Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:07 pm**

kateliz wrote:
Noel wrote:30 minutes with the Catechism does not an understanding of Catholics make.
Actually, apart from reading a book directly comparing Church approved statements with Bible verses I probably did only spend thirty minutes or so on the Catechism. Maybe more, but since I'm not sure I won't claim it! However, that doesn't change what I did read in that time, and that it's unbiblical and supports salvation by kinds of works along with other serious fallacies. Besides, I don't need to understand Catholics themselves if what I'm disagreeing with here is the RCC's official stance. Like I tried to point out, a lot Catholics don't agree with a lot of what the RCC teaches as Catholic doctrine, (again info gotten from various places that I can't back up with facts.)

I was quite tempted to purchase that Vatican II book, but figured I'd first read the shorter books. Someday maybe I will read it.

Noel wrote:my faith is firmly in place...in the right place.
Don't mean to be picky, but are you referencing the Church here or God? If we so choose to belong to a denomination we should in no way hold to it as if it were another Bible, (but with maybe less credit given it.) We should never feel like our denomination of choice is something to rest on but should always keep both of our hands in God's own. It should never be that one hand is in God's and the other in a denomination's.

Make sure to constantly be on gaurd and ready to buck any unbiblical statements, (here I'm talking to everyone,) even if it came from the Pope, a council, or your own pastor. You've stated before that there are some things you disagree with that the Church teaches, so I'm not sure of your loyalty to it, but I'm guessing you, (as most Catholics- which is again an informed guess,) don't feel too much of a need to fully research your denomination's exact teachings; you trust them to a certain degree anyway. Be careful with that, even if it still doesn't affect your own relationship with God.

Noel wrote:Catechism is doctrine, not the word of God.
But doctrine should be based on the Word, and I find that the Catechism teaches doctrines that are in direct contrast with it. The book is trusted as if it's infallible, (at least by whatever percentage of Catholics, which I think would probably be a good number,) as well as what the Catholic churchs teach and as well as what the Pope says. (The Catechism itself says you are to do this, and yes puts them right up by the Bible, just a hair lower because they have to.) Yet, as you've stated, many Catholics don't bother to read these statements that they assume must be in complete agreement with the Bible. Worse than playing Russian roulette! More like voting in a government official just because they look good on TV. "Hey, as long as I don't have to stare at another ugly mug I don't care what they believe!" Not a precise analogy, but you hopefully get the point. Kind of like Christians who sit under their pastor as if everything he says is gold while they don't bother to read the Bible for themselves. Trusting a complete stranger to hold your purse while you run to the bathroom!

Noel wrote:It is a process, not a promise.
That's the RCC view on salvation anyway! In that one book I read they did a diagram of the process... oh boy! If you're interested in looking at it, (for free at a Christian bookstore- no need to buy for this purpose,) it's The Gospel According to Rome. Actually, I ordered it by mail. It might not be on the store shelves. Can't tell you the author now either.

You'll find few Catholics startled by it since most never need or use it.
"Need" was a poor choice. Like stated above, if you put yourself under a government official without doing background checks you may just be in danger! And I meant that if they read it. But I guess you'd also have to have read the Bible to get the startle you really should, and not enough Christians/nominal Christians do.

Noel wrote:It is a throwback to a heavily doctrine driven period.
A throwback that was 100% agreed to by Pope John Paul in... what was it, '95? Ten years if but a nano-second in terms of Catholic doctrine changes! And I do believe that we should all be pretty heavily "doctine driven." If we aren't then our (non)beliefs about who God is and how He works can have disatorous effects! Besides, isn't the Bible "heavily doctrine driven"? I would like to think so!

Noel wrote:Having said that, I note the constant use of the terms "Christians...or Catholics"
Yes you have but you need not worry. I merely did that, (though I guess now I probably shouldn't have,) to differentiate between Catholics and Christians of other denominations. I can't exactly say "Protestants" because that would imply they would all have serious issues with the Catholic church, which wouldn't have been fair to anyone.

Noel, I admire your firm stance on the Body of Christ being one, but unbiblical doctrines must be separated from lies in an outward show. Yes, (this sounds like that other thread going on,) denominations are sins as they divide the Body in certain ways, but... now what was I going to say? Oh well, maybe you can guess. Oh yeah! But these differences must be made clear to all for the sake of God's glory and others' spiritual health. We cannot ignore doctrines.

We must all come together to see what the Bible says without bias and a mind and heart willing to hear exactly what God has to say even if it hurts. This is our problem: we don't want to do that. We also want the freedom to ignore the facts that conclusively prove the Bible is God's infalliable Word, protected by Him in a most divine way throughout all it's years. We cannot come together to study Biblical truth if we believe it was written by men with issues.

And just one more question: if you're so against division of the Body, why belong to a denomination yourself? (I don't for this exact reason.) Or, at it sort of seems, (correct me if I'm wrong,) do you feel that the Catholic church is in fact the true church? And if that's the case, because RCC doctrine does in fact officially teach that anyone not a member of it is not a Christian, how do you reconcile that with believing nonmembers of the RCC are part of the Body you belong to?

And wouldn't you then have the same attitude Christians who choose to be members of the... what 1,000... other denominations would? You chide them for dividing the Body, but you yourself have the same mind as them in that you believe your denomination is the real one. A little hypocrisy there, maybe? (Don't be too offended by that, Sis. Jus' because you're a hypocrite doesn't mean you'll be thrown where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, now does it? And of course I'm never a hypocrite! )

Can you list any unbiblical doctrines? I'm reading the catechism right now and so far it's very spiritual and built upon the words of Christ.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:00 pm**

You guys ask big works from people! All the Scriptures backing up determinsim and all that's unbiblical in the Catechism! ("All" is how I feel, not what was asked for.) These were things I've thought about writing my own books on, (maybe,) and here you want me to present it all for fleeting conversation!

You must think I have a lot of time on my hands! Well, tonight I will make some!

Catechism wrote:1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

1263:By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.

1277: Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

According to all this I will go to hell. I have not yet been baptized. It should have been suggested to me when I was saved, but it wasn't. I was too young, being about seven I think, to have easily thought of it on my own, and so it didn't even occur to me. I was going to get baptized a few years ago but had to forego it for an out-of-state funeral. Haven't since because now I'm waiting to first practically receive a certain gift from God that's related to baptism, which He promised me. Still thinking on it all, though. Guess I'm going to hell for this!

Catechism wrote:1277: Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

1281: Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.

This "Church" that is spoken of is specified as the Catholic Church:

Catechism wrote:816: "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostels to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsits in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."

*Here I must repent of a misunderstanding I formerly taught as truth. I see now in 818 that the Catholic Church calls those "who have been justified by faith in Baptism" apart from the Catholic Church Christians and "with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." I hope the Catechism does not, and doubt it would, (but you can't assume,) contradict this statement elsewhere. I'm very sorry for having wrongly stated otherwise.

Here I will quote the whole section of 818:

Catechism wrote:"However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts tehm with respect and affection as brothers.... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

I was trying to prove the Catholic Church taught otherwise when I found that. I was directly proven wrong, and should be glad of it. It turns out that when the Catechism says "Church" it usually means the universal Body of Christ as any Christian should think of it, and distinguishes its own denomination by saying "Catholic Church." I wish it specified that at the beginning!

Oh, and it turns out I've read more than a half an hour of the book. I in fact read up to page 214 before starting this post, which is over a fourth of it. Guess I was wrong about that too! Now I'm almost a third done.

Well, I'm getting tired and don't want to start on another unbiblical doctrine in the Catechism. Baptism being necessary for salvation is it for today, folks!

You know, this little post was so much more work than it looks like!

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:23 am**

I'm not going to write them all out, but the CCC(Catechism of the Catholic Church) has many doctrines relating to earning salvation by works, losing salvation by works, and regaining salvation...by works. It claims that Baptism is the means by which Christ saves, not faith as is presented in the gospels and the epistles. The "regaining salvation" thing actually has a sacrament just for this purpose -- penance, which can only be administered by a priest of the Catholic Church(CCC paragraph 987).

Read these paragraphs of the CCC:
977, 2020, 1821, 2010, 2023, 987, 1446

Then read these passages of Scripture, which clearly contradict the above statements in the CCC:
Ephesians 2:1-10
Galatians 3:1-3
Isaiah 53:12, 64:6
I Corinthians 1:9, 6:19
I John 1:9, 19:30
I Peter 2:24
I Timothy 2:5
John 1:12
Mattew 28:18
Romans 3:24, 3:20, 3:28, 4:3, 4:5, 5:1, 5:9, 6:23, 10:9, 11:6
Titus 3:7

A quote from the School of Biblical Evangelism on James 2:24, one of the verses quoted by Catholics in defense of CCC doctrine:

At this point many Catholics appeal to James 2:24, which says, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." But the context of James is speaking of dead faith as opposed to living, saving faith. James states that if you "say" you have faith but have to works(James 2:14), that faith cannot save you because it is a dead faith (v. 17). In other words, mere intellectual acknowledgement of Christ is a dead faith that produces no regeneration and no change in a person's life. This faith does not justify. Rather it is only that real and believing faith in Christ that results in justification. Someone who is truly justified is saved and regenerated, and the results of true saving faith are manifested in the changed life of the one justified by faith alone. Real faith produces good works, but it isn't these works that save you. Good works are the <I>effect</I> of salvation, not the cause of it in any way and they certainly do not help anyone keep their salvation.

That's just to get that potential argument out of the way before it springs up.

Noel wrote:You'll find few Catholics startled by it(the CCC) since most never need or use it.

The catechism is the RCCs most basic canon. If you don't need it, never use it, and your personal beliefs diverge from it on some pretty major issues...I'm not understanding why you're a Catholic. It's pretty obvious at this point that claiming loyalty to both Christ and the Catholic church is a form of straddlng the fence. The RCC is not the church established by Christ, and its most fundamental book of official RCC doctrines confirms this when its claims are viewed in light of Biblical truth.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:04 pm**

Once4all wrote:
Mastermind wrote:
bizzt wrote:
Mastermind wrote:Catholics ARE Christian. I have no idea why people keep saying they're not. -____________-
Some are but alot miss the boat. They believe in the Church but don't understand the relationship to Jesus that is preached by that Church
A lot of Christians in general "miss the boat". Frankly, I don't know why people hate catholics so much. They have faith in Jesus, except there are things expected of them. People seem to have the impression that Catholics believe they are saved only by works. I know they don't think that, they think they need both.

When you said that "people hate Catholics" I don't know if you meant other Christians or people in general. I don't know any Christians who "hate" Catholics. Some may feel very strongly against the doctrines the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) teaches. Praying to Mary (or to dead people in general) is probably one of the biggest problems non-Catholics have with the RCC. You hear of things like "consecrating yourself to Jesus through Mary." There is no mediator between the Christian and Jesus. The insertion of Mary into such a status is simply not biblical, that I can see.

In Him,
Once4all

Actually I agree that some people seem to hate Catholics. Its an issue that has bothered me a lot lately. They don't seem to have any desire to understand why they believe in having faith and works. Instead they tell them they're going to hell because they don't believe that faith alone justifies, even though John 2:24 literally says "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. "

I'm a protestant, but I really don't understand why certain people seem to feel this way. They support their own doctrines more than they do the bible and more than they try to reach other Christians with understanding and love. If they really felt Catholics were going to hell because they believe in works too they should encourage them to have faith and stop believing in works. Telling them their going to hell sounds to me like anger and purposefully not understanding to me. I had a very long discussion with someone recently who feels Catholics or anyone who believes in faith and works should be told their going to hell, and I feel very beaten up about it.

The way I see it, we are saved by the grace of God, not because we have faith to move mountains and not because we have such wonderful works.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:24 pm**

I posted my message before I read the stuff from the Catachism. As for people being baptised, baptism is a public statement of faith, so I can understand it to some degree since if we recognize Christ here on earth, he will recognize us in heaven.. But people are also saved by faith apart from baptism like the guy on the cross.

I still think its wrong to tell a catholic they aren't christian or are going to hell. We don't know that.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:29 pm**

kateliz wrote: According to all this I will go to hell. I have not yet been baptized.
!

And the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:33 pm**

Ocho, I was refering to the Catechism, which is the written beliefs of the RCC, when I said "according to this."

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:34 pm**

kateliz wrote:Ocho, I was refering to the Catechism, which is the written beliefs of the RCC, when I said "according to this."

Regardless, they don't teach it.

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:23 pm**

The Catechism itself teaches on behalf of the RCC.

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:27 pm**

kateliz wrote:The Catechism itself teaches on behalf of the RCC.

But do you have evidence the Catholic Church teaches that not getting a baptism means going to hell?

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:31 pm**

I've already provided that- I've quoted the Catechism saying so.

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:55 pm**

kateliz wrote:I've already provided that- I've quoted the Catechism saying so.

You assert that the Vatican teaches baptism is a requirement for salvation, but Catholics believe that their baptism, which is done during infancy, is "total forgiveness of past sins" as quoted on the religious tolerance website.

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:14 pm**

What religious tolerance website? Are you quoting a statement that the RCC has officially okay-ed? They like to put their seal on statements before something is believed about them. And why don't you respond directly to the quotes from the Catechism I provided? They're directly "from the horse's mouth."

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:35 pm**

kateliz wrote:What religious tolerance website? Are you quoting a statement that the RCC has officially okay-ed? They like to put their seal on statements before something is believed about them. And why don't you respond directly to the quotes from the Catechism I provided? They're directly "from the horse's mouth."

haven't heard of it? Anywhere, here's where your flak of Catholicism may have been misdirected:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.htm

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized. The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/romancatholicism.html

Baptism, necessary for membership in the church, is administered to infants and adults by pouring or immersion; anointing with the holy chrism in the form of a cross follows baptism. Baptism 'Removes original sin" and is thus the point at which a baptised infant is 'born-again' in Roman Catholicism. However, those who genuinely desire Baptism or who suffer death for their Christian faith, but die before they can receive the Sacrament, are said to have received 'Baptism of desire' or 'Baptism of blood'. As for those who are not baptised before they die, we commend them in our prayers to the infinite mercy of God.

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:56 pm**

You haven't thrown down my argument by that:

kateliz wrote:
Catechism wrote:1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

1263:By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.

1277: Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

According to all this I will go to hell. I have not yet been baptized. It should have been suggested to me when I was saved, but it wasn't. I was too young, being about seven I think, to have easily thought of it on my own, and so it didn't even occur to me. I was going to get baptized a few years ago but had to forego it for an out-of-state funeral. Haven't since because now I'm waiting to first practically receive a certain gift from God that's related to baptism, which He promised me. Still thinking on it all, though. Guess I'm going to hell for this!

Evidence for God from Science

catholics/christians