greek documents never once has it been used to mean ambiotic fluid it means just that WATER. Baptism is the symbol of our death and resurrection in Jesus and is the physical property of the signature for our covenant with him (The new circumsision so to speak) as paul says to the Col.

Paul is clear you die to the flesh during baptism and your faith raises you again. So I think the role of baptism in salvation is quite clear. Necissary

DHK, I'm not your typical Catholic in Canada who can be bullied by you. I've actually studied. So this line does not impress me because I know what you did. You took one line out of many lines conserning baptism. However the passage does not say what you say it does. It doesn't say Baptism=Salvation. It says baptism is necissary for salvation. You exclude what else is necissary. The catachism also states with regard to baptism.

So, Clearly you are wrong and your attempt to take one passage out of context won't work on me.

I've already given you two and I'm sure CoC member could give you more. Should I give you more? Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, 1 Cor. 12:12-13. 12, Romans 6:3-4. 3, Galatians 3:26-27, Titus 3:5. And Titus is even more clear

A clear referrence to Baptism. And if Baptism weren't necisssary for our salvation Jesus wouldn't have made it part of the Great Commission. Did I just show you I do read my bible? Huh. You seem to prove my point that you reformed God into your own image making him believe what you want to believe. However, you are no authority over me. My perspective of the bible is just as authoritative as yours.

Yes I read them. Have you read the Westminster Confession of 1646? Have you read Calvins Institutes? I've read both. In fact I've read quite many books. Have you?

Notice nothing in that passage states that the Ethiopian was saved. In fact he was asking what was prohibiting him from the requirement of baptism for salvation.

Nothing because he had faith.

I haven't called you any names DHK. I just said I think this is how you have proceeded with your faith. Just like you did me questioning how I've proceeded with my faith.

It again as you can read from the top of my earlier responce to this nonsence. It doesn't mean baptism=salvation. It means what it says baptism is necissary for salvation. However if you have no faith and the Spirit does not come upon you. Getting dunked will not save. However, if you have faith baptism is necissary as it is our circumsision into the new covenant as Paul says. You have now been showed to be wrong about this Catholic Dogma.

It seems to me that what ever you believe the bible must teach rather than you actually learning what the bible teaches. Do you tell the bible what it must teach are you instructed by it. Its seems to me you are the earlier one.

Are you having mental accuity issues? How many times have I said RVA is Rift Valley Academy. And if you or any one else is familiar with African missionaries and missions you would have heard of Africa Inland Missions and its primary boarding School for Missionary Kids. Ie RIFT VALLEY ACADEMY. It is very far from being Catholic. It just amazes me that you ignore what has been said and I have to cover the same ground again and again. Wow. I mean Wow DHK. I know we have our differences but this is a big one because I've shared my testimony several times and have always Mentioned RIFT VALLEY ACADEMY where I first recieved faith. And since I went to school with Canadian kids as well as African, English, Austrailian, other Americans, New Zealanders, South Africans and other MKs, I know even in Canada RVA is known. Wow! I think they would be very upset with you calling them Catholic.

I shoot that same verse back to you.

 

I obvously disagree with this statement. And if she said it I would like the context. I will research it and get back with you. BTW the Catholic Church doesn't teach that and its her personal opinion. I could be wrong about her. But I don't know. The website you originally sent was heresay there was no citation or book referrence. Thus hearsay. I will study this and get back. However I do agree There is one God over all but he's not the same as buddah or allah or any other.

Just a note as I tried to obtain this link there was not connection so I think the phrase is still up in the air. Until I get actual proof.

 

Thinkingstuff...

Sorry about the ewtn link.

I fixed it. The link in post 76 works now. (See the "Quotes of Mother Teresa" box)

 

I have seen these commercials as well---very well done, from a PR standpoint (if not somewhat factually misleading).

About 9-10 years ago when I began questioning my Southern Baptist upbringing, I actually looked into the RCC claims. I used to own such books as 'The Gospel According to Rome', 'A Woman Rides the Beast' and 'The Two Babylons', but when I stumbled upon some RCC apologist websites (to read the 'other side' after reading James White's debates on his website) they actually made some pretty good points on some things. I then read books by Scott Hahn ('Rome Sweet Rome', or something like that) and Steve Ray ('Crossing the Tiber' and 'Upon this Rock'). These books made some valid points, but at the end of the day I just couldn't 'cross the Tiber' since: (1) I couldn't accept Marian dogmas as necessary for salvation (since such aren't found in the original apostolic preaching/deposit); and (2) I couldn't accept certain Papal claims (again finding the Biblical and historical evidence for these to be weak); and (3) there still seems to be a lot of Medieval baggage involving the whole (treasury of) superogatory merit/indulgences/purgatory complex.

So for a while I looked into the Eastern Orthodox Church but finally settled on classical Anglicanism as best embodying the faith of the ancient catholic church. That's not to say the world wide Anglican Communion is not without it's problems (particulary in the increasingly apostate ECUSA and the Church of England). Thankfully I've found a local mission parish that's part of the new conservative ACNA.

(Now I will duck while the invectives are hurled my way... :smilewinkgrin: )

 

Actually my wife likes the Anglicans but stays away from Episcopal's in the USA. Perhaps after my argument with The right Rev. John Shelby Spong that she got involved in. Id be interested in learning more about this movement....are they apostate like these liberal candy arsed episcopal's are?