Catholicism and christianity

[other one]

15 hours ago, Willa said:

Northern Baptists don't believe this.  Conservative Baptists believe that baptism is a testimony to what God has already done in our lives.  It is publicly confessing Christ as well, and identifying with His body. 

Baptism doesn't save a person, but a saved person gets Baptized??????  that seems to be what you are saying.

[woundeddog]

4 hours ago, Teditis said:

How does God work that out then in real life? How does He Save people in a non-Christian environment?

good question, I would have to say he does it the same way he saves some one in a Christian environment-- "faith comes by Hearing the word of God"- outside of scripture truth no one is saved- they are not saved by formula or practice, they are saved by faith

[Guest Teditis]

16 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

good question, I would have to say he does it the same way he saves some one in a Christian environment-- "faith comes by Hearing the word of God"- outside of scripture truth no one is saved- they are not saved by formula or practice, they are saved by faith

So then, you believe that in a Catholic Church, people can hear the Word of God and the Truth of Scripture being preached? AND, they come to a genuine saving Faith?

So where's the problem? Their "formulas and practices' don't seem to be getting in the way.

[woundeddog]

31 minutes ago, Teditis said:

51 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

 

So then, you believe that in a Catholic Church, people can hear the Word of God and the Truth of Scripture being preached? AND, they come to a genuine saving Faith?

no. I do not believe that. Roman Catholic doctrine says a person can not be saved with out being Baptized.

That is a work-- saving salvation is Jesus + nothing else

[Guest Teditis]

11 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

no. I do not believe that. Roman Catholic doctrine says a person can not be saved with out being Baptized.

That is a work-- saving salvation is Jesus + nothing else

I'm confused then... first  you said that you believed that there were Saved people in the Catholic Church and said that

any of them that were Saved had to have been Saved by hearing the Word of God preached to them... now you seem to

be saying that none are Saved? Which is it... I'm just trying to follow your thinking here.

[woundeddog]

10 minutes ago, Teditis said:

I'm confused then...

sorry, maybe I should have been more clear--- Going to a specific place is not the only location a person can hear the word- also some saved folks may have gravitated to the RCC church for some reason- I do not believe the RCC preaches a saving message-- but a saving message can be heard outside of that organization. Surprisingly I believe some Mormons and Jehovah's Witness can be saved but I don't think those groups preach the gospel- but folks can fall in with them-- I even believe that some Baptists are saved

[Guest Teditis]

13 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

sorry, maybe I should have been more clear--- Going to a specific place is not the only location a person can hear the word- also some saved folks may have gravitated to the RCC church for some reason- I do not believe the RCC preaches a saving message-- but a saving message can be heard outside of that organization. Surprisingly I believe some Mormons and Jehovah's Witness can be saved but I don't think those groups preach the gospel- but folks can fall in with them-- I even believe that some Baptists are saved

Okay, I see what you're saying now... thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

Still, I believe that a works-based faith can save a person though it will, more often than not, lead to an immature spiritual life.

Without the knowledge of the Abundant Grace they we've received through Christ, believer's can stagnate and stay stuck in a place

where they're not living a life fully dependent on God, Himself.

[B3L13v3R]

22 hours ago, Hoddie said:

...The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself.

 

Nope, Peter was simply a man, an apostle of Christ.
He was never the Rock, only a stone.

There has never been a "pope" found anywhere in the Bible.
Its only through man's false religious assumptions that the title pope ever came. Or for that matter a nun or a monk.

Small Rock, Peter, Greek: Petros.
Massive Rock, Christ ALONE, Greek: Petra,

Jesus questioned his disciples who men said that he was, followed by asking His disciples as to who He was.
Peter speaks up, and clearly states: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus mentions he is blessed, and that Father God has revealed this to him.

Christ goes on to speak: "Mat 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (Greek: petros, piece of rock. Peter.)
and upon this rock (Greek: Petra, Mass of Rock, Christ, referring only to Himself)
I (Jesus Christ) will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Jesus Christ was referring to HIMSELF as the Rock that the True Church is built upon in Mat 16:18, never Peter!
Do away with the first "pope" Peter and there go the rest right up to the current Jesuit pope Francis!

Not five verses later, Peter (who the RCC mistakenly believe to be the first rock pope) is rebuked for speaking for Satan by the Rock Himself, Jesus Christ!

As Believers, we are all told in His Words following, to deny ourselves, pick up our own cross (seeing that old sinful man as symbolically dead) and following Him!
Whoever thinks they're going to save their own life will lose it for an eternity in Hell.
Whoever repents and believes on Jesus Christ and HIm ALONE will find life!
Literally if we are offered the whole world with all of its contents, and lose our eternal soul in Hell, what would this profit us?
 
Our eternal souls are priceless! Don't let cares of this world with deceitfulness of riches or it's MANY doctrines of "men" keep you from entering the kingdom of God!

Mat 16:13-26
(13)  When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
(14)  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
(15)  He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(16)  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(17)  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(18)  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(19)  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(20)  Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
(21)  From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
(22)  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
(23)  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
(24)  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
(25)  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
(26)  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

[Hoddie]

22 hours ago, Yowm said:

 And which of the 7 local Churches in Revelation was the Roman Church?

I see this as a dodge Yowm, but I'll bite. Just ask you show me the same courtesy and address my question at the end of this post.

Now, for the question at hand. When you say the "Roman Church" I am assuming you are refurring to the 'Roman rite' of the Catholic Church, correct? As for the seven Churches in Revelation, not just one was as you say the "Roman Church". All seven Churches in Revelation were Catholic Churches, under the authority of St. John who was their bishop. You see, at the time it (Revelation) was written, there was only one Church, the Catholic Church! The seven Churches listed were all part of the same universal, apostolic Church. Part of John's job as bishop, was to ensure that the seven Churches listed in Revelation were united in teaching a uniform body of doctrine.

To explain further how the seven Churches in Revelation were part if the Catholic Church, lets go back to what you posted earlier when you said "the Roman Church". This is where many non-Catholics, and even a lot of former Catholics on this site, (I won't name names, they know who they are) are lacking in knowledge when it comes to Catholicism. The Catholic religion is the religion of the Catholic Church—i.e., that group of churches in communion with the pope. If a group isn’t in communion with the pope, it isn’t part of the Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called "rites". One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite.. like I am.

There are many Catholics in the East who are not Roman Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics. These are all in communion with the pope, but they are not members of the Roman rite, so they are not Roman Catholics.The Roman rite is not stricter than these other rights. They are equal. They all teach the same faith; it is only local customs that are different among them.

Back to the 'seven churches'  Have you ever considered St. Johns symbolic use of the number seven in Revelations? In Rev. the word "seventh' is used five times and a phrase using the number(s) seven is used thirty-five (5x7) times. There are also multiple sevens as in the seven letters to the seven churches in Rev. chapters 2-3. According to Hebrew tradition every number has a symbolic significance. Three, seven, ten, and twelve are known as the "perfect" numbers. Seven is the second perfect number signifying fullness or "One" and perfection, especially spiritual perfection; it is also the number of covenant union and it is the number of the Holy Spirit. So you see Yowm, all seven churches in Revelation were part of "ONE", universal, apostolic Church - the Catholic Church.

The Protestant movement was simply a movement attempting to get back to Scripture, something the Middle Age 'catholic' church had left. Our whole life should be centered on a continual conforming to scripture whether it is protestant or non protestant.

Say's who?

You see many movements today, some are moving away from Scripture (like Rome did) and some (an increasing minority) are looking to Scripture as their final authority and revelation.

Like Rome did? Are you singling out the Roman rite? How about the many Catholics in the East who are not Roman Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics?

I choose the latter.

You mean the unbiblical doctrine of looking to Scripture as your final authority? (sola scriptura) Good luck with that! Look where thats got Protestantism and non-Denominationals today, nothing but tens of thousands differnt sects, with tens of thousands differnt interpretations of Scripture, all supposedly being taught the truth from the Holy Spirit! Which brings up the question I hope you have the courtesy to answer, as I did yours on the seven churches.

So Yowm, of all the thousand differnt Protestant/non-Denominations sects opposing each other in their interpretation of Bible despite of the claim that the Bible is the only rule of faith, and supposedly under the insperation of the Holy Spirit, who among them is right and infallible in their interpretation? Common sense tells us that two contradictory statements cannot be both true, who among them can we say to have a correct and accurate interpretation of Scripture?

　

Peace

[Hoddie]

22 hours ago, woundeddog said:

excellent question~~~~

Think so huh?  For an even more of an excellent answer, see my responce to Yowm!

I know... I know, being modest is not my strongest suit!