Featured IF Water baptism requirement for salvation, another Gospel?

thinkingstuff, it is clear that you have trouble with several things. One is with representing others honestly, as you continue to misread and misrepresent what I've said, picking out only parts of what I say, not considering the context nor all of it. I really couldn't care less at this point as obviously you either have trouble comprehending, or, you do it purposely, or you simply cannot discern spiritual truth and are merely religious.

The second is that you do the same with theology and Scripture, picking out parts you like, misinterpreting them, turning a blind eye to other passages that clearly show you are in error.

Thirdly, you believe you are saved by works, or, something you've done, which is in fact false teaching. You've showed this to be your belief all along, while trying to claim Christ saved you you use many 'freudian slips' showing that you believe it is you saving you. It's either Christ or nothing.

Fourthly, your representation of CC/RCC (whichever) is inaccurate at best, and doesn't tell the whole entire truth of your false systems true beliefs, in other words, you tell others that you're like them, that you believe the same, but at the end of the day, CC/RCC does not trust Christ alone for salvation and is a repository of error and false teachings.

Give it a rest, most of us here know the true teachings of Catholicism. You're only fooling one person and that person is you. I take it it was you who told me nowhere does Catholicism teach praying to Mary (in a past thread), which I proved by your own false teachings as being true and provided documentation. Whether it was you or not, after giving this proof all grew silent, and it's interesting when the false teachings are exposed how the one giving this information hides after being exposed. If not you, the point still stands; Catholicism is a false religion and hides behind a veil of deceit, not trusting in Christ alone for salvation, claiming they do not incorporate false teachings, man made sacraments, prayers to Mary, sacerdotalism &c in their system when they in fact do.

 

What a waste of bandwith...

WM

 

Here is a thought. Why don't you actually take the time to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church actually teaches before you post such drivel?

 

So now you have the Catechism (a document) "sending" people to hell? Hmmmm... Well I suppose that makes sense... I mean, since you also believe that scripture can interpret itself.

WM

 

Because if he did that, it would destroy all of his nice little straw men leaving him without the isolative environment from which he derives such obvious succor and comfort.

WM

 

You make this accusation but never have shown where I have made the error. If you would actually explain yourself in a way that I understood or show me exactly where I went wrong in an assumption of what you said based on your words then please do so. I'm open to what you have to say.

I guess its irrelevant to tell you what I believe about myself as no matter what I say you will dismiss based soley on what you want to believe rather than what is.

Actually, I believe the same of you and your theology. And even more so in your case because the natural flaw of "Sola Scriptura" is not the scripture themselves but to what authority by which you claim to interpret them by which is your own. And with 7 billion people interpreting scripture with themselves as the highest auhtority in understanding scripture you have 7 billion disagreements as to the meaning of scripture. I've shown you how I approached the passages using J.I. Packer's rules of Hermeneutics (who as you know is a fundalmentalist) to arrive at its meaning. You're only suggestion is that I should take a class in hermeneutics which I have. I did both my undergraduate and graduate studies at two Protestant Universities respectively. So I am certainly familiar with protestant perspective of scripture.

This is just not true. I will explain my beliefs about soteriology in a way not specifically accurate in relation to the Catholic Church specific theology but generally accurate to Catholic Doctrine in a way that you might understand it and get the sense of what the Catholic Church is actually saying.

Jesus Atoned for all my sins by his shed blood on the cross. He did that for me I did not do that for myself. God also Chose me to be saved not based on anything that I've done for God or for myself. There was no reason apart from God's love that could have made God pick me out for salvation. There was nothing I did that merited me the distinction to be chosen for salvation. While I was in rebellion against God; God became incarnate and died for me. That is not the end of Salvation that is just the begining of it. Having atoned for my sin God then provides his Holy Spirit to provide me Grace without which I could not believe on Jesus Christ. Recieving that Grace I can choose to accept that faith or rejected it. The only reasonable response is to accept it. Upon receipt of that faith I am justified by being made an heir with Jesus Christ and being such an heir I am given the privilages and responsibility that familial relationship calls me to. I am then called to obey the father and to seek sanctification with the help of God's grace. This grace to help me live a sanctified life is given in several different ways. Such as by prayer, devotional reading of the scripture, Participating in community, obeying Jesus edicts known as sacraments which all works to re-making me in the image of Jesus Christ. Or "not being conformed to this world but being transformed". None of this can be accomplished by my own strenght or power but by the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit which gives me the Grace to accomplish it. Thus I am saved to do these good things that God helps me to do. This is no more my merit or doing than it was Joshua who blew the trumpets and God made the walls of Jericho fall. Would Joshua say it was his horns that caused the walls to fall? No. It was the power of God but Joshua obeyed what God told him to do. The victory is Gods but Joshua followed God's instruction (participated in). However, Joshua would not say it was his "works" that saved Israel that day but the power of God.

I teach what the catholic church teaches and hopefully in a way you understand it. Often times you don't even work off the same definition thus things must be defined in order to explain something. But where we have differences I point them out such as I don't agree baptism is just symbolic. I explained the Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration and I haven't wavered from that. Being baptized isn't a work its following Jesus Christ instruction and how he wanted us to participate in his life that he gives us. Thus it is one part symbolic and one part sacrament. God actually does something to those who participate in baptism and have faith. I also just finished a thread that went on about purgatory. Where I defended purgatory. So you clearly are giving a false representation of what I've done.

No you don't. Its obvious you don't. Especially with such nonsense as we worship statues. Or make Mary higher that God because we use the term Theotokos. Or that we don't read scripture. Or that we are a works based faith. and on and on it goes.....

I don't believe I ever said that. I do believe I said that no matter what you believe about Mary as a Catholic or whether you pray to her or not it doesn't affect your salvation as a Catholic. And in fact on this site I actually attempted to show you scripture and evidences where praying to the saints (ie communion of the saints) is not the same as necromancy but considered to be like one christian intercessing for another christian when they need prayers. Which again is not the same as worshiping God. However, that was a long time ago.

Ah now we get to the truth.

Often times I "grow silent" when I feel that I've made my case and people just continue to say the same thing over and over again. Since my case is made and the rest is regurgitation. I have nothing more to say. So I don't say anything more. I don't consider it my job to convince you just put a proper or true face on what Catholics actually believe. Most of what you believe Catholics hold to is based on propaganda and misinformation passed on in ignorance. Most by other protestants but some by Catholics who don't know their own faith like many Canadian Catholics whom at one point had all their bishops moving against the document Humanae Vitae. Fortunately, in the end they were reeled in. Otherwise Canada would have created another type of Anglicanism.

 

There are many documents, which if read and believed, would send people to hell. If the beliefs of Jim Jones were written down in a document would they send people to hell if believed? Here--drink this cyanide-laced kool-aid and you shall go to heaven? Do you believe that? Are you that gullible?

Are you gullible enough to believe the J.W.'s that Jesus is not God, but simply Michael the Archangel?

What about the Mormon's belief that Christ was born in Jerusalem, that before that before Creation, Jesus himself was a created being, a brother of Lucifer? Do you believe this document will send people to heaven or hell if believed?

I don't believe that any document that claims:
1. Baptism saves--baptismal regeneration.
2. Works save--doing good will get you to heaven.
3. Salvation is inclusive in their organization only.
--The RCC fits this bill. There are many other things that I can add to this list of course, many of the heresies that we have been currently talking about. But this is just a starter.
Belief in the catechism of the RCC will direct a person to hell. It does not have the true message of salvation. You will not find it there.

 

And of course, DHK, as many times as it has been demonstrated that the Catholic faith does not teach that doing good works will get you to heaven, you insist that it does. Oh, well.

Here is the kind of nonsense that continually gets posted on these anti-Catholic threads:

'Thinkingstuff' might post that Catholics believe in the sufficiency of Jesus shed blood on the cross. Then someone will come back with something like: 'Thinkingstuff', I am compelled to point out that in your most recent post, you didn’t say 'Jesus Christ, that you only said Jesus' As you know, Christ is from the Greek word Christos, meaning the Anointed One and is the nomenclature that 'true biblical Christians' use to signify Our Lord’s divinity. 'Thinkingstuff' apparently you Catholics do not somehow believe in the divinity of Our Blessed Lord? I am terrified to conclude that you are also denying the Resurrection here. 'Thinkingstuff', I will fervently pray that you are not dwelling in error, as I have feared for you since I read of your conversion from being a 'true Christian' and becoming a member of the 'Harlot Church'. I hope you read the definition of “heresy” in a theology reference book that you should always keep handy. I pray every evening for gravely misled people like you, poor Catholic, and I must say this: my conscience obliges me to correct your errors. Do you fear for your soul?

 

Baptism in and of itself is a work. It is something that is done to you, and that you do or participate in. It is a work. So is confirmation. So is going to confession. So is DOING penance. All of these are works necessary for the RCC faith.

I was a Catholic for many years, and have studied the Catechism. Thinkingstuff is simply here to argue.

Not quite. Believing in purgatory is denying the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. It is a denial that Christ has cleansed us from all our sins. That is precisely what 1John 1:7 says (which is denied by the RCC).

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
--There is no need to be purged any more; no further need to be cleansed. It was accomplished all on the cross. The denial of such Scripture is paramount to the denial of the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. TS will counter that he is speaking of sanctification. He is confused. For at the cross all of our sins were covered with the blood of Christ: the past, present and future. Sanctification doesn't even come into the picture.
In John 19:30 Jesus said: "It is finished."
The work of Christ was finished.
There is no more need for any purging or cleansing of sin.
Christ paid the penalty once and for all. The RCC denies this with their heretical doctrine of purgatory.

Baptismal regeneration attacks the same doctrine--the sufficiency of the blood of Christ.
Christ could not pay the full penalty of our sin, therefore the RCC must help in the atonement with their baptism. Such ludicrous thinking! Jesus paid it all. He doesn't need your help or mine. Not one drop of water from any baptismal font will help anyone get to heaven. Rather it will point them to hell for they then think they have helped Christ get them to heaven. Such heresy!

 

So you say. Actually, TS was a Baptist that studied long and hard before becoming Catholic (again) after leaving the Catholic Church many years before. Some on this board that are ex-Catholics obviously didn't know what the Church taught to begin with as evidenced by what they post. Most here DO NOT know or are they willing to actually study what the CC actually teaches. They would prefer to believe what they have been told.

Also, other than Catholics who initially came here as Protestants, no Catholic are allowed to join this board. Other than TS, I only know of one other Catholic posting on this board and she does so only occasionally. Of course this board is free to decide who may or may not join but it seems that it is not really fair to start threads meant to debate Catholicism and then ban Catholics (with two exceptions) from becoming involved. I read that this forum is afraid of Catholic 'proseltyizing' if Catholics are allowed to join. If the truth is the truth, what is this forum afraid of??

 

BTW, could you be specific about just WHAT 'those advocating RCC theology not exactly saying what the RCC teaches'? Please show which posts and just what Catholic theology is being falsely misrepresented. I have found NOTHING that TS has claimed regarding Catholic teaching or theology that is not completely supported by the catechism. Maybe you can show us where he is falsely presenting what the Catholic Church teaches. Otherwise you are making false accusations

 

The Board is afraid of nothing. If you want to discuss Catholic doctrine go to a Catholic board. There are lots of them. This is a Baptist Board.
Please take note of that fact.

We do not allow all cults, religions and denominations to post on here. We reserve the right to choose who may and may not post. Posting here is a privilege and not a right.

There are some in the past who took it as their right and abused the rules. They are not permitted back again. When others do the same thing they also are banned. The rules are posted on the bottom of each page. Please abide by them.

As I said, if you want Catholic company, there are plenty of Catholic boards that you are welcome to join. You don't have to post here. No one is forcing your hand.

 

What rules have I abused? I simply mentioned that I don't feel it is terribly fair to attack Catholicism in this forum (considering what this particular forum is for) and not allow Catholics on the board. Just my opinion! Others have expressed that opinion on this board before without you attacking them. I realize I am a guest on this board and that I don't have to post here. BTW, why do you allow threads about Catholicism if you don't want Catholicism discussed?

 

In the last two pages we have had:
1. a thread on Mormonism.
2. a thread on prayer cloths.
3. a thread on the trinity.

If we go by your logic we should have allowed Mormons on this board to defend Mormonism, Charismatic Third Wave adherents to defend prayer cloths, and modernists who don't believe in the trinity to defend their unbelief. Is this your position?

Any subject can be discussed, including any religion. Discuss Hinduism if you like, but don't expect us to invite Hindus to the board. That is not our policy and we don't believe it is hypocritical.

 

Wasn't my question was it? I asked you to provide evidence of the posts where those 'advocating' Catholicism were misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches. Can you do it or not? You are the one claiming that people presenting the Catholic position are not being truthful. Your claims of the 'heresies' of Catholicism show just how little you know about the Catholic Church.

 

You know, it bothers me how much we turn to our peers for spiritual formation today. It's not that these men are terrible Christians, or shouldn't be teaching and preaching, but we have an enormous wealth of knowledge found in the writings of the earliest Christians that goes neglected and unread.

Ignatius, Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Justin Martyr. All these amazing men at the foundation of Christianity, preaching what had been handed on to them by the disciples and apostles. They didn't all get it right all the time, but they agreed on the necessity of water baptism and other doctrines that many on this board claim or unbiblical.

 

Perhaps they don't go unread as much as you think.
Perhaps they don't get used because in the ECF were the origins of some of the most serious errors to enter Christianity. We recognize the Bible as being authoritative and inspired, not the ECF. We also recognize many of their errors, as well as some of their contributions.
With them started many of the heresies that surround baptism, including baptismal regeneration. That is just one example.
Origen was an outright heretic, and declared so by even the Catholic Church.
Augustine held to many doctrinal errors.
The apostles are the foundation of Christianity, not these men.

They didn't even agree among themselves let alone with what was taught in the Bible. One of them was under the impression that Christ lived until he was 80. And they all certainly were not taught by the Apostles. Very few, if any, were. Even then, that would not guarantee that their doctrine would be correct. After all Jesus did teach Judas Iscariot, didn't he?

 

Back to the OP: 15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes AND is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
The word "and" is a joining word. If you want to make a purchase online, you must have a credit card AND an account with the company you wish to buy from. Both are necessary. If either is missing I will not be able to complete the transaction. Catholics/Lutherans/Anglicans/Orthodox believe Peter uses the word 'and' to join belief and baptism as the necessary elements of salvation. The line after that 'the one who does not believe will be condemned' many on this board believe diminishes the former statement. If either of them is missing there is no salvation. In this case belief is missing and the person is condemned. Its like saying 'the one who has a credit card and an company account will be accepted for the online transaction but the one who does not have an company account will be denied'