Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
The claim was made that one is born again even through infant baptism. These kids were baptized in the RCC and lived no different than other heathens.
Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses can make the same idiotic claim you did..."If you hate the Mormons, you hate Jesus. Period."



No, it is simply a doctrine borrowed from the writings of the Jewish Prophets and Apostles which has been usurped by Rome as their own..another lie.
Jesus and John the Baptist had righteous indignation againt the false religious system, hypocrisy and liars of their day as well. I grew up in the belly of the Beast called the RCC, and have seen the tremendous damage it does to societies. I lived in them pre Vatican II and saw the superstitions abound as people were discouraged from reading the Scriptures on their own. (ad hominems won't help your defense of the RCC).
Hi Prism...
Maybe you haven't been back to the catholic church in a long time.
I had to leave because when I became saved, there was nothing in the church for me.
Things have changed in recent times.
The catholic church believes that one should be baptized to be saved...
but it does not believe that baptism saves every baby,,,which would mean that every catholic is saved.

It believes that baptism gives you the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit and become saved...this must happen in adulthood, or the age of reasoning. A baby cannot decide for salvation in Christ.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
How Can Catholicism Be True When Catholics Are So Dead?

... To argue that Catholicism is untrue because it doesn't transform the lives of those who don't practice it, is like arguing that aspirin doesn't work because it doesn't relieve the headaches of those who don't take it.

My family claims to be Catholic, but they don't take it seriously, either.

Try to remember that many people are Catholic by default. If you ask them what they are, they'll say, "Oh, I'm Catholic." But what they mean is, "My ancestors were Catholic." It's more an ethnicity than a religion for some people. It's what they are, not what they believe.

I agree with the basic teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church. But, I am still in the Baptist church. That is because I don't see enough fruits coming from the Catholic Church.

Actually, it's an individual (not a church) that's supposed to produce good fruit. A church can only proclaim the Gospel and introduce people to the One Who alone can make them bear fruit, but it can't make people believe its teachings, and it can't make people live its life. Good fruit, then, is how we tell if an individual is a faithful disciple. The fact is, you can find plenty of good fruit in the Catholic Church, and you can find plenty of good fruit in the various Protestant churches, too. And that's because the secret to bearing fruit is to have a living, vital relationship with Jesus Christ, who is the source of all grace and life. And because the Catholic Church has been endowed with the fullness of the means of grace that Christ established, a Catholic is able to have the closest possible relationship with Jesus, including even the reality of physical communion with Him.


But notice I say, "is able to have," not "is guaranteed to have." There are indeed plenty of people who call themselves Catholic, but who refuse to believe the Church's teachings, refuse to obey its precepts, and refuse to live the life it calls them to live. Not surprisingly, these people aren't magically converted into living saints just by walking through the Church door. So, if you want to look for fruit, be sure you look on the tree. You can't expect to find fruit on the dried-up branches that have severed themselves from the tree, and that are strewn all about it. I'll be the first to admit that the Catholic faith doesn't work if you don't practice it. It doesn't work by osmosis, or by genetics, or by proximity. You actually have to believe it, and live it. You have to have a living relationship with the Lord Jesus in order to bear fruit, and many "Catholics" have rejected that relationship, despite being given every opportunity to embrace it.


How can the Catholic Church's claims be true when so many Catholics are so dead?

I've known such people. It's truly sad. But to compare the best Evangelicals with the worst Catholics is hardly fair. If you want to see the real fruit of the Catholic faith, look at the people who actually put it into practice. As you know, the Catholic Church has produced some of the greatest, most on-fire saints the world has ever known. Some of them converted whole nations to Christ. We still marvel at their faith and holiness many centuries after they died.

How can I move from such a dynamic soul-winning church that I am in now into such a seemingly dead church seemingly full of untransformed people?

Before I became Catholic, I asked myself the same question, because I'd heard all sorts of horror stories about how dead the Catholic Church was, and since I'd known several Catholics who were as worldly as any pagan, I believed them. So as I became more and more convinced that the Catholic Church taught the truth, I thought, "But Lord, they're all so dead." And then I remembered His words: "What is that to you? You follow me." And I realized that it really wasn't important whether the guy in the pew next to me was living the faith, it was important whether I was. It was as if the Lord was saying to me, "You need to follow the truth, even if you're the only one who does."

Happily, my fears turned out to be unfounded. I've met plenty of on-fire Catholics since I've joined the Church, and I've found several local parishes where the faith is truly lived and preached.

A girl that I am friends with, who has little knowledge of the theological issues between Catholics and Protestants said simply, "I am not a Catholic because they don't emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus." I am sure that many committed catholics such as yourself have vastly different experiences, but you must admit, the problem of simply going through the motions with little understanding of the significance seems rampant in the Church. Am I being unfair?

Yes. As I said, you're comparing the best Evangelicals with the worst Catholics. But I do think it's easier to be a nominal Catholic than to be a nominal Evangelical. Catholicism is an embodied faith. It's very physical, expressing itself through signs and meaningful rituals and practices. Ideally, those practices are joyful ways of expressing the interior reality of God's grace in our lives. They give form and substance to the reality of our faith. But if that reality isn't there, it's still possible to go through the physical motions of the faith because of habit, or whatever. In other words, it's possible to mistake faith's expression for faith itself, as if the outward signs of our faith, and not the reality they are meant to express, are what's important. That does happen, and it's a shame, because going through the motions won't get anybody to Heaven.

On the other hand, Evangelicalism is largely devoid of physicality. It is a religion almost exclusively characterized by intellectual commitment. Therefore, if you don't have that commitment, there's nothing else there, so you leave. This is good in the sense that it focuses on the primary importance of belief and conversion of heart, and because it's more difficult to fool yourself into thinking you're a "good Christian" when you're not, but Evangelicals really are missing something by not having a rich physical tradition with which to express their faith. When you combine real interior faith with meaningful exterior expression, the result is incredible, believe me. And the best Catholics, like the best Evangelicals, know that a personal relationship with Jesus is the goal of the Christian life. We just have a whole lot of ways to express and experience that relationship.

How Can Catholicism Be True When Catholics Are So Dead?
 
Last edited:

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your anti-Catholicism has been refuted a million times.
Anti-Catholicism (Index Page for Apologist Dave Armstrong)

You have to keep us on the defensive with your ridiculous attacks to justify the late arrival and man made system that you won't even name.

You believe Catholics were discouraged from reading the Scriptures on their own because you have been poisoned by anti-Catholic propaganda. That's why ex-Catholics become anti-Catholics.

Ignorance-of-Scripturesss.png


https://nypost.com/2017/03/05/pope-francis-read-the-bible-as-often-as-your-cellphone/

There are two Bible readings at every daily Mass, and 3 on Sunday, more "Bible" than a month of Protestant services. You couldn't have been much of a Catholic to have missed that.

Was Catholicism the Avowed Enemy of the Bible by Dave Armstrong ::

You cannot be reasoned with.
By misquoting me, it shows you don't even know my position. I'm not anti Catholic, I'm anti anything that portrays itself as the ONE true Church, apart from which there is no salvation.
I was never a Roman Catholic (an oxymoron in and of itself), so there is an other misrepresentation based on a false assumption. I grew up in secular atheism amongst a community of predominately RC'ers but never once did an RC share the Gospel with me. I guess they are too busy trying to land converts from Protestant Churches to care about lost souls steeped in secularism.
I don't have a system, just the Holy Spirit, Jesus, the Scriptures and other like minded brethren. (Acts 17:11).

I believe Catholics were discouraged from reading the Scriptures on their own because of a number of reasons.
I have personally walked into a Catholic Church and have read their own literature sitting on their table in the vestibule/narthex explaining the dangers of a person to read the Bible on their own.
This of course points to the other reasons, such as needing a 'Priest' and Church Tradition to interpret things for you. Not to mention their multitude of other 'go-betweens'.
No, you can keep your Priest Craft, Church-State Mumbo Jumbo, and your well protected Pope secured by gold and a bullet proof pope-mobile. Compare...

Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
(2Co 11:23-28)

Now Paul or Peter would be a real Pope, not those phonies in the Vatican.
 

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Prism...
Maybe you haven't been back to the catholic church in a long time.
I had to leave because when I became saved, there was nothing in the church for me.
Things have changed in recent times.
The catholic church believes that one should be baptized to be saved...
but it does not believe that baptism saves every baby,,,which would mean that every catholic is saved.

It believes that baptism gives you the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit and become saved...this must happen in adulthood, or the age of reasoning. A baby cannot decide for salvation in Christ.
I never had been a Catholic. I was speaking of their pre-Vatican II position. Some things have changed as they have changed tactics to an all embracing, all loving Ecumenical approach, totally opposite from the 16th Century. Still a lying serpent though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brakelite

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Acts 11:16 (KJV) Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Ephesians 5:26 (KJV) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1Co 2:11-14)

I grew up in a Spanish community engulfed in the lies of Rome. Many had been baptized in the RCC as infants. Were they born again? Gangs, Cholos, Patchukos, prostitution, drive-bys, Molotov cocktails, drugs. etc. etc. Is this your idea of the one true Church? Not once had I been witnessed to during those years by a RC about the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus
What a joke. Keep your false beliefs.
What makes you think that there are ONLY “good” people within the Church??

BOTH Christ and Paul warned about bad people coming from WITHIN the CHURCH – not from the outside. Your understanding of the word of God is pretty limited.

As for the verses you presented about Baptism – NONE of them refute the idea that we are born again AT Baptism. Anti-Water Baptism always try to pit Water Baptism against Baptism of the Holy Spirit – when these 2 go hand in hand. The norm is receiving the holy spirit AT Baptism.

There are a couple of examples in Scripture showing Cornelius and the Philippian Jailer receiving the Holy Spirit before being Baptized – but these are exceptions. The Ethiopian Eunuch had NO such experience before being Water Baptized.

As I stated earlier – YOUR view has NEVER been the view of the historic Christian faith until about 500 years ago. Can you explain that?
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The claim was made that one is born again even through infant baptism. These kids were baptized in the RCC and lived no different than other heathens.
Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses can make the same idiotic claim you did..."If you hate the Mormons, you hate Jesus. Period."

No, it is simply a doctrine borrowed from the writings of the Jewish Prophets and Apostles which has been usurped by Rome as their own..another lie.
Jesus and John the Baptist had righteous indignation againt the false religious system, hypocrisy and liars of their day as well. I grew up in the belly of the Beast called the RCC, and have seen the tremendous damage it does to societies. I lived in them pre Vatican II and saw the superstitions abound as people were discouraged from reading the Scriptures on their own. (ad hominems won't help your defense of the RCC).
Ummmmm, YOU talk about “ad hominems” and YOUR posts are filled with them.
What hypocrisy . . .

First of all – if you hate Mormons – you DO hate Christ.
If you hate ANYBODY, you hate Christ.

Secondly – Jesus, not the Pope, stated that we are born again at Baptism (John 3:5).

If you have a problem with that – you should take it up with HIM . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How far back does the phrase "invincible ignorance" go? What an odd phrase too. Is it meant to attract or drive Protestants away?
“Invincible ignorance” in this context simply means that a person may not fully understand that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ. It doesn’t mean that a person is “stupid” or “evil” or anything else.

It’s not a derogatory ter. On the contrary – it’s an inclusive term
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
“Invincible ignorance” in this context simply means that a person may not fully understand that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ. It doesn’t mean that a person is “stupid” or “evil” or anything else.

It’s not a derogatory ter. On the contrary – it’s an inclusive term
Ignorance means not knowing. Someone who is ignorant can be educated, so why say their ignorance is invincible? If the gates of hell won't prevail, why think the ignorance of Protestants is so powerful?

If we say Protestants have invincible ignorance, it suggests weakness on the part of the Catholic Church as if their wisdom is impotent. I find it a curious phrase.
 

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What makes you think that there are ONLY “good” people within the Church??
Show me where I said there are ONLY good people within the Church?
BOTH Christ and Paul warned about bad people coming from WITHIN the CHURCH – not from the outside. Your understanding of the word of God is pretty limited.
I'm fully aware of that. Your understanding of me is too limited to make faulty assumptions. My point was if the majority are living like heathens, their new birth is in question, as well as the teaching of the Church.

Matthew 23:27 (KJV) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

As for the verses you presented about Baptism – NONE of them refute the idea that we are born again AT Baptism. Anti-Water Baptism always try to pit Water Baptism against Baptism of the Holy Spirit – when these 2 go hand in hand. The norm is receiving the holy spirit AT Baptism.
OK, so these children grow up under the delusion that they are saved yet living after the flesh and their faith is no more than outward religious acts and rituals...all without repentance and true faith in Jesus Christ.


As I stated earlier – YOUR view has NEVER been the view of the historic Christian faith until about 500 years ago. Can you explain that?
So you are denying that the writings of Apostles and Prophets are not the basis of the 'historical Christian faith'?...

Ephesians 2:19-22 (KJV)
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Peter 3:1-2 (KJV)
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ignorance means not knowing. Someone who is ignorant can be educated, so why say their ignorance is invincible? If the gates of hell won't prevail, why think the ignorance of Protestants is so powerful?

If we say Protestants have invincible ignorance, it suggests weakness on the part of the Catholic Church as if their wisdom is impotent. I find it a curious phrase.
I don’t understand why you take such offense to this term.
“Invincible Ignorance” is merciful – not derogatory.

On the other hand – there might be more appropriate words than “invincible”. Howe about “overpowering” or “extreme”?

I’m not saying this to be facetious – but, what word would you prefer?
 

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Secondly – Jesus, not the Pope, stated that we are born again at Baptism (John 3:5).
John 3:5 (KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I already answered this.
But since you don't care for what I have to say, here is John Gill on the passage...

..."except a man be born of water and of the Spirit: these are, מלות שנות, "two words", which express the same thing, as Kimchi observes in many places in his commentaries, and signify the grace of the Spirit of God. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word, which shows, that the ordinance of water baptism is intended: nor has baptism any regenerating influence in it; a person may be baptized, as Simon Magus was, and yet not born again; and it is so far from having any such virtue, that a person ought to be born again, before he is admitted to that ordinance: and though submission to it is necessary, in order to a person's entrance into a Gospel church state; yet it is not necessary to the kingdom of heaven, or to eternal life and salvation: such a mistaken sense of this text, seems to have given the first birth and rise to infant baptism in the African churches; who taking the words in this bad sense, concluded their children must be baptized, or they could not be saved; whereas by "water" is meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as it is elsewhere; see Eze_36:25. Which is the moving cause of this new birth, and according to which God begets men again to, a lively hope, and that by which it is effected; for it is by the grace of God, and not by the power of man's free will, that any are regenerated, or made new creatures: and if Nicodemus was an officer in the temple, that took care to provide water at the feasts, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, and as it should seem Nicodemon ben Gorion was, by the story before related of him; See Gill on Joh_3:1; very pertinently does our Lord make mention of water, it being his own element: regeneration is sometimes ascribed to God the Father, as in 1Pe_1:3, and sometimes to the Son, 1Jn_2:29 and here to the Spirit, as in Tit_3:5, who convinces of sin, sanctifies, renews, works faith, and every other grace; begins and carries on the work of grace, unto perfection;
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Show me where I said there are ONLY good people within the Church?

I'm fully aware of that. Your understanding of me is too limited to make faulty assumptions. My point was if the majority are living like heathens, their new birth is in question, as well as the teaching of the Church.

Matthew 23:27 (KJV) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.


OK, so these children grow up under the delusion that they are saved yet living after the flesh and their faith is no more than outward religious acts and rituals...all without repentance and true faith in Jesus Christ.



So you are denying that the writings of Apostles and Prophets are not the basis of the 'historical Christian faith'?...

Ephesians 2:19-22 (KJV)
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Peter 3:1-2 (KJV)
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
Sooooooo, you are prepared to make an asinine and indefensible statement like, “The MAJORITY of Catholics are living like heathens”?? You actually know 1.2 BILLION people well enough to make this kind of claim??

And you are ALSO prepared to make the equally asinine claim that there are ZERO reprobate or Protestants and that this is only a CATHOLIC dynamic?? What planet are YOU from??

I know PLENTY of “born again” Protestants who went astray and are some of the WORST people I’ve ever met. I can say the same for come Catholics. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t born again. It simply means that they fell away and turned their backs on Christ.

YOUR problem is that you actually believe in the man-made 16th century Protestant doctrine of OSAS – which is NOT supported by Scripture.

As to your claim that I “deny” that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles are the basis for the historical Christian faith. But, with all of the other lies you’ve spewn – maybe you’re just delusional . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John 3:5 (KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I already answered this.
But since you don't care for what I have to say, here is John Gill on the passage...

..."except a man be born of water and of the Spirit: these are, מלות שנות, "two words", which express the same thing, as Kimchi observes in many places in his commentaries, and signify the grace of the Spirit of God. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word, which shows, that the ordinance of water baptism is intended: nor has baptism any regenerating influence in it; a person may be baptized, as Simon Magus was, and yet not born again; and it is so far from having any such virtue, that a person ought to be born again, before he is admitted to that ordinance: and though submission to it is necessary, in order to a person's entrance into a Gospel church state; yet it is not necessary to the kingdom of heaven, or to eternal life and salvation: such a mistaken sense of this text, seems to have given the first birth and rise to infant baptism in the African churches; who taking the words in this bad sense, concluded their children must be baptized, or they could not be saved; whereas by "water" is meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as it is elsewhere; see Eze_36:25. Which is the moving cause of this new birth, and according to which God begets men again to, a lively hope, and that by which it is effected; for it is by the grace of God, and not by the power of man's free will, that any are regenerated, or made new creatures: and if Nicodemus was an officer in the temple, that took care to provide water at the feasts, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, and as it should seem Nicodemon ben Gorion was, by the story before related of him; See Gill on Joh_3:1; very pertinently does our Lord make mention of water, it being his own element: regeneration is sometimes ascribed to God the Father, as in 1Pe_1:3, and sometimes to the Son, 1Jn_2:29 and here to the Spirit, as in Tit_3:5, who convinces of sin, sanctifies, renews, works faith, and every other grace; begins and carries on the work of grace, unto perfection;
“Figurative” water??
WRONG.

John 1
ACTUAL WATER
is used in the Baptism of Christ – and the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a Dove.

John 2
ACTUAL WATER
is used at the Wedding at Cana when Christ transforms WATER into Wine.

John 3
ACTUAL WATER
is being described in verse 5 when Jesus tells Nicodemus about Baptism.

Immediately after this, Jesus and the apostles use ACTUAL WATER to Baptize people.

The first THREE Chapters of John’s Gospel are literally DRENCHED in ACTUAL WATER.

Not ONE commentary or exegesis on John 3 exists in the first 1500 years of the Christian Church that agrees with YOUR position.
ALL of them described it as a reference to BAPTISM.

Ummmmmm, WHY is that??
 
Last edited:

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don’t understand why you take such offense to this term.
“Invincible Ignorance” is merciful – not derogatory.

On the other hand – there might be more appropriate words than “invincible”. Howe about “overpowering” or “extreme”?

I’m not saying this to be facetious – but, what word would you prefer?
I don't know because I don't understand what the phrase means. What do the Protestants have that looks so powerful to Catholics?
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't know because I don't understand what the phrase means. What do the Protestants have that looks so powerful to Catholics?
Once again - I don't think you understand, so I will post the excerpt from Paragraph 847 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church again . . .

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.


This is pretty self-explanatory and I think you're being purposely obtuse just to make some kind of point.
When rebuking the Pharisees, Jesus stated in NO uncertain terms:
John 9:41
If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.

He also said:
John 15:22
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin."

This is a clear indication that God shows mercy on the ignorant.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Prism...
Maybe you haven't been back to the catholic church in a long time.
I had to leave because when I became saved, there was nothing in the church for me.
Things have changed in recent times.
The catholic church believes that one should be baptized to be saved...
but it does not believe that baptism saves every baby,,,which would mean that every catholic is saved.

It believes that baptism gives you the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit and become saved...this must happen in adulthood, or the age of reasoning. A baby cannot decide for salvation in Christ.
Hmmmmmmmm . . . .
According to the classic Protestant stance - neither can an adult make the "decision" to be saved.

Protestants believe that we do NOTHING to gain salvation - which is about as anti-Biblical as it gets.
By the way - can you show me where the Bible teaches that we must come to this mythical "age of reasoning" in order to be saved??

Chapter and Verse, please . . .
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Hmmmmmmmm . . . .
According to the classic Protestant stance - neither can an adult make the "decision" to be saved.

Protestants believe that we do NOTHING to gain salvation - which is about as anti-Biblical as it gets.
By the way - can you show me where the Bible teaches that we must come to this mythical "age of reasoning" in order to be saved??

Chapter and Verse, please . . .
Your church teaches this.
YOU go educate yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prism
B

brakelite

Guest
How Can Catholicism Be True When Catholics Are So Dead?

... To argue that Catholicism is untrue because it doesn't transform the lives of those who don't practice it, is like arguing that aspirin doesn't work because it doesn't relieve the headaches of those who don't take it.

My family claims to be Catholic, but they don't take it seriously, either.

Try to remember that many people are Catholic by default. If you ask them what they are, they'll say, "Oh, I'm Catholic." But what they mean is, "My ancestors were Catholic." It's more an ethnicity than a religion for some people. It's what they are, not what they believe.

I agree with the basic teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church. But, I am still in the Baptist church. That is because I don't see enough fruits coming from the Catholic Church.

Actually, it's an individual (not a church) that's supposed to produce good fruit. A church can only proclaim the Gospel and introduce people to the One Who alone can make them bear fruit, but it can't make people believe its teachings, and it can't make people live its life. Good fruit, then, is how we tell if an individual is a faithful disciple. The fact is, you can find plenty of good fruit in the Catholic Church, and you can find plenty of good fruit in the various Protestant churches, too. And that's because the secret to bearing fruit is to have a living, vital relationship with Jesus Christ, who is the source of all grace and life. And because the Catholic Church has been endowed with the fullness of the means of grace that Christ established, a Catholic is able to have the closest possible relationship with Jesus, including even the reality of physical communion with Him.


But notice I say, "is able to have," not "is guaranteed to have." There are indeed plenty of people who call themselves Catholic, but who refuse to believe the Church's teachings, refuse to obey its precepts, and refuse to live the life it calls them to live. Not surprisingly, these people aren't magically converted into living saints just by walking through the Church door. So, if you want to look for fruit, be sure you look on the tree. You can't expect to find fruit on the dried-up branches that have severed themselves from the tree, and that are strewn all about it. I'll be the first to admit that the Catholic faith doesn't work if you don't practice it. It doesn't work by osmosis, or by genetics, or by proximity. You actually have to believe it, and live it. You have to have a living relationship with the Lord Jesus in order to bear fruit, and many "Catholics" have rejected that relationship, despite being given every opportunity to embrace it.


How can the Catholic Church's claims be true when so many Catholics are so dead?

I've known such people. It's truly sad. But to compare the best Evangelicals with the worst Catholics is hardly fair. If you want to see the real fruit of the Catholic faith, look at the people who actually put it into practice. As you know, the Catholic Church has produced some of the greatest, most on-fire saints the world has ever known. Some of them converted whole nations to Christ. We still marvel at their faith and holiness many centuries after they died.

How can I move from such a dynamic soul-winning church that I am in now into such a seemingly dead church seemingly full of untransformed people?

Before I became Catholic, I asked myself the same question, because I'd heard all sorts of horror stories about how dead the Catholic Church was, and since I'd known several Catholics who were as worldly as any pagan, I believed them. So as I became more and more convinced that the Catholic Church taught the truth, I thought, "But Lord, they're all so dead." And then I remembered His words: "What is that to you? You follow me." And I realized that it really wasn't important whether the guy in the pew next to me was living the faith, it was important whether I was. It was as if the Lord was saying to me, "You need to follow the truth, even if you're the only one who does."

Happily, my fears turned out to be unfounded. I've met plenty of on-fire Catholics since I've joined the Church, and I've found several local parishes where the faith is truly lived and preached.

A girl that I am friends with, who has little knowledge of the theological issues between Catholics and Protestants said simply, "I am not a Catholic because they don't emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus." I am sure that many committed catholics such as yourself have vastly different experiences, but you must admit, the problem of simply going through the motions with little understanding of the significance seems rampant in the Church. Am I being unfair?

Yes. As I said, you're comparing the best Evangelicals with the worst Catholics. But I do think it's easier to be a nominal Catholic than to be a nominal Evangelical. Catholicism is an embodied faith. It's very physical, expressing itself through signs and meaningful rituals and practices. Ideally, those practices are joyful ways of expressing the interior reality of God's grace in our lives. They give form and substance to the reality of our faith. But if that reality isn't there, it's still possible to go through the physical motions of the faith because of habit, or whatever. In other words, it's possible to mistake faith's expression for faith itself, as if the outward signs of our faith, and not the reality they are meant to express, are what's important. That does happen, and it's a shame, because going through the motions won't get anybody to Heaven.

On the other hand, Evangelicalism is largely devoid of physicality. It is a religion almost exclusively characterized by intellectual commitment. Therefore, if you don't have that commitment, there's nothing else there, so you leave. This is good in the sense that it focuses on the primary importance of belief and conversion of heart, and because it's more difficult to fool yourself into thinking you're a "good Christian" when you're not, but Evangelicals really are missing something by not having a rich physical tradition with which to express their faith. When you combine real interior faith with meaningful exterior expression, the result is incredible, believe me. And the best Catholics, like the best Evangelicals, know that a personal relationship with Jesus is the goal of the Christian life. We just have a whole lot of ways to express and experience that relationship.

How Can Catholicism Be True When Catholics Are So Dead?
Great cover up. If only those were the only issues...
 
  • Like
Reactions: prism

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Once again - I don't think you understand, so I will post the excerpt from Paragraph 847 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church again . . .

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.


This is pretty self-explanatory and I think you're being purposely obtuse just to make some kind of point.
When rebuking the Pharisees, Jesus stated in NO uncertain terms:
John 9:41
If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.

He also said:
John 15:22
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin."

This is a clear indication that God shows mercy on the ignorant.
How does that apply to Protestants unless they live somewhere where religious freedom is prohibited and Catholics cannot work to inform them? That could easily describe the kind of ignorance seen in the early Anglican Church when the British sovereigns refused to allow people to have religious freedom. I can see how that kind of ignorance would be "invincible." I don't see how it would apply today.

If you think I'm being deliberately obtuse, would that make my ignorance invincible? If so, why try to convince me of anything? Why do you spend time trying to convince people you can't convince? You seem to spend a lot of time battling something you call invincible. It doesn't make sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace and prism

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your church teaches this.
YOU go educate yourself.
MY Church doesn't teach that a baby needs to make a decision to be saved - and neither does it teach that a person must come to a certain age in in order to be saved.
The onus is on YOU to show this teaching - not on ME to prove a negative . . .