[Wide-Open]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

You should not over-read scripture here.

Indeed. You've said that a few times now.

Let us just skim over Scripture. I mean, it's only God talking, right? So let's not seek to much into it.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

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

Deception is not binding on those who are not of mind to know better. Are you going to appeal to the Catholic doctrine of "invincible ignorance" for your non-apostolic use of scripture on your day of judgment?

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

Scripture does not work that way. Scripture is not self teaching as the 33,000 different Protestant sects who all teach something different demonstrate. You have only a non-contextual and non-period superficial understanding of scripture. I bet you did not know that scripture has 4 senses to prevent unauthorized people from high jacking it and teaching it in inappropriate ways so that they “may have eyes but not see etc.”.

Catholics are the single authority on scripture since Catholics are the one's who actually wrote all the NT scripture and know what it actually means from the handed down teaching and traditions received from the apostles and successors.

Jesus only wrote two things in His life and that was in the sand. There is a reason for that – He wants no one to think he can roll his own salvation by simply finding a magic book and start making wishes like Simon the Magician tried to do. You should know better Brother Billy.

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

Sorry, I was quicker on the draw Brother Billy – you are the one who calls scripture irrelevant when it does not support your case. Are we going to play the “I shot you first – no I did" game here?

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.

No I do not believe one is free to sin. Sin is to be avoided as much as we can. Some sin in deliberate (and that is usually grave) and other sin is unintentional but we may have some culpability if we used poor judgment. All of us have better days than other and sometimes we can cave into new temptations that the enemy lays in wait to use to trip us. Christians are not perfect – just forgiven. We should never ever go out with an intention to sin and then confess it. That is mocking God and woe to that person if he tries to presume God’s mercy and sin thinking he will be forgiven. But there are times when the human will may be weak due to an extraordinary amount of stress or pressure where a “good Christian person” may cave into sin where he ordinarily might not (that young beautiful woman threw herself at you at that Baptist convention since she was so moved by your sermon eh?). This is what confession is for – when we are overwhelmed by temptation or exercise poor judgment and find our selves in over our heads.

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

It only appears that way since you have a very one dimensional view of scripture and fail to see the many OT prefiguring events in the bible. The trinity is not a word you will find in the bible – yet the concept is clearly present and you accept it. There are many such things like this in the bible and this is why Baptist theology is found thin and lacking and too often misses so much rich depth of spiritual truth. Here is where I am forced against my normal inclination to prove to you how fatal literalistic reading of scripture can be when scripture begs the reader to go deeper and get to the solid food. If we take Romans 3:10-18 literally as an example then we are forced by the Apostle paul to not believe one single word of scripture since Paul tells us ALL men, including the prophets and apostles and himself are liars and does not exclude himself. Was Paul lying or making an brief exception to tell us the truth?

Romans 3:10-18
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17And the way of peace have they not known: 18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

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

But you know what – Protestants and non-Catholics like to follow our lead and do such blatantly non-biblical things like going to church on Sunday instead of on the Sabbath (Saturday) like the bible commands you to. Why is that?

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)

Oh really? Since when is scale falling out of one’s eyes mean one is saved. Paul and the other bible writers tell us many times that we could lose our salvation (Matt. 7:18 Matt. 7:21, Matt. 12:30-32, Matt. 22:14, Luke 8:13, Luke 12:42-46, Luke 15:11-32, John 6:70-71, John 15:1-10, Rom. 11:20-23, John 17:12 John 6:37, John 6:39, John 6:40, John 6:44, John 10:27-28, Rev. 2:4-5, Rev. 3:4 Rev. 3:5, Exodus 32:33, Rev. 3:11, Rev. 13:10, 14:12 Rev. 21:7, Rev. 22:19 ).

So, since when is birth an instant process – the traditional period for birth is 40 weeks? Don’t believe me ask you momma how long she had to carry you in the womb. So unless you and Nicodemus were premature wonderchildren I don’t think nature even supports this wild idea.

BTW – no one is denying that we are not a new creation after we are matured in Christ.

But Catholics utterly reject the Protestant theories of imputation of grace promoted in contest to each other by their two contradiction champions - Calvin & Luther. This whole imputation theory is silly and leads to the problems of unauthentic justification where God must accept Luther’s repulsive idea of a saved sinner as a ‘snow covered dunghill’. God could never accept that sort of thin veneer and wants the genuine thing. Catholic however believe that a real interior change happens with a real authentic change of nature that is first begun in baptism but grown to perfection over one’s life in much the same way that a seed sprouts (within the heart). That is, under God’s nourishing grace (use the metaphor of rain and seasons [trials] etc.) that seed grows into a mature tree and eventually bears a fruitful vine that can produce good works suitable to God’s purpose for us. In other words Catholics hold to the belief that one must cooperate with God’s grace over one’s entire life to reach a level of spiritual maturity that God wants us to attain. Ultimately the goal is theosis – the spiritual equivalent of “being all we can be” which approaches Christ like perfection in the fullness of divine-human achievement.

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

God’s grace is invoked through baptism. Let’s not get bogged down in semantics please just as acceptable prayer invokes God’s favor for things we need. Baptism is so compelling to God that He will always honor it – unless someone has already been baptized – in which case that person commits a blasphemy for not trusting in the one time need for baptism. Didn’t you say you were baptized 2 times and also mention you do not sin?

"Sacramental confession" is not Biblical.

I can cite you at least 3 dozen scripture verses that prove you wrong.

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.

That is not a fair characterization Brother Billy. Catholics like to point out that God is merciful and does not condemn us for being imperfect humans and gives us the sacramental means to remain in His favor. Your interpretation can not be reconciled with 1 John 1:8 – “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” This is because your theology is too thin and lacks the depth to realize that there are two severities of sin – moral and venial. Both are forgivable but the kind of sin spoken to in 1 John 3 is of the mortal variety – not the small stuff. Fortunately, Jesus is so awesome that even a baptized Christian who falls off the wagon so to speak can be forgiven through sacramental confession and penance – thank God since in this age of moral decline almost no one could make it to heaven without the sacrament of reconciliation (confession). I urge you Baptists to come to understand this truth and convert while you still have time.

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

Here ya go – all the authorities and necessity for oral confession:
John 20:21, John 20:22, John 20:23, 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, James 5:14-15, 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

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.

That is all very good and well – no Christian likes to offend God or Jesus but I see Christians of all faiths (including Baptists often committing sins. The truth is that while true Christians abhor sin in our modern culture there are so many temptations and traps that one is bombarded daily with opportunities to sin and eventually even the most saintly and pious Christian will slip up and fall into sin from time to time. Fortunately they can get right back up again, tearfully confess those sins under a spirit of repentance and get right back again in God’s favor. Even a habitual sinner may have a personal addiction or proclivity (e.g. swearing at and mocking Catholics ) that is more a sign of mental or emotional disorder that mitigates the sin to less than a full consent to sin. God will not hold a person of such mind to as severe a sin as a person who deliberately plans to sin – but even this latter can be forgiven. The important thing is to be ever watchful and to go to confession routinely until one over comes the sins that hold our advancement back. Prayer is also extremely effecious of purging us of the smaller sins that can accumulate in frequency and harm our spiritual health.

No, He didn't.

Yes he most certainly did give the authority to forgive sins – see the many scriptures I referenced above.

I am skipping a few non value added comments you added here.

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

There are so many Baptists flavors I had no idea if your sects actually believed in water baptism – some ironically don’t and call themselves “Baptists”.

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.

Nope – most definitely not a Gnostic. But you must not read the apostle Paul too much. I am giving you some very good spiritual insights that you should discover on your own since they are profound. If you can’t find the new Adam and the new Eve in the Bible then you really need to question if you are truly saved since you do not know who your new spiritual parents are. Check into 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, Lk .1 :26-38 and some of the early church fathers (Saint Justin the Martyr 155 AD, Saint Irenaeus wrote this between 180-199 A.D, Tertullian wrote this between 208 and 212 A.D) and also look at the OT topology of scripture and do a little simple exegesis – its all there and its profound and you won’t learn this in Sunday school. It’s of the variety of mature solid food that Paul speaks of that is too difficult for those still simple in the faith.

Eve, the O.T."Type".........................Mary, the N.T. "Antitype"
Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25.........Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42 *1
There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25.......................There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34
There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17..........................There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35
There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13................There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38
A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6...........A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
There was pride, Gen 3:4-7...............................There was humility, Luke 1:38
There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7....................There was obedience, Luke 1:38
There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20...........................There was redemption, John 19:34
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19..............Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22................She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15
Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24......Approached the "Tree of Life", John 19:25
An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24............An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9
Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15.......The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7
Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1...................Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5
Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8................Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20................The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
Returned to dust, Gen 3:19................................Taken to Heaven, Rev 11:19,12:1

.

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.

We simply can’t say things that are counter to explicit commandments from Jesus even when there are some apparent contradictions in parts of scripture. But the operative word here is “apparent”. I have explained all the apparent contradictions.

I explained that it was not a water baptism and the thief received a baptism by desire. This is determined through exegesis of all the scriptures on baptism and Rom. 2:29 that tell us about: the “circumcision is that of the heart”, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but God. God is not bound to the sacraments and may intervene in special circumstances.

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.

There is more to it I am afraid. Salvation is a living according to the New Covenant sealed by Baptism every day of one’s life and availing oneself frequently of the sacraments – especially Eucharist (Body and Blood of Christ as commanded).

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

It doesn’t matter – all the protestant solas contradict since none can stand alone with 5 of them. It’s a bogus and pure fabrication.

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

The Bible is an integral part of the Liturgy of The Catholic Church. Only Catholics understand it since we have the proper apostolic teaching as well as the proper authority to teach others. Those that do not have this authority are sewing the seeds of weeds and reaping their own destruction.

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

I have given you this.

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.

Perspire to read what I have told you – the work is done but the soil is weak…

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.

And just how do you imagine you get your fallen nature through osmosis? Please don’t tell me you don’t have a belly button…

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.

Sorry – I was tired and it looked to me like your summary comments all used the words “justification” and I took you at your word without reading them all closely. If you want to redress it we can talk more.

That’s all - your comments been responded to.

You need to become Catholic since you no longer have the excuse of Invincible Ignorance. You have been given the opportunity to know too much now and if you consciously reject it may have eternal conseqences. Sorry - I will pray for you.

ApostlicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

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.

What would be a miracle would be to produce credible evidence of this. That said it is pious practice to use relics as parts of the altar stones of such high level saints as St. Bonaventure who was extremely regarded as a seraphic doctor of the church with quite a few miracles attributed and confirmed to him. Ironic to the topic here is that he was extremely cerebral and intellectually a peer of Aquinas and Augustine but also an extremely spiritual Franciscan Minister General. This saint attained levels of spiritual perfection that most of us could only dream of. Chances are if they used the skull as a relic (which is likely) they probably just took small portions of bone material and distributed it to multiple churches. I would expect that Franciscan monasteries and chapels probably all received some small relic. But I can assure you that somone is propagating a myth here (most likely an anti-Catholic site) to generate polemics that will not stand up to scrutiny.

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

I am impressed that you made the connection of St. John's usage of some of the advanced Greek concepts of "The Word" but I hope you don't extend that to The Bible - a thing John or any apostle never saw (nor imagined) since it did not exist till Catholic Pope Damasus put it together centuries later. While the Bible is a portion of revealed word Christ is ALL the Living Word of God - spoken, lived and written. Did you make the connection to Jesus as the living word of God made flesh in the incarnation accounts and the Word that comes down from heaven like manna in John's accounts of The Eucharist? Do you heed John in his insistance that Jesus' body and blood are real food that we must partake of? Or did you turn your back on Jesus and reject The Word made flesh like those false followers of Christ identified in John 6:66 (ironic chapter and verse no?) who only wanted to hear the words they wanted to hear?

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.

Please don't even try to tell me your denominational sect came from John the Baptist - there is absolutely no scriptural nor historical support that link modern day baptists with any movement in Jesus' time. Absurd. Baptists histories ALL come after The Protestant Revolution in the 1500's. The Baptist perpetuity view (also known as Baptist succession) is proved to be a fabrication of wishful thinking with absolutely no credible historical basis. Nor is there any direct evidence to support "Landmarkism" or "Successionism" in Christian history. The only way a Baptist could make a claim to the early church would be to identify with one of the heretical groups such as the Gnostics and Nestorians who were all condemned. Are you claiming a familial ancestorial linkage to one of them?

In keeping with your opening remarks about skulls and relics I will accept your claim if you can show me John the Baptists skull on a silver platter as an artifact of proof? But if you do so that would make Herod's promiscuous wife's daughter a leading figure in your history since she was instrumental in severing the linkage to the Christian Church. After-all, John paved he way for Christ and while popular with the people consciously reduced himself to make Christ larger by insulting King Herod and his wife.

ApostolicChristian

[Nobar King]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I will accept your claim if you can show me John the Baptists skull on a silver platter as an artifact of proof?

What kind of church do you think this is?

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

What kind of church do you think this is?

Thanks for the tacit compliment of presuming I am a thinking man.

For some ineffable reason, for the time being this question somehow renders me speechless except to say:

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." (GK Chesteron)

ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Sorry – you are projecting your own doctrinal bias into scripture Brother Billy and missing some subtle points I am making.

My doctrine comes straight from a literal reading of in-context scripture. Your subtil points are loosely based on a combination of figurative interpretation, out-of-context scripture, and extra-biblical traditions.

In other words you just made it impossible for infants and the mentally impaired to profess their belief, be baptized and be saved.

Wait, how did I make it impossible for infants and mentally impaired to profess belief? When was it ever possible for an infant to profess belief?

When does the Bible say that one can profess belief on another's behalf? That sounds like a Mormon belief, where they posthumously baptize non-Mormons into the Mormon faith.

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.

I never said I have not sinned, but now that the Holy Spirit is inside of me, I cannot sin any more.

Fortunately, many Christians are through prayer and discipline and grace able to keep themselves away from serious sin

No one can resist temptation to sin through his own efforts. If that were possible, we wouldn't need God's Grace.

but they still will often commit small venial sins (per 1 John 8:-10).

1 John 1:8-10 is not talking about committing new sins. It is talking about the sins that we committed before we got saved. Basically, it is saying that God forgives but doesn't forget.

Before you again falsely accuse of inserting my own "bias" into this scripture, 1 John 3:9 says that born again Christians CANNOT sin. There are no contradictions in the Bible, but there are plenty of contradictions between the Bible and your doctrine.

You accuse me of inserting my own bias into scripture, but you need to consider the beam in your own eye. The passage you quoted says we need to confess our sins, but doesn't say anything about a requirement to confess them to someone with "apostolic authority". The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. I confessed my sins directly to God.

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:

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22, , Num. 5:7, 2 Sam.12:14, Neh. 9:2-3
These verses have nothing to do with the apostles.

Matt. 9:6, Matt. 9:8, Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24, James 5:15-16, 1 Tim. 2:5
These verses all say that Jesus has the power to forgive sins. They don't say anything about the apostles having that power.

1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Did you mean to include this verse? Because it proves you wrong. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and men. We don't need to confess my sins to someone with "apostolic authority"

1 John 5:16-17, Luke 12:47-48, Matt.5:19, 1 Tim. 6:12
These verses say nothing about confession.

Acts 19:18, Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5, 1 John 1:9
These verses talk about confession, but say nothing about a requirement to confess to someone with "apostolic authority".

Sirach and Baruch are not scripture, and even if they were, the verses you cited say nothing about a requirement to confess to someone with "apostolic authority".

So, that leaves you with John 20:21-23, Matt. 18:18, John 20:22-23, Matt. 18:18, 2 Cor. 2:10, and 2 Cor. 5:18, which, when taken out of context, are the easiest for you to twist into your doctrine.

I read those verses as Jesus charging the apostles with the duty to preach the doctrine of remission of sins, and to let people know that their sins are forgiven if they repent, and not forgiven if they remain unreprepentant.

You read those verses as Jesus granting the apostles the power to forgive sins directly. If you read the verses that way, then they contradict 1 Tim. 2:5, which says that there is no intermedary between man and God. You already admitted that when there is an apparent contradiction, it means that someone is making improper assumptions.

This is because your theology is too thin and lacks the depth to realize that there are two severities of sin – moral and venial.

So theoglies that lack extrabiblical nonsense are "too thin"?

1 John 3 is of the mortal variety – not the small stuff.

Is that why the Greek text uses the same word for sin (αμαρτιαν) in 1 John 1 and 1 John 3?

1 John 1 is talking about before we get saved, and 1 John 3 is talking about after we get saved.

Fortunately, Jesus is so awesome that even a baptized Christian who falls off the wagon

A baptized "Chrisian" who "falls of the wagon" wasn't saved in the first place.

That is all very good and well – no Christian likes to offend God or Jesus but I see Christians of all faiths (including Baptists often committing sins.

You see Christians (and Baptists) in name only.

On your final point the bible and apostolic tradition completely prove that you are preaching a new gospel that no apostle ever taught.

No apostle except for John, because that's the apostle I quoted.

You should not over-read scripture here. ... 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.

I shouldn't "over-read" scripture, but it's OK if you do it?

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.

That doesn't answer my question at all. Being healed of an affliction because of someone else's faith is a very different thing from being saved because of someone else's faith.

You believe that I am in error. If you believe that a person can be saved by another person's faith, then your faith should be strong enough to save me. You can pray for me to be saved, and then there will be no need to continue any debate.

Nonsense. Read your bible literally:
Col 2:11-13

I read it literally, and that passage says literally nothing about baptizing infants.

I have successfully made the case that we have original sin and hence the need for baptism.

No, because I have shown that sin is not inherited, and you haven't shown that baptism is the be all and end all of salvation.

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.

It might make you feel better about yourself to patronize me and belittle Baptist theology, but you aren't going to win any converts that way.

simply read the next verse and see that its clear that children of the believer’s household are stated or implied,

Sure thing...

Acts 2:39 υμιν γαρ εστιν η επαγγελια και τοις τεκνοις υμων και πασιν τοις εις μακραν οσους αν προσκαλεσηται κυριος ο θεος ημων

Literally, "For you is the pledge, and to the children, and to those that are far away, whosoever the lord our God shall call."

So, the pledge or promise of the remission of sins and the Gift of the Holy Spirit are available to anyone that God calls. I've never said anything different.

That verse doesn't say that infants should be baptized. Again, please consider the beam in your own eye before accusing me of reading my own bias into scripture.

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

It's not "too technical". It's just that Acts 2:39 ALSO doesn't say anything about baptizing infants.

Perhaps you are too tired to see clearly?

I don't see it at all because it is not there. One can only see it when filtered through the lens of Catholic dogma.

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?

No, but it is not a sin to call a spade a spade.

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.

Tell me about it. I have a feeling it's going to take a long time to unravel the Gordian knot of your false doctrines.

Your assertions are without substance and the burden is on you to disprove that The Catholic Church does not have a valid apostolic succession.

You made the claim, so it is up to you to prove it.

History is on our side.

Earlier, you said that Emperor Constantine's religious title was "Pontifex Maximus", meaning he was the head of the pagan priesthood in Rome.

I want you to look at this picture:



That is a piece of art commissend by Pope Benedict XVI. It says "Benedictus XVI Pont(ifex) Max(imus) Anno Domini MMV Pont(ificatus) I"

It looks like the current Pope calls himself Pontifex Maximus, just like Emperor Constantine.

I like your admission that a baptized person must first believe.

It's not an "admission" so much as a plain statement of what's in the Bible.

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.

There you go again looking for your wiggle room

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.

Up until now, you were only implicitly inserting your own bias into the scripture. Now you are doing it blatantly and obviously!

Catholics are the single authority on scripture since Catholics are the one's who actually wrote all the NT scripture

If Catholics had really written all of the NT scripture, then you'd think that it would plainly state all of the Catholic doctrines. Instead, you have to rely on lots of creative exegesis and handwaving to wring your doctrine out of it. Catholics are no better than Protestants in this regard.

Jesus only wrote two things in His life and that was in the sand. There is a reason for that – He wants no one to think he can roll his own salvation by simply finding a magic book and start making wishes like Simon the Magician tried to do. You should know better Brother Billy.

No one ever claimed that.

Sorry, I was quicker on the draw Brother Billy – you are the one who calls scripture irrelevant when it does not support your case.

All scripture is relevant.

When I said "irrelevant" earlier, it meant that the scripture you cited had no relevance to the point you were trying to make.

Sin is to be avoided as much as we can. Some sin in deliberate (and that is usually grave) and other sin is unintentional but we may have some culpability if we used poor judgment.

That sounds like a person who was never saved to begin with. I already cited scripture, written by an apostle, that says if someone sins it is proof that they don't know Jesus.

Sin is sin. Please cite scripture that makes a distinction between "grave" and "venial" sins.

Here is where I am forced against my normal inclination to prove to you how fatal literalistic reading of scripture can be when scripture begs the reader to go deeper and get to the solid food. If we take Romans 3:10-18 literally as an example then we are forced by the Apostle paul to not believe one single word of scripture since Paul tells us ALL men, including the prophets and apostles and himself are liars and does not exclude himself. Was Paul lying or making an brief exception to tell us the truth?

Neither. Do you believe the Bible is the words of mere men?

I believe scripture because it is God's Word. If it were the words of mere men, then it wouldn't be worth any more than say, the works of Plato or Homer.

Besides, if someone is a liar, it doesn't mean that every statement out of their mouth is false. You made that mistaken assumption earlier. A thief is still a thief even if he buys something with earned money, a murderer is still a murderer even if he doesn't kill everyone he meets, and a liar is still a liar even if he says something thats true.

One theft makes a man a thief. One murder makes a man a murderer. One lie makes a man a liar.

Paul and the other bible writers tell us many times that we could lose our salvation (Matt. 7:18 Matt. 7:21, Matt. 12:30-32, Matt. 22:14, Luke 8:13, Luke 12:42-46, Luke 15:11-32, John 6:70-71, John 15:1-10, Rom. 11:20-23, John 17:12 John 6:37, John 6:39, John 6:40, John 6:44, John 10:27-28, Rev. 2:4-5, Rev. 3:4 Rev. 3:5, Exodus 32:33, Rev. 3:11, Rev. 13:10, 14:12 Rev. 21:7, Rev. 22:19 ).

None of those verses say that the person who sinned was actually saved to begin with.

Again, I John 3 says that saved Christians cannot sin. You are inventing more apparent contradictions.

This whole imputation theory is silly and leads to the problems of unauthentic justification where God must accept Luther’s repulsive idea of a saved sinner as a ‘snow covered dunghill’. God could never accept that sort of thin veneer and wants the genuine thing.

I agree with all of that. That's why I'm not a Lutheran.

Catholic however believe that a real interior change happens with a real authentic change of nature...

I'm with you so far here...

...that is first begun in baptism but grown to perfection over one’s life in much the same way that a seed sprouts (within the heart). That is, under God’s nourishing grace (use the metaphor of rain and seasons [trials] etc.) that seed grows into a mature tree and eventually bears a fruitful vine that can produce good works suitable to God’s purpose for us.

...but then you stepped into nonbiblical la-la land.

God’s grace is invoked through baptism.

God's grace doesn't need to be invoked. Jesus is already knocking at the door. All you have to do is accept Him.

Let’s not get bogged down in semantics please just as acceptable prayer invokes God’s favor for things we need.

That sounds like the gimme-gimme-gimme-ism Christianity, like when athletes pray to win sports competetions.

God has a divine plan, and He's not going to change it all around just because someone submits an "acceptable prayer".

I don't pray for God to do stuff for me. I pray to do stuff for God. Can I get an amen here?

in which case that person commits a blasphemy for not trusting in the one time need for baptism. Didn’t you say you were baptized 2 times and also mention you do not sin?

My parents sinned when they "baptized" me as an infant in a Presbyterian church. I hadn't repented, and I didn't believe -- how could I? I was two months old. It wasn't a real baptism.

Besides, you say that baptism doesn't count unless it's done by someone with "apostolic authority", so by your reckoning it wasn't a real baptism either.

I can cite you at least 3 dozen scripture verses that prove you wrong.

You have already cited them, and I showed you how those verses fail to make your point.

I am skipping a few non value added comments you added here.

Non value added? You mean the comments where I showed how you flip-flop about the importance of rightly dividing the word, and where I questioned your priest's ability prove that he has apostolic authority according to the Biblical test.

The truth is that while true Christians abhor sin in our modern culture there are so many temptations and traps that one is bombarded daily with opportunities to sin

Then it's a good thing we saved Christians have the Holy Spirit living inside of us and CANNOT sin.

There are so many Baptists flavors I had no idea if your sects actually believed in water baptism – some ironically don’t and call themselves “Baptists”.

We are the kind who believe God and His Word.

look at the OT topology of scripture and do a little simple exegesis – its all there and its profound and you won’t learn this in Sunday school.

If you believe Eve was a literary foreshadowing of Mary, then it sounds like you believe Eve was an allegorical character rather than a real person.

Of course I won't learn this in Sunday School, because it's nonsense. It's easy to take two people and come up with a short list of things they have in common. Kersey Graves did this when he wrote The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors.

We simply can’t say things that are counter to explicit commandments from Jesus even when there are some apparent contradictions in parts of scripture.

There is only an apparent contradiction if you believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation. I don't. I believe that a newly saved person will seek baptism as soon as possible, because Jesus commanded it.

I explained that it was not a water baptism and the thief received a baptism by desire. This is determined through exegesis of all the scriptures on baptism and Rom. 2:29 that tell us about: the “circumcision is that of the heart”, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but God.

I think you use the word "exegesis" to mean taking out of context scriptures and creative interpretation, then stringing them together into a narrative that says what you wanted it to say in the first place. That's the only way to get a concept of "baptism by desire" out of scripture.

There is more to it I am afraid. Salvation is a living according to the New Covenant sealed by Baptism every day of one’s life and availing oneself frequently of the sacraments – especially Eucharist (Body and Blood of Christ as commanded).

You are confusing cause and effect. Living according to the New Covenant is a postcondition of salvation, not a precondition. A person who is saved will live accoding to the New Covenant as a natural, inevitable consequence.

It doesn’t matter – all the protestant solas contradict since none can stand alone with 5 of them. It’s a bogus and pure fabrication.

I agree. The only way to get either of them is to ignore about a third of the New Testament. I was just curious as to which one you had in mind.

I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant. I am a Baptist. Baptists are NOT Protestants.

Only Catholics understand it since we have the proper apostolic teaching as well as the proper authority to teach others.

So you keep asserting.

I have given you this.

No, you gave me a string of out of context verses that don't back up your claim.

Perspire to read what I have told you

I just read it all again. None of it backs up anything you say.

And just how do you imagine you get your fallen nature through osmosis? Please don’t tell me you don’t have a belly button…

So sin is transfered from the mother to the child through the umbilical cord? But the Bible says that we are not punished for the sins of others (Dt 24:16, 2Kgs 14:6, Jer 31:29-30, Ez 18:20).

Sorry – I was tired and it looked to me like your summary comments all used the words “justification” and I took you at your word without reading them all closely.

Just like how you read the Bible.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I rather hoped that I would have you see the light, and in some respects, you might have done. That said, I have diagnosed your problem with God: You think too much and believe in the catholic church rather than God’s Word.

I note that your replies are peppered with references to catholic dogma – I note also from the style that you are now restricting the number of these “catholic tradition says..”, “catholic studies show…”, “catholic tradition is…”, etc. you use and rightly too.

I see this as your faith in the catholic church and not a faith in God. Your faith in God is conditional upon your faith in the vicar of Rome’s edicts. You have earlier agreed that not all popes have been whiter than white, thus what of their edicts? And you are clever enough to know that one false assumption can lead to random and inaccurate conclusions.

I remind myself of Jesus in His, “as children / Heaven” speech and yet, here I see a sophisticated argument where many, many verses are drawn together to reach a questionable conclusion – a conclusion that, to all but a Jesuit, would smell fishy and that no childlike innocence would accept. I remind myself that of Christ’s comments to the Scribes and Pharisees on their adherence to ritual.

On Christ’s words to Peter (the rock, etc), and the actual transubstantiation, you must see that have to be taken as purely metaphorical. I recall being told of the latter at age 7 in Bible class (“Recognizing a papist”, second term.) I, as an innocent child, just could not accept the idea – I tell you now, bread and wine do not turn to the Flesh of Christ and His Blood. From which part of His Body would it originate, and what papist would consume it rather than display it as a relic? Has there ever been an autopsy on a priest immediately after he has taken the two?

You make repeated references to 30,000 Protestant sects – we are not Protestant. Nevertheless, the pope does not believe that all catholics believe the same thing, otherwise there would be no need for him or his minions. We may therefore say that there the same percentage of heretical catholics as there are Protestants and any idea that your outfit is not collegiate, is in error.

Now you are about to say that the above is applicable to Landover; Sir, let me disabuse you, it is not. By accepting the unadulterated and complete Word of God as written in KJV 1611, we here are in agreement. What disagreement could there be? Dogma? None. Ancient tradition? None. Intercession? Not needed. Apocrypha? Dispensed with. Saints? Only those God mentions as being saints. Mary… well, let’s just not go there. Graven images? None. Purgatory? No need to say its there then change our mind. Fish on Fridays and then change your mind? Not needed. The list goes on.

We have a simple approach – obey God Who is timeless and Whose Word is clear. Here the list has one entry – obey God.

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

That sounds like the gimme-gimme-gimme-ism Christianity, like when athletes pray to win sports competetions.

God has a divine plan, and He's not going to change it all around just because someone submits an "acceptable prayer".

I don't pray for God to do stuff for me. I pray to do stuff for God. Can I get an amen here?

No amen from me, since I see nothing wrong with asking the Creator for help, though I certainly agree that we should ask God what He wants us to do as well. I have some scripture on this point that I'd like you to explain, however. Jesus said:

If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

So, Pastor BR, what is wrong with praying for God's assistance?

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Earlier, you said that Emperor Constantine's religious title was "Pontifex Maximus", meaning he was the head of the pagan priesthood in Rome.

I want you to look at this picture:
<img snipped>


That is a piece of art commissend by Pope Benedict XVI. It says "Benedictus XVI Pont(ifex) Max(imus) Anno Domini MMV Pont(ificatus) I"

It looks like the current Pope calls himself Pontifex Maximus, just like Emperor Constantine.

I don't have much spare time today to dismiss the full legion of conflicted things you say in the full text of this post here. But let me at least quickly dispatch this one sly innuendo and later come back to dispatch the balance of what does not stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly I must ask - are you trying to impugn the office the the pope by unjustly associating a prior statement I made about Constantine's pagan title Pontifex Maximus and extend it to the pope for less than honorable purposes? Disgraceful desperation brother ... tch tch tch.

Let me put this to bed very quickly.

To wit:
Yes - this term is used unofficially by the Catholic Church since it has historical linkage to titles taken by earlier popes that date as far back as Pope Gregory I (540-604 AD ) and by some historical accounts to Pope Leo I (440-461 AD) and allegedly to Pope Damasus I (366-384 AD); the latter pope being the one who codified the Christian cannon for all Christians (the same one in the KJV less the deuterocanonical books). One or more of these popes used the title "Pontifex Maximus". Please observe that it would be self effacing to try to slander the popes as "pagan" for using the high titles of the land since it was they (Damasus) who brought Christendom their cannon. We don't want to call the Bible pagan now do we?

What is important to understand is that the title Pontifex Maximus is ancient. It goes back to 600 or 800 BC or so and was used by the Romans - for kings and emperors and emperor-priests; the latter of course were notorious polytheist pagans. Please note too the term "King" in all its various linguistic forms also goes way way back to ancient pagan times and Jesus who we sometimes title as "Lord of Lords and King of Kings" is certainly not made pagan by humans extending the highest word title honors to Him with titles that extend from our ancient pagan histories. We must not forget that humans are until quite recently very much barbarian pagans for the majority of our human history and we are no where as civilized as we imagine (just watch what happens to "civilized" societies when economies collapse ). So where I am going is the obvious conclusion that the words and the titles we use have had to start somewhere in our language and history didn't they?

So, the inference you attempt is to call Constantine a pagan Pope and by association all popes. The simpleton logic is based on the presupposition that because a pagan supporter of Christianity used a then pagan title then others who use the title must be pagan too. This is circular since Constantine was never a pope - nor even a bishop and no pope had yet adopted that title to "Christen" its use. But he was one of the last emperors to use the title Pontifex Maximus (which was then certainly a pagan title). Now though it is highly appropriate that Christianity which came out of the cultural influence of Rome (on the Gentile side anyway) would have strong association of titles and concepts from that Roman legacy. So as Rome fell and the supremacy of Christianity comes into its own the popes assumed the highest titles of the land that the people and foreign rulers would recognize. Thus it was quite natural for the Roman branch of Christianity to maintain the Roman titles and to "Christianize" them (more like high jack) since these were the highest recognized titles of the land at that time and no one wanted to send emissaries all over the known world proclaiming new tiles to every warlord and thiefdom in existence.

None of this should be considered profound or remarkable since "Pontifex" relates to our term "Bishop" and so "Pontifex Maximus" becomes essentially "Bishop of Bishops" (the pope) under the new Christian genre.

ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Sounds like someone is straining to do some explaining.

Firstly I must ask - are you trying to impugn the office the the pope by unjustly associating a prior statement I made about Constantine's pagan title Pontifex Maximus and extend it to the pope for less than honorable purposes?

Not at all. I was showing you one of the many places where you had contradicted yourself.

Earlier when I said that Emperor Constantine was the first Pope, you said he couldn't have been Pope because he used the pagan title "Pontifex Maximus". However, the current Pope uses the same title.

Why would a Christian Pope assume the title of the Pagan high priesthood? Doesn't the Bible warn us to abstain from all appearance of evil?

I don't have much spare time today to dismiss the full legion of conflicted things you say in the full text of this post here.

It's fine if you do and it's fine if you don't. You have been presented with the Truth of the Gospel. If you choose to hold fast to your false doctrines and reject the Truth, there's nothing I can do about it. I can post scripture until my keyboard breaks, but if your heart is hardened it won't make a bit of difference. It's in God's hands now. All I can do is pray for you, friend.

I'll just leave you with this to think about:

Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I don't have much spare time today

Thank you, Jesus!

We don't want to call the Bible pagan now do we?

No, just the New American Bible translation.

What is important to understand is that the

Just a quick stylistic tip, you can eliminate a lot of words from your writing if you avoid phrases that add nothing, such as this one. Eight totally wasted words. Just dive right in and say what you want to say, boy.

So where I am going is

Hell.

Now though it is highly appropriate that Christianity which came out of the cultural influence of Rome (on the Gentile side anyway) would have strong association of titles and concepts from that Roman legacy. So as Rome fell and the supremacy of Christianity comes into its own the popes assumed the highest titles of the land that the people and foreign rulers would recognize.

That would explain the rampant pedophilic faggotry among the Catholic priesthood, too.... why invent new sexual abominations that you have to explain to everyone when you inherited a perfectly good set of perversions from the Romans?

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Thank you, Jesus!

No, just the New American Bible translation.

Just a quick stylistic tip, you can eliminate a lot of words from your writing if you avoid phrases that add nothing, such as this one. Eight totally wasted words. Just dive right in and say what you want to say, boy.

Hell.

That would explain the rampant pedophilic faggotry among the Catholic priesthood, too.... why invent new sexual abominations that you have to explain to everyone when you inherited a perfectly good set of perversions from the Romans?

Oh cut me a break twerp. I was feeling sorry for you and was considering replying to your prior nonsense to try to give you proper apostolic teaching so you at least had a chance of being saved. But I can see now that you lack the manliness, the maturity and the intellect to be held accountable for your current mental and spiritual dysfunction and it will be better to let you go forward in life in invincible ignorance. Besides I don't generally respond to the minor league players looking to make a name for themselves by getting bloodied by better men.

At least your good Pastor Brother Billy while being nearly blind to the truth has the common courtesy to interact as an adult.

So welcome to "Mr. Iggy" - you are from this day forward forever ignored for your rude school-boy insolence. I'll pray that some day you grown up and become man enough to make it worthwhile for someone to give you the attention you crave.

ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

My doctrine comes straight from a literal reading of in-context scripture. Your subtil points are loosely based on a combination of figurative interpretation, out-of-context scripture, and extra-biblical traditions.

Of course - this is your stock defense which means you have nothing of any real counter rebuttal substance to offer. I can now see the subtle humor in your choice of moniker brother Billy. I should have picked up on it sooner since the ratio of product-to-excretion has been rather tellingly thin and watery in these last episodes with you. Billy-Reuben, does sound remarkably like "Bilirubin" and the latter is in fact an excretion product whose levels are not controllable in the body. Thus, Bilirubin levels reflect the balance between production and excretion. But balance is an oxymormon since there is no "normal" level of bilirubin. How perfectly aprops and convenient to be accountable to no standards except your own private ones. Catholics can't have private interpretation of scripture since the apostle's taught our successor bishops how to divide scripture - after all Catholics wrote and assembled the bible.

Can you level with me Brother Billy? Do you imagine that your private interpretation of scripture is any better than anyone else's on the planet? I am trying to get a rough-in on the hubris levels. If I say "to-mato" and you say "ta-mato". I prefer my take on the dialect since I got mine from an apostolic teaching but only the devil and God know where you got yours.

As for subtlety ponder the fun wisdom here as a momentary diversion to see that where serpents once were used to tempt in Genesis in Christ they now are made to serve...

Matthew 10:16 (kjv) Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Wait, how did I make it impossible for infants and mentally impaired to profess belief? When was it ever possible for an infant to profess belief?

I figured it would go right over your head again Billy. I was hoping you Baptists cared a little more about the salvation of your children who are too young to profess their belief and might die before they get the baptism that Jesus told us we must have - 'bring the children to me'. So how do your Baptist children who die at an early age who can't yet have a well developed faith and who's parents prevented from being baptised get saved?

When does the Bible say that one can profess belief on another's behalf? That sounds like a Mormon belief, where they posthumously baptize non-Mormons into the Mormon faith.

Nice try at subterfuge. You know very well that Catholics don't practice proxied baptism for the dead like Mormons do so why try to place Catholics into another one of the Baptists' favorite hate groups? Trying to demonize those that are sent to help you is not going to benefit you.

I have given you the scripture cases already that demonstrate that through another's faith (which is pragmatically identical to belief for this discussion) another person may be healed. It is only a minor extension of that same concept to see that sickness has always had a strong biblical association with some form of sin (original or personal) and to thereby infer that a person in good standing with God (a pious Christian) can bring a friend in need to Jesus through their faith. That is just a case of grace working through others as part of God's economy of salvation.

Matthew 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

I never said I have not sinned, but now that the Holy Spirit is inside of me, I cannot sin any more.

And I am sad to say that I must tell you again that scripture calls you a liar.

Your "Once Saved Always Saved" doctrine was stolen from Calvin and modified but was never taught by any apostle. It was unheard of in the early church and the scourge of this heresy only comes into existence 1500 years distant from Christ's resurrection. There is simply no such biblical principal as "eternal security". Billy, you are preaching a new gospel and a new tradtion of man. There is no way to wiggle out of this one. Give even a single reference to any early Church father's writings to prove that The Church ever taught this. You can't - so please stop perverting God's word and please stop pretending to know what you are talking about. What you simply can't wrap your mind around is the temporal aspects of salvation being simultaneously a past, present and future event. In eternity there is no sense of time. The word "salvation" means nothing "here and now" unless it also means past and future. Salvation is only relevant as God judges you "saved" - period. But Billy, since you are teaching a false gospel you will not be one of those "saved" unless you stop sowing weeds of error in God's field. You have been warned and God will tell you this someday if you do not heed my words.

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

No one can resist temptation to sin through his own efforts. If that were possible, we wouldn't need God's Grace.

Don't go down the path of "easy believism" billy and try to make the case that we are not accountable for our own actions and choices. That's a cop out - we must cooperate with God's grace through free will. We can't just toss our hands up and say "salvation is all God's problem" and play the role of a mindless robot.

Sure, Billy, there was no need to put forth any commandments and obey Christ since God will force us to obey Him so we can't sin right?...

1 John 1:8-10 is not talking about committing new sins. It is talking about the sins that we committed before we got saved. Basically, it is saying that God forgives but doesn't forget.

Nonsense. You have no rational sense of temporal context. Salvation is simultaneously a past, present and future event. Get that into your head. I know this is a bit hard to wrap your mind around - meditate on it.

Basically God is saying he will remember your sins no more (if you get them forgiven through baptism or through sacramental confession).

Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Before you again falsely accuse of inserting my own "bias" into this scripture, 1 John 3:9 says that born again Christians CANNOT sin. There are no contradictions in the Bible, but there are plenty of contradictions between the Bible and your doctrine.

You can't use 1 John 3:9 as a proof text for OSAS - sorry God is not going to let you pervert his word. You must look at EVERY case in scripture where we are told dozens and dozens of times to avoid sin and to confess our sins in public before the Church if we do sin. Why do you think Jesus gave us "The Lord's Prayer" to be prayed daily and to forgive daily so we can be forgiven daily???

Further you must also account for John's other verses that call you a liar if you say that you do not sin. If you are going to insist on a literal read you are going to have to be consistent and accept all that He said...

1 John 1:8-10
8If 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.

You are hanging your entire salvation on that one prior verse Billy while ignoring others. Guess what that makes you Billy? Yup, you are a typical Protestant/Baptist Bible-Verse Cherry Picker. You go for the stuff that looks good and tastes good while ignoring the other things that are less settling.

There now I have told you the truth that you have it wrong and its going to land you in hell if you keep preaching this lie.

OSAS is utterly wrong but I need to discern which flavor of OSAS poison you believe in to tailor my exorcism for you Billy. I am going to give it my best to save you brother. Yes, I am praying for you (The Divine Mercy Chaplet).

Are you trying to say that by fiat the sinful things you used to do become magically "unsinful" when you imagine in your own mind that you are "saved" like the Lutherans do?

Or are you saying that when you stop doing sinful things that is a sign that you are saved and you can no longer sin? But if you sin again in a week, or a month or a year or in 10 years then you were not really saved and you got to go back and get a new baptism after repenting again? I hope you keep your baptismal clothes bro cuz you are going to have to go back to be dunked again (uselessly) every few weeks...

If the first case then you are sinning to profess and demonstrate your faith and trust in God's grace (putting God to the test) and saying you are not responsible for your own actions - which of course will land you the deepest hell. But if its the latter case then you are simply deceiving yourself but will not be pushed so deeply into hell (if that is any comfort to you) as the prior case.

Either way I am going to pray for you. But for now RUN FROM the perverse doctrine of OSAS like your life depended on it. I am not kidding - its snake oil. Every-time you sin you will say "oh my, I guess I was not really saved - let's try again tomorrow". Guess what - you will be doing that all your life (per 1 John 1:8-10). So you should convert to become Catholic since you can at least get assurances of forgivness of sins in sacramental confession - even daily if need be and sincerely resentful.

You accuse me of inserting my own bias into scripture, but you need to consider the beam in your own eye. The passage you quoted says we need to confess our sins, but doesn't say anything about a requirement to confess them to someone with "apostolic authority". The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. I confessed my sins directly to God.

Oh bologna Billy - use your defensive counter-measures metaphors properly. The beam thingie is for those who are judging you as an enemy and to elevate themselves in their own eyes. I am just trying to wake you up and save your butt. I get nothing out of this other than a new brother if I can do my job. Let me give you more medicine here:

James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.


Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).

1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.

1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.

Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.

2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).

Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.

Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.

Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.

1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.
Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).

I will try to wade through the other stuff you wrote later,
ApostolicChristian

[Elder Holiday]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Here at my Church we baptise so many people who used to be in the false Catholic religion. They all feel so great and then freely admit that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon that Jesus Christ talked about. But how can one false religion, the Baptists, call another false? Didn't Jesus tells us to judge righteously? I don't think you are doing that.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Earlier when I said that Emperor Constantine was the first Pope, you said he couldn't have been Pope because he used the pagan title "Pontifex Maximus". However, the current Pope uses the same title.

Why would a Christian Pope assume the title of the Pagan high priesthood? Doesn't the Bible warn us to abstain from all appearance of evil?
...
Pastor Billy-Reuben

Really Billy, I can see that logic is not your strong suit. Parochialism is never going to get you saved bro.

Why would God let the KJV translators bestow the title on Jesus of "Lord of Lord and King of Kings" in their rather infantile renderings commissioned under the Protestant King James (self appointed head of the Protestant Church) when the lordy title of "King" is historically and equally bestowed with honor to pagan kings who precede even David? Eh? The term King is often applied equally in the literature to ancient pagan rulers who predate Abraham by millenium. And if you look at the psalm 2 reference below you will see that the translators even put the word "King" on God's lips in a complaint against the evil leaders of men.

I must wonder from the KJV's anachronistic 17th century language of "Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen" how many Baptists, simple in the faith, imagine Jesus and the apostles wandering about the biblical lands in top hats and Johnny Walker-boots professing "the good news"?

As an aside it is most peculiar that you insist against all historical evidence that Baptists are not Protestants while demanding your ecclesial community all use the Bible that was "authorized" by a Protestant King. It seems to me in taking on the language of King James and the vernacular of his book you all are submitting yourselves to the whims of just about anyone who puts on the title of "King" . Bravo - an argument painted quite competently into the corner bro.

Here's the coup de grâce to the whole nonsense:

King Nebakanezer was a Babylonian king, He ordered the hanging gardens of "Babylon" to be built (meaning" Gates of the Gods") by 612 bc, He also laid siege in Jerusalem for a year and then sacked it. Ergo this usage of King shows it as a title of pagans. If we want to limit ourselves to the bible as our history book (Which it is not) then we can see that one of the very first references to a monarchy is inferred from Genesis to the evil Nimrod who had a kingdom - therefor he too was a "king".

Daniel 4:1 (kjv)
Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.

Genesis 10:8-10 (kjv)
8And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. 10And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

Revelations 19:16 (kjv)
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

QED:
King is a pagan title and Jesus uses it. Does that make Jesus a pagan in your silly system of reckoning?

Now that we have put down your silly ides let's turn this encounter into a positive learning experience yes?

I want you to see that there is a ongoing pattern of great struggle ongoing from the beginning of time between those pagan kings who rejected God from the time of the flood to this day. I want you to see how Jesus is God's response to Nimrod's haughty attack against God's justice in bringing the flood. Many of us think that the ancient poems of Gilgamesh are in fact King Nimrod. Research the link I here give of evil King Nimrod "the Rebel" the bible called "hunter" [but of men, in bitter opposition to YHWH]. We now generally believed Nimrod to be none other than the epic url=http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/nimrod.html]Gilgamesh[/url], who is the biblical son of Cush son of HAM son of Noah.

It is not surprising in current modern context to know that Nimrod is the forefather to the men who built the tower of babel. The pluralism of dialectic factions seen in what some wrongly call Christendom 's 33,000 Protestant sects is babel once again attempting to re-manifest itself as a babel of truth in opposition to God. Catholics know better.

Psalm 2 (KJV)
1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. [ed: profound prophesy!!!!]
8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

I trust this encounter has been enlightening if not humbling.

Have a great day,
ApostolicChristian