Ever since becoming Catholic I have been struck with the irony that while claiming to take Scripture literally, Protestants ignore every scripture that supports Catholic Theology, except when it comes to John 6. This they try to explain away.
As a Protestant I was taught to believe NOTHING unless it was in Scripture and that Catholics and others were in danger of going to Hell because they believed things not found in Sacred Scripture.
And yet, as many of you know if you have read a few posts here, I find myself constantly responding to many Protestant assertions,
“Where is that is Scripture?”
Not because I believe in Sola Scriptura but because Protestants do. And to raise their awareness that not everything they believe is actually found in Scripture.
We all believe things not stated explicitly in Scripture. The difference is that we Catholics tend to know this but Protestants seem to be largely unaware of it. They are as surprised as a deer caught in the headlights when asked about their doctrine:
Where is that in Scripture?
But the elephant in the room that Protestants don’t talk about is, that Sacred Scripture does not say anything about the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura invented by Martin Luther 500 years ago, which they use so effectively to put Catholics on the defensive.
So, that is one issue. The irony that Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.
But what about the fact that Protestants, who claim to take the Scriptures literally, completely ignore and/or explain away with mental and verbal gymnastics, many key passages of Scripture that SUPPORT Catholic beliefs.
Is that not ironic? Here are a few. Feel free to add your own in the comments section.
BAPTISM for salvation and entrance to the Kingdom of God.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
1 Peter 3:20-21… who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you…
THE EUCHARIST-Bread and Wine become the body and blood of Jesus
John 6:50 “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
John 6:51,53-58 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.…So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
I Corinthians 11:23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
MORTAL & VENIAL SIN
I John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.
And, God calls some sins an ABOMINATION!!
Leviticus 18:22‘ You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 18:26 ‘But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you.
For more click–>Sins of Abomination
And GOD hates these sins:
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
1) haughty eyes,
2) a lying tongue,
3) hands that shed innocent blood,
4) a heart that devises wicked schemes,
5)feet that are quick to rush into evil,
6) a false witness who pours out lies
7)and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
Most Protestant teach that all sin is EQUAL. That there is no such thing as sin that is worse than other sin. I have no idea why, when we have scripture that clearly indicates otherwise and there is no scripture that states all sin is equal.
SACRAMENT of CONFESSION
John 20:22-23And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
This is the first dispensation of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles only, prior to Pentecost. It empowered them to hear and absolve…or not… sin. Confession had to be audible in order for the apostle to forgive or retain.
CELIBACY IS ENCOURAGED
I Cor 7:1 It is good for a man not to marry…An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs —how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.”
Matthew 19:12
For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
CALLING OUR PRIESTS “FATHER”
Using this verse out of context Protestants denounce the practice of calling our priests, ‘father’.
Matthew 23:8-12“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[a] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted
And yet they completely ignore the fact that Jesus, St. Paul, St. Stephen, and St. John call men ‘Father’.
Jesus Himself referred to FATHER Abraham. Did Jesus break his own rule?
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
Luke 16:24 & 30 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire….’No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
U> Acts 7:1-2Then the high priest asked him( Stephen), “Are these charges true?”2To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me!
1 John 2:13-14I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.
I write to you, dear children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
St. Paul also addresses the Jewish religious leaders as fathers. Did St. Paul also break Jesus’ rule?
Acts 22:1“Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”
St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians reminds them that they only have one father in Christ, himself. And he claims them as his spiritual children.
1 Corinthians 4:14-15 I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
St. Paul continues this spiritual father/child relationship in the following epistles. He identifies himself as their spiritual father either directly as in I Thess. or indirectly by calling Timothy and Titus his “true son in faith”.
1 Thessalonians 2:11 For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children,
1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy my true son in the faith(that makes Paul a father in the faith): Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Titus 1:4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
St.Paul fathered those he brought to life through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And he had no problem with appropriating this title to himself. So, either St. Paul was wrong or the Protestant tradition is wrong.
REJECTING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN FAVOR OF CHURCH TEACHING
2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
UNITY– One Body, One Spirit, One Hope, One Lord, One faith, One baptism; One God and Father…Eph. 4:4
John 17:21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
And yet I have heard Protestants who praise the diversity of all the thousands of different Protestant denominations as a good thing. I have always been too polite to quote John 17 to them.
The thoroughness and meticulous cohesion of Catholic doctrine as compared to the instability of many Protestant doctrines played no small part in my conversion to the Catholic Church.
The Black Cordelias 
This is excellent. This ought to be published in pamphlet form and distributed alongside Protestants that go to Catholic churches to distribute Protestant literature.
I’m a convert too, excellent synopsis of the major points.
Why do have a picture of Martin Luther next to those “Protestant” teachings – he affirmed most of those things, including baptismal regeneration, the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, the importance of private confession, did not object to being called “Father” etc.
My favorite “Sola Scriptura” is 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which says that sola scriptura is wrong.
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
If any of you really sure about your doctrines and your religion,, then answer this question! How sure are you that through your doctrines you will be saved? Salvation does not talk about religion.. it talks about Believing in Jesus as Lord and savior. You only make ways on How you can connect your religion to the Bible. You must connect yourself personally to God. There is no other way but Jesus. Not Religion, but a loving relationship to God….
This is what I have come to realize. Protestants do not understand “Tradition” because the Catholic Church is the “only” Church who were given these traditions. No other Church has them. That is why they are Sola Scriptura. When the reformation came into place and now so many Protestant break offs how were they going to take the Traditions with them when they did not have them to take? Jesus and the Apostles only gave them to the Catholic Church.
Oh yes, Martin Luther. Martin Luther hated the Jewish people and peasants and stated, “All Jews and peasants should be killed.” I heard a preacher say the other day, “Martin Luther hated Jews to the point of Adolph Hitler, but thank God he came out of the Catholic Church and started the reformation.” My thought was, “And this is the man who you calaim to be the foundation of your Church?” Is it just me or is there something wrong with this?
Interesting point of view…I like that you used scripture to support the points, but there are several things that seem contradictory to me…
1)baptism for salvation…While I confess not to completely understand the passage in Peter, there are so many other instances where the Bible talks about belief/calling on the Lord only…John 3:16, Romans 10:9-13, In Acts when he is talking to the jailor…These are just a few, how to you explain those away? Furthermore, does not baptise in the Greek meant to immerse? This is what I’ve been taught, but admittedly don’t know Greek myself, but it seems the only way you could accurrately picture the death burial and resurrection like they pointed out in one of the letters.
2) The Eucharist…the bread and wine have to be representative as there was never actually any physical bread that came down from heaven. The “bread” was Jesus Christ. If you could show me physical bread that came from heaven, I would probably concede to a literal interpretation here. Also, if you take these passages as literal they say whoever partakes of this bread will be saved. That is apart from all your other sacraments and belief only this one thing would need to be done. So the only logical way I can take it as meaning partaking spiritualy in his body and blood via excepting his sacrifice for my sin…We do have unfermented wine and unleavened bread, but only “in remembrance” of what he has done.
3) mortal and venial sin…not sure what you think is a “sin unto death” but Revelation 21:8 lists liars as having their part in the second death. James 2:10 tells us if we “keep the whole law” and yet “offend in one point he is guilty of all.” The next verse explains why…the same God told you not to do it. There are some things however that do seem to be worse in the eyes of God when dealing with things on earth, or excomunication from the church etc. I would agree there. Would respond to more, but I got to get something done today. Would love to here any rebuttals (please make them educated and Bible based) that catholics have.
Sonja,
In response to your questions/points I will respond.
1)What is said in I Peter regarding baptism is very clear. What is unclear is why, Protestants, who profess to believe in Scripture and ONLY Scripture teach their members to reject what this scripture clearly says.
Faith and belief are also necessary for salvation. Baptism initiates us into the family of God exactly like circumcision did for the Jews (infant circumcision and infant baptism correspond to each other)
As you see they believed and were baptized. The Catholic Church teaches that if one believes but dies before being able to be baptized they are still saved through a Baptism of Desire. God can save us without baptism in His mercy and omniscience; but we were told by Jesus to be baptized.
Being a disciple implies the Faith necessary for salvation. But, where does Jesus make baptism and obedience optional? Where does Jesus say salvation is by FAITH ALONE?
Many Protestant pastors and teachers tend to dichotomies: either this or that. ie. Either Faith or baptism saves us. But the Catholic Faith, with a 1500 year head start on Protestants in reading and understanding Scripture recognize dichotomies don’t do justice to Scripture. More often it is not either/or but both/and…faith and baptism and obedience as we see in the Matthew passage above. Other passages mention other requirements for salvation/eternal life like “eating My Flesh and drinking My Blood”. Trying to force Scripture into an either/or dichotomy distorts the message beyond repair; or else many scriptures are totally ignored or interpreted away.
And yes, baptismo means immerse. So, immersion is certainly a fuller sign of dying to self and rising to new life. But, if baptism initiates us into Christ and is necessary for salvation (Jn 3) then what of conversions on a sick/death bed? What of infants close to death? Haul them miles and miles away to a body of water deep enough to fully immerse? They might die on the journey. For many reasons the Church compassionately and for practical reasons decided that a valid baptism could be accomplished without full immersion. A lake or river were preferred but at least the pouring of water on the head was required three times, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This is an except from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But the whole entry is very beautiful. You can read it here Baptism.
2)You are correct. Jesus IS the Physical Bread that came down from Heaven. A better Bread than the Miracle of the Manna that came down from Heaven. The physical Bread that we eat is JESUS’ body,blood,soul, and divinity in the Eucharist, after plain bread has been consecrated by our priests. It is no longer mere bread but JESUS, under the appearance of Bread. We partake of this Bread that comes down from Heaven by a miracle, of God, through the hands of a priest, at each of our masses.
Grape juice is not wine. Grape Juice is grape juice and wine is wine. Wine comes from fermented grape juice. Grape juice does not come from unfermented wine but grapes. Protestants often do not use wine b/c of the tradition from a few years ago of the effects of prohibition and the tradition that drinking alcoholic beverages is sinful. This is another Protestant Tradition of men b/c it is nowhere supported in scripture.
3) You are correct. There are several lists in the epistles that list very serious sin. I John mentions mortal sin/sin unto death.
The Catholic Church calls these sins that lead to death, Mortal Sins and the lesser sin that we ourselves can pray for forgiveness for, Venial Sin. We have merely given a shorter name to these sins than “sin-that-leads-to-death” and “sin-that-does-not-lead-to-death”.
Regarding
Of course, it is TRUE. Any sin, small or large, brings us condemnation. An offense against and Eternal God is itself of Eternal Magnitude. And only and Eternal Sacrifice could suffice to make reparation for our sin both mortal and venial. However, as you so aptly pointed out some sin is an abomination in the eyes of God just like they are in the eyes of men. Even before I became Catholic I thought it was crazy to think that God saw all sin EQUALLY especially when so many verses refuted this sophistry.
Thanks for your response, it gives me a little better idea where you are coming from.
When I read over the passage in Peter a couple times I noticed the parenthesis. It tells us what baptism does not do…put off the filth of the flesh and what it does do…is an answer of a good conscience toward God. When I don’t understand something, I will often look up pretty much every word in the dictionary, as I’ve found the old English wording can be “tricky” to understand occasionally. After doing this it seems to me that it’s answer=reply of=coming from, so a reply coming from a good conscience toward God or what should be the response to one that believes. It seems in a way you believe this too as you have said that God is able to save without baptism, so obviously it is not the water that does the saving, but the One Sinless Sacrifice.
Secondarily, the immersion…I do realize your belief that the church has the power to make these decisions, but this is a completely different baptism than Jesus showed us. Do you accept the churches authority on faith alone or what is your reason for doing so?
As far as faith alone…
Eph.2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith;andthat not of yourselves:it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I have already listed several verses that include belief/faith as a means for salvation, but you reject them as only “partial” truth. Many of them have no mention of baptism in them at all as the one above.
I did read the baptism selection. It mentioned that communion was to sanctify. This is different than saying the physical bread gives us eternal life. Which do you believe? Do believe that one is subject to damnation until they partake of communion? Cause if you take that passage literally that is what you must accept. I don’t see another way of seeing it. Again you put your faith in the priests that bless the bread (mere humans) to put Jesus into the bread.
As far as grape juice and wine, you are wrong about our reason for staying with grape juice, although there are many protestants that believe alcohol is sinful. The Bible never differentiates between the fruit of the vine that is fresh (unfermented wine or grape juice) and fermented wine. They both have the same name. (For example in proverbs when it says Look not upon the wine when it is red.) We don’t ferment it cause it takes yeast and yeast represents tainting.
The same reason we eat unleavened bread.
I assume on the last point that the church has decided which sins are unto death for the believer? I’ll have to look at these verses more carefully. I’ll read through 1 John a couple times to try and understand it better. I do try and understand the more “complex” passages, but it seems there is just too much that seems completely contrary to what the Bible teaches in the Catholic church for it to be right if you put the Bible first and the church secondary.
Dear Sonja,
Bread From Heaven: Baptism without Faith will not ultimately save a person except a baby who dies without reaching the age of reason or a person baptized on their deathbed. There may be other exceptions, but generally baptism is the first step.The salvation is through the water just as Noah’s ark saved those on it as the Peter passage notes. Baptism corresponds to this.
Sonja: but this is a completely different baptism than
Jesus showed us.
Bread From Heaven: But the fact is that neither Jesus not anyone else, ever described baptism as being full immersion. While that is the general meaning of the word so the conclusion that immersion is what was done is legitimate, nothing explicitly precludes other methods.And the Jews had been instructed by God to pour and sprinkle the blood of the sacrifices to cleanse and consecrate. So these methods were chosen for the cleansing and consecration of baptism when immersion was not practical. (Heb 9:13 Lev. 16:19
Sonja: Do you accept the churches authority on faith alone or what is
your reason for doing so?
Bread From Heaven: That is a good question. I accept the Church’s authority because in my reading of history and theology I became convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded 2000 years ago and her beliefs were found
to be as old as the Church itself. When I looked at the writings of the early Church Fathers
if they had been writing in such a way as to support Protestantism I would still be Protestant.
However, uniquely Catholic doctrine existed at the dawn of the Church. No Catholic doctrine
contradicts Scripture but only Protestant interpretation of Scripture. Have you read my conversion story? You can read it–> My Conversion
Sonja: As far as faith alone…
Bread From Heaven: I agree and the Catholic Church does not teach that we can save ourselves by works. And Eph. does not say by grace through faith alone. Martin Luther, on his own authority, added the word alone to that passage in his German translation of the Bible. But it is not there. This is a Protestant Tradition. It is contradicted by Scripture.
Also, if Protestant theology was correct then the demons would not shudder but be saved because they KNOW and BELIEVE in Our Lord God.
Sonja:I have already listed several verses that include belief/faith as a means for salvation, but you reject them as only “partial” truth. Many of them have no mention of baptism in them at all as the one above.
Bread From Heaven: True. You can find many different things linked to salvation/eternal life but not all of them are ever in one scripture. This is precisely why the Catholic Church does not teach that salvation is by ______alone. But the other reason is that the Bible is NOT a book of systematic theology. In order to understand, one must take it as a whole in order to be “in context”. To say we are saved by faith alone is taking the verse out of context b/c James 2 contradicts that idea. But since we accept scripture does not really contradict itself we need to find an understanding that makes sense out of both of those scriptures and many others. Some of the things scripture links with salvation/eternal life/heaven etc.
Faith
Eph 2
Good Works-
LOVE
Keeping the Commandments
Can one be saved without abiding in Jesus? Then one MUST keep His commandments.
Can we be saved without loving God? How can we love God? By keeping His commandments.
Endurance to the End
Sonja: I did read the baptism selection. It mentioned that communion was to sanctify.
This is different than saying the physical bread gives us eternal life. Which do
you believe?
Bread From Heaven: I believe both b/c Jesus said we must eat His Flesh and drink His blood in order to have Eternal Life. But it is not about taking communion one time for salvation. Ongoing communion cleanses and strengthens our souls to stay the course until death and end our lives in friendship with God. So, it is not an either/or but both/and.
Sonja: Do believe that one is subject to damnation until they partake of
communion?
Bread From Heaven:That is for God to decide. The Catholic Church NEVER pronounces who is damned. That is the domain of Our Lord. He is able to save in any way He wishes. But He has given us the sacraments and commandments to guide our souls to Eternal Life with Him. It is the sin of presumption to reason that “just b/c God can save a soul who does not conform to this or that, that therefore I am free to disregard all of these gifts and commands He has given us through the Church. Therefore, based on the teaching of Jesus and His apostles the Church teaches the way of Eternal Life and bestows sacramental graces upon the Faithful to keep their souls in Him.
Sonja:Cause if you take that passage literally that is what you must
accept. I don’t see another way of seeing it.
Bread From Heaven: This is the Problem. You are INTERPRETING the passage. The passage does not say that all who do not eat and drink are damned. I understand why you think this is a logical conclusion. But God’s ways are above our ways.
Sonja: Again you put your faith in the priests that bless the bread (mere humans) to put Jesus into the bread.
Bread From Heaven:No I trust the words of Our Lord and His power to work this miracle for the faithful even through a sinful priest. This the Church has always believed. To see some quotes from the first century A.D. —>Early Church Beliefs in the Eucharist
Sonja: As far as grape juice and wine, you are wrong about our reason for staying with
grape juice, although there are many protestants that believe alcohol is sinful.
The Bible never differentiates between the fruit of the vine that is fresh
(unfermented wine or grape juice) and fermented wine. They both have the same
name. (For example in proverbs when it says Look not upon the wine when it is
red.) We don’t ferment it cause it takes yeast and yeast represents tainting.
The same reason we eat unleavened bread.
Bread From Heaven:That is interesting. You are correct as far as what Jesus actually said. But I am quite sure that the Jews used wine for the Passover, fruit of the vine is a euphemism for wine, so Jesus certainly would have used wine at the Last Supper. But I am not all that hung up on wine vs. grape juice. It is just an interesting digression.
Sonja: I assume on the last point that the church has decided which sins are unto death
for the believer?
Bread From Heaven: Well, not exactly. In order for a sin to be mortal it has to meet 3 requirements.
Then it would be considered mortal. There is not a list of mortal sins but scripture gives us several lists to make us aware of what grave or serious sin is. The ten commandments is a good place to start.
Sonja: I’ll have to look at these verses more carefully. I’ll read
through 1 John a couple times to try and understand it better. I do try and
understand the more “complex” passages, but it seems there is just too much that
seems completely contrary to what the Bible teaches in the Catholic church for
it to be right if you put the Bible first and the church secondary.
Bread From Heaven:Yes, I am sure it does seem so because you have been taught to interpret scripture according to the Protestant methods. But the doctrine of putting the Bible and personal interpretation first and the teaching of the apostles secondary is a Protestant Tradition with NO SUPPORT in Scripture. Here is an explanation of we mean by Tradition. Also, private interpretation is not approved.
And the word translated “prophecy” does not mean fortelling the future but according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary:
Before my conversion, I was a very zealous Protestant, sola scriptura adherent and I used Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries and interlinears to “search the scriptures.” All contradictions of Catholic doctrine with the Bible are apparent rather than real. What Catholic Faith contradicts is merely Protestant interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself. But Catholics have perfectly legitimate alternate interpretations. It has been a very interesting journey. I applaud your careful reading and analysis of the Scriptures and your willingness to seek the Truth.
I have a couple more questions if that’s ok. I am wondering what church fathers you are refering too. I am also under the impression from sources I’ve read that the diety of Christ was also questioned very early on around Alexadria Egypt mostly. This early heresy does not make it any more true. Also I could not access the link to your conversion I would be interested in reading it.
I can understand several of your interpretations, I still do not understand how you can hold to a baptism that is clearly different that the one in the New Testament and say your church doesn’t contradict at all. I can understand if you think the church has the authority (although I would disagree) but I don’t see how you can see this particular issue as an “interpretation” issue as even you have said they baptized by immersion.
Also wondering how the catholic church would interpret most of Romans talking of the righteousness that is by faith…in particular Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then it is no more works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
James could easily be interpreted as if you have faith works will/should follow or the outward show of the inward faith. For instance with Noah, because he believed, he built the ark.
Dear Sonja,
Of course you are correct that antiquity does not equal authentic Christian writings. There were heresies, especially regarding the nature (God/Man) of Jesus.
Here some links’
The Fathers on Abortion
The Fathers of the Church on Purgatory
The Fathers on Confession
The Fathers on the Eucharist And more Fathers
The Church Fathers on the Peter, the first pope
Regarding Baptism.
The Church as I have shown you acknowledges that immersion is the best, and in conformity with the definiton of baptizo, but allows pouring of water on the head for compassionate and practical reason. You may insist that this contradicts the Scripture. And you may hold to it no matter what I say.
However, I am accepting of that because it just makes sense that the Church would comfort family of dying babies and relatives by allowing baptism through pouring of water three times, especially in a land with few bodies of water for full immersion, rather than insisting that dying babies and others be hauled off in a wagon over bumpy roads in heat and cold, camping out for days in order to reach the River Jordan or the Sea of Galilee. Is that REALLY what Jesus wanted? Remember, they took Jesus words literally that:
They had not made baptism optional like many Protestants have today. They strictly adhered to Jesus’ words that baptism was necessary and had not made it an empty ritual done only b/c Jesus said to do it, that many Protestants have done in these days. For them and for the Catholic Church today the baptized is cleansed from all sin, temporal and eternal, through the water and the Holy Spirt is received. (Water & Spirit)
Plus, Jesus Himself, gave Peter and the Apostles the authority to rule the Church.
This was a Hebrew idiom that meant, authority to rule. So, I have accepted that the Church founded by Jesus Himself was given the authority make adaptations, such as the method baptism.
My interpretation of:
Our salvation is not BASED on works it is BASED on the Grace of God and His initiative to save us. Without that, no work could ever atone for the offense against an Eternal God. All Good Works would be useless. But since we know James 2 says that Faith without works is dead, then good works are not optional, even though they, alone do not save us. ala I Cor 13…”without love”
Sonja: James could easily be interpreted as if you have faith works will/should follow or the outward show of the inward faith. For instance with Noah, because he believed, he built the ark.
Bread From Heaven: That’s true and an excellent example. But even if Noah had all the faith in the world, if he had not done the work of building the ark he would have perished.