 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Jackie Member

| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2007 05:01 pm |
|
I posted a brief thread in the Conversions section under "When Only One Converts" and I have now added more to my plate with a fallen-away catholic friend and her husband.
In short; the pastor of the Bible believing church that I went to last week with my husband based his sermom on Luke 13:14-17. He titled it TPF 30. (Like the suntan lotions SPF 15 ect) Tradition Proof Factor. In the sermon he went on to explain that Jesus rebuked this man because HIS TRADITIONS blinded him from seeing Jesus and therefore man-made traditions prevent us from being "saved." He calles them truth blockers. While he was on his tirade, we swept over all the tradions of men that harm us, worship on the Sabbath, baptism, rote prayer, works, communion and on and on and on. He mentioned Isiah 29:13 and used ROTE as the final word instead of MEN. And apparently, in the week before, he brought up the Mishna (sp) and used the "you cannot carry anything heavier than a fig on the Sabbath" to establish how man-made rules attached to Gods are a no-no ( I'm guessing, since I was not there)
I was sitting there thinking to myself, why doesn't anyone question this pastor in what he is saying. Most of his church is made up of fallen away catholics. When he hollered out that God does not care if your children are baptized, I thought I was goin to come unglued. Actually, I did come unglued cuz I have been unhinged since then, even to the point of arguing a point with a friend of mines husband in the local grocery store. Well, not arguing the point, but trying to understand from which stance is he (this man) and his pastor, coming from? They say they are to question everything that comes to them from the bible but they also believe they are indwelled with the Holy Spirit and therefore can discern for themselves what the Bible is truely saying. The friends of mines husband and I spoke about John 3:5 and I said that if Baptism was nothing, than why did Jesus say that to Nicodemus? He was giving me all kinds of other verses but I told him to email them to me and others since we went off on a tangent over Mary and the Saints ( AHHHHHHH my big mouth) and Traditions.
Here is a sampling of his verses and reasons. Can anyone help me understand from where he comes since I have always been Catholic and have no problem with the Church, Her Teachings or Her Authority.
First off, he defined what Baptize really means-to submerge or immerse. Then he explained how John's Baptism was designated to lead the people to the coming messiah. Mat 3:6-7 And stated it is the only place in the Bible where baptism comes BEFORE believing. Mark 1:4 & 8. He then tells me that the only reason Jesus was baptised was to identify Himself with the people He came to save. Matt:3:15
The friend then proceeds to tell me that in Matt 28:19 it shows us how we are to make BELIEVERS of all nations and then baptise them! He proceeds with an order of baptism AFTER BELIEVING. Acts 2:41 Act 8:12, 8:32-39 ect culminating with the reference on Romans 6:3,4 and how it only identified the believer with Christ.
As for the intersession of the Saints, there is only one kind, the ones on earth! 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Tim 2:1 with a sprinkling of Romans 8:26 & 27 to show how it was never intended to be used by the Apostles until the fourth century therefore, it is not scriptural.
Mary was another hot button issue but I want to get to, Who explaines scripture? Acts 17:11 was his sticking point in that everything a pastor says has to be weighed by us so that we ourselves are not decieved.
Tradition verses were Gal 1:13-17, Matt 15, Mark 7 Col 2:8 and 1 Peter 1:18.
Baptism and the Lords table (communion) are not considered mens traditions, they were commanded by Jesus as REMEMBERENCES. The man finishes his great email with Matt 15 and how the message was missed completely because of mens traditions. His final quote was "religion is a way man tries to get to God, Christianity is about God coming to man."
I am going to email this guy with some verses of my own but really, can I get him to see Truth when he will not acknowledge the Traditions handed down from the Apostles? Would you approach this another way? Should I help him understand with verses from the Bible in support of what we do and why, or is that a waste of time. Your prayers would be most appreciated since my husband is a recent attender to this church and knows nothing about his Catholic Churchs teachings, but I think is furtile ground since he has all the peices to the puzzle but has not put it all together. Does that even sound like an excuse?
I am still trying to figure out why God has placed me here, at this time. You guys help me when I read other threads. Do you have any suggestions here?
I remain, still
Leaning on the Cross..................Jackie
|
|
|
Darlene Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2007 07:34 pm |
|
Jackie,
I have been reading a document called "By Water & The Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism." I downloaded this from a Methodist website this past week. I wanted to find out the history of what John Wesley believed since I had attended a college that taught Wesleyan beliefs and traditions. From this document, I discovered that Wesley was an Anglican who believed in regenerational Baptism and that both babies and adults can be baptized. He also believed that through Baptism, the Church declares that it is bound in covenant to God, and that through Baptism new persons are initiated into that covenant.
The Wesleyan tradition believes that when Christ said "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," He meant that Baptism is necessary in order to be saved. As I was thinking about this, I remembered that in the past, I used to believe that water in this verse meant physical birth. But just like a lightbulb, the Holy Spirit showed me that if Christ meant water to be physical birth in this verse, he would have used the word flesh, not water. Then the Holy Spirit reminded me of John 1:12, and that those who are children of God are not born of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man. Or Christ would have even used the word blood, Unless one is born of blood and the Spirit, but He didn't No where in scripture is water used implying physical birth.
Anyway, this was a wonderful discovery for me because I saw how even many Protestants believe in regenerational Baptism. And I have always had a deep respect for John Wesley. However, I don't ever recall hearing that he was an Anglican or that he believed in regenerational Baptism when I attended the Wesleyan Bible College.
So perhaps you could go to a United Methodist site and find their teaching on Baptism. I wish I could give you the exact website but I don't remember. It was on one of the Methodist sites. This man might be more openminded if he heard what other respectable Protestants believe - Wesley is respected by many born again Christians. If he thinks that you are just coming from a Catholic perspective, you could tell him that far more Protestants believe in regenerational Baptism than don't. I saw a list of various Christian denominations and what they believe regarding Baptism. I was surprised to learn that the majority believe both babies and adults can be Baptized, that Baptism cleanses one of Original Sin, that it can be done by immersion, pouring or sprinkling and that it should be done by the Trinitarian method, (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
I cannot tell you how much finding this document has helped me with my struggles regarding the Catholic view of Baptism. Finding out that one of my Protestant heroes, John Wesley, was an Anglican and believed in the Catholic teaching on Baptism has helped clear up much confusion that I had regarding this sacrament. Oh and btw, Wesley also believed that Baptism was a sacrament and that special graces are imparted to those who are Baptized.
I know I didn't really give you scripture but it sounds like this man wants to look at scripture from his own myopic viewpoint. What does he say about the verse that says, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience." I Peter 3:21. That seems rather explicit especially when one looks at the preceding verse referring to Noah and the eight persons in the ark that were saved. Thus, just as only Noah and his family were saved and spared, so those who are Baptized are saved from condemnation.
Also, you may want to say that Baptism alone is not going to save a person. One must still practice and live their Christian faith. In other words, one must take all of scripture into context. However, to blatantly ignore Jesus' command to His disciples is outright disobedience. Why would Jesus say what He said if Baptism is of no effect? "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19 & 20. Notice Christ says it is by baptizing and teaching them to observe all His teachings, that one is His disciple. So we must be both baptized and follow the teachings given to Christ's Apostles in order to be a true disciple of Christ.
Hope I helped.
Darlene
____________________ The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Jackie Member

| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11th, 2007 10:10 am |
|
Darlene:
Why would Jesus say what He said if Baptism is of no effect? "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19 & 20.
This is one of the verses they say, will in fact prove why they state you need to be a believer first (infant Baptism) and afterwards be baptized.
Of coarse, this man was making the point that Baptism is not necessary and is only used to identify ourselves with Christ. (re:Matt 3:15) Which to tell you the truth, I still do not understand why he is using that verse to make his point. I must be dense.
I realize this might be taking and using verses for their benefit since I have rebutted with how "whole families" were baptized. Acts 16:15,31 Acts 2:38
Darlene, I thank-you for the help in understanding how John Wesley saw the effects of Baptism in his Methodist congregation.
I discovered that Wesley was an Anglican who believed in regenerational Baptism and that both babies and adults can be baptized. He also believed that through Baptism, the Church declares that it is bound in covenant to God, and that through Baptism new persons are initiated into that covenant.
You may be right in offering that, if this person knew of the other Protestant denominations that believed in the necessary and regenerative effects of Baptism, he might be persuaded to understand how we teach the Sacrament of Baptism.
United in Spirit, I remain...............Jackie
|
|
|
japhy Member

| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 185 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11th, 2007 10:39 am |
|
Catholic theology also recognizes baptism as the "replacement" for circumcision. Just as children were circumcised and thus brought into the Abramaic (and Mosaic) covenant, so are children now baptized and brought into the Christian covenant.
Because we see baptism as efficacious (that is, it does something, it imparts grace on the baptized, is regenerative, removes the stain of original sin, and cleanses the baptized of his sins), there is no reason to refuse it to a child. Baptism is a serious thing in the Catholic Church -- the parents and godparents are called to be catechists of the child, to help him (or her) grow up in a household of faith, hope, and charity, teaching the child about Jesus and the Church, thus enabling the child in the earliest years to understand who Jesus is and what he did.
Catechesis. Maybe I need to get that condensed to a 7-letter license plate.
CTKESIS
____________________ [Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
Jackie Member

| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11th, 2007 10:59 am |
|
Well put.....I hope the liscense plate is not already taken in our state
Jackie
Last edited on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 11:01 am by Jackie
|
|
|
shawnbm Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11th, 2007 05:42 pm |
|
| As for intercessory prayer, you might refer to Tobit 12:12 where the archangel Saint Raphael intercedes for Sara and Tobit concerning their prayers. Revelation 8:3-4 is another that speaks of prayers being offered to God by the "holy ones" in heaven. Of course, this pastor will not care that by the time he says this tradition was invented in the fourth century, it was the church catholic that for centuries practised this, taught this to the faithful and, around the same time, decided on the NT canon that this pastor probably uses, albeit it in truncated form. It will be a difficult sell I would imagine. As for Acts 17:11, that appears to be a historical reference of what ancient Hebrews would do in the synagogoues and a reflection of how important the Hebrew Scriptures were in their lives. I think the story of Phillip and the eunuch in Acts 8:30-31. Shalom!
|
|
|
Steven Barrett Member

| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 930 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18th, 2007 11:38 pm |
|

Darlene,
Excellent points. I've just about given up trying to explain to the people at the baptist church I volunteer at and my family attends. They don't get it because they don't want to get it. When I say I've just about given up, it only means I don't expect them to all of a sudden have a lightbulb epiphany when it comes to Baptism, or for that matter, Communion.
If they want to believe in an invisible church, let 'em. If they want to claim that Jesus was allegorical when He spoke about the bread and wine being His body and blood, all the points we can give 'em won't matter. Nothing more invincible than resolute ignorance!
I just shrug whenever I hear people come into the church, hear a sermon based on OT readings and there hasn't been a NT reading in the service -- and tell me about how much they've learned about the gospel. Sometimes I think I'm in a synagogue. For all their protestations about how little the Catholic Church "doesn't teach the gospel" we can always fall back on our "spiritual resource" books (which used to be called missals or missalletes) and we'still be miles ahead of them when it comes to really getting the gospel message.
Also, I'm back, breathing and keeping my fingers limbered up for the typing!
s.
____________________ For anybody interested in reading commentary from a Catholic's socially conservative/fiscally liberal viewpoint, go to my new blog at http://www.politicsramble.com/ .
|
|
|
Darlene Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20th, 2007 12:20 am |
|
Welcome back, Stephen. I was just thinking about you earlier today and wondering how you were doing. God Bless You, brother!
Darlene
____________________ The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Juan Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20th, 2007 11:31 pm |
|
I posted a brief thread in the Conversions section under "When Only One Converts" and I have now added more to my plate with a fallen-away catholic friend and her husband.
In short; the pastor of the Bible believing church that I went to last week with my husband based his sermom
sermom?
on Luke 13:14-17. He titled it TPF 30. (Like the suntan lotions SPF 15 ect) Tradition Proof Factor. In the sermon he went on to explain that Jesus rebuked this man because HIS TRADITIONS blinded him from seeing Jesus and therefore man-made traditions prevent us from being "saved." He calles them truth blockers. While he was on his tirade, we swept over all the tradions of men that harm us, worship on the Sabbath, baptism, rote prayer, works, communion and on and on and on. He mentioned Isiah 29:13 and used ROTE as the final word instead of MEN. And apparently, in the week before, he brought up the Mishna (sp) and used the "you cannot carry anything heavier than a fig on the Sabbath" to establish how man-made rules attached to Gods are a no-no ( I'm guessing, since I was not there)
I was sitting there thinking to myself, why doesn't anyone question this pastor in what he is saying. Most of his church is made up of fallen away catholics. When he hollered out that God does not care if your children are baptized, I thought I was goin to come unglued. Actually, I did come unglued cuz I have been unhinged since then, even to the point of arguing a point with a friend of mines husband in the local grocery store. Well, not arguing the point, but trying to understand from which stance is he (this man) and his pastor, coming from? They say they are to question everything that comes to them from the bible but they also believe they are indwelled with the Holy Spirit and therefore can discern for themselves what the Bible is truely saying. The friends of mines husband and I spoke about John 3:5 and I said that if Baptism was nothing, than why did Jesus say that to Nicodemus? He was giving me all kinds of other verses but I told him to email them to me and others since we went off on a tangent over Mary and the Saints ( AHHHHHHH my big mouth) and Traditions.
Here is a sampling of his verses and reasons. Can anyone help me understand from where he comes since I have always been Catholic and have no problem with the Church, Her Teachings or Her Authority.
Sure. First off, you must recognize that he comes from a Bible only mindset. In other words, if its not in the Bible he doesn't believe it. So, the first opportunity you have, you must call him and any other Bible only believer on this man made doctrine. You see, the doctrine known as the "Bible alone" or "Bible only" or "Scripture alone" or "Sola Scriptura" is not in the Bible. In fact, it contradicts the Bible. Here is the Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura and the Bible verses which the Sola Scriptura doctrine contradicts:
This is a definition of Sola Scriptura by Protestants:
2. We are Protestants
Although some evangelicals are now expressing a willingness to cooperate with Rome, the greatest unresolved issue is the issue of authority. We maintain, along with Luther, that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. What Luther means by sola scriptura is essentially what Wesley meant by homo unius libri (a man of one book). When challenged that he misunderstood the scriptural teaching on the new birth, Wesley wrote in his Journal, that he turned to his Greek New Testament "resolving to abide by 'the law and the testimony,' and being confident that God would hereby show me 'whether this doctrine was of God.'"
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hearchurch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
the
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
First off, he defined what Baptize really means-to submerge or immerse.
Not necessarily. Baptize, like all words, has a variety of meanings. Here is what the
Blue Letter Bible says about Baptize (i.e. baptizo).
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Pay close attention to #2. The Catholic Church understands that one can wash by immersion or by pouring. And the act of pouring is more suitable to washing away sin then immersion as is indicated in the Bible:
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Then he explained how John's Baptism was designated to lead the people to the coming messiah. Mat 3:6-7
That is correct. But note that the Messiah was baptized by John and on this significant occasion, God baptized the waters:
Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
And stated it is the only place in the Bible where baptism comes BEFORE believing. Mark 1:4 & 8.
He is wrong. People who don't believe do not recognize their sins. People who repent of their sins have belief in God as a prerequisite to that repentance. Those who came to John believed in God. They did not yet know Jesus, the Messiah, but John was preparing the way for Him.
He then tells me that the only reason Jesus was baptised was to identify Himself with the people He came to save. Matt:3:15
Jesus says why He was baptized:
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
It says nothing in this verse about being identified with anyone. Jesus did it to "fulfil all righteousness". What does that mean? That means that Jesus did it because it is the right thing to do. Jesus is our model. We must do as Jesus did. We must be Baptized. Jesus did it, we must also do it.
1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Matthew 8:22
But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
The friend then proceeds to tell me that in Matt 28:19 it shows us how we are to make BELIEVERS of all nations and then baptise them! He proceeds with an order of baptism AFTER BELIEVING. Acts 2:41 Act 8:12, 8:32-39 ect culminating with the reference on Romans 6:3,4 and how it only identified the believer with Christ.
In this he is laying a foundation for argument against the Baptism of infants. However, it is clear in Scripture and in Christian history that infants were always baptized. Here are a few proof texts and an excellent website explaining the Catholic position:
Acts 16:15
And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
1 Corinthians 1:16
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Acts 2:38
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
Apolonia's Catholic Apologetics, infant baptism
Well, first of all, it must be admitted that there is no specific reference to infant Baptism in the Scriptures. However, that's really beside the point, since there is nothing that speaks against infant Baptism either; and, as you and I were discussing at the Oratory, there is also no Scriptural account of Baptizing retarded or mentally-imbalanced people, yet the Church has always done so.....
Catholic biblical apologetics
Infant Baptism Roman Catholic Christians among other denominational Christians, e.g., Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc., believe in the efficacy and practice of baptizing infants.....
As for the intersession of the Saints, there is only one kind, the ones on earth! 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Tim 2:1 with a sprinkling of Romans 8:26 & 27 to show how it was never intended to be used by the Apostles until the fourth century therefore, it is not scriptural.
Is witnessing a form of intercession?
Hebrews 12:1
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
And what are these Saints who outnumber the opponent going to do? In what way do they give Elijah an advantage?
2 Kings 6:17
And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
And why does God put the Saints at our disposal?
Deuteronomy 33:2
And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
Deuteronomy 33:3
Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.
And how is it, that long dead, Abraham can receive a prayer from Dives (i.e. the Rich Man).
Luke 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Tim 2:1 with a sprinkling of Romans 8:26 & 27 to show how it was never intended to be used by the Apostles until the fourth century therefore, it is not scriptural.
Remember to read before and after the Protestant proof text to see what is the real context of the verse:
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Note how first, he asks for supplications and prayers for all men! Then he says there is only One Mediator? If there is only One Mediator, what good are our prayers? Has he not heard that we are the Body of Christ? Has he not heard that we are partakers of His nature? Has he not heard that God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven? Has he not heard that the prayer of a just man is very efficacious? And has he not heard that God is a God of the living? Which men's prayers are more efficacious? Those who are still struggling on earth or those face to face with God?
We have one Mediator so mediate!!! We are God's coworkers.
Romans 8:26 26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
If you read this correctly, this is actually a proof text for intercessory prayer. The Holy Spirit is in each of us and moreso in those in heaven. Therefore the Holy Spirit intercedes for all the Saints everytime we pray.
Mary was another hot button issue but I want to get to,
As usual. Ask them if they obey Scripture concerning Mary? Scripture says:
Luke 1:48
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
I've enjoyed answering this message, but I need to get some sleep. I'll get to the rest tomorrow, God willing.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Juan Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 12:11 am |
|
As for the intersession of the Saints, there is only one kind, the ones on earth! 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Tim 2:1 with a sprinkling of Romans 8:26 & 27 to show how it was never intended to be used by the Apostles until the fourth century therefore, it is not scriptural.
How what was never used?
Who explaines scripture?
That depends on what you mean.
The Bible says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). That means that the Church is the only infallible Teacher of God's Word on this earth. However, as you can see, I frequently explain Scripture to many people who don't understand it. Many people have explained Scripture to me in the past. The trick is to explain Scripture in accordance to the Teachings of the Church. If we stray from Church Teaching, we commit error:
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
Paragraphs 110 thru 113
110In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
112 Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
Acts 17:11 was his sticking point in that everything a pastor says has to be weighed by us so that we ourselves are not decieved.
That is true. We must judge everything a Protestant Pastor says against the Word of God. The Word of God comes to us in two modes. Tradition and Scripture. That is what Scripture tells us:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Tradition verses were Gal 1:13-17,
Galatians 1:13
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
This verse does not condemn "traditions". In fact, the faith of the Jews is a Tradition called Judaism. It was established by God:
Leviticus 10:11
And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
Deuteronomy 4:10
Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.
Traditions are passed on from one generation to the next. The Jewish faith is a Tradition. All religions are traditions and the true religions which God established on this earth are forms of Tradition. Traditions with a capital T are the Word of God. Traditions with a little t are traditions of men.
Matt 15,
Matthew 15 1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Tell the Pastor to read the verse carefully. Look at the words. This verse condemns not only "traditions" but "commandments". The key words here are "of men". Should we then ignore God's commandments? Oops! Tough question. Some Protestants believe that the 10 Commandments are no longer necessary. At least here you can narrow down this Pastor's point of view concerning Commandments.
However, if you read the verse carefully, you will see that Jesus is condemning "traditions" or "commandments" of men, which contradict God's Word. As I've shown before, a man made tradition like the one called "Sola Scriptura" is exactly what Jesus' condemned.
Mark 7
Mark's version of Matt 15.
Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Col 2:8
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditionmen, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. of
Again, not all traditions are condemned, only traditions of men which contradict the Word of God.
and 1 Peter 1:18.
1 Peter 1:18
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
This book is not called a Catholic book for nothing. Lets look first of all lets look at verse 12:
12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
And that thought is confirmed in the last verse:
25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
If the Word of the Lord, in other words, the Word of God, is PREACHED. It need not be read in the Bible. Therefore it is passed on in ORAL Tradition.
But what is Peter talking about when he says:
18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
He means that we are redeemed by the blood of Christ. Silver and gold which Jews gave at the altar nor the blood of goats and calves given in sacrifice could not redeem us. He did not condemn the "tradition of your fathers". He showed that the Old Tradition had passed away:
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Baptism and the Lords table (communion) are not considered mens traditions, they were commanded by Jesus as REMEMBERENCES.
Where does the Bible say that Baptism is a remembrance only?
The Lord's table is a remembrance. But the Eucharist is the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ body, blood, soul and divinity.
John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
The man finishes his great email
Great?
with Matt 15 and how the message was missed completely because of mens traditions. His final quote was "religion is a way man tries to get to God, Christianity is about God coming to man."
He is wrong. True religion is man's obedient response to God's call. Christianity is the Religion which God instituted on this earth in order that man should honor and come closer to God.
I am going to email this guy with some verses of my own but really, can I get him to see Truth when he will not acknowledge the Traditions handed down from the Apostles?
Maybe. You can at least try.
Would you approach this another way?
My favorite method is to break down each argument line by line. Post the email here and we can go over it together. Or you can send it to my email:
mdechristi@lycos.com
You can get valuable apologetical help at these websites:
Scripture Catholic
Bible Christian Society
Catholics United for the Faith
I believe the Cajun posted an entire list of apologetical websites before. I couldn't find them in my bookmarks just now.
Should I help him understand with verses from the Bible in support of what we do and why, or is that a waste of time.
Yes. That is the only way he'll listen to you. Honest Protestants have to admit that their own "tradition" precludes them from objecting to our interpretation of Scripture. They aren't "infallible". They'll argue, sure, but they can't claim infallibility since they forbid it to anyone. And so, we stand on Scripture even more surely than do they because we can then move from Scripture to the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church and show them that their "traditions" which contradict Catholic teaching are innovations which also contradict the early Church Fathers as well as Scripture Itself.
Your prayers would be most appreciated since my husband is a recent attender to this church
Of course. But remember that your prayers are most valuable in this ministry. You can't give what you don't have. Even if you expounded the Catholic faith beautifully, your message would not get across unless you also live your faith. We plant and water, God causes the growth.
and knows nothing about his Catholic Churchs teachings,
Start talking to him about your apologetical conversations. I always kept my wife abreast of my apologetical conversations on the internet. I've been doing it for many years. My older kids have grown up since I started. And one day, I overheard my child explaining to a Protestant friend, why we call our Priests "father". It turns out that when I was talking with my wife, my children were paying attention.
Its more pleasant if you talk to him in a noninstructional manner since most people don't want to be taught. And its much more pleasant than if you are not trying to unconvert him. It might become confrontational at that point.
but I think is furtile ground since he has all the peices to the puzzle but has not put it all together. Does that even sound like an excuse?
I've been there. He can come out of that situation. Perhaps with your help. Wouldn't that be great for your marriage? I also suggest you get this book and leave it around your house. Perhaps he'll pick it up and read it since, as they say, "sex sells".
Good News about Sex and Marriage
I am still trying to figure out why God has placed me here, at this time. You guys help me when I read other threads. Do you have any suggestions here?
To do His Will,
Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
I remain, still
Leaning on the Cross..................Jackie
May God bless you and grant you success.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Jackie Member

| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 11:25 am |
|
Juan,
The Lord has laid me low for the last few days. (sinus infect & bronchitis) On purpose I am sure, since as my husband will attest, I have waaayyy too much on my plate and never take time for myself.
In my heart of hearts, I think it was because I was soooo obsessed with how I was going to respond to my friends husband and stand up for my Faith. Without offending them (fallen away catholics). They make a very compelling argument if you are not already grounded in Truth. And I have to admit, I have never been in this situation before.
In times past, if a question came up or an issue raised with friends, we could discuss our differences but now, with my husband going to this Bible believing church with the hip pastor and his cool music, I'm up against a wall. I really have to tread lightly. I am surrounded by....others! My family was raised Catholic but my mom has past now, going on 4years. My dad lives in Fla. My brother, who is temporarily living with me from Mt is, I think a hindu or Buddh(sp?) My husband, who was raise in a non-practicing Catholic home has recently left the church for a more hip atmosphere, since he was not "getting it" at the RC Church in my home town. (I may have added to this since I agreed to go to the "Friendship Day" gathering in the local Bb church with the cool music and bagels! (tongue in cheek:?) I have no one to help me weed through this that is not going to come for my jugular! I digress, that's for the conversion thread but.......
I believe, that perhaps, I was laid low so that I could "wait" for your response. It is thru this venue that I can express myself and my position and get help. Correct help. Thank-you for guiding me and preparing me. With the Holy Spirit and the love of God the Father, I hope I can now prepare a healthy response so I do not offend my friend (or hurt my relationship with my husband.) He's somewhat open but argumentative when I "correct the pastor"
Juan, your response to my query is more than helpful. More than detailed. And for that I am greatful. Along with all the replys on this tread, I feel (alittle) more confident but still unnerved. I think I might take you up on your offer to review the return email before it is sent so that I am not talking out of turn or leaving an area open for misinterpretation or fault. Not everyone is interested in how I respond, I think?
Your prayers are appreciated and I am more than humbled by your concern and support. May God Bless you all.............. Jackie
PS Catholic to athiest to Catholic. Whered ya go and what brought you back?
Last edited on Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 11:36 am by Jackie
|
|
|
Juan Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 08:09 pm |
|
PS Catholic to athiest to Catholic. Whered ya go and what brought you back?
Its a very long story. The short version is that I believe it was the things I learned in Public School which led me to become atheist. And it was the conception and birth of our first child which brought me back. I still can't get over that miracle of life.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Trento Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| First Name: | Trento | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 07:28 pm |
|
Jackie wrote: I posted a brief thread in the Conversions section under "When Only One Converts" and I have now added more to my plate with a fallen-away catholic friend and her husband.
In short; the pastor of the Bible believing church that I went to last week with my husband based his sermom on Luke 13:14-17. He titled it TPF 30. (Like the suntan lotions SPF 15 ect) Tradition Proof Factor. In the sermon he went on to explain that Jesus rebuked this man because HIS TRADITIONS blinded him from seeing Jesus and therefore man-made traditions prevent us from being "saved." He calles them truth blockers. While he was on his tirade, we swept over all the tradions of men that harm us, worship on the Sabbath, baptism, rote prayer, works, communion and on and on and on. He mentioned Isiah 29:13 and used ROTE as the final word instead of MEN. And apparently, in the week before, he brought up the Mishna (sp) and used the "you cannot carry anything heavier than a fig on the Sabbath" to establish how man-made rules attached to Gods are a no-no ( I'm guessing, since I was not there)
I was sitting there thinking to myself, why doesn't anyone question this pastor in what he is saying. Most of his church is made up of fallen away catholics. When he hollered out that God does not care if your children are baptized, I thought I was goin to come unglued. Actually, I did come unglued cuz I have been unhinged since then, even to the point of arguing a point with a friend of mines husband in the local grocery store. Well, not arguing the point, but trying to understand from which stance is he (this man) and his pastor, coming from? They say they are to question everything that comes to them from the bible but they also believe they are indwelled with the Holy Spirit and therefore can discern for themselves what the Bible is truely saying. The friends of mines husband and I spoke about John 3:5 and I said that if Baptism was nothing, than why did Jesus say that to Nicodemus? He was giving me all kinds of other verses but I told him to email them to me and others since we went off on a tangent over Mary and the Saints ( AHHHHHHH my big mouth) and Traditions.
Here is a sampling of his verses and reasons. Can anyone help me understand from where he comes since I have always been Catholic and have no problem with the Church, Her Teachings or Her Authority.
First off, he defined what Baptize really means-to submerge or immerse. Then he explained how John's Baptism was designated to lead the people to the coming messiah. Mat 3:6-7 And stated it is the only place in the Bible where baptism comes BEFORE believing. Mark 1:4 & 8. He then tells me that the only reason Jesus was baptised was to identify Himself with the people He came to save. Matt:3:15
The friend then proceeds to tell me that in Matt 28:19 it shows us how we are to make BELIEVERS of all nations and then baptise them! He proceeds with an order of baptism AFTER BELIEVING. Acts 2:41 Act 8:12, 8:32-39 ect culminating with the reference on Romans 6:3,4 and how it only identified the believer with Christ.
As for the intersession of the Saints, there is only one kind, the ones on earth! 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Tim 2:1 with a sprinkling of Romans 8:26 & 27 to show how it was never intended to be used by the Apostles until the fourth century therefore, it is not scriptural.
Mary was another hot button issue but I want to get to, Who explaines scripture? Acts 17:11 was his sticking point in that everything a pastor says has to be weighed by us so that we ourselves are not decieved.
Tradition verses were Gal 1:13-17, Matt 15, Mark 7 Col 2:8 and 1 Peter 1:18.
Baptism and the Lords table (communion) are not considered mens traditions, they were commanded by Jesus as REMEMBERENCES. The man finishes his great email with Matt 15 and how the message was missed completely because of mens traditions. His final quote was "religion is a way man tries to get to God, Christianity is about God coming to man."
I am going to email this guy with some verses of my own but really, can I get him to see Truth when he will not acknowledge the Traditions handed down from the Apostles? Would you approach this another way? Should I help him understand with verses from the Bible in support of what we do and why, or is that a waste of time. Your prayers would be most appreciated since my husband is a recent attender to this church and knows nothing about his Catholic Churchs teachings, but I think is furtile ground since he has all the peices to the puzzle but has not put it all together. Does that even sound like an excuse?
I am still trying to figure out why God has placed me here, at this time. You guys help me when I read other threads. Do you have any suggestions here?
I remain, still
Leaning on the Cross..................Jackie
I like to take the historic approach. In the Catacombs of the first Christians
An excellent example of Baptism was the inscription of a child who died, of whom is recorded the date of birth, the date of Easter when he received Baptism, the Christian name the child took and the date of his death which was on the following Sunday, Domenica in Albis.
Here lies Paschasius, born with the name Severus, in Eastertide, Thursday 4th April. . . lived 6 years, received the grace on 21st April and left his white baptismal vestments in the sepulchre on the Octave of Easter.
There are many examples of chidl baptism and also Baptismal baths in the Catacombs.
The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe.
Rich in information on conferring the Sacraments is the epigraph cut on the sarcophagus of the couple Flavius Julius Catervius and Septimia Severina. Besides references to Baptism and Confirmation, there is added one to the Sacrament of Matrimony Confered by a Priest which is couched in poetic terms full of shining hope in the resurrection.
The Lord Almighty who with equal merit has joined you in the sweet bonds of Matrimony looks forever after your sepulchre, O Catervius. Severina is happy to be united with you forever. May you be raised together, with the grace of Christ, O you blessed ones, whom Probianus, the priest of the Lord washed with Baptism and anointed with sacred chrism."
In the Basilica of San Lorenzo fuori le mura near Rome was uncovered an epitaph (12) which affirms that verus in altari cruor est vinum (the wine on the altar is authentic blood) showing an explicit allusion to the teaching of Transubstantiation (Theol) Conversion of whole substance of eucharistic bread and wine into body and blood respectively of Christ. (The Oxford Dictionary).
The epigraph of Abercius , bishop in Phrygia who lived in the second century. Recalling his visit to Rome, he affirmed that he was assiduous in receiving the Eucharist. In the text is found symbolism of the fish that represents Christ that can be seen in many inscription.
"Christ brought me to Rome to contemplate the royal palace. . .Faith guided me everywhere and whenever I came to the banquet I was nourished with fish from the fountain, grown pure from the Holy Virgin, and given to friends that they might always be nourished.
.Requests for intercession of saints is as old as Chrisitanity itself.
I came upon a wall of hundreds of inscriptions asking the martyred Peter and Paul to pray for them. It was very moving.

Photo: Catacomb of St. Sabastiano: Fragments of a wall plaster from the triclia with
numerous graffiti that ask for the prayers of the martryed appostles, Peter and Paul.
St .Ignatius born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117. received his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves.
He constitutes one of the most important links between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth.
The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered in outline. Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God , the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii; Trall., c. iii); the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi; Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii); the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church, (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.
for Ignatius and the Asian churches to which he writes, it is taken for granted that each local Christian community is led by a single bishop assisted by a council of presbyters (priests) and several deacons. According to Ignatius, “you cannot have a church without these” (Tral. 3:1). This is significant in light of the many Protestant Reformers who denied the apostolic foundation of different ranks of Christian ministers and accuse the Church of later times of inventing such a hierarchy.
|
|
|
CajunRick Network Helper

| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5350 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
| | |