Unam Sanctam--only Catholics go to Heaven

You think its possible Bob that I could cut and paste Mrs Ellen G White's writings to show that the SDA is the one true religion in which salvation is attainable?

 

Your remark the more I read and hear about them, the more I am glad I am a protestant believer. is vindictive in a sense that what you linked was the be-all-end-all, stake in the heart, that proved Catholics believe that all non-Catholics are hell bound, just because you found some quotes that were cut and rearranged that painted the Catholic faith in a bad light.

But hey, if that’s how you form you opinions, then don’t get offended when someone calls you out on it. Or better yet, take some time and run a fact check and verify the quotes, especially those from fundamentalist sites.

 

Better yet.. I'll just put you on my ignore list, and feel free to do the same.

You're not even listening to what I posted, and the fact that I have no bad opinion against Catholics, I just in searching around, found a website that had something pertaining to this thread so I posted it. I never verified it or even stated it was true. that is up to the reader to find out, I am just a messager.

If you don't like it, or believe in the article that is your opinion. If you want to think anything that is "against what you believe in" is "copy and paste" then so be it.

For the record, I didn't copy and paste, I posted a link that was pertaining to this thread. Unlike the MANY people that want to side track the threads.. Also, my post was not vindictive like you would like to think. Go back and read some of my other posts in other threads about the Catholic faith. If I wanted to be vindictive I would have been a long time ago in my other threads.

Also, I can see you don't like my opinion, but remember this. At least I am a Baptist, that says I am a Baptist and have no problems standing on being a Baptist. Unlike yourself who's profile states one thing, and yet you certainly defend a different thing.

At least with the few Catholics around here, they have it listed in their profile. I can respect them alot more than people that hide their true selves. One can learn alot from someone when they are not even honest with themselves.

So for now.. Ignore me and I will do the same with you.

Jamie

 

Agnus:
Would you care to explain your catechism in the light of the necessity of baptism:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1277

Unless this cathechism, your RCC catechism does not teach that only the baptism of the RCC church can save a person, then what does it teach? Salvation is only through the RCC. This teaching has never changed.

Revelation 17:5-6 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Virtually every Protestant commentary of fifty years and older attributed these verses to the Pope of the RCC, or the Vatican.

 

Snow emergency is over, so I have to go back to work, so this will be quick.

You're not saying that RCC is the only religion that see the necessity of baptism are you?

Since you "used" to be Catholic, you should know that if RCC teaches that baptism is a necessity and valid only through Rome, then why do new Protestant members that reconcile with the Church need not be re-baptized, if the RCC teaches that baptism through the Church is only valid?

Why do Baptist require one, maybe a Protestant whose been baptized, to be re-baptized who hasn't been baptized per their mode of baptism, which isn't found in scripture, if Baptism doesn't have any effect on our salvation anyway?

For the record, I'm not Catholic. As I told Jamie in a private post he sent me; technically I'm still an inactive member of Faith Baptist Church of Avon, Indiana. I've been attending Speedway UMC for the past couple of years.

What verses? The ones in the link or the one you posted on Revelation?

 

Commentaries can be wrong.

It's obvious to someone who is not eisegeting the text that the Whore of Babylon is most closely realted to the pagan state religion of "Babylon," or Rome, at the time Revelation was written (AD 67 or so, or AD 97 or so).
The Beast could just as easily be Nero as it could Domitian, and a quick review of the history of these emperor's reigns will show just how drunk they were on the blood of Christian saints.

And Agnus brings up a very valid and telling point. Baptists demand that you be immersed to be in fellowship with them. Catholics, apparently, do not. Yet they, and not the Baptists, are "wrong." Hmmm.

 

If you cant trust anything the Roman church said then you cant trust anything they say now.

 

My baptist church never "demanded" such thing. If I wanted to serve within the Church or be a member it was a requirement, but it certainly was not a requirement for "fellowship".

 

Thanks for making my point.

 

Nope. The COC does. The United Pentecostal do. Most cults do.

Simply a novelty to try and win back Protestants to the RCC.
But look at reality. Certainly you have heard of the Anabaptists, and know why they were called "anabaptists," and what became of them. "Ana" means "again." They re-baptized those who had been formerly baptized in infancy by the RCC or the Anglican churhch, upon a profeesion of faith in Christ. Having done so that angered the Pope, and other clergy of the RCC who persecuted them to the death. They sought to extinguish the entire Anabaptist movement with a terrible persecution killing as many as they could find. Baptizing as an adult, when already baptized as an infant--a damnable heresy in the RCC eyes. What hypocrisy does the RCC show now. Or has it really changed. I don't believe it really has. It still believes that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
You see, the teaching of the Catholic is also that one having known the truth of the RCC, been baptized of the RCC, and then deliberately rejected the light of the RCC is damned. According to RCC theology I am damned and cannot be saved. I have apostasized, even though reality (according to the Bible) says that I have been born again by the Spirit of God, and have found a new life in Jesus Christ, which is far better than a condemned life in the RCC.

Read the Scripture (the Great Commission in Mat.28:19,20). Baptism is the first step of obedience after one is saved. It has nothing to do with one's salvation. Also there is never one single case of an infant being baptized in the Bible. That is one of those extrabiblical doctrines that come out of tradition and not the Bible that should be mentioned in the other thread.
The difference between the Baptist belief and the Catholic belief is this:
Many Baptists believe that baptism is a requirement for membership in the church, as do many other denominational churches. That has been historically true of many, many denominations.
However, in the RCC, baptism is not just a door to membership; it is a sacrament of salvation. Without baptism one cannot be saved. That is the mark of a cult. That is a departure of justification by faith. It goes against the doctrine of the all sufficiency of the blood of Christ. It denies the necessity of the atoning work of Christ. It means that the work of Christ on the cross was not enough; the RCC had to help Christ along in its own heretical works. You deny the grace of God. Salvation is no longer of grace through faith.

Baptists do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation!

 

baptism is a biblical requirement, not just a baptist requirement. baptists do not believe it has anything to do with salvation like the rcc does. there is a difference.

 

...because we can prove, beyond doubt, that when entire households were baptized they were all grownups.

 

Yes, we can prove that T-Rex exists on this earth. We just haven't found him yet. After all no one has covered every square inch of this globe and looked under every rock to see if he is still here.
You can't prove something from silence; neither can you prove a universal negative. (We can re-word the statement so that it does become a universal negative very easily, and says the same thing.) Your argument is fruitless and illogical.
You must come up with demonstrable evidence in order to prove your guesswork.

 

How about that the earliest church writers spoke if paedobaptism as an established fact?

 

The earliest of the church writers didn't. I believe the earliest that did was Tertullian. He had some weird beliefs at the begining of his life, and then he became a Montanist near the end of his life, at which time he renounced infant baptism.
Origen believed in infant baptism. He wasn't so early. He was also a heretic, even by RCC standards. Many of the early church fathers held strange and odd beliefs. I wouldn't trust them. Sola Scriptura is my guide.

 

HP: This has always been an interesting topic to me. Let me ask you, can I be saved and never be baptized in water? If so can I assume that Christ will accept me although I have never been water baptized? If Christ can accept me, will the Church you attend accept me as a believer and accept me into full fellowship if I have not been, or refuse to be, water baptized? I am trying to figure out just how you and the RCC disagree

 

DHK posted...

Sola Scriptura should be the guide for all of us. Only disaster will come if we deviate from it, even if the deviation is the "early church fathers"

We have the evidence to prove it...

Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Jehovahs Witnesses
Mormonism

etc etc etc etc...

Mike

 

HP: Scripture informs us that such a view is at antipodes with truth. Every moral agent, including the heathen who have not even heard of Scripture, have a guide given to them by God. I would like to see some scriptural support for your statement. Where does Scripture inform us that it alone is our only guide to truth?

 

In the RCC baptism is part of salvation. In my church it is not part of salvation, but because of salvation, it is a testimony, why would someone not want to give testimony as to what Jesus had done for them (I am of course speaking of the baptism, nothing verbal). God commands baptism, one is living in disobedience if they refuse baptism, a christian should desire baptism, it is the indwelling Holy Spirit prompting them into obedience.
Since baptism is not part of alvation, of course a person can be saved even if they haven't been baptized, but as I said, why woul they want too.
Christ accepting a person and them being saved is quite different then church membership. Church membership does not save anyone, Christ does. Two different things, lets not confuse them.
My church will accept a persons testimony that they have been saved, no problem, an unbaptized believer can not become a member without baptism, either by us or a sister church of like belief.
Again, it is a totally different thing then Christ saving a person. The bible commands baptism for believers.

 

When we start looking for God's truth outside scripture we get ourselves into trouble. Thats why we have mormons, jw's, buddists, muslims, etc. God has communicated His truths to us, why would we want to search elsewhere.

God says that scripture, that bible you have, is enouh to perfect us,to throughly furnish us to do good works, it means the bible is all we need. There are no other written words of God, there is no other new revelation, the bible is all we need according to God.