Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have it open now and have read through some of it. Much of it is hard to undertand. But the parts that are easier to understand are deeply troubling.That should be 818 and 847, sorry. Those are quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is an official document for which I provided a link. Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to read the whole section:.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3
Only if you try very hard to feel offended by an acknowledgement that your expression of faith is Christian rather than the backhanded "some Catholics may be saved" that we typically receive from evangelicals evangelising among Catholics. I can see that you are trying very hard to feel offended by the CCC.(this actually can be viewed as quite offensive)
And this is, of course, intended to be offensive; not only to Catholics but to saint Peter too.I have always thought at some point in history they went astray and became very "religious" instead of spiritual. Maybe Peter never really escaped the influence of the Judaizers that influenced him as reported in Galatians.
I was ofended because I don't need the Catholic Church's permission to be called a Christian.Only if you try very hard to feel offended by an acknowledgement that your expression of faith is Christian rather than the backhanded "some Catholics may be saved" that we typically receive from evangelicals evangelising among Catholics. I can see that you are trying very hard to feel offended by the CCC.
Okay, then pretend we didn't write it in the CCC, and move on.I was ofended because I don't need the Catholic Church's permission to be called a Christian.
Peter needed to be corrected by Paul because he was abandoning faith in favor of legalism, so he is not without sin. And he was in charge of the gospel to the Jews as Paul was to the Gentiles. So, it would make sense that Some of the Jewish customs would in some way transfer to the church he founded. They had a High Priest, you have a Pope. They wore robes and waved incense, and you do similar things. The only offensive part of what I said was about legalism. But honestly, I see a lot of "follow these rules to go to heaven" issues in Catholicism (as I also see in many other denominations).And this is, of course, intended to be offensive; not only to Catholics but to saint Peter too.
What, do you mean like the rituals are something like magic and being dunked or sprinkled with water with some special words and drinking bread and wine give life? Then no.
If, on the other hand, you mean that the significance of the sacraments is salvific, then sure.
Yes, that may be the best approach.Okay, then pretend we didn't write it in the CCC, and move on.
I was ofended because I don't need the Catholic Church's permission to be called a Christian.
Hear, hear!I'm just going to share my personal experience as a Christian.
I was raised in a non-denominational Evangelical, and then later Pentecostal, church background. During that whole time, up until my early 20's give or take. I never experienced a Catholic, or an Episcopalian, or a Lutheran, or an Orthodox ever tell me I'm not a Christian.
However, tests of whether I was a "real Christian" were common in the church circles I lived in.
In my 20's when I was moving away from the theological views of my upbringing, and began looking at more historic, traditional churches (eventually I became Lutheran, which I still am). I never had to prove or have permission to call myself a Christian to any Catholics, or Lutherans, or Anglicans, or etc.
But I have consistently had to defend my status as a Christian when talking with less traditional Christians.
I've never had, for example, a Catholic attempt to make me prove to them I was a Christian. They just accepted that I was, because I believe in Jesus, they believe in Jesus, and whatever might divide us doctrinally didn't change the fact that we were both Christians.
But I have had various Evangelicals do that.
When I was an Evangelical I regularly had to share my testimony, which went something like, at the age of four I asked Jesus into my heart and become my personal Lord and Savior. I never mentioned all the spiritual turmoil surrounding that which I wrestled with, having my testimony was important because that was made me fit in, that was my Christian ID.
Now, of course, when I share my personal story of a life of faith, I mention that there was never a time when I didn't believe in Jesus. I have memories that go back to when I was quite little--I can remember being four years old and going through the Sinner's Prayer with my parents. Heck, I can remember when I was two and I fell into a swimming pool at my mom's cousin's house and she had to rescue me. I remember my little brother's face when my dad lifted me up to show me him just hours after he was born. In every memory I have, I already believed in Jesus. Because there was never a moment that went by from the day I came into this world crying that my parents didn't talk about Jesus.
However, when I've shared that story, without mentioning the "Sinner's Prayer" part when I was four, I've been accused of not being a real Christian. I've been told that nobody is born a Christian, and then I get compared to calling myself a car for visiting a garage. Because I had to prove--I needed permission--to call myself a Christian.
But it wasn't those churches which talk about Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc which questioned or required me to get their permission to call myself a Christian.
I have regularly found myself wondering how so many churches which regularly talk about "grace alone" and "faith alone", when push comes to shove, refuse to accept either grace or faith when it comes to salvation. Instead, what matters--or so I have been told over and over again for around four decades now, is the stuff I'm supposed to do, the works I have needed to do, in order to be saved and call myself a Christian.
I realized a long time ago that I was raised hearing "grace alone", but there was no grace in what I was being taught. I was raised hearing "faith alone", but trusting in Jesus was never enough. I was raised hearing "Christ's work alone", but what Jesus did wasn't enough. It was always up to me, to prove my worth, to prove my Christian certification, by having done the right things, and meeting a highly specific set of criteria. And that meant that, in a very tragic sense, I had grown up never really hearing the Gospel. Assurance, I was told, was necessary for me to be saved; but I never had assurance growing up, because I was constantly told to look at myself. Did I "mean it" when I asked Jesus into my heart, for example. Was I actually sorry for my sins when I asked Jesus to be my Savior--a difficult question I imagine for any eight year old to answer.
What I wasn't told, and what I really needed to hear, was "It's not up to you, Jesus died for you, trust Him." Because the day I finally heard that, my life changed. That wasn't the day I became a Christian. That wasn't the day I "got saved". But that was the day when my view of God turned upside-down, and I began to see God and know God through Jesus.
-CryptoLutheran
First, baptism means dunk or immersion, not sprinkling. Do it improperly doesn't get you saved;The first passage says that baptism saves us, the second says that eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood is necessary to have life.
What passage of scripture do you rely on for the claim "do it improperly doesn't get you saved"?First, baptism means dunk or immersion, not sprinkling. Do it improperly doesn't get you saved
Cain and Abel. God respected Abel who worshiped in God's way and disrespected Cain who worshiped in his own way, even though Cain was the firstborn and revered as the man acquired from God.What passage of scripture do you rely on for the claim "do it improperly doesn't get you saved"?
There's another instance where Aaron's two sons set profane fire or "strange fire" for burning offering, they didn't do it properly, and they got struck dead.What passage of scripture do you rely on for the claim "do it improperly doesn't get you saved"?
What passage of scripture do you rely on for the claim "do it improperly doesn't get you saved"?First, baptism means dunk or immersion, not sprinkling. Do it improperly doesn't get you saved
Nope, Cain did "it" the wrong way and was corrected but not condemned by God. Your post takes the example well beyond what the scripture says.Cain and Abel. God respected Abel who worshiped in God's way and disrespected Cain who worshiped in his own way, even though Cain was the firstborn and revered as the man acquired from God.
Nope, baptism isn't us offering God something, baptism is God washing away the sins of the person who is baptised, as the scripture says, Acts 22:16There's another instance where Aaron's two sons set profane fire or "strange fire" for burning offering, they didn't do it properly, and they got struck dead.
If you do sprinkling, that's just sprinkling, not baptizing, what passage of scripture do you need for that?What passage of scripture do you rely on for the claim "do it improperly doesn't get you saved"?
Nope, Cain did "it" the wrong way and was corrected but not condemned by God. Your post takes the example well beyond what the scripture says.
Nope, baptism isn't us offering God something, baptism is God washing away the sins of the person who is baptised, as the scripture says, Acts 22:16
The Didache (teachings of the Apostles) was fine with sprinkling for Baptism, and Baptism for children.If you do sprinkling, that's just sprinkling, not baptizing, what passage of scripture do you need for that?
Come on, that is just tradition. I'm pretty sure John the Baptist didn't baptise Jesus by sprinkling on his head.The Didache (teachings of the Apostles) was fine with sprinkling for Baptism, and Baptism for children.
You're right.Come on, that is just tradition. I'm pretty sure John the Baptist didn't baptise Jesus by sprinkling on his head.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?