Unam Sanctam--only Catholics go to Heaven

HP: Why would your church refuse to accept into their fold those that you admit God accepts into His? Where does Scripture allow for any of us, or any church, to judge the worthiness of a prospective member on whether or not they have been water baptized, and in their church alone? What right does your church have in rejecting those that Christ accepts? It would appear to me as a totally unbiased observer, that in reality your church is placing every bit of much emphasis on water baptism as the RCC. The perspective your church has on baptism, if what you are stating is indeed correct, is completely unsupported by the Word of God. Can you cite any passages that would show me differently?

 

HP: You and I read this passage differently. I see nowhere in this Scripture that would inform us that Scripture is the only source of truth. Show me the exact place in this passage that states what you say it does. I would agree that Scripture alone is 'the only written Words of God"
and that we need no new revelation, and the Bible itself is the only source needed to find salvation, but that is a far cry from stating that the only source of truth is found in Scripture. If you are not granted some intuitive understanding of truth apart from Scripture, those that have not Scripture would have no truth. That would be at direct opposition to the truth of Scripture. It states that the heathen which "HAVE NOT THE LAW" do the things contained in the law, therfore have become a law unto themselves.

 

It has nothing to do with worthiness.
No one has been rejected, I did not say that.
Conversation works better when you do not make up stuff the other person said, especially when it is all in writting.
Christ accepts them for salvation, we do not, we have nothing to do with it, we accept them in membership, and according to scripture they must b baptized. You have to keep the two different things separated and not run them together. They are two different things, as I said.
RCC says a person does not go to heaven with out baptism. We do not say that. If you haven't noticed, heaven and a church building are two different things. But it seems we are having a hard time determining the difference between two and one.
Have you not read scripture at all, if so you must have seen something about baptism somewhere.
So do you think a person does not have to obey scripture and be baptized when they are saved or what? It appears so since you argue against obedience.

 

so where else would you want to searh for God's truth?
prehaps the muslims have some for you, or maybe you could go mormon. I mean if your going to look for God's truth elsewhere you might as well give them all a try.

 

HP: I do recall reading about baptism. What I do not recall is where Scripture informs us to treat those believers that have been baptized in our tank differently than we would in some other tank or even in some cases, not at all.
What is so sad about the view you are expressing, is that if Jesus where to come to earth Himself, your church would have to re-baptize Him in your tank to accept Him as a fellow member. It is obvious, whatever you are baptizing for or into has nothing to do with the body of Christ in the least.

What does Scripture inform us is that which we are to be baptized into and by? Christ and the Holy Spirit, or your denomination by your pastor?

 

HP: What a shocking revelation of how far some have drifted from the truth. This deserves a thread all of its own. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

 

Sola scriptura, expressed in two different ways, is taught all throughout the Bible, OT and NT.
First it mans literally "only Scripture," meaning that the Scripture is "all sufficient." The Bible is all sufficient. Everything that we need to know about God, Christ, salvation, etc. is contained within the pages of this book that we call "The Bible."
Secondly, as Baptists, we normally define it as: The Scriptures are our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Obviously we have other authorities in other areas such as Chemistry and Math. But in faith and doctrine, the Bible is our final authority. We may even say we have authoritative books such as Strong's Concordance and other resource material. But the Bible is our final authority. That is the primary reason that we do not rely on the Church Fathers.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--When Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans, he preached Christ and Christ crucified. The Bereans took a NT message and verified the words of Paul through the OT scriptures which they had. They did not take Paul at his Word. The Bible was their final authority. This is sola scriptura. It is one of the best examples that you can see of it. The Bereans resorted to the Scriptures to verify the message of one of the most learned and well-known messengers of God.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--The standard has always been the Scriptures. This is sola scriptura. If you speak not according to the Word of God, there is no light in you. Your words must be according to Scripture, not according to the Koran, Book of Mormon, Catholic Tradition, or any other source. Our appeal is always to the Scripture. It is our final authority in all things pertaining to faith and doctrine. In the OT, if a prophet did not line up with the Word of God he was declared a false prophet and stoned. Sola Scriptura has always been practiced. It has always been our sole guide of truth, doctrine, practice.

Jesus said:
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
--Why search the Scriptures?
Because they are authoritative. They are the standard of truth. That is sola scriptura.

 

HP: Spell checker works with only one finger on either hand. Just kidding. :laugh:

I would have some serious problems with your church as well. Jesus did not require water baptism for fellowship as I recall, and was in no hurry to dunk new converts either. Paul required water baptism of no one to be a brother or sister in the Lord that I can recall, and only baptized a couple as I recall Scripture. Even then there is no indication that he required it to be accepted as a believer in full fellowship with the Lord and himself.

Where does Scripture ever state that a believer must be water baptized to be saved or to be accepted as part of the body of Christ?

 

Let’s examine this statement class. D28guy believes that Sola Scriptura, which wasn’t ‘invented’ until the Reformation caused the Great Schism between the East and West in 1054…what an absurd statement and a disregard for Church History.

Now Class, Sola Scriptura is exactly what caused the formation of the Jehovah’s Witness and Mormonism, since these cults originated after the Reformation and the invented battle cry of Sola Scriptura. Since the Reformation and Sola Scriptura, what class has been the fruit of Sola Scriptura?

You’re right…Protestantism. What evidence do we have class?

Freewill Baptist
Independent Baptist
Progressive Baptist
Reformed Baptist
First Reformed Baptist
New Reformed Baptist
Missionary Baptist
First Baptist
American Baptist
Methodist
Free Methodist
United Methodist
Wesleyan
Presbyterian
Reformed Presbyterian
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran – Missouri Synod
Your corner Joe Blow Christian Church…ect..ect

Now class for your assignment, read the Bible using Sola Scriptura and develop your own doctrine, since the Holy Spirit will be leading you and start your own corner Church…now be original with the name…

What a shame…and a disregard for unity…

 

It's not that you can't trust what the RC say's, it's the sad fact that you rely on Fundamentalist that like to cut and rearrange quotes of the RC to fit their crooked agenda.

Do fundies even know how to research objectively?

 

HP: What about God instilled conscience? Does not Scripture itself tell us that it is our conscience that determines whether or not something is sin? How could the heathen arrive at truth in relationship to the law without the law if truth was only found “sola Scriptura?”

HP: No this is not sola Scriptura. A final guide does not equate to the 'only source' of truth which the term ‘sola Scriptura’ lends itself.

HP: Again you miss the point. The question is not whether or not one can hold truth in direct opposition to Scripture, for we know that canot be the case. The question is whether or not Scripture is 'the only' source of truth.

HP: Our appeal is NOT always to Scripture, and if it is you are beating your head against the wall. Whose interpretation is infallable? Trading proof text for proof text will never establish some truth, for some truth must appeal to a man’s God instilled conscience in order for truth to be revealed. The Scripture consistently appeals to the conscience of man and even those things we see around us.

HP: Amen. We agree on this point entirely. Just the same for the interpretation of many passages and commands an appeal to ones conscience must be made and that on the authority of Scripture. Reason attests to that fact, and if I had never read Scripture according to Romans, I still as a heathen would attest to the same truth concerning the law.

HP: That is not Sola Scriptura. All truth will line up wit the Word of God, but all truth comes not by the Word of God alone. Sola Scriptura induces the false idea that 'all truth' is revealed in Scripture. That is simply not the case. God reveals to me truth, almost if not on a daily basis, that is not specifically set forth in Scripture. Scripture, due to the fact that its truths have been made available to me, serve as a source to judge all ideas I might at first believe are truth via conscience, and clearly a source to refine the meanings of all impulses of conscience once Scripture is made available, yet conscience is ones first and basic revelation of truth in many matters.

HP: That does not make them Sola Scriptura. God revealed Himself to the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus and spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, and can do the same for any or all of us if He so wills. One can be assured that He will never contradict Scripture, but God may reveal truth to our hearts in direct opposition to what we have in the past felt was the truth of the matter according to our interpretation or past understanding.

Of a truth, a general statement can be made that Scripture is indeed the only source given to man that reveals the truth of salvation. Just the same, God is sovereign and could if He so desires reveal Himself in any way He would so desire and circumstances demand, much as He has led at least one in the recent past out of the jungles by a flaming light. Can anyone recall the story of that African lad led out of the jungle by an angel of God? Sorry, his name has slipped my mind.

 

2 Timothy 2:16, says nothing about Scripture being 'sufficient'. The Apostle Paul here requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle Paul here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now a good part of the New Testament was NOT written in his boyhood, even some of the Epistles were not written even when Paul penned this letter and NONE of the Books of the NT were placed on the canon of Scripture books. Paul refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and if the argument from 2 Timothy 2:16 proved anything, it would prove too much, that the Scriptures of the NT were not necessary for a rule of faith.

Also the Bible denies that its the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ's work is in Scripture (Jn 21:15). In addition Paul says that much of Christian teaching is to be found in Tradition handed down by word of mouth (2 Timothy 2:2).

 

HP: I think I just heard a bit of rustling going on inside of the grave belonging to that of John Wesley.:tear:

 

This was posted much earlier but I think it needs adressing --

So, does this mean the Catholic Church holds to baptismal regeneration as many Church of Christ churches do? To ask it a different way -- does one have to be baptized in water after accepting Christ in order for that one to be saved?

 

A short answer is not necessarily; take for instance an uncatechized (un-baptized individual) whose preparing to take to be received into the RCC, if they die before being baptized, their desire to be baptized will save them.

See above, water is an ingredient, but it's not the water that saves, it's the power of the Holy Spirit. One must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

On a side note, the RCC states that any properly baptized person can initiate this Sacrament and will be valid.

 

HP: For a mere mouse you sure know a lot. :smilewinkgrin:

Seriously, I appreciate what you have clarified. I would be part of the body of Christ that at least some within the RCC might term as profane.

 

Other than the Greek Orthodox, name another Church that was around in the 1300's.