Dear John 3:7
We completely agree. Jesus knew their hearts as he knows our hearts. But WE don’t know our hearts. There was a time when Judas believed Jesus was the Messiah. There was a time when the followers who no longer walked with him believed in him. We are not God, we don’t know that one of those times we grow cold we won’t continue down that path. We have a joyful hope in the Lord, be we must continue to run the race.

I understand this man now has a teaching position in an American University, is this correct? If it is, then it confirms my understanding that the last refuge of Atheistic Soviet Style Communism is the American University Faculty.

Did Judas knew Christ as Peter did? Look at Luke 22: 31 and 32 to see Peters relationship with the Lord. The Lord prayed for Peter but not for Judas,look at John 17 to see who Christ prays for and you will see He prays for His own. Judas was a thief and remained a thief though he had access to the Saviour, he never knew Christ as his Saviour and Lord if he did he would have not remined a thief and remained lost but contrast Peter and the others they left all Luke 18:28. Judas was lost and rejected the Lord of Glory to remain a thief sad isnt it.

Dear Lidia

Here is another link.
I do not feel like regurgitating all this information so I'll take the shortcut.
This is wonderful news for you, as you will not have to put up with paragraphs of my intolerable writing. Theirs is much better...

Kind regards,

A

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ford/chapter08.htm

Dear Aaron,
I was able to get to the website. I’m confused. I read “ The Origins of the Baptists”. The Author says that the Baptists are descended from the Waldenses from about the 13th century. But the Waldenses taught that the Church should have no property and condemned tithing. And the biggest difference at all was that they accepted the Holy Eucharist as the Body of Christ. He also links you further back to the Paulicians. But they believed in the plurality of gods, held that all matter was bad, rejected the Old Testament, denied the incarnation, and said Christ was an angel. They refused to honour the cross by saying Christ had not been crucified. He also goes farther back to the Novatianists and Donatists. But the Novatianists taught that no sin was to be forgiven after Baptism. They too denied second marriages under any circumstances. . Donatists taught that the true church consisted only of the elect and that Baptisms were only valid when performed by a Donatist. I’m confused because these are not Baptist beliefs by any means. It seems that the only thing they had in common with Baptist beliefs is that infant baptism is wrong.

Dear Aaron,
Would you happen to know another link or source? I just get the message that the website cannot be found. Thanks

To Lidiapurple:

http://www.baptistbecause.com/tracts/baptistorgin.pdf

Dear Aaron E,,
When you explain your position that a Baptist is not a protestant, You wrote “These New Testament believers rejected every attempt to include them in with the other churches who compromised and accepted the Roman government's money, rule and authority.

I need some confirmation on this claim. What name did these New testament believers go by? Where can I find them in history? I have only seen from history that the Baptist movement started around 1609 by John Smyth.

You also said “In fact the Roman Church can only trace its history back to 313 AD when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion”. That may be the history you have learned. I’ll share with you my history. The Catholic church is the same church Christ founded. The name Catholic can be found as early as 107 A.D. in a letter from Saint Ignatius
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.
“When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans and used the word "catholic", he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation "Catholic Church" with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.” Quote taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

Dear aaron e.
You said: “that even as one falls into sin at times, one will not loose one's inheritance, is part of the shining light of a truly saved Christian. The apostles knew this. All of the universal church since has known this. Unfortunately, the Catholics do not. Not one Pope in history has ever believed the truth. Had they done so, they would have repented, bowed before the lord, and cried out for Jesus to enter their hearts and forgive them their sins. Amen”
This is what the apostles knew: sinners shall not inherit the kingdom of God I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11.
If you fall into sin from time to time, you are a sinner. If you don’t truly repent and give your life back to Christ, you Can forfeit your inheritance. The apostles knew this. All of the universal church since has known this. Fortunately, the Catholics know this. All the Popes in history, including our current Pope Benedict have professed to believed this. He is on his knees daily, bowing before the Lord and crying out for Jesus to forgive him his sins so that he too may be counted among the living. Amen Amen.”

Dear John3:7 ,
I’m a little backed up here, since my Catholic buddies seem to have disappeared, so please forgive me for not answering in a timely manner.
In reply to your statement “a person can reject Christ, but that is only because they never knew Him personally”, knowing him personally does not necessarily stop you for choosing to reject him. Peter knew Christ quite personally and rejected him. So did Judas. The difference of course was that Peter turned back to Christ, and Judas did not. I’m sure that Pastor I told you about had felt at one point he knew Christ personally. I think that everyone who has accepted Jesus as Lord feels they know him personally.
I agree completely that “a person who is truly born again of the Spirit of God continues to grow in love with Christ day by day year after year”. But one cannot state for a fact that they will not some day be another Peter. Peter swore up and down that he would never reject Jesus, and yet look what he did. The assurance we have is that Jesus will always be there with his hand outstretched, ready to take us back if we repent and return to him. But we must choose to persevere to the end.
What you call “grow cold from time to time”, is what the Catholic church calls “sin”. Sin is a free choice not to do the will of the father. Jesus said, "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." Matt 12:50. That implies that whoever does not do the will of the Father is not part of God’s Kingdom.
Part of Catholic practice is to make our type of “sinner’s prayer” every Sunday at church. As a group we say “I confess to almighty God,and to you, my brothers and sisters,that I have sinned through my own fault,in my thoughts and in my words,in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do;” We are encouraged to examine our lives daily and to make this confession daily, if need be. I know this is not your belief or practice. I just thought I’d share mine with you.

Amendoza,

Saint worship is idolatry, the Catholic Church condemns Saint worship. They do not condemn giving saints honor, or distinction, or praying to saints, but they do condemn worshipping them, even Mary.

John 6:48-66...that's an interesting bit of scripture. Do you know that the Greek word "trogo" which is translated into "eateth", in this passage is the only time in the entire New Testament that the word "trogo" is used?
The other words most used are "esthio" and "phago".
But the word "trogo" is used ONLY in this particular set of scriptures. I think that deserves more investigation.
All three of those words mean to eat, but why use a different word for only that discussion? Why not use "esthio" or "phago? And "trogo" is rather confusing as it is anyway. I think there is something here beyond literally eating His body. If that were the case, it seems that he would have used "phago" which is the primative use of the term.

Dear Anthony,
I’m confused by your first statement. Who said who’s an atheist?
Your comment “Wow did the Catholics come out in full force!!!” makes me giggle , as I seem to be the only Catholic making any comments these last few days. I feel like the lone ranger. Tonto where are you???

You’ll be happy to know that The Catholic Church agrees with you that Saint worship is blatant idolatry. The church teaches that it is a mortal sin to worship anyone but God. If you’ve been following the thread you’ll know that this implies to a Catholic that she/he is in danger of losing her/his salvation if she/he commits idolatry.

I very much agree with you when you say that you can disagree with me and not hate me, but descriptions like “octopus-head squashed square under the throne of the papacy tries to blur doctrine with her ecumenical tentacles”.. don’t ooze of gentleness and reverence.

Your statement about the Pope is incorrect. Catholics do not see the pope as divine.
Your statement about confession is correct. You need to confess to God. Jesus gave his apostles the power to hear and forgive sins in his name. John 20:23. That is what Catholic priests (who the Church believes are the successors to the apostles) do.

The Catholic Bible differs in that we include the 7 deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. Protestant bibles do not have these books. This is a whole other matter of debate between Protestants and Catholics. The Catholic position is that Martin Luther took them out of the Bible; You can look at a Gutenberg Bible from the 15th century, and you will sees the 7 deutercanonical books included with the rest of the OT books, while Luther's OT (16th century) does not have them. A common non-Catholic position is that the Catholic church added these books at the council of Trent. However, the Catholic Church only affirmed them then. Why then? Because she had to answer to Martin Luther taking them out of his bible.

I think that comparing the Catholic bible to Mormonism is not a good comparison. The book of Mormon is a complete other gospel offered by Joseph Smith. God Bless you too!

continued...

However, in the midst of all this apostasy, that was the foundation of the Roman Catholic church, there were groups of Christians who were never a part of the "Christianization" of the Roman Empire. These New Testament believers rejected every attempt to include them in with the other churches who compromised and accepted the Roman government's money, rule and authority.

The over the years the growth of so many false and idolatrous practices caused some within the Catholic church such as Martin Luther to rebel, and to attempt to "reform" the Catholic church. This was the birth of Protestant churches. Although, many Protestants returned in part to a belief in the Bible as their authority for their faith and practice, not one of them EVER completely left all the doctrinal errors and false teachings of the apostate Roman Catholic church.

Protestants have never accepted the principle of separation of church and state. In Europe, Protestant churches are "state" churches and supported to some degree by government imposed taxes. In Germany, the state church is Lutheran and in England, the Anglican church, France, the Roman Catholic Church, etc.

The idea that the bread and wine (grape juice) in the Lord's Supper actually becoming the physical body of Christ when taken is a Roman Catholic teaching that Protestants only modified slightly. Still today, many Protestants see the Lord's Supper as a sacrament, having to some degree saving properties or imparting some spiritual benefit. True New Testament Christians have always rejected such unbiblical ideas.

Protestants still practice infant baptism which absolutely is not taught in the Word of God. Many Protestant denominations still hold to the writings of their church fathers as a source of church doctrine and have never accepted the Bible as their sole source of teachings for their faith and practice. They all hold on to a system of hierarchy in church government and do not accept the autonomy the local church. Autonomy means each local church governs itself free from outside authority and control.

Baptists, basing their beliefs solely on the Bible, have never held to these teachings and see them as heresy. Thus, history and the doctrines of Protestantism clearly show that Baptists are not Protestants.

cited from: http://www.victory-baptist.net/independent.htm

What Baptist's Are Not

Baptists are not Protestants! The name Protestant was given to those churches which came out of Roman Catholicism during the Reformation which began in the 1500's. It originally applied through the 1700's to Lutherans, and Anglicans. Later Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodists were added to the lists of Protestants denominations. Though many people including Webster's Dictionary refers Baptists as being Protestants, it is not correct to refer to them as such or to lump all non-Catholic denominations in one group and label them Protestant. Historically, Baptists were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation and therefore can not be correctly called "protestors" or Protestants.

It is true that many Baptists left the ranks of Protestant churches which were doctrinal unsound and apostate. They left these churches because of their strong conviction that the Word of God should not be compromised. Some formed new churches and called themselves Baptists to make it clear that they believed and followed the New Testament. It is not historically correct to identify Baptists as Catholic "protestors" who left the Roman church. In the many books on church history there is not one recorded incident of a Baptist church beginning founded out of Roman Catholicism. Protestants for centuries saw the Baptists as their "enemies" and murdered them by the thousands in the name of Protestantism. It is surely an affront to call a Baptist by the name of a group that has so hated and persecuted them down throughout history.

There have always existed, from the time of Christ, New Testament churches which were not a part of the Roman Church. In fact the Roman Church can only trace its history back to 313 AD when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion. In 395 AD, Emperor Contantius "Christianized" Rome and made the worship of idols punishable by death. By 400 AD, the Emperor Theodosius had declared Christianity the only state religion of the Roman Empire. Many churches by this time had come under the domination of the Rome government and had ceased from being New Testament churches. When the Roman Emperor declared Christianity the religion of Rome, he in mass "converted" hordes of pagans which made up the Empire. Pagan temples became the meeting houses for "Christians." Rome, then hired unregenerate pagan priests as "Christian" ministers. The influx of these falsely converted pagans is one reason Roman Catholicism came to have so many false and pagan beliefs.

cited from: http://www.victory-baptist.net/independent.htm

I deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I am not Protestant, I am a fundamental Baptist.

Dear Aaron,
Although you may not have been talking directly to this Catholic, I seem to be the only one representing the Catholic Church on this comment board. So, you can see how I would assume your words were meant for me, can’t you? Thank you for clearing that up!
And thank you for your prayers. Mine for you are almost the same, except that I would not call your branch of Christianity a false religion. There are many aspects of truth in Protestantism. As a Catholic I embrace all that is true in your faith. I can see by your passionate comments that you love the Lord with all your heart.
About apostasy: In addition to Judas, there was also a much larger New Testament apostasy. John 6:48-66. This apostasy is ongoing with those who deny the true presence of Christ in the bread (Eucharist). All the verses you quote help me to affirm that there has been and always will be apostates, but the Catholic Church will never deny our Lord Jesus Christ.

Lidia,
You said "What authority do you personally use to help you interpret scripture?"
John 16:12-15:
" 12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

I go to the Holy Spirit when I cannot understand something. I have found His Spirit to be more reliable than man's wisdom.

Maybe I should have clarified why I had a section on apostasy in my last post. I meant to explain the case of the protestant pastor mentioned as an example in one of Lidiapurple's posts. Here it is again for convenience sake:

Apostasy:

This difficult doctrine must be distinguished from heresy, which is simply a belief in false doctrine. Apostasy is a deliberate turning away from a revealed truth after it has been tentatively received. There are a number of Bible descriptions of it. It is a claim that men know God but is denied by their actions, Tit. 1:16; abiding not in the doctrine of Christ, 2 John 9; a departure from the faith, 1 Tim. 4:1; an unwillingness to endure sound doctrine, 2 Tim. 4:3; a forsaking of the right way, 2 Pet. 2:15; a turning from the holy commandments, 2 Pet. 2:21.
Apostates are not saved persons, because they do not have the Spirit, Jude 19; Rom. 8:9. They are “rocky ground” hearers who receive the Word with joy, Luke 8:13; but afterward fall away, which is literally “apostatize.” The “good ground” hearers receive the Word into their hearts, a much stronger word for receiving it, Mark 4:20, Gr.
Individual apostasy has occurred throughout history. Jude 11 cites three examples from the OT. Judas is the outstanding example in the NT. Corporate apostasy will overtake Christendom in the last days, 2 Thess. 2:3; Rev. 3:14-20. Christ foretold this, Luke 18:8. Jude describes apostates as ungodly men who pervert God’s grace and deny our Lord, Jude 8, 16, 19.
(Evans 278)

Also, in response to: "why would Jesus need to strengthen us at all? What would it matter that we need to endure the trials and tests that come our way? If we fall, if we turn away from Christ, no big deal, we’ve been saved, according to “once saved always saved” thinking."

Jesus strengthens us to endure the trials of a fallen world. Our faith is tested to strengthen it. If I am truly saved, I think not to turn away from Christ knowing that I am saved anyway. Love compels me otherwise. I am tempted to take my salvation for granted at times, however, through prayer and spiritual support from the congregation, this temptation is overcome. Assured salvation requires more faith than salvation that must be worked for, or managed. It is not a balancing act or a meter that must be administered. The truth of my life is that I am saved and out of love and fear and hope I will serve the Lord, and my brothers and sisters. Knowing that even as one falls into sin at times, one will not loose one's inheritance, is part of the shining light of a truly saved Christian. The apostles knew this. All of the universal church since has known this. Unfortunately, the Catholics do not. Not one Pope in history has ever believed the truth. Had they done so, they would have repented, bowed before the lord, and cried out for Jesus to enter their hearts and forgive them their sins. Amen.

Dear Lidiapurple, have a look at 1Cor15:19, Paul says this, "if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" Here you have it, if you only have Christ in this life what a miserable life it would be, Salvation is hope in Christ in this life and the life to come Heb7:25 He saves to the uttermost that means entire, just take God at His Word, dont try to work it out just believe the All Sufficiant God .