Some hard questions for the catholics

You have said this a couple of times, but Catholics don't claim this.

There is a whole lot more to being a Christian in unity with the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church than just being baptized.

 

I wonder if infant Baptism isn't the topic that you are really interested in here.

If so, perhaps you should start a new thread, because to get into the Biblical support for infant Baptism would probably take this tread off the original topic.

BTW, I asked you a few questions a couple of posts back and I am hoping that you will try to answer them.

 

You have said this a couple of times, but Catholics don't claim this.

There is a whole lot more to being a Christian in unity with the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church than just being baptized.
</font>[/QUOTE]Agree with the baptism matter, T2U.

For that matter, who are the Christians, FC ? Baptists call themselves Christians, Pentecostals call themselves Christians, Protestants call themselves Christians, SDA's call themselves Christians, JW's call themselves Christians, PB's call themselves Christians, and the list goes on. In our country, we have a cult there, the INC, and they call themselves Christians, we have other cults there who call themselves Christians.

But what does the name Christian mean ?

It means, "one who is of Christ", as originally meant by the people who first called the believers Christians, in a deriding manner.

How right they were ! Those whom the Savior redeemed with His own blood are His. Death has no more claim on them, Satan has no more claim on them, He bought them with His own precious blood (1 Peter 1:19).

But who knows who they are ? Who knows where they are ? Not anybody. We know that as believers we gather as a body to worship the King of kings and Lord of lords, to sing hymns to him, hear His word preached, pray and lay our petitions by His feet, and we call each other brothers and sisters, and we have our doctrines, and practices, but are we sure all whom we greet and kiss and hug during our meetings, all who partake of our love feast here on earth, on this plane called time, will be in heaven with us ?

The answer is: We Don't.

We hope, yes, but we don't know if we will all be there, for only God knows who His people are. "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world" declared James, the first pastor of the church at Jerusalem, after discussing to the church then assembled how the Lord had said that he will take out a people for His name, as told by all the prophets.

Doctrines and practices, creeds and races, separate God's people here on earth, on this plane called time but when the first second of eternity ticks in and God ushers in those who are His into His new heavens and new Earth, there will be but one doctrine, taught by God Himself, and our tears will be wiped away by the same hands we have crucified.

May all praise and glory be to God and to His Christ !! Hallelujah, what a Savior !

 

"If at majority of the population are true christians then there must be at least a social change. Their influence may at least be felt in the nation."
And it was in my country from 1848 untill the mid 1960's. The timeperiod when the Netherlands was more or less a democracy with a constitution and a majority of it's voters were Christians. Ofcourse half those Christians were RC.

 

I can well understand what faithcontender is trying to say. Yes. people are imperfect, and Protestants have their worldling too, but it seems that catholicism has the moral laxness built in, and people are generally more religious than liberal protestants and others, but still do not have the power, as fc said. I myself thought of this, when I would see people crossing themselves when passing a church or other sacred symbol, and wearing Ash on Ash Wed., etc., but ask them to stay married to one person their whole lives; to not curse, get drunk and be an average self-seeking person even more than the most God-hating atheist. The Church was supposed to be the strictest against divorce, and also preaches against other sins, but I can imagine that when you have Mary, the saints, confessionals, Rosaries, Hail Mary's/novenas, (and in marriage, "annulment") etc., it becomes easy to fall into this routine of just sinning and then going through this little ritual to clear your conscience. And then there is no real assurance of salvation, everyone is probably going to wind up spending some time in Purgatory anyway, so what's the use. This is the best we can do, so just be as good as you can (and people by nature make up their own minds of what is "good"), and hope you ultimately "make it". I know this is not the ideal way the Catholic practice is supposed to work, but it does not take into consideration man's fallen nature that tries to get over through loopholes. It is very convicting to think of the Holy Spirit looking down at all your thoughts, etc., but Mary and saints, even though they are given many of the same divine functions, are nevertheless still humans, and it is just not the same thing. The triune God mediates to us through the members of the one divine nature: the Son, and the Spirit. The Catholic Church has placed all three "up there" out of our reach, except through totally non-divine mediators, so most people do not have the power (some do, I guess on their own coming to God directly, but this is apparently the minority, and not what the majority of Church teaching suggests.)
I've even witnessed to Catholics who dismissed the Bible as a "man-made book" (just like the average atheist or agnostic), while affirming the infallibility of the Church! What's this about? Once again, when the infallible Church tells them to be nce and moral, they can't live up to it, but go to her for their penance. Perhaps God inspired scripture and the Holy Spirit would give them the power, but that is all man made, right? If the Church hadn't been teaching them all of these substitutes for a relationship with God, maybe then there would be more changed lives in all these "devout Catholic" lands.
The Protestants who are liberal or lax are not as "devout" as many of these Catholics. Even many evangelicals are falling into total laxity (doctrine not as important, copying everything the world does, etc), and can hardly be described as "devout". Protestantism is truer to the Gospel, and you have to fall completely away from Protestant doctrine to be a morally liberal Protestant, but people can be very much involved in Catholic tradition and be totaly worldly. Not all, but a lot of them.

 

Eric
Somebody will no doubt come along and explain in great detail how wrong you are and you won't believe him/her.
Personally I will only mention that I've never seen any real difference when it comes to hypocrisy between Catholics and Protestants despite all the fascinating theoretical constructs that claim to proof otherwise.

 

Eric, that you imagine something to be don't make it so.

Baptists have some divorced and remarried pastors.

Baptists have at least one known drug addict pastor.

Baptists have no small number of pastors that steal money from the church.

Baptists have no small number of pastors that commit adultry with a member of their church.

Shall I go on?

It's all a matter of perception and personal bias to see only what one wants to see.

 

As well as other denominations. FC and I come from the same country, and I know:

- one lady who would cook breakfast, lunch, and dinner in the morning before her kids are up and off to school, and leave for "the Lord's work" meaning "soul winning", Bible studies, fellowship, etc., and come home at 10 in the evening when her kids are already asleep. The only exception would be Sunday. Needless to say, her husband finally left her. I was in the Arminian camp at the time, and tried to get him to "accept" Jesus as personal savior. His reply ? "If accepting Christ means I have to abandon my family literally for him, forget it. Let me go to hell." Nice testimony, ha ?

- I've known bisexual Pentecostals, Protestants, Methodists, Evangelicals -

- the list does go on.

We need to remember, this is a fallen world, with a fallen humanity. Sin is inexcusable, but, like Paul said, "Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (Romans 2:1).

 

My how you have distorted the words of others!

Your original concern was that Catholics can't be Christians because in your country they are poor and the government is corrupt.

So tell me, as a "true" Christian, what are you doing about the poverty in your country?

As a "true" Christian, what are you doing about the corruption in your government?

Are you expecting something from others that you are not doing yourself?

I have asked you several questions in the course of this discussion and you have failed to answer even one.

 

I think I tried to make it clear that Protestants can be fallen and worldly too, and here I am made out to be "imagining" that that they don't sin, or "judging" others.
You all missed where I said "...but it seems that Catholicism has the moral laxness built in, and people are generally more religious than liberal protestants and others..." Not that NO Protestants are EVER religious and living in sin; "Protestantism is truer to the Gospel, and you have to fall completely away from Protestant doctrine to be a morally liberal Protestant" (even if you may walk around spouting that doctrine), and as I had spelled out earlier, Catholic teaching places mediators between men and God, and these are focused on more than God's Spirit and power; the hopelessness of salvation by works; and gives penance and other moral loopholes that do not really motivate people to live holy. It's the doctrine I am getting at; you all are focusing on what happens in practice, but remember, it is Rome who claims more than all but the cults to be the "true Church", and with that claim comes a greater responsibility to be showing forth the fruits. There are lots of works, but much less regenerated lives. Anyone who goes to a Protestant denominational Church and rejects "accepting Christ" and says "let me go to Hell" is obviouisly not following Protestant doctrine.

 

Eric
"but it seems that Catholicism has the moral laxness built in"
I've heard similar cases made for Calvinism (Your salvation depends on a choice made by God at the dawn of time, so nothing you do matters, hand me those condoms) and baptist theology (once saved is always saved, so praise Jezus and pass the cocaine).

 

That happens from people twisting the doctrines. I have learned that Calvinists also teach that God holds men "responsible" for that choice that He actually made (actually, it was only their choice, and they simply couldn't choose to repent), and taking "make your election and calling sure", (meaning do good and persevere to the end, and it will turn out that you were elect) they can motivate people to obedience, and even be just as legalistic as anyone else.
The same with "once saved, always saved". While the latter sometimes seems hard to believe from some of the biblical evidence and can be debated, the Bible is clear that salvation is not by works, but by grace, so we can't say "we must not teach that because it may lead to laxity". But much of the Catholic teachings in question the Church has added by its own authority, and while God in His widsom knows when to add a teaching of grace that may lead to laxity (which He will judge in the end), man does not have that wisdom, and adding such doctrines only cause more trouble.