Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I'm just not there yet. And I'm not going to prejudge before I get there. What's the hurry?

If you are convinced that the Roman Catholic church is the true church then it would be a sin to drag your feet in becoming a member of that church.

So you're clearly not yet convinced. I'm just wondering what issues remain that stand in the way. Why aren't you there yet?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I'm not trying to persuade you to become Reformed. I just believe that Rome is the wrong way to go. But it sounds to me like you're already there! So what are the obstacles that remain that would prevent you from converting to Roman Catholicism?

Why are you pushing her towards Rome? And is her current, incredibly vague trajectory even towards Rome? I would say it includes Rome, along with any number of more liturgical and traditional Christian Churches and bodies, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike.

Catholicism is just the paradigm example used to create contrast with Protestantism. When you begin to zoom in the geography becomes considerably more complicated, and the considerations she has revealed to us are simply insufficient to lead to Rome and nowhere else.
 
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If you are convinced that the Roman Catholic church is the true church then it would be a sin to drag your feet in becoming a member of that church.

So you're clearly not yet convinced. I'm just wondering what issues remain that stand in the way. Why aren't you there yet?
I'm working through this chronologically and dealing with issues as they arise. And Rome isn't necessarily the destination. I've barely even looked at Eastern Orthodoxy and only have pretty prejudiced views of Lutheranism and the Reformed tradition and Anglicanism. I will look at those more closely -- yes, even Reformed. Right now I don't really appreciate that one badgering me, though.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I'm working through this chronologically and dealing with issues as they arise. And Rome isn't necessarily the destination. I've barely even looked at Eastern Orthodoxy and only have pretty prejudiced views of Lutheranism and the Reformed tradition and Anglicanism. I will look at those more closely -- yes, even Reformed. Right now I don't really appreciate that one badgering me, though.

Alright PEACE OUT.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Why are you pushing her towards Rome? And is her current, incredibly vague trajectory even towards Rome? I would say it includes Rome, along with any number of more liturgical and traditional Christian Churches and bodies, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike.

Catholicism is just the paradigm example used to create contrast with Protestantism. When you begin to zoom in the geography becomes considerably more complicated, and the considerations she has revealed to us are simply insufficient to lead to Rome and nowhere else.

There are even liberal, post-evangelical churches now days. So there's lots of options. The Disciples of Christ would be one such example, but there are some non-denom churches of that type, most influenced by the Emerging Church movement. You can also find that in certain Episcopalian contexts.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,415
1,741
41
South Bend, IN
✟100,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is not what 1 Peter 3 is saying at all. In fact, his point is the exact opposite of what is promoted by Evangelical apologists.

He gives the example of Noah and his family being saved through the waters, and then says that baptism now saves through the Resurrection of Christ.

He makes the parenthetical point about "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, etc" for a specific reason. The word "baptism" isn't a unique or "special" word in Greek as it is in English. Prior to the Christians and perhaps the Essenes, the word "baptism" in Greek was simply the common word for "washing". Peter is emphasizing that he is not using the word in the common way - a bath to get rid of dirt from the skin - but in the new way used by the Christians, which is an appeal to God for a good conscious (the NASB handles this much more accurately than most others). Peter is EXPLICITLY stating that baptism is not just getting wet, but is rather accomplishing something inward.

Yet somehow Evangelicals turn it around to say that Peter is saying that baptism is nothing special.

@Mary Meg

The Bible gives us the reason for baptism here:

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
(1 Peter 3:21).​

Baptism saves us not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh (sin), but baptism is an answer of a person having an already clean or good conscience toward God already.

In other words, if you know you are forgiven of your sins by Jesus Christ.... the phone is ringing for you to answer the call to be baptized as a testimony to others before God that you are already clean (i.e. that your conscience is surely clean; Meaning: You are forgiven, your sins are washed away. Baptism is a picture or symbol of this and you are telling others this before God). You will have a desire to want to be baptized after you have been saved. Baptism is not to be saved... but it is something that God will place on your heart to answer.

full


So baptism is symbolic. Also, in 1 Peter 3:21, baptism is said to be a figure or picture [symbol], too. A person is first saved by calling upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13).
 
Upvote 0

worshipjunkie

Active Member
Dec 30, 2018
314
321
Springfield
✟27,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
For Catholics faith is a necessary condition for baptism, but the baptism itself actually does something that the faith alone cannot do.

But faith, in teens and adults, precedes baptism- sometimes by years. When I was in RCIA the unbaptized catechumens were not baptized at the beginning because they were in a dangerous state of not being saved until their baptism. They were allowed to go through the 9 month process unbaptized. That's irresponsible if baptism is what saves you. But church teaching is that other things can substitute for baptism; martyrdom and the desire to be baptized (since VII they have greatly expanded on what desire to be baptized is, to where you don't even have to desire Christ at all). What it practically works out to is the Protestant position; it is your faith that save you. Baptism may give you many graces, but were you one of those unbaptized catechumens and you died, you would be ok because you believed, and you desired to be baptized.

ETA: In the early church, baptism was delayed for long periods of time as well while converts went through the catechumen process. That's reckless and cruel if baptism is what saves you: "You've found the true faith- now wait years to be saved."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is not what 1 Peter 3 is saying at all. In fact, his point is the exact opposite of what is promoted by Evangelical apologists.

He gives the example of Noah and his family being saved through the waters, and then says that baptism now saves through the Resurrection of Christ.

He makes the parenthetical point about "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, etc" for a specific reason. The word "baptism" isn't a unique or "special" word in Greek as it is in English. Prior to the Christians and perhaps the Essenes, the word "baptism" in Greek was simply the common word for "washing". Peter is emphasizing that he is not using the word in the common way - a bath to get rid of dirt from the skin - but in the new way used by the Christians, which is an appeal to God for a good conscious (the NASB handles this much more accurately than most others). Peter is EXPLICITLY stating that baptism is not just getting wet, but is rather accomplishing something inward.

Yet somehow Evangelicals turn it around to say that Peter is saying that baptism is nothing special.

Right, so then why did Paul say this?

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect" (1 Corinthians 1:17).

For if baptism was necessary for initial salvation, then Paul would never say this. He would say that while Christ did not send him to baptize, it is still necessary as a part of receiving the gospel. But again, Paul never says this. This is where you have to do gymnastic back flips with the text in order to make it work.

Also, in 1 Peter 3:21, the water did not actually save Noah, and his family. It was the Ark that saved them. The flood waters is what purified the wicked world that Noah and his family were in. They were saved through the flood waters of judgment by being in the Ark. Baptism is a picture or like figure to this because the Ark is really a picture or type of Jesus Christ. Baptism (like the flood waters) are merely pictures, types, or symbols of the true or real thing. They are shadows pointing to the body that cast that shadow. This body.... this truth is none other than Jesus Christ. For Jesus says that the Scriptures testify of Him. So the true thing is Jesus Christ. The real thing is Jesus. Water alone just gets you wet. However, our burial with Christ, and the washing away of our sins by Christ when we sought forgiveness with Him (By calling upon His name - Romans 10:13) is the truth or real thing. Baptism is a symbolic picture of our sins being washed away that happens when we seek forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ. For if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). For Jesus is our advocate or mediator (See 1 John 2:1). For there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). As for the flood: The only way the 8 souls were saved by water is that they were saved from that sinful generation via the Ark (i.e. Jesus). The flood waters in the story of Noah was a water of judgment, and cleansing a way for Noah and His family to start again. To begin... a new. Baptism is a picture of the water of redemption of the true thing (Which is the blood of Jesus cleansing us of sin). This also starts a new beginning for us. For in most cases, baptism was normally done along with accepting the Lord as one's Savior back in the day. Today, this is not always the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: worshipjunkie
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But faith, in teens and adults, precedes baptism- sometimes by years. When I was in RCIA the unbaptized catechumens were not baptized at the beginning because they were in a dangerous state of not being saved until their baptism. They were allowed to go through the 9 month process unbaptized. That's irresponsible if baptism is what saves you. But church teaching is that other things can substitute for baptism; martyrdom and the desire to be baptized (since VII they have greatly expanded on what desire to be baptized is, to where you don't even have to desire Christ at all). What it practically works out to is the Protestant position; it is your faith that save you. Baptism may give you many graces, but were you one of those unbaptized catechumens and you died, you would be ok because you believed, and you desired to be baptized.

This reminds me of a time in my life I was trying to seek out the right church to be baptized. I was already on fire for the Lord (changed spiritually from the dead old man that was sinful) and alive unto God and His righteous ways. I had trouble finding the right church that was closest to my beliefs at that time in my life. I asked a close brother of mine to baptize me in river somewhere, but he was more about doing things in a church formally. I ended up being baptized in a church I thought was good at the time, but I later discovered that they did not believe the way I did about the Bible exactly in regards to salvation (Note: They did not truly believe 1 Timothy 6:3-4 in what it said plainly). Today, after being a little more knowledgeable about the different denominations, I am reconsidering in being re-baptized in a church that is more closer to my beliefs in the Bible today. I was thinking the church of the Nazarene that is near to my place of residence. They believe in Wesleyan holiness but they don't believe baptism is for salvation (Which appears to work for me). I have a brother at work I fellowship with, but I am also looking for more one on one fellowship, as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think that there may be some (but narrowly limited) amount of truth expressed in some of these solas, but honestly, I've no use for such teachings. I only know that somehow I must take up my own cross and stagger up the hill towards my Lord, following Him (Matthew 16:24). Whatever things have come out of the reformation are, and will always remain, not much more to me than "a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal". I am aware of how dear Protestant Christian's traditions are to them, so I'm sorry, and I mean no offense. But I must say that Orthodox Christians can certainly do without those traditions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This thread is dedicated to @Mary Meg

How do you know whether or not you should be a Protestant? Let's take a look at where Protestantism began - with the Five Solas. All Reformational theology flows from these five principles, which are actually five objections to Roman Catholic theology. So take a look at each of these and see how it sits with you. If you agree with these, you are not Roman Catholic and could never be. But if you disagree with them, you're not being biblical! Sorry, had to reveal my bias there.

1. Sola Scriptura - The Bible alone is the word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2. Solus Christus - Jesus Christ is the only savior of sinners and his atoning sacrifice is sufficient to save them.

3. Sola Gratia - Our salvation is not earned in any part; it is a free gift of God from start to finish.

4. Sola Fide - We are forgiven our sins and counted righteous in God’s sight solely by trusting in Christ.

5. Soli Deo Gloria - The ultimate end of all God’s works in creation and redemption is his own glory alone.

Don't make me cry by trying to deny any of these wonderful doctrines.
the arminians started it to show how different it is from their theology.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
the arminians started it to show how different it is from their theology.

You might be thinking of the Remonstrants and the Five Points of Calvinism. Those are different than the Five Solas. Arminians believe in the Five Solas, generally speaking.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,848
1,707
58
New England
✟484,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's an interesting snapshot of 16th century Protestantism, but it's doubtful how well it captures modern Protestant bodies, many of which would deny various Solas under the meaning ascribed to them by the original Reformers.

A more interesting thread would be, "What's the difference between Protestants and Catholics?" What do folks think are the key differences in the 21st century?

Good Day, Zippy

I would say it is still infallible authority and Justification. Rome has not made much head way in her understanding of these principles post Trent.

In Him

Bil
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This thread is dedicated to @Mary Meg

Don't make me cry by trying to deny any of these wonderful doctrines.

I won't, you can save that till when you find out just how wrong you were in believing and teaching false doctrine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter J Barban

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2016
1,474
973
62
Taiwan
Visit site
✟97,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did you even read my last post?

I love my church and my heritage, which is my family. I love a lot of things about Protestantism. And despite what you may think, I haven't sworn my allegiance to Rome or anybody else. My studies have taken me to about 400 A.D. There is more than one option from than juncture -- even remaining in Protestantism.

Hi Mary Meg. I converted from agnostic Catholicism to Born Again Christianity back in college. My main beef with the Catholic church was that their post-biblical teaching was claimed to be as authoritative as the Bible.

While I reject their claim of authority, I do accept both Catholicism and Protestantism (and Orthodox, too) as parts of our common Christian heritage and faith that have been passed down since Christ rose from the dead.

Protestantism, in all its forms, is not and never was intended to be a rejection of 1500 years of Christendom. Even if Protestants don't completely agree with the early (or modern) church fathers, their faith and practice are part of the Protestant story, just as the New Testament belongs with the Old Testament as one book. Thus, you can remain a local Baptist and still fully enjoy the fruits of the holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
 
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This thread is dedicated to @Mary Meg

How do you know whether or not you should be a Protestant? Let's take a look at where Protestantism began - with the Five Solas. All Reformational theology flows from these five principles, which are actually five objections to Roman Catholic theology. So take a look at each of these and see how it sits with you. If you agree with these, you are not Roman Catholic and could never be. But if you disagree with them, you're not being biblical! Sorry, had to reveal my bias there.

1. Sola Scriptura - The Bible alone is the word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2. Solus Christus - Jesus Christ is the only savior of sinners and his atoning sacrifice is sufficient to save them.

3. Sola Gratia - Our salvation is not earned in any part; it is a free gift of God from start to finish.

4. Sola Fide - We are forgiven our sins and counted righteous in God’s sight solely by trusting in Christ.

5. Soli Deo Gloria - The ultimate end of all God’s works in creation and redemption is his own glory alone.

Don't make me cry by trying to deny any of these wonderful doctrines.
in our modern world, when someone takes a stand or stand for something, we copycat them and also take stand. in the old days, no one stood up for Jesus and dared say anything about rcc or popes would look at the kings and execute the Christians based on the laws rcc and the kings put together. now a days, we're able to read the bible for ourselves and not be sentenced to death. we take back Jesus with 5 solas and carry on the cross
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
You might be thinking of the Remonstrants and the Five Points of Calvinism. Those are different than the Five Solas. Arminians believe in the Five Solas, generally speaking.

Arminians are just a branch of Reformed thought, it has the same theological categories, more or less.
 
Upvote 0