BC…in one of your quotes from some catholic book, it says…“whoever is validly baptized”
Perhaps you could expound on that. I would have to contest any baptism of an infant.
No scriptural grounds or examples whatsoever, if so please give.
No infant is able to confess that Jesus is the Christ, or even believe, with a choice.
No infant is able to acknowledge any sin, or repent from that sin. Much less having committed any.
I also seem to get an inference that the RCC has levels of sin? A sin is a sin. One, and only one, would be mightier than any other, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit…denying Christ as the risen Son of God. We, man, would love to put levels on sin, so as to justify our deeds as being not as bad as someone else. However, when liars, thieves, murderers and homosexuals are all placed together, There is no difference. A sin is just that. I can pray to Jesus that He forgive me of my sins, and I can repent, turn away from and move on and be cleared and cleansed of that sin. Thru His blood, not thru some confession to another man.
You are a young man of but 20. According to your timeline, you gave up on any other notion of correct or incorrect religion at the ripe age of 14. On your own? Thru the study of commentaries and other books, I assume all Catholic qualified. They do have a language unto themselves…not found in the scriptures.
This strikes a cord with me, because I am sure what you think is not what matters, but what God says and what the truth is.[/quote]
Yes, Captain Obvious, I agree. However, I can still state my opinion.
I was confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church because, where I grew up, that’s what you did. I have been to many confessions. They consisted of:
-confessing sins,
-doing the prescribed penance (usually ritual prayers recited a certain number of times or a prayer from the missal, or whatever that book is called which, if recited regularly, promised an indulgence of several centuries)
I was actually commenting on the RCC’s theology, not your style of debate.
Actually, that was Tirib’s statement. I believe tradition has it’s place but only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture.
So, no there are other ways to be forgiven of your sins then confessing to a priest, however they are very difficult to do.
[/quote]
So all those times I’ve confessed my sins directly to God, it fell on deaf ears? Those were not valid confessions? God only accepts confessions if they are given to a (Catholic) priest?[/quote]
Falling on deaf ears does not follow it being difficult to do. I cannot say they were valid confessions, and it was already pointed out that there are other ways to confess than go to a Catholic priest.
I remind you of James 5:16 “Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And where do you get the idea of restricting His Children to the Holy Bible, it is not in the Bible (and no one here has shown me that it is anyway) that one is to only use the Holy Bible, so you would have to come with some tradition outside the bible to be able to read the bible and conclude that only the Bible is what we should have.[/quote]
Actually, that was Tirib’s statement. I believe tradition has it’s place but only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture.[/quote]
In my tradition, Roman catholic tradition is the best evidence against extra biblical tradition possible. Bar none. Yes, tradition, or more accurately in my view, “consensus” has it’s place in there being wisdom in a multitude of counselors when interpreting the one source of faith, worship and morals, the scriptures. With a couple millenia of Christian history behind us there will be no new view regarding any central precept of said faith, worship or morals that NOBODY has yet found in the scriptures. Damnable cults are spawned in the wake of such insolent presumption.
Like every other error I’ve ever seen and believe you me I have seen lots of error, biblical support for sola scriptura carries no weight with committed proponents of authoritative church tradition so citing the biblical evidence is pointless. They have their traditional church explanations that they accept for those passages and that’s that.
Once you throw off the boundaries of God’s written holy Word, the on marching halloween party that is the vast synthetic temple of Roman catholic tradition is the inevitable result in the hands of fallen man.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And where do you get the idea of restricting His Children to the Holy Bible, it is not in the Bible (and no one here has shown me that it is anyway) that one is to only use the Holy Bible, so you would have to come with some tradition outside the bible to be able to read the bible and conclude that only the Bible is what we should have.[/quote]
Actually, that was Tirib’s statement. I believe tradition has it’s place but only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture.[/quote]
In my tradition, Roman catholic tradition is the best evidence against extra biblical tradition possible. Bar none. Yes, tradition, or more accurately in my view, “consensus” has it’s place in there being wisdom in a multitude of counselors when interpreting the one source of faith, worship and morals, the scriptures. With a couple millenia of Christian history behind us there will be no new view regarding any central precept of said faith, worship or morals that NOBODY has yet found in the scriptures. Damnable cults are spawned in the wake of such insolent presumption.
Like every other error I’ve ever seen and believe you me I have seen lots of error, biblical support for sola scriptura carries no weight with committed proponents of authoritative church tradition so citing the biblical evidence is pointless. They have their traditional church explanations that they accept for those passages and that’s that.
Once you throw off the boundaries of God’s written holy Word, the on marching halloween party that is the vast synthetic temple of Roman catholic tradition is the inevitable result in the hands of fallen man. [/quote]
Agreed. Perhaps I should have added that much of Roman Catholic tradition does not agree with Scripture.
I use the teachers edition because I like to cheat and know the explanations behind answers.
You say, “contest any baptism of an infant.”
In John 3:5 Jesus answers the reason for this, “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So it would follow that if a person, as an infant, were not to be baptized and die they would not be able to “enter into the kingdom of God.”
You say, “a sin is a sin,” but your very next statement is that there is another kind of sin distinct from other sins. I think you need to reconcile your own conflicting opinions before you attack the dogmas of the Holy Catholic Church.
Your statement is incorrect, I did not have opinion on matters of correct or incorrect religion, I actually believed a heresy called moral relativism, or as much as a teenage could believe in moral relativism and understand it.
Your question do not apply, however I will respond. No, not on my own and the commentaries were not qualified by the Catholic Church. The only thing that I had that was qualified by the Catholic Church was a couple of versions of the Holy Bible, but I have had dozens of versions of the Bible throughout the years, that I still use.
I do not understand your snide remark at the end of your questions there.
Question for you Chris: Is the “Baltimore Catechism” the same as the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”?
I was actually browsing gutenberg.org earlier. All I saw was the online document you linked to. I was looking for a PDF version as I already have a print copy.
This strikes a cord with me, because I am sure what you think is not what matters, but what God says and what the truth is.[/quote]
Yes, Captain Obvious, I agree. However, I can still state my opinion.
I was confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church because, where I grew up, that’s what you did. I have been to many confessions. They consisted of:
-confessing sins,
-doing the prescribed penance (usually ritual prayers recited a certain number of times or a prayer from the missal, or whatever that book is called which, if recited regularly, promised an indulgence of several centuries)
[/quote]
Being confirmed does not mean you know something. I know many atheists who know more than me about Catholic teachings. I wish that your confessions did not consist of only that, as there is more to confession than what you spelled out.
First, you pray to the Holy Ghost to give you conviction of your sins. Second, you examine your conscience of your sins. Third, confess all your sins. Fourth, perform an act of contrition. Fifth, the priest tells you THROUGH the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost you are absolved of all your sins. Finally, you do your penance.
The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific personâ??s case. So, they stopped the former listing of times a long time ago, so either you are using an old book or making things up.
However, the Holy Catholic Church does make clear when and how you can receive partial and plenary indulgences.
[quote]
I was actually commenting on the RCC’s theology, not your style of debate.
Actually, that was Tirib’s statement. I believe tradition has it’s place but only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture.[/quote]
Okay, yet no one has shown me a dogma that disagrees with Scripture.
P.S. If anyone wants to know my reason for joining the Catholic Church I will explain it on request, you’ll just have to give me some time to write it up, if you do.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And where do you get the idea of restricting His Children to the Holy Bible, it is not in the Bible (and no one here has shown me that it is anyway) that one is to only use the Holy Bible, so you would have to come with some tradition outside the bible to be able to read the bible and conclude that only the Bible is what we should have.[/quote]
Actually, that was Tirib’s statement. I believe tradition has it’s place but only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture.[/quote]
In my tradition, Roman catholic tradition is the best evidence against extra biblical tradition possible. Bar none. Yes, tradition, or more accurately in my view, “consensus” has it’s place in there being wisdom in a multitude of counselors when interpreting the one source of faith, worship and morals, the scriptures. With a couple millenia of Christian history behind us there will be no new view regarding any central precept of said faith, worship or morals that NOBODY has yet found in the scriptures. Damnable cults are spawned in the wake of such insolent presumption.
Like every other error I’ve ever seen and believe you me I have seen lots of error, biblical support for sola scriptura carries no weight with committed proponents of authoritative church tradition so citing the biblical evidence is pointless. They have their traditional church explanations that they accept for those passages and that’s that.
Once you throw off the boundaries of God’s written holy Word, the on marching halloween party that is the vast synthetic temple of Roman catholic tradition is the inevitable result in the hands of fallen man. [/quote]
Calm down there Yosemite Sam, might hurt yourself there. Let’s not add ad hominem.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And where do you get the idea of restricting His Children to the Holy Bible, it is not in the Bible (and no one here has shown me that it is anyway) that one is to only use the Holy Bible, so you would have to come with some tradition outside the bible to be able to read the bible and conclude that only the Bible is what we should have.[/quote]
Actually, that was Tirib’s statement. I believe tradition has it’s place but only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture.[/quote]
In my tradition, Roman catholic tradition is the best evidence against extra biblical tradition possible. Bar none. Yes, tradition, or more accurately in my view, “consensus” has it’s place in there being wisdom in a multitude of counselors when interpreting the one source of faith, worship and morals, the scriptures. With a couple millenia of Christian history behind us there will be no new view regarding any central precept of said faith, worship or morals that NOBODY has yet found in the scriptures. Damnable cults are spawned in the wake of such insolent presumption.
Like every other error I’ve ever seen and believe you me I have seen lots of error, biblical support for sola scriptura carries no weight with committed proponents of authoritative church tradition so citing the biblical evidence is pointless. They have their traditional church explanations that they accept for those passages and that’s that.
Once you throw off the boundaries of God’s written holy Word, the on marching halloween party that is the vast synthetic temple of Roman catholic tradition is the inevitable result in the hands of fallen man. [/quote]
Agreed. Perhaps I should have added that much of Roman Catholic tradition does not agree with Scripture. [/quote]
You have a conclusion and now your premises, please!
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Question for you Chris: Is the “Baltimore Catechism” the same as the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”?
I was actually browsing gutenberg.org earlier. All I saw was the online document you linked to. I was looking for a PDF version as I already have a print copy.[/quote]
There are many versions of the CCC because it is written in vernacular, and Baltimore is one of them.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
either you are using an old book or making things up.[/quote]
I’m not making anything up. I went to confession every week and Mass sometimes several times a week when me and my friend Frankie were altar boys. I’d read this book when I needed to find a prayer or when I was waiting around. There were lots of copies throughout the pews. I do remember that one prayer had a 300-year indulgence. This was back in the late 70’s-early 80’s.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
either you are using an old book or making things up.[/quote]
I’m not making anything up. I went to confession every week and Mass sometimes several times a week when me and my friend Frankie were altar boys. I’d read this book when I needed to find a prayer or when I was waiting around. There were lots of copies throughout the pews. I do remember that one prayer had a 300-year indulgence. This was back in the late 70’s-early 80’s.[/quote]
Well, I’m not sure exactly what that is about. However there is no time-paradigm like we know it in Heaven, Purgatory, Hell, or Limbo so I’m not sure how they could say that, but maybe it had to do with earth time some how.
In John 3:5 Jesus answers the reason for this, “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So it would follow that if a person, as an infant, were not to be baptized and die they would not be able to “enter into the kingdom of God.” [/quote]
Sorry Brother Chris, but I am going to use your favorite rebuttle. So you are putting limitations on God? God is not powerful enough to overcome water?
Why was Jesus not Baptized until he was 30? Do you not think that what Jesus did is the way to go?
So, no there are other ways to be forgiven of your sins then confessing to a priest, however they are very difficult to do.
[/quote]
So all those times I’ve confessed my sins directly to God, it fell on deaf ears? Those were not valid confessions? God only accepts confessions if they are given to a (Catholic) priest?[/quote]
Falling on deaf ears does not follow it being difficult to do. I cannot say they were valid confessions, and it was already pointed out that there are other ways to confess than go to a Catholic priest.
I remind you of James 5:16 “Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved.”[/quote]
Right. Only a “perfect act of contrition” which, we’ve been told, by the Catholic Church, is near impossible. Suggesting the only real viable way is through a priest. The scripture you posted doesn’t qualify the “another” you confess your sins to, leading me to believe it isn’t necessary for a priest to be involved.
My belief on sin is well studied, not repeated by a question and written answer system. I said “would” be considered, not is. There is specific scripture, Mark 28:30 that refers to a sin that won’t be forgiven, “in this age or ages to come”. Does it make that sin to be mightier than the rest? More damning? That sin is one that is not repented of, as it is non-belief in Christ/denying the Holy Spirit.
That sin would not be confessed to another brother, prayed upon or repented of as it would be by a total non-believer, who would not repent. They see no reason. Would I commit that sin? No, but I commit others and pray for forgiveness.
and I know that they are forgiven, by Jesus, the only mediator between me and God.
Does the RCC have levels of sin? Not attacking your dogma but you state they, RCC, are correct and I don’t find levels of sin.
Where do I find indulgences in the Bible? and more so, where do I find that someone else can do my indulgences for me, work or monetary? Can someone else work out my salvation? Other than the One who did, which is Jesus the Christ? From what little I have read on this subject, and have read the pro’s and the cons, I see no scripture basis for this act. I read suppositions and I read conjecture, but no sound Bible reference. I see greed and power and purchasing of favor.
By the way, I did read a great deal of the gutenburg file you attached. I will read it with an open mind, best I can.
“In John 3:5 Jesus answers the reason for this, “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So it would follow that if a person, as an infant, were not to be baptized and die they would not be able to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Some interpret “born of water” as natural birth. Others take it as water baptism. Many, however, note that Jesus did not mean literal water in John 4:10,13-14 and 7:37-39. The emphasis of this passage is on the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. Since the basic Greek word for “and” also means “even,” it is possible to take the meaning here to be “water, even the Spirit.” Others take the water to signify spiritual cleansing through the Word rather than through outward forms. (See John 15:3; 17:17; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; I Peter 1:23.)
The fact that water baptism is not a condition of salvation nor results in regeneration is demonstrated by the experience of the dying thief (Luke 23:43) and by the fact that Cornelius and his household were regenerated and filled with the Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10). Water baptism is not a condition of regeneration, but rather a testimony to an inward spiritual work of grace that has already taken place (Romans 6:3-4,11; I Peter 3:21). By it, the believer declares his identification with Christ in his death and commits himself to walk in newness of life.
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
If anyone is interested, I found this page where you can download the Catechism of the Catholic Church in PDF form (might make it easier to find specific topics). It’s free, btw:
“In John 3:5 Jesus answers the reason for this, “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So it would follow that if a person, as an infant, were not to be baptized and die they would not be able to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Some interpret “born of water” as natural birth. Others take it as water baptism. Many, however, note that Jesus did not mean literal water in John 4:10,13-14 and 7:37-39. The emphasis of this passage is on the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. Since the basic Greek word for “and” also means “even,” it is possible to take the meaning here to be “water, even the Spirit.” Others take the water to signify spiritual cleansing through the Word rather than through outward forms. (See John 15:3; 17:17; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; I Peter 1:23.)
The fact that water baptism is not a condition of salvation nor results in regeneration is demonstrated by the experience of the dying thief (Luke 23:43) and by the fact that Cornelius and his household were regenerated and filled with the Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10). Water baptism is not a condition of regeneration, but rather a testimony to an inward spiritual work of grace that has already taken place (Romans 6:3-4,11; I Peter 3:21). By it, the believer declares his identification with Christ in his death and commits himself to walk in newness of life.
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).[/quote]
Deut 1:39 “And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from badâ??they will enter the land”
I was reading the bible yesterday and came across this. In context it almost seems to set the age of accountability as late as 20. Not knowing good and evil seems a direct reference to original sin and that children are exempt from it.
In John 3:5 Jesus answers the reason for this, “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So it would follow that if a person, as an infant, were not to be baptized and die they would not be able to “enter into the kingdom of God.” [/quote]
Sorry Brother Chris, but I am going to use your favorite rebuttle. So you are putting limitations on God? God is not powerful enough to overcome water?
[/quote]
No, that is not a limitation on God, that is a limitation on who can be around God, it is clearly stated in scripture above, it is a commandment. Without wiping away the stain of original sin YOU cannot go to Heaven, now there are other kinds of baptism, but let’s just call all of them baptism, for the moment.
“There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.” Apocalypse 21:27
If you are defiled, in anyway, you cannot enter into Heaven. Original sin leaves us all defiled, until baptism.
Let’s not add ad hominem.