Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope

Cruciform

New member
Thanks for your explanation, I will read it and get back to you but I will not read the links. I've read them before and disagree with them. I would rather take a point and debate it with you.
Apparently, the effort of clicking on a link is just too strenuous for you...?
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
It's apparent that they viewed it necessary for salvation, as the bible states, to risk death.

Baptism is an augmentation. No non-Catholic church teaches a notion that baptism is salvific. Most of them actually see it as symbolic, or a signature specifically to one's loyalty to a given church. Also, honestly, I don't think the Catholic Church necessarily teaches it as salvific either.
It may just be a completely heretical notion.
 

turbosixx

New member

Prove what?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I was thinking about our conversations today and wondered if you believe the teachings of the church have to agree with the bible. In other words, can the traditions and teachings of the church contradict the bible because, lets say, a change in culture?
 

turbosixx

New member
Baptism is an augmentation. No non-Catholic church teaches a notion that baptism is salvific. Most of them actually see it as symbolic, or a signature specifically to one's loyalty to a given church. Also, honestly, I don't think the Catholic Church necessarily teaches it as salvific either.
It may just be a completely heretical notion.

I don't care what any group is teaching. What I care about is scripture. What does this passage tell you?

1 Pt. 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
I don't care what any group is teaching. What I care about is scripture. What does this passage tell you?

1 Pt. 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism is a signal of one's vow to God. It is done with witness, not in private.

It was a core way to establish one's faith, but is certainly not the only one. To say baptism is salvific is to say that not being baptized will condemn one- it's not the rite, but the action of stepping out and proclaiming one's faith where the augmentation lies.
 

turbosixx

New member
Baptism is a signal of one's vow to God. It is done with witness, not in private.

It was a core way to establish one's faith, but is certainly not the only one. To say baptism is salvific is to say that not being baptized will condemn one- it's not the rite, but the action of stepping out and proclaiming one's faith where the augmentation lies.

What scriptures are you using to support this view?
 

turbosixx

New member
Either way, you're reading a written explanation and articulation of doctrinal content. Why, then, the complaint?

I'm just thinking of you. From what I've seen, all you are doing is parroting what the rcc says. I was hoping if you could use scriptures to prove to me what the rcc is teaching is from God, you would be proving it to yourself as well. By posting links and cut/paste, you haven't proven anything to me or yourself.

The links I have read can not be supported by scripture, such as infant baptism. For example:

"However, just as the Israelite children did not choose to belong to the faith community, so the children of Christians need not choose to belong."

Is this notion supported by scripture. There is no question it's part of the old, why because we read about it, but do we see it in the new and living way? Can we read about it in the new and living way?
 

kayaker

New member
Apparently, the effort of clicking on a link is just too strenuous for you...?

Not at all. If I want to understand the teachings of the church by reading articles, why do I need you? I would google it.

Ask Crucifer to click on John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV and unveil the succinct and explicit details of those two testimonies of these two witnesses: John 8:18 KJV. Well... I know it's not too strenuous for him, he can just hover them, ROFLOL!

Those two testimonies corroborate Jesus' divinity (John 8:12 KJV) being "the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32 KJV) meeting the IF-THEN condition for His 'believers' (John 8:30 KJV) to become His "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV). Or, are there no disciples of Jesus among the Catholic Church? Wasn't that the great commission of Matthew 28:19? Then, let a Catholic Disciple step forth and render up the details of those two testimonies!

Ain't gonna happen, T6. So, don't get your hopes up, friend. Crucifer's skill set is admonishing the Catholic Church for the last two millennia, when God's church began six millennia in Genesis 4:26 KJV.

kayaker
 

turbosixx

New member
Ask Crucifer to click on John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV and unveil the succinct and explicit details of those two testimonies of these two witnesses: John 8:18 KJV. Well... I know it's not too strenuous for him, he can just hover them, ROFLOL!

Those two testimonies corroborate Jesus' divinity (John 8:12 KJV) being "the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32 KJV) meeting the IF-THEN condition for His 'believers' (John 8:30 KJV) to become His "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV). Or, are there no disciples of Jesus among the Catholic Church? Wasn't that the great commission of Matthew 28:19? Then, let a Catholic Disciple step forth and render up the details of those two testimonies!

Ain't gonna happen, T6. So, don't get your hopes up, friend. Crucifer's skill set is admonishing the Catholic Church for the last two millennia, when God's church began six millennia in Genesis 4:26 KJV.

kayaker

My hopes aren't up but I am hoping. I've wanted to talk with catholics before but all the ones I know don't know anything, bible or church teachings. All but one don't even go to "mass".
 

Cruciform

New member
From what I've seen, all you are doing is parroting what the rcc says.
...just as everything you post here merely parrots what your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has told you.

The rest of your post has already been answered in previous posts above.
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
What scriptures are you using to support this view?

It's the lack of scripture telling that the rite of baptism is salvific which supports my view. Something of such importance is not going to be left out or not expounded on.

Also, baptism has been historically known to be a device of control, the archaic church's way of branding it's sheep so that if they mess up they can be called divergent and marked for persecution.
 

RevTestament

New member
It's the lack of scripture telling that the rite of baptism is salvific which supports my view. Something of such importance is not going to be left out or not expounded on.
All one has to do is a scripture search on "baptized" or "baptism" to see there is no lack of scripture on the subject. And they all show not only Jesus and the apostles were baptized but also converts. It was expressly instructed by Jesus. Paul himself was baptized, yet men still teach it isn't "necessary." It is "the token" of one's covenant with Him, and is representative of our resurrection in Him. When Paul is talking to church members in his epistles it is usually assumed they have been baptized. Without baptism one might get saved from hell experience, but they won't get resurrected in His covenant - just fyi.

Also, baptism has been historically known to be a device of control, the archaic church's way of branding it's sheep so that if they mess up they can be called divergent and marked for persecution.
Doesn't matter if one is baptized or not - historically if one taught different principles from the RCC for instance, they could be subject to inquisition. Baptism was probably the least of issues.
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
All one has to do is a scripture search on "baptized" or "baptism" to see there is no lack of scripture on the subject. And they all show not only Jesus and the apostles were baptized but also converts. It was expressly instructed by Jesus. Paul himself was baptized, yet men still teach it isn't "necessary." It is "the token" of one's covenant with Him, and is representative of our resurrection in Him. When Paul is talking to church members in his epistles it is usually assumed they have been baptized. Without baptism one might get saved from hell experience, but they won't get resurrected in His covenant - just fyi.

It is not noted as being salvific.
Now, I'm all about reasonable deducing- not all things need to be literally stated.
But this is a special exception. The Bible is very thorough on what merits salvation, and tells you point blank. This is not the case with baptism.

Doesn't matter if one is baptized or not - historically if one taught different principles from the RCC for instance, they could be subject to inquisition. Baptism was probably the least of issues.

RCC doctrine is built on guilt. They could come and get you, and because of that stigma, no one would bat an eye.
A person without the privilege of being baptized and yet getting persecuted would raise concern. Unless of course they were Muslim or Jewish, but nonetheless, Christianity was always at war with itself just as much as anything else.
 

Cruciform

New member
This is where you are wrong and too blind to see. ALL I have ever posted is scripture.
ALL you have ever posted are the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect's interpretations/applications of Scripture.
 

everready

New member
...according to the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. But go ahead and offer an example of a Catholic teaching that you see as "against Scripture."


I interpret and understand Scripture all the time. I simply do so by comparing my understanding with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church. You, by contrast, compare your understanding of Scripture with the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Then explain how you buy your way out of purgatory, Peter had something to say about it what do you say?


everready
 
Top