Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers in Christ?

[b23hqb]

It had nothing to do with what you or I believed. I called you out as a liar when you quoted with quotation marks something that a site supposedly said, when it never did. All it took was a simple read of the site to verify it. That makes you a liar and I make no apologies for calling you one. Would you prefer that I said you spoke an untruth? I can make it sound better for you if it wounds your pride or something./QUOTE]

Not quite. NO lie. The only way it was a lie would have been if I had said I did not say "source". That did not happen. The only time "source" is in quotes is MY statement, not any quote that I quoted from any source:

My statement:

"The two sources both say "the" instrument, explicitly implying the instrument is the source of salvation, not "an" instrument, meaning a part of the source, or a vehicle, of salvation."

MY question - not a quote from another source. MY addition of the word "source", and not a quote of another source.

A few posts later, another question in MY words - not quoted from any other source:

"BTW, what is your answer to "does catholicism believe, as per two previous references, that the cross, or a splinter of it, is the source of salvation", and therefore worth of adoration, veneration, prayer, etc?"

A simple question, in MY words.

No lie concerning any quoted text. No misquotes concerning any cited reference. Just your misunderstanding of where the words from the comparision/implications of the word "source" came from.

My words. No one else.

And that's no lie.

 

[Radiant1]

Your attempt at justification is amusing.

Ok then, at the very least you are guilty of a misappropriation of words and ascribing something to the Catholic Church that isn't true. I don't know what you call that, but I still call that a lie.

It is what it is, and you are what you are. I'm not going to continue to re-hash it. Have fun.

 

[b23hqb]

Your attempt at justification is amusing.

Ok then, at the very least you are guilty of a misappropriation of words and ascribing something to the Catholic Church that isn't true. I don't know what you call that, but I still call that a lie.

It is what it is, and you are what you are. I'm not going to continue to re-hash it. Have fun.

Alrighty then. I would guess that your definition of what a lie is, is whatever your definition of "is" is.

 

[twinoaks207]

Somehow, I don't think that Jesus/Christ/whatever name you have for the Divine Spirit would be very happy with your attempts to judge some of His/Her creations as being less than what you are. Seems a bit arrogant and prideful instead of loving and giving. Perhaps there are more divine lessons to be learned.

 

[StoneThrower]

It had nothing to do with what you or I believed. I called you out as a liar when you quoted with quotation marks something that a site supposedly said, when it never did. All it took was a simple read of the site to verify it. That makes you a liar and I make no apologies for calling you one. Would you prefer that I said you spoke an untruth? I can make it sound better for you if it wounds your pride or something.



First, I find it amusing that Protestants are attempting to determine who is "in the camp" or not. Second, I could give two shiats less if you think Catholics are "in" or not because what persons such as yourself think has no bearing on my salvation. Third, If you don't think I'm your sister in Christ, well, I'm perfectly fine with that because I don't like to be associated with people like you anyway.

I dont see any quote marks in anything I posted and other than the back cover of the video itsself, I didnt quote anything. I provide to links to go look at but didnt quote either.

But the torch and the stake down, take a deep breath and think about your saying. You can burn me at the stake another time but this time you have no reason for your knickers to be in a twist!

 

[Radiant1]

I dont see any quote marks in anything I posted and other than the back cover of the video itsself, I didnt quote anything. I provide to links to go look at but didnt quote either.

But the torch and the stake down, take a deep breath and think about your saying. You can burn me at the stake another time but this time you have no reason for your knickers to be in a twist!

I wasn't addressing you.

 

[Zguy28]

I agree with what is posted below.....

Regeneration in John 3

These different ways of talking about being "born again" describe effects of baptism,

Do not agree. I will elaborate.

which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being "born of water and the Spirit."

Christ is going back to Ezekiel 36 in this teaching. It is NOT a reference to literal water.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 - English Standard Version (ESV)

25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Ask yourself this, do you literally have a heart made of stone? Or is it symbolic for hardness towards God?

Ephesians 5:25-27 - English Standard Version (ESV)

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Is this a literal washing with liquid bibles? I don't think so.

Titus 3:4-7 - English Standard Version (ESV)

4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Did Jesus literally pour out water, infused somehow with the Spirit of regeneration, on Paul or anybody else?

In Greek, this phrase is, literally, "born of water and Spirit," indicating one birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than "born of water and of the Spirit," as though it meant two different births—one birth of water and one birth of the Spirit.

Indeed. And as the previously mentioned passage from Ezekiel shows (as well as the Sermon on the Mount), the washing is a washing of the spirit, by the Spirit of God.

You are falling into the same trap as Nicodemus. You ask "how can a man be born again when he is old?" It is a baptism of the Spirit. The water and Spirit both come from God and cleanse us on the inside! The water itself is just water.

In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, the repentant sinner is transformed from a state of sin to the state of grace.

Do infants repent?

Peter mentioned this transformation from sin to grace when he exhorted people to "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Yes, there is a link between water baptism and repentance. It is a visible sign of obedience and consecration.

The context of Jesus’ statements in John 3 makes it clear that he was referring to water baptism. Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist, and the circumstances are striking: Jesus goes down into the water, and as he is baptized, the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father speaks from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son" (cf. Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:30–34).

Whatever you say Nicodemus.

This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism: We are baptized with water, symbolizing our dying with Christ (Rom. 6:3) and our rising with Christ to the newness of life (Rom. 6:4–5); we receive the gift of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27); and we are adopted as God’s sons (Rom. 8:15–17).

No it doesn't. It gives us a depiction of Jesus' baptism.

After our Lord’s teaching that it is necessary for salvation to be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:1–21), "Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized" (John 3:22).

Correlation does not equal causation. I was wanted to use that.

Then we have the witness of the early Church that John 3:5 refers to baptismal regeneration. This was universally recognized by the early Christians. The Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching this:

In A.D. 151, Justin Martyr wrote, "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true . . . 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).

It seems to me that Justin is saying that people are regenerated and then are baptized. Sounds like a Baptist church.

Around 190, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote, "And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34).

This could go either way. Do you know for certain that "sacred water" refers to the actual water baptism? Or is it referring to the water from God in Ezekiel 36?

In the year 252, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, said that when those becoming Christians "receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]" (Letters 71[72]:1).

Were the Gentiles in Cornelius's house regenerated before or after water baptism?

Augustine wrote, "From the time he [Jesus] said, ‘Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], and again, ‘He that loses his life for my sake shall find it’ [Matt. 10:39], no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ or death for Christ" (On the Soul and Its Origin 1:10 [A.D. 419]).

Augustine also taught, "It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5]. The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

I don't deny that Augustine believed this. He borrowed much from Cyprian.

Augustine also believed in what later became known as Calvinism. Do you believe that also?

 

[Radiant1]

Augustine also believed in what later became known as Calvinism. Do you believe that also?

Calvin may be an Augustinian to some degree, but it's a stretch to claim they believed the same thing.

 

[Zguy28]

Calvin may be an Augustinian to some degree, but it's a stretch to claim they believed the same thing.

That is the one thing you latched onto?

Seriously though, my belief that Calvinism has its foundation in Augustine's interpretation aside, I ran out of time at lunch and was not able to go into detail about it. And I'm still not since I am supposed to be writing a sermon right now.

 

[Radiant1]

That is the one thing you latched onto?

Seriously though, my belief that Calvinism has its foundation in Augustine's interpretation aside, I ran out of time at lunch and was not able to go into detail about it. And I'm still not since I am supposed to be writing a sermon right now.

Yes, that's what I "latched onto". If you haven't noticed, I usually don't jump into conversations until I see something erroneously posted about myself, Catholicism, or in this case a Catholic saint. I do so in order to correct misunderstandings. Besides, we've been over this baptism thing and all other doctrines numerous times before, and I'm not overly fond of repeatedly slinging crap like monkeys if you know what I mean; y'all are welcome to it. In addition, I think you guys going back and forth whether Catholics are your brothers/sisters in Christ or not does you a disservice in the eyes of any passive reader and reveals a great deal about your views, so by all means keep at it. You don't need me to debate you because ultimately you all are doing my work for me.

Now, go write your sermon and peace be with you, brother.

 

[Cheeky1]

I don't know.

Talk to each "catholic" and find out.

 

[itsbob]

They can't be..

They read the same Bible as the Mormons do, and the Mormons don't even pray to the same Jesus..

SO there's no way the Catholics can be..

They're all heretics...














except of course the people that believe the exact same thing you do...

 

[b23hqb]

They can't be..

They read the same Bible as the Mormons do, and the Mormons don't even pray to the same Jesus..

SO there's no way the Catholics can be..

They're all heretics...

except of course the people that believe the exact same thing you do...

Except for the Bible part, that is. Their (the Catholic) Bible has 73 books, plus all the catachesims, etc., required for the faith.

The Christian Bible has 66 books, with no one else or any other readings required.

If a catholic professes faith in Jesus, and salvation is through Him only, as the Bible teaches, and no one can ever change that saving faith, and there is no one that can intercede for themselves except Jesus, they are Christians.

If they remain in the Catholic system of rituals, ceremonies, prayers, confessions, works, etc., I would have to question why they still participate.

Jesus is good enough. Or he is not.

 

[cheezgrits]

Except for the Bible part, that is. Their (the Catholic) Bible has 73 books, plus all the catachesims, etc., required for the faith.

The Christian Bible has 66 books, with no one else or any other readings required.

If a catholic professes faith in Jesus, and salvation is through Him only, as the Bible teaches, and no one can ever change that saving faith, and there is no one that can intercede for themselves except Jesus, they are Christians.

If they remain in the Catholic system of rituals, ceremonies, prayers, confessions, works, etc., I would have to question why they still participate.

Jesus is good enough. Or he is not.

So, how in this world do you "christians" reconcile the Jewish Torah and your Jesus was Jewish??
And if you disagree with the Catholics, how do you 'splain lil' Jesus? Wasn't it their beloved Mary that "virgin" birthed him?

And if I seem disrespectful, good. When the "christians" can learn to respect and accept other religions and have adult conversations about them, so will I.

 

[b23hqb]

So, how in this world do you "christians" reconcile the Jewish Torah and your Jesus was Jewish??
And if you disagree with the Catholics, how do you 'splain lil' Jesus? Wasn't it their beloved Mary that "virgin" birthed him?

And if I seem disrespectful, good. When the "christians" can learn to respect and accept other religions and have adult conversations about them, so will I.

Wow. We Christians do respect others beliefs, but disagreeing with them is required if those beliefs are not in accord with ours, correct?

You just put the your same thought process on display.

Yes, Mary, the human mother of Jesus, did "birth" him, gritz. That's it. No mention of Mary, His mother, beyond the foot of the cross. She died like every other human.

She's dead. Nothing further from her. She was blessed among women, during her lifetime. She has no more power to intervene in anyone's eternal destiny than you or I.

How about you, gritz? Cheese, or just butter?

 

[cheezgrits]

Wow. We Christians do respect others beliefs, but disagreeing with them is required if those beliefs are not in accord with ours, correct?

So you can't just simply accept that other religions are OK. Do you see the hypocritical thought process in your statement? We respect other religions, but we disagree (dismiss) them. That's like the statement, I can't be racist, I have lots of black friends..

Here's an idea...just stop at "we respect other religions"

 

[Zguy28]

So you can't just simply accept that other religions are OK. Do you see the hypocritical thought process in your statement? We respect other religions, but we disagree (dismiss) them. That's like the statement, I can't be racist, I have lots of black friends..

Here's an idea...just stop at "we respect other religions"

What do mean by ok?

If you mean that Christians should accept or be tolerant of other religions in a pluralistic or inclusive sense (kind of like New Thought or Hari Krishna) then we cannot.

If you mean that Christians should not speak as if we have exclusive access to revealed truth because it hurts your feelings and implies you are wrong, i suggest you grow a thicker skin. Also realize that all religions hold to exclusivism and intolerance whether they admit it or not.

Define what OK means in this context.

Oh, and by the way, your comparison to race doesn't work. It's merely wishful thinking on your part.

 

[twinoaks207]

What do mean by ok?

If you mean that Christians should accept or be tolerant of other religions in a pluralistic or inclusive sense (kind of like New Thought or Hari Krishna) then we cannot.

If you mean that Christians should not speak as if we have exclusive access to revealed truth because it hurts your feelings and implies you are wrong, i suggest you grow a thicker skin. Also realize that all religions hold to exclusivism and intolerance whether they admit it or not.

Define what OK means in this context.

Oh, and by the way, your comparison to race doesn't work. It's merely wishful thinking on your part.

How very un-Christ-like and very political of you.

The second bolded statement is an error on your part as far as the "intolerance" piece is concerned.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

So you can't just simply accept that other religions are OK. Do you see the hypocritical thought process in your statement? We respect other religions, but we disagree (dismiss) them. That's like the statement, I can't be racist, I have lots of black friends..

Here's an idea...just stop at "we respect other religions"

What do mean by ok?

If you mean that Christians should accept or be tolerant of other religions in a pluralistic or inclusive sense (kind of like New Thought or Hari Krishna) then we cannot.

If you mean that Christians should not speak as if we have exclusive access to revealed truth because it hurts your feelings and implies you are wrong, i suggest you grow a thicker skin. Also realize that all religions hold to exclusivism and intolerance whether they admit it or not.

Define what OK means in this context.

Oh, and by the way, your comparison to race doesn't work. It's merely wishful thinking on your part.

You shouldn't speak as if you have exclusive access to revealed truth because you don't. No more than any other religion. What is really funny is that you seem to hold the most vitrol and hate for other Christians who you deem to be unworthy. All base on their use of dogma. Problem is you and all the other "bible" Christians are operating with your own dogma. It was handed down from Calvin and Luther. They decided your dogma long ago. Your dogma even uses a bible that had books eliminated books from the canon. You can argue that the Catholic Church was wrong at the time, but that's just more dogma.

 

[Zguy28]

How very un-Christ-like and very political of you.

Please elaborate judgmental one. I'm interested to hear your reasoning behind this.

The second bolded statement is an error on your part as far as the "intolerance" piece is concerned.

Is it?

Perhaps a better word could have been used as "intolerance" can be defined as lacking respect, which is not what I mean. What I was attempting to convey is that all religions believe the others are wrong. Yes, even pluralistic ones.

For example, Islam believes it is the only way. Ba'Hai believes Islam is one of many ways. Even though Ba'hai believes Islam is true in a sense, it really doesn't because one of the tenets of Islam is that it is right and all others are wrong. So, what Ba'Hai actually does is say Islam is wrong.

Exclusivism in religion is unavoidable. That doesn't mean we need to disrespect each other, clearly for Christians the Golden Rule applies. However, in today's culture feelings have taken precedence over truth and to tell somebody they are wrong, even in a respectful manner, has become equivalent to a grievous offense as evidenced by some replies on this very forum.