Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


Then it doesn't save a man's soul.

1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV)
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by truejew

 

I have never condemned you. Go and sin no more. Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

You said earlier, quite clearly, that Protestants and Catholics were wrong, and implied quite strongly that they are already 'condemned.'

I think you are confused profoundly, and are in a tailspin of not understanding what Jesus' message was.

Yes, they are wrong, but they all have time for repentance.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by wildtimes
You said earlier, quite clearly, that Protestants and Catholics were wrong, and implied quite strongly that they are already 'condemned.'

It's the classic conflict of someone who delights in judging others, in order to feel better about themselves, and is then ever so annoyed when someone brings up the "judge not lest ye be judged" stuff.

Amazing how someone can claim to follow Christ, and then ignore him at every possible opportunity.

I do not do as you claim.

reply to post by charles1952


I am sure both are good people, however being good is not what saves a person. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works. Faith includes action. Peter tells us to save ourselves by repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those who do, have faith. Those who do not, don't.

Noah was saved by grace through faith. He had faith in God and built and entered the ark. If he would not have built and entered the ark, would he have been saved through faith. Would he even have had faith?

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

Thank you, I understand your view a little more clearly now.

I agree with you

I am sure both are good people, however being good is not what saves a person.

I wasn't speaking of their salvation, I was speaking of them as people. People who deserve kindness and love simply because they are humans with immortal souls.

There are people and situations where the proper course of action is to inform people they are sinners and condemned unless they are saved, give them hell-fire so to speak. But if you are fishing for people, normally you have to use a bait that attracts them. The point I was trying to make is that there are several ways to bring a person to God. Based on the response your getting here, I wonder if you would consider a different approach?

We are saved by grace through faith, not by works. Faith includes action.

If I understand you, I think I agree, but I would say that "Faith includes action," is similar to "Faith without works is dead." Faith and works seem to be closely related, and it may be a distortion to treat the two separately. You may love your spouse, but without the "works" of flowers, foot rubs, "I Love You" notes, etc., she's going to leave you. My thought is we need both. I think your Noah example indicates we are in agreement here.

Peter tells us to save ourselves by repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those who do, have faith. Those who do not, don't.

I absolutely agree with the repentance part, as I mentioned above. I'm not so sure about the rest. I believe in a baptism of desire, where the person has learned about and came to believe in Jesus, but dies before he is baptized. My Church and I believe he is counted as baptized. Also with the baptism of blood, where a believer is killed for his faith without being baptized.

As to the exact words to be used? I'm not sure that either way is wrong. There are arguments for each side. I suppose I shall just have to rely on God's mercy and kindness in the event I am wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Well, what I'm getting at is the question of whether, under the New Covenant, Christians should confess their sins directly to another person, or to God. This is an important question, because if Jesus has passed the authority and responsibility of forgiveness to the Apostles and those who came after them, then when a Christian sins, they MUST confess to a priest, or they cannot be forgiven.

This is highly important. If each Christian can "be a priest," then it comes down to simply choosing someone who is best suited for the job of confessor and forgiver. If we cannot be our own priest, then in those Protestant denominations which do not have that Apostolic succession, their post-salvation sin remains unforgiven, and we need to get the word out to them that the Catholic church is the only way. Thoughts?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


Then it doesn't save a man's soul.

1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV)
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Oh. Okay, glad that's cleared up now. We are not saved by Christ and His blood, but by water? So we don't even need trust in Jesus right? Just a bathtub?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


Then it doesn't save a man's soul.

1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV)
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Oh. Okay, glad that's cleared up now. We are not saved by Christ and His blood, but by water? So we don't even need trust in Jesus right? Just a bathtub?

I did not say that. I am saying that in order to be saved by His blood, you must be born again.

John 3:5 (KJV)
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

reply to post by truejew


Being born again isn't something WE do to ourselves, it's something God does TO us by His Holy Spirit. He convicts us of our sin, gives us both repentance and faith by grace, and regenerates our spirit. A man cannot have faith without God giving it to a man by grace.

reply to post by charles1952


My approach is one of truthfulness. It is not one of "every one is saved" nor is it one of false accusations such as Adjensen's approach.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Being born again isn't something WE do to ourselves, it's something God does TO us by His Holy Spirit. He convicts us of our sin, gives us both repentance and faith by grace, and regenerates our spirit. A man cannot have faith without God giving it to a man by grace.

Water baptism is something we do in faith.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Being born again isn't something WE do to ourselves, it's something God does TO us by His Holy Spirit. He convicts us of our sin, gives us both repentance and faith by grace, and regenerates our spirit. A man cannot have faith without God giving it to a man by grace.

Water baptism is something we do in faith.

Believers get baptized. Its what saved people do. Baptism isn't a sacrament to being saved, unless you are a Catholic that is.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Being born again isn't something WE do to ourselves, it's something God does TO us by His Holy Spirit. He convicts us of our sin, gives us both repentance and faith by grace, and regenerates our spirit. A man cannot have faith without God giving it to a man by grace.

Water baptism is something we do in faith.

Believers get baptized. Its what saved people do. Baptism isn't a sacrament to being saved, unless you are a Catholic that is.

You are choosing to ignore Scripture that your religion disagrees with.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Being born again isn't something WE do to ourselves, it's something God does TO us by His Holy Spirit. He convicts us of our sin, gives us both repentance and faith by grace, and regenerates our spirit. A man cannot have faith without God giving it to a man by grace.

Water baptism is something we do in faith.

Believers get baptized. Its what saved people do. Baptism isn't a sacrament to being saved, unless you are a Catholic that is.

You are choosing to ignore Scripture that your religion disagrees with.

No, I don't add to the gospel. Baptism doesn't save you, baptism is a response to being saved by the work of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Baptism doesn't save you,

1 Peter 3:21 (KJV)
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

reply to post by Snsoc

Dear Snsoc,

You are quickly moving into the ranks of my favorite posters. Thanks for the frightening question. Frightening because of the impact it has on people's lives. I have to admit that I'm a little scared of offering any opinion at all.

"[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]). (Emphasis added)

Note that this was from the year 215 and represents the thinking of the early Church.
www.catholic.com...

It appears that both the Bible and Apostolic Traditions say (and I have to be careful here) a priest or bishop may absolve a sinner from a mortal sin, venial sin, or both. The Church does not put us under an obligation to confess the venial sins, but recommends it. The important point is that we know this method works. God hasn't given us a guarantee that any other method is effective at absolving us from our sins.

With the Catholic Church we know that our sins are forgiven through Confession to a priest or bishop. Any other Christians must rely on God's vast mercy, forgiveness, and knowledge of our hearts. But the guarantee isn't there.

It is possible that God, looking into our hearts, can ascertain our true intent and judge us more lightly than we might suspect. I'm sure he will take much into account when people go before Him having refused to join the Church. Again, I see it as possible that they will be forgiven and saved, but it seems like an unnecessary gamble to me.

Pope Francis is showing a new path in reaching out to the poor and distressed. I will gladly follow along. I take the poor and distressed to include those who do not have the blessings of the Church. But, I don't want to sound exclusionary. These are our brothers and sisters who love Christ and the Bible. They are beloved by God and, I hope, by us. I try to offer my thoughts on these subjects because they are so important. We must always keep in mind their freedom and dignity as persons.

I hope we would never try to force, intimidate, insult, mock, or belittle our brothers and sisters. As Christian believers they are the holiest things on earth outside of the Host. We must love and assist them when appropriate or condemn ourselves.

May I change your words "the Catholic Church is the only way," to "the Catholic Church is the only sure way given by God."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

Forgive the rather forward questions but, have I offended you, or perhaps made you suspicious of me? I was hoping to have a conversation, but your response seemed a little "thin," or "barren."

My approach is one of truthfulness.

That is also believed by just about everybody.

It is not one of "every one is saved"

I don't believe everyone is saved, and I don't think the Bible teaches it. (Although I have heard some arguments that a person's time in Hell is of limited duration, I am unconvinced.)

nor is it one of false accusations such as Adjensen's approach.

I'm reasonably sure that adjensen is honest, perhaps there is merely a disagreement.

But in any event, I have the feeling (it could be wrong) that you weren't responding to me and haven't really given me anything to speak with you about. I'd like to, but I don't see how I can.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by truejew

 

Forgive the rather forward questions but, have I offended you, or perhaps made you suspicious of me?

No.

Originally posted by charles1952

I don't believe everyone is saved, and I don't think the Bible teaches it. (Although I have heard some arguments that a person's time in Hell is of limited duration, I am unconvinced.)

I did not say that you did. I said my approach is not one of everyone is saved when they are not. I am truthful.

Originally posted by charles1952

I'm reasonably sure that adjensen is honest, perhaps there is merely a disagreement.

The accusations of me being a "witch" and a "cultist" are false. He has been told that and yet he continues. In addition, he has been told that being called a "cultist" is very offensive to me. I had several relatives who died in a real cult. My family is very against cults. A honest man does not label someone as those things just because he disagrees with him.

Originally posted by truejew
In addition, he has been told that being called a "cultist" is very offensive to me.

Is that a fact? Then why have you labelled others, both Catholic and Protestants, as being cultists a number of times?

Example 1, Example 2, there are others.

Did the term only become offensive to you since last December?

You won't read it, but here are the Characteristics of a Religious Cult, enough of which can be applied to Reckart and crew that calling it a cult is not being disingenuous.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Baptism doesn't save you,

1 Peter 3:21 (KJV)
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

So how many people do you think are burning in hell right now because they died after they put their trust in Christ, but before they could get wet?