[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Wow, that's a lot of text. I've debated Catholics before. The debate always bifurcates uncontrollably as the Catholic attempts overwhelm his opponent with non-sequiturs, out-of-context scripture, and attacks against strawmen of his own construction. It takes hours to dismantle every single one of his arguments, and if I miss a single one, the Catholic claims victory.

I'll do my best to address the most egregious errors, but if I don't get to all of them, it's because I don't want to sit here all evening working on this one post.

Mark 10:18

Out of context. Mark 10:18 doesn't mean you can't use the adjective "good" to describe a person.

John 8:44

Out of context. The Devil's ultimate goal it to make us believe lies, but that doesn't mean every single statement out of his mouth is false. Remember, Satan told Eve that if she ate the fruit, she would not die that day, her eyes would be opened, and she would know good and evil. That was all true.

Constantine may have "declared" himself Catholic at around age 40 but he still maintained the title of Pontifex Maximus, which emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood.

Right, and the Pope today is the head of the pagan priesthood.

The History of the claim to be Vicar of Christ

To begin with, the Bishop of Rome claimed to be the vicar of Caesar -- and his successors the rightful heirs to the Caesars. ...


Gradually, other Bishops and national monarchs accepted him as vicar and successor to Caesar with the same supreme title of “Pontifex Maximus.”
Next, the Bishops of Rome claimed to be “The vicar of the prince of the apostles”[1], that is, the vicar of Peter.[2] Thus, in the early fifth century, Bishop Innocent I (401-417 A.D.) insisted that Christ had delegated supreme power to Peter and made him the Bishop of Rome.
more...

These were not "bibles" per say but collections of some of the inspired works but also probably had some of the more popular spurious works as well. So we don't know exactly what these were.

A collection of inspired works is exactly what the Bible is.

It was later under under Pope Damasus that we get a definitive canon.

Wrong again. The Muratorian Canon was written in 170 AD.

There were no writing assignments among the apostles. No apostle knew they were writing what would be considered bits and pieces of inspired word and were under no commandment from Jesus to write anything for that matter.

The apostles might not have been aware of it, but God knew how he was using them.

Am I to believe a strange man who has no apostolic succession or teaching authority and never knew Christ

You are already believing a strange man with no provable apostolic succession or teaching authority who never knew Christ.

Every single Bishop of the Catholic Church was hand picked by a successor of Peter and physically "layed on of hands" to convey apostolic authority. The Catholic Church has known Jesus and the apostles and their successors for 2,000 years. These were all our friends and family. No other Church on the planet can make this claim except or Orthodox brethren in the east who have a true apostolic succession too and are attempting to reunify.

Those claims are Catholic legends and traditions, not documented history. Anyone can make claims.

There is no such concept as "easy believism" and salvation through self-proclamation. No man is saved until God judges him saved. No man can deny God His sovereign right to judge and make no mistake about it God will judge and many 10's of millions and perhaps even hundred of million or billions will go to hell. But we also know that God will be merciful to whom He chooses to be merciful

I agree 100%. Man can't save himself with words. God saves people.

The problem with Catholicism is that you think a person can't know if he's saved. You want to keep people in a perpetual state of fear and insecurity. The Bible tells us how to be assured of our salvation. We can know if we are saved, and the Bible tells us how.

2Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
2Cor 13:6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

After baptism Protestants have NO way to get forgiven of mortal sins since only the apostles and their successors have the authority to loose and bind sins (sacramental confession).

Then it's a good thing that saved Christians don't sin. We stop sinning once we get saved. If you think you're saved, but you are running around sinning, guess what -- you ain't.

1John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

If you are saved, you don't sin. If you sin, you aren't saved.

1John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Born again Christians CANNOT sin. HALLELUJAH! Thank you Jesus! The LORD is so good!

Matthew 7:21 (KJV)
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Good works are evidence of salvation, but they aren't the means to salvation. Salvation is a gift of God, and good works are the fruit of that gift.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Hope to see you in the other side brother...

I hope so too. All you have to do is put aside your pride and listen to Jesus.

Please reconsider the biblical evidence that God has always worked through priests and His specially chosen authorities.

That's how it worked under the old covenant, with the God appointed priests and the laws about the rigorous sacrifice schedules and such. The old covenant was like a school master, preparing us for age of Grace.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Even the common sense of reason and the natural order of Creation tells us this truth. Clearly, if there was no earthly authority or law we would have severe anarchy and disorder; and this is not Godly since He is good and the essence of order and law.

I said there is no human intermediary between God and man. That is scripture (John 16:13, Gal 3:20). I never called for an abolition of spiritual leaders and secular government.[/quote]

Please see the following references.

None of those are relevant. The Bible tells us to rightly divide the Word of Truth, and that's exactly what you aren't doing. The verses in Acts about how the apostles ordained other apostles is history, not relevant today. The apostles with their signs and wonders were for the unbelieving first century Jews. The only "apostles" we have today are the ones described in 2 Cor 11. Of course, if your priest DOES have apostolic authority, then he should be able to be instantly fluent in any language (Mark 16:17), or he should be able to drink a bottle of bleach with no ill effect (Mark 16:18).

First of all let's address Baptism holistically. Here is what the Bible tells us about the need for true Christians to be baptised.

You have erected a strawman, which you have soundly trounced. Congratulations. No one claimed that baptism is meaningless symbolism. You seem to be claiming that baptism in and of itself is the way to salvation. Baptism is an act of obedience, distinct from salvation. Do you think that someone who repents and believes, but dies before being baptized, goes to Hell? Do you think that someone who accepts baptism, but does not repent and does not believe goes to Heaven?

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Pay attention to what that verse doesn't say. It doesn't say he that is not baptized shall be damned.

Notice that Eph 2:8-9 says For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. It does NOT say ye are saved through faith AND BAPTISM.

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.

Irrelevant. There is nothing in this passage that states that baptism cleanses one of something called "original sin".

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.

Repentence is the necessary condition.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic.

I never claimed that baptism was meaningless. You are fighting your own strawmen.

There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

How about here:
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
That did not say, justified by faith AND BAPTISM.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
That did not say, justified by faith AND BAPTISM.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
That did not say, justified by faith AND BAPTISM.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
That did not say, saved through faith AND BAPTISM.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
That did not say, whosoever believeth in him AND IS BAPTIZED should not perish.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
That did not say, he that believeth in him AND IS BAPTIZED is not condemned, nor did it say he that believeth not OR IS NOT BAPTIZED is not condemned already, nor did it say because he hath not believed OR BEEN BAPTIZED.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
That did not say, except a man be born again AND BE BAPTIZED.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
That did not say, he that heareth my word, believeth on him that sent me, AND IS BAPTIZED.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
That did not say, confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, AND BE BAPTIZED.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
That did not say, all that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, AND IS BAPTIZED.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved."

You left out half of the verse, which I have already addressed.

The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

I'm afraid it does.

Acts 8:36 ως δε επορευοντο κατα την οδον ηλθον επι τι υδωρ και φησιν ο ευνουχος ιδου υδωρ τι κωλυει με βαπτισθηναι
Acts 8:37 ειπεν δε ο φιλιππος ει πιστευεις εξ ολης της καρδιας εξεστιν αποκριθεις δε ειπεν πιστευω τον υιον του θεου ειναι τον ιησουν χριστον
Acts 8:38 και εκελευσεν στηναι το αρμα και κατεβησαν αμφοτεροι εις το υδωρ ο τε φιλιππος και ο ευνουχος και εβαπτισεν αυτον

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?

The first thing I wanted to do once I got saved was to get baptized (for real this time). Baptism is not a necessary condition for salvation -- salvation is a necessary condition for a meaningful baptism.

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?

The same reason I quit sinning after I got saved. It is just something saved people do.

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.

The text does NOT say that he had to be baptized before his sins were forgiven. His sins were forgiven first, the scales fell from his eyes, and THEN he got baptized.

I skipped the rest of those because you are pretty much doing the same thing. I don't believe, and I never claimed, that baptism is meaningless symbolism. It is very important, and it is the first thing you should do once you get saved. It's only meaningless if you aren't saved. Repent and be baptized, believe and be baptized.

And now let's talk about what the bible teaches us about infant baptism.

Before we do that, how about you explain to me how an infant is capable of repenting and believing.

Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

You are making an unwarranted leap.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Job 14 says nothing about baptism. We need God's grace.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Psalm 51:5 says nothing about baptism. We need God's grace.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

The verse does not support your conclusion.

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

The verse does not support your conclusion.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

The verse has nothing to do with baptism.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer.

This verse works strongly against your point.

Anyone can get baptized, but it only means something if you are a believer. That's why people who don't believe are condemned whether or not they are baptized.

This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized.

Believer's baptism is not a Protestant belief, it is a Baptist belief that comes straight from the Bible. Protestants like Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc all baptize infants who are too young to possibly be able to repent and believe.

There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Except for all the calls to believe and be baptized.

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

No one said it was.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”)

No, it doesn't.

Acts 2:38 πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων επι τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων και ληψεσθε την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος

Literally, and Peter said unto them reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Looks like I have caught you in another lie.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults.

Acts 2:39 says no such thing.

Acts 2:39 for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.'

This is starting to get really tiresome.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

And neither verse has anything whatsoever to do with baptism.

I hope that helps you understand what the Bible teaches Catholics about Baptism and Infant Baptism Brother Billy.

I already knew what Catholics teach about Baptism. This isn't the first time I've had this very same debate.

This was a long post. Here is the gist.

• The so-called unbroken line of succession from Peter to Benedict is a myth.
• Baptism is important, but it doesn't mean anything if you aren't saved. That's why calls to be baptized are accompanied by calls to repent and believe. It's also why there is no place in the Bible that states that people who repent and believe but are not baptized are condemned.
• There is no intermediary between man and God (John 16:13, Gal 3:20). We don't need to go sit in a dark room and have a man in a dress tell us to chant a few spells to receive absolution for sins committed since we got saved, because saved Christians do not sin (1John 3:6-9). If you are continuing to sin after your baptism, then you have concrete proof that you are not saved.

I spent three hours responding to something that you copied and pasted from a Catholic propaganda website. I won't do it again. Next time you post a huge wall of text instead of just getting to the point, don't be surprised to find your post removed.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I’m not sure I agree with the word “priest” – disciple, apostle, follower, yes, but priest?

I am looking at the Bible Holistically from OT to NT. Clearly, the pattern of High Priest is seen from ancient times in the OT as it was prefigured with Abel and then later extended through the Levitical/Aaronic priestly orders. Of course in the NT Jesus becomes the new High Priest of the highest priestly order (Melchezedec - see scripture quote below). As a point of interest please know that all Catholic priests and bishops are ordained according to this rites for this same Melchizedek order. As such they are ordained to offer up the perfect and singularly pleasing sacrifice (Christ on the Cross) to God through the heavenly High Priest (Jesus) of this order who is forever before God. Catholic priests invoke the exact SAME perpetual sacrifice that stands forever pleasing before God's altar in heaven (note: its not sacrificing but rather bringing to mind the same one time sacrifice which is pleasing to God) through the mass and the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (just like in the upper room in the NT).

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

You have omitted the probity and authenticity of the keeper of the law.

God is not mocked. Probity and authenticity are manifest at the time of individual judgement or at such time as God elects to loose His wrath against the disunity of the 33,000 false Protestants sects. The Greater Good present in God's Divine Providence are Divine assurances to the elect that there is not one single thing evil men can do through the wild free election to sin that can diminish God's glory or end objective for Creation. I fully expect a chastisement and corrective action are eminent however.

Now why would anyone disagree with Rome? the holders of the office of the vicar of Rome were, in their majority, not renowned for being good men.

Why would Satan disagree with God and with full knowledge of eternal consequence rebel? Pride is a mighty motivator for rebellion and this is why Protestants are in the morass of moral decay they find themselves in.
The Catholic Church has never claimed its ecclesial leaders are impeccable. Nay, the Bible tells us that All men are sinners. What we are assured of though through the promise to the office of Peter is that the gates of hell shall not prevail. God help those who are caught tupping the the goats when The Good Shepherd comes to correct His flock.

Your judgement of the Vicars of Christ is without historical basis and only God may judge. The Catholic Church freely admits that there have been some bad popes - but again Catholics are very human just as Peter was when he failed but repented. Jesus did not come to save the just who put their faith in the Law. No, He came to save sinner and will perfect His church. The heresies in fact are how Jesus culls the heard to remove the disloyal and the disobedient who only offer up lip service.

If you wish to judge others then you might like to judge the principal men of the reformation who were caught up in the most vile of vices - wanton fornicators and even adulterers are well documented. I can give references if desired.

But here we have men of equal rank appointing others to equal rank to go forth themselves as missionaries and selection is done by lots. Membership of the Apostles is in question here, not papal succession.

What is in question here is succession of ecclesial authority. No one may appoints himself a priest of God like protestant ministers do. That modern tradition was NEVER seen in the Church until after the 1520's and the Protestant Revolution. True apostolic succession is conveyed by divine calling AND by approval of a current apostolic bishop AND by physical laying on of hands with a priestly rite and apostolic blessing. This is a real conveyance of spiritual authority that extends all the way back to Peter and the authority to loose and bind.

The Catholic Church ecclesial structure is almost identical in structure to the original apostolic structure - that is it is very flat. All bishops are peers and from these one is chosen and appointed by other others to lead. This one calls himself "servant of the servants of God" and this is the one we in modern times call "papa" - or in English the "pope". Bishops report only to one authority - the Chair of Peter in Rome (the pope). This is exactly how it was in the early church. There is no concept of rank per say except that we make a spiritual distinction between bishops, priests and deacons. Only Bishops may select, sponsor and ordain another bishop (with papal approval) or a priest. A priest serves a bishop and is empowered to offer the mass and convert the bread and wine but can not ordain another priest. A deacon is an assistant to a priest and can read the liturgy and bless but not perform a mass and consecrate the bread and wine.

You must be careful of using phrases like “authority” and “Bishopric” – the bishops of the catholic church are sinners who defy the word of God.

The bible tells us all men are sinners - including you. No man is always perfect and this is why Catholic bishops must go to confession just like you and I should when they make mistakes and sin.

A cynic might add, as a way of raising money and having political influence.

Another cynic might say "halleluia brother pass the hat and tithe - your self appointed hired paster needs a tax free raise and a new car for his wife and new baby".

He never said that he would give anyone leaders, the apostles took it upon themselves to select from amongst their ranks in equality.

The bible tells us otherwise. Jesus gave Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), and appointed him as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

Of course with the authority of the keys the apostles and their successors are free to set their own rules and guidelines on how to manage The Church.

Let us not forget that “to be ordained” merely means to be appointed.

Your understated words "merely" suggest you do not understand that these men have the profound power to loose or bind your sins and thereby directly effect your salvation. No other men on earth have this power. Thus ordination is a spiritual authority and special anointing that no one but Catholic and Orthodox clergy still legitimately hold (the Anglican's lost theirs when they rebelled, Protestantized the ordination rites and swore allegiance to their new King of their Church [King Henry VIII etc.] and let the original Catholic bishops all die off or executed them). Ordination starts with a direct calling by God to be a priest and then after many years of discernment and study and preparation (and prayer) an apostolic bishop formally conveys a spiritual authority through physical laying on of hands.

Fine $10 words but we are talking here about people appointing people of equal merit, we are not talking a behemoth of a business conglomerate with everything from peons to a CEO.

See prior comments.

I suppose I better what makes you think that Ananias was a bishop – he was a Disciple, this we know, but a bishop?

Yes, according to the 2,000 year old Catholic insights and traditions Ananias was one of the original 72 disciples and these had a level of spiritual authority of a bishop. He was the Bishop of Damascus.

I’m not going any further with this. You’re confabulating Bishops, Apostles, and Disciples and your unimpressive use of “ordination” has left me with the intense feeling that a Jesuit believes 7 impossible things before breakfast.

You apparently don't understand that all the apostles were in fact Bishops. This is the highest office of the Catholic Church. Even the pope is a Bishop - but the pope is a bishop with a special role to act a lead bishop for the entire Church and other bishops. The word disciples takes on different meaning as time progresses. The Apostles were all Disciples (as well as bishops). The 72 were all disciples - as well as had the ecclesial power of bishops.

Anyway, as you’re so keen on bishops, and as none of the vicar of Rome’s bishops are married, what do you make of this?

1Tm:3:1: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Tm:3:2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Tm:3:3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Tm:3:4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Tm:3:5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Tm:3:6: Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Tm:3:7: Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

None of this implies that marriage is a requirement for being a bishop. If that were the case John would not have been a bishop. The early church as it was forming and had to have leadership permitted married bishops and priests. This custom was later changed as the church developed and became well established. The Catholic church continues to emulate Christ's example of celibacy but actually does not have a hard and set rule prohibiting married priests.

What do you think of these scriptures?

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.


Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage).

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul uses an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

More here: Rev. 14:4, Isaiah 56:3-7, Jer. 16:1-4

Peace,ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I spent three hours writing a post that dismantled each of your half-truths and non-sequiturs, and put your out-of-context scripture back into context, and you completely ignored it.

Typical Jesuit debate tactics.

<snip regurgitated arguments that I have already addressed>

This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

None of those verses say that. I won't believe anyone has apostolic authority until I see him drink a jug of bleach with no ill effect.

Your understated words "merely" suggest you do not understand that these men have the profound power to loose or bind your sins and thereby directly effect your salvation. No other men on earth have this power.

No man on Earth has the power to forgive sins, and no man has the power to effect anyone else's salvation. No man can even affect another's salvation, much less effect it. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

What you are saying has no basis in scripture.

You apparently don't understand that all the apostles were in fact Bishops.

According to Catholic tradition.

If that were the case John would not have been a bishop.

It looks like you just proved he wasn't a bishop.

The Catholic church continues to emulate Christ's example of celibacy but actually does not have a hard and set rule prohibiting married priests.

Oh really?

Pope Benedict XVI made it clear at a Vatican summit in 2006 that he believes in mandatory celibacy for priests as a nonnegotiable job requirement for showing devotion to God and the people they serve.


The Vatican requires celibacy of priests ordained under the Latin rite, but married men can become priests in the Eastern Orthodox rite.

Looks like I have caught you in yet another lie. You are close to being gonged.

What do you think of these scriptures?

Celibacy is a gift and is recommended, but is not a requirement. It has the full weight of good advice.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided ...

The Catholic church doctrine forbids priests to marry. Paul included the forbidding of marriage in a list of "doctrines of devils". Those are the plain facts and no amount of weaseling will change that.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I spent three hours writing a post that dismantled each of your half-truths and non-sequiturs, and put your out-of-context scripture back into context, and you completely ignored it.

Typical Jesuit debate tactics.




None of those verses say that. I won't believe anyone has apostolic authority until I see him drink a jug of bleach with no ill effect.


No man on Earth has the power to forgive sins, and no man has the power to effect anyone else's salvation. No man can even affect another's salvation, much less effect it. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

What you are saying has no basis in scripture.


According to Catholic tradition.


It looks like you just proved he wasn't a bishop.



Oh really?
Looks like I have caught you in yet another lie. You are close to being gonged.


Celibacy is a gift and is recommended, but is not a requirement. It has the full weight of good advice.


The Catholic church doctrine forbids priests to marry. Paul included the forbidding of marriage in a list of "doctrines of devils". Those are the plain facts and no amount of weaseling will change that.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Brother Billy I was responding to Ezekial Bathfire's post - not yours. I have not even gotten to your comments yet. So unless you are running a dopple/puppet account for EzBath then please give me time to respond since its late here and I just got your response.

As a quick comment of clarification to your charge that I am wrong about the Catholic rule on ordaining only single priests you need to accept that you are not an expert on Catholicism and don't know that there are special exceptions for the case of married Episcopal priests who are converting to Catholicism in mass now that Anglicanism is deconstructing in the wake of Protestantism's general world wide meltdown that is accelerating now. Do not make the mistake of confusing tradition and ecclesial policy with official Dogma. There is nothing in the dogma that prevents us from choosing to permit the ordination of married priests. We just elect NOT to in most cases since we hold ourselves to a higher standard. You are right that Orthodox permit married priests so its possible for a true apostolic Christian who wants to serve as a married priest to do so through the Orthodox Church. We will likely permit the Orthodox to continue this tradition if we suceed in getting them reunited - at least for a while. But in general Christ's celibacy and virginity is our standard that we try to emulate.

Peace,
ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Brother Billy I was responding to Ezekial Bathfire's post - not yours.

Yes, I am aware that you hadn't responded to mine.

As a quick comment of clarification to your charge that I am wrong about the Catholic rule on ordaining only single priests you need to accept that you are not an expert on Catholicism ... But in general Christ's celibacy and virginity is our standard that we try to emulate.

OK, so you are saying that the policy is that celibacy is a highly recommended but negotiable requirement for priesthood. That's interesting. YOU should have been pope, because the one you've got now thinks it's a mandatory nonnegotiable requirement. What an ignoramus! You must be more of an expert on Catholicism than HE is! Maybe from now on, if I want to know about Catholicism, I'll ask you instead of reading what the Pope has to say, because he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

...Mark 10:18 doesn't mean you can't use the adjective "good" to describe a person.

I'll concede this but the man you referenced is full of hate and that is not an attribute of a saved Child of God.

...The Devil's ultimate goal it to make us believe lies, but that doesn't mean every single statement out of his mouth is false....

No major issue here - we know that Satan twisted scripture to tempt Jesus in much the same way that many well meaning but deceived Protestants do to justify their many false doctrines that were never before actually taught by an apostle but appear plausible since some out of context references can be found in the bible. This is EXACTLY why a true believer must have been TAUGHT by an apostolic teaching authority to know what a real apostle actually taught. Too many Protestants are cherry picking their owe favorite verses out of scripture to fabricate a pretty bead of pearls to justify them sinning in the false assurances that they are saved. I know you do not believe that one is free to sin like some of these other denominations do - so that is good and we are in agreement here at least.

Right, and the Pope today is the head of the pagan priesthood.

The Catholic Church is a royal priesthood a people set apart as God's very own nation. What other religion on the planet has its own world recognized nation except for the Catholic Church?

1 Peter 2:9-10 (KJV) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Deut 14:2
2For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

A collection of inspired works is exactly what the Bible is.

We agree. But who told you what was inspired? The answer is The Catholic Church did since you accepted our NT cannon when the KJV was first printed some 1500 years distant to when the Catholic Church was first founded at Calvary.

Wrong again. The Muratorian Canon was written in 170 AD.

Ahem, Brother Billy, you do know that the Muratorian Canon contained spurious works do you not (e.g. Apocalypse of Peter )? It also contains the book of Wisdom and everyone knows Baptists have rejected wisdom since its too Catholic sounding. Let me also point out that even the Muratorian Canon contains explicit references to "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" and you admit you are not Catholic so why would you reference a Catholic soruce that Pope Damasus used as a starting point to give you your cannon?

...
That there is one church defused throughout the whole earth is shown. by this seven fold writing and John also in the Apocalypse. Even though he writes the seven churches, he speaks to all. But he wrote out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, two to Timothy and these are held sacred in the honorable esteem of the church catholic, in the regulation of Ecclesiastical discipline...

You are already believing a strange man with no provable apostolic succession or teaching authority who never knew Christ.

Those claims are Catholic legends and traditions, not documented history. Anyone can make claims.

We have 2,000 years of continuous presence of popes and all the archaeological artifacts of the early church in our museums - so how can make this claim with any credibility? Do you have proof that you are the great great grandson of your predecessors? A pope and his bishops have been in continuous rein from the very beginning. What successor of an apostle ordained you brother? We have written records of all our bishop's apostolic successor that go back as far as written records were maintained and not destroyed by enemies of the Church and by decay of time but the greater proof is in the fact that the original Papal church Basilica of St. John Lateran (the Lateran Palace presided over by Pope Sylvester I in 324) and the Vatican and Peter's bones and coffin are still present in Rome to this day.

St. Thomas was a doubter too - but his doubt did not change fact. Have you ever been to Rome brother?

The problem with Catholicism is that you think a person can't know if he's saved. You want to keep people in a perpetual state of fear and insecurity. The Bible tells us how to be assured of our salvation. We can know if we are saved, and the Bible tells us how.

Not really true brother Billy. No one wants fear and anxiety over such things as salvation - certainly not me. But there are no guarantees in life - only choices and how we deal our bad ones. Catholics believe that God gives us "signal graces" over our lives that give us greater and greater confidence in our own salvation. We develop an inner peace and find ourselves just wanting to "do good things" for God. We do not believe in works salvation but can see by our own actions that we are serving God when we see the changes in our lives - loving more, being more charitable, taking insults from our enemies without hating them etc. A lot of what you are saying here came out of some myths of the Reformation. Luther in particular was believed to be mentally unstable and had a scrupulous mind that made him seek a a way to quiet his conscience since he kept sinning gravely (drinking heavily, and fornicating etc.). So Luther invented an "easy believism" where men are free to 'sin and sin boldly since God's grace is so great' that he seemed to suggest we should put our faith to the test by sinning!!! Absurd of course and evil. So of course Catholics who were very frank about teaching one can not sin and MUST not sin were slandered for holding to this truth. Fortunately Catholics also believe that even if we sin after dedicating ourselves to God that He will still forgive us 70 times 7 times if we truly make every effort to repent and pray and go to sacramental confession.

This reply is getting long Brother Billy. I need to do something right now and will come back. So Let me close here momentarily and restart a new post a bit later for the balance of what I have not yet addressed.

God Bless,
ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

...

Then it's a good thing that saved Christians don't sin. We stop sinning once we get saved. If you think you're saved, but you are running around sinning, guess what -- you ain't.

If you are saved, you don't sin. If you sin, you aren't saved.

Born again Christians CANNOT sin. HALLELUJAH! Thank you Jesus! The LORD is so good!

That is the standard of course – but we all know that the apostles all sinned and that in God’s profound holiness and purity that we offend Him at even the slightest sin of omission or transient though of sexual desire etc. God knows we are human and are at constant spiritual warfare with our own fallen natures. This is why Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins in two ways: one through baptism for initial believers (that wipes out every personal sin and what we call Original sin inherited from Adam). The other way is through sacramental confession for very grave sins. The good news is that minor sins (what we call venial) like accidentally using a dirt word under our breath if we hit our hand with a hammer etc. can be forgiven instantly by simple prayer (ref. The Lord’s Prayer where we say daily ‘forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us’).

Accepting Christ as our savior and dedicating our lives to Him does not make us automatically immune to sin. Some Protestants believe in a new doctrine of man called “Once Saved Always Saved” (OSAS). The Bible has over 200 passages that reject this wrong but comforting idea since a person is not saved until God judges them saved.

Brother Billy if you believe that a person who dedicates himself to Jesus, believes in Jesus and is baptized but later commits a sin is not saved you are simply wrong. It’s not that cut and dry. God is merciful to those who love greatly, or to those who show mercy and compassion to others and for those who repent and confess their sins before the Church (it used to be public but now its in front of the Church representative [priest] in privacy). So it first of all depends on the severity of the person’s sin. If it was a grave sin (fornication, adultery, preaching a different non-apostolic gospel etc.) that was consciously committed with foreknowledge then that person is no longer in God’s grace and is at risk of going to hell if they die unrepentant. But if the sin(s) is a minor venial sin (e.g. not returning that extra quarter the cashier accidentally over paid you in change) you are not going to go to hell for this (simply pray to God that you are sorry and try to pay it back later). But in the first case of grave sin one can return to God’s grace since God is a forgiving God to those who approach Him in humility and with a contrite heart. So it all depends on if that grave sinner later realizes their mistake and has a change of heart, repents and seeks sacramental forgiveness for that sin. Fortunately Jesus gave His Church the apostolic authority of loosing and binding just these kinds of sins through the Catholic sacrament of confession. When absolved of the sin and the repentant sinner performs penance and is sincere he regains his grace with God and can be assured of His salvation again and continue in his walk with The Lord.

I can give you dozens of scripture verses to back all this up if you like.

I said there is no human intermediary between God and man. That is scripture (John 16:13, Gal 3:20). I never called for an abolition of spiritual leaders and secular government.

Of course I didn’t think you would put yourself out of salaried job.
One may always pray to God and express sorrow for their sins. But you were the one who wanted guarantees of salvation just a little bit earlier. God may elect to forgive a person that He judges is sincere in their repentance but this is not the normal way that Jesus wanted it for the very reason that no one knows if God accepted those prayers. This is exactly why Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins so a person can be 100% sure that if they are sincere in their repentance they are in fact forgiven and can get on with their lives without being scrupulous or fearful of His wrath. I have already given you the scriptures verses for this. You might also want to recollect “The Lord’s Prayer” in the bible that tells us to pray each day for our daily bread and to forgive others so we may be forgiven.

...

None of those are relevant. The Bible tells us to rightly divide the Word of Truth, and that's exactly what you aren't doing. The verses in Acts about how the apostles ordained other apostles is history, not relevant today. The apostles with their signs and wonders were for the unbelieving first century Jews. The only "apostles" we have today are the ones described in 2 Cor 11. Of course, if your priest DOES have apostolic authority, then he should be able to be instantly fluent in any language (Mark 16:17), or he should be able to drink a bottle of bleach with no ill effect (Mark 16:18).

And so I have rightly divided the Word. You just don’t want to accept the truth as it was actually taught by the apostles. This is why Catholics do not need to even worry about “dividing the word” since we have the original teaching authority and traditions of the apostles that tell us exactly what was taught. You can dismiss what I am saying around your own private interpretation and divisions just as can the pastors of the 33,000 other non-Catholic denominations. What makes your division any better than these others Brother? What is your personal pedigree? Who taught you how to divide God’s word? The apostles taught the Catholic bishops and all their successors.

And your acid test of apostolic authority is just silly and not biblical Brother Billy. Would you be willing to take your own test? I bet not. We discern and test by one’s fruits. Catholics have been in existence from the very beginning – 2000 years. We have simply outlived all our detractors, kings and nations. There is a reason for this – we are the TrueChurch.


Again, this is running long so let me close here and readdress more of what you have said in another post a bit later.

God Bless,
ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Please bear with me - its taking me time to get to all your questions and comments.

You have erected a strawman, which you have soundly trounced. Congratulations. No one claimed that baptism is meaningless symbolism. You seem to be claiming that baptism in and of itself is the way to salvation. Baptism is an act of obedience, distinct from salvation. Do you think that someone who repents and believes, but dies before being baptized, goes to Hell? Do you think that someone who accepts baptism, but does not repent and does not believe goes to Heaven?

No, it was not an intentional strawman brother Billy and the bible makes the case that baptism is the normal way that a Christian is initiated into the faith. But it is just the start for a Christian who wants to walk all the way with The Lord up the hill of Calvary, enter through the narrow gate of the cross where the blood of the lamb is sprinkled over the door lentil and step into the glory of the promised land.

Honestly, I did not know your true belief in the area of baptism and had to make some assumptions since so many non-Catholics think that Baptism is a mere symbol. I am actually quite relieved to discover that you do not believe this since Baptism is profoundly powerful. When Jesus entered the waters for His own baptism His divinity forever all sanctified water with the divine power to forgive sins and to make it possible for a baptized Christian to immediately receive the Holy Spirit when the customary rite is performed with the proper intention and Trinitarian formula (In the name of God, Son and Holy Spirit).

Let me clarify that Baptism is how we formally get our initial seed of Faith (The Living Word) through The Church implanted into our heart. It matters not if we walk to the waters on our own or someone carries us there as a child. Baptism is what makes it normatively possible for any of us to be saved since in that moment we are born into a new humanity that is formed of new parents. We literally get a new humanity formed on the prototype of Jesus as the new Adam (and Mary as the new Eve). That's pretty exciting since through Jesus we have the spiritual DNA if you will to share in a divine-human nature and are elevated above our original humanity. This is pretty exciting since God wants us to love Him at a higher level than a human normally can. We literally step out of the fallen and limited nature of Adam and Eve to open ourselves to a new life where God can grow us into new beings that have a superior divine-human nature (always subordinate to Jesus) rather than a fallen human nature subordinate to Satan (subject to death). This is why Catholics have a traditional saying "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer." For God so loves us that to save us He will not only restore us to our pre-fallen nature which was originally perfect in Adam but will ELEVATE us to a higher nature than even Adam to make it possible for us to Love God as only Christ can. This is the powerful message that most non-Catholics never hear - we are to become literal children of God through Christ and have a share in a divine nature!! OMG - people just have no idea what God has in store for us:

1 Cor 2:9 (KJV) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

So after baptism grace immediately starts to take root in us and through our conforming our wills to God’s we cooperate with that grace over our entire lives to let God transform us into new children of light. We hope that God takes us (as one takes a ripe fruit from the tree) later in life at our peek level of grace in due season. In Baptism Christ literally takes residence within us and we He becomes part of us while letting us also retain our own unique identity - God does not want robots and will call us each by individual name.

So to answer your question – yes baptism is a normal pre-requisite that leads to salvation. But there are some exceptions. A person can receive a "baptism by desire" (as did the Good Thief through empathetic and solidarity of suffrage) as well as a "baptism by blood" (Martyerdom - dieing to protect the faith or dieing while helping a Christian under persecution etc.). Thus someone in a remote part of the world who did not have an opportunity for a water baptism but through direct revelation from God as inspired perhaps by the manifest presence of seeing God’s glory in nature could be baptized by his natural desire to love God the Creator of all. God is free to save who He will independent of the sacraments since He is sovereign. But the normative way that gives us certain knowledge that we are on the right path to salvation is through water baptism.

To answer more of your questions let me say this:
The person who is baptized but refuses to cooperate with that baptismal grace and consciously continues to sin gravely is going to land in hell if they do not repent before death. That is actually the one unforgivable sin - to die impenitent against all pleadings of the Holy Spirit to repent. This is the unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - hell is automatic and immutable. Fortunately, God calls all men to salvation and constantly floods us with His grace to come seek Him out and repent. The hardened sinner and the person who does not love or the person who publicly by word or deed rejects God or Christ is toast unless she repents – no matter if baptized or not.

A person who desires Christ and dedicates their life to Christ but does not know that he must be baptized is probably going to receive a “baptism by desire” spiritually by Jesus as High Priest on their death bed. God does not want to condemn anyone – God is a lover and wants all His children in His eternal presence. We trust to God’s Mercy such people (especially infants dieing before birth or shortly thereafter) who through lack of proper instruction and knowledge and through no fault of their own simply do not know better. We Catholics pray that God will save such people and trust that He does - but of course we do not know for certain. But in this day and age where there is plenty of information available there are few who will not want to naturally be baptized if they call themselves Christian since they will discover this from the community of Christian believers and widely available information. God draws people to the truth - none that are His will be lost.

I still have more of your original comments to respond to and will do so as I get more time.

God Bless,
ApostolicChristian

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Please reconsider the biblical evidence that God has always worked through priests and His specially chosen authorities.

Apostolic, every argument you raise seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the words of the Bible. You confuse ordination with ascension to the priesthood, which seems strange for an apologist of a church that ordains many office holders who are not priests. You confuse minister and preacher with office holder, which is nonsensical for someone defending a church that has lay preachers. You confuse apostle and priest. You have a definition of Bishop that defies imagination.

If the Bible says that certain Christian men are to be appointed priests over other Christians, please, show us where. But spare us these analogies and indirect arguments that are—without exception—based on interpreting some other word for “priest.”

The Catholic Lie: Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority. . . a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

The Word of God: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1 Timothy 3:2

The Truth Explained: God never said that anything at all in Acts 1, it is a historical chapter, not a Godly commandment (if it is a Godly commandment, then why don’t you Catholics chose your Bishops by lot, as the Apostles chose Judas’s successor in Acts 1:26?). Whether the continuation of a Bishopric until the return of Christ is mandated by God or not, the office of Bishop cannot be filled by a celibate man, so in no way can Acts 1 relate to the priesthood. You show me a Catholic “bishop” who was selected as such because he has a wife, and I’ll concede your arguments right now.

The Catholic Lie: Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.

The Word of God: Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 1 Timothy 2:7

The Truth Explained: Ordained means required or ordered to act in a certain way. It does not mean dedicated to the priesthood, which is only one sense of the word ordained. Since you Catholics have lay preachers, and non-priestly officers whom you ordain (that is the Catholic term for it), I’d think you would be able to spot the flaw in your logic, here. Ordination is not the same thing as becoming a priest, and being a priest is not required to be a preacher.

The Catholic Lie: Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

The Word of God:And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. Acts 6:5-6

The Truth Explained: Acts 6:6 does not say that ordination requires the laying on of hands. It doesn’t mention ordination at all. Nor does it mention apostolic authority—Acts 6:6 tells us that the apostles laid their hands on the Christians selected to feed the neglected widows. Do you claim that only priests can feed widows?

The Catholic Lie: Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

The Word of God: And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. Acts 9:17-19

The Truth Explained: Acts 9 does not say that Paul’s ministry required a laying on of hands, that was simply the means that the Lord chose in that instance to cure Paul’s blindness and bring the Holy Spirit upon him. Nowhere does the Bible say that Ananias was a bishop. It says only that Ananias was a disciple.

The Catholic Lie: Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

The Word of God: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Acts 13:1-3

The Truth Explained: Barnabas and Saul were given their authority directly by the Holy Ghost; no bishop (and certainly no Catholic “bishop”) was involved. Anyway, what authority could Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Herod have conferred upon Barnabas and Saul? All of them were “prophets and teachers.” The dedication of a Christian to a ministry does not require the laying on of hands, it requires the Spirit of the Lord. The laying on of hands conveys a blessing, a prayer for the protection of God to be given to the person upon whom the hands are laid, and nothing more.

I’ll try to address your other arguments later, but your style is tedious, using loads of bad analogies in place of pointing to a simple, unambiguous statement in the Bible supporting your position--and there are other sinners out there to whom I must preach the Word, too. Unlike you, some of them are open to reading the Bible the way it is written rather than the way some nancy-boy “priest” obfuscated it in “catechism.” In the future, you might try making your arguments a bit shorter if you want us to respond. As Brother V is fond of saying, ten tons of bullshit doesn’t smell any better than one ton.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

You have attracted the attention of Pastor Billy-Reuben and I and as such, I appreciate that there is much work in it for you; I’m sure the good Pastor will not mind if I include him in my thanks for sharing with us your views, however misguided they may be.

To increase your work, allow me an ‘aside’:

A friend of mine entered the viva voce to present his dissertation for his Doctorate, an examining professor said to him, “Ah, Mr Berg, could you sum up your thesis in a paragraph please?”

Mr Berg, obtained his Doctorate from Oxford University (UK). Later he said to me, “I think this must always be possible to achieve, otherwise there is the possibility of too many variables entering and forming an uncertain conclusion.”I will return to my aside later.

I am looking at the Bible Holistically from OT to NT. Clearly, the pattern of High Priest is seen from ancient times in the OT as it was prefigured with Abel and then later extended through the Levitical/Aaronic priestly orders. Of course in the NT Jesus becomes the new High Priest of the highest priestly order (Melchezedec - see scripture quote below). As a point of interest please know that all Catholic priests and bishops are ordained according to this rites for this same Melchizedek order.

We have a thread going on the Order of Melchizedek (although the original correspondent is confused to say the least.) In that thread I remarked that little is known of the remarkable Melchizedek. Thus, to claim such succession when the rites were never written in The Bible, is quite remarkable!

[…]the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (just like in the upper room in the NT)

I think there are very few catholics, and certainly none that I have ever met, who honestly believe that the bread turns to flesh and the wine to blood. Elsewhere on these boards, I have discussed the matter and no intelligent person could accept Christ’s words as other than requesting remembrance. I realize that if you are catholic you are required to accept this privately and I do not expect that you will say otherwise, even under your nomme de guerre.

God is not mocked. Probity and authenticity are manifest at the time of individual judgement or at such time as God elects to loose His wrath against the disunity of the 33,000 false Protestants sects.

I was referring to the holders of the self-created post of the vicar of rome… Weren’t the Borgias wonderful?

The Catholic Church has never claimed its ecclesial leaders are impeccable.

We have agreement, except for the infallibility bit […]

Your judgement of the Vicars of Christ is without historical basis and only God may judge.

Wrong on both counts – history is against you and we are required to judge: Proverbs 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Take your choice.

The Catholic Church freely admits

Kate, I believe thou doest protest too much…

If you wish to judge others then you might like to judge the principal men of the reformation who were caught up in the most vile of vices

Hmmm… historically, Baptists were outside that one. In any case, does it help a sinner to say that others have sinned also? I think not.

What is in question here is succession of ecclesial authority. No one may appoints himself a priest of God like protestant ministers do.

That is because Baptist pastors are just that – pastors. They know their flock and they are equal before God. It is merely that pastors are people who have followed the apostolic tradition of going out into the world and spreading the Word.

by approval of a current apostolic bishop

so you admit that the catholic church abandoned the original democracy and instituted a “who best toes the party line” approach – very Stalinist!

AND by physical laying on of hands with a priestly rite and apostolic blessing.

No one knows what that rite was! And that’s another thing. Note what the bible says about the laying on of hands – it must have taken all of 3 minutes now look at the unholy fuss the catholic church makes of this – a mockery if ever I saw one!

This is a real conveyance of spiritual authority

No, it is some 10th century idiot’s idea of what might impress the peasants – shame on you and your church!

The Catholic Church ecclesial structure is almost identical in structure

Whoa! Hold it rght there! At least you are honest enough to use the word “almost.” You now see the broad path down which Satan leads you!.

There is no concept of rank per say except that

there now follows a large list of exceptions which indicates to the intelligent person that there is, in fact, a huge concept of rank.

Another cynic might say "halleluia brother pass the hat and tithe - your self appointed hired paster needs a tax free raise and a new car for his wife and new baby".

Ho, ho! Look on the internet for the value of the catholic church…

The bible tells us otherwise. Jesus gave Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19),

prima inter pares

Of course with the authority of the keys the apostles and their successors are free to set their own rules and guidelines on how to manage The Church.

… I’m not going to comment on this it is catching fish in a barrel.

Ordination starts with a direct calling by God to be a priest and then after many years of discernment and study and preparation (and prayer)

or as we say, “indoctrination”

Yes, according to the 2,000 year old Catholic insights and traditions

What you mean here is, there’s no proof whatsoever but it is convenient to accept this

Ananias was one of the original 72 disciples and these had a level of spiritual authority of a bishop. He was the Bishop of Damascus.

Interestingly, Mark made Ananias bishop way after his appointment as a Disciple.

None of this implies that marriage is a requirement for being a bishop. What do you think of these scriptures?

"What I think" is where I come to my earlier “aside” You use the following to support the rule that Catholic bishops should not be married: Matt. 19:11-12 - Matt. 19:29 - Matt. 22:30 - 1 Cor 7:1 – 1 Cor. 7:7 - 1 Cor. 7:27 – 1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - 1 Tim. 3:2 - 1 Tim. 4:3 - 1 Tim. 5:9-12 - 2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Rev. 14:4, Isaiah 56:3-7, Jer. 16:1-4.

I use the clearest guidance possible 1Tm:3:1-5. Ihave done mine in a paragraph, yours requires acres of print and many opinions.

Admit it, the Catholic church has it wrong here. Earlier there was no requirement for any clergy to be celibate, I believe it was around the 11th century that the church was having trouble with inheritance of its lands, it therefore decided that clergy should be celibate and that there livings revert to the church.

You cannot serve God and Mammon – why was this decision made and whom does the catholic church worship?

Edit: I see Brother Ahimaaz has joined us. Brother Ahimaaz has an excellent mind; you will enjoy his comments.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Mark 16:16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Pay attention to what that verse doesn't say. It doesn't say he that is not baptized shall be damned.

Notice that Eph 2:8-9 says For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast. It does NOT say ye are saved through faith AND BAPTISM.

Brother Billy, if you scan the entire bible looking for the word saved or its close synonyms one can put together a huge spread sheet of lots of different things that one MUST do (or NOT do) in order to be “saved”. This is the problem with over-reading scripture and trying to reduce it down to a few “salvation slogans” or distill down it al down to the five self-contradicting Protestant solas (that sound more like the 5 points of a secular-pentagram than they do apostolic teaching) that the Reformers came up with. This is exactly why Catholics are Christo-centric rather than purely bible-centric since we have to look at the “man” Jesus as the example of the Living Word of God to resolve some of the apparent contradictions that came out of Bible written by a multitude of inspired human writers. Please consider that the word “X AND Y” always means both X and Y in human logic. It’s very literal and clear. It is of course also important to understand the hermeneutics and the original audience and what the inspired writer was intending to say based on the surrounding context and chapters. I am sure none of this is new to you.

The key concept Catholics use to discern true apostolic teaching is to apply the simple truth that God’s word can never be divided against itself anymore so than the separate persons of the Trinity can be divided against The Godhead. God is harmony – apparent contradictions always mean someone is making improper assumptions. In other words we must take all of the Bible not just the parts that seem to work for the doctrinal beliefs one may want to hold to. Where there are apparent contradictions this means there is artifact arising out of erroneous human assumptions. It’s mostly common sense really. In other words Jesus also tells us we must OBEY him if we are to be saved. We are also told we MUST love God with our whole heart and soul if we are to be saved. We are told if we want to be perfect to sell everything and give to the poor. We are also told we must be merciful to others to receive mercy etc. Frankly we are told to do so many things that its pretty hard to be a perfect Christian isn’t brother? Do you imagine Jesus might me trying to tell us that none of can do it without His help? Also note, that if we are to obey Christ we must also obey those who He told us to follow – the apostles and their successors (The Catholic Bishops). We must also obey Him and trust Him when He says He wants us to be baptized. Will He make exceptions? Perhaps – Christ “the man” was a forgiving man and full of compassion. But Christ never told us anything that was trivial or not to our advantage. So why go against the clear indications that He wanted us to be baptized? Why put The Lord Your God to the test when its very easy to just obey Him here?

Irrelevant. There is nothing in this passage that states that baptism cleanses one of something called "original sin".

Repentence is the necessary condition.


I never claimed that baptism was meaningless. You are fighting your own strawmen.

Sorry I presumed a pastor had a through knowledge of the rest of scripture and this would be uncontested. Here are the scriptures that tell us about Original Sin. It is simple exegesis to see that Baptism is intended to remove it. But before I go there why do we need “saving” if we are not suffering from a fallen nature and sin in the first place?

Gen. 2:17 - the day you eat of that tree, you shall die.

Gen. 3:14-19 – Human’s are cursed by God (pain in childbirth, labor and toil etc.)

Job 14:1,4 – A clean thing can not come out of an unclean thing born of woman. All humans are afflicted with original sin.

Psalm 51:5 - We are all brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Original Sin.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. Original Sin.

Rom. 5:14 – Paul tells us death reigned from Adam to Moses, born from Adam's original sin.

Rom. 5:16 - the judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This is original sin – and why Christ came to save us.

Rom. 5:19 - by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin is passed on as part of the human condition, and only God in the flesh could atone for our sins by the eternal sacrifice of Himself. Through this sacrifice, God has re-opened the doors to heaven, and through baptism, we are once again made children of God.

How about here:
Rom 3:28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
That did not say, justified by faith AND BAPTISM.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
That did not say, justified by faith AND BAPTISM.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
That did not say, justified by faith AND BAPTISM.
… etc.

These are all talking about justification. What you are not considering is that justification and sanctification are paired concepts and baptism is a part of it but is not all of it.

Here look at this:

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are profitable to men (just like the OT in 2 Tim. 3:16). Good deeds further justify us before God. This verse should be contrasted with

Titus 3:5, where we are not saved by works of righteousness “we have done.” In this verse what “we have done” refers to a work of law or obligation for which we seek payment. But verse 5 also says the “washing of regeneration” in reference to baptism saves, which is a work of grace, for which we are rewarded by God in Christ. There is a distinction between “works of law or obligation” and “works of grace.”

Ref: Titus 3:5 - justification is a generation of supernatural life in a former sinner. This means a real inner change or infusion (initially received at Baptism), not just putting on clean outer garments.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Why does Ananias command Saint Paul (who was directly chosen by Christ) to stand up and be baptized and "wash away" his sins? Because justification, as the apostolic Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years, is ongoing. It is not a one-time event of accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. Justification is freely given by God through faith, hope, love and the sacraments of the Church (e.g. baptism).

Again this is getting long so let me break here and continue with the rest of your comments a bit later.

God Bless,
ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

You have attracted the attention of Pastor Billy-Reuben and I and as such, I appreciate that there is much work in it for you; I’m sure the good Pastor will not mind if I include him in my thanks for sharing with us your views, however misguided they may be.

Hey EzBath, if will pardon the warm argo I will pardon the work. You have an interesting manner that shows some character and wit which I find less perspiring as I do entertaining. I normally except to see an inverse relationship in expressive power and IQ with those inclined to take refuge in running with the literalistic pups and their various ilk. Interesting...

[quote=Ezekiel Bathfire;262179]
We have a thread going on the Order of Melchizedek (although the original correspondent is confused to say the least.) In that thread I remarked that little is known of the remarkable Melchizedek. Thus, to claim such succession when the rites were never written in The Bible, is quite remarkable![/quite]
But of course you know that "the bible" is hardly holistic with respect to what we know of history and the early church and even ancient Jewish times. A fact easily attested to by a simple visit to the Vatican archives where we have literally hundreds of miles of books and manuscripts all nicely cataloged. There are afterall advantages to being a 2,000 year old religious faith community.

I think there are very few catholics, and certainly none that I have ever met, who honestly believe that the bread turns to flesh and the wine to blood. Elsewhere on these boards, I have discussed the matter and no intelligent person could accept Christ’s words as other than requesting remembrance. I realize that if you are catholic you are required to accept this privately and I do not expect that you will say otherwise, even under your nomme de guerre.

This is of course highly dubious anecdotal evidence. I have yet to meet a single Catholic who did not believe earnestly and with all their soul in real presence under the appearance, or was say "the accident" of wine and bread. Perhaps you are conversing with the Lutherans and Anglicans and their various derivatives who often confuse themselves as "catholics" simply because the recite our original Catholic Creed that attests to belief in the Holy Catholic Church. These poor souls are so confused that they profess a faith in The Catholic Church while protesting it as they eat a memorial of crackers and drink grape-juice then feed the left overs to the birds after the services. But if you want to talk to a real Catholic come to any Catholic Church world wide where there are over a billion Catholics who will tell you to your face "Amen" when the priest holds up the Eucharist and says "Body of Christ" and bow their heads in reverence and retire in silent meditation to contemplate this great commandment of Jesus.
If you know your bible you know that those that rejected Jesus' teaching on real presence are mentioned quite appropriately in John 6:66 as false followers of Christ.

Wrong on both counts – history is against you and we are required to judge: Proverbs 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Take your choice.

Rather selective are you not? Shall we see who can unholster their KJV faster? Here, let me put down my 15 shot Italian Beretta and just take my 6 shots at 3 paces to be fair...

Mattthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

1 Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

1 Cor 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

:smokinggun:

Kate, I believe thou doest protest too much…Hmmm… historically, Baptists were outside that one. In any case, does it help a sinner to say that others have sinned also? I think not.

Actually Baptists are historically too late to the rebellious tea-party to be considered initiated into the original heresy but southern and earthy sassafras root is a poor substitute for the lordy Earl Grey tannins.

That is because Baptist pastors are just that – pastors. They know their flock and they are equal before God. It is merely that pastors are people who have followed the apostolic tradition of going out into the world and spreading the Word.

Here you depart from good sense as well as a sense of perspective. Jesus commissioned only the apostles to spread the good news; and they only those hand picked and apostolically blessed with an authority to teach. Baptist pastors are not authorized teachers of the gospel and are self appointed. Spreading the franchise is hardly the same as spreading The Word.

so you admit that the catholic church abandoned the original democracy and instituted a “who best toes the party line” approach – very Stalinist!

Neither truth nor salvation was never subject to a majority rule. In fact Jesus warned us about majorities and told us that 'wide is the path that leads the MANY to destruction'. It seems to me that the minority view being counter intuitive is the safer course. I take it you approve then of the Mohammedan Obama as your leader?

No one knows what that rite was! And that’s another thing. Note what the bible says about the laying on of hands – it must have taken all of 3 minutes now look at the unholy fuss the catholic church makes of this – a mockery if ever I saw one!

Some of you people should be so honorable to your parents to thank them for spending the 3 minutes of marital embrace to bring you into the world. Life can be given or taken in even less time.

Catholics know the rite and have been doing it for 2,000 years and others have not been able to find it because this is information that comes to us through Sacred Tradition - the same kind that the bibles tells us to conform to.

2 Thes 2;15 (KJV)
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

No, it is some 10th century idiot’s idea of what might impress the peasants – shame on you and your church!

Unsubstantiated polemics.

Whoa! Hold it rght there! At least you are honest enough to use the word “almost.” You now see the broad path down which Satan leads you!.

Almost - in the sense that Jesus is no longer present. I suppose Baptists have held to the tradition of holding nightly masses in the catecombs under the leadership of torch bearers.

there now follows a large list of exceptions which indicates to the intelligent person that there is, in fact, a huge concept of rank.

But not so large and no different than the early church which had bishops, priests and deacons - but not in those exact same English names of course. If you have the intelligence to follow the word etymology you will see that its a one to one correspondence.

"What I think" is where I come to my earlier “aside” You use the following to support the rule that Catholic bishops should not be married: Matt. 19:11-12 - Matt. 19:29 - Matt. 22:30 - 1 Cor 7:1 – 1 Cor. 7:7 - 1 Cor. 7:27 – 1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - 1 Tim. 3:2 - 1 Tim. 4:3 - 1 Tim. 5:9-12 - 2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Rev. 14:4, Isaiah 56:3-7, Jer. 16:1-4.

I use the clearest guidance possible 1Tm:3:1-5. Ihave done mine in a paragraph, yours requires acres of print and many opinions.

Admit it, the Catholic church has it wrong here. Earlier there was no requirement for any clergy to be celibate, I believe it was around the 11th century that the church was having trouble with inheritance of its lands, it therefore decided that clergy should be celibate and that there livings revert to the church.

You cannot serve God and Mammon – why was this decision made and whom does the catholic church worship?

Edit: I see Brother Ahimaaz has joined us. Brother Ahimaaz has an excellent mind; you will enjoy his comments.

But in using the simpleton form of reason you ignore the preponderance of scriptural evidence that contradicts your position. How convenient. The principal of Ocam's Razor only works if one is not so incompetent (or so clever and self defeating) to decapitate oneself or cut one's own throat.

What I will admit to is that there is no hard requirement for a bishop or priest to be married. But it is permissible for the bishops to elect to permit a married person to be ordained. The Catholic Church has elected of its own accord to not ordinarily permit married men so as to prevent a division of service and conflict in time to administer to church and personal family at the same time. Our priests and bishops work 24/7 attending to emergencies and high demands on their time. That is too much stress to a marriage and in their wisdom the bishops and the pope have elected to generally disallow marriage. There are a few special cases of converting Anglican priests who are already married who we permit to be ordained if they take a conditional oath of celibacy if their wife's should die.

ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

we know that Satan twisted scripture to tempt Jesus in much the same way that many well meaning but deceived Protestants do to justify their many false doctrines that were never before actually taught by an apostle but appear plausible since some out of context references can be found in the bible.

Deceived Catholics do the same thing as deceived Protestants. Praise God I'm neither!

This is EXACTLY why a true believer must have been TAUGHT by an apostolic teaching authority to know what a real apostle actually taught.

We KNOW what the real apostles actually taught because they wrote it down.

Too many Protestants are cherry picking their owe favorite verses out of scripture to fabricate a pretty bead of pearls

That's exactly what you have been doing. Are you being intentionally deceitful, or are you really unaware of it?

I know you do not believe that one is free to sin like some of these other denominations do - so that is good and we are in agreement here at least.

We are almost in agreement. I believe that one is not free to sin. You believe that one is free to sin if he sits in a dark room and receives absolution from a man in a dress.

The Catholic Church is a royal priesthood a people set apart as God's very own nation. What other religion on the planet has its own world recognized nation except for the Catholic Church?

Looks like you are back to fabricating your pretty bead of pearls from out of context verses. Those verses were talking about Israel.

But there are no guarantees in life

Oh ye of little faith. God will keep all of His promises -- that's a guarantee.

Catholics believe that God gives us "signal graces" over our lives that give us greater and greater confidence in our own salvation.

Catholics believe a lot of wacky things that aren't in the Bible.

Salvation is not a slow, piecemeal process. Salvation is instant (Acts 9:18). We are born again (John 3:3) and made into a new creature (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15)

We do not believe in works salvation but can see by our own actions that we are serving God when we see the changes in our lives - loving more, being more charitable, taking insults from our enemies without hating them etc.

I'm glad to see that you have changed your tune on this. We are getting somewhere.

So Luther invented an "easy believism" where men are free to 'sin and sin boldly since God's grace is so great' that he seemed to suggest we should put our faith to the test by sinning!!! Absurd of course and evil.

Absolutely. Lutherans are as lost as Catholics.

This is why Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins in two ways: one through baptism for initial believers (that wipes out every personal sin and what we call Original sin inherited from Adam).

That's not Biblical. Baptism does not wipe out sin. God's grace wipes out sin.

The other way is through sacramental confession for very grave sins.

"Sacramental confession" is not Biblical.

Brother Billy if you believe that a person who dedicates himself to Jesus, believes in Jesus and is baptized but later commits a sin is not saved you are simply wrong. It’s not that cut and dry.

It IS that cut and dry, but I know how you Catholics love to use legalisms to try to find wiggle room. The passage I quoted says that saved Christians DO NOT and CANNOT sin. The passage I quoted also says that anyone who sins is of the Devil and doesn't know Jesus. There is no wiggle room there, and no loophole.

*Unbiblical Catholic Dogma snipped to save space*

I can give you dozens of scripture verses to back all this up if you like.

Sure, why don't you paste your list of out of context verses?

you were the one who wanted guarantees of salvation just a little bit earlier.

I didn't ask for the guarantee, but God gave it to me anyway. The LORD is so good to me.

God may elect to forgive a person that He judges is sincere in their repentance but this is not the normal way that Jesus wanted it for the very reason that no one knows if God accepted those prayers.

It is easy to know if God accepted your prayer for salvation. When the sins that you used to be enslaved to are no longer appealing, when the very idea of committing a sin makes you sick to the pit of your stomach, when all you want to do is serve the Lord, when the Holy Spirit is living inside of you, then you are saved.

The Bible tells us how to know if we are saved:
2Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

1John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1John 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins

No, He didn't.

You just don’t want to accept the truth as it was actually taught by the apostles.

I accept the truth as it was actually taught by the apostles. What I don't accept is your twisting their teachings to make it fit your extra-Biblical dogma.

And so I have rightly divided the Word.

No, you haven't. You even admitted that you could care less about rightly dividing the word here:

This is why Catholics do not need to even worry about “dividing the word”

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You especially need to pay attention to the following verse:
2Tim 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

And your acid test of apostolic authority is just silly and not biblical Brother Billy.

Not Biblical??? It came from the Bible. Are you saying "not Biblical" just because I named a specific deadly thing (bleach) instead of letting your priest pick his own deadly thing to drink?

Would you be willing to take your own test?

Of course not, but I'm not the one claiming to have "apostolic authority".

Catholics have been in existence from the very beginning – 2000 years.

No, you haven't. All you do is assert.

Honestly, I did not know your true belief in the area of baptism and had to make some assumptions since so many non-Catholics think that Baptism is a mere symbol. I am actually quite relieved to discover that you do not believe this since Baptism is profoundly powerful.

You didn't know that BAPTISTS think BAPTISM is important?

When Jesus entered the waters for His own baptism His divinity forever all sanctified water with the divine power to forgive sins and to make it possible for a baptized Christian to immediately receive the Holy Spirit when the customary rite is performed with the proper intention and Trinitarian formula (In the name of God, Son and Holy Spirit).

Where does it say THAT in the Bible?

Let me clarify that Baptism is how we formally get our initial seed of Faith (The Living Word) through The Church implanted into our heart. It matters not if we walk to the waters on our own or someone carries us there as a child. Baptism is what makes it normatively possible for any of us to be saved since in that moment we are born into a new humanity that is formed of new parents.

Where does it say THAT in the Bible?

We literally get a new humanity formed on the prototype of Jesus as the new Adam (and Mary as the new Eve).

WHAT? I knew Catholics had some wacky beliefs, but this is a new one for me. Jesus was Mary's son, not her husband. You aren't one of those Gnostic kooks, so I assume that's which Mary you are talking about.

That's pretty exciting since through Jesus we have the spiritual DNA if you will to share in a divine-human nature and are elevated above our original humanity. This is pretty exciting since God wants us to love Him at a higher level than a human normally can. We literally step out of the fallen and limited nature of Adam and Eve to open ourselves to a new life where God can grow us into new beings that have a superior divine-human nature (always subordinate to Jesus) rather than a fallen human nature subordinate to Satan (subject to death).

Well, that's all true.

For God so loves us that to save us He will not only restore us to our pre-fallen nature which was originally perfect in Adam but will ELEVATE us to a higher nature than even Adam to make it possible for us to Love God as only Christ can. This is the powerful message that most non-Catholics never hear - we are to become literal children of God through Christ and have a share in a divine nature!! OMG - people just have no idea what God has in store for us:

1 Cor 2:9 (KJV) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

That's all true too, except for the part about non-Catholics never hear it. Anyone who has read the Bible knows all of this.

So after baptism grace immediately starts to take root

It looks like our major disagreement about baptism and salvation is the order in which they occur. I have already shown you that belief and repentance are required before a meaningful baptism can be had.

So to answer your question – yes baptism is a normal pre-requisite that leads to salvation. ... "baptism by desire"... "baptism by blood" ... God is free to save who He will independent of the sacraments since He is sovereign. But the normative way that gives us certain knowledge that we are on the right path to salvation is through water baptism.

I can always count on you Catholics to come up with ad-hoc loopholes when scripture doesn't back up your dogma. Is it that hard to admit that you are wrong about baptism being a necessary condition for salvation?

Please cite scripture that says that the thief on the cross was baptized in any way, shape, or form.

Brother Billy, if you scan the entire bible looking for the word saved or its close synonyms one can put together a huge spread sheet of lots of different things that one MUST do (or NOT do) in order to be “saved”.

There's only two things you must do to be saved, and that is to repent and believe. Everything else you find is telling you how to know if you or someone else is saved by listing things that a saved person will or won't do. Of course, if you pull those verses out of context and list them all side-by-side, you will just have a confusing mess on your hands.

When you leave those verses in context, the meaning is clear.

This is the problem with over-reading scripture and trying to reduce it down to a few “salvation slogans” or distill down it al down to the five self-contradicting Protestant solas (that sound more like the 5 points of a secular-pentagram than they do apostolic teaching) that the Reformers came up with.

Which five points would that be, the five Calvinist points or the five Arminian points?

This is exactly why Catholics are Christo-centric rather than purely bible-centric since we have to look at the “man” Jesus as the example of the Living Word of God to resolve some of the apparent contradictions that came out of Bible written by a multitude of inspired human writers.

There are no contradictions in the Bible. God's Word is pure and consistent.

The key concept Catholics use to discern true apostolic teaching is to apply the simple truth that God’s word can never be divided against itself anymore so than the separate persons of the Trinity can be divided against The Godhead. God is harmony – apparent contradictions always mean someone is making improper assumptions.

That's the key concept that ALL Bible believing Christians use. Catholics don't own it.

In other words we must take all of the Bible not just the parts that seem to work for the doctrinal beliefs one may want to hold to.

That is extremely rich, coming from you!

Frankly we are told to do so many things that its pretty hard to be a perfect Christian isn’t brother? Do you imagine Jesus might me trying to tell us that none of can do it without His help?

It's impossible to do it without His help.

Also note, that if we are to obey Christ we must also obey those who He told us to follow – the apostles and their successors (The Catholic Bishops).

Which part of the Bible was it when Jesus told us to obey the apostles and their "successors"?

We must also obey Him and trust Him when He says He wants us to be baptized. Will He make exceptions? Perhaps – Christ “the man” was a forgiving man and full of compassion. But Christ never told us anything that was trivial or not to our advantage. So why go against the clear indications that He wanted us to be baptized? Why put The Lord Your God to the test when its very easy to just obey Him here?

I agree with all of that. My issue was with your unbiblical statement that baptism in and of itself effects salvation.

It is simple exegesis to see that Baptism is intended to remove it.

I'm afraid you are going to have to show your work if you claim that Baptism in and of itself is intended to remove original sin.

But before I go there why do we need “saving” if we are not suffering from a fallen nature and sin in the first place?

Sin is not inherited (Ezek 18:20), but we do have a fallen nature and are prone to sin. We all have our their own sins that we need saving from --we don't need anyone else's.

These are all talking about justification. What you are not considering is that justification and sanctification are paired concepts and baptism is a part of it but is not all of it.

Yes, all of the ones you left in were talking about justification, but you cavalierly replaced with all the ones that were talking about condemnation and salvation with "... etc.".

So, your attempt to misdirect with handwaving to avoid the parts of the Bible you don't like aren't going to work. I'm on to you.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Why does Ananias command Saint Paul (who was directly chosen by Christ) to stand up and be baptized and "wash away" his sins?

We've already answered that question.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I'm afraid it does.
…
The first thing I wanted to do once I got saved was to get baptized (for real this time). Baptism is not a necessary condition for salvation -- salvation is a necessary condition for a meaningful baptism.


The same reason I quit sinning after I got saved. It is just something saved people do.

Sorry – you are projecting your own doctrinal bias into scripture Brother Billy and missing some subtle points I am making. You are only accounting for part of the application of baptism. It is true that an ADULT or child of age of reason must come to The Church and express a desire to receive instruction then later profess their belief in Jesus before they are baptized. But it is not true in the general case that all people must first profess their faith and be baptized. You keep forgetting the part of scripture about “bring the children to me” and “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.: In other words you just made it impossible for infants and the mentally impaired to profess their belief, be baptized and be saved. This is exactly the kinds of lies and false teachings that Satan wants everyone to believe.

And if you state that you no longer sin, especially as a matter of “definition” of your presumption that you are saved before God judges you saved then you make yourself a liar and God’s word condemns you.

1 John 1:8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The above is just another example of why you must confess your grave sins committed after baptism to an apostolic priest. Fortunately, many Christians are through prayer and discipline and grace able to keep themselves away from serious sin – but they still will often commit small venial sins (per 1 John 8:-10). Small things like being occasionally uncharitable to one’s enemies and neighbors (e.g. childish mocking or taunting etc.) can be forgiven through daily prayer. But anyone who goes to bed at night thinking they are free of all sin is seriously in error. Every Christian should pray for forgiveness for all sins consciously known or unknown before retiring each day least they be subject to judgment if they die that night.

...

The text does NOT say that he had to be baptized before his sins were forgiven. His sins were forgiven first, the scales fell from his eyes, and THEN he got baptized.

…It's only meaningless if you aren't saved. Repent and be baptized, believe and be baptized.

You should not over-read scripture here. The text does not literally say that Paul’s sins were forgiven when his eyes were open. Jesus made Paul subordinate himself to apostolic authority my coming to Ananias. There Paul became intimately aware of the apostolic authority and power to heal and forgive. Paul became a believer because he had a profound personal experience but Paul’s initiation into The Church was not formally consummated until he was baptized into the New Covenant. Thus Jesus teaches us two principals here – the absolute apostolic authority and the need to be submissive to it. This is the part that will get non-Catholics into serious and grace trouble if they do not submit to that same authority before they die and knowingly reject it.

Before we do that, how about you explain to me how an infant is capable of repenting and believing.

How is that the centurion’s slave can be healed from afar on the faith of another believer? Read your bible and you will see there are MANY cases of a person being healed through the faith of their friends. This is why our Church community is so vital and beneficial to our salvation us since each of us can help others in our communities get through lapses and trials of faith through the collective faith of others.

You are making an unwarranted leap.

Nonsense. Read your bible literally:
Col 2:11-13
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses

Job 14 says nothing about baptism. We need God's grace.
Psalm 51:5 says nothing about baptism. We need God's grace.

The verse does not support your conclusion….

I have successfully made the case that we have original sin and hence the need for baptism. I am honestly sorry if this breaks your milk-and-cookies view of theology and all those divinity school diplomas on your wall at home but its time to step up to the solid foods brother Billy and learn what the apostles taught us.

Anyone can get baptized, but it only means something if you are a believer. That's why people who don't believe are condemned whether or not they are baptized.

Believer's baptism is not a Protestant belief, it is a Baptist belief that comes straight from the Bible. Protestants like Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc all baptize infants who are too young to possibly be able to repent and believe.

Except for all the calls to believe and be baptized.

Yes anyone can be baptized – including those who are infants (if presented on the testimony of their parents to raise them Christian). Baptism imparts a spiritual mark on a person’s soul which reconfigures the person’s soul toward Christ. In fact a baptized person becomes a target of Satan since he sees such a person as a graven enemy who through Christ can inflict serious harm to his desire to spoil more souls. But that is OK since God will test His children and permits it and will give sufficient grace to His own to progress them in their faith. You are partially correct that it only benefits us if one responds to the grace through belief – some people, perhaps many, relapse into sin and forget who they are.

We Catholics call all those Churches that came out of the Catholic Church generically Protestants since the core theme of them all is the illicit doctrine of sola Scripture that is not apostolic and was never taught by the early Church. It is a new tradition of man created in the late 1400’s and made popular with the advent of the printing press in the mid 1500’s (and funded by the Kings to usurp power from The Church to get more drones paying them taxes – that rouse worked but its falling apart now).

No one said it was.

No, it doesn't.

Acts 2:38πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων επι τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων και ληψεσθε την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος

Literally, and Peter said unto them reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Looks like I have caught you in another lie.

Read it all and also consider that there are better translations that the old KJV that have scholars have proven have deficient manuscripts and texts. But let’s not get into a version dispute – simply read the next verse and see that its clear that children of the believer’s household are stated or implied,

BTW, I thought you told me you did not sin. Is it a new tradition in the Baptist church to bear false witness or immediately jump to uncharitable accusations that there was an attempt at deception and not call that a sin? Moral relativism seems to have found a new home.

Acts 2: 38-39
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call…
Acts 2:39 says no such thing.

This is starting to get really tiresome.

And neither verse has anything whatsoever to do with baptism.

Don’t despair. Paul tells us we must run the good race all the way to the finish line brother and you have a long way yet to go. This should be good exercise and get you running in the right lane and in the right direction…

The verses were not intended to talk about baptism but to calibrate the conventional meaning of the Greek word Teknon as it applies to infants to prove to you that the Greek proves that Acts 2:39 explicitly means baptism also applies to infants. I apologize if this is too technical for your Brother Billy but I wanted to extend you every bit of opportunity to know the truth since you don’t have it all.

Perhaps you are too tired to see clearly?

I already knew what Catholics teach about Baptism. This isn't the first time I've had this very same debate.


This was a long post. Here is the gist.

• The so-called unbroken line of succession from Peter to Benedict is a myth.
• Baptism is important, but it doesn't mean anything if you aren't saved. That's why calls to be baptized are accompanied by calls to repent and believe. It's also why there is no place in the Bible that states that people who repent and believe but are not baptized are condemned.
• There is no intermediary between man and God (John 16:13, Gal 3:20). We don't need to go sit in a dark room and have a man in a dress tell us to chant a few spells to receive absolution for sins committed since we got saved, because saved Christians do not sin (1John 3:6-9). If you are continuing to sin after your baptism, then you have concrete proof that you are not saved.

I spent three hours responding to something that you copied and pasted from a Catholic propaganda website. I won't do it again. Next time you post a huge wall of text instead of just getting to the point, don't be surprised to find your post removed.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Your assertions are without substance and the burden is on you to disprove that The Catholic Church does not have a valid apostolic succession. History is on our side. Baptists do not even exist in history till less than 500 years ago. How is that such a fledgling Johnny Come Lately ecclesial community can make any credibly claim to any knowledge of apostolic succession?

BTW – there are so many different Baptist denominations I apologize if you believe in real water baptisms since some of your other sects do not and I had no idea what your particular sect believed in coming in here.

I like your admission that a baptized person must first believe. Catholics hold to this same belief except for the case of infant baptisms who may be baptized on the faith of their parents and their pledge to raise them in the faith as believers. If a baptized person does not hold to their original profession of faith (or make good on their parents pledge later in life) then yes I agree baptism does them no good; in fact it may be worse since such a person no longer has turned their back on the truth and will have no excuse (‘to those that much have been given much is expected’).

On your final point the bible and apostolic tradition completely prove that you are preaching a new gospel that no apostle ever taught. Sins committed after baptism must normally be confessed to an apostolic priest. Here I am compelled to get you to do your homework and to make you see that Satan is causing you to err by appealing to the natural human demagoguery of contempt for authority (in this case ecclesial). Recollect Paul having to submit to the Authority of The Church before He was fully accepted. Apostolic authority is very legitimate and very real:

Luke 10:16He that heareth you [ed: apostolic authority] heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.

God has directed me to give you some homework Brother Billy. Please read and mediate on the following scripture verses that prove that Jesus wants us to come and submit to the apostolic authority of the priests of The Church to get forgiveness of sins:

John 20:21-23 , Matt. 9:8 Matt. 9:6, Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24 , Matt. 18:18 , John 20:22-23, Matt. 18:18, 2 Cor. 2:10, 2 Cor. 5:18, James 5:15-16, 1 Tim. 2:5, Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22, James 5:16, Acts 19:18 Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 1 Tim. 6:12, 1 John 1:9, Num. 5:7, 2 Sam.12:14, Neh. 9:2-3, Sir. 4:26, Baruch 1:14, 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48, Matt.5:19

You are not too far from the truth but you have a way to go yet.

God Bless,
ApostolicChristian

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

We have 2,000 years of continuous presence of popes and all the archaeological artifacts of the early church in our museums

You've got us there. For example, at least three Catholic churches have the skull of St. Bonaventure in their vaults. Truly, that is a miracle.

we do not not deify the bible

Deify the Bible? Hell, you obviously don't even read the Bible. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

Baptists do not even exist in history till less than 500 years ago. How is that such a fledgling Johnny Come Lately ecclesial community can make any credibly claim to any knowledge of apostolic succession?

You must have missed the Sunday school class in which they discussed John the Baptist. He was born before Christ, my friend. And you are just showing your anti-Christian religious bigotry by calling us a "Johnny Come Lately ecclesial community." That sort of ugliness has no place here at Landover. We dont feel that we need to make up some apostilic succession idiocy to keep our art collection fully funded the way you Catholics do. If God had intended there to be an apostilic succession conveying magical powers like you claim for your "priesthood," he would have spelled that out clearly in the Bible. God was never shy about giving us rules.