1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

Are Catholics Christians?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by The Voice of Reason, Oct 1, 2004.

  1. Dadball

    Dadball Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +11
    I was not going to post to this, because, I thought it was ridiculous thought, and I could not add anything insightful or learn anything from it.



    Well if you want to see God in action, sit tight.



    I find this question offensive. Not TVOR’s question or that it is on this forum. It offends me that we still have to ask questions like this. They are different from me, so if I’m one that can’t be. Wrong.



    It saddens me that we have to choose sides and there is a right or wrong side. Does it matter? If our victories are measured by not what we have accomplished, but by our opponents defeat, can we still call it a victory? I have yet to see anyone be truly lifted up by putting someone else down. It is prevalent in our society, and that saddens me. It saddens me that we don’t celebrate our differences, learn and share. I’m sad that we allows ourselves to get so worked up in how wrong other are and we can’t see how wrong we are. I’m sad because I’m as much at fault as anyone. I’m sorry.



    This thread has caught my eye over that last several days. It irked me every time I saw it, and I could not figure out why. Why does this bother me, and then God revealed to me in a way only I could understand. Get off of your high horse. You self righteousness has gained you nothing. I have loved you now go and love others. Peace.





    Chris
     
  2. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason Doctor of Thinkology

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    Chris -
    For my part, I find it very distasteful when I phrase my replies in a manner that hurts someone else's feelings. I try very hard to refrain from it, until the time that the person on the other side of the debate begins to attack myself, my friends, my morals, or their morals from a bigoted point of view. At that point in the discussion, as far as I am concerned, the kid gloves have to come off. I have debated everything from abortion, to politics, to the existence of God on this site, and have enjoyed the give and take with probably 80% of the members. Even if we disagree, there is no cause for cutting remarks - until they claim the moral high ground.
    I guess I see it this way because, in my mind, we ALL have the right to claim the moral high ground. I can, will, and do respect your opinions - until you disrespect mine or my friends'. I do not direct this toward you, per se, as it applies to everyone I meet in life or on the 'net. I wish you no ill, and I sincerely hope that as we move through this world, we can leave our differences behind, in an effort to find peace. If we cannot, more's the pity.

    Sincerely,
    TVOR

    PS - I realize that this makes me a smaller person, when I succumb to my weakness, but I don't think I'll ever be able to rise completely above it.
     
  3. Feathers in Hair

    Feathers in Hair World's Tallest Hobbit

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    14,599
    Ratings:
    +1,793
    *looks back through thread* I can't seem to find any instance of anyone, especially you, TVOR, acting in anything less than a perfectly civilized manner. Maybe I missed something? *is confused now*
     
  4. sammy

    sammy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Ratings:
    +1
    Being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. It means being a member of the body of Christ which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn't forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn't forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn't forgive sins. Praying to Mary doesn't forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man made ritual and certainly not the catholic saints. Even though Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation. Praying to Mary/saints ridicules the divinity of Christ!

    According to the Handbook for Today’s Catholic, page 47, "If you die in the love of God but possess any ‘stains of sin,’ such stains are cleansed away in a purifying process called purgatory. These stains of sin are primarily the temporal punishment due to venial or mortal sins already forgiven but for which sufficient penance was not done during your lifetime."
    The Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1030, says that purgatory is for "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." How is it possible that an afterlife cleansing through punishment is necessary for a Christian who has trusted in Jesus to cleanse him from all His sins? Wasn't Jesus' punishment for our transgressions sufficient? Didn’t He take our place in that He suffered our death? It would seem that the words of Christ, "It is finished," (John 19:30) do not mean that the cleansing of our souls was completed on the cross. In light of the doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), where Jesus bore all of our sins, purgatory would seem to have no theologically justifiable right to exist.

    Basically, Catholics are not Christians...Catholic doctrine ridicules the divinity of Christ...that by his grace we are saved- not by our works...how can we earn God's salvation, God's love? We all fall short of the glory of God so no matter how many good deeds we may do...we're not worthy! It's by his grace and his grace alone we're accepted/forgiven and because of that we obey his commandments...out of love because of what God's done for us. We don't obey in order to be accepted... we're accepted therefore we obey! P.S. This is my very first post...ever. Just joined *blushes*
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +951
    sammy,
    First, welcome! Hope to see you around for a long time here at RF.

    Second... I think you're opinion of what the Catholic faith teaches is a bit off, and I'd like to help with that.
    Catholics DO NOT believe in a works salvation. I personally, am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and trust in HIM ALONE for my salvation. THAT is what the RCC teaches... believe anything else and someone has lied to you.
    I hope when you learn the truth, you will post a different response. Again, welcome to RF!

    Peace,
    Scott
     
  6. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    When all is said and done (and there is usually far more said than done) I am glad that the Catholic Church exists and am more than willing to accept them as brothers in Christ. We certainly don't agree on everything (including salvation) but there is no reason for me to believe that my understanding of the scriptures is superior to theirs. Not that any Catholics have since breathed a collective sigh of relief with the knowledge that I have accepted them! :D

    In many spiritual matters, I believe firmly in the Panout Doctrine. In spite of how we fuss and debate, things are going Pan Out just the way God wants them to. ;)
     
  7. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +951
    *sigh....* He he......
    I am interested to hear what we don't agree on. In my previous post, I stated that I trust alone in the saving blood of Jesus Christ and trust in him alone for my salvation.

    You don't agree that Jesus alone can save you?

    Scott
     
  8. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    My disagreement is not WHO saves anyone.

    But HOW one is saved.

    While we both believe in baptism, I do not see infant baptism in the early church.

    Babies have no sin and do not need to be saved.

    The command is "repent and be baptised", so unless a person repents (and babies need not apply) they do not need to be baptised.

    But that is merely my limited understanding on only one area with which we may disagree.

    But one does not need to cleave to my understanding, but rather should develop their own.

    If I help anyone to have a clearer understanding, then that would be in spite of my sin and all the more glory to God.
     
  9. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +951
    Thanks for the reply Doc!

    I hope this will clear this up for you:

    Let me start with this quote:
    We all sin. Rom 3:23 "We all have sinned..." If it was possible to be born without sin (and I won't muddy the waters by talking about Mary) then there would be hundreds of people in history who managed to live their entire lives without sin.... and that is contrary to scripture. 2 Cor 5:17-18 speaks of being a "new creation"... in Christ, which would not be necessary if someone was without sin.

    Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39).

    The apostolic Church baptized whole "households" (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

    Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be "brought to Christ" in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.

    Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but "
    baptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).
    Where did you look?

    The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)

    Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.

    For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

    Irenaeus
    "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

    "‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

    Hippolytus
    "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

    Cyprian of Carthage
    "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

    "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).


    "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).


    Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, a conscious or even unconscious desire for baptism.


    Peace be with you,
    Scott
    www.catholic.com
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    A few questions:
    1. How can a baby commit a sin?
    2. How can a person (pasuumming that original sin does not exist) live a life without sin?
    3. Acts2:38 tells us to repent as well as be baptized. How can an infant repent?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    all is rarely definate.context must be paid attention to, and logic has it's place.

    Jude 1:5Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

    no christian i know claims to know all things.but if we are to merely take 'all' as an absolute word, then we are left with undeniable contradictions.
     
  12. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    SOGFPP,

    I fear that this digresses from the original intent of this thread. However, you have brought up these points and so I will answer.

    Romans 3:23 was not addressed to babies. I think they would have a problem reading the text.

    God addressed the concept of inheriting sin here:

    Ezekial 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "`The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4.For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

    I am a simple man. But as Linus pointed out, I can not see how God would hold anyone responsible for that which he did not do. I don't claim to understand all that the Lord has provided us, but to what I think I understand: I hold fast until someone shows me in the Bible that I am in error.

    I am in complete and utter ignorance of the extra-Biblical texts you quoted. It appears that the Judaisers were actively still trying to impose Judaical tenets into Christianity. Never put new wine into old wineskins.

    I Peter 3:21 (One of my favorites) again would pose this question: How would a baby "appeal" to God if the infant has no idea of what is happening. For that matter, if the infant does not inherit sin as Ezekial contends, why should he ask for what he already possesses?

    The rite of "Confirmation" in your sect tries to address the concept of an individual commitment to Jesus. I would suggest that the Baptism of a repentent individual is the only "commitment ceremony" we need and the only one suggested by God.
     
  13. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +951
    Thanks Doc.... I just wanted the opportunity to show you that there was a early church.... and that there is information available to you from history (not ONLY your Bible) to help you understand your faith.

    Peace,
    Scott
     
  14. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +951
    Are these for me?
     
  15. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    Yes. Either you, or any others who seem to be advocating the need for infant baptism.
     
  16. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +951
    OK.... let's see....

    1. I guess you didn't read my earlier post.
    What makes you think all babies are born without sin?
    Why don't some of those babies (of the Billions in history) live a life without sin.... or have some and I just have not heard about them?

    2. Original sin does exist, so I can't help you with this question. You can answer it, as it seems you don't believe in original sin. Looking forward to your answer.

    3. When Peter spoke in Acts 2:38, he speaking to infants?
    Hmmm, seems more likely that he was speaking to the adults.;)
    Or do you think he tried to explain to newborn babies the need for repentance? :biglaugh:

    Peace,
    Scott
     
  17. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    While I agree that there WAS an original sin which brought spiritual death into the world, I don't find any Bible passages that indicate that God holds me responsible for Eve. I only find the converse to that tenet in the scriptures. God does hold me responsible for ME, and that's it. Well actually, he has found me innocent through a loop hole.
     
  18. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    You haven't answered my question. You seem to have merely dodged it. I asked you how a baby can sin. What would be a sin that a baby can commit? Give me an example or something, please. Isn't sin a willful act? How can a baby commit anything? Besides, Jesus, in Matthew 18:3, says that unless you are converted and become as little children, you will, by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Obviously Jesus, Himself thought that children were innocent.

    I hate to say this ,and I hope I'm wrong, but this sounds like a cop-out. I read your earlier post, and you said yourself that
    I am asking you how this would be possible. I don't see the connection.

    I agree. But this is simply referring to the next generation of people, and all generations to come, not literal children. Children can be any age. If everyone (including infants) needs to be baptised, then doesn't everyone (again, infants included) need to repent as well?
     
  19. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    Amen, NetDoc.
     
  20. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +951
    Hiya Linus and Doc,

    All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
    289 Rom 5:12,19.
    290 Rom 5:18.

    Hope that clears things up for ya.:)

    A baby can't sin. A baby is born WITH sin.
    Read my response above. Sin came into the world (to all of humanity) and there was only one who could save us.... Jesus.
    Hehehe.... I love people who debate with statements like: "Obviously".... :banghead3
    Like little children means to me another thing. Hardly a convincing argument for your position.
    Oh.... now I get ya. Sorry.:eek: What I mean is that if it was possible, as you contend, for a child to be born without sin, simple logic would dictate that at least one of these children at some point in history would CONTINUE to live his/her entire life without sin. Christians believe differently.... because the Bible teaches us that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. If it was possibly for us to be born without sin.... then it would be possible to live a life without sin and thus make the sacrifice of Jesus unnecessary.
    I doubt you believe this, so maybe it is the definition of the origin of sin in humanity that we are having trouble communicating. Let me ask you this to help clarify:
    If we are not born with sin, then why do ALL people sin?
    Well, here is where Catholics and Protestants truly differ.... you can give your opinion all day long about this verse or that verse and I can do the same. Our personal opinions about the content or meaning of a verse like this can be as varied as, well, as varied as the number of Protestant denominations!
    What I mean is, that if your only ammunition is your opinion.... you're shooting blanks.;)
    What Catholics do, on the other hand, is look at history and the Apostolic Traditions of the Church.
    From my ealier post:
    For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

    Irenaeus

    "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

    So, what we have here is Polycarp, who studied at the right hand of John the Apostle (did you get that? John... yes, that John.... Apostle.... one of the twelve... clear?) and the Christian (Catholic) Church that he was a Bishop of.... most likely baptizing infants less that a generation removed from Christ.

    Compelling? Yes. Absolute proof? No.

    But at the very least we have the history of our faith to guide us....

    You have your personal opinion.

    I'll let others decide what sounds more reasonable.

    Scott
     
Loading...