CALVINISM IS SIMPLY THE GOSPEL BELIEVED

[Eternally Grateful]

I know both Catholic theology and Protestant theology and sometimes I do get a little mixed up.

There is no such thing as protestant theology, That is really a made up word.

In fact, if you really look at the catholics, the orthodox, the lutherans, and other long standing churches. their theology is prety much the same, viuce a few differences (I believe the only difference between catholic and orthodox is the orthodox rejects the authority of the pope)

Paragraph 1213 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches something that even the priests I know do not teach.
They DO teach that a person must be baptized - for the forgiveness of sins. Let me post 1213 first - and maybe this isn't the right place to discuss this...



Paragraph 1213 CCC
Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

If baptism makes us sons of God....everyone in the CC would be a son of God and would be saved, but this is not true.
They have a way of explaining this and getting around what it says. (which I won't get into).

As far as I can understand, we're saved when we become born again. In John 3:5 Jesus said that we must be born of water and the spirit.
I do believe He meant physical water at birth...the first born experience....and then BORN AGAIN....the spiritually born experience. We must be born AGAIN. Once physically and once spritually.

John baptized with water...
Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, with fire.

IF regeneration means that we must be baptized OR WE ARE NOT SAVED....
then I would have a problem with this.

That's my understanding of baptism.

I agree here.

But remember, the catholic church teaches we must do alot of things if we want to get to heaven..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Nobody is called to "blindly" follow Christ or those He appointed to lead us.

yet you do it.

But, we are called to follow Christ through those to whom He gave His authority to lead us.

Those whome he gave authority would teach what he taught..

I would never recommend a do-it-yourself approach because you always end up with error (heresy).

I recommend a test each spirit approach. Trust no one. anyone can claim they come from god. but from what i have seen in my 50 plus years of going to church. no one, including myself. has 100% truth.. not shouold we trust anyone 100%, even Peter got things wrong and had to be rebuked by Paul

I'm not following my own doctrine. I'm following Christ's doctrine which He gave to the Apostles, who did likewise to their successors the bishops. The only rellgion on earth that has the full deposit of faith handed on to us by Christ is the Catholic Church. I think it is ludicrous to believe that someone or some group, coming along 16 centuries or later think they can correct the constant teaching of Christ's Church because they read a translation of the book that Church created and think they know better.

Your churches doctrine is your doctrine, so yes, you are following your own doctrine.. we all do.. Now whether our truth we follow is gods or not.. We will all find out one day. And God will hold each one of us accountable for what we believe.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Show me a Church apart from the Catholic Church that existed for the first 1000 years of Christianity. There are none!

of course not. the roman army destroyed any church that even decided to make itself in opposition to the roman church.

But I can show you a churhc in the first century that was not the catholic church. All I have to do is read the NT. I see the churches all around Jerusalem and Asia minor looked nothing like the roman church. because they are not the same

The Church doesn't persecute Christ. Christ identifies as one with His Church. In Acts 9:4, Jesus addresses Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) after he knocked him off his horse as he was going around persecuting the Church. "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was actually doing, but "...why are you persecuting Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church. Persecute Christ's Church, as you are doing with your lies about His Church, and you persecute Christ.

Your church persecutes Christ. You can deny it all you want. it will never make you right. Jesus said it is finished, the way to salvation was completed on the cross. your church rejects that.. Thus it rejects Christ.

Before you accuse the Catholic Church of something, why not find out what they really teach, or ask, rather than listening to the lies of Satan you have been told?

I know what they teach.. I have been to roman mass many a time, my best freind growing up was catholic. I dated a catholic for 5 years. and went to mass with her often. And I have spent probably 8 years in many chat rooms discussing catholic theology with catholic members.

I would suggest you search the scriptures. then test it by what you have been taught, If you do with an open heart. you will be like many former Catholics who realized how brainwashed they were by their priests.

 

[GodsGrace]

Give me a little time to get back to you-there’s a lot of noise and distractions right now, and my mood is a bit off. Plus, I've got some opponents who seem to be hoping for my downfall, and today has felt like a day of spiritual warfare.

Maybe @mailmandan or @marks can offer you a response in the meantime-they're the only two I fully trust on this Forum. And please don’t take this as me avoiding your question about water baptism or what comes first.

Heading to the gym now and aiming for an early night.

J.

Happy to hear from either @marks or @mailmandan .

(explanation for baptismal regeneration)....

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually I do not do what he does. I do not blindly follow anyone. I will be held accountable by God himsel;f based on what I believe. Not what some church (protestant or catholic) tells me. In Fact I am warned to test each spirit. To be more like the bereans, who searched the scriptures to make sure what Paul said was right. Not just blidnly follow him.

OK
So let's discuss for a few posts unless the OP stops us.
Here's how it is for Catholics....
Most go to church on Sunday (or Saturday) to attend Mass.
I doubt they even know what the Mass is or what the parts mean, etc.
Some go to confession....not too many - most do not believe they need to confess to a priest but only to God.

Those that are interested in their faith, do study and do inform themselves as to what the CC teaches.
They use the bible and they also use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, to me at least, is the same as using one of the Confessions in reformed theology. I don't know why it should be necessary.

@Augustin56 is one of those Catholics that knows what he believes and believes it anyway.
He also happens to be a very nice person and he'll repeat exactly what the CC teaches, which he accepts and not blindly.

I agree, There are so many different beliefs. But I blame this on satan, Not denominations. Satan has had the history of the world to but a little bit of leaven in the truth, and that leaven exposed into a large lie.. It is nothing new, it did nto start with the catholic church or any protestant church. It started with Adam and Eve, and has continued to go since then.

Let's not get into this. This has been bothering me from before I came to this forum and I know that there's no solution.
Of course it's satan --- all evil comes from satan. And it IS evil that we Christians can't agree on some basics. (just like you and I don't agree on works and OSAS).

What misconceptions do you see regarding the CC.. I am open to discuss them. I do not dislike the CC per say, i dislike what they are doing. they are leading 1000's to hell. Just like the jews did. They reject the pure message of grace. and just like the jew. they add their own works, something Paul call the galation Church fools for. something he spent his whole ministry trying to fight. yet here we are 2000 years later with another group of people doing the exact same thing the jews did.

The CC is not leading thousands to hell.
It teaches the gospel.
It has some doctrine that seems really odd, but they know why the teach it.
It doesn't change the nature of God like the reformed faith does....that REALLY presents problems to the Christian faith.

1. They add works to the gospel

Jesus, Paul, James, all the writers taught that we are to do good works. If I have to post verses it'll have to wait till the morning, but here are 2 that come to mind immediately...

Ephesians 2:9 or 10 WE ARE CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS

James 2:26 (?) FAITH APART FROM WORKS IS A DEAD FAITH.

Hebrews 13 DO NOT NEGLECT TO DO GOOD.

We're exhorted to do good works all throughout the entire NT.

2. They claim they were picked by God

I don't know what you mean by this. The Hebrews were picked by God.

3. they claim they have the only truth

They claim the have THE FULL TRUTH...
So what? At least they're not teaching heresy - like arianism for instance.
My understanding from the CCC is that the CC believes ALL religions have SOME TRUTH,,,but the CC has the full truth.

4. They claim they have the truth, everyone else does not.

Every denomination believes this.

I can go on and on and on.

What I said was true,

I can not stand a person who attacks other people who does the same things he is attacking others for.

Agreed.

 

[GodsGrace]

of course not. the roman army destroyed any church that even decided to make itself in opposition to the roman church.

But I can show you a churhc in the first century that was not the catholic church. All I have to do is read the NT. I see the churches all around Jerusalem and Asia minor looked nothing like the roman church. because they are not the same

Your church persecutes Christ. You can deny it all you want. it will never make you right. Jesus said it is finished, the way to salvation was completed on the cross. your church rejects that.. Thus it rejects Christ.

I know what they teach.. I have been to roman mass many a time, my best freind growing up was catholic. I dated a catholic for 5 years. and went to mass with her often. And I have spent probably 8 years in many chat rooms discussing catholic theology with catholic members.

I would suggest you search the scriptures. then test it by what you have been taught, If you do with an open heart. you will be like many former Catholics who realized how brainwashed they were by their priests.

How does the CC persecute Christ?

 

[GodsGrace]

There is no such thing as protestant theology, That is really a made up word.

Of course....just to distinguish from Catholic.
I do know a bit of Nazarene and AofG theology.
I now a lot about reformed theology - although I'm told many times that I just don't understand it. Whatever.

In fact, if you really look at the catholics, the orthodox, the lutherans, and other long standing churches. their theology is prety much the same, viuce a few differences (I believe the only difference between catholic and orthodox is the orthodox rejects the authority of the pope)

I agree here.

But remember, the catholic church teaches we must do alot of things if we want to get to heaven..

Like what?
They believe in the sacraments as grace-giving instruments.
I know kids that have never been confirmed...no priest I know will state that they're going to hell - that would be preposterous.

They DO believe in confession - I mean to a priest.
They really do believe this.

Can't really think of anything else.

I think there are misconceptions.

 

[GodsGrace]

Give me a little time to get back to you-there’s a lot of noise and distractions right now, and my mood is a bit off. Plus, I've got some opponents who seem to be hoping for my downfall, and today has felt like a day of spiritual warfare.

Maybe @mailmandan or @marks can offer you a response in the meantime-they're the only two I fully trust on this Forum. And please don’t take this as me avoiding your question about water baptism or what comes first.

Heading to the gym now and aiming for an early night.

J.

@Eternally Grateful has also replied.
You don't have to get back....the posts were sufficient.

As to what comes first:
Right after justification, sanctification begins.
For some it goes slower,,,for some it goes faster.
But it absolutely begins even before baptism.
Jesus said to do it so it should be done...that's for sure.

If I understand baptismal regeneration...
we'd have to believe that a person cannot change UNTIL they're baptized..
and I don't see this in scripture.

@Eternally Grateful
@mailmandan
@marks

 

[Piers Plowman]

So, according to you, Nestorius was correct about the nature of Jesus instead of the church that had existed from after Jesus ascended?
You believe Jesus was a god-like man instead of Jesus being God?
And you deny the Holy Trinity?

What else do you disagree with regarding the Christian faith?

Fact is, the early church had all the correct doctrines before Nestorius, Augustine, or any other person that distorted what the early Fathers believed.

This does NOT make the church of the east correct in its conclusions.

So nobody in the Church of the East was saved, for the past 1,500 years?
I think you should reconsider your questions here. And please also consider the fact that I do not appreciate unsolicited attacks against my faith. Why do you think I brought up the Council of Ephesus?

 

[Johann]

Happy to hear from either @marks or @mailmandan .

(explanation for baptismal regeneration)....

Looks like @marks and @mailmandan haven't responded, so there's that-seems like you can’t trust anyone these days. Everyone’s just out for themselves, and the hits just keep coming.

You're on your own.

I'll leave you with this since I'm really tired.

Expanded Biblical Support for Baptismal Regeneration:
Mark 16:16
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

This passage from the Great Commission ties faith and baptism together. Though belief is singled out as the criterion for condemnation, the connection between belief and baptism in salvation is often interpreted as support for baptismal regeneration.
Romans 6:3-4
"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Paul describes baptism as a means by which believers participate in Christ's death and resurrection, leading some to conclude that it has a role in the transformation of believers and their entrance into new life.
Galatians 3:27
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

In this verse, baptism is directly connected with being "clothed" with Christ, suggesting it plays an important role in salvation.
Colossians 2:12
"Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Similar to Romans 6:3-4, Paul emphasizes baptism as part of being buried and raised with Christ, which some see as essential to salvation.
Acts 22:16
"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Ananias' command to Paul links baptism with the washing away of sins, a significant point for those who affirm baptismal regeneration.
Counterpoints and Protestant Views:
Faith Alone (Sola Fide):

Many Protestant traditions emphasize sola fide (faith alone) as the key to salvation, drawing heavily from texts like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:9-10, which focus on faith as the sole means of receiving grace. These traditions argue that baptism is a sign of obedience and identification with Christ but not essential for salvation.
The Thief on the Cross:

Luke 23:42-43 recounts how the thief on the cross was promised paradise by Jesus without being baptized. This story is often cited as evidence that baptism, while important, is not absolutely necessary for salvation.
Acts 10:44-48 (Cornelius):

In this account, Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit before they are baptized. Some argue that this shows baptism is not essential for salvation but a subsequent step of obedience after receiving the Spirit.
Theological and Historical Context:
Early Church Fathers: Many Early Church Fathers affirmed baptismal regeneration. Here are a few notable quotes:

Justin Martyr (First Apology, 61):
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17, 1):
"And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God."

Tertullian (On Baptism, Chapter 1):
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!"

The consensus among many of the earliest Christians was that baptism was a part of the regenerative process of salvation.

Council of Carthage (AD 418): This council condemned the view of Pelagianism and affirmed that baptism is essential for the remission of sins, especially in the case of infants who cannot yet believe on their own.

Summary of Positions:
Pro-Baptismal Regeneration (Catholic, Orthodox, Some Protestants): These traditions affirm that baptism is a sacrament through which God bestows grace, washes away sin, and regenerates the believer. They see a close connection between faith, baptism, and salvation, often interpreting verses like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, and Titus 3:5 as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Against Baptismal Regeneration (Many Evangelical and Reformed Protestants): These groups emphasize salvation by grace through faith alone and view baptism as a public declaration or symbolic act rather than a means of regeneration. They argue that faith, not baptism, is the central requirement for salvation, using verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and the example of the thief on the cross as key support.

So--
The debate over baptismal regeneration hinges on differing interpretations of scripture, with various traditions holding strong views on both sides. Those who affirm it see baptism as integral to the process of salvation, while those who reject it emphasize faith alone as the means by which one is saved, viewing baptism as an outward sign of inward grace. Both perspectives find support in Scripture, but the interpretation largely depends on theological presuppositions.

Shalom.

J.

 

[Logikos]

⁹

Agreed. Just want to point out the what Augustine believed was 1,000 years before the reformation and even the CC has abandoned what he (Augustine) taught as have the other Protestant denominations.
All this to say that calvinism is so extreme that even Protestantism has moved on to what I call mainline Christianity.

I doubt that the term "mainline Christianity" could be very well defined but I have yet to find a single Calvinist who will deny the things the Calvin himself wrote in "Institutes" nor have I found hardly any Christians at all that deny the system's foundational premise from which the system does quite logically and inexorably flow. In other words, those "mainline Christians" whoever they happen to be, if they accept that God is ontologically immutable then the extent to which they depart from Calvin is exactly the extent to which their theology ignores sound reason. Which is not surprise, by the way. Most Christians today simply believe whatever they're taught to believe. They rarely put any actual thought into it. After all, they're taught to believe, not to think.

I agree that Augustine is the early church theologian that expoused these ideas.

Originated them. These ideas were never a part of the Christian faith prior to Augustine and his contemporaries (e.g. Ambrose of Millan).

ECF = Early Church Fathers
I accept ECFs to be prior to 325AD
Some will accept ECFs to run till the 6 and 7 and 8th century.
I believe that by then the original church teachings were so corrupted that it makes me not really care what they taught.

I tend to agree with Staupitz - based solely on above,,,,I don't know him otherwise.
We're into Luther's time frame by now...

Staupitz was as wrong as the others and for similar reasons. Such things are not matters of opinion. If God is just then these men were wrong - period.

I dislike the reformed mentioning God's sovereignty in conjunction with their beliefs.
Don't ALL Christians believe in God's sovereignty?
I do believe so.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "God's sovereignty".

Do you mean what Calvin (and all Augustinians) meant; that God is in meticulous control of every event that occurs?

or...

Do you mean what the word "sovereignty" itself means; that God is the highest authority in existence?

The former is false, the later is undeniably true, even by those who believe the former.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that those of us that believe in Free Will probably attribute to God MORE sovereignty that the calvinists.
They state that man cannot have free will as if God was afraid of enduing man with this attribute.
Those that believe in Free Will instead, believe in a powerful and sovereign God that is not fearful of bestowing free will in man.

Well, that's just the point. Ther Calvinists (Augustinians) do not believe that God is able to delegate authority. They believe that, if He were to do so, He would no longer be God.

Why do they believe that? Because they believe that for God to be God, He has to be immutable. And by immutable, I mean absolutely and utterly incapable of undergoing any sort of change WHATSOEVER. No change in being, no change in thought, no change in state of mind and most certainly no change in authority. If God were to delegate authority to someone other than Himself, that would be a change and He would, therefore no longer be perfect and therefore would no longer be God.

The modern term for this sort of absolute immutability is "Ontological Immutability" but regardless of what you call it, the point is that this is the sort of immutability that Augustine learned from Aristotle and Plato and imported into the church and it is THE singular premise upon which the entire system is logically derived, including every syllable of what they believe about free will, predestination, total depravity, limited atonement, all the omni-doctrines (as classically taught), etc. If that single premise goes, every doctrine that distinguishes Calvinism from every other sect of Christianity crumbles to dust.

Also, I think all Christians believe in FOREKNOWLEDGE....
which is different than predestination.

You definitely mistaken on this.

God certain does have some foreknowledge. There are a great many things that God has, in fact, predestined. Not the least of which is the glorification of the Body of Christ and Christ's reign over the nations of the Earth among other things. God is also able to predict human behavior with a high degree of certainly and I suspect that He can predict natural processes like the weather with exact precision and to the extent such things are not predictable, they are manipulable such that God can know with certainty that He can and will accomplish certain things and can rightly proclaim the end of sequence of events from its beginning.

What is not biblical, however, is the idea that God knows every detail of the future. There isn't anything in the bible that even suggest such a thing nor is it necessary to believe it. In fact, using the same line of thought that you used in regards to God given mankind the ability to exercise a real will, which is the wiser, stronger and more impressive God, the one who can beat you at chess because He has peaked into the future to see what your next move with be (i.e. cheated), or the one that has to react to what you do and still beats you every time anyway.

OK
There are some reading along and I just would like them to understand that Predestination was not a common, or othodox, belief in the early church. The early theologians did not believe in predestination of persons to either heaven or hell.

Not until Augustine.

Augustine taught doctrines surrounding predestination that are identical to modern Calvinism in at least the following four points...

1. Sovereignty of God’s Grace: Augustine argued that human beings, due to original sin, are incapable of choosing good or God on their own. It is only by God’s sovereign grace that people can be saved.
2. Election by God: God predestines certain individuals for salvation, not based on any merit or foreseen virtue in them, but solely according to His divine will and purpose.
3. Irresistible Grace: Those who are predestined by God will inevitably respond to His grace. Augustine argued that this grace is irresistible—if God chooses someone for salvation, they will ultimately respond in faith.
4. Reprobation: Conversely, Augustine also acknowledged that those not chosen by God are passed over or reprobated. They are left in their sin and will face eternal punishment.

 

[Logikos]

I don't understand this.
Are you saying that God CAN change?

Of course He can change! It isn't as if you have to go to some obscure passage of scripture in the book of Nahum to find out that God changes in enormously dramatic and permanent ways. On the contrary, the fact that God changes is the very gospel itself!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.​

​

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

​

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”​

​

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.​

That sounds like changes to me!

And that's just the most obvious changes. There are lots of times when God changes His mind right in the very first book of the bible. Which, incidentally, is THE primary reason why Augustine refused to become a Christian. He refuse to take Christianity seriously because the bible portrayed a God who can change His mind.

"For Thou art the same, and all things of time, and not only of time, but of all things that Thou hast created, in Thee abide, and yet have nothing in Thee that alters; and even in the beginning of my religious youth I longed to understand the character of evil, but I was hindered by no small question in my mind: 'Whence is evil?' And again, 'Is God limited by a bodily form, and has He hair and nails?' and 'Are those who are called righteous not altered when they pray to You? For when I held this notion, I did not think of You, O God, as immutable, but as mutable.'"​

​

"It seemed to me better to believe that You were mutable than to believe that You created evil. In my ignorance, I could not see that immutability is a higher perfection than mutability, and that a being which is immutable cannot create evil. So my soul wandered far from You, and I thought of You as changeable,..." - Augustine: Confessions (Book VII, Chapter 1)​

Also, the cause of reformed/calvinist doctrines on based on two premises....(correctly as you stated - NOT predestination)
they are:
1. The total depravity of man.
2. The absence of free will.

Sorry, but that simply isn't correct. It could be that we aren't understanding what each other means by "based on" here because neither of those doctrine could possibly serve as a foundational premise for the system because neither of them are foundation premises for anything but are rather conclusions based on more foundational idea. Total depravity, for example, is logically based, at least in part, on the doctrine of Original Sin and the rejection of free will is likewise a logical consequence of predestination, which in turn is a consequence of their version of God's sovereignty, which in turn is based on immutability.

Trust me, it all comes back to immutability.

It's like this - as I'm sure you know:
Man is so depraved that he is unable to seek or to accept God.
Man has no free will and cannot, of his own accord, choose God.

And...
All the other doctrines follow:
God must rescue man totally in a monergistic fashion since man has no ability and is completely dead.
God's choice is not known, is unconditional, and man has absolutely nothing to do with his salvation.
Since God saves the person,,,,the salvation must be permanent.
Man cannot resist God's grace.

I do not deny that such arguments can and are often made. As such these doctrines are logically consistent with each other but what you've presented here is not the line of thought that produced either total depravity or predestination.

I've also run into members who state they are not calvinists, and then proceed to post calvinist doctrine.
Also, some calvinists will state that I do not understand calvinism---only they do.

It's all very interesting.

I've run into the same sort of folks. It's rather silly to quack, waddle, swim and fly like a duck and insist that you're not even a water foul but that's what some of them do. It goes to show you the level to which many people simply do not think through the things they've been taught to believe or bother to understand the history of their chosen religion. They're just blindly following their leader and parroting whatever it is they've heard other's say, which is what most humans do.

 

[Logikos]

Agreed.
Let me say that "original sin" was mentioned by the ECFs but as a stain on humanity....
and not as Augustine later defined it to mean that man is born responsible for this sin of Adam's and is born lost even as a baby.
(no age of accountability).


Agreed. Augustine did bring with him ideas from Greek philosophers.

You're speaking about the Real Presence.
I'm not going to check this out....
from your posts, I'd say that you're well informed and are most probably correct.


Because the CC will state that the IDEA of the immaculate conception was always present, but that it became DOGMA (not even doctrine) in the year 1854 as you stated.
I have no idea where the assumption was ever mentioned in the early church but I know that the doctrine is taught and that it's because God did not want Mary's body to deteriorate. Elijah will always be mentioned.


I actually could agree with this.
How would God place His Son in a body scarred with the sin nature?
In the body of a sinful woman?

Neither do I see a biblical reference and I didn't know that it was part of Catholic tradition.

Praying to saints is an odd idea to me.
Wouldn't this mean that all the saints in heaven are either omnipresent or omniscient?
Wouldn't that mean that they're little gods?
These would be my objections to praying to saints.

The apparitions seem to be so real.
I don't have much else to say since I believe God could do whatever He thinks best.
Too much Mary worship.....I do believe so. However, she's not WORSHIPPED in Catholic doctrine, only venerated.
But we Protestants don't respect her enough IMHO. ù
Maybe we should be venerating her more?
Some Protestants get upset at just the thought of Mary...
She WAS the Mother of Jesus after all.

Of course.

OK

Right.
Augustine didn't like Genesis because it defined a God that could change His mind?
That's funny.
Augustine changed his mind on important matters (like free will)....



Oh yeah!
It totally obliterates some verses.
GOD SO LOVE THE WORLD....
Must mean only those saved because God DOES NOT love everyone!
And...they take this (John 3:16) to be descriptive and not prescriptive.
How do you even argue with that?? Every such verse becomes descriptive (end of conversation!).

Wow! Great example.

I won't take the time to respond point for point here because we're mostly in agreement.

I would just offer the following idea that might help you accept that God did indeed fertilize one of Mary's eggs without any need to worry about her fallen sinful condition....

Our sinful state, what Paul referred to as the "flesh", is passed to human offspring through the father, not the mother. We died IN ADAM, not Eve. Thus, there's no need for any "immaculate conception" of Mary, which would only succeed in backing the problem up one generation anyway.

 

[Ritajanice]

1 John 5:5-12
King James Version
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

 

[Logikos]

Looks like @marks and @mailmandan haven't responded, so there's that-seems like you can’t trust anyone these days. Everyone’s just out for themselves, and the hits just keep coming.

You're on your own.

I'll leave you with this since I'm really tired.

Expanded Biblical Support for Baptismal Regeneration:
Mark 16:16
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

This passage from the Great Commission ties faith and baptism together. Though belief is singled out as the criterion for condemnation, the connection between belief and baptism in salvation is often interpreted as support for baptismal regeneration.
Romans 6:3-4
"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Paul describes baptism as a means by which believers participate in Christ's death and resurrection, leading some to conclude that it has a role in the transformation of believers and their entrance into new life.
Galatians 3:27
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

In this verse, baptism is directly connected with being "clothed" with Christ, suggesting it plays an important role in salvation.
Colossians 2:12
"Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Similar to Romans 6:3-4, Paul emphasizes baptism as part of being buried and raised with Christ, which some see as essential to salvation.
Acts 22:16
"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Ananias' command to Paul links baptism with the washing away of sins, a significant point for those who affirm baptismal regeneration.
Counterpoints and Protestant Views:
Faith Alone (Sola Fide):

Many Protestant traditions emphasize sola fide (faith alone) as the key to salvation, drawing heavily from texts like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:9-10, which focus on faith as the sole means of receiving grace. These traditions argue that baptism is a sign of obedience and identification with Christ but not essential for salvation.
The Thief on the Cross:

Luke 23:42-43 recounts how the thief on the cross was promised paradise by Jesus without being baptized. This story is often cited as evidence that baptism, while important, is not absolutely necessary for salvation.
Acts 10:44-48 (Cornelius):

In this account, Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit before they are baptized. Some argue that this shows baptism is not essential for salvation but a subsequent step of obedience after receiving the Spirit.
Theological and Historical Context:
Early Church Fathers: Many Early Church Fathers affirmed baptismal regeneration. Here are a few notable quotes:

Justin Martyr (First Apology, 61):
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17, 1):
"And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God."

Tertullian (On Baptism, Chapter 1):
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!"

The consensus among many of the earliest Christians was that baptism was a part of the regenerative process of salvation.

Council of Carthage (AD 418): This council condemned the view of Pelagianism and affirmed that baptism is essential for the remission of sins, especially in the case of infants who cannot yet believe on their own.

Summary of Positions:
Pro-Baptismal Regeneration (Catholic, Orthodox, Some Protestants): These traditions affirm that baptism is a sacrament through which God bestows grace, washes away sin, and regenerates the believer. They see a close connection between faith, baptism, and salvation, often interpreting verses like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, and Titus 3:5 as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Against Baptismal Regeneration (Many Evangelical and Reformed Protestants): These groups emphasize salvation by grace through faith alone and view baptism as a public declaration or symbolic act rather than a means of regeneration. They argue that faith, not baptism, is the central requirement for salvation, using verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and the example of the thief on the cross as key support.

So--
The debate over baptismal regeneration hinges on differing interpretations of scripture, with various traditions holding strong views on both sides. Those who affirm it see baptism as integral to the process of salvation, while those who reject it emphasize faith alone as the means by which one is saved, viewing baptism as an outward sign of inward grace. Both perspectives find support in Scripture, but the interpretation largely depends on theological presuppositions.

Shalom.

J.

Normally, I am not a fan of proof-texting. It is the weakest form of biblical argument because pretty nearly any doctrine you want to believe in can be defended using proof-texting techniques, but when one single passage explodes a particular doctrine to such a degree, it's hardly right to avoid presenting it just to prevent someone accusing you of proof-texting. As such....

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.​

​

Paul didn't seem to make too big a deal of baptism - to say the least. In fact, far too much so for the rite to be as critical as it being the "sacrament through which God bestows grace", as you Chat GPT copy/paste job put it.

 

[Johann]

Normally, I am not a fan of proof-texting. It is the weakest form of biblical argument because pretty nearly any doctrine you want to believe in can be defended using proof-texting techniques, but when one single passage explodes a particular doctrine to such a degree, it's hardly right to avoid presenting it just to prevent someone accusing you of proof-texting. As such....

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.​

​

Paul didn't seem to make too big a deal of baptism - to say the least. In fact, far to much so for the rite to be as critical as it being "sacrament through which God bestows grace" as you Chat GPT copy/paste job put it.

I wholeheartedly concur including the snide tone friend.


BAPTISM

Baptism in the Jewish life

Baptism was a common rite among Jews of the first and second century A.D.
preparation for worship at the temple (i.e., cleansing rite involving partial washing with water)
the self baptism of proselytes (involving immersion)

If someone from a Gentile background were to become a full child of Israel, he had to accomplish three tasks:

circumcision, if male
self-baptism by immersion, in the presence of three witnesses
sacrifice in the temple if possible
an ancient priestly act of purification (cf. Leviticus 15)

In sectarian groups of first century Palestine, such as the Essenes, baptism was apparently a common, repeated experience. However, to mainline Judaism, John’s baptism of repentance would have been humiliating for a natural child of Abraham to undergo a Gentile acceptance ritual.

Some OT precedents can be cited for ceremonial washing.
as a symbol of spiritual cleansing (cf. Isa. 1:16)
as a regular ritual performed by the priests (cf. Exodus 19:10; Leviticus 16)

It should be noted that all other baptisms in first century Jewish culture were self-administered. Only John the Baptist's call for baptism involved him as an evaluator (cf. Matt. 3:7-12) and administrator of this act of repentance (cf. Matt. 3:6).

Baptism in the Church

Theological Purposes
forgiveness of sin ‒ Acts 2:38; 22:16
reception of Holy Spirit ‒ Acts 2:38 (Acts 10:44-48)
union with Christ ‒ Gal. 3:26-27
membership in church ‒ 1 Cor. 12:13
symbol of a spiritual turning ‒ 1 Pet. 3:20-21
symbol of a spiritual death and resurrection ‒ Rom. 6:1-5

Baptism was the early church’s opportunity for a person’s public profession (or confession). It was/is not the mechanism for salvation, but the occasion of the verbal affirmation of faith (i.e., probably, "Jesus is Lord," cf. Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:9-11). Remember, the early church had no buildings and met in homes or often in secret places because of persecution.
SPECIAL TOPIC: BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

Many commentators have asserted that 1 Peter is a baptismal sermon. Although this is possible, it is not the only option. It is true that Peter often uses baptism as a crucial act of faith (cf. Acts 2:38,41;10:47). However, it was/is not a sacramental event, but a faith event, symbolizing death, burial, and resurrection as the believer identifies with Christ’s own experience (cf. Rom. 6:7-9; Col. 2:12). The act is symbolic, not sacramental; the act is the occasion of profession, not the mechanism of salvation.

Baptism and Repentance in Acts 2:38

Curtis Vaughan, Commentary on Acts, has an interesting footnote on p. 28 related to Acts 2:38.

"The Greek word for ‘baptized’ is a third person imperative; the word for ‘repent,’ a second person imperative. This change from the more direct second person command to the less direct third person of ‘baptized’ implies that Peter’s basic primary demand is for repentance."

This follows the preaching emphasis of John the Baptist (cf. Matt. 3:2) and Jesus (cf. Matt. 4:17). Repentance seems to be a spiritual key and baptism is an outward expression of this spiritual change. The New Testament knew nothing of unbaptized believers! To the early church baptism was the public profession of faith (i.e., Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:9-11). It is the occasion for the public confession of faith in Christ, not the mechanism for salvation! It needs to be remembered that baptism is not mentioned in Peter’s second sermon, though repentance is (cf. Acts 3:19; Luke 24:17). Baptism was an example set by Jesus (cf. Matt. 3:13-18; see SPECIAL TOPIC: BAPTISM OF JESUS). Baptism was commanded by Jesus (cf. Matt. 28:19). The modern question of the necessity of baptism for salvation is not addressed in the New Testament; all believers are expected to be baptized. However, one must also guard against a sacramental mechanicalism! Salvation is a faith issue, not a right-place, right-words, right-ritual act issue!
SPECIAL TOPIC: REPENTANCE (NT)
SPECIAL TOPIC: REPENTANCE (OT)

The exact mode of Christian baptism nor the administration is as important as the repentant, believing heart of the person being baptized. It is true that the etymology of the Greek VERB is "to dip" or "to plunge." But remember, etymology is not always a good way to denote current usage. The NT examples of baptism could be
immersion
pouring
sprinkling

Baptism in the NT usually involves believers. Adults who repented and believed were expected to be baptized. Therefore, most accounts in the NT deal with believing adults.
 However, the issue of second generation believers is not addressed specifically. There are several accounts of "household baptisms."
Cornelius (Acts 10:2; 11:14)
Lydia (Acts 16:15
the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:31-34)
Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16)
It is assumed there were children in these households. The early church disagreed whether this was analagous to the circumcision of infants, on the eighth day in the OT. This rite made children part of "the covenant community," but they had to exercise faithfulness in their adult life for it to be a reality
  (a) Irenaeus ‒ affirmed infant baptism
  (b) Tertullian ‒ questioned it (De Baptismo, 18)
 Modern denominations who practice infant baptism/christening usually make a person's salvation a two step event
    i.  infant baptism as a commitment of the family and church to inform and live before
      the child in such a way that faith is understood and received
    ii. at some point (often 12 years of age) the child is instructed in the faith in a
      specific way and asked to receive it personally by affirmation of gospel truths

For more historical information, see ABD, vol. 1, pp. 583-593 and Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd edition, pp. 1098-1114.

SPECIAL TOPIC: BAPTISM

Baptism -- Special Topic by Dr. Bob Utley, professor of hermeneutics (retired).

www.freebiblecommentary.org

 

[Logikos]

There is no such thing as protestant theology, That is really a made up word.

In fact, if you really look at the catholics, the orthodox, the lutherans, and other long standing churches. their theology is prety much the same, viuce a few differences (I believe the only difference between catholic and orthodox is the orthodox rejects the authority of the pope)

Do you not understand what is meant when someone uses the phrase "protestant theology"?

If you did, that means it's a perfectly valid phrase to use. That's how language works. Various words are used to convey a particular meaning. If the meaning is conveyed, the words did their job.

If you didn't then let me explain it. "Protestant theology" is general term that covers nearly any Christian theology that is not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, especially those formulated in "protest" of the Catholic Church in particular by the likes of Martin Luther, John Calvin and other 16th century theologians.

And, incidentally, while Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox share a lot of their core doctrines, there's a lot more different about Eastern Orthodoxy than just their rejection of Papal authority. I asked Chat GPT the following question, "What are the main differences between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox?", this is what it produced....

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy share much in common as branches of Christianity, but they also have key differences rooted in theology, liturgical practices, and ecclesial authority. Below are the main distinctions:

1. Authority of the Pope​

• Catholicism: The Pope is regarded as the supreme authority in the Catholic Church, seen as the successor to St. Peter and having universal jurisdiction over the Church. His decisions are considered infallible when pronounced ex cathedra (on matters of faith and morals).
• Eastern Orthodoxy: The Orthodox Church rejects papal supremacy, seeing the Pope as the bishop of Rome with an honorary primacy, but not authority over all other bishops. Authority is decentralized, residing in a group of autocephalous (self-governing) national churches, with decisions typically made through councils.

2. The Filioque Controversy​

• Catholicism: The Nicene Creed used in the Catholic Church includes the phrase filioque (meaning "and the Son"), indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: The Orthodox Church rejects the filioque, affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, as stated in the original version of the Nicene Creed.

3. Original Sin​

• Catholicism: Believes in the concept of original sin, which is inherited by all humans from Adam and Eve’s disobedience, and holds that baptism removes the stain of this sin.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: While acknowledging the fall of humanity, Orthodox theology typically does not view original sin as a "stain" passed down through generations but as a consequence that affects human nature. Baptism is seen as restoring a person to spiritual life rather than removing a sin "guilt."

4. Immaculate Conception​

• Catholicism: Teaches the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which holds that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Does not accept the Immaculate Conception doctrine, though it views Mary as highly honored and without personal sin. The Orthodox Church focuses more on her being purified by God’s grace.

5. Purgatory​

• Catholicism: Teaches the existence of purgatory, a temporary state where souls are purified before entering heaven.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: While Orthodox Christians pray for the dead, they do not have a developed doctrine of purgatory like in Catholicism. The fate of the dead is left more to divine mystery.

6. Liturgical Practices​

• Catholicism: The Mass (or Divine Liturgy) is the central form of worship, with a focus on the Eucharist. The Roman Rite is the most common, but there are other rites as well (e.g., Byzantine, Maronite). Latin was historically the primary liturgical language (though vernacular languages are used today).
• Eastern Orthodoxy: The Divine Liturgy is also centered on the Eucharist, with a rich emphasis on icons, incense, and chant. The Byzantine Rite dominates, and the liturgical language varies (e.g., Greek, Russian, or Old Church Slavonic), but there is less use of vernacular languages than in Catholicism.

7. Clerical Celibacy​

• Catholicism: Requires priests in the Latin Rite to remain celibate. In some Eastern Catholic Churches, married men may be ordained as priests, though bishops must remain celibate.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Allows married men to become priests, though they cannot marry after ordination. Bishops, however, must be chosen from the celibate monastic clergy.

8. Sacraments​

• Catholicism: Recognizes seven sacraments—Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Reconciliation (Confession), Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. The Eucharist is celebrated with unleavened bread.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Also recognizes seven sacraments, referred to as "mysteries," with similar functions but slight differences in theology and practice. For example, the Eucharist is always celebrated with leavened bread.

9. Theology and Spirituality​

• Catholicism: Emphasizes reason and systematic theology, with a tradition of scholasticism (e.g., Thomas Aquinas). Catholic spirituality includes practices like the Rosary, devotions to saints, and structured forms of prayer.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Focuses on mysticism and experiential theology, emphasizing theosis (deification) as the goal of Christian life. Orthodox spirituality stresses ascetic practices, the use of icons, and contemplative prayer (e.g., the Jesus Prayer).

10. Church and State​

• Catholicism: Historically, the Catholic Church maintained a more distinct separation between church and state, especially after the rise of secular governments in the modern era.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Traditionally, the Orthodox Church has had a closer relationship with the state (e.g., the Byzantine Empire, Russian Orthodoxy). Some Orthodox churches remain closely tied to national identities.

Despite these differences, both traditions share core beliefs in the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the resurrection, and the sacraments, making them both part of the larger Christian tradition.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

OK
So let's discuss for a few posts unless the OP stops us.
Here's how it is for Catholics....
Most go to church on Sunday (or Saturday) to attend Mass.
I doubt they even know what the Mass is or what the parts mean, etc.
Some go to confession....not too many - most do not believe they need to confess to a priest but only to God.

this is sad to me, It would be loke going to a baptist church just to go to church. or you think you need to for whatever reason. But have no desire to learn what they actually teach.

Those that are interested in their faith, do study and do inform themselves as to what the CC teaches.
They use the bible and they also use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, to me at least, is the same as using one of the Confessions in reformed theology. I don't know why it should be necessary.

It should not be necessary for either group I agree with you. The word should be our guide. it is the on;ly thing that is inspired.. Now while I love a good doctrinal book. or a letter or something written by men. I handle them the same as I do any teacher. i read them, and study them, then test what they say.. I have learned much by doing this..

@Augustin56 is one of those Catholics that knows what he believes and believes it anyway.
He also happens to be a very nice person and he'll repeat exactly what the CC teaches, which he accepts and not blindly.

Yet he attacks others for not following his church, and uses the same (we have truth, no one else does) argument far to many catholics use. i do not agree with you here. It is not nice to attack a group of people only because they do nto agree with you. Then to use the silly excuse God created his church,. His church put the word together. and without his church, we would not have Gods word.

Thats pride talking, which is fine, if your proud of your church, be proud. but don;t use that pride to bash people.

Let's not get into this. This has been bothering me from before I came to this forum and I know that there's no solution.
Of course it's satan --- all evil comes from satan. And it IS evil that we Christians can't agree on some basics. (just like you and I don't agree on works and OSAS).


The CC is not leading thousands to hell.

Disagree. They are no different than the jews who paul spent most of his writings trying to appose.

They teach a different gospel than Paul taught. and paul made it clear. if anyone, even an engel teach a different gospel. they are to be anathema

It teaches the gospel.

It teaches a gospel. not the gospel.

It has some doctrine that seems really odd, but they know why the teach it.
It doesn't change the nature of God like the reformed faith does....that REALLY presents problems to the Christian faith.

I am not reformed. You could say I do not follow any of the old churches. i think Satan had a hayday in creating these churches. and while many left the roman catholic church, sadly they brought many of their heresies with them. or went the total other way. and skipped the truth which was in the middle.

Jesus, Paul, James, all the writers taught that we are to do good works.

They NEVER taught we are to do good works in order to earn salvation.

If someone claims salvation can be lost. that is just another way of saying you have to earn salvation.

If I have to post verses it'll have to wait till the morning, but here are 2 that come to mind immediately...

Ephesians 2:9 or 10 WE ARE CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS

James 2:26 (?) FAITH APART FROM WORKS IS A DEAD FAITH.

Hebrews 13 DO NOT NEGLECT TO DO GOOD.

We're exhorted to do good works all throughout the entire NT.

This is not about doing good works. Thats part of sanctification. it is what happens AFTER we are saved.

this is about the gospel. the good news of Jesus. the message of salvation.

I don't know what you mean by this. The Hebrews were picked by God.

They claimed they were saved, right with God. because God chose them..

They did nto need saved, they were saved by their birthright.

They claim the have THE FULL TRUTH...

Many claim they have faith also. but we know from James they had zero faith. or a dead faith. just because someone claims something does not make it truth.

And listen tot hem,. They are right in all they teach. they were given the truth from God. That is more than saying they have just the full truth.

So what? At least they're not teaching heresy - like arianism for instance.

But they are.

They teach a legalistic, pharisaic gospel of works.

My understanding from the CCC is that the CC believes ALL religions have SOME TRUTH,,,but the CC has the full truth.


Every denomination believes this.

I agree, I learned this the hard way when I came out of the baptist church. they all think they are right and no one else is.. or that they have the complete truth. others just have partial or half truths.

Agreed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

How does the CC persecute Christ?

the same way the jews did.

By denying the power of the cross to save people. and persecuting those who believe in salvation by grace through faith. Not of works. lest anyone should be puffed up in pride.

The jews said if you believe Christ, thats great, But you have to get circumcised. You have to obey the law. You have to do all these things.. then maybe even then, You may not make it

The catholic church teaches no different, all they do is changed the "rules" or the "works" that they say one must add to grace to ensure their salvation.

 

[Logikos]

I wholeheartedly concur including the snide tone friend.

I guess I am in a bit of a mood this morning!

Great post, by the way.