Pelosi clings to — and misquotes — her Bible

posted at 11:15 am on April 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Maybe Democrats can’t understand the call to faith many Americans feel because they’ve been reading the wrong Bible. Via the boss, CNS News provides evidence for this conclusion with Nancy Pelosi’s Earth Day speech on Tuesday. Apparently hoping to reach out to the bitter gun-hugging xenophobes of middle America, Pelosi adopted the Sunday Schoolmarm pose and told us that God wanted us to worship Gaia:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is fond of quoting a particular passage of Scripture. The quote, however, does not appear in the Bible and is “fictional,” according to biblical scholars.

In her April 22 Earth Day news release, Pelosi said, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children’s children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.”

Cybercast News Service repeatedly queried the speaker’s office for two days to determine where the alleged Bible quote is found. Thus far, no one has responded. …

Claude Mariottini, a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Cybercast News Service the passage not only doesn’t exist – it’s “fictional.”

“It is not in the Bible,” Mariottini said. “There is nothing that even approximates that.”

I wrote about Barack Obama’s impulse to do some text-searching of Scripture ex post facto to cover for his Crackerquiddick comments. As I wrote then, people with religious faith are used to people throwing Bible quotes out of context at them to challenge their faith and their values. It’s the hallmark of someone who treats Biblical faith with contempt. But at least they usually get the quotes correct, even if out of context.

Let’s see if we can get something close to what Pelosi said from Bible Gateway, a fairly encyclopedic search engine that covers several different editions of the Bible. “Minister to the needs of God’s creation” comes up with no hits. “Environment” comes up with no hits. “Dishonor” comes back with 29 hits in the NIV (only 10 in KJV), none of which have to do with stewardship over God’s creation. Even “Steward” comes back with only 10 hits, none on point.

We do, however, find this in Genesis 1:28:

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

No one argues that mankind has stewardship of God’s creation, with the exception of the enlightened atheists that somehow insist on telling us what our own Bible says. However, the essentially illiteracy of our betters in San Francisco — the same crowd who laughed in approval to Barack Obama’s description of middle America as bitter xenophobes who cling to our Bibles because the GDP didn’t expand last quarter — perfectly exemplifies the contempt in which they hold our faith and the condescension they exude when trying to talk down to us.

I’d say that Pelosi may really be clinging to the Bible out of desperation, but desperation borne out of her own political ineptness. Maybe while she’s clinging to it, she could open it up and actually read it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

abinitioadinfinitum on April 24, 2008 at 1:24 PM

I just checked in and saw your comment above that the link didn’t work. I rechecked it and I can get into it, but I don’t know why it isn’t working for you. HeIsSailing on April 24, 2008 at 1:18 PM gave you the same one I did, but it looks as if you found some other F. F. Bruce resources online.

F. F. Bruce’s book has been published as a short paperback. We’ve had a copy for years and I was glad to also find it online. I linked to it so that anyone who desired could read it immediately.

INC on April 24, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Doug on April 24, 2008 at 1:40 PM

I agree. {“Protestant” is] a pejorative term, like calling pro-lifers “anti-choicers.”

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 1:43 PM

This is why, as a Catholic, I generally refer to non-Catholic Christians as “non-Catholic Christians” – because I talk to lots of evangelicals and fundamentalists about our faith and many of them feel as you do. This is the first time I’ve seen somebody actually say it on HotAir though, I think.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Ok, so twice in two days I’m breathlessly informed of the obvious. Yesterday, I learned that Al Gore’s documentary is garbage, thanks to the use of stock CGI footage. Prior to that, I thought it was crap because of the bad science.

Today, I find out that a California Democrat is caught being less than truthful. I kind of thought that’s what they did.

Now, for some actual snark. Anyone want to bet that the reason the biblical scholars were all over that quote is because they knew that the Bible’s stand on environmental stewardship is the exact opposite of what Pelosi belched out? Because, you know, if she was close, then we would have heard about it by now.

Krydor on April 24, 2008 at 3:20 PM

Captain Ed,
Thank you for another great post. You are a very welcome addition to HotAir, and I am glad you are here.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I am delighted you made reference to the Bible Gateway in this post. It is a great resource, and even non-Christians can get a lot out of it. (Not the least of which would be a better understanding of us bitter Bible-clingers).

Let’s see if we can get something close to what Pelosi said from Bible Gateway, a fairly encyclopedic search engine that covers several different editions of the Bible. “Minister to the needs of God’s creation” comes up with no hits. “Environment” comes up with no hits. “Dishonor” comes back with 29 hits in the NIV (only 10 in KJV), none of which have to do with stewardship over God’s creation.

What’s interesting is to modify your search to look for both “dishonor” and “God”. That search comes back with 2 hits, which Nancy Pelosi would do well to read, understand, and pay heed to:

Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the LORD ?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God.
Proverbs 30:9 (New International Version)

You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
Romans 2:23 (New International Version)

Red Pill on April 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Really, most American Catholics have an “A la Carte” approach to their faith, regardless of political affiliation. Heck, there was a poll recently that said most don’t even see going to church regularly as being important to their faith.

Typhonsentra on April 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM

And it’s possible that some of them aren’t even really Christians.

Plus, he’s not necessarily calling her or even comparing her to atheists. The only thing being said above is that she is using a tactic many atheists do, which is to pick something from the Bible and accuse Christians of being hypocrites for not abiding by it word for word.

It really is a very common tactic. It’s more often used to discredit Christians than anything else, hence it’s used by atheists more often than not.

Esthier on April 24, 2008 at 3:22 PM

SaintOlaf on April 24, 2008 at 1:35 PM

By your standards, you are going to “Hell” also…
*
Do you drive a Motor home in the San Diego area? There is a weird guy that drives a motor home with graffiti plastered all over the vehicle, all calling the Pope satan and the devil, and he sits out front with a sign yelling at people as they drive by, claiming they are going to hell…are you that guy?

right2bright on April 24, 2008 at 3:23 PM

You shall not murder.
Exodus 20:13 (New International Version)

You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
Romans 2:23 (New International Version)

Nancy Pelosi is notoriously pro-murder.

The only death that is “pro-choice” is suicide. An aborted child has no “choice” in the matter. (Reference the Planned Parenthood thread)

Red Pill on April 24, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Note to all Democrats who read Hot Air:
If you are going to try to quote scripture, get it right.

Red Pill on April 24, 2008 at 3:29 PM

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Just my personal preference, but if you have to address me as “not a Catholic” I’d rather be called a Protestant. I don’t find it pejorative, though I understand why some people do.

But overall, I’d rather just be called a Christian.

Esthier on April 24, 2008 at 3:31 PM

And the catholic understanding of rebirth is that it occurs at baptism, like Jesus said in John 3.

I am not a Roman Catholic, but you are a dope.

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 3:07 PM

This is a common misinterpretation. When you read the gospels, the word “baptize” clearly means what it says. In John 3 Jesus is referring, not to baptism, but to being born twice, i.e. “born of water” (coming out of the womb when the water breaks) and being “born of the spirit” (being born again). Yet in the same gospel the word “baptize” is used when describing the works of John the Baptist. There is a clear difference here.

And not being Catholic doesn’t somehow excuse you from bad behavior, i.e. calling people names.

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 3:31 PM

SaintOlaf on April 24, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Must admit I’m sick of being attacked by fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Will try to keep my cool but I will NOT let this slide. This will be brief as I have to get back to work; am on a break.

Is anyone aware of why the Christian church split off from the catholics?

The Catholic Church WAS the Christian Church until 1517, when Martin Luther split off. I’m sorry you’re so ignorant of history; please read the Church Fathers to see how “Catholic” their beliefs were, these disciples of Jesus’ apostles. Many Catholic leaders in the 16th century were misinterpreting authentic Catholic teaching on purgatory and using it to their own financial advantage and Martin Luther was correct to object. But he did not understand that the Church never taught that money saves you or whatever the many misrepresentations were.

Do you know that Martin Luther believed in, among other things, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and that he wanted to toss out the Book of James (called it “an epistle of straw”) but his disciples told him he had no rationale to do it?

Can anyone tell me why the catholic church does not encourage one to read the Word of God?

Slander, as someone else has already pointed out. The Church talks constantly about the need to be well read in God’s Word. Does Jesus like it when you slander fellow Christians?

Can anyone tell me why they worship and pray to a un-Biblical female goddess figure?

I assume you refer to Mary; Mary is not a “goddess figure” and the Church teaches she is a mere human, but very blessed as she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God so we call her “Mother of God.” This title honors Jesus, not Mary, by the way (think about it). She is our spiritual mother too (see the crucifixion scene in John where Jesus declares it. Jesus kept all commandments perfectly, including honoring His father and mother, and expects us to do the same. We ask her for her prayers (we aren’t “cut off from the True Vine” [see John 15:5] when we enter Heaven – we remain related to the saints in glory) and Hebrews 12 makes clear that angels and humans see us here on earth). We do not pray TO her nor do we worship her.

Can anyone tell me why the catholic church does not encourage one to be born again?

More slander. It is necessary to be born again to enter Heaven and the Catholic Church teaches this. Jesus said, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)

I’ve been in innumerable Christian churches and have heard SCORES of anti-Catholic diatribes from pulpits in other Christian churches. I’ve not heard ONE against other Christians from a Catholic Christian pulpit. Please stop slandering your fellow Christians. SaintOlaf. Jesus doesn’t like it.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:35 PM

But overall, I’d rather just be called a Christian.

Esthier on April 24, 2008 at 3:31 PM

No disrespect intended; glad you brought it up. :)

I use the title because of people like SaintOlaf (there are many of him around) who separate Catholic from Christian. Many of the discussions I have with other Christians are about our respective faiths. So I usually say “other Christians” if the topic is more neutral. But I find that when talking with someone present who thinks “Christian” and “Catholic” are diametrically opposed, it’s a teaching moment for them when I call myself “Catholic Christian” and them “non-Catholic Christian.” Respect for them (who finds the term Protestant offensive in many cases) and respect for me too.

We are both Christians, Esthier. thanks for the clarification though.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM

SaintOlaf on April 24, 2008 at 1:35 PM

You obviously have not been to my parish.

And maybe you feel the need to judge, but the message I get from Jesus is “Do not judge others”. Maybe the world needs both kinds of people.

And what’s with the lowercase “c” when you mention the Catholic Church? Intentionally disrespectful?

mikeyboss on April 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM

As a child, I was taught in a Methodist church that God commanded us to be good stewards over the Earth. Today, when I looked for such a teaching in the Bible, I was astounded that it was not there. You have to read together Genesis 1:28-30 (quoted in the thread–at least 28) and Corinthians 4:1-2 to get anything like this — and it is clear that the passage from Corinthians is referring to stewardship of the Faith and not the creation.

Thank you, Ed.

levi from queens on April 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM

From the article…

“People try to use the Bible to give authority to what they are trying to say,” he said. “(This) is one of those texts that you fabricate in order to support what you want to say.”

Oh, the irony. The sweet, sweet irony.

Constant Parrhesia on April 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM

@Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 3:07 PM

I think it’s safe to say that some of us have heard of the Reformation. Is it better to have one church or 26,000 independent denominations?
Yes.That is liberty. The forefathers understood that.

The RCC does in fact encourage Bible reading, even promising time off from Purgatory for reading it.
And where did they get the idea of purgatory? Well, not in the bible.

No catholic worships Mary, and “prayer” to her is to them like asking a friend to pray for them.
There are three types of worship in Roman Catholicism: Latria, Dulia and Hyperdulia. worship of saints, Mary, and to God respectively. So they are not supposed to worship Mary with what is due to God but it seems like Mary is served more and called the Mother of the Church, Dispenser of all Grace, and Co-Mediatrix (co-redeemer) among other titles. So have at it. If you ask them how can Mary and the saints hear millions of prayers if she is not omniscient ……
And the catholic understanding of rebirth is that it occurs at baptism, like Jesus said in John 3.
Yes, the catholic understanding – is not like John 3. Christians become Christians not by baptism but by Belief. The moment a person Believes in Christ then the new birth occurs. Then we get Baptized, not to become Christians but BECAUSE we are born again as the bible teaches. Jesus got baptized even though he is sinless. All the believers in the bible got baptized because they BELIEVED.

I am not a Roman Catholic,
Well, I use to be.

but you are a dope.
You can call me names also.

maynila on April 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM

How many references to “whore” in the Bible?

Pelosi must be using her magic beans to fold time, taking her back thousands of years, feigning prophesy (that never took hold by the priests and scribes), and returning to present day to quote herself. If Al Gore can make up his own reality for the world to swallow, why shouldn’t Nancy Pelosi, ERA?

maverick muse on April 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Stewardship of the earth is deduced, rather than explicit. But it is required of the faithful nonetheless.

BNCurtis on April 24, 2008 at 3:45 PM

And where did they get the idea of purgatory? Well, not in the bible.
maynila on April 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM

It’s in 2 Maccabees: “It is a holy and wholesome thing to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.” It was in the Christian canon until 1517 (two groups of Jews disagreed on whether it was in their canon) , when Martin Luther removed it. Note: the Catholic Church did not add seven books, the Reformers removed them.

Prefer the New Testament? 1 Corinthians 3:15 should do it. This passage cannot refer to Hell since no one is “saved ” there, and cannot refer to Heaven since no one suffers there (“saved as through fire”). Only the existence of a purifying “fire” (after death, notice) explains this passage. Purgatory refers simply to God’s free grace purifying us so that we can be utterly perfect in Heaven (Revelation: “Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven”) and Jesus” “you must be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”). we believe Jesus meant exactly what He said and He will not only make us SEEM perfect but actually BE perfect when we enter Heaven. We Catholics praise Him for His grace of purgatory, won on Calvary for us.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Gotta go now but hope to check back later.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

I agree. It’s a pejorative term

I’ve never heard anyone refer to it as a pejorative term. Its a historical term. Not that you have to accept that if you don’t like being called it.

aengus on April 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

In John 3 Jesus is referring, not to baptism, but to being born twice, i.e. “born of water” (coming out of the womb when the water breaks) and being “born of the spirit” (being born again). Yet in the same gospel the word “baptize” is used when describing the works of John the Baptist. There is a clear difference here.

And not being Catholic doesn’t somehow excuse you from bad behavior, i.e. calling people names.

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Ok, I take it back. He’s not a dope, he’s a snake and a fox (epithets used by Jesus).

The Church Fathers properly understood Jesus’ comments in John 3 as refering to water baptism, what Paul refers to as “the washing of regeneration” in Titus. Paul also says in Romans 6 that baptism engrafts us into Christ – not that it’s a symbol of it, or that we should think of it that way, but that it is the regenerative and initiatory event that makes us Christians and raises us from spiritual death.

Have you ever used the term “born of water” to describe the birth of a child? Of course not. You would just say, “My grandson was just born” or whatever.

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

maynila on April 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM

“The moment a person Believes in Christ then the new birth occurs.”

Not from the Reformed perspective. There are differing ideas on the Ordo Salutis within Protestantism, some closer to the RC concept than others.

BNCurtis on April 24, 2008 at 3:53 PM

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Actually, the Apocrypha was in the Protestant Bible until some missionary group (UBS?) took it out to make their Bibles lighter and cheaper to ship. I kid you not.

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 3:58 PM

maynila on April 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM

“The moment a person Believes in Christ then the new birth occurs.”

Babies were baptized -and communed- in the very ancient church. The new birth is baptism when it’s object is united to Christ. No one believed otherwise till Meno Simon came along fifteen centuries later.

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Babies were baptized -and communed- in the very ancient church. The new birth is baptism when it’s object is united to Christ. No one believed otherwise till Meno Simon came along fifteen centuries later.

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Please, Read the bible. The first churches (Romans 16:16) are there as opposed to the ‘very ancient church’.

maynila on April 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM

I didn’t say the first churches were not in the NT. (???)

And those churches didn’t disappear, there are records of their doings that survive, they were pastored by the disciples of the apostles, and they were baptizing and communing babies. Look it up. Whaddya think there were no Christians between St. John and Meno Simon?

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:11 PM

“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” (-Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]).

“Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. 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” (-Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (-Origin, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 244]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries [sacraments], knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (-Origin, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).

Cyprian

“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” (-Cyprian, Letter to Fidus 64:2 [A.D. 251]).

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

You’re taking Romans 6:3-4 completely out of context. Go back and include Romans 5 in the discussion, and the first part of 6, and you will see that Paul is talking about repentance and sin.

And again, reading John 3:3-6, Jesus clearly distinguishes between being born of water (born of the flesh in verse 6) and being born of the spirit. There’s a rhythm that you’re ignoring, the parallel between verse 3 and verse 6. Water and spirit, flesh and spirit. Even Nicodemus understood what Jesus meant, because he asked Him how he could enter into his mother’s womb again. Jesus clarified for him by using flesh the second time, and again juxtaposing it with spiritual birth.

Context, context.

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Are you saying that he is not talking about water baptism in Ro. 6?!

As for Nicodemus’s misunderstanding, you share it: Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about natural birth, and so do you. See the quotes above from the Fathers. They had the same Bible we do, and were much closer to the apostles than we are, and had a much different understanding of baptism than you do. Why’s that?

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:37 PM

I didn’t say the first churches were not in the NT. (???)

And those churches didn’t disappear, there are records of their doings that survive, they were pastored by the disciples of the apostles, and they were baptizing and communing babies. Look it up. Whaddya think there were no Christians between St. John and Meno Simon?

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Of course not. Christianity survived since Christ founded it. But they were not ‘communing’ or ‘baptising’ babies.
When we look at churches, we compare it with the bible not the ‘ancient’ churches you are talking about.
Your sources amounts to little when mere men disagrees with the bible. Men think they can improve the bible or make it more inclusive. Jesus did not do that. He said scripture cannot be broken.
I did not say that you said that there are no churches in the NT, rather, compare the ‘ancient’ to the original. If I did sound like I did, my apologies.
BTW, Menno Simon isn’t the first to baptise believers only but a lot of Christians before him who were persecuted by the RC church for believing the bible instead of the institution.

maynila on April 24, 2008 at 4:38 PM

There is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).

That one baptism is found in Mark 1:8: John the Baptist said “I indeed have baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Also, Acts 1:5: “For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

After trusting Jesus with a pure heart, you receive the Holy Spirit : Ephesians 1:8: “After ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.”

One sign of having the Holy Spirit is telling others about Jesus (Acts 1:8).

Paul implied water baptism was not part of the “Gospel” in I Corinthians 1:17 when he declared that he was not sent by Christ to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.

Paul defined the Gospel in I Cor. 15:1-8, and did not mention water baptism.

The scriptures used by false churches that teach water baptism salvation reveal that those verses do not teach their false doctrine:

Acts 2:38: The “for” in Acts 2:38 is the Greek word “eis,” which means “referring to.” If Paul had meant to say we are baptized to be saved, he would have used the Greek word “hina,” which means “to.” This principle also applies to Romans 6:3.

Nowhere in Acts 8:12 does it say one must be water baptized for salvation.

In Romans 6:4 & Colossians 2:12 it says we are “buried with him by baptism unto death…” A “burial” is not salvation. Colossians 2:12 correctly shows that what saves us is, “risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

Acts 2:41 does not say what a Church of Christ flyer sent to me says–“They who received (Believed) the Word were added to the saved by Baptism.” That is not what the verse says. Instead, the verse declares, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized….” It does not say that baptism was essential for salvation, but merely states that they were baptized after they believed.

The Ethiopian in Acts Chapter 8. This is obviously not an example of water baptism being essential for salvation. In verse 37 Philip said “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest…” The eunuch believed. Then he was baptized. This story does not say that the water baptism was essential for his salvation.

Saul’s case in Acts Chapters 9 & 22 does not say baptism was necessary for his salvation. In Acts 22:16 Ananias told Paul to “…Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” What Ananias told Paul is not true, as the Bible sometimes uses figurative language. In this case, the Spirit of God tells us in Acts 9:17 what actually happened. Ananias put his hands on Paul so that Paul could receive his sight. Paul was then filled with the Holy Ghost. Obviously, Ananias had used figurative language in Acts 22:16.

On a related issue, the blind man in Luke 18: 35-43 was saved by faith in Jesus and there is no record he was baptized! Also, the thief on the cross was promised paradise by none other than Jesus Christ Himself, and he did not need to be baptized.

In Acts Chapter 10 it is recorded that Cornelious received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized. If salvation is acquired when water baptized, then the passage is saying that the Holy Spirit will enter the unsaved. Once again, it does not say that the baptism was part of the salvation process.

I Peter 3:21 says the “like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…” This means that only in some figurative sense was Noah saved by water. Furthermore, baptism is called a “figure.” The purpose of water as used in the scriptures is to serve as a symbol of the work of God (Ephesians 5:25-26).

John 3:5. Jesus’ reference to “water” in this verse refers to our birth out of our mother’s womb in water. This is illustrated in verse 6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Romans 6:1-4. Once again the “into” in this verse is “eis,” which means “in reference to.” Furthermore, the next verse calls baptism a “burial.”

Matthew 28: 19-20 does not mention anything about water. When a person sincerely trusts Jesus then they are baptized with the Holy Ghost as mentioned above.

In Mark 16:16 it says what damned them is not believing, not not being baptized.

Galatians 3:27. The previous verse (26) says “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” When the next verse says, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” it is referring to the Holy Spirit Baptism mentioned above.

New Testament People Saved with no mention of Water Baptism

The New Testament has several additional examples of people who were saved without any evidence they were water baptized. Examples include the penitent woman in Luke 7:37-50; a publican in Luke 18: 13-14, the paralytic man in Matthew 9:2, etc.

More Evidence Water Baptism does not Save

Matthew 3:15 calls baptism a work of righteousness, but in Titus 3:5 it says you are not saved by works of righteousness.

In John 6:28-29 Jesus was asked what we must do to do the works of God, he said to believe on Him.

True Salvation-The Blood

What really washes away your sins is the Blood Jesus Shed when he was crucified.

Colossians 1:14: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”

Hebrew 9: 22: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

Revelation 1:5: “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 4:39 PM

off to work…..but good discussion.

maynila on April 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM

Of course not. Christianity survived since Christ founded it. But they were not ‘communing’ or ‘baptising’ babies.

BTW, Menno Simon isn’t the first to baptise believers only but a lot of Christians before him who were persecuted by the RC church for believing the bible instead of the institution.

maynila on April 24, 2008 at 4:38 PM

I quoted several ante-Nicene father who endorse infant baptism. As for those persecuted Christians who practiced believers baptism, they were so horribly persecuted that no record of them or their writings survive!

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:41 PM

As for those persecuted Christians who practiced believers baptism, they were so horribly persecuted that no record of them or their writings survive!

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:41 PM

What you say is the truth, but I think you are mocking.

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 4:49 PM

According to the Geneva Convention Article 4 Paragraph 3 Sentence 5 Word 3….”The”

lorien1973 on April 24, 2008 at 4:49 PM

“eis” means into, as in eisegesis, which is what you’re practicing.

There is “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.” You think there are two baptisms, that by the HS and water baptism. So Paul says there is one, and you say there are two. The church has taught that the HS is conferred at baptism. You rightly point out using Mark 16 that one cannot be saved with faith, but one can be saved without baptism. I am not saying that baptism saves, I am saying that it engrafts one into Christ and is one’s birth into the church.

Colossians 1:14: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”

Yes, but how is that blood applied to us? Normatively, in baptism.

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:50 PM

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 3:58 PM

I’ve never heard that but have no reason to call you a liar. Even still, there’s a difference between the rest of the Bible and the Apocrypha.

It’s clear (to me at least) why some find it questionable.

No disrespect intended; glad you brought it up. :)

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM

I assumed none. You seem to be very respectful of others. The feeling should be returned. I know it’s so easy for many Christians to get caught up in their denominations and say their way is the only way.

We’re supposed to be the singular body of Christ, but more often than not, we’re dismembered. It’s no surprise that when we fight amongst ourselves we irreparably tarnish the image of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:15 should do it.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM

In keeping with our mutually respectful tone, I have to disagree with you.

To me, Paul is only speaking in a metaphor, saying that your work will be tested the same way fire tests metal, in that the good you have done will last while the bad will be destroyed.

The way I read it is that Paul is saying that he’s going around preaching a message of Christ and Him crucified and that if his work is of any value, it will stand the test of fire.

Verse 15 seems to say that even more so than the surrounding context, as it paints a picture of someone who starts a ministry for the wrong reasons even though he or she is actually a Christian.

Plus, it never mentions being dead, so I don’t understand why you associate it with a trial after death rather than an early trial. Is it just because of the mention of fire?

Because if that’s the case, then you’d be making the claim that it is the only portion of the paragraph that isn’t a metaphor, since it talks about building on top of the foundation of Christ with gold, silver, stones and hay or straw.

Taking in that context, a building made with gold will survive fire, but a building made of straw will be burnt down to the foundation, so that it survives but just barely.

Which I read as, someone who has worked to build something (a ministry or something along that nature) through their faith either seeing it come to fruition or seeing it destroyed.

Esthier on April 24, 2008 at 4:51 PM

I think I am mocking. Have you enver read Luther? I mean, the ridiculous should be ridiculed.

Gotta go. Buh-bye.

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:51 PM

If you ask them how can Mary and the saints hear millions of prayers if she is not omniscient ……

And the catholic understanding of rebirth is that it occurs at baptism, like Jesus said in John 3.
Yes, the catholic understanding – is not like John 3. Christians become Christians not by baptism but by Belief. The moment a person Believes in Christ then the new birth occurs. Then we get Baptized, not to become Christians but BECAUSE we are born again as the bible teaches.
maynila on April 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Excellent points.

Yes the catholic church does not encourage one to be born again.

They encourage baptism but baptism does not save the unregenerate man.

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So catholics believe that baptism saves a person but that is clearly not Biblical. I can see how that can be a stumbling block to billions of people. Can you?

Don’t get me wrong…I said this before…

Fortunately, many catholics are born again Christians.

But the fact remains that they were not led to be born again by the catholic church.

So FYI any of you catholics who are born again children of God I am not in any way insinuating that you are not saved….only that the catholic church does not point catholics in the right direction.

Many catholics now consider themselves charismatic, Spirit filled believers.

More and more catholics are becoming born again believers…Praise God!

But the point is…those who are born again were not led to be born again through the catholic church.

That is a problem.

If you are born again and go to a catholic church…great!

The catholic church does not need to be destroyed but needs a revival of the Holy Spirit!

SaintOlaf on April 24, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Yes, but how is that blood applied to us? Normatively, in baptism.

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 4:50 PM

Uh…no scripture to back that statement up. Meanwhile, I’ve put up a large body of scripture and all you’ve done is quote a few writers, none of which were the authors of the Bible.

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Your sources amounts to little when mere men disagrees with the bible. Men think they can improve the bible or make it more inclusive. Jesus did not do that. He said scripture cannot be broken.
I did not say that you said that there are no churches in the NT, rather, compare the ‘ancient’ to the original. If I did sound like I did, my apologies.

maynila on April 24, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Um, just out of curiosity, who in the HECK do you think wrote the Bible? Wasn’t it MEN? And then revised, and edited, and translated…

Show me something written by Jesus himself, and I’ll take it Verbatim… show me something writen by Holy Inspiriation sometimes HUNDREDS of years after he died… and I’ll have to take it with a grain of Salt…

Go check out some of the Gnostic writing (actual writing, not what others say about them)…. its interesting reading.

Romeo13 on April 24, 2008 at 5:27 PM

The Catholic Church WAS the Christian Church until 1517, when Martin Luther split off.

As I am sure you know, there was a formal split between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church 500 years before that. Read Calvin for a thorough discussion of how the Bishop of Rome in early centuries was considered one of equals for hundreds of years. Being that the Roman bishop was from the major city of the civilized world, the opinion of that bishop’s opinion would be highly regarded, but there was no thought that he had a more special connection to God than anyone else.

I find the term Protestant highly respectful considering the courage it took to even possess a Bible in the vernacular in the 1500′s. (If the Church was so keen on people reading the Bible themselves, why was it read aloud in Latin for all that time?) The term non-Catholic, while no-doubt well intentioned, sounds like saying someone is a non-Democrat is preferable to calling a person a Republican.

pedestrian on April 24, 2008 at 5:31 PM

dang, im late to band practice so i cant debate this but the catholics “curve” from actual Christs teachings go back a few thousand years, shortly after the crucifixion. google this – The Trail of Blood.

im out. enjoy the read

palefaced on April 24, 2008 at 5:34 PM

What do you mean, it’s not in the Bible?

Hasn’t anyone heard of the Queen Nancy Version? /sarc

Steve Z on April 24, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Um, just out of curiosity, who in the HECK do you think wrote the Bible? Wasn’t it MEN? And then revised, and edited, and translated…

Show me something written by Jesus himself, and I’ll take it Verbatim… show me something writen by Holy Inspiriation sometimes HUNDREDS of years after he died… and I’ll have to take it with a grain of Salt…

Go check out some of the Gnostic writing (actual writing, not what others say about them)…. its interesting reading.

Romeo13 on April 24, 2008 at 5:27 PM

So, to sum up your post, we should NOT believe the Bible because you yourself didn’t witness Jesus actually putting pen to paper…but we SHOULD believe Gnostic writings. That deserves a hearty *LOL*

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 5:49 PM

I’m what all of you would consider to be a Southern Baptist as that’s the type of church I came to know Christ in. However I prefer to just be known as christian (little “c” is a thing of mine because we are to be “little Christs”). And I consider anyone that has accepted Jesus into their hearts as fellow christians. It doesn’t matter what label they put on it.

Benaiah on April 24, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Christians cling to real Bibles while Dhimmicrats cling to fantasy. Niiiiice.

Mojave Mark on April 24, 2008 at 6:20 PM

No surprise. “Lunch Counter Christians” take the Bible out of context ALL the time . . . I mean, look at what’s happened with Matthew 7:1.

I have not heard ONE Christian ever read the 5 verses following it, or cite further Scripture – correctly! – to back up their views. People just throw out “judge not lest ye be judged” whenever they feel like it. The irony is that its always used to excuse and justify acts that run completely counter to the faith. It was never intended that way.

So in a nutshell, “Blinky” Pelosi would do well in the Episcopal Church.

Ryan Gandy on April 24, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Pelosi is “late to the party.” The introduction of heresies and the splits and the squabbles within “the Christian church.” have been quite common almost since the churchs’ inception.

BTW, the Roman Catholic church did not exist until several centuries after the time of Christ’s earthly appearance. Furthermore, the Great Schism between the Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church occurred some five centuries before the Protestant reformation was started by Martin Luther, John Calvin, et. al.

Also, as some others have already noted, the gnostics and their gospels existed BEFORE the Catholic church. They were branded heretics in the fourth century (and even before that) — when the Roman Emperor called the bishops together to define orthodox Christian beliefs (e.g. the council of Nicaea). Even before that, John (who is thought to have lived the longest of all of Jesus’disciples) warned of heretics in 1st John, and even before that, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy about false teachers who were “taking advantage” of the Christian faith because they saw it as a means to enrich themselves (apparently, televangelists are an ancient breed).

Thus, countless heresies, splits and squabbles have arisen almost from the day of the Lord’s ascension into heaven. So what are we to make of all this?

My collie says:

All of mankind is totally depraved.

You are SO predictable. Then, on the other hand, Nancy Pelosi is SO ordinary, she bores me to tears.

I can only reiterate John’s advice. You will know who the TRUE Christians are by their Love and by their unrelenting search and reverence for the Truth. They are a peculiar people that don’t really “fit in” very well with the rest of the world — because they thirst for righteousness, instead of the things of the world. I have seen them in many different places. Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Protestants — and even people that don’t really care for ANY particular brand of “organized religion” (at least in the conventional sense of that word). Of course, my views are far too “liberal” or “universalist” I suppose for many people that post here at HotAir. The truth is, I am far more disciminatory that most, because I believe that only a small minority of churchgoers are true disciples of Christ (no matter what church that they are attending).

CyberCipher on April 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM

So catholics believe that baptism saves a person but that is clearly not Biblical. I can see how that can be a stumbling block to billions of people. Can you?
SaintOlaf on April 24, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Uh…no scripture to back that statement up. Meanwhile, I’ve put up a large body of scripture and all you’ve done is quote a few writers, none of which were the authors of the Bible.

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 5:04 PM

First, it’s misleading and reductionist to say Catholics believe “baptism saves a person” as if the mere act of pouring water on someone’s head, or immersing them, apart from faith or Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary or His resurrection or His teachings to His apostles.

It would be more accurate to say that Jesus saves a person and uses baptism to do it. Apart from faith, in an adult’s case (infants need to grow up to have faith of their own–read Mark 16:15-16 very carefully) Jesus doesn’t use the water to do anything.

Scripturally, whole households were baptized in Acts, several based on the faith of the person who first believed in Jesus. Of course God expects each one to have faith of his own; Scripture makes that clear. But God also gives children grace, all through the Old and New Testaments, based on the faith of their parents. This is NOT to say that “God has grandchildren” (I know the Protestant expression). There is no reason to believe that none of the “whole households” described in Acts had very young children. People had a lot of children in those days. And the recorded historical practice of the very early Christian Church, and the witness of the Fathers, bears this out: infants have been baptized all along.

Re: application of Jesus’ saving power, Azked said it well in his 3:50 and later posts:

Akzed on April 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

You can’t say believing Jesus intended Christians to be baptized is not Biblical. We don’t understand the Bible the same way, obviously, which is why you’re a Christian/Protestant (pick your preferred title) and I’m a Catholic Christian. And I notice you also haven’t addressed the fact that you say correctly that you need to believe in Jesus, who made a very clear statement in Mark 16:15-16. Also, you have not addressed 1 Peter 3:18-22, which says clearly:

For Christ also suffered 5 for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 6
20
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body [i.e. the water isn't for the physical body but serves a spiritual purpose] but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [emphasis added] 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

(continued)

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 6:26 PM

(continued)
IOW: Catholics understand this scripture, in the context of the whole Bible, including the verses Azked and I have discussed, to say that Jesus’ power fuels the grace of baptism, we need to believe as well but He expects as normative [i.e. the usual way the grace won on Calvary is applied] that believers will be baptized.

As BNCurtis above pointed out above, this view is not limited to Catholic Christians.

We disagree on what the Bible means. That doesn’t make the Catholic view unscriptural, nor does it make either of us non-Christians, since we all believe in Jesus’ saving power and our total inability to save ourselves. We just disagree on how He intended this power to be applied in day to day Christian life. (Hence the Catholic belief, for just one example, in sacraments as totally scriptural: every single one is referenced in Scripture. Jesus intended the sacraments, we believe, and through each one He makes Himself present to us in a unique way. The teaching DOESN’T SAY that doing a certain action, with no faith in Christ, has any effect whatsoever, most especially not our eternal salvation. Only God can accomplish that.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Furthermore, the Great Schism between the Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church occurred some five centuries before the Protestant reformation was started by Martin Luther, John Calvin, et. al.
CyberCipher on April 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM

As I am sure you know, there was a formal split between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church 500 years before that.
pedestrian on April 24, 2008 at 5:31 PM

You’re both absolutely right; don’t know what I was thinking of. As you can see I’m used to having discussions more with evangelicals and fundamentalists than with our Orthodox brethren. :)

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM

The term non-Catholic, while no-doubt well intentioned, sounds like saying someone is a non-Democrat is preferable to calling a person a Republican.

pedestrian on April 24, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Point taken, totally. It’s just that most of the people I talk to in real life HATE the term “Protestant” so I tend to avoid it. YMMV obviously, as I see from this thread. And calling them “Christian” and myself simply “Catholic” sounds like I’m accepting the dichotomy trying to be forced on us Catholics by those who don’t believe they’re Christians. I won’t accept it and I never will. I’m a Christian. I’m also a Catholic. Sure wish I had a better phrase to use though, except for the times I can say “other Christians” :).

Glad to know what different people think. Will be more careful in the future.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 6:35 PM

And calling them “Christian” and myself simply “Catholic” sounds like I’m accepting the dichotomy trying to be forced on us Catholics by those who don’t believe they’re Christians.

Yeah it does sound a bit like saying that Catholics aren’t Christian, doesn’t it.

Ryan Gandy on April 24, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Am posting too much plus I have to go study, so, for those who say the Catholic Church didn’t exist for several centuries after Christ, will just post a quote from Ignatius of Antioch, circa 110 A.D.:

“Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church” Ignatius of Antioch

Obviously this was language already in use when he wrote the letter, otherwise his readers would have no idea what he meant. So IOW just a few years after the last apostle (John) died, the Christian Church Jesus established was already being referred to as “the Catholic [universal] Church.”

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Whoops! FOrgot Esthier:

Plus, it never mentions being dead, so I don’t understand why you associate it with a trial after death rather than an early trial. Is it just because of the mention of fire?
Esthier on April 24, 2008 at 4:51 PM

It does mention being dead. Here’s the quote:

If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13
the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work.
14
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.
–1 Cor 3:12-15

“The Day” refers of course to Judgment Day, and Scripture tells us it is appointed unto man once to die, and next comes judgment.

So yes, this passage does refer to after death.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 6:51 PM

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 6:44 PM

A quick search on the internet reveals this:

Catholic comes from the Greek katholikos, the combination of two words, kata (concerning), and holos (whole). According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the word catholic comes from a Greek word meaning “regarding the whole,” or, more simply, “universal” or “general.”

I believe that this is the original meaning of the word as used by members of the early church (before Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman government).

CyberCipher on April 24, 2008 at 6:53 PM

CyberCipher on April 24, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Well, am aware that some other Christians believe that the declaration of Constantine began the “corruption process for the pure Christian faith and it just got worse until the Church split.” Not sure if that’s what you mean when you refer to Constantine but some of the people on this thread, I am quite sure, will relate the two. Obviously I don’t believe that take on the facts, for many reasons. One of them is because I think the Catholic Church is right in its interpretation of Scripture. Another reason is the witness of the early Church Fathers, who sounded “Catholic” in other pronouncements as well, about baptism, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, other sacraments and views about Mary.

Interestingly timing-wise, it was the Catholic Church herself, at the councils of Carthage and Hippo (both very late 4th century and both after 313 A.D. (the approx year Constantine made his announcement IIRC??) who listed what was in the Christian canon of the Bible, at both councils. (This canon never changed, it had 73 books and was merely ratified again at Trent.)

So the fact that Constantine made a declaration or not, does not change the fact that the Catholic Church (still called “universal” or “Catholic” today for the same reason Ignatius of Antioch did in 110 AD.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 7:07 PM

We are agreed that the church was called

1) ‘catholic’ BEFORE Constantine,
2) and ‘Roman’ AFTER Constantine,

are we not?

Is there some other way to arrive at the common term “Roman Catholic”?

CyberCipher on April 24, 2008 at 7:36 PM

I bet Nancy wipes the blood off her forehead from the botox shots with pages from the Bible. She probably caught a glimpse of some verse one day and decided to use it to sound like the common folk.

SouthernGent on April 24, 2008 at 8:53 PM

No one argues that mankind has stewardship of God’s creation, with the exception of the enlightened atheists that somehow insist on telling us what our own Bible says.

Bible isn’t “yours”. It’s a text open to independent study. Furthermore if you claim to have any qualification on the Bible, I’d be curious to know exactly what it’s based on. What have you done in your life that makes you think you understand Bible better than me? I mean, specifically.

freevillage on April 24, 2008 at 10:29 PM

In Pelosi’s Bible she thinks the Book of Marx comes between the books of Matthew and Luke.

She should borrow the special 35 pound, camera ready folio called the Clinton Bible. At first the omissions therein were credited to Bubba’s fast food stains (or worse) until it was noted that the Ten Suggestions had been fully redacted.

viking01 on April 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Yeah it does sound a bit like saying that Catholics aren’t Christian, doesn’t it.

Ryan Gandy on April 24, 2008 at 6:37 PM

There are fundamental differences between Catholics and Christians. Lately there has been a trend to use Christian as a catch-all ecumenical phrase, but up until the last few years Christian meant something entirely different than Catholic.

Some (but not all) of the doctrinal differences:

Christians

Loyalty to the Bible before the church
Repentance for sin the key to salvation
Death means either heaven or hell
Prayer is to God the Father in the name of Jesus, nobody else
Baptism is merely an outward expression of an inner commitment
Salvation through faith and not works
Forgiveness of sin obtained directly through God Himself

Catholicism

Salvation through works, such as sacraments and prayers for the dead
Forgiveness of sin comes from the priesthood
Death means purgatory and/or heaven or hell
Loyalty to the church before the Bible
Prayer can be to Mary, referring to her as Queen of Heaven and treats her as though she has authority over Jesus
Baptism is essential part of salvation (it’s a work)

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 10:52 PM

Pelosi and the Bible aren’t very close as I can tell. I saw a video of Pelosi at Joel Osteen’s church in Houston. My first thought was “What is she doing there?” she said that her daughter attends there. Good for her daughter, but I seriously doubt that it has any impact on “momma”.

sMack on April 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM

Catholicism

Salvation through works, such as sacraments and prayers for the dead
Forgiveness of sin comes from the priesthood
Death means purgatory and/or heaven or hell
Loyalty to the church before the Bible
Prayer can be to Mary, referring to her as Queen of Heaven and treats her as though she has authority over Jesus
Baptism is essential part of salvation (it’s a work)

fossten on April 24, 2008 at 10:52 PM

I could throw a bunch of stilted one liners at you too, fossten, which would take pages for you to properly respond to and explain to me how I’ve misrepresented your position. With that in mind, let’s do the Reader’s Digest version (my answers are all accurate Catholic teaching):

Salvation through works, such as sacraments and prayers for the dead

Salvation is by grace through faith. Not by faith alone, as James makes clear. Huge difference. Phillipians 2:12-13 says “work out your salvation in fear and trembling for it is God who worketh in you both to desire and to work.” [emphasis added]

God works in us. This is very different from saying our own works get us to Heaven.

Forgiveness of sin comes from the priesthood

Forgiveness of sins comes through God alone. Jesus uses priests to communicate His forgiveness. He’s always using human beings to spread His grace.

Death means purgatory and/or heaven or hell

After death comes judgment, after which there will be heaven or hell. If we are not absolutely perfect (see my posts above) in reality, as the Father is perfect, or unclean in any way, we will need to be purified first (see 1 Cor 3:12-15). All due respect but you made no effort to address the exclusively scriptural points above, you sound like you just wanted to make an anti-Catholic list.

Loyalty to the church before the Bible

Our loyalty is to Jesus first. Jesus gave us the Church, which wrote, compilied, decided on and by His Holy Spirit declared inspired (and interprets correctly, by the same Spirit) to other men. Both spread the WOrd of God and we take BOTH gifts Jesus gave to us, not turning our nose up at one gift to focus exclusively on the other.

Prayer can be to Mary, referring to her as Queen of Heaven

See my post above, I see no need to repeat it

Baptism is essential part of salvation (it’s a work)

Baptism is a GIFT from Jesus who won all graces for us by His death and resurrection. It’s no more a “work” than making a confession of faith is a “work.” Both are gifts of grace.

Here’s a last quote for you, fossten. Will pray for you tonight, and St. Olaf too (cf 1 Peter 3:13-17).

“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

–Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 11:35 PM

“If we are not absolutely perfect” = “if we are saved but not absolutely perfect”

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 11:54 PM

The Pelosi Bible

ROTFmans
1Charlatans
2Charlatans
Malfeasancians
Gay-tions

1st, 2nd, and 3rd Marx are in there too.

Interesting Catholic discussion. I was born, baptized, raised, and confirmed Catholic. I didn’t become a Christian, however, until after I started attending a Protestant church later on. Yes, Catholicism is a Christian religion but the actual practice of it here in the New World leaves much to be desired.

The thief on the cross went to heaven. He certainly wasn’t baptized yet had a simple faith in Christ. A faith he didn’t fully grasp but faith nonetheless.

Mojave Mark on April 24, 2008 at 11:57 PM

One too many Botox injections.

SwabJockey on April 25, 2008 at 4:34 AM

I was born, baptized, raised, and confirmed Catholic. I didn’t become a Christian, however, until after I started attending a Protestant church later on. Yes, Catholicism is a Christian religion but the actual practice of it here in the New World leaves much to be desired.

The thief on the cross went to heaven. He certainly wasn’t baptized yet had a simple faith in Christ. A faith he didn’t fully grasp but faith nonetheless.

Mojave Mark on April 24, 2008 at 11:57 PM

So glad you’re a Christian now. I hear you about the “actual practice” of Catholicism here in the New World; I suspect we might have different reasons tho. :) My beef is with cafeteria Catholics (Pelosi is Exhibit B, after Ted Kennedy) who put more importance on their own views and – let’s be honest – political careers than on being good disciples of Jesus. We can all see how much Nancy Pelosi reads her Bible.

Just a clarification about the thief on the cross. He certainly went to Heaven as promised by Jesus Himself. He also converted “on his deathbed” as it were, with no opportunity to be baptized, and had he converted at the foot of Jesus’ cross instead, Jesus would (based on encounters with the woman taken in adultery and the blind beggar He cured) likely have also told him to “go and sin no more.” But would he have been baptized, had he not been dying?

Well…all the people in Acts who converted are described as immediately baptized afterwards. That makes the thief the exception (hence the word “normative” used above in posts about baptism) and not the rule, if you’re looking at the Scripture alone. (FYI as you no doubt know the Church uses the term “baptism of desire” for those w/ no opportunity to be physically baptized with water but who have faith in Jesus and want to follow Him.)

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 6:04 AM

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 11:35 PM

All you did was put a spin on what I said. Everything I said was true of each church.

Nevertheless, having grown up in a Catholic family, it is not necessary for you to “educate” me on Catholic doctrine. I merely cut through the spin.

Furthermore, your response seemed to be rather defensive, when my original post was not attacking either side, but merely pointing out the differences.

Your interpretation of 1 Cor 13:12-15 is wrong. These are works that shall be burned, not your soul. Go back and read the context.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 7:14 AM

Just a clarification about the thief on the cross. He certainly went to Heaven as promised by Jesus Himself. He also converted “on his deathbed” as it were, with no opportunity to be baptized, and had he converted at the foot of Jesus’ cross instead, Jesus would (based on encounters with the woman taken in adultery and the blind beggar He cured) likely have also told him to “go and sin no more.” But would he have been baptized, had he not been dying?

Well…all the people in Acts who converted are described as immediately baptized afterwards. That makes the thief the exception (hence the word “normative” used above in posts about baptism) and not the rule, if you’re looking at the Scripture alone. (FYI as you no doubt know the Church uses the term “baptism of desire” for those w/ no opportunity to be physically baptized with water but who have faith in Jesus and want to follow Him.)

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 6:04 AM

Where does it specify in the Bible that there are exceptions to the rule when it comes to the necessary method for salvation?

There are numerous verses in the Bible that specify repentance and faith WITHOUT baptism being mentioned. The fact that Christians in Acts were obedient upon conversion does not automatically mean that baptism was required. That would be a non sequitur as the overwhelming evidence in the Bible indicates otherwise.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 7:17 AM

AFAIK, The thief was ‘baptized’ in his own blood.

You should read the church fathers.

Baptism is for the remission of sins. Also, having Christ forgive your sins hanging right next to you would do fine, too.

RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 7:22 AM

AFAIK, The thief was ‘baptized’ in his own blood.

RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 7:22 AM

That’s some really good spin there. Not buying.

You should read the church fathers.

I’ll stick with the Bible, thanks.

Baptism is for the remission of sins.

There is no scriptural precedent for being baptized in your own blood. The only blood according to the scripture that saves you is the blood of Christ.

But you make my earlier point for me. This is a significant difference between Catholic Doctrine and Fundamental Christian doctrine.

Also, having Christ forgive your sins hanging right next to you would do fine, too.

Interesting. So what you’re saying is if I can find a way to communicate directly to Christ, I don’t need baptism? Great, because Hebrews says that I can do this.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession.

4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 7:53 AM

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 7:14 AM

All due respect, just because you grew up in a Catholic family does not mean you understand Church teaching, as your list indicates.

Everything I said was true of each church.

Not true, and not only that, both lists were reductionist and misleading when not properly understood. Some of the statements flat out contradict Catholic teaching, for example:

Death means purgatory and/or heaven or hell

Simply incorrect. This is not Catholic teaching, period. If you believe it is, then you are in error and I will correct you in love. Specifically, there is no “purgatory” when Hell is involved. The purification process means, by definiion that it is your “works” – i.e. the effects your ACTIONS had on your [saved] soul which are burned, not your soul itself. So I suppose you agree with Catholic teaching, as the text clearly refers to “the Day,” that is, Judgment Day.

It seems to me that you have, rather, confirmed my interpretation of 1 Cor 3:15. Catholics have merely given it a name: purgatory. The word itself is not in the Bible, as the words Trinity and Incarnation are not. Yet you have confirmed the doctrine is taught there.

Furthermore, your response seemed to be rather defensive, when my original post was not attacking either side, but merely pointing out the differences.

As we’ve seen, there are misleading things and inaccuracies in what you’ve written. I could give you a misleading list of what fundamentalist Christians or evangelical Christians believe but it would be neither charitable nor fair.

Speaking of being fair, I notice you still have not touched Jesus’ clear statement in Mark 16:15-16 (nor dealt with 1 Peter, BTW, while we’re at it). Jesus said:

“Go out to all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.”

I must admit (trying to keep my patience here) it does seem that some Christians forget that Jesus is LORD as well as Savior; that is, He expects us to, you know, actually do what He says. I think he may have actually said that somewhere. Ah yes:


Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?

Will keep praying for you, fossten, that you lose the antipathy towards your fellow Christians. God bless you and have a good day.

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 8:20 AM

AFAIK, The thief was ‘baptized’ in his own blood.

You should read the church fathers.

Baptism is for the remission of sins. Also, having Christ forgive your sins hanging right next to you would do fine, too.

RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 7:22 AM

Actually the Catholic teaching anyway is that the thief underwent baptism of desire, not baptism of blood (the latter applies to those who die for their faith w/ no chance to be baptized first). Both are terms which describe God’s not being limited by the normal means He set up (i.e. water baptism) in unusual cases. He is certainly able to save someone w/o literal water baptism. But He clearly (see above) intends it to happen and even made it one of the two conditions of salvation in Mark 16:15-16.

Everything else RiverCocytus said is correct though.

And I too would recommend the reading of early Church Fathers to fossten, since it gives a good indication of how the first disciples of the apostles understood the teachings in Scripture.

How the early Christian Church understood baptism, or the Lord’s Supper, for example, is a very useful thing to know when trying to interpret Scripture oneself. (Either the Holy Spirit is not doing a very good job – thousands of Christian denominations and counting – or He did not intend each person to interpret scripture independent of the teachings of the apostles, that is, the Church. Since I believe the Holy Spirit is perfect, I bet on the latter.)

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 8:28 AM

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi’s “passage of Scripture” is not from the Bible. I woke up this morning wondering where it really comes from…did Nancy make this up herself, or did she get it from some other ungodly source?

I did a yahoo search on “dishonor the God who made us” (including the quotes) and the first hit is someone’s blog who does an excellent job of showing that this was not an isolated incident on Nancy’s part. She has a long track record of using this false scripture. Read these two posts from April of last year.

Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 8:44 AM

“Go out to all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.”
I must admit (trying to keep my patience here) it does seem that some Christians forget that Jesus is LORD as well as Savior; that is, He expects us to, you know, actually do what He says. I think he may have actually said that somewhere. Ah yes:

Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and not do what I say? [/quote]

This verse does not support baptism for salvation, it is an admonishment to believers to be obedient to God.
[quote]
Will keep praying for you, fossten, that you lose the antipathy towards your fellow Christians. God bless you and have a good day.

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 8:20 AM

Please try to rein in your temper and your condescension.

Again, your post merely supports my statement that Catholics and fundamental Christians have very different beliefs.

Note the wording in Mark 16:15-16. It does not say “He who believes not and fails to be baptized shall be condemned.” It says “He who believeth not will be condemned.” This clearly parallels John 3:18, which says “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Note that this verse also (inexplicably?) leaves out baptism as a requirement. Why would John do this if baptism were strictly required for salvation?

I again refer you to Hebrews 4, which supports this position as well.

Simply incorrect. This is not Catholic teaching, period. If you believe it is, then you are in error and I will correct you in love. Specifically, there is no “purgatory” when Hell is involved. The purification process means, by definiion that it is your “works” – i.e. the effects your ACTIONS had on your [saved] soul which are burned, not your soul itself. So I suppose you agree with Catholic teaching, as the text clearly refers to “the Day,” that is, Judgment Day.

What are you doing here, trying to wriggle around and say that your soul does not actually go to purgatory when you die? Tell me that you cannot actually pray someone out of purgatory. Please tell me that the Catholic church does not teach this.

Actually the Bible teaches that there are two separate Judgments, one for believers and one for nonbelievers. Purgatory accounts for neither one. Again, another difference.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 9:01 AM

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 9:01 AM

Of course you are correct that there are differences in our beliefs. Your clear implication is that those differences make Catholics not Christian.
Here is your statement, right before before your lists, hence the clear implication you give:

Lately there has been a trend to use Christian as a catch-all ecumenical phrase, but up until the last few years Christian meant something entirely different than Catholic

So you were in fact talking about more than mere differences. Given the fact that I am being slandered as a non-Christian (Catholic teachings have not changed in “the last few years” as you put it),

Please try to rein in your temper and your condescension.

given your slander, I think I’m doin’ a pretty good job, thanks. :D Seriously, fossten, I never called YOU a non-Christian.

Jesus predicted this, of course, saying that if the Master is slandered, of course His disciples would be slandered as well because of Him (Matthew 10:24-25).

What are you doing here, trying to wriggle around and say that your soul does not actually go to purgatory when you die? Tell me that you cannot actually pray someone out of purgatory. Please tell me that the Catholic church does not teach this.

No wigglin’ needed. It’s right there in the Bible,read in context. If you are “perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” (Remember, he is not DECLARED or COVERED with a “perfect” label but is ACTUALLY PERFECT) we believe that Jesus means that we will eventually be perfect. “Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven” means that the effects our greed, pride, envy, etc. have on our sinful souls will be burned away by the grace of God if we are headed for Heaven.

IOW if you are saved, as well as actually completely clean and perfect before you die, no purgatory for you! Straight to Heaven. Catholics believe 2 Maccabees is scripture, which recommends prayers for the dead, that God will purify them quickly and speed them to Heaven.

Just to be clear: prayers do NOTHING for the damned because they will never enter Heaven.

Have used just scripture so far, but just for another Christian’s perspective, here’s C.S. Lewis (not a Catholic) on purgatory :

Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would in not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’ – ‘Even so, sir.’

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Whoops!

link to CS Lewis quote

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 9:22 AM

“The Day” refers of course to Judgment Day, and Scripture tells us it is appointed unto man once to die, and next comes judgment.

So yes, this passage does refer to after death.

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 6:51 PM

I wouldn’t say “of course” that it refers to judgment day, but even if I did, I don’t see how we have to be talking about purgatory.

There’s no indication that after tested the person must still wait and make things right in order to gain admittance into heaven. As it says plainly, some will be saved, “but only through fire.”

Esthier on April 25, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi’s “passage of Scripture” is not from the Bible. I woke up this morning wondering where it really comes from…did Nancy make this up herself, or did she get it from some other ungodly source?

I did a yahoo search on “dishonor the God who made us” (including the quotes) …
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 8:44 AM

Actually, it appears that Nancy may have gotten part of her quote from a Godly source, and then twisted it. Many of the yahoo search results were links to pages quoting Nancy, not some other source of the phrase. So far I have found one page that has nothing to do with Nancy, and it is very enlightening.

Read this…it is a Godly source and contains the quote:

The affecting truth must be told. Prosperity has made us a people presumptuous and hardened in sin. It has imparted both the power and the disposition to dishonor the God who made us and the Savior who bought us.

That article resonates with something else the Holy Spirit has been telling me…we are about to see the greatest revival we have ever seen in this country. That article is prophetic in its own right. I believe it explains what we are already starting to see unfold.

Showers of divine grace often begin like other showers, with here and there a drop. The revival in the days of Hezekiah arose from a small beginning. In the early stages of a work of grace, God is usually pleased to affect the hearts of some of His own people. Here and there an individual Christian is aroused from his stupor. The objects of faith begin to predominate over the objects of sense, and his languishing graces begin to be in more lively and constant exercise.

I was an agnostic until age 23, when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I have been a Christian for a number of years, but wasn’t always living for Him. One sin in particular had been a stronghold in my life since I was 9 years old, when I found the pornographic magazines that belonged to my father and two older brothers.

Even as a Christian, I struggled to win the battle over lust. It is every man’s battle. The Internet made the struggle that much harder. Many times I wanted to give up the pornography, but it was an addiction. I would decide to give it up, and then find myself drawn back to it within a week or two. I’m convinced that sexual arousal causes the release of intoxicating endorphins in the brain, and many men are drug addicts in this area, just as I was.

I finally made a decision in early January to give it up completely and live my life completely for God. I installed Safe Eyes on every computer in my house. I have been “clean” now for over three months.

When I took that step, God started working powerfully in my life. I didn’t hear God talk to me with my physical ears; I heard God talk to me with my spiritual ears. He told me, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” I prayed about a possible occupational change, and he made a change I didn’t expect. He gave me a prophecy and told me to share it. Yes, I am ridiculed for it. Yes, Satan at times tempts me to be fearful…”What if it doesn’t happen? That would cause people to mock you and your God!” But the voice of truth tells me a different story. The voice of truth says, “Do not be afraid!” The voice of truth says, “This is for My glory.”

Out of all the voices calling out to me, I will choose to listen and believe the voice of truth.

Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 10:08 AM

The last comment I submitted hasn’t appeared yet, so I’m assuming that something in it caused it to be thrown into the bit bucket.

I’m glad that I have developed the habit of cutting and pasting my comment into MS Word…I do it for two reasons: 1) Spell-check, 2) I have a copy of what I submitted, so that if it gets thrown out I still have the raw material and don’t lose the results of my work.

I’ll try reposting with some asterisks in the words I guess were deemed offensive (although they’re not offensive when read in context)

Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 10:22 AM

But he did not understand that the Church never taught that money saves you or whatever the many misrepresentations were.

Do you know that Martin Luther believed in, among other things, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and that he wanted to toss out the Book of James (called it “an epistle of straw”) but his disciples told him he had no rationale to do it?

inviolet on April 24, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Luther was a man, like any other with many failings (he was an anti-Semite for one). However, a couple of things need to be addressed. First, the Catholic church did believe that “works” saved you, and that “money” saved you. When Luther posted is 95 thesis, it was well defined. That you are saved by God’s grace only, and no act or manipulation can convince God other.
Perhaps the greatest contribution, is that he translated the bible to German, for the masses. Until that time only the clergy had access to the “Word”. This allowed man to read, learn, and bathe himself in the Word of God. And in God’s special way, the press was created at the same time as Luther translated the bible (not the first, but the most influential by far), hence mass printing could take place.
A wonderful story of divine intervention, the odds of the first translation of the bible to a common language at the same time offset printing was invented, defies any mathematical odds.
As a consequence of his thesis (and actually 41 sentences the Pope did not like) Luther was excommunicated by Leo X on January 3, 1521.
Looks like the Pope was fallible after all. Many of the doctrines that Luther stated have been embraced by the Catholic Church, and they are continuously moving towards Luthers reformation…1,000 years later.

right2bright on April 25, 2008 at 10:27 AM

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 9:20 AM

You are using the word ‘slander’ quite loosely, considering that the term “Christian” is subject to opinion, both yours and mine.

So in essence, because your opinion of the definition of Christian differs from mine, I am ‘slandering’ you? That definitely deserves a hearty ‘LOL.’

I could turn it around and say that since you are calling Catholics my fellow Christians, you are ‘slandering’ me.

Please look up the definition of ‘slander’ and reconsider your use of the word. You are going for shock value and are overreacting. Not to mention that slander is the spoken word, whereas the written word is libel, so you’re wrong anyway, even if my opinion of the definition of ‘Christian’ could be considered libelous, which it can’t.

You must show that you’ve been damaged personally by my words, which is absurd and laughable. By using the word ‘slander,’ you are lashing out in defensiveness, using the wrong word, and labeling yourself as a whiny, defensive person who can’t handle someone else having a different opinion.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi’s “passage of Scripture” is not from the Bible. I woke up this morning wondering where it really comes from…did Nancy make this up herself, or did she get it from some other ungodly source?

I did a yahoo search on “dishonor the God who made us” (including the quotes) …
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 8:44 AM

Actually, it appears that Nancy may have gotten part of her quote from a Godly source, and then twisted it. Many of the yahoo search results were links to pages quoting Nancy, not some other source of the phrase. So far I have found one page that has nothing to do with Nancy, and it is very enlightening.

Read this…it is a Godly source and contains the quote:

The affecting truth must be told. Prosperity has made us a people presumptuous and hardened in sin. It has imparted both the power and the disposition to dishonor the God who made us and the Savior who bought us.

That article resonates with something else the Holy Spirit has been telling me…we are about to see the greatest revival we have ever seen in this country. That article is prophetic in its own right. I believe it explains what we are already starting to see unfold.

Showers of divine grace often begin like other showers, with here and there a drop. The revival in the days of Hezekiah arose from a small beginning. In the early stages of a work of grace, God is usually pleased to affect the hearts of some of His own people. Here and there an individual Christian is aroused from his stupor. The objects of faith begin to predominate over the objects of sense, and his languishing graces begin to be in more lively and constant exercise.

Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM

I was an agnostic until age 23, when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I have been a Christian for a number of years, but wasn’t always living for Him. One sin in particular had been a stronghold in my life since I was 9 years old, when I found the p*rnographic magazines that belonged to my father and two older brothers.

Even as a Christian, I struggled to win the battle over l-u-s-t. It is every man’s battle. The Internet made the struggle that much harder. Many times I wanted to give up the p*rnography, but it was an addiction. I would decide to give it up, and then find myself drawn back to it within a week or two. I’m convinced that s*xual arousal causes the release of intoxicating endorphins in the brain, and many men are drug addicts in this area, just as I was.

I finally made a decision in early January to give it up completely and live my life completely for God. I installed Safe Eyes on every computer in my house. I have been “clean” now for over three months.

When I took that step, God started working powerfully in my life. I didn’t hear God talk to me with my physical ears; I heard God talk to me with my spiritual ears. He told me, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” I prayed about a possible occupational change, and he made a change I didn’t expect. He gave me a prophecy and told me to share it. Yes, I am ridiculed for it. Yes, Satan at times tempts me to be fearful…”What if it doesn’t happen? That would cause people to mock you and your God!” But the voice of truth tells me a different story. The voice of truth says, “Do not be afraid!” The voice of truth says, “This is for My glory.”

Out of all the voices calling out to me, I will choose to listen and believe the voice of truth.

Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Just to be clear: prayers do NOTHING for the damned because they will never enter Heaven.

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Seeing as only God knows who is damned and who is not…how do you discern?
And just to be clear: Most Christian churches accept other Christians at the communion table…does the Catholic church offer that? Or is the communion table only for the exclusive use of Catholics…

right2bright on April 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Thank you for that testimony.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM

You are going for shock value and are overreacting.

You must show that you’ve been damaged personally by my words,

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 10:28 AM

OK, “libel” then. I think refusing any Christians, including Catholics, the title of Christian is extremely damaging , not to me personally, but to the Body of Christ, hence my strong language. Not whiny, just accurate. Jesus quite clearly wanted us all to be one, as He and the Father are one. Doing damage to His Body is no small thing; I’m sorry you consider it so. The importance the Lord puts on the unity of Christians is totally clear throughout the entire New Testament. As a Christian I know our Savior’s will is important to you; please consider the minimizing you are doing of something that hurts Him very much.

I’m happy, however, to see you state again clearly that you do not consider Catholics Christians. At least everyone reading your statement knows where you are coming from. Take care.

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Out of all the voices calling out to me, I will choose to listen and believe the voice of truth.

Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Be assured that we will all keep you in our prayers for your continued strength…you (all of us), but you in particular is who Christ came and died for…and it was not in vain.

right2bright on April 25, 2008 at 10:41 AM

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM

HE SAID I’M NOT A CHRISTIAN!!! OH NOES!!! I’VE BEEN LIBELED!!!

Absurd. You’ve become a parody of yourself.

Sue me and see how far your claim of libelous damages to the Body of Christ gets you in our secular courts. Good luck with that, not because you can’t make your case, but because the court would throw out your case.

Bye now.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Seeing as only God knows who is damned and who is not…how do you discern?
And just to be clear: Most Christian churches accept other Christians at the communion table…does the Catholic church offer that? Or is the communion table only for the exclusive use of Catholics…

right2bright on April 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM

We don’t know for sure who is damned and who isn’t; you’re right that only God decides. This is why we pray for the dead, but if they are in Hell, God forbid, our prayers are mistaken (we aren’t God and don’t know) and won’t do the damned any good.

The Catholic teaching on communion has to do with “discerning the body [of Christ]” and examining oneself before receiving (many other Christians don’t consider communion more than a symbol, not the actual body of Christ, and some people want to receive Him in communion but lie with their actions – they’re living lives opposed to Him and His teachings)

1 Cor 11: 27-30:
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. [emphasis added]

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Red Pill, that was an awesome testimony. Praise the Lord you are a Christian now. Thanks for sharing that.

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 10:46 AM

HE SAID I’M NOT A CHRISTIAN!!! OH NOES!!! I’VE BEEN LIBELED!!!

Absurd. You’ve become a parody of yourself.

Sue me and see how far your claim of libelous damages to the Body of Christ gets you in our secular courts. Good luck with that, not because you can’t make your case, but because the court would throw out your case.

Bye now.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM

*smiles* Who’s losing his temper now? :)

Seriously, I’m sure you know your Bible very well and know Paul’s warnings against Christians suing each other in secular courts. :)

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Lutherans follow those same concepts, but are denied communion (and BTW some Lutherans churches do the same)
Isn’t that what Christ came for, to tear down those legalistic concepts? Wasn’t there a something about the church curtain being torn down at his death?
With that type of teaching, how can the Catholic church maintain its stand of one of the Christian Churches, they are basically stating they are the only Christian Church. Seeing as they are denying others to commune.
And to tie into the “how do you know” theme, how does the Catholic Church know who is worthy of Communion…by works and deeds,or by the grace of God? If by grace, then it becomes an individual matter…if by works, well I guess the reformation did not accomplish anything for the Catholic Church.
This is a good time to “re-evaluate” your doctrine of belief…an elitist church (as we have seen by the news lately) is a difficult church to defend.
We should all compare our doctrine to the bible…what is man made and what is Christ commands.

right2bright on April 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3