One Core Difference Between Christians and Catholics

[Norseman82]

Budge,

Don't you mean the difference between Christians and Protestants?

[Budge]

Only those who have trusted JESUS CHRIST ALONE for their salvation and are born again are Christians.

Since Rome does not teach that one must be born again, and teaches reliance on other things for salvation, most Catholics are not Christians. Yes there is the rare one who does see the truth, but they usually will end up departing with time.

[quote]where does it say in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the church is superior to scriptures??[/quote]

Rome declares that God's Word cannot stand on its own without its Tradition and Magisterium.

That is definitely saying that the church is superior to scriptures.
[font="Arial Black"]
95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, [u]sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.[/u] Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."[/font]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040872' date='Aug 10 2006, 11:35 AM']
Only those who have trusted JESUS CHRIST ALONE for their salvation and are born again are Christians.

Since Rome does not teach that one must be born again, and teaches reliance on other things for salvation, most Catholics are not Christians. Yes there is the rare one who does see the truth, but they usually will end up departing with time.
Rome declares that God's Word cannot stand on its own without its Tradition and Magisterium.

That is definitely saying that the church is superior to scriptures.
[font="Arial Black"]
95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, [u]sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.[/u] Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."[/font]
[/quote]

1. The Catholic Church DOES teach that you must be born again. It's called Baptism. That's why Jesus answer to Nicodemus involves Baptism.

2. The Bible states that an interpreter of the Bible is needed. The eunuch needed one. God didn't just send Him someone who could read Hebrew, as if it was as simple as reading the text and having it smack you in the head; God sent an apostle, someone who had been given his authority by Jesus Christ Himself. Those apostles clearly do not hand on their authority to everyone, either, they hand it on to those they ordain. Therefore, the Magisterium is needed. Also since the things written in Scripture were written after having been passed on a while, the Scriptures arose from Tradition (see my previous post). Therefore, Scripture would not stand without Tradition and the Magisterium.

[Budge]

[quote]1. The Catholic Church DOES teach that you must be born again. It's called Baptism. That's why Jesus answer to Nicodemus involves Baptism.[/quote]

This is one of Roman Catholicism's biggest deceptions, that a little baby can be baptized and automatically born again. Catholics do not understand that being born again means coming to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. {how many little baptized babies grow up to christ-rejecters and atheists?} There is no life change, no new creature in Christ. Even Madilyn O'Hare--famous atheist- was baptized as an infant.

Baptism does not make one born again.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040881' date='Aug 10 2006, 11:48 AM']
This is one of Roman Catholicism's biggest deceptions, that a little baby can be baptized and automatically born again. Catholics do not understand that being born again means coming to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. {how many little baptized babies grow up to christ-rejecters and atheists?} There is no life change, no new creature in Christ. Even Madilyn O'Hare--famous atheist- was baptized as an infant.

Baptism does not make one born again.
[/quote]
Even adult converts fall away. That's the fault of bad catechesis, not of Baptism.

Would you say that a baby doesn't have a personal relationship with its mother? They are two persons, who have a relationship, and that relationship is based on their interpersonal communion. Either you admit that infants are capable of personal relationships or you say that infants aren't persons. Now, granted, infants can't reason and will like adults, but they are none the less persons, and their personal relationships exist, even if they do not have the capacity to operate on a higher plane.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040881' date='Aug 10 2006, 07:48 AM']
This is one of Roman Catholicism's biggest deceptions, that a little baby can be baptized and automatically born again. Catholics do not understand that being born again means coming to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. {how many little baptized babies grow up to christ-rejecters and atheists?} There is no life change, no new creature in Christ. Even Madilyn O'Hare--famous atheist- was baptized as an infant.

Baptism does not make one born again.
[/quote]

Baptism is rebirth, but "born again" does not mean OSAS as you presuppose.

[avemaria40]

Except Jesus said you must be born again of water and the Spirit. There is no mention of coming to have a personal relationship with Jesus as the requirement for being born again. That comes afterward. And where does it say babies are to be left out of the New Covenant? They were required in the Old Covenant (circumcision) and afterwards, where in the Bible does it say for adults only? Nowhere! Jesus said, let the little children come to me for such belongs to the kingdom of heaven, and He also said whoever believes and is baptized is saved. Therefore, babies are to be baptized.

"Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven...For the promis is for you, [b]for your children[/b] and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Him" Acts 2:38-39

[Era Might]

[quote]Baptism [b]now saves you[/b], not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

--1Peter 3:21[/quote]

[Budge]

The problem here is you folks believe it is the baptism that makes on born again when it is not.

Throughout the Bible, baptism always FOLLOWED salvation.

There is NOT one infant in the entire Bible being baptized.

Newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins.

[font="Lucida Console"]Act 8:12 [u]But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,[/u] they were baptized, both men and women.[/font]

I was baptized when I was nine days old, as a catholic, I was NOT born again whatsoever. I did not know God in my heart, and was only taught the false doctrines of Catholicism which were not life changing. I know that later when I was born again, that Jesus Christ changed my life and I became a new creature in Christ.

[avemaria40]

Old Covenant entrance: circumcision (practiced on infants, but first practiced on an adult)
New Covenant entrance: baptism (replaces circumcision, first practiced on adults, then babies)
Jesus wanted little children in the Kingdom of Heaven, He also said you had to be baptized. All it takes is putting 2 and 2 together.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040918' date='Aug 10 2006, 08:19 AM']
The problem here is you folks believe it is the baptism that makes on born again when it is not.

Throughout the Bible, baptism always FOLLOWED salvation.

There is NOT one infant in the entire Bible being baptized.

Newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins.

[font="Lucida Console"]Act 8:12 [u]But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,[/u] they were baptized, both men and women.[/font]

I was baptized when I was nine days old, as a catholic, I was NOT born again whatsoever. I did not know God in my heart, and was only taught the false doctrines of Catholicism which were not life changing. I know that later when I was born again, that Jesus Christ changed my life and I became a new creature in Christ.
[/quote]

You should take this one step at a time since two issues need to be separated (baptism as salvific and infant baptism). However, once the former is properly understood it logically leads to the latter.

First, baptism does not always follow salvation since baptism is a part of salvation:

Acts 2:38: "Then Peter said unto them, [b]Repent, and be baptized[/b] every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [b]for the remission of sins[/b], and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Unless the remission of sins is not a part of salvation, sounds like your interpretation would do better if it tried to reach a complete understanding instead of ignoring texts that conflict with your view.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Budge]

[quote]

You should take this one step at a time since two issues need to be separated (baptism as salvific and infant baptism). However, once the former is properly understood it logically leads to the latter.[/quote]

Why do they need to be seperated? I dont see any two issues that need to be seperated.

Your sentences really are hard to read, they seem all convoluted like you are seeking to make things far more complicated then they really are.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Budge, your quote falls short in view of the command of Our Lord. He doesn't mention conversion before Baptism in Matthew 28. He mentions preaching and baptizing...and only those two. This is Christ's general instruction.

Now, it seems logical that adults must have faith to be baptized. Otherwise, they would not want to be baptized and the baptism would be invalid. Now, since only adults would understand the letters St. Paul was writing, and not infants, it makes sense to assume that his letters were addressed to the adults in the community. Since adults must will to be baptized, then it is understandable that he mentions repentance first, so that they may repent and, repentant, seek Baptism.

Now, this is not the case for infants. Infants cannot will as adults can. Therefore, they cannot repent (nor do infants have personal sins to repent). Nor can they claim Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. He is nevertheless their personal Lord and Savior regardless of whether or not they can ask for it. Now, as with every issue regarding infants in this life, the parents make the choice. This is also consistent with the Old Covenant. Infant boys never said, "I want to be in the Abrahamic covenant," and yet they were circumcized and regarded within the covenant. God seems to be saying that parents have that kind of authority over their children.

Now, since Christ Himself mentions Baptism and nothing else, that must be the most important instrument of salvation.

Further, no one can argue that children were not supposed to be baptized. The Church is being conservative baptizing them in the first place...God said to baptize "every living creature." That includes babies.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040958' date='Aug 10 2006, 11:23 AM']
Why do they need to be seperated? I dont see any two issues that need to be seperated.

Your sentences really are hard to read, they seem all convoluted like you are seeking to make things far more complicated then they really are.
[/quote]

How about Acts 2:38 -- can you understand that? Or is the KJV translation "really hard to read"? I figure you'd be KJV only. My mistake.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Yo Budgie! (and anyone else wanting to dismiss the validity of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium in keeping the Deposit of Faith...)

Gots a question fer ya....Which Gospel was Paul's favorite?

answer below:
























None of them! They weren't even written until after he was dead! So...how did the early Church transmit the teachings of Christ until they were written?

Answer: orally....in other words...TRADITION! duh....


Next question: How many books did Jesus put into the Bible?

Answer: none! He wrote NOTHING DOWN that has survived. The canon was developed over time, in accordance with SACRED TRADITION (there's that T word again...) and the books that were incloded in the Bible were finalized centuries AFTER the death of the Apostles.

One more fer ya: So who decided what books made it into the Bible?

Answer: the MAGISTERIUM of the Church, assisted by the SACRED TRADITION of the entire Church. Bet ya didn't know that more books were rejected than accepted into the Bible...


Last question: how can you proclaim to know the fullness of SCRIPTURE, when you reject the TRADITION that wrote it, and the MAGISTERIUM that interpreted it to put it together into the BIBLE?

Answer: ya can't unless yer blind, crazy, or have very faulty logic


BTW - don't even get me started on the 'Apocrypha'...Luther and his contemporaries also wanted to throw out James and Revelation, ....guess ya gotta be a Cafeteria Christian to make sense of that one....