Is Getting Baptised Needed?

I think that's what we've been talking about this whole time, but I'm not sure we got very far.

You can not progress until you have a precept or concept understood first, or we will not understand what comes after. This is how the Holy Spirit teaches us.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
 
Actually, Catholicism is a religion that teaches many man-made doctrines that are not biblically sound. You are correct in determining that it is not a denomination---but it is a religion all unto itself.

Why do you believe that? How did you come to this conclusion?
 
Last edited:
You can not progress until you have a precept or concept understood first, or we will not understand what comes after. This is how the Holy Spirit teaches us.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

No one can grow in faith?
 
No one can grow in faith?

Faith does not grow how you think it does. Faith does not grow in quality, but in quantity. Instead of faith becoming stronger it simply multiplies in other areas. The faith used to get saved is the same faith used to receive healing, only it has to be spread out to other areas of ones life. You can have faith in one area and not in another. Remember when a man who had a son who was tormented by a evil spirit and wanted Jesus to heal him?

Mar 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
Mar 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

He had faith in believing Jesus as the messiah, but had unbelief in believing for the healing of his son. Faith and unbelief at the same time. If he had known that the same faith he had in believing Jesus as the messiah could be used to help his son he would have had no problems with unbelief.
 
Why? Because that is how Catholicism presents itself.

So based on how it looks, you've come to this definite conclusion? How can you be so irresponsible? Have you even read the early Church fathers? Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Irenaeus -- the students taught directly under John, Paul, and Peter?
 
Faith does not grow how you think it does. Faith does not grow in quality, but in quantity. Instead of faith becoming stronger it simply multiplies in other areas. The faith used to get saved is the same faith used to receive healing, only it has to be spread out to other areas of ones life. You can have faith in one area and not in another. Remember when a man who had a son who was tormented by a evil spirit and wanted Jesus to heal him?

Mar 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
Mar 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

He had faith in believing Jesus as the messiah, but had unbelief in believing for the healing of his son. Faith and unbelief at the same time. If he had known that the same faith he had in believing Jesus as the messiah could be used to help his son he would have had no problems with unbelief.

CCW, I feel as though I am walking on eggshells with you. Most often, when a discussion like this is had and the other side presents in in words the other person wouldn't commonly use, we tend to understand what they mean and can move forward. It seems you are insisting this discussion is worded precisely as you have to have it otherwise it goes nowhere and we're caught on semantics.

We've been discussing "obtain vs. access," "quantity vs. quality," "having faith vs. having faith." How can one even begin to discuss?
 
Last edited:
CCW, I feel as though I am walking on eggshells with you. Most often, when a discussion like this is had and the other side presents in in words the other person wouldn't commonly use, we tend to understand what they mean and can move forward. It seems you are insisting this discussion is worded precisely as you have to have it otherwise it goes nowhere and we're caught on semantics.

We've been discussing "obtain vs. access," "quantity vs. quality," "Having faith vs. having faith." How can one even begin to discuss?

Because words are very important, and they carry information needed to understand truth. We can not use the traditions of man to discover truth as that makes the Word of God ineffective. God does not use words that have no use, and every word he speaks has purpose and meaning.
 
Because words are very important, and they carry information needed to understand truth. We can not use the traditions of man to discover truth as that makes the Word of God ineffective. God does not use words that have no use, and every word he speaks has purpose and meaning.

I'm not using useful words, and I don't say anything that I don't mean.
 
So based on how it looks, you've come to this definite conclusion? How can you be so irresponsible? Have you even read the early Church fathers? Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Irenaeus -- the students taught directly under John, Paul, and Peter?

No. It is from learning about Catholicism through its own catechism, and through comparing its doctrines with scripture and through people who are Catholic that I have concluded that it is just another religion. I do believe that there are born again Christians within the system, and I have known a few, but on the whole, it is rife with beliefs that are unsound, biblically.

Being a student of the word of God is far better.
 
No. It is from learning about Catholicism through its own catechism, and through comparing its doctrines with scripture and through people who are Catholic that I have concluded that it is just another religion. I do believe that there are born again Christians within the system, and I have known a few, but on the whole, it is rife with beliefs that are unsound, biblically.

Being a student of the word of God is far better.
If you want to know where Catholicism came from read this thorough book: http://www.ldolphin.org/PDFs/The_Two_Babylons-Alexander_Hislop.pdf

It's the hand-me-down from Nimrod via several religions including Egyptian. Very interesting.
 
No. It is from learning about Catholicism through its own catechism, and through comparing its doctrines with scripture and through people who are Catholic that I have concluded that it is just another religion. I do believe that there are born again Christians within the system, and I have known a few, but on the whole, it is rife with beliefs that are unsound, biblically.

Being a student of the word of God is far better.

I'm sorry, it sounds like you've misinterpreted the Catholic teaching if you think it goes against Scripture and is even a different religion.
 
I'm sorry, it sounds like you've misinterpreted the Catholic teaching if you think it goes against Scripture and is even a different religion.

I have not misinterpreted anything. Based on the open confession of those who claim Catholicism and after studying their beliefs, I have come to a solid conclusion about it. There are some good similarities in beliefs, but there are many divergent and deeply ingrained doctrines that simply defy the right division of scripture.
 
Both sound interesting, so how about both?

Well the reason why I claim it isn't man-made but GOD-made is because Christ founded one Church (Matthew 16:19). We recognize that the Church isn't THE authority -- that would be God, but that God has given His people a Church to author His authority through the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-22). We recognize that the Bible His written Word, and remarkably, it was the Catholic Church that compiled and canonized this book which we call The Bible. And it was through the Holy Spirit's ability to speak through those bishops in the close of the 4th century that we believe in the Bible to be God-breathed.

The Early Church fathers--these were the students under some of the Apostles--spoke explicitly of one Catholic Church (this term was recorded at least as early as 110 AD by Ignatius of Antioch--a student under John). They wrote about Church direction, demanding the scriptures (even before its canonization) be respected and used in teaching and not changed in teaching. They wrote about the role of the clergy and the laity, but more importantly, the invisible Church -- the spirit of it which God left for us.

It has respected Christ's teaching for 2000 years and has practiced it since then. Most people think the Catholic Church is the clergy and maybe the laity, but that's only the body of the Church -- the Church, like man, has a soul if you will.

As for denomination, this is trickier because on one hand, Catholics don't mind responding when asked "what denomination are you" with being Catholic. We do this because the Church believes Protestants are also Christians. The Catholic Church believes Presbyterians, Baptists, Non-Denominational, Anglican, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc. etc. to be Christians so long as they believe in God the father, the death and resurrection of His only son Jesus who was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, the forgiveness of sins, eternal life in Heaven, the free gift of grace, and the worship of only one--that being God.

That said, because Catholicism also teaches that there is only one Church, it doesn't promote the notion of mulch-denominations. Do Catholics believe non-Catholic Christians can reach heaven? Absolutely. Do Catholics believe in working with other denominations in pursuit of spreading the Gospel? Absolutely. Do Catholics regard Protestants who are sincere in the Christian faith as Christians? Absolutely! But do Catholics support division? No--the goal is to bring all to the fullness of the body of Christ. Catholics regard Protestants as our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit separated from us.

And as for the subject of baptism, Catholics credit non-Catholic baptisms as valid baptisms so long as they are in the Tridentine formula (ie, done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).
 
I have not misinterpreted anything. Based on the open confession of those who claim Catholicism and after studying their beliefs, I have come to a solid conclusion about it. There are some good similarities in beliefs, but there are many divergent and deeply ingrained doctrines that simply defy the right division of scripture.

Absolutely not. The misconceptions are always overlooked without deep research, which was my main flaw when I was anti-Catholic. I decided to review the Catechism without sincere dedication. I only noticed the Catholics who admitted to being Catholic but dismissed Catholic teaching (in other words, they partied hard and didn't seem to care about pleasing God).

This is poor criteria and bad research. It demands Scriptural research, historic research, early Church research, talking to theologians and priests, not some Catholic schmoe on the street that couldn't tell you the first thing about the objectivity of God.
 
Absolutely not. The misconceptions are always overlooked without deep research, which was my main flaw when I was anti-Catholic. I decided to review the Catechism without sincere dedication. I only noticed the Catholics who admitted to being Catholic but dismissed Catholic teaching (in other words, they partied hard and didn't seem to care about pleasing God).

This is poor criteria and bad research. It demands Scriptural research, historic research, early Church research, talking to theologians and priests, not some Catholic schmoe on the street that couldn't tell you the first thing about the objectivity of God.

I used due diligence when researching the Catholic system. I don't bother with ambivalent or unknowledgeable Catholics in my discussions.
 
I have not misinterpreted anything. Based on the open confession of those who claim Catholicism and after studying their beliefs, I have come to a solid conclusion about it. There are some good similarities in beliefs, but there are many divergent and deeply ingrained doctrines that simply defy the right division of scripture.

A Catholic who becomes an Evangelical I'd argue has never understood his Catholicism. There are millions of evangelicals who say "I was a Catholic until I was 15 and then I met Jesus." Or "I was a Catholic until I was 17 and then I became a Christian." Or "I was a Catholic until I was 20 and then I was saved." It's enough to make you want to visit their parish priests and say "What the heck were you telling these people?"

There are so many of these folks who say "Don't talk to me about Catholicism because they never taught me a thing. Now I've met Jesus!" By all means, finding one's relationship with Christ is the most important thing, but schlepping off to a Catholic mass was nothing and they found themselves in a non-denominational youth group or Campus Crusade. I'd say a Catholic who becomes an evangelical has never drawn on the riches of the Catholic faith.

Whereas an Evangelical who becomes a Catholic has taken the best of Evangelicalism and gone on with it to its fullest, reading their way into the Catholic faith, and becoming more evangelical and more of a Bible Christian than they ever have been.
 
Back
Top