Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by adjensen

I have no problem with the fact that I was baptized as an infant, and did the same for my daughter.

If it reflected something that was important, something that was critical to salvation, then it would be a lot clearer.

I have no argument with you about that.
I, too, was baptized as an infant, and I was taught later what it meant. My daughter, too, was baptized as an infant.

That's my point. It isn't 'important', nor is it 'critical to salvation'...
but the spirit in which it was done was certainly genuine, and based on ancient tradition.

sigh

reply to post by wildtimes


On a side note, why do you have such an emotional attachment to this issue? You're by admission not even a Christian.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Because I worry about people who are swept into this 'cultish' thinking and don't really address the true problems.

Why do you have such an emotional attachment to this issue, NuT?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If He allowed the thief to be saved w/o baptism and no one else that would make that verse untrue.

That's my argument against idiots who claim that baptism, in the name of Christ, is necessary for salvation.

Blasphemous, I suppose, but do they think that Christ spit on the thief to baptize him? I can't see any other solution to those who claim that baptism is necessary.

reply to post by adjensen

That's my argument against idiots who claim that baptism, in the name of Christ, is necessary for salvation.

Wow.
Yeah.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If He allowed the thief to be saved w/o baptism and no one else that would make that verse untrue.

That's my argument against idiots who claim that baptism, in the name of Christ, is necessary for salvation.

Blasphemous, I suppose, but do they think that Christ spit on the thief to baptize him? I can't see any other solution to those who claim that baptism is necessary.

Yeah, I point out that baptism doesn't save anyone, it just gets you wet. It's what people who are already saved do. The regeneration worked by the Holy Spirit happens at conversion. Faith itself is a gift of God.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Because I worry about people who are swept into this 'cultish' thinking and don't really address the true problems.

Why do you have such an emotional attachment to this issue, NuT?

What "cultish" thinking? And I'm emotionally attached to it because millions of people for over 1,500 years have thought they were safe and headed to heaven because they happened to get their hair wet one church service as a baby.

That's why.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

 

Okay, forget "Two Babylons", read "A Woman Who Rides the Beast".

And Paganism HAS infected the church.

I love critiques who never criticize specifics, yet attack the researcher/scholar directly.

I'll have to order that book, never read it. Looking at the blurb on Amazon, it sounds as though it's trying to claim that Revelation 17 is talking about the RCC. until I read it, I can't answer its specific claims, but I hope he has more to offer than "bishops wear scarlet and purple, therefore the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon."


On a similar issue: have you ever read this poem?

"They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being."


It's from a work called Cretica, by a Greek philosopher named Epimenides, who lived in the 6th Century BC. He was talking about the pagan god Zeus. But the Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had no problem quoting that poem twice, once in preaching (Acts 17:28) and once in his letter to Titus (1:12.) and using these ideas to talk about Jesus. We call these ideas Holy Scripture, yet they came from paganism!

And this wasn't the only time Paul quoted a Greek philospoher who was speaking about Zeus. In the 4th Century, Aratus wrote a poem called Phaenomena, in which he said,


"Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring ..."

If that last line seems familiar, it's because Paul also used it in Acts 17:28.


If God can use pagan scriptures to inspire His scriptures, why can't we borrow pagan rituals for our own? All we have to do is change the names, just as Paul did.

reply to post by Snsoc

Dear Snsoc,

Thank you for providing the poetry. As I've probably said, I'm learning a lot here and I'm grateful.

I'm not really surprised that some elements in other religions appear in Christianity. If there weren't any, I would seriously suspect Christianity of being a fraud.

Christianity has never, and will never, claim that the only place you can find truth is in the Church and every other religion is completely false top to bottom. I'm almost certain that God has shown Himself to every people in some way or another, whether it be through nature, the stories of gods, the belief in life after death. Some truth can be found everywhere.

Whatever truth is found in Paganism, the Greek or Norse gods, or anywhere else, is still truth and the Church will recognize it.

That's also the answer to your question:

If God can use pagan scriptures to inspire His scriptures, why can't we borrow pagan rituals for our own? All we have to do is change the names, just as Paul did.

Because there is some truth everywhere, does not mean that all truth is everywhere. Some things are rejected as false.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

I might have missed your answer to a question I asked, but I think it's important enough to ask again. It seems you've said this in several different ways:

Well I generally hold to the idea that we should speak where the Scripture speaks and be silent where it's silent.

My question, if you have the time to consider it is: "If the Bible is the only authority, and the main doctrine can be understood by nearly everyone, and one verse isn't sufficient to prove a doctrine, where are the three clear verses that show the Bible is the only source of authoritative teaching?

Thanks for your attention and participation.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Dear NOTurTypical,

I might have missed your answer to a question I asked, but I think it's important enough to ask again. It seems you've said this in several different ways:

Well I generally hold to the idea that we should speak where the Scripture speaks and be silent where it's silent.

My question, if you have the time to consider it is: "If the Bible is the only authority, and the main doctrine can be understood by nearly everyone, and one verse isn't sufficient to prove a doctrine, where are the three clear verses that show the Bible is the only source of authoritative teaching?

Thanks for your attention and participation. There isn't even one verse saying the Bible is the only source of authoritative teaching.

With respect,
Charles1952

Why are you asking a loaded question?

reply to post by Snsoc


I think the Vatican is the woman, but the woman isn't the beast. She rides the beast. I'm of the persuasion that the beast is the revived Islamic caliphate.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

Why are you asking a loaded question?

I'm really sorry that you think I'm being unfair or dishonest. Maybe I summarized more than I should have.

Here is my question broken into parts, with my reason for including each part:
"If the Bible is the only authority,

So tell us all why there is something wrong with using the scripture alone for Christian doctrine. . . .

and again tell me why there is a problem with Christians using the scripture alone for Christian doctrine: . . .

My problem is with traditions that are here today that are never mentioned in the Bible. . . .

The basis would go back my earlier assertion that scripture is the authority. . . .

I'm not against the tradition recorded in scripture. I'm against things that have become tradition that are not recorded in scripture. . . .

and the main doctrine can be understood by nearly everyone, Do you think it has to be intrepreted for the people? Who, then is the authority figure that makes the final decision?

and one verse isn't sufficient to prove a doctrine,

Secondly, you can't make doctrine from a single verse, that's called "single-verse theology", it's terrible hermeneutics. . . .

And I would also point out that in systematic theology it takes at least three supporting verses as the basis for any primary doctrine.

From what you've said, it seems that this question is quite reasonable, indeed logically demanded:
Where are the three clear verses that show the Bible is the only source of authoritative teaching?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

That's my point. It isn't 'important', nor is it 'critical to salvation'...

Baptism is necessary for salvation. A person who refuses it after they are capable of having faith, has no faith. Baptism without faith, including infants, is called getting wet.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If He allowed the thief to be saved w/o baptism and no one else that would make that verse untrue.

That's my argument against idiots who claim that baptism, in the name of Christ, is necessary for salvation.

Blasphemous, I suppose, but do they think that Christ spit on the thief to baptize him? I can't see any other solution to those who claim that baptism is necessary.

Again, the thief died before baptism for the remission of sins.

Calling people "idiots" is not very Christian.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Snsoc

 

I think the Vatican is the woman, but the woman isn't the beast. She rides the beast. I'm of the persuasion that the beast is the revived Islamic caliphate.

That would be an interesting discussion, but for another thread, I think.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If He allowed the thief to be saved w/o baptism and no one else that would make that verse untrue.

That's my argument against idiots who claim that baptism, in the name of Christ, is necessary for salvation.

Blasphemous, I suppose, but do they think that Christ spit on the thief to baptize him? I can't see any other solution to those who claim that baptism is necessary.

Again, the thief died before baptism for the remission of sins.

Calling people "idiots" is not very Christian.

Let's all agree to play nice. I don't want this thread to devolve and end up going nowhere.

As a reminder, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that infant baptism is for repentance. It teaches that it is to erase Original Sin.

There are also some interesting arguments for infant baptism, made, ironically enough, by the Lutheran Church: www.orlutheran.com...

reply to post by Snsoc


There are three types of baptism:
1. Baptism of Water:

2. Baptism of Desire:
That doesn't mean that only those who have been formally baptized can be saved. From very early on, the Church recognized that there are two other types of baptism besides the baptism of water.

The baptism of desire applies both to those who, while wishing to be baptized, die before receiving the sacrament and "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience" (Constitution on the Church, Second Vatican Council).

3. Baptism of Blood:
The baptism of blood is similar to the baptism of desire. It refers to the martyrdom of those believers who were killed for the faith before they had a chance to be baptized. This was a common occurrence in the early centuries of the Church, but also in later times in missionary lands. The baptism of blood has the same effects as the baptism of water.

Baptism of desire and blood are not found in the Bible, except that the good thief was subject to both baptism of desire and blood.

Both desire and blood are traditional.

Originally posted by Snsoc

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If He allowed the thief to be saved w/o baptism and no one else that would make that verse untrue.

That's my argument against idiots who claim that baptism, in the name of Christ, is necessary for salvation.

Blasphemous, I suppose, but do they think that Christ spit on the thief to baptize him? I can't see any other solution to those who claim that baptism is necessary.

Again, the thief died before baptism for the remission of sins.

Calling people "idiots" is not very Christian.

Let's all agree to play nice. I don't want this thread to devolve and end up going nowhere.

As a reminder, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that infant baptism is for repentance. It teaches that it is to erase Original Sin.

There are also some interesting arguments for infant baptism, made, ironically enough, by the Lutheran Church: www.orlutheran.com...

I am not the one calling others "idiots".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Because I worry about people who are swept into this 'cultish' thinking and don't really address the true problems.

Why do you have such an emotional attachment to this issue, NuT?

What "cultish" thinking? And I'm emotionally attached to it because millions of people for over 1,500 years have thought they were safe and headed to heaven because they happened to get their hair wet one church service as a baby.

That's why.

Which is why, logically, it must not matter. God wouldn't let millions of people over 1,500 years be condemned simply because something that was necessary to salvation wasn't spelled out.