ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL

But no church is perfect. Only Christ is perfect.

And if you find one that is perfect, don't go there - you'll ruin it :P

Baptism is a sign and seal of our salvation by God's grace; not a requirement for it. There is no "requirement" for our salvation other than Jesus Christ on the cross and the resultant gift of faith in Christ which God bestows on His own by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Well, so says the good Dr.! But:.

John 3:5 - Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Water is necessary. The Holy Ghost is necessary. Both conditions must be fulfilled for salvation...it is explicitly and directly taught here.

Interesting discussion reference placemarker.

The events of Acts 2:38 are contemporaneous since it is by the gift of the Holy Spirit that we are even able to repent and believe because all men are fallen and their wills have been turned away from the face of God by the stain of original sin.

All good things, most especially a true sorrow and repentance for our sins, an understanding of God's word by a mind "renewed" and a heart "quickened" by the Holy Spirit, and the belief in Christ as Saviour and King, are all gifts from God to His family to bring them to Him.

"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" -- 2 Timothy 2:25

Ephesians I explains the "order" of our salvation --

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" -- Ephesians 1:4-11

So why concentrate on the “false” teachings of fellow Christians when there are a growing number of Islamists? For the life of me, I will never understand why so many non-Catholics have to take so many shots at the Catholics.

Modern Catholics don't generally cut your head off when you disagree with them

For the life of me, I will never understand why so many non-Catholics have to take so many shots at the Catholics.

Because there's a need to justify their existence.

lol.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." -- Romans 8:28

This is the operative part - what Peter learned in the conversion of Cornelius:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

It is not what man does, but what God does.

A false prophet can dunk or sprinkle people until he turns blue - or a religious bigot can refuse baptism until he turns blue - but that will not prevent God. Only the blood of Christ saves, only He baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. - John 1:33

Again, Peter's reaction:

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? – Acts 11:15-17

To God be the glory!

WM:How did Marcion come up with his proposed canon? What exactly were the beliefs of the Paulicians or Cathars?

C: I'm not sure of the answer. But we perhaps know enough to say that the beliefs of the Cathars and Paulicians were not the same as the beliefs of, say, modern Baptists.

I'm not trying to claim one continuous line of modern Baptists. I'm illustrating that documents/writings that conflicted with the dominant church were destroyed. The result is it is very hard to put together complete pictures of these Christians that were outside of that church.

It is often put forward that the RCC was the only church and what the "church fathers" thought was always the case. It is clear that this is not true. Those that disagreed often had their writings destroyed "to protect the church".

Christ promised the Church would endure till the end of time.

This is really the key point. Is the church a physical institution, or is it the body of believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit? I think the latter, I believe you think the former.

It therefore is repugnant to Christian sensibilities (and contrary to Scripture) that the *entire* Church for hundreds of years be wrong about a theologically crucial issue.

If the church is the body of indwelt believers there is no reason to believe they would all be wrong on a theological issue such as Baptism. The Anabaptists believed in adult baptism after a profession of faith, which is the clear model found in Scripture.

The only way the entire body of the church could end up wrong on a theological issue is if all authority were invested in a man, or group of men. Humans are fallible, even if they claim not to be.

Modern Catholics don't generally cut your head off when you disagree with them

LOL! Good point.

Here’s a short and concise history of the biblical canon that I composed for a class some time ago. It may be helpful in wrapping your head around the “big picture.”:

SCRIPTURAL ROOTS: HISTORY OF THE BIBLICAL CANON
© 2007, Brad Noel

c. BC 1500-50: The books which now make up the “Old Testament” are composed.

c. BC 250-50: Jews in Alexandria translate the Jewish Scriptures into Greek. This translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, is widely used in Jewish communities throughout the Roman world until c. 100 AD. There is no notion of a strict “canon,” or official list, of books in the Jewish Bible.

c. AD 29: Jesus is crucified, rises from the tomb and ascends into heaven. Christians continue to meet for prayers and to celebrate the earliest form of the Mass, following the Jewish lectionary custom with its set readings for specific days. The readings for these liturgies come from the only “scriptures” they know - the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. Almost all New Testament references to “scripture” refer not to the entire Bible that we now possess, but to the Jewish Scriptures, our Old Testament.

c. 35: Saul, a pharisee, witnesses the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr.

c. 36: Jesus appears to Saul near Damascus, converting him to the Faith. Saul, now Paul, would go on to compose the majority of the letters that make up the New Testament.

c. 50 - 100: The Gospels, letters and the Apocalypse (i.e. Revelation) that would eventually be canonized as the “New Testament” are written in these years. The first to be composed were likely Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians (c. 50), and the last were likely John’s three letters (c. 90-100). Mark’s was probably the first gospel to be written (c. 67) and John’s was the last (c. 90). Evidence suggests that all of these books were originally composed in Greek, the lingua franca of the era, though some biblical experts argue that the earliest version of Matthew may have been penned in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The four gospels were written for different local church centers and can be identified stylistically with certain regions: Mark with Rome, Matthew with Antioch and greater Syria, Luke with the churches Paul founded in present-day Greece and John with Ephesus and the churches of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). By the end of this period, local churches have begun reading these Gospels and letters alongside the Old Testament readings during their liturgies.

c. 80 - 200: In response to the growing popularity and influence of the Church among both Jews and “God-fearers” (Gentiles who regularly attend synagogue services and profess a monotheistic belief), Jewish leaders begin to cultivate ideas designed to preserve Judaic beilief and Hebrew culture. During this period the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures which, up to this time had been highly regarded and widely used in synagogues throughout the Mediterranean, came to be rejected by Jewish leaders. A Jewish canon (i.e. an official list of the books that may be read during public liturgies and may be used in lectionaries) began to take shape during this period with a presupposed rejection of Helenic influence. Prayers cursing the minim (pagans, most likely referring to Christians) also begin to appear in synagogue liturgies during this time.

c. 90 - 95: Evidence from some of the writings of the Church Fathers (the generations of Church leaders that immediately followed the apostles) suggests that by this time, Paul’s ten letters had been collected together into a single volume which circulated among many early churches. Also by this time, the four Gospels began to be circulated to other churches outside of their individual regions of origin.

c. 140 - 144: A layman named Marcion founds a popular heretical sect in Rome which disallows the reading of the Old Testament for the belief that the god of the Jews is evil and is a different being from the New Testament god. The Marcionites allow liturgical use of only one Gospel (Luke, edited of any Jewish references) and ten of Paul’s letters. His actions force leaders of the Catholic Church to discuss, for the first time, the establishment of an official canon of Scripture (i.e. a list of books that may be read during the Mass).

c. 170: The so-called “Muratorian canon” is composed at Rome. It lists the books approved to be read in the Catholic Churches within Rome. The Letters of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Hebrews are not found on this list. However, the Apocalypse of Peter is.

173: A Christian convert named Tatian leaves the Church and joins a Gnostic sect in present-day Syria. He then composes a one-volume synthesis of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke called the Diatessaron. This text becomes so popular that it is adopted for use during Catholic liturgies in the region, and is practically the only “Gospel” used in Syria during the third and fourth centuries.

c. 180: New Testament books are first translated into Latin and Syriac around this time. By now, twenty-one books of our present New Testament enjoy status as undisputably legitimate for public/liturgical use throughout the Catholic Church. Added to these, some local churches also continued to read from other early Christian writings during their liturgies. The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve continues to be used in Syria, the Epistle of Barnabas is popular in Alexandria, the Shepherd of Hermas in Carthage, and the Apocalypse of Peter in Rome. In time, these documents would come to be seen as useful and edyfying for the faith, but they failed to gain eventual widespread acceptance as inspired Scripture in the universal Church.

c. 200: Spurred by the rise of heresies such as Marcionism and gnosticism, local churches begin to make official declarations about the documents they read during their liturgies. This new body of Christian literature only gradually imposed its authority on the church. In spite of the practice of publicly reading from the newer documents in services of worship, there is no clear, early evidence that they were considered to be equal in authority to the scriptures of the Old Covenant. If the term “Scripture” could be applied to Paul’s letters (2 Peter 3:16) or later to the Gospels (II Clement, Justin), not until the end of the second century were the expressions “inspired writings,” “Scriptures of the Lord,” and “the Scriptures” used indiscriminately of both the Old Testament and the core of the New. At this time the designation “the New Testament” made its appearance and ultimately displaced all earlier names for the collection of the new books. Henceforth it was no longer a question of the nature of the canon, but only of its extent.

367: Athanasius (d. 373), bishop of Alexandria (Egypt), in his Easter letter of 367, lists the books which he (and his church) recognized as divinely-inspired Scripture. This is the earliest extant list of the books of the New Testament which exactly mirrors today’s New Testament canon number and order.

382: The Council of Rome is called by Pope Damascus (d. 384) who argues that the Church should come to a definite agreement on the canon of Christian Scripture. His appeal is heeded by a number of local councils and synods throughout the Church which produce and publish lists of the books which are read and venerated as Scripture in their respective regions and churches.

393: The Council of Hippo (in North Africa), led by Augustine, lists a canon of New Testament writings which also mirrors our own.

397: The Third Council of Carthage, a regional church council in North Africa, publishes a listing of the “divine Scriptures” which, again, is the same as our present canon (Old and New Testaments). This complete canon was sent by the council to Rome for the approval of Pope Innocent (d. 417). This same canon would later be re-confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II in 787) and remains, to this day, the canon of Scripture recognized by the Catholic Church as well as the Eastern Orthodox churches.

c. 400: Jerome (d. 420), working on a translation of the Old and New Testaments into Latin, argues that, since the Jews only recognize 39 books in their Old Testament, the Church should only include these books in their canon as well. He wants to exclude seven books (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or “Ecclesiasticus”], and Baruch) from his Latin translation of the Scriptures. Pope Damscus (d. 384) appeals to unbroken and widespread Christian Tradition for the retention of all 46 books in the Old Testament. Jerome includes the disputed books, referring to them as “apocrypha,” or “hidden” books since they are not found in the modern Jewish canon.

1536: Martin Luther (d. 1546), in his German translation of the Bible, removes four New Testament books (namely Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation) from their normally-accepted place. He places them together at the end of his New Testament, according them a status as “less than canonical.” He also moves the seven books mentioned above (the so-called “apocrypha”) to an appendix.

To God be the glory, not man!

Indeed! God gets all the glory because of who He is! But He evidently chooses to share His glory. That shared glory is derivative, and utterly dependent on His. Nevertheless, do we not read constantly how we are to "reign with Him" (e.g. 2Timothy 2:12), be "glorified with Him" (e.g. Romans 8:17), and that we are to "receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love Him" (e.g. James 1:12)? What do these terms mean besides what is clearly understood from human experience? The problem with your position is that, in order to show the absolute sovereignty of God, you must go too far and contradict direct Scriptural passages in the process! What a dreary place your Heaven must be! A bunch of whitewashed souls whose stench is merely covered over, not washed away, who sit around doing nothing for all eternity except thank God that they are not in Hell!

No one of the Catholic Faith denies that only God has glory out of His own essence. But He clearly bestows glory on His elect. He also can give them (both angels and saints) missions here on earth, with authority that is no less real simply because it, too is "derivative." You folks rail on and on about apparitions of Mary, for example, complaining that she has the very authority reserved to God alone. Well, she doesn't really; in actual apparitions, she merely comes as His ambassador, by His will, and thereby carries His authority with her while on the errand in question. But she, and other saints and angels, while they are undertaking such missions here on earth, are only doing things consistent with what can be found in Hebrews 13;2. And, to the extent that they perform similar ministrations for us in Heaven, as in Revelation 4:8, they are merely doing what God has ordained by way of condescending to their intercession.

The Catholic position puts the glory of His saved angelic and human creation into its proper perspective. That glory is real, and we are not threatened, as non-Catholics seem to be, with the notion that we must acknowledge only God's glory in order to show the obvious: that His glory is supreme and absolute. Further, we are not so threatened by all of this that we must thereby deny clear Scripture (His own word!) in the process.

[ Do you mind my asking what church you go to, so I’m not accusing you of things that you don’t adhere to? ]

I don't attend a specific assembly I attend them all.. Even RCC at times.. rarely EO.. but mostly free assemblys of one sort another.. or none.. I fellowship seven days a week.. not on Sundays.. I am free to walk in and walk out of all of them..

If the water is what saves us, then we would all have to make pilgrimages to Israel and bathe in the Jordan river, like other sects believe, such as those in India who have to go swim in the Ganges once before they die..

It is faith in Christ, as our Savior, that saves. Baptism is an outward expression of that belief. Which is why we are buried with Him in baptism so that we are alive in Him forevermore. He is the Living Water.

As Origen (A.D 185-253) tells us,...

All I had to do was see a "church father" quoted to not be swayed.

I do value their thoughts, but not near as much as Scripture.

If you go throughout Scripture you do not find babies being baptized. One instance exists where it's said "the entire household", but it is not clear who comprised the household. All clear examples were first believe and then be baptized. If you look at Acts though you will find the Holy Spirit descend on believers before they are baptized. Thus the act of baptism is not saving these believers.

If baptism does not impart Grace, baptizing babies can serve to bring a child into the church and is a good thing. If baptism does impart Grace then baptizing babies is bad because Grace is being bestowed upon someone who may or may not believe and the power of a human priest is believed to be greater than God.

It is the beside the point, sandyeggo. Paul himself rarely baptized anyone in water - that was not his calling.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. - I Corinthians 1:12-17

And again,

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. – I Corinthians 3:1-7

As hosepipe is wont to say, you MUST be born again. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is what matters and that is only done according to the will of God.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:5-8

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[ Then why did they lay hands on Paul? ]

Formality.. God already layed hands on Saul..

[ Excuse me, how did Matthias end up taking the place of Judas? Or is that part redacted in your Bible?]

Mattias was a mistake(they were young and newbies).. There should be 12 apostles God replaced Judas.. with Saul..

[ If Apostleship can't be handed down, I assume you believe that Original Sin can't be handed down, either. ]

Thats ridiculous.. and a non sequiter..