Featured Criticizing Roman Catholicism

You face the following problems with your litmus test. 1) No where in scriptures does it speak out against infant baptistm. 2) The New Testament connects baptism to circumcision which both are the symbols of the covenant God has with man. Col 2:11-13. Since the OT foreshadows the New and circumcision was required of infants and circumcision is related to the covenant of baptism it simply follows that infants can be baptized. And we know from the ECF long before the 4th century that infant baptism was common among the christian churches. This quote from Ireneaus proves the point

3) Your "litmus test" isn't applied evenly to all Christians or Christian denominations. Lutherans practice infant baptism, Methodist, Presbyterian and other reformed churches. These other groups you would hardly challenge as to the authenticity of their Christianity or the "gospel" which they preach. Therefore your "litmus test" isn't really any such thing. Its just a special "test" that for you only applies to Catholics whereas another denomination who has a similar practice is quickly over looked as just a misunderstanding. Where their Christianity isn't even called into question. Therefore you have exemplified not a "litmus test" but a bona fide prejudiced accusation in which prejudice is defined as

As I've just shown you this is a falacious statement when 1) Scripture no where speaks against infant baptism and 2) We see as early as Ireneaus more than two hundred years before your supposed "shows up in the 4th century as apostates joining forces with paganized Imperial Rome". And not him alone. Archeolgical and historical evidence shows that infant baptism in Christian churches were common practice long before Constantine. Also if you study history you will find Pegan Rome Never allied itself with Christians. In fact Pagan Rome was thoroughly over thrown by Christians.

If you knew history you know that this was an entirely different animal whose lands and Government weren't even Roman But Frankish the forerunners of the Germans and French countries.

At least you were charitable to call Catholics Christians though with the "nominal" discriptifier.

Yes, and will be so again.

Which is something you fail to prove. Scriptures to which you hail as your sole testament of instruction to practices of faith does not speak out against infant baptism. So you must be relying on some other authoritative source for your citicism. And neither do you condemn other Christians who practice this same infant baptism. And in fact the Baptist practice of "baby dedication" alludes to the ancient practice of infant baptism. Because deep down baptist know this is a covenant issue which they are responsible for the rearing of their Children in the Faith to which they will when the child is ready - give that faith to the Child.

And interesting to note that this was during the reformation not in the 4th century.

Clearly.

Amen.

 

My view of the RCC, which I posted on another thread:

When I asked my wife's aunt, who is a nun, if she was saved, she laughed and said "saved from what?" NONE of my wife's relatives can tell me that they KNOW they are going to Heaven. They all just "hope" they die in a state of grace, or that they're wearing a magic scapular, or have said enough "hail Mary's", or being baptized when they were a baby, or whatever! None of them ever mentions a personal relationship with Jesus Christ! They definitely believe in the "I hope my good outweighs my bad" form of salvation. They ALL think MORE of Mary than they do Christ! "Mary this, Mary that" is all you hear from them. Jesus Christ is just someone Mary lets tag along with her.
Those people are my family! I LOVE them! It hurts me so much to see how blind they are! I HATE the RCC because of that. Not the people in it, but the false gospel that's leading millions of Mary worshiping people straight to Hell, the RCC itself. It angers me immensely when I see people trying to defend it as Christian.


I had a precious aunt and uncle who have both passed away. My aunt converted to catholicism in the late 1950's only because my uncle was a catholic, and so she had to in order to marry him. Fast forward to the '90's. My uncle, by the grace of God, was saved, witnessed to by a Baptist pastor, btw! He IMMEDIATELY LEFT the RCC! He KNEW they were a false church, and he had been a RC for over 60 years!
I had long talks with him, and trust me, he knew what the catholic church teaches. It had been indoctrinated into him from the time he was a baby. So, don't tell me he didn't truly know what RC's believe! My aunt stayed in the RC church. My uncle died first, and was in anguish because he KNEW my aunt was NOT saved, and had no hope of Heaven!



As I said, my wife's family are 90% catholic and I LOVE them dearly! Wonderful, kind, loving people. All of them. It's not catholics I hate, it's the RCC.
I truly believe the RCC is a STENCH in the nostrils of God, and you people that are defending it ought to be ashamed! I literally get SICK of people "sticking up" for the RCC! Especially a born again Christian!!

 

And I had replied

Well, I can reply with 2 points 1) How do you know? Have you studied from Catholic Sources what they actually teach or do you rely on what someone else told you. So in the end how do YOU know? 2) From your discription of your family what other conclusion can I come to? I meet many Catholics who believe they know what the Catholic Church teaches and when I show them they are wrong with the Church's own documents their either repent or become more entrenched. But it has become clear to me that many Catholics don't know their own faith. But honestly, I'm not saying that is an issue with your family. Rather it is a problem caused by certain leaders who are in opposition to Church teaching and the Catholic world has been overwhelmed by these clergy who have one goal. Destroy the Catholic Church by remaking it into their own image. Not that they will succeed, however, Many upon many have been lead astray by these unfaithful.

I understand your position and to an extent can sympathize with you. However, I wouldn't defend something I didn't think was true. I don't have an agenda to lead people away from God but to express what I belief the truth of things are.

 

again, the RCC defines water baptism as the sacrament that cleanses from ALL original Sin, regenerates one into the Kingdom of God!

NO scriptures back that up, nor do ANY back up the RCC system of sacramental gracings from God towards us, and none support the notion of God having to waiting until we aresauctified enoguh to now justify us, so the Church of Rome NOT taeching true Gospel!

 

again, the RCC defines water baptism as the sacrament that cleanses from ALL original Sin, regenerates one into the Kingdom of God!

NO scriptures back that up, nor do ANY back up the RCC system of sacramental gracings from God towards us, and none support the notion of God having to waiting until we aresauctified enoguh to now justify us, so the Church of Rome NOT taeching true Gospel!

there are saved catholics, but its because of the Grace of god, NOT their views, for they hold and teach a different/another/false Gospel!

 

You know.......when talking with RC's, I really get tired of the same old..........."you just don't REALLY know what we believe!" excuse! YES.......I DO know what you believe!!....I've read your cathecism, I've talked for hours with priests and nuns, and countless other catholics..........APPARENTLY THERE ISN'T A CATHOLIC ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH THAT "REALLY KNOWS WHAT THE RCC TEACHES"!!!

according to some catholics..............<-------and you're falling into that category.........NOBODY in the RCC knows what the RCC believes!!! RIDICULOUS EXCUSE.

 

As I posted before, my uncle was a born again catholic..........but...........he LEFT that heretical religion ASAP! I believe any TRULY born again Christian WILL NOT stay in the RCC.

 

I will respond how one protestant responded to me when he said I didn't know the bible. What does articles 153 and 154 say? And I know for a fact that there are Catholics who know what the Church teaches. But what you have professed to be their faith I know is wrong. Note I said many and not all.

Again I said many not all. There are Catholics that do.

 

The question was put thusly: Do you baptize your infants? Why or why not?

Per Ephesians 2:8-10, baptism would be a work--it requires an administrator and a submissive candidate. This flies in the face of salvation by grace through faith, not of works; which is taught in many places in scripture.

To compare circumcision to baptiism breaks down seriously in the final analysis. While it is true that both signify a covenant, neither has regenerational properties, which is what this is about: baptismal regeneration. Applying circumcision as a sign of regeneration seems to exclude females. Followers of Allah are circumcised BTW.

The error of baptismal generation was traced to early churches. The church(?) at Rome was propped by Constantine the Great and his mother. The Vatican was a donation from Rome, along with the title: Pontifex Maximus. This is paganized Rome with the philosophy of Aristotle and the legalism of the Roman Empire, with a pseudo-Christian spin.

The question still stands: Why does one baptize infants?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

With Scriptural support. Show me scriptures that disagree.

I disagree look at 1 Peter 3:20-21;Acts 22:16 ;Acts 2:38-39 ;1 Cor. 12:12-13;Colossians 2:11-13;Romans 6:3-4;Galatians 3:26-27;Titus 3:5. All these passages support that view.

 

I will go further with this brother (I wont name names) but it is my own personal opinion that most organized religions are a stench in the nostrils of God (And they all claim the blood of Christ). This is why my own pastor works as a teacher & doesnt collect a salary from his duties to the church. He does it because he is the REAL ITEM. I am sorry but I dont put my faith in denominations & churches anymore unless they live the Gospel to the letter. Perhaps our solution is non-denominational ism, I dont know... I haven't worked it out yet. However we are each called to move back to that place of our right identity in Christ & as we move toward Easter I am reminded of the story of the "Good Thief" He had done everything wrong in his life. But at the moment of encounter with Christ, he was able to affirm the Lord as Lord & Savior. A Roman Catholic can do that as well as a Baptist can & thus have salvation. Keep your eye on the ball.... it's all of :jesus:

 

By the way "work" as mentioned in ephesians isn't defined that way or at all! Baptism is a response to faith. This is what the Catholic Church teaches from the Catachism

and also

. and

Which is quite clear its done in faith.

Because its a covenant relationship

Amen.

 

Whoa there cowboy..... the above bolded statement is only your opinion. In reality there are folks like TS who attempt to reform & teach (within the confines of RCC). I know he is reborn but he is attempting to pull them out of a TON (and I mean TON) of BS that they have learned in the indoctrination classes & other crap over the years. That is a gargantuan task he has bitten off. Look at it this way.....he is Gods hand picked mole...LOL! The Catholic zombies wont even see him coming. Assuredly he will be able to change some of them from the inside....better than us yelling at them that they are apostates going to hell. That serves no purpose.

 

actually, the act of water baptism symbolizes in an outward fashion of what God already did for us when He saved us!

The NT ONLY knpws of believers baptism, and it does NOT link it any way to sacramental or any other grace, for its the blood of Chrsit that cleanses all sin, not dunked in the water!

 

The Church od Rome states that it thru the sacrament of water baptism that original sin washed away, and one is regenerated /renewed again... Do you deny catholic teaching here?

And ALL of those verses are expalined as not meaning what the catholic churches states, for you view them all thru lens of the RCC position of sacramental grace!

 

He's not in there trying to change them! He JOINED them! :tear:

 

Without getting into it too heavy & without attempting to bragg, I do know TS for a few years as a friend & we have discussed this at length. I know he joined them....in fact his family is very ingratiated into the RCC .... for many years....so I am attempting to imply there are many reasons that TS is back to being a Roman Catholic & Im not at liberty to discuss them.

I will tell you that he had some bad experiences with his local SBC Church and that was probably a catayist to his return.

Do I agree with this move to them, no I dont. I have offered to meet with him in Harrisburg (about 2 1/2-3 hours from me) & he has declined but we continue to debate & continue correspondence with him....but you know, it is what it is. He has to satisfy something deep within himself & so I will say no more of it. I just hold him in my prayers.

 

To catholics I say with love, read the Bible. Compare and contrast your church canons with the word of God. If you do this with an open heart and mind, I cannot believe you can truly embrace the RCC.


To those of you who are Christians and yet support/defend the RCC.......I believe you are speaking out of ignorance as to exactly what the RCC teaches, or else I cannot comprehend how you could support it.

I continue to be shocked and saddened by the acceptance/defense of the RCC on a BAPTIST forum!

I'll say no more.

 

We support it because we believe it IS biblical and IS the apostolic faith. I say that as a person who has been a Baptist all my life and now entering the Holy Catholic Church. I believe you sincerely think the other members of this board (TS & Melanie) and I have made a terrible mistake. Before I did an extensive study of the teachings of the Catholic Church I thought like you.

I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. It is unimportant to Baptists who believe the Early Church had no form of liturgy despite the historical evidence to the contrary. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.

As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.

Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.

Finally, I enrolled in RCIA and bible study classes in the local parish. I find the Catholic Church has the answers to your objections and my relationship to the Lord has grown much since starting this journey into Catholic Christianity. I have complete peace about my decision and believe the Lord is blessing me despite having to deal with the anger of some of my family members.

God bless!