Vatican-Backed Newspaper Hails Latest 'Harry Potter' Film for 'Values'

Prophet »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:24 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"And Jesus tells us that He is the vine and we are the branches, but yet the catholics have no leaves. So much for catholic literal interpretation of Jesus' words."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I lose more catholics with that comment...

mathetes »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:49 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Danpat,

I was going to respond to you point by point, but when I see how you compare your apples to my oranges, how you twist my words to mean what you what them to mean, how you set up straw men so you can knock 'em down and look good, and how you continue to read back into history what you want it to mean today, I see there's really no point. You are stuck in your beliefs and wouldn't change if God Himself gave you a vision, because it didn't come through the Vatican.

You say I'm not a theologian; I couldn't care any less what your opinion of me is. My guess is that I've studied theology more than you. But I've always felt closer to being a practitioner than a theoreticist. Are you a theologian, or do you just keep parroting what you were taught in catechism class or gathered from the Internet?

When you are ready to read the Bible with open eyes, and not read into it what is not there, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Until then, God bless you and give light to your path.

Online4Him »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

believer,

Yes; and a whole lot of jibber jabber...

believer »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:23 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

online, some would call it much ado about nothing!!

believer »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

dan, not sure where they were baptized, but I've been to the Jordan River which could easily accommodate the baptism by immersion of 3,000 people.

Online4Him »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:22 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Dan,

You are all over the place; ever thought about addressing one subject at a time?

believer »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:04 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

dan, please explain how repeating a whole slew of hail Marys, our Fathers, and glory bes is meditating on the life of Christ? I would think spending time in meditation dwelling on the Gospels would be a whole lot more effective.

Prophet »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:55 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"Boy, ain't this the truth. Jesus tells the the Jews six times (in John) that He is giving them His Body to eat and Blood to drink; and because it is a "hard saying" the Protestants go off with that crowd that walked away from Him."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And Jesus tells us that He is the vine and we are the branches, but yet the catholics have no leaves. So much for catholic literal interpretation of Jesus' words.

Prophet »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:54 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


So, all that is needed to be perfect is the Scriptures. So that proves that the belief that "not all truth rests in the Scriptures" is a lie.

Prophet »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what "they wrongly believe" to be the Catholic Church" - Fulton Sheen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

True. And there are millions more than that who hate catholicism because they know the truth.

Prophet »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:39 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

"This is why women don't know history or theology and why Jesus chose 13 men to represent Him to the world..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Name calling...how Christian....and the first sign of a losing argument.

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"Sorry. You will continue to come up empty until you match the actual Word of God with the original understanding of it. "

Boy, ain't this the truth. Jesus tells the the Jews six times (in John) that He is giving them His Body to eat and Blood to drink; and because it is a "hard saying" the Protestants go off with that crowd that walked away from Him.

This is "Sola Scriptura line dancing."

Prophet »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Not all truth rests in Scriptures."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Catholicism and Mormonism and Branch Davidian are no different.

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"a whole lot of extra-biblical things..."

Not all truth rests in Scripture. Or did you not think the people of the Bible did not take potty breaks.

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"He/she also had to walk down into and be totally immersed in the baptistry,"

This has already been answered too i.e., there are many forms of Baptism..."totally immersed" is an error (see St Paul as he Baptised his jailors...so you think he took a "jackhammer" and rat-a-tat-tatted until he found a river? Your logic gets screwier and screwier. After all millions of Catholics get baptized within days of their birth and somehow we made it to the baptistry without walking to it (I'll let you stew for a couple of weeks until you figure out how we "do this miracle.") Again, your Sola'ing drags you into error each time.

Baptizing of the 3000 by immersion was impossible according to experts (archeologists and historians) since there was not enough water during that time in that area to "dunk 3000 people." Again, Sola'ing leading you into illogical conclusions.

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

"INITIAL baptism of a person, not infant baptism with which he disagreed (if not outright rejected)"

Tertullian is entitled to his opinion (already answered this) just as you are, but "opinions are not facts" either, in keeping with basic logic - they may be true, untrue or harmless...[Tertullinan was an historian]

"candidate had to make a public profession - hard for an infant to do that..."

Not really. An infant is under its parents care as Jesus was under Mary and Joseph; this is what "godfathers and godmothers are for;" an infant, as he or she grows older may accept or reject anything he or she desires; I have met Catholics who have renounced their "heirdom" if one may abuse a word, and the vast majority accept their commitment to Christ; your theology is "all wet" pardon the pun but I just couldn't resist it; this is why you are not a theologian--under your logic, since Baptism washes away original sin, (and your tenet that an infant does not need Baptism--he or she if they would die would be denied living with God in happiness eternally [since nothing sinful may coexist with God]; under Catholic logic, the infant would be washed pure and live with his or her creator in eternaly happiness;, thus, this is where your "Sola Scriptura" takes you--into error.

Tertullian has not been promised "freedom from error" Although I believe he is only expressing an opinion here, (i.e., not guily of heresy )history shows no confrontation with the Bishop of Rome...who has been promised "whatever you bind...whatever you loose..." and "I will be with you until the end of days."

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Scripture"

The Letters (written in 107 A.D.) of St Ignatius, first century martyr, (only 12 years after St John the Apostle died):

Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following:

-- the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philadelphians 3)

-- the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (Introduction to Philadelphians; Ephesians 6)
-- the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magnesians 6)
-- the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magnesians 6 and 13; Smyrnæans 8; Trallians 3)
-- the unity of the Church (Trallians 6; Philadelphians 3; Magnesians 13)
-- the holiness of the Church (Smyrnæans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians and Romans)
-- the catholicity of the Church (Smyrnæans 8); the infallibility of the Church (Philadelphians 3; Ephesians 16-17)
-- the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrnæans 8), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrnæans 8, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians under the Church Jesus founded
-- the Incarnation (Ephesians 18); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polycarp 5)
-- the religious character of matrimony (Polycarp 5)
-- the value of united prayer (Ephesians 13)
-- the primacy of the See of Rome (Introduction to Romans 13)

St Ignatius, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (Philadelphians 3), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.

mathetes »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Danpat,
I wrote, "Notice the rite of baptism and its accompaniments: the candidate must make public profession of disowning the devil..."

Your response: "We don't have to "notice" this since we make this disavowing each and every year of our lives as we renew our Baptismal vows and I just once again renounced the devil about a mont ago"

Dan, that's an example of reading back into history what you want it to say. Tertullian was writing of the INITIAL baptism of a person, not infant baptism with which he disagreed (if not outright rejected). The candidate had to make a public profession - hard for an infant to do that. He/she also had to walk down into and be totally immersed in the baptistry, which looks similar to those at Qumran. Again, not many infants could do that.

As for the examples you listed, "Jesus was Baptized in a river by St John the Baptist (water Baptism)" - this is the model for all of us and the only one we practice: total immersion.

What else creates the imagery of Romans 6:4? "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." Does sprinkling? Does pouring? No, only immersion, which is what the Greek word "baptizo" means in the first place.

As for "St Paul's Baptizing jailors in his cell - (I've never seen a river run through a cell, have you?)"

Nope, haven't seen that, but they could have used a pond, water trough for the horses, irrigation canal, etc. Notice the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8): as soon as the eunuch believed, he was looking for enough water that he could be immersed; when he saw it, he was ready to plunge in with both feet (literally). Philip didn't just sprinkle a little on the eunuch's head: "And when they came up out of the water..." (Acts 8:39).

As for the whole Peter/petros vs rock/petra, I think we've been through that before (If not you, sorry, must have been another RCC poster). When Jesus said, "Upon this rock/petra..." He meant the bedrock/foundation of the confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God; that is the foundation of the church. "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." - 1 Cor 3:11

Got to sleep; catch you tomorrow.

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"In the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a person separated from Christ is united to Him becoming one with Christ, their lives joined in an indissoluble union. Paul speaks of this when he says that 'by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body' (1 Cor. 12:13). This is a spiritual union effected by a spiritual baptism as part of the overall work of salvation. It has nothing to do with water baptism. Paul makes this point when speaking of the conversion of the Ephesians: 'In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise' (Eph. 1:13)."

More gobbledegook, a chucking a churning, a twisting and a squirming; utter heresy, by cherry picking predetermined erroneou beliefs of the Gospel - the consequent confusion of conforming to a false premise to start at logical sylogism--driven by "Sola Scriptura," a neurotic belief that God has given every human being the ability to understand Scripture where even contradictions make sense.

Again the verse is beautiful - the translation putrid. St Paul baptised all the time since it was part of his priestly ministry just as the Sacrament of Reconciliation was. Go Paul

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"The Rosary comes from scripture. It is where we pray the scriptures and the mysteries of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. It is called contempletive prayer."

This is correct; the girl is wrong again. The Rosary IS the Gospel and meditating on the life of Christ is the highest form of praise through contemplation {too high a level for some]. Jesus would never condemn His own life and this is another heresy.

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"How is it biblical for catholics to start a church under "apostolic authority" and yet ignore their teachings? "Apostolic authority" is a cute little phrase created by the catholics to make their false doctrines sound ..."

This is why women don't know history or theology and why Jesus chose 13 men to represent Him to the world...

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; ..."

BOO!

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"The teachings (opinions)-- [my addition] of the early church fathers were not monolithic; they disagreed about numerous beliefs and practices. (since my insertion of "opinions" makes more sense) I am happy that the early Church fathers made use of a God given mind to discuss and discern the "meanings of life."

You have a misunderstanding of how the Holy Spirit operates--he did not take each person "back even in those days" and "smack him with a board" and voila--they would suddenly be infused with perfect knowledge of Jesus' teachings...or it would not have taken 5 (Catholic) - 7 years (Orthodox) centuries to proclaim which books of the Bible are genuine or contain no theological errors as did happen (the Protestants are still struggling even today to find the "truth of Scripture" since they have accepted a false methodology (Sola Scriptura) from a defrocked Catholic priest (of all people); Logic 101 again - begin with a false tenet and you will always arrive at false conclusions [since one Protestant contradicts another, etc. (just as the poster on Baptism has arrive at erroneous logic) acceptance or observance of "A" does not exclude "B," "C" "D" "E" etc.

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

", it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children..."

Constantine, the first Christian emperor, to my knowledge was Baptised on his deathbed although he made a commitment to Christ 12 years earlier, by his declaration.

Tertullian is entitled to his opinion as you are yours; unfortunately, Jesus did not hand over "authority in the Church to Tertullian--He handed it over to St Peter (mentioned 195 times in the Bible) (194 times his name is used first among all the Apostles) "...Thou art Peter...upon this Rock...whoever hears you hears Me...whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose upon earth will be loosed in Heaven...whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain they are retained.
The Catholic Church welcomes the opinions of all, but this does not mean it becomes "dogma."

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"And if they are not apostolic tradition, why was Tertullian doing them?"

As posted earlier, Baptism is not merely "Tradition" but the Catholic Church considers it a Sacrament (one of the seven) found in Scripture, and fufills the requirements of a Sacrament - form and matter (see prior postings for descriptions of all seven)

danpat1_2000 »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"So while Origen and other Church Fathers may have performed infant baptisms, this quote shows Tertullian frowned on it. His reason? Many of them believed that once a person's sins (original and others) were washed away in baptism, there was NO MORE remission of sin. Therefore many waited to be baptized in old age as death neared.

Notice the rite of baptism and its accompaniments: the candidate must make public profession of disowning the devil...

The teachings of the early church fathers were not monolithic; they disagreed about numerous beliefs and practices.

This does not deny Catholic teaching--it only affirms it--i.e., Baptism does not occur on in "water Baptism" as Believer is hung up on; the fact that it is done in many ways is proof of the pudding and is what Catholicism teaches:

--infant Baptism (whole households being water Baptized)
--Dismas - Baptism of Desire
--St. the first eleven Bishops' of Rome martyrdom - Baptism of Blood
-- Jesus was Baptized in a river by St John the Baptist (water Baptism)
-- St Paul's Baptizing jailors in his cell - (I've never seen a river run through a cell, have you?)

You're making a basic Logic 101 error i.e., the acceptance of one form excludes all others (poor logic)

All of the above are Catholic teaching, and so is this statement from your former post:

Notice the rite of baptism and its accompaniments: the candidate must make public profession of disowning the devil...

We don't have to "notice" this since we make this disavowing each and every year of our lives as we renew our Baptismal vows and I just once again renounced the devil about a mont ago

All of this proves only that you do not know Catholic teaching, and you also affirm the words of the great Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what "they wrongly believe" to be the Catholic Church" - Fulton Sheen

mathetes »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Here's another good example from Tertullian's De Corona ("The Crown"):

"When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week."

Notice the rite of baptism and its accompaniments: the candidate must make public profession of disowning the devil; baptism is by immersion; a taste of milk+honey afterwards; and no bath for a week. The first two would be impossible for an infant, so Tertullian was immersing at least older children and adults.

Now if Tertullian is following these traditions as handed down from the Apostles, why then do RCC churches not observe them today? And if they are not apostolic tradition, why was Tertullian doing them?

mathetes »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:02 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

I was trying to catch up on this looooong thread, when I spotted the name Tertullian. Danpat chided us Protestants for not reading Tertullian. Well, I remembered something about Tertullian, so I read. I thought many of you readers would like this quote:

Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me' [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].
"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? ...For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation -- in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom -- until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!"

So while Origen and other Church Fathers may have performed infant baptisms, this quote shows Tertullian frowned on it. His reason? Many of them believed that once a person's sins (original and others) were washed away in baptism, there was NO MORE remission of sin. Therefore many waited to be baptized in old age as death neared.

The teachings of the early church fathers were not monolithic; they disagreed about numerous beliefs and practices.

Prophet »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"You must be a full member in His Church and in college of Bishops representing the Apostles."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, no. I just need to be part of His Church, which happened 22 years ago. That is biblical.
You also said "Bible alone and faith alone are not biblical, historical or even Christian." You and the mormons are no different.

Here's a Scripture that explains the catholic church.

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Prophet »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Chas,

"How is it biblical for you to leave the Apostolic Church founded by Christ?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, you found a way, didn't you?

Prophet »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:39 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"Not so; you fail to realize that the Church Christ established is not Catholicism...."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amen. Whatever Church was formed in the first century had been utterly raped and desecrated by the catholics since then...

Prophet »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"How was it biblical for Luther or anyone to start their own church outside of Apostolic Authority?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How is it biblical for catholics to start a church under "apostolic authority" and yet ignore their teachings? "Apostolic authority" is a cute little phrase created by the catholics to make their false doctrines sound authentic. But, you can paint dog poop a pretty shade of pink, put a nice little bow on it, and spray some sweet smelling perfume on it....it's still dog poop.

Prophet »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"The Rosary comes from scripture. It is where we pray the scriptures and the mysteries of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. It is called contempletive prayer."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The rosary didn't come from scripture as a prayer, but rather the catholics created a mantra from different parts of the Scripture to pray over and over and over (which Jesus condemns).

Jehovahnissi »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

In the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a person separated from Christ is united to Him becoming one with Christ, their lives joined in an indissoluble union. Paul speaks of this when he says that 'by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body' (1 Cor. 12:13). This is a spiritual union effected by a spiritual baptism as part of the overall work of salvation. It has nothing to do with water baptism. Paul makes this point when speaking of the conversion of the Ephesians: 'In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise' (Eph. 1:13).

Spirit baptism as a distinct reality from water baptism can be seen in the analogy of circumcision. The Word of God tells us that circumcision was instituted by God as a sign and seal of His covenant with Abraham: 'and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised' (Rom. 4:11) He had been justified by faith before he was circumcised. The argument of Paul in Romans 4 is that forgiveness and acceptance with God come solely by faith independent of circumcision. At the time of Christ the Jews had perverted the meaning of circumcision, teaching that it was the effectual cause of salvation. Paul shows the fallacy of this, not only in the example of Abraham, but by drawing a distinction between outward physical circumcision and the inner spiritual circumcision accomplished by the Spirit.

What was true for the Jew is also true for the Christian. Simply substitute the word 'Christian' for 'Jew' and the word 'baptism' for 'circumcision' in Romans 2:28-29:

For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly; neither is baptism that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Christian who is one inwardly; and baptism is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Baptism in our New Testament dispensation is to be a sign and seal of the spiritual transformation that has taken place in the heart of the convert. It is a public testimony of the washing from sin and new life given. Spiritual circumcision and its relationship to baptism is explained by Paul in Col. 2:11-14 :

In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross .

God bless :O)

Online4Him »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:55 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

(Basically, you call Jesus a liar and a fraud, because for you to prove that the Catholic Church fell away from the True Gospel is to prove that Christ is a fraud and a liar)

Not so; you fail to realize that the Church Christ established is not Catholicism....

Jehovahnissi »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Here is the verse that will specifically tell us that we will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit at the moment of our conversions to the Lord:

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7)

First, this regeneration is being directly tied to us getting saved in the Lord. The words "but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit " are definitely telling us that we are saved by God's grace and mercy and that when He does save us - He is saving us "through" the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

Second, this regeneration is done directly by the Holy Spirit Himself. The words "regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" are telling us that this regeneration is being done directly by the Holy Spirit Himself.

con't

believer »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chas, I was baptized, baptized in the Holy Spirit when He indwelt me the moment I repented of my sin and turned to God by putting my complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone.

believer »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chas, if that's the case then why did I not hear until the age of 19 what a person must do to become a child of God? And I certainly did not hear that in the roman catholic church or school system but in a Service Center at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia on May 24th, 1971. And I was shown this in the Word of God by two laypeople who were not roman catholics. Plus, considering how many of the roman catholic teachings can not be found in the Word of God you would be better off saying they taught portions of God's Word plus a whole lot of extra-biblical things.

Chas »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer,

The first anabaptists came from many different groups like the Church of England, Methodists, etc. So, Anabaptist roots go into these churches and they all go back to us.

Christ promised his church that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against it and he promised the Holy spirit to lead it into all Truth. Basically, you call Jesus a liar and a fraud, because for you to prove that the Catholic Church fell away from the True Gospel is to prove that Christ is a fraud and a liar.

The fact is the Catholic Church always preaches the fullness of Truth because of God's promise and we will never fail nor fall into Apostacy as a Church because we have God's promise. Those promises are only with us, and your false teachers have led you astray.

Only the Catholic Church has these promises, so either Jesus is God and Keeps His own Word or somehow He broke His own Word and you are right.

Chas »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Since the correct translation is Born from Above and the word means regeneration, you cannot be regenerated by your choice or an emotional experience. You can only be regenerated by baptism.

Sorry. You will continue to come up empty until you match the actual Word of God with the original understanding of it.

believer »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chas, even roman catholics acknowledge that Anabaptists who became Baptists are not linked to the roman catholic church. Plus, even if we and other evangelical denominations are all linked to the roman catholic church, we did not leave the Apostolic Authority we returned to it since the roman catholic church had departed from it, basically we returned to the Word of God as our authority which indeed is what true Apostolic Authority is all about.

believer »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chas, as far as 2nd class Christians go, if you guys would quit making that inference I could put that card to bed for good, but as long as you guys keep inferring it I'll keep playing that card again and again and again!

Online4Him »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chas,

Sorry, the Rosary with all of its repetitious prayers is NOT the gospel...

(You literally cannot come up with anything, but your own opinion when interpreting scripture.)

I don't know; this is the same old mantra that Catholics chant while disappearing when they cannot explain Scripture...

believer »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chas, believe what God"s Word says happened in my life on May 24th, 1971 or believe what chas and ihs says happened in my life that night, that's a no-brainer that even they should be able to see, but just in case, I'll take God's view based on God's Word everytime. Plus, it amazes me that you guys think you can speak for God when you didn't even know me and you certainly weren't there. As Jerry Falwell used to say "I know what I know what I know" and God and I both know exactly what happended that night, as Christ told Nicodemus that night in John 3 He told me that night in 1971, you must be born again and that night I was indeed completely and totally born-again. I had been born naturally in 1952 and I was born spiritually in 1971.

believer »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chas, please tell me how repeating the Our Father, hail Mary, and glory be over and over gets one in touch with the memories of Christ's crucifixion, death, and resurrection. Plus, by saying the rosary one gets time taken off of their time in purgatory, it appears to me that the latter drives more people to the rosary than the former. Now to be honest I do miss the observance of the Stations of the Cross during the lenten season even though I realize that several of the stations have no biblical support to validate those incidents took place but it does truly get one in touch with the price Christ paid for our salvation.

Chas »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

How was it biblical for Luther or anyone to start their own church outside of Apostolic Authority?

How is it biblical for you to leave the Apostolic Church founded by Christ?

You see, at some point all of your denominations trace their history to the Catholic Church so we are the original church and only we were promised by God to be lead into all truth, not you. You must be a full member in His Church and in college of Bishops representing the Apostles.

Bible alone and faith alone are not biblical, historical or even Christian. They are simply traditions of men to denigrate and undermine God's Word and His authority in His only Church.

Chas »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer,

Like a broken record you pull out the 2nd class citizen again and again and again.

Don't you get tired playing the martyr? Why don't you address the fact that none of your interpretations match the earliest christians and my interpretations do?

Is it honestly that hard for you to swallow TRUTH? Is your bias so strong that you cannot reasonably look at something anymore?

Your so called Born Again date, was simply a realization of your baptismal Grace. There is nothing in scripture that describes what you experienced as a born again experience. It was simply a very emotional experience and I'm sure it was wonderful and amazing and I for one am glad you stopped fighting God and accepted His Grace that you had indwelling in you since baptism and confirmation. Receiving the Eucharist also infused Grace into you that put you on the path to repentance.

Show me in scripture, where the term "Born Again" is used in describing your experience? By the way, the original greek is "REGENERATED". So, you were regenerated at your baptism, not in 1971. So, show me in Greek the word Born again tied to an experience like you had.

Chas »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Beating up on IHS and Dan now I see. Lovely.

I did speak to chris about some of his comments to be more charitable and he agreed.

Online,

The Rosary comes from scripture. It is where we pray the scriptures and the mysteries of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. It is called contempletive prayer.

Also, I won't address other question since you and I have traded questions and you have come up empty every time, so why would I indulge you any farther. You literally can not come up with anything, but your own opinion when interpreting scripture.

Your opinion has no value, since every has one. What would have value is if you tried to match your interpretations with actual historical understanding of these points and you will find that you are wrong almost everytime.

Wilderness1 »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Some conclusions are far from the truth.

Online4Him »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

believer,

Dan also said the Rosary was the gospel; how he came to that conclusion, I do not know....