The Truth about the RCC

Agnus,

You are in the delusion. You call the question silly, I would comment your reaction is stupid!
You guys poorly excused that the Baptizo could mean Washing for the Baptism. Baptism cannot be any sprinkling as it means Burial and Resurrection, otherwise, you are strongly confessing that your religion is totally different from Christianity. How come could you say Baptizo means Dropping few drops of water unto the forehead?

In the Communion Thread, you were completely beaten there! You must be either in the delusion or in the illusion. You have strongly confessed again that you are not cut off from the People of God because you are drinking Blood which is prohibited by God. Still don't you realize that you are completely beaten there?

 

What happened to the Ethiopian's baby?
Or perhaps that one is in the apocrypha. :laugh:

 

So far we covered only several "Truth" of RCC:

1) Fallible Infallibility of Pope's Decrees or Bulls from Ex Cathedra

2) Unnecessary "Obligatory" Celibacy

3) Magic Transubstantiation confessing that they are cut off from the People of God.

4) Infant Baptism without the confession of Faith

5) Extreme Unction after Death, which is extremely ridiculous.

Agnus,
would you "beat" us with some other truth like Mary's Perpetual Virginity? or Purgatory? or Mary's Immaculate Conception?

I like to hear from you, the profound "Truth" held by RCC.

 

Rcc

Just out of curiosity, Eliayhu it seems that you and BobRyan have a common interest in proving all the "higher order" churches wrong on most everything. You two are pretty strange allies. If Bob is SDA, you do realize he believes that the Seventh day Sabbath is the dividing line between Christians and un-Christian peoples, the saved and un-saved. More than likely he believes that Sunday observance is the "Mark of the Beast" which you bear. He pretty much considers you lost in all likelyhood. He also had to accept in his vows at Baptism that he accepted the truth of the "gifts" including "prophecy" meaning the Prophet Ellen G. White which I'm pretty sure is anethema to you. Baptism is required for salvation in the SDA I believe with no salvation outside of it. Being born into the actual "family of God", multiple resurrections and soul sleep, caffein and meat exclusions, are doctrines also. All these beliefs are surely incorrect to you and would appear "more severe" errors than anything the Eiscopalians, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and awful Catholics are believing. Just curious if you spend time attacking other groups/sects or only higher order churches? I have attended SDA churches and find them very nice people and sincere in their beliefs. I can't agree with some of their beliefs but I don't attack them either. Are they as evil as Rome?

 

One thing that needs to be made clear is that I or anyone else do not wash anyone, so your question doesn't even apply. The act of washing is done by God alone through the water and word of baptism.

Where does scripture ever call baptism a declaration by the believer? Please give proof of such a statement.

I would not call myself an exceptional expert, but I am well versed enough to know a translational error when I see one.

Oh come now, be honest. There is nothing in the context that demands such a translation. The only thing that demands such a translation is your own presupposition that baptism only means immersion.

Since I don't want to be accused of being a papist I will preface the statement with idolatry, purgatory, and the papacy are inconsistant with God's truth. However, so called baptist martyrs dying for their belief in baptism is no different from any other martyr who died for a mistaken belief.

 

You are the one who claimed that Baptizo doesn't mean Immersion necessarily and can mean Washing. Now you are evading the responsibility for the concept of Washing by putting that to God. Where does God tell you that dropping few drops of water can clean the people?

If you read Romans 6:1-12, you can find it. The person to be baptised was already saved by believing the Truth, then he confirm such faith. Verse 10 says " For in that he died, he died unto sin once, but in that he liveth unto God"

Then you find such statement in 1 Peter 3:21 - The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us ( not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of good conscience toward God) by resurrection of Jesus. - you may call this as Spritual baptism, not as Water baptism, but the concept of Baptism is the same, whether it is for internal belief or external declaration.

Enough to distort the meanings of Greek.

My stance is quite consistant and there is no other way to translate baptizo in terms of Ritual Bath or ceremony. If it meant the Washing, it must have meant the Washing by Bath of immersion. If you evade such meaning and go for Washing, you are not consistent with the original meaning of it because you guys actually drop some teaspoons of water on the foreheads. You just drop a few drops of water. But in case of Baptists, they are consistent with the Biblical Words, they take the meaning of Baptizo as Immersion, and they practice it. Could you see the difference? The first one actually distort the meaning of it then disobey the commandment of God.
The obedience to the Words of God is very simple, so they baptize the Believers by Immersion.
The people who perform Sprnkling borrow the second meaning of Baptizo- wash, then actually they don't wash but drop few spoons of water on the forehead, and in your case you excuse that God washes! God washed and did everything at the Cross, what the believers do at the Baptism is the confession that they believe what Jesus has done at the Cross.
Could you see the difference?

But the point was that they didn't commit any civil offence, but the persecutors like Zwingli, for example, drowned them. Were the Anabaptists simply stupid while Zwingli was just?

 

Romans 6:1-12 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.

Let see, there is something about being joined with Christ by baptism. Something about being united in baptism. There is plenty about because Christ will never die again we have no worries about being dead because we have been united in baptism to his death and resurrection. But funny enough not a thing about baptism being a confession. Care to try again?

Why should we not put it to God. He alone can save us. As such passages as the one above and the one below make clear, he has chosen to work through something surprisingly mudane. I am not trying to evade anything. If you would stop trying to view things through such a polemical lens you might realize that we do not believe that baptism is an act of man because such a thing as stated about baptism cannot be attributed to man but to God alone.

From this passage we see that God is connecting us to the events of the cross through baptism.

As there is one baptism, I do not differentiate between spiritual and water for otherwise that would be to say there are two baptisms.

1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Let see there is something about baptism being a washing a kin to the great flood. But still nothing about baptism being the believers confession.

Enough to distort the meanings of Greek.

Actually we don't just take part of the definition. We don't say that it must be done by sprinkling, otherwise we'd be rebaptizing all them baptists who finally saw the light. It makes no difference to us how much water is applied because it is not the amount of water that is important but the promises of God that are important. Our only beef is with those who would say it must be done a certain way, when scripture does not ever state that it must be done in a certain way. BTW, no Lutheran church practices sprinkling, we pour.

Well, um, may I say asking a Lutheran to say anything nice about Zwingli is like asking you to acknowledge that the RCC church is Christian. :laugh:
Zwingli was a fool and the anabaptists were misguided.

 

I’m not familiar with every Bull, nor am I aware that all Bull’s are from Ex Cathedra, but we’ve discussed what ex Cathedra is and what it isn’t. We’ve also discussed what Papal Infallibility is and what it isn’t. I’ve also demonstrated from scripture the Catholic Church’s stand on its Teaching Authority.

Just because it’s “unnecessary to YOU, doesn’t make it an offense. Priest’s volunteer to be Celibate for the Sake of the Kingdom, as Christ Himself stated and was Celibate Himself. It’s not a dogma, it’s a practice or custom and these small “t” traditions can change.

In what way are “they” cut off from the “People of God?” You’re problem is with the term “Transubstantiation”. I’ve pointed out that the Eastern Church was the first to coin a term describing what takes place at the Lord’s Table. The Catholic Church built upon the Eastern term out of necessity in response to the “symbolism” charge, as did Luther with his “consubstantiation”.

We’ve directed you to plenty of Holy Scripture both Old and New Testaments, as well as Church Tradition.

In regard to Infant Baptism, you or anyone else has yet to prove that there weren’t any small infants or children under the age of reason in these households that were baptized. It also has yet to be shown where Holy Scripture specifically prohibits infants from receiving the Sacrament.

I’ve pointed out that “proving” Infant Baptism begins with defending Baptismal Regeneration, which was dully defended in Holy Scripture.

I’ve also pointed out and agreed that Holy Scripture says to repent and be baptized, but St. Paul was speaking to adults, who were still stained from both original and actual sin. Infant Baptism accomplishes the washing of original sin first and actual sin is by repentance once of age.

Both the Eastern and Western Church, along with Early Church history and a handful of mainline Protestant Churches believe in Baptismal Regeneration and practice Infant Baptism.

Maybe ridiculous to you Eliyahu, but not to the Church, Her Fathers and many of the mainline Protestant Churches of today.

Extreme Unction is an old name for last anointing, but traditional it means anointing the sick. It is a healing Sacrament that’s meant for the living as well as those who maybe near death.

Mark 16:13 and James 5:14-15 of those that are sick that are receiving this Sacrament to convey God’s grace to the recipient, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Sure, I’d be happy to take the proverbial bat to you one more time. Just say the Greek word for “uncle” when you’ve had enough…

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: Let’s attack the the bretheren of the Lord. As pointed out with the Greek word baptzo, which has more than one meaning; the Greek word brother (adelphos) also has a wide meaning and isn’t restricted to the literal meaning of full or half brother.

The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

In addition, there were no Hebrew or Aramaic word for cousin, they could use brother or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle”, but was a clumsy way of talking so the jews often used brother instead.

Also growing up in Tennessee on the banks of the Tennessee River, we referred to our buddies as brother or cuz, slang for cousin. It’s just how us red neck’s talked; so maybe there were “red neck” Jews.

On a last note, the Gospels nor early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other Children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Holy Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

Immaculate Conception means that Mary was born without original sin or its stain. That’s what immaculate means, without stain. Mary was still “saved”, but only in a different way. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

There’s more Old Testament proof that I’m sure we’ll get into, and I’m sure this is enough to get yours and Bob’s blood a boiling.

Purgatory: This was an easy one for me. Since nothing unclean can enter the presence of God (Rev 21:27). Purgatory is a “purification” process that’s applied to those to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven by those that die in God’s grace and friendship, but still remain imperfectly purified. Those that are outside of the grace of God and His friendship are excluded and will suffer the punishment and judgment that God has reserved for the damned for all eternity.

For me this understanding of purgatory was tied together nicely after studying John Wesley’s theology concerning sanctification and justification, basically John’s theology primed me for accepting purgatory.

Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone in my opinion explains this passage.

In regard to the Early Church we see the idea of purgatory in Acts of Paul and Thecla [AD 160]: And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’

And many other Church Fathers…

Blessings
-

 

The whole context of Romans 6 is the Declaration and Confession, do you believe that God has not finished His work yet and the Salvation is done by Baptism? I hope you are not claiming Baptismal Regeneration, are you?

As the Lord Supper is attributed to the believers, Baptism also belongs to the Believer's faith. Lord has finished His work at the Cross, and we remember Him by the Lord's Supper. Lord died for us and was buried in the grave and was resurrected. We are not baptizing Jesus Christ, but baptising the Believers who accept Jesus Christ. Therefore Baptism buries the Believer and raise him or her with the newness of Christ. The believer participate in the Burial and Resurrection. All the work belonging to God was already finished at the Cross when Jesus cried " It is finished" ONCE FOR ALL. Do you believe this?

Yes it is we that should accept and obey such truth, and the Baptism is the outward expression of such faith.

As a whole one Baptism governs everything. Jesus confessed He has a Baptism which He had to undergo.

Mark 10:38
But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

Did Jesus mean this by the water baptism since he was already baptised before He started His ministry? Didn't Jesus had the Baptism already?

επερωτημα has 4 meanings according to Mounce, Interrogation, question, profession, pledge - Interrogation or question may not apply to this, but look Profession and Pledge. The good conscience profess the faith to God, and pledge to God that he died with Christ and is resurrected with Him. Romans 6:11 ask us "to RECKON ourselves to be dead to the sins, but alive unto God" This is the profession and declaration of the faith, Got it?

Same applies to you.

Then you have created another theology by inventing new meaning. Does Baptizo has the meaning of pouring? When John the Baptist baptized the people, did he pour the water to the people? You sound POOR now.

I heard Zwingli had so much Biblical knowledge that Luther couldn't be a match for him. Also, Zwingli was more advanced in terms of Lord's Supper than the Consubstantiation of Luther, IMO. Any way both guys were apparently Believers but made mistakes and the Anabaptists were the victims. As for the historical facts, we can hardly prove or disprove, but only the Biblical matters can be compared quickly.

 

Please show me exactly where in Romans 6 it explicitly calls baptism a declaration? All I see is a lot of talk about being joined to Christ.

We don't baptize Jesus, either. (Where did that come from?)
Now you are espousing a salvation by works. You are saying God did his work and now it is our turn to do our work. We cannot connect ourselves to the cross, which you say that you are doing when you are baptized.

This confession comes from the washing that is Baptism. We are drawn to the flood because the flood was the means God used at one time to wash away sin. Now he is doing so through baptism and this gives us an appeal of good conscience. Baptism is not a confession. The confession spoken of here is the result of the work God did in baptism.

Paul, in his passage is reminding them that they have died to sin through their connection to Christ's death God made in baptism and as such they should live their lives in a manner that is pleasing to God and avoid sin.

My apologizies, I didn't delete the accusation you first placed on me. I missed it when cleaning up the parts of your post I wanted to quote.

I have not invented anything new. I stand on the shoulders of the men of God who came before me.

It is entirely possible that John poured water on people.

That last sentence, what a witty remark.

Then you are grossly missinformed.

 

which scripture tells you the power of Ex Cathedra? Could Alexander 6 issue the Infallible Decree as long as he sat down there? Why don't the Popes use Ex Cathedra more often so that they may avoid mistakes? Why don't you recomend them to attach the Peter's chair unto the Pope's hip with special glue or bind it with the Pope?

You disagree with the Pope, right? So, I recommend you to run for the next Pope. the Current Pope ruled Celibacy is Obligatory. RCC disqualified the first Pope Peter since he maintained the marriage even after he became the Pope, right?

I told you to read the Bible: Lev 17:
10 I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people

14 ... Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

You are confessing that you drink the Human Blood at the Eucharist and Bible prohibits it.

All Bible verses teach us to practice the baptism to the Believers. We can find nowhere in the Bible that we should perform the Baptism to anyone who has no faith in Jesus yet.

It is a comedy that Holy Scripture support the Baptismal Regeneration. I asked you Q: 1 second before Baptism, the person was not born again, and 1 second after Baptism, was the person born again? Then it means that you baptise the unbelievers, and with the magic power of the water, you claim that the person was saved during the process of baptism, which is a kind of superstition.

So, are you saying that Infants do not have to believe in God but can be baptized?

Baptismal Regeneration is wrong.

I was pointing out the Extreme Unction after Death. Do you believe that the dead person can go to heaven if the priest anoint the dead body while it is still warm, even though he may have not believed in Jesus before?

You are bringing the articles from Catholic sites. I read them all already. So, don't educate me there. I am not talking about OT times. In OT, you are right. Now Mary lived in NT era and the whole story about her is written in Greek. In Greek, there are words for nephew ( anepsius ανεψιοσ) or for the relative συγγενεισ, συγγενη, συγγενεισ , συγγενων, συγγενεσι,
So, the NT is very clear about the usage of Αδελποσ for the Brother ( Brother in faith, Brotherhood in nation, Physical Brother).

You may have a lot of arguments for this, which I know already. Mary had at least 5 children, James, Judah, Jose, one daughter, Jesus.
Read about the brothers of Jesus ( 1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19). If Paul mentioned James, Lord's Brother, what is he? Are you saying James was just a sunggeneo? Why doesn't Paul use that word then?

Apostle John must have outlived Mary, but he never mentioned the Perpetual virginity of her, nor the assumption of her in his epistles. If she was a virgin, she disobeyed the teachings of 1 Cor 7 where the wife must do her duty for her husband.

This is why I don't believe the ECF's over the Bible. They were manufactured by the order of Catholicism.

" there is none righteous, no, not one" ( Rom 3:10) Mary cannot be an exception
The word is also translated as highly favored and Rachel was well favored too ( Gen 29:17) But it cannot make anyone Immaculate. Even Mary herself confessed My Savior which means that she is the woman who need a Savior. If she was immaculate, then why did she need a Savior? ( Luke 1:47)

You may want to create a new Bible to exalt Mary as much as possible
the Greek word kechartomene means that the person who obtained the Grace. that's it! No where Full of Grace! You can make a new Bible, but the people wouldn't buy it.

You brought the ECF's again, but you see that ECF's cannot override the Bible. Even the Robber at the Cross went to the Paradise directly without going to the Purgatory. Many Christian believers though they may be sinful like the Robber can go to Paradise by believing in Jesus.
Jesus Christ has already purged everything, every person, at the Cross, which you and most Catholic may not believe.

When can they come out of the Purgatory?
After 25,000 years as someone said at the time of Martin Luther ( naybe Terzel) ? What if Jesus comes to this world within 50 years? Will they still remain in the Purgatory?
By what can the people come out of Purgatory? by the almsgiving and prayers of descendants? Do the descendants pray enough while you are alive? Can they pray and give alms enough if you die so that it can satisfy God? Do you know that only Jesus Christ can pay the price for our sins to the satisfaction of God? Even out own efforts and works cannot satisfy God, and cannot appease the wrath of God, but can you rely on your descendants after your death? The Bible says no works of Law can save the people. How come almsgiving and prayers of others can deliver the souls from the spiritual pits?
Agnus, be honest! Can you believe such unbiblical ideas?