Baptists, Catholics and error

1) Because salvation is complete in Christ alone.

How does that have anything at all to do with your interpretation of John 3:5?

2) I don't know if it was unheard of in the 16th century, but God's plan of salvation has always been the same.

So, no one knew about Homebound's, I mean, God's plan of salvation before the 16th century?

3)I believe that a study of scipture would show that the verse is talking about your physical birth. The Bible is the final authority.

You may believe that, but you're wrong. In-depth and arduous study of John's Gospel has shown me that this verse is speaking about Baptism.

4)Why would God give His Son to die on the cross, to shed His blood for my sin and yours and then say, BTW, believe also in water? Salvation is complete in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I'm not proposing that we have faith in water. I'm proposing that water is the instrumental means of having our sins forgiven.

Check this out: http://www.catholicoutlook.com/waterdialog1.html

 

Homebound, St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century alongside Irenaeus of Lyons. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

Justin's First Apology (i.e., defense of the Christians) begins with this address:

"To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them."

He was a big guy in the Christian Church - you know, a respected Christian.. and he's writing to the Roman Emperor and the Roman Senate!! In this apology, Justin writes:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

You see, Justin and I share the same faith. It's a faith that has existed for 2,000 years unchanged. Both Justin and I understand that we are reborn through the sacrament of baptism wherein we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. How can this be? Because we both are Catholics (ewwww... that nasty cuss word again! *grin*).

 

I'm sure there were many that new about God's plan of salvation, God does not change.

If I'm wrong, who or what makes you right?

If water is an instrument of having our sins forgiven, why did Jesus go through what he did and then get nailed to the cross?

Also, my thoughts on John 3:5 is, Jesus made a statement in John 3:3, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Then Nicodemus in verse 4 asked, as I'm sure some of us would have asked, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered this in John 3:5, Except a man be born of water(flesh) and of the Spirit(Spirit), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It also says in John 3:6, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Water = physical birth
Spirit = spiritual birth

 

Carson

Tanks! Foolish of me to leave those out.

 

I'm sure there were many that new about God's plan of salvation, God does not change.

Homebound, I challenge you to quote one Christian before the 1500's who taught your interpretation of John 3:5.

If I'm wrong, who or what makes you right?

It isn't a matter of me being right because I can interpret correctly on my own power. It's a matter of me following the Apostolic Tradition of interpreting Scripture.. that is, what has been handed down for 2,000 centuries in the Church through her life, practice, and belief.

If water is an instrument of having our sins forgiven, why did Jesus go through what he did and then get nailed to the cross?

Because baptism is an instrument in subjective redemption, not objective redemption. The wood, nails, cross, and Jesus' body were all instruments in the objective redemption. The application of that redemption to us subjectively is where baptism as an instrument comes in.

God uses matter to convey his divine life. This is what we call the incarnational principle. This is what happened at the Annunciation: The ineffable, omniscient, omnipresent God of the Universe joined himself to matter, to muck, to flesh, to blood. In the same way, God uses the matter of water to convey his divine life. While the baptism symbolizes our being cleansed from sin, it actually effects what it symbolizes.

I encourage you again to read through http://www.catholicoutlook.com/waterdialog1.html

 

Carson, and all the others who actually believe that all of the extra-biblical catholic traditions are biblical,

Please contact me off-line.

I have some ocean front property in Iowa I would like to sell you!

(Just kidding! )

Mike

 

Sorry Carson, you haven't convinced me. Say anything you want, but I do not see the authority that the Catholic Church claims to have in Scripture. And when it comes to doctrines made by men and Scripture, I will go with Scripture.

I know you were addressing someone else, but just because someone has "seen the light" and switched over to the Catholic Church does not mean they are right. There are many that I personally know who come from Catholic backgrounds and have become Baptists. I am sure there are books out there on this. And I am sure that many have studied and come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was not what it claimed to be. And besides, one book I read, Rome Sweet Home, was not very impressive.

We just had a Pakistani man speak at our church the other night. He was talking about religion in his home country and Catholicism came up. He said his people worshiped Mary, not Jesus. When asked about salvation, most would answer that Mary was the way. She was the most popular person to Catholics, he said. And I have a fellow seminary student who is from Italy and he said that most Catholics there worshiped Mary, not Jesus. My friend, when there is a doctrine so perpetuated that has no Scriptural support (at best, very little from what I have seen Catholics give as 'support'), I have to wonder. I am sorry, as long as there are things like that, I could never ascribe to the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Respectfully,
Neal

 

So if someone is not baptized they are not born again, right? And you are talking about immersion, right? That is what the Greek word means, correct?

Also, just a point I want to make. You pull out a verse and act like you have shot down what I said. If you read closely, I said much of the Bible, not all.

Also, if baptism is a requirement for salvation, is that not a work? Doesn't that contradict other parts of Scripture?

Neal

 

Did he have a rosary and pray the "Hail Mary?"

Neal

 

Can the teaching and practices of the Roman Catholic Church be found in the Bible? What about the authority of the Pope, church councils, tradition, and church law? Do the Scriptures authorize the teachings of Catholicism about the Mass (eucharist), transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, abstinence, celibacy, Lent, confession to priests, communion, immaculate conception, the perpetual viginity of Mary, and prayer to saints and Mary? Is the Catholic church really the one true church according to the Bible?

Introduction:

The Roman Catholic church teaches that it is the original church built by Jesus and that all other churches are apostasies from Catholicism. The New Testament often warns us of the danger of false teaching and apostasy (Acts 20:38-30; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; I Tim. 4:1-3). The question to be considered by all honest people, then, is whether the Catholic church is the original true church and others are apostate, or whether the Catholic church is itself an apostasy.

The way to answer this question is to compare the teachings of the Catholic church to the teachings of Jesus as revealed in the New Testament. The claim of the Catholic church to be the true and original church is a valid claim if and only if the teaching and practice of the Catholic church agrees with the New Testament (2 Tim. 3:16,17; I Cor. 14:37; Matt. 7:15-27; 2 John 9-11; Gal. 1:6-9; I John 2:3-6; John 8:31,32).

Let us consider the teaching of the Catholic church regarding several subjects of major interest (such as the Pope, church councils, tradition, church law, the Mass or eucharist, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, abstinence, celibacy, Lent, confession to priests, communion, immaculate conception, the perpetual viginity of Mary, and prayer to saints and Mary). On each point we will simply let the Catholic church speak for itself by quoting from its authorized books. Then we will compare that to what is taught in the Catholic Bible itself. Please see the bibliography for specific information regarding the sources cited.


STANDARD OF AUTHORITY

In addition to the Bible, Catholicism also follows tradition and the decrees of the Pope and church councils as religious authority.
"Did God intend that the Bible alone should be the guide to salvation? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood, and because the Bible does not have everything God taught" - Catechism, p. 51.

"Do we get from the Bible alone all our knowledge and certainty about what God has told us? No, there is also Sacred Tradition … What is tradition? The Word of God handed on to us by the Apostles in their preaching and by their successors in the church to the present day … Do you have to believe in tradition? Yes … we are obliged to accept all the truths contained in the Bible and Tradition…" - Catechism, pp. 9,10.

"Council … assemblies of the rulers of the Church legally convoked, for the discussion and decision of ecclesiastical affairs … The decrees of general councils have no binding authority till confirmed by the Pope … The infallibility of general councils so confirmed follows from that of the Church…" - Dictionary, pp. 227-230.

"Does Jesus require us to follow the Pope in matters of religion? Yes, because obedience and loyalty to the Pope are among the chief requirements of Our Lord's plan for unity … Can the Pope make an error when teaching religion? Not when he is speaking solemnly (ex cathedra) as head of the church. Then he has that special protection from error which God gives as a spiritual safeguard for all the members of the church" - Catechism, p. 56.

But the Bible teaches:
1. The original apostles received all the truth we need to guide us to eternal life, and they wrote this down in the Scriptures (John 16:13; 2 Pet. 1:3; Acts 20:20,27; Matt. 28:20; I Cor. 14:37; 2 Tim. 3:16,17).

2. The teachings of these inspired writers can be understood by the common people. We do not need official interpreters to understand the word, but we should use the word to check out the teachers! (Mark 7:14; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; John 20:30,31; Acts 17:11; Psa. 119:105)

3. We displease God when we follow tradition or church laws or any human standard as the source of authority for the church (Matt. 15:1-14; Col. 2:8; Gal. 1:6-9; Prov. 14:12; 2 John 9-11; Jer. 10:23).

CHURCH ORGANIZATION

Catholicism teaches that the Pope is the earthly head of the church.
"The Pope, who is the bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ on earth … is the visible head of the whole Catholic Church … Who was the first Pope? St. Peter, who was made Pope by Jesus Christ Himself … Did Peter's authority die with him? No, it was handed down to a man named Linus, and after he died, it was handed down to another, and so on, during the past 2000 years" - Catechism, pp. 55,56. Below the Pope in the church hierarchy are various levels of cardinals, bishops, priests, etc.

"The law of the [Roman] Church forbids persons living in the married state to be ordained, and persons in holy orders [priests, etc.], to marry" - Dictionary, p. 132.

But the Bible teaches:
1. Jesus is the Head, foundation, and chief shepherd of the church (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:18; Matt. 28:18; I Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:10,11; I Pet. 2:3-8; John 10:11,14; I Pet. 5:4; Heb. 13:20). For the church to have two heads (Jesus and the Pope) would be spiritual adultery, like a woman having two husbands (cf. Eph. 5:22-24 to Rom. 7:2,3).

Note on Matt. 16:18 - The "rock" on which Jesus built His church is not Peter, but it is the truth that Jesus is the Son of God (v13-17). In this context, Jesus is not confessing and exalting Peter; rather, Peter is confessing and exalting Jesus! The "rock" on which the church is built (Greek PETRA) is a solid ledge of stone. It is not the same as Peter (Greek PETROS, a stone), but is contrasted to Him. This agrees with I Cor. 3:11 and other verses listed above, which show Jesus is the foundation of the church.

2. Peter had no greater authority than the other apostles (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11,12). All had power to bind and loose by preaching the gospel guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 16:19 to 18:18; John 20:22f; and Mark 16:15,16; John 16:13; Gal. 1:11,12). Peter had the "keys" to be the first one to preach this gospel and open the door to both Jews and Gentiles to enter the church (Acts 2 and Acts 10), but others preached as much and as effectively as he did (I Cor. 15:10).

3. Peter did not fit the pattern of modern Popes. He was married (Matt. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). He refused to allow men to bow to honor him religiously (Acts 10:25,26). He wore no exalted title such as "Father" (Matt. 23:9).

4. No one today can be a successor to Peter or to any other apostle. Apostles had to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21,22; I Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Acts 2:32; 3:15; etc.). Apostles confirmed their apostleship by doing miracles (2 Cor. 12:12; Mark 16:20; Acts 3:1-10; 9:32-42; etc.). Those who received this miraculous power from the apostles, could not in turn pass it on to others (Acts 8:5-18).

5. Marriage is honorable for all, including apostles and bishops (Heb. 13:4; Matt. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5; I Tim. 3:2,4; Tit. 1:5-7). It is a clear sign of apostacy to forbid people to marry (I Tim. 4:1-3).

COMMUNION

Catholicism teaches that the elements in communion become the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.
"The Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament in which Jesus Christ is really and physically present under the appearances of bread and wine … [T]he appearances of the bread and wine (taste, smell, color, size, shape, weight) did not change, even though the bread and wine were actually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. The substance of the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Jesus. This change is called transubstantiation.

"When does the priest change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus? At Mass, when he says, 'This is my Body. This is My Blood.' …

"What is the Mass? The sacrifice of the Cross, the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, offered in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine … Who offered the first Mass? Jesus offered the first Mass at the Last Supper when He changed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood … Is the sacrifice of the Mass the same as the sacrifice of the cross? Yes, they are the same…" - Catechism, pp. 69-76.

But the Bible teaches:
1. Even after Jesus said "This is my body … This is my blood," the elements were still described as "fruit of the vine," "bread," and "cup." Both statements cannot be taken physically. (Matt. 26:29; I Cor. 11:26-28)

2. Jesus' sacrifice was not repeated, so the mass cannot be the same sacrifice offered today (Heb. 7:26,27; 9:24-28; 10:9,10; I Pet. 3:18).

3. Jesus could not have offered a sacrifice (the "first mass") before He died because the Old Testament was still in effect then, and He could not serve as a priest under that testament (Heb. 7:12-14; 8:4; 9:15,16).

4. Changing bread and wine to flesh and blood would require a miracle. True miracles could always be verified by the physical evidence that the change had occurred (cf. John 2:1-11), yet Catholicism admits there is no evidence of change in the bread and cup. Furthermore, miracles have ceased and cannot occur since the "perfect" written word was completed (I Cor. 13:8-13; cf. Jude 3; James 1:25).

5. Drinking blood is forbidden (Acts 15:29).

6. "This is my body … This is my blood" refers, not to the physical substance of the elements, but to their spiritual significance. Other similar statements of Jesus are: "I am the door … I am the vine" (John 10:7,9; 15:1,5).

In a memorial, one thing is used to remind us of another thing. The memorial is never physically and literally the thing it reminds us of (cf. I Cor. 11:24,25 to Ex. 12:11-14). If I show you a picture and say, "This is my wife," you do not conclude that my wife is a piece of photographic paper. The picture is a memorial which reminds me of my wife. So the bread and fruit of the vine are elements which remind us of Jesus' body and blood.

EXALTATION OF MARY & PRAYER TO SAINTS

Catholicism exalts Mary to a super-human position, and prays to her and to saints.
"…the Blessed Virgin can do whatever she pleases both in heaven and on earth … At the command of Mary, all obey, even God … God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands … Yes, Mary is omnipotent … for the queen by every law enjoys the same privileges as the king … Since the mother, then, should have the same power as the Son, rightly has Jesus, who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent … whatever the Mother asks for, the Son never denies her" - Glories, pp. 154-156.

"Catholics believe that the Blessed Virgin was free from all actual sin because of divine tradition confirmed by the Council of Trent" - Question Box, p. 360.

"The Church teaches us that [Mary] was always a Virgin - a Virgin before her espousals, during her married life and after her spouse's death" - Faith of Our Fathers, p. 138.

"…the Eternal Father … besides giving us Jesus Christ, our principal Advocate with Him, was pleased also to give us Mary, as our Advocate with Jesus Christ … He has placed the whole price of redemption in the hands of Mary, that she may dispense it at will .. [T]he way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary .. No one is saved but through thee … Whoever asks and expects to obtain graces without the intercession of Mary, endeavors to fly without wings … [A]ll graces are dispensed by Mary, and … all who are saved are saved only by the means of this Divine Mother…" - Glories, pp. 169,85,143f,8.

"O most pure Virgin Mary, I worship thy most holy heart … It is … well to say the rosary kneeling, before an image of Mary" -Glories, pp. 104,508.

Catholic prayer books contain examples of prayers that members should pray to Mary or to other saints (see "The Confiteor" in Catechism, p. 135, and "Prayer to St. Joseph" in St. Pius X Daily Missal, p. 1031).

But the Bible teaches:
1. Jesus was born from Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). He possessed His divine characteristics in common with God and His human characteristics in common with Mary. Hence, He possesses omnipotence because of His Deity (John 1:1-3,14; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 2:9; Eph. 1:19-23). But Mary would not share in Jesus' Divine characteristics. To say she is omnipotent would exalt her to the position of Deity.

2. Deity is sinless (Deut. 32:4). Though Jesus has always been God, He came to earth as a man and lived sinlessly (2 Cor. 5:21; I John 3:5; I Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). All other humans sin (Rom. 3:10,12,23). That includes Mary. To say Mary is sinless would exalt her to Deity and make God a liar (I John 1:8,10).

3. Virginity before marriage is a virtue, but after marriage it is not a virtue (Heb. 13:4). In fact, to refuse the sexual union with one's marriage spouse is a sin because it tempts one's spouse to commit fornication (I Cor. 7:2-5). Jesus had "brothers and sisters" in the very same sense that Mary was His "mother" (Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 6:3). (Note that "sister" never refers in the gospel to a cousin or more distant relative. There was a different Greek word for a female cousin or kinswoman - Luke 1:36.)

4. Jesus is our only mediator and advocate with God in prayer and in salvation (I Tim. 2:5; I John 2:1,2). Only God can dispense forgiveness (Mk. 2:7- 12). Salvation is only through Jesus (Acts 4:12; Heb. 5:9).

5. We worship only Deity, not created beings (Matt. 4:10; Rom. 1:23,25). We must not bow or kneel to any created being or statue in religious honor (Acts 10:25,26; Rev. 22:8,9; 19:10). To honor Mary as Catholics do is idolatry (I John 5:21).

LENT AND ABSTINENCE

Catholicism observes special holy days when eating meat is forbidden.
Lent: "A fast of forty days preceding Easter … There is no mention in Scripture of the observance of Lent, or, indeed, or any determined time for fasting among Christians" - Dictionary, p. 512.

"What is abstinence? The Church's law of abstinence says that on certain days you may not eat meat … What are the days of obligatory abstinence? Ash Wednesday and all the Fridays of Lent" - Catechism, p. 132.

But the Bible teaches:
1. The Lord's supper is the only New Testament memorial with any regular, fixed time frequency. It is a memorial of Jesus' death observed each first day of the week (I Cor. 11:23-26; Acts 20:7).

2. Gal. 4:10,11 expressly warns of the danger of giving religious significance to days not authorized by God.

3. Binding that people must not eat meats at certain times is a clear evidence of apostasy (I Tim. 4:1-3).

PURGATORY AND INDULGENCES

Catholicism teaches there is, after death, a place of temporary punishment which can be escaped by the merits of other people.
"What is purgatory? A place and state of temporary punishment after death … Who goes to purgatory? Those … 1) who die while guilty of unrepented venial sins 2) who die without having done sufficient penance to pay the debt of the temporal punishment still due their past sins … Where do you go when you leave purgatory? To heaven to be with God … Can you help the souls in purgatory? You can shorten their stay by having Masses said for them, praying for them and doing good works for them" - Catechism, pp. 37-39.

Regarding indulgences, we are told: "The Church has recourse to the infinite merits of Christ … and to the merits of saints who have done penance more than sufficient to pay the temporal punishment due to their own sins … their actions had a penitential character which availed for others if not needed for themselves" - Dictionary, p. 441.

In other words, people in the past did more good works than they themselves needed to get out of purgatory. By meeting the conditions set down by the priest, you can claim the benefit of these good works, so you or a loved one get out of purgatory sooner. That is an indulgence.

But the Bible teaches:
1. After death, there will be no crossing over from the place of punishment to the place of reward (Luke 16:26). Hence, our eternal destinies are fixed at the time of death and cannot be changed by anything we or anyone else does.

2. Each person will be rewarded according to what he personally did in the body (Ezek. 18:20; 2 Cor. 5:10). No one's reward or punishment after death can be determined by what other people do.

3. No human has any excess good deeds beyond what he himself needs (Rom. 3:9-18,23; I John 1:8,10; James 2:10; Luke 17:10).

4. God is no respecter of persons. Wealthy people have no advantage over poor people regarding their destiny after death (Acts 10:34,35; James 2:1-9; 2 Cor. 8:12; Mark 12:41-44). But since the priest gets paid to say masses for the dead, the doctrine of purgatory lets people who are rich (or who have rich relatives) escape punishment sooner than poor people.

CONFESSION TO THE PRIEST

Catholicism teaches that sins must be confessed to a priest to be forgiven.
"Who has the power to forgive sin today? All bishops and priests of the Catholic Church can forgive sin … What do you have to do to have your sins forgiven? You have to be truly sorry for them and confess them to a Catholic priest … Does the priest merely pray that your sins will be forgiven? No, acting as God's instrument and ordained minister, he truly forgives the sins" - Catechism, pp. 78.

But the Bible teaches:
1. Only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7-12).

2. "The words 'priest,' 'priesthood' … are never applied in the New Testament to the office of the Christian ministry. All Christians are priests (I Pet. 2:5,9; Apoc. 5:10)" - Dictionary, p. 692. (Note that this is the admission of an official Catholic reference work.)

3. All Christians can pray to God through Christ for forgiveness of their own sins (Acts 8:22; Matt. 6:12).

4. Any Christian can pray for the forgiveness of another Christian; but they only pray - they cannot actually forgive the sin. And all righteous men (not some special priestly class) do this for one another (James 5:16).

5. The only mediator between us and God is Jesus (I Tim. 2:5).

Conclusion

We must conclude that, despite its claims, the Catholic church is not the true, original church since it does not follow the teaching and practice of the original church.

 

Carson, it ain't so! God gave us the NIV Study Bible, with infallible notes!

 

D2BGUY-

Nice cut an past. Trying to recover from saying that no Catholic Apologist says he can find his beliefs in the Bible because I doudt you got this from a Catholic Apologists site. Hang around for a while and you will see how foolish that statement was. You will see we have BIBLICAL answers for all of these accusations. By the way, when you dumptruck like that from another website it damages your credibility as a free thinking Christian which you claimed we were not above. Also if you are going to demonstrate your lack abilities in this area by cut and past dumptrucking, you might do well to provide the link at least. Otherwise it is called plagerism unless of course you can show you wrote it yourself.

 

D28Guy, when you have two conservative evangelicals reading the same Scripture passage under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and yet coming to opposite conclusions...

Who is right?

How do you know?

What makes you sure that you are right while the other is wrong? You are not infallible are you?

Please, do not tell me that such disagreement over Scripture does not occur. It's all over this very board.

 

Wow!!! What an admission!!!

Men "trimmed" Scripture down to 66 books!!!

Where did these men get the authority to do so?

If you say, "From God", then you need to show where God gave them the authority.

Ron

 

He said his people worshiped Mary, not Jesus.

Most likely, this man has a misconception. I do not know of a single Catholic (and I know many, including Catholics from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania, etc.) who worships Mary (with the contemporary use of the word designating what we mean by the Latin Latria; this word used to designate "honor" as in regal honor given to a king or queen, including judges in courts).

The Church emphatically condemns any sort of worship given to anyone or anything other than the Godhead.

With that said, Neal, what you say concerning this Catholic or that Catholic or your perception of this Catholic or someone else's perception of that Catholic - it all goes through one ear and out the other on my side of the dialogue. You're either pointing to people who do not practice the Catholic faith or to strawmen that you or others are creating due to a fundamental misunderstanding.

Also, if baptism is a requirement for salvation, is that not a work? Doesn't that contradict other parts of Scripture?

No, it does not. N.T. Wright, one of the most important contemporary Protestant Biblical scholars (and a faithful one at that, which is hard to come by today), is challenging Evangelical Protestants with the New Perspective (along with other Protestant scholars such as E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and Paul Zeisler). In it, Wright demonstrates that Paul, when speaking of works, is not speaking broadly of any kind of works - whether that be ceremonial or moral works. But, rather, Paul is addressing ergos nomou, that is, "works of the Law": those ceremonial precepts contained in the Torah, which Jews in Paul's day thought to bring about salvation.

These scholars are very frank about acknowledging that, while it is certainly true we don't get right with God by doing good works, those aren't the "works of the Law" Paul is talking about because that isn't the Law he is talking about. When he says we aren't justified by works of Law, he means works of the Mosaic Law, not good works.

As a seminarian, you should be informed of this impetus in Biblical studies. Here is a short article outlining this movement:

http://basileiaministries.talkoftheplanet.com/custom52.html

Paul isn't against ritual or sacrament at all. He's against the ceremonial precepts of the Old Covenant, which are not only no longer in operation.. but are deadly. Paul says in Gal 5:1-5 that if you, a Christian, are circumcised and rely upon that circumcision in any way for salvation, then you will fall from grace, that is, commit a mortal (deadly) sin.

Paul is for the ceremonial precepts of the New Covenant. For example: Baptism and Eucharist. He goes at great detail to explain the ritual of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 10-11, and he shows that Baptism is our means of inclusion in the New Covenant throughout his Epistles.

Did he have a rosary and pray the "Hail Mary?"

Of course he didn't. The specific content of these prayers were formulated by individual Christians later than Justin.

The Rosary isn't a matter of doctrine. It's a devotional. If I create another devotional tomorrow and call it "Carson's Psalter", and if the Church officially adopts it as an official prayer and promulgates it, encouraging Catholics to pray my psalter, does that mean that doctrine or dogma has changed? Or that the Catholic Faith has changed? Of course not.

Interestingly enough, it is possible that Justin did pray the Sub Tuum Praesidium (Eng. Under Your Protection), which is one of the oldest universal Marian prayers. The oldest manuscript we have of it comes from an Egyptian papyrus from the 3rd century.

"Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus1, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta. Amen."

"We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen."

I also highly encourage you (as I have done with Brian on this board), to read James "Jimmy" Akin's thorough and comprehensive analysis of Torah in the Pauline corpus:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/paul_law.htm

It is absolutely essential that this be studied by Christians who wish to understand Paul's theology of grace and law.

[ May 20, 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Wow D28Guy,

You sure shot ole RCC in the head with that statement:

We must conclude that, despite its claims, the Catholic church is not the true, original
church since it does not follow the teaching and practice of the original church.

You shouldn't put those Katliks on the spot like that; they might go on an
extended late Lenten break again or something......

Course we gotta give Carson credit for understanding the deep things of God and
overlook that fact that he doesn't know a year from a century. (It's all in the
interpretation ya know)

(Quote - Carson)

" It isn't a matter of me being right because I can interpret correctly on my
own power. It's a matter of me following the Apostolic Tradition of interpreting
Scripture.. that is, what has been handed down for 2,000 centuries in the Church
through her life, practice, and belief."

Heck, maybe the Catholic Church existed before God even.......who knows !!

 

2,000 centuries

oops, did I say that?

 

Know ye not that WORKS will be tested as if by fire and that GOOD works will come through the fire in the manner that gold, silver, and precious stones do while BAD works will be consumed by the fire in the manner of wood, hay, and stubble, leaving only ashes? Even so, the person is saved as if from fire!

Jesus Atoned for the sins of the World, thus the price and penalty of sin is paid before the person comes before the Judgment Throne of God.

So what does that leave for the Judge to decide? That's right, "the faith condition" of the one before the bench! It is FAITH ALONE that saves one into eternal life with the Christ.

 

Why did you change the word?

1 Corinthians 3:15
If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

It's saved "as through fire" not "as if from fire".

I can't help but chuckle when a "sola scriptura" devotee changes the very words of Scripture.

 

Why did you change the word?

1 Corinthians 3:15
If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

It's saved "as through fire" not "as if from fire".

I can't help but chuckle when a "sola scriptura" devotee changes the very words of Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]If one passes through fire and lives, is that one not saved as "from fire"? Either way you say it, it means that you are devastated, but alive.

The scripture means that your works did not save you nor did they destroy you! If you were counting on your works to save you, you will be feeling total devastation because you works are now gone. If you were not, you will be feeling exhilaration at being alive.

I hope that clears up your misconception.