Why are YOU not a catholic?

[Pat2]

There are a GREAT many Christian sects/ communions/ churches.

BUT Only one is founded by Christ Himself. The Catholic Church.

So my friend, why are you NOT a Catholic?

God Bless,

Pat

[Alexis223C]

]"But Peter said to them; Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call"[/i] (Act 2:38-39).

When Peter said the promise of baptism is for children, the word "children" (from the Greek, teknon) also includes infants. This same word teknon is also used later in Acts 21:21 to describe the circumcision of eight -day old children. This proves that the promise of baptism is for infants.

It is important to remember the correlation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant when discussing infant baptism. Babies were circumcised when they were eight days old ( Gen 17:12, Lev 12:3); this was the sign by which they entered inot the Mosaic Covenant. Paul calls baptism the "new circumcison" when he writes:

"In whom also you are circumcised with a circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead" (Col 2: 11-12).

Since baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant, baptism is for babies as well as adults (just as circumcision in the Old Covenant was for babies as well as adults). God did not make His New Covenant narrower than the Old Covenant. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's New Covenant; infants and children were always part of God's covenant family.

You seem to know a lot of baptism, therefore, that would mean you understand that baptism is not being saved, but only a symbol that you have accepted Christ. How does one accept Christ? How does one become saved and reborn? By accepting Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior and admitting he or she is a sinner and believing Jesus Christ died for our sins.

Now, if you were a baby, and do not know how to walk, what words are, or even how to eat or bath yourself, do you think you would be able of accepting Jesus Christ if you are only an infant?

Please also note and recognize who God was speaking to in the bible, the Jews, The gentiles, or the Church?

You do not need to be baptized to be saved, and do not become saved from being baptized. Your infant cannot be saved just because he is circumcised and baptized. The only way ANYONE can be saved is by believing the Gospel--accepting Jesus Christ. If a baby is not able to comprehend religion because he is an infant, how can he choose to believe and accept Jesus Christ? If a baby, or anyone for that matter, can be saved from just a baptism and a circumcision, that would mean that Jesus died in vain. Baptism is only a symbol you have accepted Christ, not the acceptation of Christ. How can an infant admit he is a sinner?


Anyone can read the bible, learn to confess his sins, believe Jesus Christ died to save and become born again, and live off the bible and God's Word alone. No one has to go to church, no one has to be baptized to get a ticket into heaven. We are saved because of our faith in our Lord and acceptation of His Son, not by our acts. Baptism and circumcisions, are they not acts, symbols?

The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.

For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship," although Americans would say "Your Honor." This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.

Outside of this example, however, the English term "worship" has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact, one can still find books that use "worship" in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter material written in other times and other places.

In Scripture, the term "worship" was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.

As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b). A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (huper [more than]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is more than the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, "We adore God but we honor his saints." The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call "worship"—is to be given only to God.

The term "worship" was used in the same way in the Bible that it used to be used in English. It could cover both the adoration given to God alone and the honor that is to be shown to certain human beings. In Hebrew, the term for worship is shakhah. It is appropriately used for humans in a large number of passages.

For example, in Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in coming years.

Translated literally the passage states: "‘Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakhah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakhah] me.’"

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakhah] you (49:8)." And in Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakhah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent."

Yet none of these passages were discussing the worship of adoration, the kind of worship given to God.

I understand what you are describing as not "loving" or "worshiping" these idols the way you do with God, my point is is that it is unnecessary. These saints were not God, were not Jesus, although God picked them and were considered saints and holy, they were still flesh, still human, and have a spirit like you and I.They died the same way we will die. Their spirits rest and they are asleep as yours and mine would be if we died.

“For I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day on the Earth. And though worms destroy my body, yet in my flesh I shall see God� (Job 19:25-26).

“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, some to everlasting life, but others to disgrace and everlasting contempt�(Dan. 12:2).

“For the living know they will die: but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten� (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

Where do you think these saints are when you pray to them? If the dead do not know anything, and are asleep in the "dust," how do they hear your prayers? If they no longer have a reward, for their memory is forgotten, how can they still be eligible to pray to? Perhaps all the prayers to them could be prayed to God; He is the only one you pray to, and ask from, He is the Creator, the Alpha and Omega, He deserves your undivided attention, and all your prayers.

"Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ Isaiah 46:9-10

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Tim. 2:5

"If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." John 15:7

He should get all the spiritual honor you have to give. He is the one who sent His one and only Son to die for your sins. The saints are dead. Only One died and rose again. It is as if you are saying you need the help of the saints, for whichever reason, and as if God may be incapable of preforming what you ask on His own. I pray for you to understand and I pray the Holy Spirit to guide you, more importantly, I hope you can find it in yourself to pray and ask about this yourself, ask the Lord to guide with the right answers.

Jesus did: "And leaving them, he went away again: and he prayed the third time, saying the same words" (Mt 26:44).

So do you think you are Jesus? Well, Jesus prayed the same words, not disciples, not anyone else, but Jesus. You are not Jesus.

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless REPETITION as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." Matthew 6:7-8.

Although Christ died for our sins, those that we have committed and are still to be committed, we still must be forgiven those sins that we will commit in the future --- after all, like you said, we still are sinners. Just because Christ died for our sins does not mean we have license to do anything contrary to good and still be presumptuous to believe that we still will be saved. It is for this reason that Paul gives the advice: "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Phil 2:12). St. Paul is anxious to inspire a just confidence in Jesus Christ, but he is not less solicitous to root out all self-confidence arising from our supposed merits or excellence.

Christ gave the power to forgive sins to priests when He instituted the sacrament of confession: "When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (Jn 20:22-23).

First all, when Jesus said, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" he meant those he was speaking to at the time. Not every priest from that moment on. Taking things out of context and not studying the bible is a very easy way to miss these type of points.

I never once said it gives us a license nor insinuated it. Should people strive to do better for our Father in heaven? Yes, I agree 100 percent, however, by doing good works alone, and not sinning does not get you into heaven.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

Once you have accepted Jesus Christ and are born again, you should do your best to make your life as pure and modest as you can, and pray for the Lord to guide you and help you to better yourself through Him. However, the Lord knows you are not perfect, He knows you are a sinner, and knows you will have the desire to sin and most importantly, He knows you ARE GOING TO SIN. Everyone tries to make it so complicated. Must I go back to Sunday school to explain John 3:16 "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that for WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM, SHALL NOT PERISH, but HAVE ETERNAL life."
Sounds pretty simple to me. If that is not the Truth, that one can get into heaven, regardless of how many sins one has committed, you would be saying the bible is not stating the truth. I could kill five hundred people in my lifetime, and never once enter a confession stand, but go home and pray and ask for forgiveness and I will be cleansed, because I was saved the day I admitted myself as a sinner, when I prayed to God and said "I believe Your Son died on the cross for my sins, and I accept him, and I admit that I am a sinner and need you in my life!" The day I became reborn, was the day I was sealed with the Holy Spirit and became promised an eternal life. God does not break his promises.

Now, if I proceeded with the murders it is no doubt that would make God unhappy, and I would be punished and have consequences, but that doesn't mean my soul is any less saved for eternity. The right thing to do is of course call to the Lord and ask him to lead myself away from temptation. I am only rewarded for the good acts, not saved because of them. If I could go my entire life with doing all good things, and get into heaven what would be the point of Jesus dying? Therefore, no, we do not have a "license" to sin, but we are forgiven when we do. And we are forgiven by only the Lord Jesus, because God gave judgement to the Son in the NT.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' John 14:6 So I'm apologize, but I do not believe that any of my sins can be cleansed from another man who is a priest, not until Jesus himself tells him he has the power to do so. If I could be cleansed of my sins by a priest, why would I ever need Jesus now?


And it is so great for you to bring that chapter up! Bare with me for a moment. Starting at Phil. 2:12 and continuing on the verse 13: for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
14: Do all things without complaining and disputing,
15: that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault int he midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,
16: holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain."

In Phil. 2:12 Paul says, "as you have always obeyed," if we cross-reference that with the square brackets provided for us to give a better understanding, we would get Phil. 1:5 "for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now," meaning, you have been faithful in accepting Christ and have obeyed in this manor, because the gospel is believing in Jesus as your savior to forgive you of your sins. If they have always obeyed, that would mean they have already been saved.


So "as you have always obeyed (faithful to the Lord) work out your salvation," yet again, if we are to cross-reference this phrase "work out your salvation,"we get


John 6:27 "Do not labor for food that perishes, but food which endures to everlasting life, which he Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set his SEAL on Him." Continuing they said to him, "what shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" and Jesus said to them, "this is the work of God, that you believe in Him, who He sent."

If the Son of Man will give me the food of everlasting life, and I am to labor for the food of everlasting life says the Lord, then to work out my salvation I must labor the food of everlasting life and if the labor of food which endures everlasting life is the work of God is to believe in whom He sent, then when Paul said "work out your salvation," he clearly meant believe in Jesus Christ, once again, the one He sent.

"with fear and trembling." cross reference="bondservents, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling in sincerity of heart, as to Christ;" be faithful obediently, in other words, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"


If Jesus is your salvation, and you are to work it out with fear and trembling, and fear and trembling mean obediently, and the definition of obedient is "complying with orders or requests; submissive to another's will," then you are to continue your faith,"as you have always obeyed," believe and be faithful to Jesus Christ, "work out your salvation," and be persistent and disciplined in believing, "with fear or trembling."

So actually, I would believe, using the bible as my reference as you can see, that Paul intended to say carrying on with your faith and love for the Lord and a Father, continue in an obedient manor, "work out your salvation" laboring everlasting life through the Lord, because it is God who puts the motivation in you so you may do good through Him. Why would Paul tell them "as you have always obeyed," if they literally still had to work out salvation?

Because if you continue to read to verse sixteen, you will read that he was saying you work for the good of Christ, through Christ, because if not, all your deeds were in vain. You must be saved, you must "obey" you must, "work out your salvation," for any of your good acts to be seen by God. Not the other way around! You do not do good acts and become saved, you do not have faith in Jesus and if you do enough good deeds you become saved, you become saved and do good acts because you are saved!

Because they spoke differently back in those ages, it is hard to understand what they mean if you just read it and take it out context. If I were to translate this into modern terms you would get something close to this, "As you have always believed in God, be sure to accept Him and worship him the most obediently for it is God who works in you to give you the desire and the action for His good pleasure."


That being taken care of, you are neither guaranteed to go to heaven by your deeds, nor are you denied heaven because of your sins.

You are guaranteed heaven because you have accepted the gospel, you are cleansed from your sins, and you are rewarded for your good deeds in heaven. Paul was not warning that yes, Jesus is just, but be careful what you do because you still might not get in if you mess up bad enough. The program changed after the Jews rejected their messiah Jesus Christ, God gave judgement to the Son, and said, whoever believes in My Son shall be saved, end of story.



"In Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." Eph. 1:7.


I shall keep you in my prayers; I am not debating to be right, but for the Truth to be heard. If you pray, you will know whether what I have to say is the real truth or not.

[jedicri]

You seem to know a lot of baptism, therefore, that would mean you understand that baptism is not being saved, but only a symbol that you have accepted Christ. How does one accept Christ? How does one become saved and reborn? By accepting Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior and admitting he or she is a sinner and believing Jesus Christ died for our sins.

Now, if you were a baby, and do not know how to walk, what words are, or even how to eat or bath yourself, do you think you would be able of accepting Jesus Christ if you are only an infant?

Please also note and recognize who God was speaking to in the bible, the Jews, The gentiles, or the Church?

You do not need to be baptized to be saved, and do not become saved from being baptized. Your infant cannot be saved just because he is circumcised and baptized. The only way ANYONE can be saved is by believing the Gospel--accepting Jesus Christ. If a baby is not able to comprehend religion because he is an infant, how can he choose to believe and accept Jesus Christ? If a baby, or anyone for that matter, can be saved from just a baptism and a circumcision, that would mean that Jesus died in vain. Baptism is only a symbol you have accepted Christ, not the acceptation of Christ. How can an infant admit he is a sinner?

On the contrary...

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.�

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase "born again" is "anothen" which literally means “begotten from above.� See, for example, John 3:31 where "anothen" is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

Anyone can read the bible, learn to confess his sins, believe Jesus Christ died to save and become born again, and live off the bible and God's Word alone. No one has to go to church, no one has to be baptized to get a ticket into heaven. We are saved because of our faith in our Lord and acceptation of His Son, not by our acts. Baptism and circumcisions, are they not acts, symbols?

No as shown above.

I understand what you are describing as not "loving" or "worshiping" these idols the way you do with God, my point is is that it is unnecessary.

Exactly: your point.... but St. Paul teaches otherwise. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul, before he teaches about Christ's role as our mediator (1 Tim 2:5), writes: I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men(1 Tim 2:1). Paul is therefore appealing for mediation from others besides Christ right before he says that Christ is the one mediator. Why? Because Paul says: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

These saints were not God, were not Jesus, although God picked them and were considered saints and holy, they were still flesh, still human, and have a spirit like you and I.They died the same way we will die. Their spirits rest and they are asleep as yours and mine would be if we died.

“For I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day on the Earth. And though worms destroy my body, yet in my flesh I shall see God� (Job 19:25-26).

“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, some to everlasting life, but others to disgrace and everlasting contempt�(Dan. 12:2).

“For the living know they will die: but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten� (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

Where do you think these saints are when you pray to them? If the dead do not know anything, and are asleep in the "dust," how do they hear your prayers? If they no longer have a reward, for their memory is forgotten, how can they still be eligible to pray to? Perhaps all the prayers to them could be prayed to God; He is the only one you pray to, and ask from, He is the Creator, the Alpha and Omega, He deserves your undivided attention, and all your prayers.

Again refer to 1 Tim 2:3-5 as discussed above.

As for the "dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten," these are the damned souls who are in disgrace and in everlasting contempt in hell, not the righteous who are in heaven.

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Tim. 2:5

Already addressed but here it is again in its entire context: In his first letter to Timothy, Paul, before he teaches about Christ's role as our mediator (1 Tim 2:5), writes: I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men(1 Tim 2:1). Paul is therefore appealing for mediation from others besides Christ right before he says that Christ is the one mediator. Why? Because Paul says: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

He should get all the spiritual honor you have to give. He is the one who sent His one and only Son to die for your sins. The saints are dead.

Moreover, have you not read what Jesus has said regarding God being the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. God is not God of the dead but of the living:And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matthew 22:32).

Only One died and rose again. It is as if you are saying you need the help of the saints, for whichever reason, and as if God may be incapable of preforming what you ask on His own. I pray for you to understand and I pray the Holy Spirit to guide you, more importantly, I hope you can find it in yourself to pray and ask about this yourself, ask the Lord to guide with the right answers.

You contradict yourself here. Why would you pray for me if you know that God is capable to perform whatever I personally ask of Him? Are you not also interceding for me before God just as we Catholics pray to the saints to intercede for us before God?

Jesus did: "And leaving them, he went away again: and he prayed the third time, saying the same words" (Mt 26:44).

So do you think you are Jesus? Well, Jesus prayed the same words, not disciples, not anyone else, but Jesus. You are not Jesus.

Never said I was. Why should we not imitate Jesus and pray the same words. Did He not teach us to pray the Our Father. Do we not repeat these self-same words every day or more than once a day?

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless REPETITION as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." Matthew 6:7-8.

The operative word here is meaningless. When Jesus instructed His disciples not to "heap up empty phrases," He was focussing on the "vain," and not on the "repetition." In other words, Jesus was referring to redundant babbling without thinking, or prayer that seeks the praise of men and not God (see Jn 12:43). This is because God judges our prayers by looking into our hearts, not necessarily at our words. For example, the tax collector, who would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, kept beating hsi breast and saying, "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Lk 18:13). Jesus said the tax collector was justified because of his sincerity and humility, while the arrogant Pharisee was not (v.14).

First all, when Jesus said, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" he meant those he was speaking to at the time. Not every priest from that moment on. Taking things out of context and not studying the bible is a very easy way to miss these type of points.

You are going against 2000 years of teaching. No one taught such a thing until Luther came along 1500 years later. Even the early witnesses of the Church, the writings of the early Fathers of the Church taught contrary to what you claim.

Once you have accepted Jesus Christ and are born again, you should do your best to make your life as pure and modest as you can, and pray for the Lord to guide you and help you to better yourself through Him. However, the Lord knows you are not perfect, He knows you are a sinner, and knows you will have the desire to sin and most importantly, He knows you ARE GOING TO SIN. Everyone tries to make it so complicated. Must I go back to Sunday school to explain John 3:16 "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that for WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM, SHALL NOT PERISH, but HAVE ETERNAL life."
Sounds pretty simple to me. If that is not the Truth, that one can get into heaven, regardless of how many sins one has committed, you would be saying the bible is not stating the truth. I could kill five hundred people in my lifetime, and never once enter a confession stand, but go home and pray and ask for forgiveness and I will be cleansed, because I was saved the day I admitted myself as a sinner, when I prayed to God and said "I believe Your Son died on the cross for my sins, and I accept him, and I admit that I am a sinner and need you in my life!" The day I became reborn, was the day I was sealed with the Holy Spirit and became promised an eternal life. God does not break his promises.

Now, if I proceeded with the murders it is no doubt that would make God unhappy, and I would be punished and have consequences, but that doesn't mean my soul is any less saved for eternity. The right thing to do is of course call to the Lord and ask him to lead myself away from temptation. I am only rewarded for the good acts, not saved because of them. If I could go my entire life with doing all good things, and get into heaven what would be the point of Jesus dying? Therefore, no, we do not have a "license" to sin, but we are forgiven when we do. And we are forgiven by only the Lord Jesus, because God gave judgement to the Son in the NT.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' John 14:6 So I'm apologize, but I do not believe that any of my sins can be cleansed from another man who is a priest, not until Jesus himself tells him he has the power to do so. If I could be cleansed of my sins by a priest, why would I ever need Jesus now?

Only God forgives sins; however, when Catholics confess their sins to the priest, they are confessing their sins to God. Only God can forgive sins, but He decides how He wants us to obtain that forgiveness. Jeus Christ gave His apostles the authority to bind and loose, and entrusted to them His power to forgive sins. This is why Jesus emphasized that He forgave sins as a man, when He says, "But that you may know that the Son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mt 9:6, Mk 2:10, Lk 5:24; when the sacred writers use the title "Son of man," they are emphasizing Jesus' humanity. When they use "Son of God," they are emphasizing His divinity.). Just as God entrusted the forgiveness of sins to Jesus as a man, so Jesus entrusts the forgiveness of sins to HIs apostles and their successors, as men. Hence, in explaining the gift of forgiving sins, Matthew writes that God "had given such authority to men"(Mt 9:8).

And it is so great for you to bring that chapter up! Bare with me for a moment. Starting at Phil. 2:12 and continuing on the verse 13: for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
14: Do all things without complaining and disputing,
15: that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault int he midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,
16: holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain."

In Phil. 2:12 Paul says, "as you have always obeyed," if we cross-reference that with the square brackets provided for us to give a better understanding, we would get Phil. 1:5 "for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now," meaning, you have been faithful in accepting Christ and have obeyed in this manor, because the gospel is believing in Jesus as your savior to forgive you of your sins. If they have always obeyed, that would mean they have already been saved.


So "as you have always obeyed (faithful to the Lord) work out your salvation," yet again, if we are to cross-reference this phrase "work out your salvation,"we get


John 6:27 "Do not labor for food that perishes, but food which endures to everlasting life, which he Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set his SEAL on Him." Continuing they said to him, "what shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" and Jesus said to them, "this is the work of God, that you believe in Him, who He sent."

If the Son of Man will give me the food of everlasting life, and I am to labor for the food of everlasting life says the Lord, then to work out my salvation I must labor the food of everlasting life and if the labor of food which endures everlasting life is the work of God is to believe in whom He sent, then when Paul said "work out your salvation," he clearly meant believe in Jesus Christ, once again, the one He sent.

"with fear and trembling." cross reference="bondservents, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling in sincerity of heart, as to Christ;" be faithful obediently, in other words, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"


If Jesus is your salvation, and you are to work it out with fear and trembling, and fear and trembling mean obediently, and the definition of obedient is "complying with orders or requests; submissive to another's will," then you are to continue your faith,"as you have always obeyed," believe and be faithful to Jesus Christ, "work out your salvation," and be persistent and disciplined in believing, "with fear or trembling."

So actually, I would believe, using the bible as my reference as you can see, that Paul intended to say carrying on with your faith and love for the Lord and a Father, continue in an obedient manor, "work out your salvation" laboring everlasting life through the Lord, because it is God who puts the motivation in you so you may do good through Him. Why would Paul tell them "as you have always obeyed," if they literally still had to work out salvation?

Because if you continue to read to verse sixteen, you will read that he was saying you work for the good of Christ, through Christ, because if not, all your deeds were in vain. You must be saved, you must "obey" you must, "work out your salvation," for any of your good acts to be seen by God. Not the other way around! You do not do good acts and become saved, you do not have faith in Jesus and if you do enough good deeds you become saved, you become saved and do good acts because you are saved!

Because they spoke differently back in those ages, it is hard to understand what they mean if you just read it and take it out context. If I were to translate this into modern terms you would get something close to this, "As you have always believed in God, be sure to accept Him and worship him the most obediently for it is God who works in you to give you the desire and the action for His good pleasure."


That being taken care of, you are neither guaranteed to go to heaven by your deeds, nor are you denied heaven because of your sins.

You are guaranteed heaven because you have accepted the gospel, you are cleansed from your sins, and you are rewarded for your good deeds in heaven. Paul was not warning that yes, Jesus is just, but be careful what you do because you still might not get in if you mess up bad enough. The program changed after the Jews rejected their messiah Jesus Christ, God gave judgement to the Son, and said, whoever believes in My Son shall be saved, end of story.



"In Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." Eph. 1:7.


I shall keep you in my prayers; I am not debating to be right, but for the Truth to be heard. If you pray, you will know whether what I have to say is the real truth or not.

I will not respond to the above. However, I thank you for your interpretation you have given above. My only concern in my responding to your initial post was the error that you espoused against certain Catholic doctrines and practices and it is to these that I have directed my responses to.

Thank you for your prayers and God bless!

[Xian Pugilist]

>>>>>You seem to know a lot of baptism, therefore, that would mean you understand that baptism is not being saved, but only a symbol that you have accepted Christ. <<<


Well, baptism is not a symbol that you accepted Christ. Read the OT about all the ritual cleansings and understand what that would mean to the mind of the authors in the NT of baptisms.

When you understand their mindset, you will cringe at what you said there.

Or not....

[Fides et Veritas]

There are a GREAT many Christian sects/ communions/ churches.

BUT Only one is founded by Christ Himself. The Catholic Church.

So my friend, why are you NOT a Catholic?

God Bless,

Pat

I guess the best answer I can give is that I refuse to follow a religion based off of paganism and snippets of biblical ideals.

I firmly believe that the Catholic Church is the Woman that rides the scarlet beast of Revelations.

I believe that they are as anti-Christian as one can get.

Just because they have appropriated the name of Christ does not make them Christian. That Church was not founded by Christ, Peter nor Paul. It was founded by Simon... the sorcerer. He stole Christ's name and over the next few centuries the religion of Babylon was doctored up as they added pieces of Christianity into their faith to create a new belief system.

Just look at the massive amount of pagan beliefs that they pawn off as 'Christian'. Christmas, Easter, Trinity, Sunday worship, etc. Pick up your Bible and a good encyclopedia and look into it. There is nothing Biblical involved here, other than the claim.

They still worship Semiramis, just that they call her Mary now. She is still the queen of heaven that she claimed to be back when the towel of Babel was built.

Thats my take on why I am not a Catholic.

Well, that was certainly unfortunate.

Do you realize everything about the church Of Rome is more biblical and historically correct than any protestant denom? I'm protestant, and I tested those beliefs I was told were true and found most are hung over bigotry from catholic oppression pre reformation. Be original, do the due diligence and test your brlirvs.

Be original, do the due diligence and test your brlirvs

I am assuming that means I should test my beliefs. Spellcheck is a miracle, one that even I forget to use sometimes. So correct if I am wrong but 'beliefs' would fit well enough that I will run with it.

you must have felt stung to reply pedantics first. I'm typing with thumbe on a 4" screen. I assume I get close enough to be understood so choose not to dance through hoops to fix little things.

Well my friend. I find it amusing when people mistype or misspell. I am as guilty as anyone. And to be honest in this particular case it was more for clarification than anything else. I don't like having to assume what people mean when they mistype. What if I think it means something else than what the meant? Hmmmm... interesting though that.
So no, I am not stung nor hurt by your obvious appreciation for the most destructive religious force in history (though extremist Islam is trying hard to catch up). They destroyed God's word, made up their own beliefs incorporated paganism in direct violation of what God has said about pagan beliefs since before Babel. And that fact that you believe they are Biblical accurate just goes to show how vastly inaccurate you are.
So Pugsie... I have tested my beliefs, the beliefs of most protestant and orthodox religions and found that many are hugely lacking. Here is the thing to keep in mind. First go look at my sig and remember this one thing. If any part of what a denomination teaches is false than the whole thing is out with the garbage. God is not wrong. Neither is his Church. That is all the comfort I need to know what path I am one.
Any Church that prays to the Goddess of Heaven and maintains their supremacy over God and that they alone have the right to change the Bible is no church I want to be within an inch of believing the same thing.
So thanks. Been there, done that.

[quote="Fides et Veritas"Heres the deal. Since you have obviously tested these beliefs and me being a possible moron since you feel I am.

I never said that, but at this point, I'm not sure I would disagree with your clai,. You have now attacked me twice? Were you offended that I disagree with your assessment?[/quite]

First I would like to know what the two attacks were. Have you ever noticed that you run off on tangents of Straw men, hyperbole, personal attacks and non sequential issues that have little to do with the O.P and/ or discussion at hand?
What offends me Pugs is that you didn't offer anything to back up your assertion other than that you 'think' the Catholic church is right. I think we need more than your guesswork.
I personally am not going to argue semantics with you. If you would like to discuss and compare research and truth of the Catholic church and I'll be happy to engage. If you want to keep make non arguments and not providing any substantial proof of what you say then by all means go ahead, but be careful... you are already on probation and I don't want to see you go further than probation. Despite you inability to type and you weak arguments I like you. I like having you in debates, it makes things colorful. So give me some proof of your before iterated statement that the Catholic church is Biblical and we'll start there.

, where is the Biblical (Book, Chapter and verse) directive for Changing the Sabbath from 7th day to 1st? How about for replacing Passover with a pagan festival of fertility? And of course where do we find the command to celebrate Christ's birthday at the wrong time of year in accordance with another pagan ritual?

sabbath should not have been changed, but I understand the process it occured in, and it wasn't co spiratorial. Whatever day you celebrate Xmas or easter on, is irrelevant, its who you are celebrating that is the issue. Making a Xian celebration, on BIG pagan holiday periods was a genius of marketing, helping to break away from the old Gods.

Oh I see so yo know what I bet God is sitting on his throne right now thinking the following:� I sure am glad those Catholic guys are smarter than me. Here I forbid heathen/ pagan customs from my people and they undo it. They are so smarter than me. False conversion of those that are just trying to get the best of both worlds (paganism and not being killed by the Pope) is so much better than my way. I sure wish I had thought of that.� But somehow I doubt that.

There is just a few for starters. I can't wait to see all this information I have been missing over the years.

well they don't begin to start anything, they prove undeniably you have shallow knee jerk emotional thoughts, not researched and understood issues.

Talk about a shallow knee jerk reaction. That’s all your entire post was. So lets start again and how about you actually type something that begins to resemble a debate.

Let the lesson begin!!

I can't teach you, but you could learn. However first you would have to care to learn, and you seem really smug as a bug inna rug where you are at.

I am not smug. I am confident. How about you back your claims up with some proof of some kind. Then we can start getting somewhere.

[Xian Pugilist]

Most destructive movement in world history, atheist ran governments. Beats the alledged not even the somewhat smaller most accurat deathcounts against the Church of Rome.

I agree on the sabbath, but if that is all you have to my comment they are more biblically correct, then I hope some day you take the initiative to do the researcn.

There are a GREAT many Christian sects/ communions/ churches.

BUT Only one is founded by Christ Himself. The Catholic Church.

So my friend, why are you NOT a Catholic?

God Bless,

Pat

I guess the best answer I can give is that I refuse to follow a religion based off of paganism and snippets of biblical ideals.

I firmly believe that the Catholic Church is the Woman that rides the scarlet beast of Revelations.

I believe that they are as anti-Christian as one can get.

Just because they have appropriated the name of Christ does not make them Christian. That Church was not founded by Christ, Peter nor Paul. It was founded by Simon... the sorcerer. He stole Christ's name and over the next few centuries the religion of Babylon was doctored up as they added pieces of Christianity into their faith to create a new belief system.

Just look at the massive amount of pagan beliefs that they pawn off as 'Christian'. Christmas, Easter, Trinity, Sunday worship, etc. Pick up your Bible and a good encyclopedia and look into it. There is nothing Biblical involved here, other than the claim.

They still worship Semiramis, just that they call her Mary now. She is still the queen of heaven that she claimed to be back when the towel of Babel was built.

Thats my take on why I am not a Catholic.

Well, that was certainly unfortunate.

Do you realize everything about the church Of Rome is more biblical and historically correct than any protestant denom? I'm protestant, and I tested those beliefs I was told were true and found most are hung over bigotry from catholic oppression pre reformation. Be original, do the due diligence and test your brlirvs.

Be original, do the due diligence and test your brlirvs

I am assuming that means I should test my beliefs. Spellcheck is a miracle, one that even I forget to use sometimes. So correct if I am wrong but 'beliefs' would fit well enough that I will run with it.

you must have felt stung to reply pedantics first. I'm typing with thumbe on a 4" screen. I assume I get close enough to be understood so choose not to dance through hoops to fix little things.

Well my friend. I find it amusing when people mistype or misspell. I am as guilty as anyone. And to be honest in this particular case it was more for clarification than anything else. I don't like having to assume what people mean when they mistype. What if I think it means something else than what the meant? Hmmmm... interesting though that.
So no, I am not stung nor hurt by your obvious appreciation for the most destructive religious force in history (though extremist Islam is trying hard to catch up). They destroyed God's word, made up their own beliefs incorporated paganism in direct violation of what God has said about pagan beliefs since before Babel. And that fact that you believe they are Biblical accurate just goes to show how vastly inaccurate you are.
So Pugsie... I have tested my beliefs, the beliefs of most protestant and orthodox religions and found that many are hugely lacking. Here is the thing to keep in mind. First go look at my sig and remember this one thing. If any part of what a denomination teaches is false than the whole thing is out with the garbage. God is not wrong. Neither is his Church. That is all the comfort I need to know what path I am one.
Any Church that prays to the Goddess of Heaven and maintains their supremacy over God and that they alone have the right to change the Bible is no church I want to be within an inch of believing the same thing.
So thanks. Been there, done that.

[quote="Fides et Veritas"Heres the deal. Since you have obviously tested these beliefs and me being a possible moron since you feel I am.

I never said that, but at this point, I'm not sure I would disagree with your clai,. You have now attacked me twice? Were you offended that I disagree with your assessment?[/quite]

First I would like to know what the two attacks were. Have you ever noticed that you run off on tangents of Straw men, hyperbole, personal attacks and non sequential issues that have little to do with the O.P and/ or discussion at hand?
What offends me Pugs is that you didn't offer anything to back up your assertion other than that you 'think' the Catholic church is right. I think we need more than your guesswork.
I personally am not going to argue semantics with you. If you would like to discuss and compare research and truth of the Catholic church and I'll be happy to engage. If you want to keep make non arguments and not providing any substantial proof of what you say then by all means go ahead, but be careful... you are already on probation and I don't want to see you go further than probation. Despite you inability to type and you weak arguments I like you. I like having you in debates, it makes things colorful. So give me some proof of your before iterated statement that the Catholic church is Biblical and we'll start there.

, where is the Biblical (Book, Chapter and verse) directive for Changing the Sabbath from 7th day to 1st? How about for replacing Passover with a pagan festival of fertility? And of course where do we find the command to celebrate Christ's birthday at the wrong time of year in accordance with another pagan ritual?

sabbath should not have been changed, but I understand the process it occured in, and it wasn't co spiratorial. Whatever day you celebrate Xmas or easter on, is irrelevant, its who you are celebrating that is the issue. Making a Xian celebration, on BIG pagan holiday periods was a genius of marketing, helping to break away from the old Gods.

Oh I see so yo know what I bet God is sitting on his throne right now thinking the following:� I sure am glad those Catholic guys are smarter than me. Here I forbid heathen/ pagan customs from my people and they undo it. They are so smarter than me. False conversion of those that are just trying to get the best of both worlds (paganism and not being killed by the Pope) is so much better than my way. I sure wish I had thought of that.� But somehow I doubt that.

There is just a few for starters. I can't wait to see all this information I have been missing over the years.

well they don't begin to start anything, they prove undeniably you have shallow knee jerk emotional thoughts, not researched and understood issues.

Talk about a shallow knee jerk reaction. That’s all your entire post was. So lets start again and how about you actually type something that begins to resemble a debate.

Let the lesson begin!!

I can't teach you, but you could learn. However first you would have to care to learn, and you seem really smug as a bug inna rug where you are at.

I am not smug. I am confident. How about you back your claims up with some proof of some kind. Then we can start getting somewhere.

[Fides et Veritas]

Pugsy wugsy....



You have to actually read the reply. Generally helps. But I understand that you may feel that your are out of your league here. So feel free to run around the bush screaming "lalalalalalalala" at the top of your lungs. Now most of us will assume you are afraid to actually defend your stance, but some of us might also assume you are tying to do an interpretative dance and sing the Smurfs song.

So feel free to go back and re-read the posts and look at the other instances of anti-Christian actions of the Catholic church and then come back with a response.

[Xian Pugilist]

Do you always assume it wasn't read when you don't get the answer you want?

Do you really expect me to type a 10k response on my phone with my thumbs?

I do notice you desperately latch onto a chance to posture as more than me. I think that's rather cute.

AND btw, the pugsy thing, it's been done before, but it still makes me laugh.

Pugsy wugsy....



You have to actually read the reply. Generally helps. But I understand that you may feel that your are out of your league here. So feel free to run around the bush screaming "lalalalalalalala" at the top of your lungs. Now most of us will assume you are afraid to actually defend your stance, but some of us might also assume you are tying to do an interpretative dance and sing the Smurfs song.

So feel free to go back and re-read the posts and look at the other instances of anti-Christian actions of the Catholic church and then come back with a response.

[Fides et Veritas]

The pugsy thing is just for fun. LOL. I am glad that you find it amusing as well.
As to the rest.... you have yet to prove your assertion that the Catholic church is anyway Biblical. You said it my friend not me. So play by the rules and answer the opposing debates on for your lack of ability to answer direct questions.

I give an opinion that lists specific reasons why I feel the Catholic church is not only a fraud but out right evil. You in turn give your response providing your opinion, yet it was lacking of anything other than your opinion and empty claims. When pressed for information to back your claims you run from it and paint the other person as the one with a problem. Don't get me wrong painting me in a negative light is easily done. I provide plenty for that to happen. However, the difference is I play by the rules as best as I can manage and back up my claims.

Do me and the rest of us a favor and do the same...

Thanks

[McCulloch]

Do you baptise a child before they are aware of what being saved is?

The Scriptures demonstrate that the early Church baptized babies. In Acts, Peter preaches thus to the crowd:

"But Peter said to them; Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call" (Act 2:38-39).

In Acts 2:39, Peter identifies three groups of individuals who are the recipients of this promise: you, your children, and all who are far off. But Peter doesn’t stop there. Instead, he qualifies all three groups with the clause, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself. In other words, to how many of you has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of your children has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of those who are far off has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. God has promised to give the Holy Spirit to those whom He effectually calls and draws to Himself in salvation. This includes Peter’s immediate hearers (you), succeeding generations (your children), and even Gentiles in distant places (all who are far off).

[Xian Pugilist]

It is so fortunate you answered that before I saw it.

However, en pointe, I don't think that VS has anything to do with the reason they baptise babies. I don't think there is that much of an issue there, their reasoning is reasonable, but seems rather pointless.



quote="McCulloch"]

Do you baptise a child before they are aware of what being saved is?

The Scriptures demonstrate that the early Church baptized babies. In Acts, Peter preaches thus to the crowd:

"But Peter said to them; Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call" (Act 2:38-39).

In Acts 2:39, Peter identifies three groups of individuals who are the recipients of this promise: you, your children, and all who are far off. But Peter doesn’t stop there. Instead, he qualifies all three groups with the clause, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself. In other words, to how many of you has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of your children has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of those who are far off has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. God has promised to give the Holy Spirit to those whom He effectually calls and draws to Himself in salvation. This includes Peter’s immediate hearers (you), succeeding generations (your children), and even Gentiles in distant places (all who are far off).[/quote]