The American Spectator

Appleby| 1.9.12 @ 7:01AM

I am going to look for this book (which I can pretty much guarantee will not be available in Canada); while I am unemployed I would like to go into the subject more deeply, as I quite agree that these are important things for the Catholic in the pew (particuarly those who are vainly trying to represess their toddlers by offering them things to throw and letting them climb over the pews, not to mention scream and struggle to get down and run about the sanctuary) to consider in those moments when the children are asleep or at school.

Not to mention Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, who seem to think Catholic is something you are, not something you do.

Gina| 1.9.12 @ 8:39AM

I have never understood the concept of "grace." Can someone enlighten me?

L. Ross| 1.9.12 @ 9:00AM

Gina:

I don't know about the Catholic teachings on grace, but in the Protestant branch of the church, it goes something like this.

1. God is pure, and cannot abide sin in his presence. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, all men have had the knowledge of good and evil. And all men have at some point in their lives chosen evil. All have sinned. No one is fit to enter the kingdom of heaven.

2. Even though God cannot abide sin, he still loved his creation, man. He wanted us to be able to spend eternity with him. However, man is not divine, and no human sacrifice can atone for the evil that we do. God sent his son, Jesus, to be a sacrifice and bear the sin of the entire world.

3. Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are the actual physical demonstration of his acceptance of the sin of the world, his conquering of death which we will share in heaven, and his absolute divinity.

4. When you put your faith in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, when you accept that alone can save you from your sin, that you are incapable of "earning" your way into heaven, you are then receiving "grace", as in mercy, clemency, or pardon.

5. When you belive that Christ's sacrifice is enough, when you acknowledge that you are powerless to save yourself, God grants you forgiveness, "grace", and washes away your sin. Not only is the forgiveness of sin the Grace of God, but also the ability to believe, to have the faith that this is happening without a burning bush, without an outward change, with no scientific evidence of anything happening. That is the larger grace in my opinion.

I hope this helps.

james p.| 1.9.12 @ 9:50AM

Mr. (or Miss) Ross:

I find nothing in what you write that the Catholic Church would take issue with. Well written. Gina, give your life to Jesus!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 10:06AM

You forgot one critical component:

You MUST be baptized through immersion in water to receive the Holy Spirit.

Simply acknowledging Christ as Lord is insufficient; Satan acknowledges Him and no who He is.

To those who say that Baptism is not required because it is a " Work", pay no attention: They are wrong.

Baptism is not a "work"; it is a command. There's not a single instance of new Christians in the New Testament receiving the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being baptized.

Additionally, the "sprinkling" of infants is NOT Baptism. First, it's not immersion. Second, infants are sinless and innocent. Third, becoming a Christian is a matter of individual choice; infants are not capable of making that choice for themselves, which is why they need to be fully baptized as adults to receive the Holy Spirit.

W| 1.9.12 @ 11:11AM

I have some questions, not to argue, but to know:

Where does it say in the Bible that infants cannot be baptized, and only adults can be baptized.

Where in the Bible does it say what age one becomes an adult to make the choice?

What if a person is unable to make a choice because of a mental illness or deficiency, can that person never be baptized and a Christian?

Are infants born without any sin?

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 11:45AM

Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.

In other words, use the Bible as your guide. It is the ONLY reliable guide for Christians to refer to.

In that regard, there are no instances of infant Baptism in the Bible. Therefore, we should not conclude that it is appropriate, and should not consider it to be binding. If parents want a ceremonial baptism as a "Christening," then whatever, it's just a ceremony, it's not a real Baptism.

In the Bible, all who are Baptized are of an age where they can make their own decisions and decide for themselves. Generally speaking, this is adulthood, but since people in antiquity probably had to "grow up" sooner than people today (life was hard), some who took up Christianity may have been younger than adults. Regardless, they weren't children, and they certainly weren't infants. The Church I attend has Baptized adults and young teens - and that's a decision made by the person being Baptized, in consultation with their parents (if they're

W| 1.9.12 @ 11:52AM

" Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.

In other words, use the Bible as your guide. It is the ONLY reliable guide for Christians to refer to."

This is your interpretation, which is fine for you, and if that is what you belive, it is your business.
But it is your opinion and interpretation., others may disagree with you, and their opinions and interpretations are as valid as yours.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 12:13PM

Opinions are fine...but what are they based on?

If they're based on comfy feelings, or simply something you or the church you attend has "always done," you might want to explore that.

FYI, it's not about what "works for me," or my "interpretation." There are things that are correct, and things that are not. The Bible is the ONLY reliable source for Christians on Christian history and doctrine. If you or your church use another source, on what is it based?

And if your source contradicts the Bible...which do you trust?

W| 1.9.12 @ 12:48PM

Your answer is your are correct because you say you are correct because you read the Bible and interpret it the way you do. You are back to your opinion and interpretation as to what the Bible means. Unless you have some authority to be the sole and infallible judge of the Bible, then we are back to your opinion, which again is fine for you, but not necessarily for others.
You have interpreted the Bible to allow only for adults. Then you go on to define what is an adult based on your opinions as to what an adult was then and is now. And what about the ones who are not capable of making a rational decision, such as the mentally ill, they will never be bapitzed?

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 12:47PM

Soooo...there were effectively no Christians for 1500 years after the Apostles?

As much as I believe that adult baptism is theologically more correct, there is also the issue that Infant baptism was the practice of the church until after the Reformation. How do you address that?

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 1:20PM

I never said there were "no Christians for 1,500 years after the Apostles," do please, don't put words in my mouth.

Second, you confuse Catholicism with Christianity; they are NOT synonymous. That's not to say that Catholicism does not posess vestiges of Christianity because it most certainly does. Unfortunately, so much if Catholic Doctrine is irreconcilable with scripture that it can't be justified.

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 1:23PM

Unfortunately, that's what you are practically insinuating. If most people were baptized as infants, then where were the Christians? Were there only a handful?

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 1:52PM

No, it isn't.

Why do you assume (wrongly) that a Christian in antiquity was, by definition, a Catholic??

They weren't.

Baptism by immersion was the practice in the Gospels and after the events they describe.

Again, stop putting words in my mouth, and check your premises.

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 2:18PM

Where in the first 1500 years after the Biblical era was adult baptism a regular practice?

TrueBlue| 1.9.12 @ 7:14PM

The practice of infant baptism came about because of the high infant mortality rate. People were afraid their newly born child would be doomed to Hell if they weren't baptised, because of a lack of understanding at the time. The Church, either mistakenly or because it was nigh impossible to get such a message out back then, baptised infants as a way to assuage the fears of their congregation. The Confirmation they go through (generally between the 6th and 10th grade) these days would be closer to the baptism spoken of in the Bible.

David T| 1.9.12 @ 12:11PM

Excellent questions, W!

Of course, the Bible does not say only adults can be baptized. Infant baptism was widely practiced in the early church.

Again, the Bible does not establish an age "to make the choice". In the Catholic Church, the rite of confirmation--the strenghtening and empowering of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer--is typically held when children reach their early teens, but the sacrament is open to any adult believer who chooses to be baptized and confirmed as a member of the church.

People who lack the mental capacity to make a choice are a special case that underscores the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins.

Infants are born in original sin and thus require baptism to be saved.

I would add one more thing: The Bible does not say immersion is the sole form of baptism. The church has held all three forms--immersion, effusion, aspersion--to be equally efficacious.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 12:18PM

"Of course, the Bible does not say only adults can be baptized. Infant baptism was widely practiced in the early church."

That's completely untrue. If you claim it is true, then produce the Biblical passage that support it.

And when you say "the Church," you're referring to the Catholic Church. Sorry, but Catholic Doctrine is NOT synonymous with Christian doctrine. The fact that the Catholic Church holds all "3 forms" equal is meaningless, since there is no instance of sprinkling effusion/aspersions in the Bible, so no proof source to back up this claim.

It's a made-up claim. It has no validity.

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 12:49PM

Actually, all we know is that infant baptism kind of emerges as a general practice in the first century or so in Christianity. No, it isn't "explicit" in the Bible, though there is a good argument and deduction which can be made that household baptisms included children.

It just wasn't an issue until the anabaptists came along after the Reformation.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 3:26PM

Doctor Right,

"The fact that the Catholic Church holds all "3 forms" equal is meaningless, since there is no instance of sprinkling effusion/aspersions in the Bible, so no proof source to back up this claim."

"25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances." - Ezekiel 36:25-27

The Greek baptizo does not always mean immersion. Christ speaks of His baptizo in blood (cf Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50.) Christ was not immersed in blood.

When a Pharisee notices that Christ did not wash (ebaptisthē) His hands before eating, Saint Luke uses a variant of baptizo (cf. Luke 11:38.) Showing that baptism didn't always mean immersion.

Also, Saint Paul was baptized in Ananias' house (cf. Acts 9:18; 22:16.) Did Ananias have a bathtub in which to immerse Paul?

Sprinkling and pouring are both completely valid forms of baptism.
God Bless!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 5:23PM

Who put this Spirit into Ezekial?

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 7:04PM

Doctor Right,

"Who put this Spirit into Ezekial [sic]?"

I'm not sure that I understand the question. God is not saying that He will put His Spirit into Ezekiel.

Chapter 36, of the book of Ezekiel, is a prophecy about the coming of Christ. God tells Ezekiel, to tell Israel, that they will be returned to the land, after the exile, and prosper. God says that they will not have to worry about being conquered, and they weren't, until, Alexander the Great.

God then says that He "will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them" (v. 23).
And then, "For I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land" (v. 24).

Verses 25-27 are clear references to baptism, when we get our "new hearts," i.e., circumcised hearts. And, baptism is how Christ proclaimed His public ministry, at the Jordan.

According to these verses, sprinkling is the way God put it. And the other Scriptures which I listed show that immersion was not required.
God Bless!

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 7:39PM

Nick, you are grasping at straws. Each of the words of scripture are significant in themselves.

"for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21

The words are God's words, not the man's, and to posit that the word baptizo, which literally means "immerse" does not always means immerse, is silly in the extreme. When the men responding to Peter's sermon on Pentecost asked what they must do to be saved Peter responded "... Repent, and be baptized...." An infant can not repent as it is an act that requires the will of a person that has seen the way of sin is unacceptable to God and that a change must be made. This requires the ability to account and take responsibility for actions. This is beyond the ability of an infant. God knows when the ability for such occurs in the life of a child, but an adult can not make that choice for them. They must make it themselves.

The idea of Original Sin is something we have been saddled with only since Augustine. We are all affected by Adam's original sin because we are born cut off from God by his act. because we are all sinful people we will of our own free will and volition ratify Adam's disobedience and so fall guilty of sin ourselves. Because Augustine's preChristian dalliances in Neoplatonism and Mannicheeism, he fell into a lot of error that has been perpetuated in Roman Catholicism (he is regarded as the first Roman Catholic Theologian), Calvinism and Methodism. It was Augustine's idea that unbaptized children were damned, and it was part of the Augustinian package that was carried to its logical extreme conclusion in Calvinism (John Calvin did not completely abandon Roman Catholicism).

I have the Roman Catholic Catechism in both Electronic form and hard copy. Some of it is pretty good, but the rest is damnable. To get a greater schemozzle of error and heresy you have to go to Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness Theology.

This is not a matter of my opinion against yours, it goes to the heart of what the Bible says in itself. If Roman Catechism is correct, then God contradicts himself. Given that, if Roman Catholicism is correct, then there is no reason to choose Christianity over Islam, over Hinduism, or any other religion.

To be a Roman catholic means shutting down your brain when it comes to Theology and believing what the Magisterium says about Theology. That also contradicts scripture, which appeals to the reason of the believer and gives riches that have never be plumbed by the human mind.

One thing I would suggest before you get into arguments about Theology and try appealing to Greek - learn something about foreign languages, and pay attention to how your own language is structured. Your attempt at Luke using a variation of baptizo in reference to washing hands is utterly amateurish and exposes your gross ignorance of the use of language.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 1:33AM

Quartermaster,

You begin by claiming that my argument regarding baptizo is "is silly in the extreme" and then proceed to argue about infant baptism and Original Sin, two subjects that I never broached with Doctor Right.

Was that supposed to be some kind of rebuttal? "Baptizo means immersion, because I say that it does, and because infants can't repent, and because Original Sin was invented by Saint Augustine."
I'm sorry, but I just don't find those arguments very persuasive. Also, baptizo was used to describe washing, this is a fact.

Plus, your logic is flawed. The men who asked Saint Peter what they needed to be saved, weren't infants. Were they? So, Peter's answer doesn't apply to infants.

Now, since there is no command NOT to baptize infants, and there are several examples of whole households being baptized, and the term household included everyone, including babies and slaves; then we can conclude that no one is going to Hell for baptizing infants. If it was that serious, there would be a specific command against doing so.

"([Augustine] is regarded as the first Roman Catholic Theologian)"
Actually, he is regarded as the first Latin theologian, as opposed to Greek.

I never claimed to be a linguist. Are you? But, I can read a concordance and Greek dictionary. Your opinions on the Catholic Church and Her teachings are mistaken and flawed. I'm sorry you feel this way.

Perhaps, in the future, you can refrain from name-calling and just stick to the topic at hand, huh?
God Bless!

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 6:24AM

I really wouldn't expect you to be persuaded as you ignore the facts. I am not persuaded as you ignore the prt of teh argument you don't like. Baptizo does not mean what "I" say it means, it means what the Holy Spirit says it means in the context of the passage. That is not the only p[lace it is so used, but you characters don't care about that because your magisterium says something else.

Sorry, but you have offered no rebuttal to the way the Patristic writers understood it, nor the way Protestant writers see it today. You are simply projecting. Plus, you have no real knowledge of historic theology. I've had this argument directly with two of your Bishops and they were reduced to the same argument you use, which is no argument at all.

Ryan| 1.10.12 @ 8:29AM

Does baptizo mean "immerse" in each instance it is used in the OT (where it was translated by Jews who knew both languages) and in the NT?

How does that explain Hebrews 9 usage?

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:32PM

Quartermaster,

Reading your replies reminds me of the old lawyer's adage, "When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both are against you, attack the other lawyer."

You haven't rebutted any of my statements. You didn't answer my question, either. Are you a linguist? Can you answer Ryan's question, at least?

"I've had this argument directly with two of your Bishops and they were reduced to the same argument you use, which is no argument at all."

I think you need to look up the word argument. It does not mean what you think it means.
God Bless!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 12:21PM

Infants are NOT born with "original sin."

This is also a made-up claim propagated by Catholics with zero scriptural support.

The Dante-esque view that the 1st circle if hell is occupied by righteous pagans and unbaptized infants is a historical anachronism.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:09PM

The Bible says we have bodies of Sin.

"..knowing this, that our old man was crucified
with Him, that the body of sin might
be done away with, so that we no longer
serve sin". Rom. 6:6.

"..but I see another law in my members
warring against the law of my mind, and
taking me captive by the law of sin being
in my members.
O wretched man that I am! Who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?" Rom. 7:23 & 24.

How is that not being born with it??

But the fallacy of infant baptism is that infants can somehow be culpable for the sin in their members that they are not yet even aware of, and have not yet COMMITTED any sins.

The Catholics abominable teaching of this necessity is utterly erroneous, therefore. They are devoid of the Spirit and cannot see with the spiritual eyes that God gives to those born of His Spirit.

They teach as well that John chapter three is referring to water baptism as well, when Jesus is speaking of being born of the Spirit.

They believe, outside of Scripture, that it is the physical act of baptism that makes one born form above, which makes no biblical sense at all.. when the WORD of GOD states, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit," Jn. 3.

How can something (God's Holy Spirit) come from the flesh???

It comes from Heaven, given by God, not by the act of baptism.
Repent and be baptized, said Christ and the Apostles.
A baby cannot repent.. he or she has not committed any sins for which to be forgiven!!

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 11:08PM

"I [John] baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." - Matthew 3:11

"And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on Him [...]." - Matthew 3:16

Margie| 1.13.12 @ 9:32PM

"He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit ."

EXACTLY. And THAT is NOT physical!!

wake up!

Nick| 1.14.12 @ 12:29AM

Margie,

" And THAT is NOT physical!!"

Stop yelling, babies are sleeping.

And, this is a straw man. Who said it was physical? The Holy Spirit is not a creature, but, a pure Spirit. So, of course, it's not physical. You left out "and fire," by the way. Why? Was the fire physical or supernatural? Or, did John the Baptist get this part wrong?

Also, the Holy Spirit descended on Christ AT HIS BAPTISM. See the connection? Why else would Christ command the disciples to "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"?

Baptism is the outward, physical sign of what happens supernaturally to our souls, when the Holy Spirit washes (baptizo) away the stain of Original Sin. It puts a sign on our souls that separate us from non-Christians. In the same way that circumcision separated Israelites from the Gentiles.
God Bless!

RouxBella| 1.9.12 @ 11:16AM

And you know this...because you have studied Church teachings or did you make this up?

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 11:30AM

Doc: one question: "says who?"

Vern Crisler| 1.9.12 @ 11:39AM

Doc Wrong, was the thief on the cross baptized?

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 11:47AM

Nice try, Vern.

No, he wasn't. But since Christ was still alive at the time, and able to personally grant salvation, he didn't have to be.

One word: Pentecost.

Read your Bible, Vern.

Vern Crisler| 1.9.12 @ 12:08PM

Doc Wrong, grace is grace. It doesn't have anything to do with when Christ died. Baptism is not a "work" that finally, successfully, escapes from St. Paul's condemnation of works-righteousness.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 12:32PM

Vern:

Wrong again.

When we are Baptized via immersion, we are Baptized into Christ's death AND resurrection. The Baptism symbolizes Christ's victory over death. Upon receiving the Holy Spirit in Baptism, a Christisn is reborn as one who, with God's Grace, has conquered sin.

The Thief on the cross was NOT saved under the same law and dispensation that we are under. He was still under the Old Testament Law, not the Gospel. That's why he was not required to receive the same Baptism we must receive. And he couldn't, since Christ had not yet died and been resurrected. The terms of his forgiveness teach us nothing about what we must do to be saved.

Vern Crisler| 1.9.12 @ 12:55PM

Doc Wrong, Old Testament believers were saved by grace just as much as New Testament believers -- dispensational and baptistic understandings of the law-gospel hermeneutic to the contrary nothwithstanding.

Many of us also believe that immersion is just plain historically wrong as an interpretation of baptism. It is much more related to the concept of purification. In addition, baptism -- like any other work -- is a response to grace, not a payment for it.

And I would suggest that the thief on the cross provides a perfect exemplar of a believer's standing before God (whether OT or NT). We must always come before God with empty hands, not with prideful boasting of our own accomplishments.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 1:18AM

"The terms of his forgiveness teach us nothing about what we must do to be saved."

Wow!

Really??

How about he CONFESSED Him as LORD!!

"And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember
me when You come in Your kingdom.
And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to
you, Today you will be with Me in Paradise." Lk. 23:42 & 43.

"..because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The Scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame." Rom. 10:9-11. .

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 11:49AM

One answer: The Bible...Old and New Testament.

But please don't take my word for it. Read it yourself.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 12:14PM

Doc: I have. In fact, I do every day. I'm glad the Church I'm a part of saw fit to winnow out the "gospels", letters etc which were not fit for inclusion. I'm also glad the Church I'm a part of sees fit to speak to those things not covered in Scripture.

In my readings of Scripture, I haven't come across where it's declared that only adult baptism, and immersion, are "true" baptism. Can you enlighten us all?

Just the chapter and verse will be sufficient since, after all, where the bible is silent, you should be silent.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 12:39PM

Seymour:

Which "letters" are you referring to? Because if you're trying to imply somehow that I follow any of the Gnostic Gospels, or the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Judas simply because I dispute some Catholic doctrines, then that's a dubious claim.

WHY does the Bible gave to say, word-for-word, "Don't Baptize infants"? Can't you see for yourself that it's simply NEVER mentioned, and never done? And that to assume its OK is a mistake?

And if that's your perspective, then why do you ignore things that ARE clearly warned against??

Like worshipping other Gods? (as in the "veneration" of Mary?)

Like calling other men "Father" in the spiritual sense (not the familial sense)?

Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 12:56PM

Doc: let's start with the easy ones. Veneration isn't worship, you have a rather profound and possibly purposeful misunderstanding of Catholicism if you think we 'worship' Mary. And, my recollection is it says not to call any man "your Father", not "Father". No priest is "MY Father". But, I do call them "Father".

I'm sure you read the Bible in its original language. Since the Bible doesn't describe it being translated into other languages, it must be WRONG to do this, right? So - do you read the Bible in a translated version?

I mention the gospels and letters not included in scripture to remind you it's the Roman Catholic Church which gave you the scripture you read today. No other reason to mention this.

As for ONLY doing things (religious things; I won't be sarcastic and ask you why you post on the internet since, nobody in Scripture did, therefore, it must be wrong)... that's a new one on me. I.e. something is WRONG if it's NOT mentioned in Scripture.

I don't choose to believe that way.

I suppose I could visit you sometime, watch you in church (assuming you attend one), and cleverly come up with some way you do something which isn't in the Bible, and make fun of you, but frankly, Doc, I haven't the time or the inclination. I'll pray for you, but not necessarily specifically, it'll be when I pray for all those who are misguided.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 1:38PM

You might want to refrain, Seymour, from calling something "easy" if you're going to totally bitch it.

First of all, I was a Catholic for 32 years, so I know what I talking about.

"Veneration" is a convenient term that Catholics toss out to try and persuade others that they don't worship Mary. Sorry, Seymour...you can fool a few people but God is probably not as amused.

Catholics DO worship Mary; that's irrefutable. Want an example? Ok:

"Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee..."

Prayer is form of worship. If you pray to then you WORSHIP her. There is NO scriptural justification for praying to Mary and asking for her intercession. In the first place, Mary is dead; she died about 2,000 years ago, and she's NOT "full of Grace" and can't confer grace on anyone. Secondly, Jesus is your intercessor, so there's no need to pray/worship Mary.

Catholics also like to refer to Mary as "the Mother of God", which is absurd because God existed before Mary, so she can't be his mother. She gave birth to the human vessel that contained his Holy Spirit, but she's not God's mother. That's an additional way of conferring deity-status onto Mary and worshipping her.

Ok...that's out of the way.

Now...on your other points, let's not play dumb.

The Bible isn't the Koran; there's no imperative to have it written/read in ancient Greek or Aramaic. And since those reliable early copies exist, we can reliably translate it. Again, Catholicism us full of practices and doctrines that directly contradict scripture, but those don't seem to bother you, do they?

Instead, you'll focus on silliness like modern translations and microphones and the internet delude yourself into thinking you've made a point.

Whatever...

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 1:41PM

Sorry, that was supposed to say "botch"...

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 2:00PM

So... even though the Bible doesn't speak toward the Bible being translated into other languages, that's ONE thing which is OK, even though it doesn't happen in the Bible...

Have a nice day, Doc.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:20PM

Again, you're bringing up a total straw-man to avoid your inability to refute what I've told you.

We see, from numerous examples in the Bible, that Baptism was done by immersion. That's the "speak where the Bible speaks" part. We also do NOT see any infant Baptism, or Baptism by sprinkling, so we don't do it. That's the "Stay silent" part.

Meanwhile, we KNOW that Christ and the Apostles probably spoke to each other in Hebrew and Aramaic, but that many books if the New Testament were actually written in Greek -the universal language of the day. So it's clear that there was no mandate on any particular language in either reading or discussing the Bible.

But that's where you want to dig in???

Once again...I suggest you actually READ the Bible for yourself.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 3:19PM

I do read the Bible, Doc. I read it in the "context" (a word you seem to have some familiarity with) of the Roman Catholic Church.

There's nothing wrong with context, Doc. It's just that, when you (that's "you" as in "you, Doc") start picking and choosing which things are taken "in context" and which things are taken literally, my advice is to find somebody trustworthy to teach you the "context"...

I have no doubt you're a well meaning Christian and do what you can to support widows and orphans in addition to believing Jesus to be your saviour.

I like to read Mark 9:38-40 on occasion, since it reminds me that even those outside the "traditional" fold (that would be you, Doc) are part of His kingdom. In fact, I've been taught this in Church. That's the Catholic Church, Doc.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 3:45PM

Actually, I'm the "traditionalist", if we must use titles. I follow the Faith of the Bible.

Catholicism is outside that mainstream. It's a denominational organization with practices and beliefs that, in many cases, are contradictory to Chritianity.

Maybe reading in the "context of the Catholic Church" is your problem? Try reading it objectively, in the context of "truth".

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 3:57PM

"Catholicism is outside that mainstream. It's a denominational organization with practices and beliefs that, in many cases, are contradictory to Chritianity."

Says you, Doc.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 4:18PM

No.

Says the Bible.

Read it. Study it. Then try and reconcile it with Catholicism.

Can't be done.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 4:24PM

So... if I HAVE read it, and HAVE studied it, and still feel comfortable with Catholicism... what's wrong?

Hey, maybe you missed something. Read it, study it, and PRAY about it. Have you tried that, Doc?

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 5:25PM

If you're comfortable with glaring inconsistencies and outright contradictions, far be it from me to try and change your mind.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 5:52PM

Doc: in other words, you've NOT prayed on it?

W| 1.9.12 @ 5:47PM

So your interpretation of the Bible is the genuine Christianity and Catholicism is not Christianity?

Well, I agree that Catholicism is not your brand of what you call Christianity based on your interpretation of the Bible.

Are you now the infallible authority on the Bible and Christianity to judge what is Christianity? You cannot even make a convincing case that the Bible requires only baptism of adults.

You could not even answer my questions as to what is an adult because you know you have interpreted "adult" in a certain way. What if we have a smart 12 year old that wants baptized but you say no. Then we have a stupid 30 year old who is not rational but will you allow him to be bapitzed. You are smart enough to see that every word and phrase requires an interpretation of what it means.

What does immersion mean? I knew a woman whose Protestant minister asked her to strip and walk into the small pool, but agreed to allow her to wear her panties, shirt, and robe in the water after she got suspicious and complained. Was she baptized?

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 7:45PM

Sorry Seymour, but veneration is a form of worship. The idea that Roman Catholics do not worship Mary, for example, will not survive a reading of the catechism. The dedications to Mary. seeing her "co-Redemtrix" and the channel of grace to the church, among many other examples, tells any thinking man that Mary has been raised to divinity by the RCC.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 9:37PM

Sorry, QM, but you're wrong.

Mary has been elevated beyond where you and I are, true. But not to the level of God.

Veneration is not worship.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 4:07PM

"Mary has been elevated beyond where you and I are, true."

Mary has been "elevated" by the lying Popes, not the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 1:05AM

Quartermaster,

"seeing her 'co-Redemtrix' [sic] [...]."

The Catholic Church does not call Our Lady Co-Redemptrix. It does not mean what you think it does, anyway.

As Bishop Sheen said, people hate what they think the Catholic Church teaches, not what She actually teaches.

The Blessed Virgin Mary participates in Christ's redemption, as all the saints in Heaven do; she is not equal with Christ's redemptive power, nor, does she redeem others by her own power. Our Lady is first among all the saints in Heaven, seated at the right-hand of Christ.

All who reach Heaven will partake in Christ's Redemption as partakers in Christ's Divine Nature, according to Saint Peter:

"[...] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature." - 2 Peter 1:4

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 1:01PM

If you're looking at the raw word "baptizmos" outside of context, you could make that argument. However, the word is used to describe "sprinkling" in the NT as well - Hebrews 9:10 uses it to describe "washings" which we KNOW were sprinkling ceremonies in the OT.

Many instances of baptisms in the NT are actually more practically explained if they were sprinkling, rather than immersion. There weren't a whole lot of bathtubs around, just water pots and jugs, where the simpler explanation may be sprinkling.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 1:57PM

Hebrews 9:10 says NOTHING about Baptism.

In addition, it is SPECIFICALLY describing Old Testament practices!!!

Please do us all a favor: Before quoting Hebrews 9:10 and attempting to interpret it, please try reading Hebrews 9:1-9 FIRST.

Context matters.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 2:16PM

Hey, Doc - referencing Acts, Chapter 4 - do you claim ownership of anything? Or, is this something else we have to, uh, understand the "context" of...

Have a nice day, Doc.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:32PM

Yes, I "own" several things -a house, a car, some clothes, a copy of Fantastic Four # 27 (worth about $200)...

What of it?

And yes, once again, context matters.

There is NO mandate for anyone to "share everything they own" in this passage. It is describing one group of Christians at one point in time who chose to live this way. It's not a tenet of faith, or of Doctrine.

Anything else?

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 2:50PM

OK, Doc - but... why can't it be the case that baptism by immersion was how "one group of Christians at one point in time" did things?

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 2:22PM

No, but the Greek word for "washings" there is "baptizmos." Does that mean that all the ceremonial "washings" in the OT were immersions?

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:41PM

You have it backwards; baptyzmos is Greek for "immersion".

Neat, huh?!?!

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 2:57PM

So, were the ceremonial washings all immersions in the OT?

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:11PM

Bathtubs?? Jugs of water???

Ummm...hate to break it to you, but they had rivers (the Jordan) and lakes (the Sea of Galilee).

In other words, Baptism by immersion was NOT really a problem.

Sprinkling...It's just not scripturally justified.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:12PM

Bathtubs?? Jugs of water???

Ummm...hate to break it to you, but they had rivers (the Jordan) and lakes (the Sea of Galilee).

In other words, Baptism by immersion was NOT really a problem.

Sprinkling...It's just not scripturally justified.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:12PM

Bathtubs?? Jugs of water???

Ummm...hate to break it to you, but they had rivers (the Jordan) and lakes (the Sea of Galilee).

In other words, Baptism by immersion was NOT really a problem.

Sprinkling...It's just not scripturally justified.

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 2:23PM

Actually, it is. It is not explicit that they went to the river to be baptized.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:39PM

You're joking, right??

Matthew 3:6, 3:13, as well as Mark 1:5, 1:9 SPECIFICALLY refer to Baptism in the River Jordan.

Then there's Mark 6:16:

"Whoever believed AND is baptized will be saved."

Notice the specific coupling of the two.

Do infants "believe"???

The problem with many Catholics is t that they don't know the Bible, it's that they know so much that's wrong about the Bible.

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 2:57PM

Not in Acts and other Epistles, where it wasn't necessarily convenient.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 3:40PM

Oh, so you're shifting gears, now??

First it didn't specifically appear at all, now you're saying not in Acts and Epistles??

In other words, you were totally wrong, but you're not going to admit it.

Why am I not surprised?

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 3:49PM

Doc, still waiting for you to answer my question. Why is it the case that, if holding all things in common was just something done by a particular group of Christians at a particular time and place, why isn't it also the case that baptism by immersion in the river was something done by a particular group of Christians at a particular time and place?

Some context, please...

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 4:22PM

I already answered that exact question.

Why don't you ask the Pope? He has billions to spread around, and lives like a King in a palace pretending to be the Head of the Church. If you're concerned about sharing "all things in common," start there.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 4:26PM

I missed your answer, Doc. Where is it?

I'm not concerned about sharing all things in common, Doc, I'm concerned about your practice of taking things literally where they support your (narrow) view, and 'calling down context' in those cases where a literal reading of Scripture doesn't support your view.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 5:28PM

Again, some things in scripture are meant to be taken literally; some aren't.

I'm not sure how you can claim to have studied the Bible and not know that fact, or where to apply it.

For example, Jesus told the Apostles that his parables were not meant to be taken literally, although the meaning in each parable was.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 6:00PM

Doc: I haven't brought up any parables. I understand that some things are meant to be taken literally (i.e. "This is My Body") and some not (i.e. baptism is baptism, whether it's immersion or some other method).

Let's go back to where this all started - you made a specific claim that baptism which is NOT done by immersion is somehow not proper, and you "proved" this by claiming that all baptisms mentioned in the Bible were done by immersion.

Since then, we've had a back and forth where you've claimed - rightfully - that some things are meant to be taken literally, and some metaphorically.

I'm in agreement with that - my problem, once again, is with you, Doc, being the authority over which is which.

I've never said that everything in Scripture is to be taken either literally or metaphorically, all one way or the other, and I don't recall bringing up a single parable. Don't try to move the argument, Doc. Instead, state the grounds for where I should accept you, Doc, as authority over my personal interpretation of Scripture.

That way, when I stop going to Mass (it could happen as early as tomorrow!), and I eventually get the "where have you been" call... I can say that "Doctor Right, of the internet, has convinced me that he knows more than the collected study, prayer and wisdom of The Church".

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 7:52PM

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of "changing the subject." Christian baptism is the continuance of the use of the Jewish mikva in a Christian context. When Christians started building dedicated houses of worship one of the things that was included was what we call a baptistry these days. All teh indication we have from early Church history says the early church practiced Baptism by immersion. The Eastern Orthodox Church, which is contemporary to the Roman Catholic Church still practices baptism by immersion (in fact the same 3 fold immersion as practiced by the middle early church, immersing for each mention of one member of the Trinity).

Roman Catholicism is not a valid expression of Christianity. It practices outright heresy and is merely a paganized form of Christianity, no better than Gnosticism.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 9:39PM

QM: you're engaged in the mistake of joining the argument too late. Doc indicated that immersion is the only acceptable baptism and "proved" this by stating that only this form is mentioned in Scripture; the absence of any other form, says Doc, is "proof" that only immersion is proper.

I say "no" to this logic.

As far as your calling Roman Catholicism a heresy, well, we'll both know in the end, won't we.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 6:25AM

LOL!

Ryan| 1.10.12 @ 8:35AM

A misreading on your part. You may want to go back where I stated that there was "no specific" immersions. I'm not finding where I stated such in generality, or at least intended. Certainly a case could be made of something other than sprinkling in Jesus' baptism.

Two, you still have not addressed the contextual question - were the ceremonial washings in the OT immersions, as mentioned in Hebrews 9? Why was "baptizo" used there?

M Dunn| 1.9.12 @ 1:07PM

I agree that Scripture is authoritative for church practice, but where do you get your authority to say that infants are born innocent? Old Testament and New teach otherwise:
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Neither verse suggests a period of blissful innocence. Please go to the authority for all your assertions.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:07PM

Psalm 51:5 is from the Old Testament. It describes David's sorrow at being "called-out" by Nathan the Prophet after committing adultery with Bathsheba.

It does NOT support "original sin." David is basically saying that he's a terrible person, and that he's always been a terrible person, even at the moment of conception. He's talking about himself, and he's speaking symbolically.

Context matters. Did you read Psalms 51:1-4 before you read verse 5, or did you just decide to wing it??

Romans 5:19 says NOTHING about Baptism. It's referring to Adam as the one through whom sin entered the world, and Christ as the one through who sin was conquered.

Again...context.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 2:20PM

Hey, Doc: when Our Lord used the words "this is my body"... what did he mean?

Or is this yet another verse we have to, uh, understand the "context" of... in other words, don't believe what it actually SAYS, believe what it MEANS... and good old Doc will tell you what that is, right?

Have a great day, Doc.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 2:53PM

Transubstatiation is another Catholic doctrine that has NO basis in scripture.

The bread and wine served at the Last Supper and each Sunday at Communion are intended to represent the body and blood of Christ, not to literally BE the body and blood of Christ.

Are you saying that Jesus wanted to be eternally cannibalized??

Yes, context matters. Sorry you don't agree. Please feel free to keep making things up.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 2:57PM

OK, Doc - I think I get it now. If it plays into your theology, it's meant to be taken literally. That includes rejection of things not specifically done in scripture.

If it doesn't play into your theology, it's meant to be taken "in context", not literally.

Thanks for playing, Doc.

I'll leave you to Margie now...

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 3:23PM

Actually, I don't think you do "get it".

First of all, if something isn't mentioned or validated in scripture, then why WOULDN'T you reject it?

Put simply, you're not making sense.

Additionally, it's not my theology; it's Christianity. I didn't create it. I follow it.

The fact that you think context in Biblical terms is a trivial matter is demonstrative of your overall attitude and knowledge of scripture. Are you unaware that certain portions of scripture ARE to be taken literally, while others are meant to symbolic or metaphorical???

Additionally, context is not just about interpretation; it's also about history, what was said, when it was said, and the intended purpose. That's why when you take something OUT if context by only quoting the part of the verse that suits your preconceived notions, you distort the entire meanig.

I'm not "playing" anything. You are. You're unable to intellectuslky challenge any point I make, do you keep repeating non-sequiturs and trying to sign-off.

Ok. Whatever. But don't think that it's unnoticed.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 3:39PM

"Are you unaware that certain portions of scripture ARE to be taken literally, while others are meant to symbolic or metaphorical???"

That's the rub, Doc. Who holds the keys to what's taken literally, and what's taken non-literally?

Sorry, Doc, but I don't think that's you.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 4:30PM

Who holds the key?

A brain, backed up by an education, a curious intellect, and LOTS of references.

Or...just ask Father Flaherty...

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 4:36PM

"A brain, backed up by an education, a curious intellect, and LOTS of references."

Aw, shucks, Doc, I don't know EVERYTHING.

But thanks for the compliment...

steve| 1.9.12 @ 7:49PM

Or ask Margie and Dr.Right

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:47PM

No, READ THE BIBLE!

Do you have one, steve??

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:49PM

Seymour,

Why do you have to be so sarcastic and disingenuous there??

Transubstantiation is NOT biblical.

Do you have a Bible?? It isn't in there!! It's Catholic doctrine, NOT Christian doctrine.
Don't you want to be faithful to Jesus??

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 9:41PM

Margie: we've discussed this before. I believe in the Mass, you don't. I feel believing will help me get to heaven, but certainly don't feel that disbelieving will send you to hell.

Let's leave it at that.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 10:23PM

What we choose to believe in, once we've been shown, is what God goes by.

If you are shown according to the Bible that the practice of so called Transubstantiation is false, if you still choose to believe it, you aren't being faithful to His Words.

Jesus tells us that those who love Him keep His Words.. that is what Christianity and being Christian means.

If you choose to obey the false teachings of Catholicism, which are not biblical, you aren't being faithful to Him, if you have been shown the Truth.

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's Who sent Me." Jn. 14:22.

Jesus died for our sins and so we were "bought with a PRICE". 1 Cor. 6:20 & 7:23.

We aren't allowed the luxury of believing a different gospel. Not if we call ourselves Christian.

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the Grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ.

But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

For I would have you know, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not man's Gospel.
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:6-12.

Catholicism is man's gospel, not God's.

W| 1.9.12 @ 5:49PM

So context matters to interpret the Bible. You just admitted you have to interpret the Bible, and it follows that interpretations may differ.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 2:53PM

"You MUST be baptized through immersion in water to receive the Holy Spirit."

This is wrong, with ALL due respect, Dr. Right. I know it for a fact personally, because when I did a Romans 10:9 & 10, "confessed with my lips, and believed in my heart that Jesus is Lord, and asked Him for the Holy Spirit and promised to follow Him for the rest of my life, He gave me His Spirit immediately.

How do I know? Because He filled me with His love so strong that I was filled with JOY and I immediately stopped committing the sin I was doing, and had zero desire to sin anymore. He gave me His desires.

And actually, nowhere in the Bible does it say without baptism you can't receive His Spirit.

The Apostles were leading many to Jesus at that time and baptizing them right away, in large and smaller and sometimes just one at a time, but in this day and age sometimes newly born anew Christians don't have that opportunity right away.

I didn't for a few months. But for those few months God changed me from the inside out immediately, and I KNOW it was His Spirit doing it.

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Lk. 11:13.

The repentance does have to come first (for an adult of course, or youngsters who understand the need), but the baptism doesn't always happen immediately due to plain old circumstances.

As a matter of fact, I didn't even KNOW I had to be baptized! I remember the brethren telling me I had to, and I was really shocked. Being raised Catholic (I was born of His Spirit at about age 20). I was like, you're kidding?!

So, they showed me in the Bible where Jesus commands it, and I said, OK! We had a baptism at the YMCA pool, and there were probably around 50 of us. It was so awesome to me to be doing what the Apostles did, and like all the early Christians did, doing the Will of God.

Our fellowship grew throughout the U.S. and we became missionaries in Haiti and there are now 2 or 3 orphanages there, since the 70's.

I'm not in that particular fellowship now, but they also run one of the largest architectural salvage companies in the U.S. And they never accepted money from anyone, ever.

Anyhow, maybe TMI but there you have it!
God bless.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 3:33PM

Margie:

You know I think highly of you, but on this we'll just have to disagree.

There's no scriptural evidence for Grace being conferred simply by a confession that Jesus is Lord.

While I would never say anything to disparage your confession of faith, I will say that after Pentecost, all conversions in the New Testament are accompanied by immersion baptism. To say that our modern world sometimes prevents this is but if a cop-out. There are always distractions in life, in any era. We're no different in that respect; there's "nothing new under the sun."

To your point that confession/ repentance comes first, I would only say "Of course it does!" After all, why would anyone who didn't believe bother to be Baptized??

I do believe that Jesus entered your heart and removed the "thorn" from your flesh when you asked him to, since you were sincere. But that's not the same thing as being imbued with the Holy Spirit.

In good conscience, I could not tell someone that Baptisn isn't essential.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 3:39PM

Well then, you will have to take that up with God when you see Him.
For there are millions of Christians who receive the Holy Spirit and are not able to be baptized immediately.
AND LISTEN: I did NOT say baptism isn't necessary!!! Do not lie.
To say it is a cop out and to claim you are judge over them is absurd.
See below Scripture, please. (1 Peter 1:10-12).

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 3:54PM

Ok, Margie...

You said that my statement that water/immersion baptism is essential to receive the Holy Spirit is "wrong."

So no one is lying.

The quote you reference from 1 Peter says nothing about Baptism.

As for the "millions of Christians who receive the Holy Spirit and ate not able to be baptized immediately", if they're being taught that that's ok, then they are being deceived.

An emotional reaction is NOT the same thing as being imbued with the Holy Spirit. That's not meant to belittle the reaction, only to point out the obvious.

I'm not judging anybody. To say that I think I am is absurd.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:42PM

"You said that my statement that water/immersion baptism is essential to receive the Holy Spirit is "wrong."

So no one is lying."

NO, I said your belief that baptism is first required in order to receive the Holy Spirit is wrong.

You did not even comprehend my post.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:30PM

You're being absurd.

As I already asked...WHY would anyone who didn't repent/confess want to get Baptized???

Of course that comes first! But it does NOT bring the Holy Spirit.

Sorry if you've been taught that it does.

"Repent AND be baptized."

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:36PM

Dr. Right,

God says what "brings" the Holy Spirit. I have repeatedly posted His Words:

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Lk. 11:13.

Why do you resist the Holy Spirit and insist that baptism MUST be first??

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 3:45PM

Heh, and did not the disciples at Pentecost receive the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized??

My goodness!!

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 3:51PM

Margie,

Actually:

"But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." - Acts 2:38
God Bless!

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 4:10PM

Well then, Nick & Dr. Right are in agreement here.
Against Lk. 11:13, so I guess NO ONE can receive the Holy Spirit unless they are baptized first!

LOL. Tell that to God Who says He gives His Spirit to all who ask.

Tell it to all His children the World over who have asked Him for His Spirit from a humble and contrite heart!!

Tell that to all of His Martyrs who may not have gotten baptized yet!

Baptism is the outward confession, the outward symbol of dying to the old and living for the new Creation in Christ.

Without repentance baptism is worthless. And God gives His Spirit when we ask Him for it.

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Lk. 11:13.

It does NOT say, "how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who are baptized first." !!!

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 4:25PM

Margie,

I'm sorry, I thought that you were referring to Acts 2:28. Were you talking about something else?

"Without repentance baptism is worthless. And God gives His Spirit when we ask Him for it."

We ask for the Holy Spirit by getting baptized and confirmed. Since, infants can't ask for themselves, their parents decide for them.

Just like Hebrew parents decided to circumcise their sons, to separate themselves from the Gentiles. Circumcision was a type of baptism, for this reason, because baptism separates Christians from non-Christians.
God Bless!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 4:35PM

You don't receive Grace or the Holy Spirit simply for stating "the sinners' prayer."

And Nick and I disagree often, but with respect. Try it sometime.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 5:10PM

This is very true, Doctor Right.
Please, see my response to the immersion discussion, from above.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:30PM

Well, Dr. Right,

You are on the side of Catholicism then, and not on the side of the Truth.

And now you are choosing to slice and dice me for my stand on His Word, as they do.

"Try it sometime", he says.
You disingenuous hypocrite!
Your posts to the Catholics have been no different than mine, kiddo.

And I have no respect for YOU!

You are ignoring the Scriptures that I posted, showing that God gives the Holy Spirit to them who simply ask.

You will stand before God and have to explain to HIM how it is that YOU say one must be baptized BEFORE they are eligible by God to receive His Spirit!!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:26PM

No one is "slicing and dicing" you, Margie.

You're going to have to develop a thicker, more adult skin for criticism if you're going to post on sensitive topics like religion.

And grouping me with Catholics because I refuse to accept the non-Biblical concept of "the Sinners' prayer" is just plain silly.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 7:07PM

Sorry, but I stood on Scripture.
The one YOU continue to disregard, hypocrite:

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Lk. 11:13.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 7:11PM

"You're going to have to develop a thicker, more adult skin for criticism if you're going to post on sensitive topics like religion."

You need to apply that to yourself most of all! As you have now seen fit to judge me as not even being Christian, brought up my reactions to the slandering of myself and my person here repeatedly as "proof" that I am no Christian.

Disgusting and disgraceful, Dr. Right.

Thin skinned? No, for you are WORSE than thin skinned, you are filthy.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:19PM

I said nothing about a sinner's prayer, Dr. WRONG.
I quoted the ACTUAL Words of God:

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Lk. 11:13.

I ASKED, AND I RECEIVED!!
By the Grace of God!!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:27PM

Actually, I won't have to explain it.

I'll be covered by Grace...

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:17PM

"Actually, I won't have to explain it.

I'll be covered by Grace..."

Oh, YES you will have to explain it, sir.

Ever hear of outraging the Spirit of GRACE??? Heb. 10:29.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:38PM

"But what does it say? The wWrd is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the Word of faith which we preach); because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved." Romans 10:9 & 10.

It does not say, "you must be baptized first!"

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:38PM

s/b Word, above, not wWrd.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:40PM

That is NOT what the Bible says, Nick. The Catholics changed the written words there. The Bible says Repent, not Pennance.

And Dr. Right knows this as well.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 6:18PM

Margie,

What doesn't the Bible say? What words did we supposedly change? A reference or citation, please?

By the way, do you know how hard it has been not to use "the Bus" line with Doctor Right, these past couple of hours!? Ha-ha!
How excruciatingly tempting it has been? Do you realize how tormented I have been?

"Must type these words.....NO! You mustn't....But I need to, it's too perfect!...No. You know it's wrong.....It's killing me!"

I hope you appreciate the internal battle I'm waging, here, Margie! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:22PM

The "Bus line"??

Do it!!! I must know what you're talking about!

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 7:44PM

Sorry, Doctor Right.

It's a dirty-dig I have repeatedly used against Margie, and it was wrong to do so. I have asked her to forgive me, and she did. So, it would be really wrong to do it again.

But, ooohhhhh!, how I have wanted to!
I'm trying to be a good boy. Don't tempt me!
That goes for you, too, Margie! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 7:56PM

Margie,

"The Bible says Repent, not Pennance."

Now I see what you are talking about. The word penance is from the Latin paenitentia, i.e., penitence. Which means " regret for one's wrongdoing or sinning; contrition; repentance." Source: Dictionary.com

So, you see, penance and repent are synonymous. My quote of Acts 2:38 was from the Douay-Rheims, by the way.
God Bless!

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 8:03PM

They are not the same in Roman Catholic practice. It is true the term was used by Jerome to translate the Greek to Latin, but the word is freighted with much nonsense in Roman Catholicism.

The copy of the Rheims-Douay (which is teh way I've normally seen the title of the RCC translation written, usually just Douay) I read uses the word Repentance, not penance. Perhaps it has been revised.

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 7:59PM

The word penance is found no where in scripture. The word the RCC intentionally mistranslates is the Greek word μετανοησατε which means "to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins." We can not pay for our sins in any fashion. The idea of penance is another of the medieval accretions of Roman Catholicism that has no scriptural foundation as Christ is the only one that can pay for our sins, and he completed that work on the cross.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:14PM

THANK YOU QM.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 12:36AM

Quartermaster,

"We can not pay for our sins in any fashion."

We are completely agreed. Christ paid for EVERYONE'S sins, with His death on the Cross.

In what way does the Greek metanoeó differ from the Latin paenitentia, and the English penance? They all mean the same thing, to me. They are three ways of saying the same thing: Regret for one's wrongdoing or sinning.

Acts of penance, like denying yourrself good food, or performing corporal works of mercy, are done to take our minds off of this world so that we can keep our minds on the next world. They don't "pay" for any sins.
God Bless!

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 6:27AM

Read what I said Nick, not what you wished I said.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:13PM

Quartermaster,

Which part? Try providing a quote, next time.
I'm not a mind-reader.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 4:03PM

" Christ paid for EVERYONE'S sins, with His death on the Cross."

But ONLY those who believe in Him are saved from Hell:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have Eternal life.

For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God." Jn. 3:16-18.

See that the Spirit of God says, that the world MIGHT be saved.

And that only those who do NOT believed are CONDEMNED.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 5:53PM

Are you an Apostle, Margie?

The Apostles could also perform miracles; can you?

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:57PM

Smarmy, Dr. Right, absolutely disgustingly smarmy.

You join yourselves with the liars and hypocrites here.
Welcome to their club!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:16PM

Margie,

I often agree with you, but in all honesty, your constant diatribes are exceedingly tiresome.

Everyone who disagrees with you is "a liar"; everyone who has a different viewpoint is "a hypocrite."

Additionally, you argue under the mantle of being a Christian, but then you stoop to calling people profane names (and don't deny it, I've seen you argue with Clint and "Old Texican"). Do you actually think that such behavior will win-over anyone to your side? Issue by issue I tend to agree with you more often than not, but your manner is so readily abrasive and distempered that I often find myself rooting against you.

Frankly, and in all honesty, your actions often do represent the Spirit of Christ. Scripture says that if a brother/sister offends, it is our duty to let them know. Well, I'm letting you know.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:20PM

Excuse me.

I meant to say that your actions are NOT representative of Christ.

Stupid iPhone...

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 7:03PM

Oh, so I get it.
You're going to bring up my sins now.
And you said you highly regard me? You're a liar, because if you even regarded me in the slightest, you would have been speaking the TRUTH to Ken, who FALSLY accused me here of grievous sin, yet with NO proof.

The fact that you say you saw my reaction to him proves you read his accusations, yet you said NOTHING in my defense.

You're a fraud. If you were a genuine Christian man who "held me in high regard" like you said, you would have required him to POST THE supposed e mails he claimed to have, along with my requesting of him to do so.

So, where were you then?

And now, because I DARE to tell you you're wrong according to the Bible, and you do NOT regard ANY of the Scriptures I posted to PROVE you are wrong in your thinking~ you bring up my past sins??

You have just proven exactly who and what you really are~ a man who is not genuine, a man who cares nothing for the truth but only in voicing his own opinion and looking good in the eyes of MAN.

How sickeningly sad and utterly disgusting.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 7:20PM

"I meant to say that your actions are NOT representative of Christ."

If I have sinned by speaking vulgar language because of the repeated false accusations against me, then yes, that is sin. I asked for forgivess for that language already.

God does not throw me in the trash now as you have just done. He forgave me!!

And if you want to try and speak as a "representative" of Christ yourself, I suggest you repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The one in which MAN is NOT saved by Baptism, but by GRACE.

steve| 1.9.12 @ 9:37PM

Margie, How do you know God forgave you.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 10:30PM

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 Jn. 1:9.

Are you not yet a Christian, born of His Spirit, steve? How is it that you do not know this??

Doctor Right| 1.10.12 @ 7:33AM

Remove the stumbling block .

I never said "baptism saves." In your own words, don't lie.

I said in order to receive the Holy Spirit, you must repent/confess and be baptized, upon which time grace will be conferred.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:54PM

You CLAIMED that one cannot receive the Holy Spirit FIRST, before being baptized.

That IS saying by baptism you are saved.

You said:

"You MUST be baptized through immersion in water to receive the Holy Spirit."

And then you proceeded to INSIST on it. Even telling me that I didn't receive the Holy Spirit, but that "God removed a thorn in myside" or some such blather.

And then when I proved you wrong according to Scripture you proceeded to trash me, just like the liars and Catholic Trolls here, and KEN have done.

LOOK: I don't care what YOU believe, I believe every Word of God as written in the Bible, and I HATE deceit.

In trashing me, you trash yourself in His eyes.

I know He gave me His Holy Spirit, immediately. YOU can say what you want, but you aren't God, and in my opinion, a Christian.

So, continue joining yourself to the Catholics and Reprobates here if it makes you feel so good.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 3:38PM

Also Dr. Right,

You brought up how my behavior "isn't representative" of a Christian, and you gave as an example how I talk to CLINT!

How I talk to Clint???

I will remind you of you filthy sexual back and forth "conversations" with him.

Are you really serious??

What a hypocrite.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 8:13PM

"I said in order to receive the Holy Spirit, you must repent/confess and be baptized, upon which time grace will be conferred."

What are you, pretending to be Pope??

Read the Bible, kiddo.
And then REPENT.

Jesus says, you know, the LORD JESUS CHRIST, says:

"And what father of you, if the son asks
for bread, will he give him a stone? And if
a fish, will he give him a snake instead of
a fish?
And if he should ask an egg, will he
give him a scorpion?
Then if you being evil know to give
good gifts to your children, how much
more the Father out of Heaven will give
the Holy Spirit to the ones asking Him." Lk. 11:11-13.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:05PM

Dr. Right says:

"but your manner is so readily abrasive and distempered that I often find myself rooting against you."

Really? So, if I cursed the Devil, you would enjoy same?

And where were you with regards to the repeated filth spewed upon me by these liars and Reprobates while I stood on Scripture, since you claim you held me in "High regard?"

I would often wonder where ANY one was... now I know: you are actually in agreement with them.

Do you also eat and drink with the drunken, and beat your fellow servants, as you are doing to me right now??

LOVE:

"it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right." 1 Cor. 3:16.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:27PM

"Are you an Apostle, Margie?

The Apostles could also perform miracles; can you?"

Dr. Right: You speak as a man devoid of the Spirit.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 3:56PM

"In good conscience, I could not tell someone that Baptisn isn't essential."

I do hope you'll re read my post, sir.
I did not say it wasn't essential.
You said it had to come first, that one cannot receive the Holy Spirit apart from baptism.

Not true. You would then be looking at Salvation as a work.. when it is by Grace through faith.

Baptism is an outward acknowledging of what's taken place on the inside. And upon repentance and the asking, the Spirit of God enters the heart.

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Lk. 11:13.

I asked, and I received. And who can tell me otherwise??

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 4:06PM

Margie: I would not DARE to tell you otherwise.

Just remember, there are many rooms in His Father's house. And while we may be in different rooms, we're in the same house.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 4:14PM

Seymour,

I am the one here saying that God will give His Spirit to those who ask Him for it... as He says.

I only care about His Truth, according to His Word!

I know what He promised is TRUE, because He did it for me.

"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him." Prov. 30:5.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 4:29PM

"I know what He promised is TRUE, because He did it for me."

Again, I would not dare to contradict you.

He did for me, also. In a manner as believable as if he'd driven up in a car (a Christ-ler, no doubt), picked me up, and drove me to a new life.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:33PM

Indeed, Seymour Glass, the Scriptures are true God DOES give His Holy Spirit to those who ask Him for it, as He promises.

"Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come." 2 Cor. 5:17.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:55PM

p.s. If the Holy Spirit cannot be received before one is baptized, I would like an explanation for the Holy Scriptures when they tell of the disciples of Christ, after having prayed, received the Holy Spirit, and then spoke the Word with boldness!

"And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God with boldness." Acts 4:31.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:07PM

They had already been baptized.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 6:28PM

Doc, with your study and learnedness, can you point us to the chapter/verse where it describes each individual apostle's baptism?

Thanks.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:32PM

No.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and look it up?

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 6:57PM

I can't, Doc, because it's not specifically stated, in Scripture, that each individual Apostle was baptised. Of course they were baptised - it would be foolish to think otherwise.

My point is that there are things we all believe which are not specifically stated, in a literal sense, in scripture. Frankly, it's foolish of you to think that only baptism by immersion is valid, since that's the only method described in Scripture. But I sure as hell don't think you're going to hell for thinking that...

You believe some things I don't believe, and I believe other things you don't believe. You take your road, I'll take mine. God willing, we'll all see each other in paradise.

In the interim, my request to you is to preface your statements with "I believe..." as in "I believe that only baptism by immersion is valid..."

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:43PM

Dear Seymour,

Jesus was fully immersed. He said to follow His example!

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 6:56PM

They had already been baptized?
It is NOT written therein.

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 8:31PM

Margie and Dr. Right,

I'm sure you both have read this passage,

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 'Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?'"
Acts 10:44-47

Obviously, some received the Holy Spirit before baptism, or Peter would not have asked the question he asked in vs 47.

Dr. Wright, your position begs the question of what would have happened if a person who was just converted found themselves in chains soon thereafter, with no opportunity for baptism before they were put to death.

Honest people can differ on some things, but Roam Catholics see tradition as more authoritative than scripture. When tradition and scripture contradict, they choose tradition. As a result, I will not discuss Theology with them as they are not honest. It is the same with Mormons, who are much like Roman Catholics in that regard. At least Mormons have the standard dodge of "correctly translated" when it comes to scripture. It's not much of a dodge, because they think it protects them from having to disprove the translation.

The magisterium doesn't even attempt that, but arrogates infallibility to themselves. They are left with canon law, which spans about 150 volumes, and a tradition that contradicts scripture at many turns. There are many things that can be said about Roman Catholicism, but calling it an honest christian denomination is not one of those things. God does not contradict himself, and he is, indeed, infallible.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:41PM

Thanks for that Scripture, I had completely overlooked it.
Now we shall see if Dr. Right will repent of his mistreating of not only the Scriptures, but of me as well.
Me: the LOWEST OF THE LOW.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 12:18AM

Quatermaster,

That quote, from Acts 10, is the only example from Scripture where the Holy Spirit descended on men, and poured out His gifts, before baptism. It is the exception that proves the rule.

There was a special reason that the Holy Spirit chose to pour out His gifts onto these men: To show the Jewish Christians among them that the Gospel and salvation was also for the Gentiles.

There is also the baptism of desire, which was exhibited by the Good Thief, on the cross. Christ allowed him to enter Paradise without baptism. But, these are special circumstances, not the rule.

Doctor Right's position didn't "beg the question", by the way. This expression is misused all the time. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the point of the question raised, is assumed to be true without being proved.

Finally, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of Church, i.e., the Magisterium, cannot contradict the Sacred Scriptures. Please, provide an example.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 1:03AM

"That quote, from Acts 10, is the only example from Scripture where the Holy Spirit descended on men, and poured out His gifts, before baptism. It is the exception that proves the rule."

You're nuts.

I posted several examples in Scripture, as well as including in Old Testament that stated the Prophets of old had the Holy Spirit as well, when there wasn't even any baptism.

"The Prophets who prophesied of the Grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this Salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent Glory.

It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from Heaven, things into which Angels long to look."
1 Peter 1:10-12.

You always resist the Holy Spirit, Nick.

God says He gives His Spirit to them that ASK HIM.

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Lk. 11:13.

NOW: I don't know what God you follow, or which Christ, but it isn't the one of the Bible!!

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 6:29AM

You need to do a little research on the aphorism. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:08PM

Quartermaster,

Which one? The exception that proves the rule or Begs the Question? Whichever you meant, I used the former correctly, and you used the latter incorrectly.

Where are these supposed contradictions between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture?
I'm waiting.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 3:29PM

QM:

Have FUN.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 6:12PM

Quartermaster has given up, Margie, because he has no argument to make.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 4:03PM

One more nail in your coffin.

Nick| 1.12.12 @ 6:47PM

Are you counting, Margie?
How many nails does that make now? Ha-ha!

David T| 1.9.12 @ 10:06AM

Gina--As I learned long ago, justice is getting what we deserve; grace is getting what we don't deserve. Here's what the Catholic Catechism says about grace: "Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life."

Vern Crisler| 1.9.12 @ 11:41AM

The two thieves on the cross are instructive examples: the cursing thief received judgment; the thief who asked to be remembered received grace.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 3:04PM

Jesus IS God's Grace!

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father." Jn. 1:14.

Paul called it "the Gospel of the Grace of God" which he recieved in Acts 20:24.

And we're saved by Grace: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--" Eph. 2:8.

In Heb. 10:29, it says that when one who has known Christ and then turns against Him, is "outraging the Spirit of Grace."

Doing a word study in the Bible is the best way to actually know the actual Mind of God.

Vern Crisler| 1.9.12 @ 3:29PM

Interestingly, Margie, John 1 also says that the Word was God.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 3:35PM

Yes indeed, and He is.

Vern Crisler| 1.9.12 @ 5:21PM

So if the Father is God, and Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and there's one God, what doctrine does that teach?

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 5:55PM

Christian doctrine.

It existed before Catholics came-up with the name "trinity" and tried to pass it off as their own.

steve| 1.9.12 @ 7:58PM

What was it called before Catholics came up with the name "trinity?"

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:01PM

There is no IT, that's the answer to your question.

asmithy| 1.9.12 @ 4:58PM

Grace is very simple. God loves Man and sent Jesus and redeemed Man. However, we are so screwed up, that God just views us through the blood of Jesus and sees us as perfect, and does not hold our screw-ups against us.

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 8:32PM

That's true *only* if we repent and place our faith in Jesus Christ.

Kingofthenet| 1.9.12 @ 7:42AM

100 Bucks Margie calls em all 'Idol Worshipers'.

steve| 1.9.12 @ 7:55AM

King, easy bet. The word Catholic appears so Margie will be crawling from under her rock soon to grace us with her dalily wisdom.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 3:34PM

My Rock is Christ, and upon His Words I stand.

"The LORD is my Rock, and my fortress, and my Deliverer, my God, my Rock, in Whom I take refuge, my Shield, and the Horn of my Salvation, my Stronghold." Ps. 18:2.

Tina B| 1.9.12 @ 7:54PM

Amen, Margie, and amen.

steve| 1.9.12 @ 7:59PM

TinaB
Do you believe in the "trinity" and the "infant baptism," today's hot topics.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:01PM

Greetings, Tina B!!
Amen!!

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 3:47PM

Hey, Kook!

I'm still waiting for you to tell us all when a fetus (unborn baby in Latin) becomes a child?
You're such an expert on that subject, after all.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:05PM

When the little light in its palm starts to flash...

No, wait...That was "Logan's Run"...

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 6:31PM

Doctor Right,

Ha-ha! Good one!

L. Ross| 1.9.12 @ 9:08AM

I'm not going to call anyone an idol worshipper, but I must admit, I don't find a biblical basis for the veneration of Mary, or offering prayers to saints. I've visited many, many european cathedrals, and while they are beautiful, things like requilary and chapels for various saints always strike me as odd at best.

All that said, I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic church for sticking to its guns regarding social issues far better than mainstream Protestant churches, who seem to have become another branch of the democrat/progressive party.

Vern Crisler| 1.9.12 @ 11:43AM

The Catholic laity seems more conservative than the Catholic clergy.

David T| 1.9.12 @ 10:26AM

L-Ross--Before becoming a Catholic, I studied the veneration of Mary and was suprised to learn how much the Bible has to say on the subject. A good book to read, if you're interested, is "Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God", by Scott Hahn (himself a Catholic convert and former evangelical pastor).

Ryan| 1.9.12 @ 1:27PM

For me, my problem is in the Lord's prayer. I get the Catholic argument, but the main problem is this: Christ commands us to pray to the Father.

Anything else...overcomplicates the matter. It's definite in scripture that we can pray to God directly and that He hears us, and that the Holy Spirit directly "makes intercession for us that words cannot express."

The Catholic reasoning behind saints gone beyond this life listening and interceding has less scriptural backing and is more complicated. Yes, we are to ask brothers and sisters in Christ to intercede, but that is really only addressed to living ones.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 3:31PM

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

Mary is not the Mother of God, as Catholicism teaches, over "The Trinity".

The Bible teaches us that Mary was only the physical Mother of Christ on Earth, that's all.

The Vatican teaches prayer to the dead, which is against His Holy Word.

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 8:38PM

She was the mother of the incarnation of God. This much different than being the mother of God. If she is the mother of God, then God has a beginning, and scripture tells us God has always been. It is the meaning behind the statement, "before Abraham was, I Am." In the Old Testament "I Am" has a very certain meaning - the self existent one. No beginning, no end. He "is, was, and is to come."

The idea of "Theotokos" expresses this quite well. It means God Bearer. And that's exactly what Mary did when she bore the incarnation of God in Christ.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 9:01PM

She bore the CHRIST, not GOD.
The Catholics teach that she is Mother of the Trinity.
To them, that includes God, so they're making her more than just the Mother of Christ.
They also teach that she was born without SIN, and they pray to her! so that they could somehow justify this blasphemous teaching.. but it doesn't work.

Mary was a sinner like the rest of us, and Jesus is the ONLY Mediator capable of forgiving SIN.

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

But the Bible matters not to them, they are a cult. It teaches Catholicisim, and NOT Christianity.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 11:52PM

Margie,

"The Catholics teach that she is Mother of the Trinity."

NO, we don't. Why do you keep repeating this wrong notion?
Are you doing it on purpose?
Just because you can't argue against it?

You're tempting me to use "the Bus" line.
"I'm this close," as my dad used to say! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 12:10AM

And you're tempting God by lying to the Holy Spirit.

From the Vatican, (and we've been through this before):

"493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long."

"Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143"

"144 In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos).145"

"509 Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself."

Heretical garbage.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:24AM

Margie,

Aaaaaaaannnnnnnddd?
I'm still waiting to see where the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the Blessed Virgin Mary is "the mother of the Trinity."

You are correct, though, we have been through this before.
Ad nauseam.

Why do you waste your time copying and pasting quotes that don't back-up your bogus assertions? You said Catholics teach that Our Lady is "the mother of the Trinity" and then proceeded NOT to back it up.

Why? Because you can't, that's why. I don't know where you heard this nonsense, but, when you are shown that it is not true, continually, you really should stop repeating it.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:42PM

"I'm still waiting to see where the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the Blessed Virgin Mary is "the mother of the Trinity."

You truly are insane.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:47PM

That's not an answer to my objection, Margie.
I'm still waiting.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 12:11AM

p.s. the little numbers within the words, they're not Scriptural references. They're Catholic Vatican numbers referring to their own teachings.

They ARE NOT BIBLICAL TEACHINGS!

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:27AM

Those little numbers are called footnotes, not "Vatican numbers." Many of them refer to Scripture verses.
You would know this if you ever bothered to read what you copy 'n paste.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:42PM

Hey haughty Papist:

Whether or not the little numbers "sometimes refer" to Scripture, the teachings are twisted and disgusting, and not of God.

You choose to be deceived, it's apparently what you were destined to do.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:59PM

Margie,

The teachings came straight from Jesus Christ.
As history shows us.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 3:09PM

History? You wanna talk HISTORY of the ungodly Catholic cult??

You've drunk the Kool-aide and are drunk beyond measure:

OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 3:27PM

That would be the same Martyrs Mirror which PRAISES the great Catholic saints Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon?
Right, Margie?

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 4:29PM

It's the Martyrs Mirror that gives an accurate account of history.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 5:02PM

So, then, you should accept the Catholic teachings of Saints Ignatius and Irenaeus, correct?
Oh, and Origen and Tertullian, too, right?

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 8:05PM

Why should I?
I believe nothing but the Scriptures, which you pervert, along with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And: Your so called saints were murdered by your Papist pals, were they not???

The Bible says Saints are Bible believing Christians, by the way, those who are faithful to HIS WORDS.. and are LIVING.

Your Religion (cult) teaches some filthy demonic teaching, completely unbiblical.

I hope you repent, Papist.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 11:49PM

Margie,

"I believe nothing but the Scriptures, which you pervert, along with the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Then why do you keep copying and pasting from MM? You stated that it's an "accurate account of history," correct? This must include what it says about Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian, true?

"Your so called saints were murdered by your Papist pals, were they not???"

Where do you get this bogus garbage? I told you the other day that Tertullian wasn't killed. He lived to a very old age. Ignatius and Irenaeus were killed by Roman pagans.

I thought that you claimed to have read MM? Apparently not. This is why I continually tell you that you don't know much about history.

"The Bible says Saints are Bible believing Christians, by the way, those who are faithful to HIS WORDS.. and are LIVING."

Christ conquered death for His followers. Saints are those who have reached their Heavenly reward, the Beatific Vision.

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints [...]." - Revelation 5:8

"But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." - Revelation 21:27

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 2:41PM

You're a liar and perverter of Holy Scripture!

READ the Bible instead of the Vatican.

The Apostles addressed the saints all the time... and they were those who were born of the Spirit of God, as ALL genuine Christians are, according to Jn. 3:3.

You're a Papist who preaches a different gospel, and here's what God says about you:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:6-9.

See who GOD calls saints here: (the ungodly Vatican says it's the dead, and those that THEY, the Satanic Popes MAKE saints):

The Word of GOD says this:

"Love the LORD, all you his saints! The LORD preserves the faithful, but abundantly requites him who acts haughtily." Ps. 31:23.

Nick is a haughty liar who, along with the Vatican, thinks he is ABOVE the WORD of GOD.
NOW: How is that the Holy Spirit in the above Scripture is speaking to the LIVING when addressing the saints?!!

"O fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him have no want!" Ps. 34:9.

AGAIN: Saints are the LIVING!!

"They have given the bodies of thy servants to the birds of the air for food, the flesh of thy saints to the beasts of the earth." Ps. 79:2.

Not only is this Scripture predicting what was to come to the treatment of His LIVING saints, but it is also what the Popes and their minions actually DID to them for six centuries!

"Let me hear what God the LORD will speak, for He will speak peace to His people, to his saints, to those who turn to Him in their hearts." Ps. 85:8.

This Scripture PROVES who the saints are: they are living Christians~ those who believe in Him in their hearts!!

NOW: you will either believe HIS WORDS or the lying Satanic Vatican.

And I haven't even gone to the New Testament yet, where the Apostles address one another, and the followers of Christ, as SAINTS!!

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 5:36PM

Margie,

"See who GOD calls saints here:"

Thank you, for pointing this out. I was very imprecise in my statement. I did not mean to imply that there are no living saints. I apologize.

Of course, there are living saints. Just look at the lives of Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul the Great. Who can deny that these two holy souls were not living saints? I should have made this more clear.

Also, the Pope does not make saints. The Church only declares whether, or not, departed souls have reached Heaven. These people could have been in Heaven all along. The Church does not ~make~ the person a saint, She only acknowledges that the person is in Heaven.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:22PM

Your sickening cult has NO authority to say who is or who is not a saint.

The WORD of God does.

And the Murderous Papists and their minions~ they were not saints~ they were devils.

As well as the teachings that are still taught by the devils in charge of your cult this very day.

These demonic teachings have not changed, and are the same teachings that led these devils to torture and kill Christians.

This CULT is not Christianity, it never was, and still has NOT repented of its blasphemous teachings.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 7:02PM

Margie,

"Your sickening cult has NO authority to say who is or who is not a saint."

Yes, the Church does have the authority. Christ gave it to Her when He said that She would have the power to bind and loose.

The only one acting demonic, here, is....well...I leave it at that.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 3:06PM

Liar and Reprobate Nick:

The book of the accounts of the Martyrs, Martyrs Mirror is the one which you MOCK as UNTRUE and FALSE and that the Martyrs contained therein were heretics!!

Shall I look up your rabid post and copy it here, liar?

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 5:41PM

Margie,

If MM is true and not false, then what it's author says about Saints Ignatius and Irenaeus must also be true and not false, no? This is only logical, right?

But, if the author was wrong about Origen and Tertullian, then he certainly could have been wrong about other things, correct?

"Shall I look up your rabid post and copy it here, liar?"

Sure, go ahead. I don't remember writing anything rabid about MM. Or you, for that matter.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:24PM

You RABIDLY stated that the Martyrs that your sick cult Murdered were indeed heretics.

For you believe as the perverted Murderers did, and you behave just like them in your constant lying about Christianity.
TRUE Christianity.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 7:06PM

Margie,

"You RABIDLY stated that the Martyrs that your sick cult Murdered were indeed heretics."

I did no such thing. Go look it up.

Only people who have professed to be Catholic, through the Sacraments, can be heretics. People who were raised Protestant are not heretics. They are like pagans, people who have not heard the full Gospel of Christ.

Seriously, you need to start doing a better job of getting your facts straight, okay?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 4:02PM

Nick,

You're a liar, and unfortunately for the sake of the Gospel, I have to keep exposing your Pope worshipping lies:

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 10:55PM

"Since I have neither denied that there were inquisitions, nor have I denied that people were executed for heresy; you, sir, have put up a straw man."

Your Papists have trained you well, Nick.
To the untrained eye what you said looks peachy, but to Christians who have the Spirit of God, know it is pure deceit.

You said you never said that you denied that people were killed for heresy~ and in this you are telling "the truth".

But the issue and problem is~ that you agree with the Papists who murdered them~ that they were really heretics!

You are not on the side of God's Truth if this is what you truly believe.
I hope and pray that God opens your eyes. It would be better to have a zeal for Jesus that is enlightened.
Right now you are serving Satan.

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 8:06PM

Margie,

I haven't had that much training from the "Papists," really. I've read a lot. Especially, the Sacred Scriptures.

Yes, I agree that they were heretics.
No, I do not agree that they should have been executed.

The only time that I serve Satan is when I sin, as we all do. But, I try to serve God the best that I can. Sharing the Truth of Christ's Church is certainly not serving Satan.
God Bless!

Nick| 1.12.12 @ 6:44PM

Margie,

Aaaaaannnnndddd???

How was that rabid? I was denying that I wrote anything "RABIDLY" and that anyone was murdered. I was correct, on both counts.

People were put on trial, found guilty, and executed by the secular authorities, not the by the authorities of the Catholic Church. I've schooled you on this subject before, remember?

Anyone who professed to be Catholic, and then professed, publicly, heretical views, was a heretic. I stand by that statement. I'm sure that some of them are listed in MM.

So, how did I lie again?

Margie| 1.13.12 @ 9:28PM

Wow. Too bad you weren't actually born back then, Nick.

I can see you now, helping the scumbag Papists and their scumbag minions torturing the Bible believing Christians (saints and Martyrs)!!

Nick| 1.14.12 @ 12:15AM

Margie,

Blah, blah, blah. More deflection and obfuscation.
So, how did I lie again?

PJ| 1.9.12 @ 12:09PM

The book might be well-written, but I think there are many books out there already w/the same purpose. There have been many other well-written classics about lay holiness such as The Imitation of Christ or even books by St Francis de Sales from centuries ago. For today there are just so many books out there describing people leading virtuous lives & how they did it or are doing it. (2 of my favorites for the post Vatican 2 era are St Gianna Beratta Molla MD & Blessed Chiara Luce Badano.) And you don't have to buy books; read about them on the internet. For the Catholic, the list to me seems almost endless. For the non-Catholic, I'm sure it's the same.

To the reviewer, what makes this book worth buying?

Ted| 1.9.12 @ 1:16PM

And now for our TAS diversion into religious discussion.... Entertaining and enlightening as always.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:03PM

Someone tell Clint, the Pope's soldier...

steve| 1.9.12 @ 9:42PM

Hey Doc, it was Margie arguing with you, not Clint.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 10:34PM

Smarmy.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 3:23PM

Concerning Grace:

"The Prophets who prophesied of the Grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this Salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent Glory.

It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from Heaven, things into which Angels long to look.
1 Peter 1:10-12.

This shows that the Prophets of old indeed had the Holy Spirit within them.
That they prophesied of the Gospel of Grace that was to come.
And there was no baptism at that time, yet, either.
But there is now, according to the Gospel, and all Christians must be baptized. Acts 2:38.

JohnC| 1.9.12 @ 4:03PM

The path to holiness for lay people is really what the Apostle John calls being born again -- this comes from allowing the Holy Spirit to guide our lives and frequent examination of our conscience. The Spirit will then convict us of sinful areas of our lives and our job is to ask God to help us overcome these sinful tendencies – we cannot do it on our own power and it (sanctification) takes time.

There is no need to get absolution and penance from a priest, all that is needed is a willing heart; this is what the early Christians did.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 4:13PM

JohnC,

Actually, Christ gives the absolution.
The priest just stands in persona Christi, i.e., in the person of Christ.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 4:26PM

Nick,

That's plain silly.. and anyhow, if these priests aren't born of the Spirit of God, they aren't even Christians!

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 4:36PM

Margie,

If you had ever been in a confessional, and had the priest tell you about sins that you had not confessed to him, as happened to me once, you would not call it "silly".
Christ absolves sins through the ordained priest, during the Sacrament of Penance.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:45PM

"Jesus answered and said to him, Truly,
truly, I say to you, If one is not generated
from above, he is not able to see the kingdom
of God.
Nicodemus said to Him, How is a man
able to be generated, being old? He is not
able to enter into his mother’s womb a second
time and be generated.
Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to
you, If one is not generated out of water
and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the
kingdom of God.
The thing having been generated out of
the flesh is flesh, and that having been generated
out of the Spirit is spirit.
Do not wonder because I said to you,
You must be generated from above.
The Spirit breathes where He desires,
and you hear His voice; but you do not
know from where He comes, and where
He goes; so is everyone having been generated
from the Spirit." Jn. 3:3-8.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 7:34PM

Margie,

This Scripture passage is about the Sacrament of Baptism. Not the Sacrament of Penance. Sorry.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:00PM

It is NOT about baptism, nor does it say any such thing.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:00PM

But perhaps Dr, right would agree with you...

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:26PM

Jesus SAYS: THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE FLESH IS FLESH.
THAT IS THE WATER BIRTH, NOT BAPTISM.

REPENT, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL OF GOD, LEST YOU PERISH!!

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 7:14PM

Margie,

The words water birth are not in John 3:3-8.

YOU ARE ADDING TO THE WORD OF GOD!!!

Better get ready for that trip to the Lake of Fire! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 11:19PM

"I [John] baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." - Matthew 3:11

"And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on Him [...]." - Matthew 3:16

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:37PM

Anyone who has half a brain in his head, and isn't a Pope worshipper can actually read.

I am sorry for your lying soul, but I pity you not, you deserve where you're going.

Nick| 1.12.12 @ 6:19PM

Margie,

"I am sorry for your lying soul, but I pity you not, you deserve where you're going."

Christians are supposed to be forgiving, like Christ, Whose forgiveness is limitless. You don't get to decide how anyone gets judged. In fact, we can't say, positively, who specifically is in Hell, except for Satan, of course.

Margie| 1.13.12 @ 9:24PM

Your sin is between you and your Maker~ it isn't my job to forgive you, but the One you are rebelling against.

The Bible tells me only to forgive a BROTHER if he sins against me, IF he repents and ASKS for forgiveness.

1. You aren't a brother.

2. Your sin is between you and God.

Nick| 1.14.12 @ 12:12AM

Margie,

None of that changes the fact that John 3:3-8 is about baptism and that you ADDED TO THE WORDS OF GOD.

Your attempt to deflect and obfuscate has failed. Nice try, though.

Better get ready for that trip to the Lake of Fire! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 7:09PM

Nick, I've had a similar experience. On one level it was sort of scary; on another, higher level it strengthened my faith regarding my moving in the right direction. Thanks for bringing this up - it reminded me that there's much more to our faith life than reading about, and 'sparring' about, doctrine.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 7:33PM

SeymourGlass,

Or, should I address you as "Mr. Glass"? Ha-ha!

You are entirely welcome. I was awe-struck when this happened. I couldn't wait to tell everyone in my family.

I've had some pretty miraculous occurrences in my life, being protected from death (several times) by my guardian angel, and such; but, the experience in the confessional exceeded all 0f the rest.

Especially, when I heard that Saint Padre Pio did this numerous times. I will never doubt that Christ works through His priests ever again. The bishops and priests truly do act in persona Christi in the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance.
God Bless!

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 8:43PM

I would not be surprised that something of that sort has happened. When you deal with such things on a regular basis you find other things are normally associated with certain sins. Such things do not require any sort of word of knowledge to bring up. This is similar to the time a young priest was complaining about the wealth of the RCC to Fulton Sheen. Sheen then asked how much the young priest was steeling from the offerings. I don't accept Sheen as a Christian, but he was a canny man that was well aware of the machinations of human nature.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 9:03PM

Demons also take on the voices of the dead, and deceive others.. it means nothing.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 10:14PM

Be careful, Margie, when you seek to explain something you don't understand as the work of "demons". Just be careful.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 10:43PM

I didn't say that it was, but made a true point.
The sins of the flesh are quite typical in nature.

Also, do you not know that that is what truly goes on at seances? It is demons that speak through the so called "Mediums". They are able to speak in the voice of the loved one.. creepy but true.

And besides, the Catholic teachings are demonic teachings, as stated in the Bible, so the Devil is already there.
Nick has been sold a bill of goods, and is utterly deceived, as he holds to these teachings.
He refuses to repent and believe the true Gospel of God, and all the mocking and demeaning of me for saying it in the world doesn't change the facts.

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. 4:1-5.

Those are some SERIOUS Words and warnings. I don't take them lightly.
Nick does. He thinks he's following the truth, but he is following a lie.

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 10:49PM

I'm with Nick on this one, Margie.

And when you say "the Catholic teachings are demonic teachings, as stated in the Bible, so the Devil is already there" you've lost me.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 10:58PM

Did you read the Scripture I posted??

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 11:06PM

I did. I don't see how it relates.

Good night, Margie.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 11:40PM

I'll tell you how it relates, Seymour.

First of all, the so called priests in Catholicism are a joke. They have no power, no authority and are completely unscriptural~ there is no such thing in Scripture about them absolving or being able to have supposed special powers.

It's baloney. There aren't even supposed to be these so called priests who pretend to have special powers.

Priests were done away with when Jesus became the High Priest of God, and died for the sins of the world, once for all.

"This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant.
The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but He holds his priesthood permanently, because He continues for ever.

Consequently He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was fitting that we should have such a High Priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the Heavens.

He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for His own sins and then for those of the people; He did this once for all when He offered up Himself.

Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the Word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever." Heb. 7:23-28.

So you see, so called priests are NO LONGER needed!!

That's just for starters.

But the verse I stated above concerning the doctrines of demons~ it spoke to the forbidding of Marriage, that that's what that is, a doctrine of demons.
So there is your proof.
They forbid Marriage for some.

And the priest thing, I just proved according to Scripture how it is wrong.. so you have not the practice of Christianity there, but a practicing cult of their own Religion.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 11:46PM

Margie,

Saint Paul was speaking of the Levitical Priesthood, in Hebrews. Not the Episkopi? and Presbyters, i.e., Bishops and Priests, that Christ appointed, and the Apostles after Him.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 11:55PM

Nope. The Bible speaks for itself to all that have ears to hear His Words.

There is not supposed to be priests who act as go betweens.. Jesus became that for us, as it is written.

In fact there is not supposed to be a church hierarchy at all, and we are told to now confess our sins to each other, (Christians) not a "priest".

"Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." Jas. 5:16.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:00AM

Margie,

"There is not supposed to be priests who act as go betweens."

They don't act as go-betweens, the act in persona Christi, i.e., in the person of Christ.
This is all covered quite thoroughly in Article 6 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Sacrament of Holy Orders, starting with paragraph #1536. Please, check it out.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:30PM

"They don't act as go-betweens, the act in persona Christi, i.e., in the person of Christ."

You either believe the WORD of GOD, that Jesus IS the only High Priest because He became the Lamb of God who takes away the SIN of the World, and that because of HIS SACRIFICE made ONCE FOR ALL as it is written,

OR: You call God a liar, resist the Holy Spirit, and are a Reprobate.

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim.2:5 & 6.

As of now, you're calling God a liar.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 7:21PM

Margie,

"ou either believe the WORD of GOD, that Jesus IS the only High Priest because He became the Lamb of God who takes away the SIN of the World, and that because of HIS SACRIFICE made ONCE FOR ALL as it is written,"

I believe ALL of those statements.

None of which contradict the fact that Christ established presbuteros, i.e., the priesthood, through the Apostles. Did you forget my debate with Victor over the word elder?

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 11:03PM

p.s. Another demonic teaching is so called Transubstantiation.
Utterly unbiblical and blasphemous.
It claims that the actual physical Body of Christ somehow reappears and you actually EAT IT.
Demonic indeed!

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 10:13PM

Sorry to disappoint you, QM, but the experience I allude to isn't at all comparable to the story you tell about Bishop Sheen. The details are none of your business.

Are you, or have you been, a priest? You use the phrase "when you deal with such things on a regular basis..." do you have regular experience with the sacrament?

Now that I think of it, your post reminds ME of a story from Bishop Sheen; he used to say he knew nobody who hated Catholicism, but many who hated their own uninformed impression of Catholicism.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 11:41PM

Quartermaster,

What happened to me in the confessional was nothing like the example given by Bishop Sheen.

I wasn't complaining about anything. I was earnestly trying to confess all of my sins, especially the doozies, i.e., the mortal sins. What the priest couldn't possibly have known, because I never mentioned it, and he didn't know me from Adam, was that I had had a problem believing that I was actually forgiven for my past sins. Mostly, the worst ones, from my past, before I had returned to regularly attending Mass.

So, after I said that I was done, the priest didn't address any of the sins that I had confessed, but, instead, went on to explain to me how my sins were truly forgiven and that there was no need to keep obsessing about this. I was stunned.

The first thing that I thought was, "How did he know about that?" The next thing that I thought was, "How do you think, dummy?"

Haven't you ever had anything miraculous happen in you life, Quartermaster?
God Bless!

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 6:39AM

I have teh miraculous, truly miraculous happen in my life. It was clearly so, even in future reflection it was not possible to attribute it to anyone but God. It was nothing like I have just pointed with Sheen or you.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 2:25PM

The thing that is a greater thing than a physical miracle is when the God of the Bible, through His Son, Jesus Christ, and by His Holy Spirit, choose to give His Grace and put His Spirit within the heart of a human being.

And He does it to them that ASK HIM to.

His Holy Word says so:

Do not listen tot he liars and Religious hypocrites here.

HIS HOLY WORD SAYS THIS:

"f you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Lk. 11:13.

"But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the Word of Faith which we preach); because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

The Scripture says, "No one who believes in Him will be put to shame." Rom. 10:9-11.

Who will you believe? God or the Devil??

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 11:58PM

You said he only told you not to worry about your old sins. That's not telling you what sins you committed.

And there is no such thing in the Bible as to so called ordained priests.
Nor is there any such thing as so called pennance!

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:13AM

Margie,

"You said he only told you not to worry about your old sins."

No, he said not to obsess about not being forgiven. That was the sin that I was committing. I was denying the power and limitlessness of God's forgiveness. He also said other things. I can't remember them all, and, I might not want to repeat some of them.

Plus, did you miss the part where this most holy priest could not have known that this sin was hounding me. I never brought it up, nor, did I hint at it, either. He brought it up, out of nowhere. Christ was certainly working through this man that day. He fell asleep in Christ a few years ago. I'm sure that he is a saint.

Why must you always look for the negative? Why must you always try to sow discord?

You keep misspelling penance, by the way. See, everyone can find some fault in another.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:39PM

Oh, please.
That type of encouragement is regularly given between brothers and sisters alike.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:56PM

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 3:01PM

Your so called priest divined nothing. He encouraged you not to worry about your old sins~ that's NOTHING.

You're a fraud.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 3:24PM

Margie,

I never stated that he "divined" anything. This is a big part of your problem. You read things that nobody said.

You're just hating on me because I have shown your many mistakes. Like claiming that the men at Pentecost received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized.

Did you purposely bring up the penance quote in order to deflect the fact that you got that passage of Scripture completely wrong?

Don't hate me because I correct you, constantly. I do it because I love you as a sister in Christ, and know that you don't want to purposely get things wrong.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 4:28PM

You can't "correct" Scripture, kiddo.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 4:59PM

You are not Scripture, Margie.
I correct you, constantly.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 7:54PM

You're an IDIOT.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 11:22PM

"Sticks and stones, luv."

You are my sister in Christ, Margie.
And, I still love you as such.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 2:18PM

I'm not your "luv", you filthy, lying Reprobate.

I see you are love in another thread trashing me, LYING about what I believe, which makes you not only a COWARD fit for Hell, if that isn't bad enough, but you openly LIE.

Sorry Nick, but the WORD of GOD says cowards and liars go to Hell:

"ut as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

NOR ARE YOU A BROTHER IN CHRIST, for you pervert the Scriptures and the Gospel of Jesus Christ and are in agreement with the ungodly and Satanistic Vatican.

NO! You are in fact a brother to him who DESTROYS.

And Dr. Right is your brother!

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:35PM

"I see you are love in another thread trashing me,"

* love should have been lying", in that sentence.

Nick| 1.12.12 @ 6:14PM

I'm still waiting to find out how I "trashed" you.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 3:08PM

You're a FRAUD and a LIAR~ you lie repeatedly about the Scriptures and about Christians who rely on and believe in them.

You're not a Christian, you're a Vatican Idolator!

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 6:05PM

Margie,

How exactly did I trash you? What did I get wrong about your beliefs? Maybe if you made your beliefs clear, people wouldn't get them wrong.

Maybe you should write you own catechism, eh?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:32PM

Pervert.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 7:23PM

And, now, you have given up, just like Quartermaster, Margie.
Typical.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:33PM

You know, Nick, every time you lie you put one more nail in your coffin.

Nick| 1.12.12 @ 6:13PM

You know, Margie, you're not God.

To paraphrase the movie The Princess Bride, "You keep using this word lie. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Ha-ha!

Margie| 1.13.12 @ 9:20PM

The cult of Catholicism isn't GOD, God is God.

I suggest you repent and believe HIS WORDS as they are written in the Bible, and not the perverted Vatican!

Nick| 1.14.12 @ 12:07AM

Margie,

The Catholic Church is the ekklesia that Christ founded Himself, on Simon Kephas, at Caesarea Philippi:

"And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this kephas I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

Margie| 1.13.12 @ 9:21PM

Oh, and p.s.~ God say liars go to Hell.

Those are HIS Words, kiddo.
Better listen up!

Nick| 1.14.12 @ 12:08AM

To paraphrase the movie The Princess Bride, "You keep using this word liars. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 4:24PM

Dr. Right says:

"Infants are NOT born with "original sin."

The Bible says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--" Rom. 5:12.

We are all born in Sin.

Infants just have no knowledge of it yet.. and to them, as Jesus says, belong the Kingdom of God. Lk. 18:16.

And because they have no knowledge of Sin, they have no need to repent and be baptized, like the Catholics do!

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:01PM

So infants go to hell if they die during birth?

Is that what you're saying? Are you espousing the Dante-esque view?

Because there's a world of difference between being born into sin, and being sinful.

Infants/children are innocent. They are unable to distinguish right from wrong. As such, they are blameless AND sinless.

Besides...according to you, one can receive the Holy Spirit by asking for it. How would an infant do that?

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 6:16PM

How on Earth did you get that I was saying infants go to Hell if they aren't baptized?

You are sounding like a Catholic.

I said what the Bible says.

I said what Jesus says, that the Kingdom of God belongs to them that they have no need to be baptized because they have no knowledge of the sin that is in their members.

Of course they are innocent, they haven't yet sinned.. are you really this disingenuous??

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 11:21PM

"Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men." Romans 5:18.

Babies have sin in their members, but are innocent until they are old enough to know right from wrong, at which point ALL will sin.

Of course they don't go to Hell if they die..!!

My whole point was that they have no need to be baptized because they haven't committed sin!!

I do not understand how you turned that into something other than that.

Did not Paul say Sin dwells in us?

"So then it is no longer I that do it, but Sin which dwells within me." Rom. 7:17.

"..but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of Sin which dwells in my members." Romans 7:23.

We are all born with Sin in our members, we are fallen creatures. When babies grow up, they will sin.. just like we all do.

But how can babies commit sin? They cannot.
There is the Sin that swells in our members, that we inherited from Adam.

And then there is the committing of sins when we become aware of right from wrong.

God's definition of sin is here:

"Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." Jas. 4:7.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 1:50AM

Margie,

"Babies have sin in their members, but are innocent until they are old enough to know right from wrong, at which point ALL will sin."

"My whole point was that they have no need to be baptized because they haven't committed sin!!"

Aaaahhhh-hhaaa!

So, you finally admit that Saint Paul didn't mean ALL in Romans 3:23 and 5:12, right? Paul had exceptions to pantes, i.e., ALL. It also means that Paul was speaking generally, when he used ALL, as I stated repeatedly. And, which you denied repeatedly, I might add.

Which also means that the Blessed Virgin Mary was an exception to pantes, ALL. Because when the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write all, He didn't mean ALL. As in every person who ever lived.

Now, do you also concede my other two very simple questions?
God Bless!

p.s. I'm surprised that you believe in Original Sin, though, since you won't find those words in the Bible, like the Trinity. Chapter 5 of Romans is all about Original Sin, by the way. Chapter 6 is about baptism, and chapter 7 is about concupiscence.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:38PM

I "finally admitted" no such thing you petulant punk.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:43PM

Yes you did Margie.
And everyone can read it for themselves, in black & white.

Thanks, again, for the admission.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 3:00PM

I admitted no such thing, you lying piece of WORK.

I quoted what God's Own Words say.

That all have sinned, since Adam ALL are born having Sin in our members.

Babies do not COMMIT Sin because they have no knowledge or understanding of Sin.

Therefore they need no baptism, because they COMMITTED no sins.

You're a lying little twerp, go crawl under your filthy rock.

FOOL.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 3:17PM

Margie,

Your words are there for everyone to read. Don't try to deny it.

Can I take credit for you believing in the doctrine of Original Sin? It's not in the Bible, you know?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 3:48PM

"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His Words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.

And His Words say:

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--" Romans 5:12.

Are you disagreeing with Scripture??

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 4:15PM

I never disagree with the Sacred Scriptures, Margie.

"26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And he came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!'" - Luke 1: 26-28

"For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just." - Romans 5:19

Are you disagreeing with Scripture?

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 7:49PM

You didn't answer the question.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 11:20PM

Margie,

Yes, I did. I stated quite clearly: "I never disagree with the Sacred Scriptures, Margie."

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 4:14PM

Nick is so blinded by his deceit that he cannot understand the difference between the Sin in our members, as I quoted in the Scripture, and COMMITTING sins.

Sin, capital S, is in our members as it is written.

Committing sins is what we ALL do once we are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong.

No one is able to NOT commit sins. If they were, Jesus wouldn't have had to die for Sin.

Babies have no knowledge of the Sin that is in their members yet.. but they will soon enough, and as it is written, they will also need to, repent, and believe the Gospel of God.. for the forgiveness of their sins." Acts 10:43.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 4:57PM

See my reply, which was a minute behind your's.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 5:17PM

Margie,

By the way, the words "Original Sin" are not found in the Bible. The Word of God does not mention anything about "Original Sin".

Your belief in "Original Sin" is un-Biblical!

Now, just substitute the word Trinity for Original Sin!
Who's writings do these resemble?
The first two guesses don't count! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 7:51PM

So, you're actually saying you disagree with the Scriptures that say we are all sinners and that because of Adam, ALL have Sin??

And the "Original Sin" is a Catholic doctrine.. I am not interested in Catholic doctrine, only what the Bible actually says.

Your man, Augustine claimed infants go to Hell unless they're baptized. He was an idiot.

Much like yourself.

W| 1.10.12 @ 8:01PM

MullahMargie
Yes, you are much smarter that St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. You keep projecting, you are referred to as an idiot on this site.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 8:15PM

I AM smarter than Augustine.
He was stupid enough to go against the WORD OF GOD.
I'm not.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 11:18PM

You couldn't hold Saint Augustine's toga, Margie.

"So, you're actually saying you disagree with the Scriptures that say we are all sinners and that because of Adam, ALL have Sin??"

No. How many times do I have to tell you this? I do not disagree with any Scriptures?

Now, Saint Paul also wrote this:

"For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just." -Romans 5:19

Which Scripture is correct? Do they contradict each other? Impossible. So, how do you explain Paul's choice of words?

"Your man, Augustine claimed infants go to Hell unless they're baptized."

I don't believe this is true. Would you please tell me which of his books you found this in?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 2:11PM

You're insane.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 4:11PM

"A. D. 418.-The doctrine of infant baptism having been openly controverted ever since the beginning of this century, its foundation, namely, original sin, being denied and refuted, it occurred, A. D. 418, that those of the Roman church in Africa, through the urgent request of Augustine and his fellow bishops, obtained the convocation of a council or synod under Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, composed of two hundred and fourteen bishops; which council, in the name of the See of Rome, absolutely anathematized or condemned the views of those who did not admit infant baptism or recognize original sin in infants, as well as of those who, opposing predestination, held that the will of man was free. The 112th Canon contains the following resolution respecting original sin and baptism, "It is likewise thought proper, that every one who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth, are baptized for the remission of sins, and that they derive from the sin of the first father, Adam, that from which they must be cleansed through the washing of regeneration, be anathema, that is, accursed."

A. D. 419-421.As the Anabaptists were not yet deterred by the above council, from maintaining their doctrine that baptism ought only to be administered upon true faith, therefore, in order to quench their doctrine, the authority of said council was confirmed A. D. 419, by the edicts of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, and A. D. 421, by the additional edict of Constantius; whereby said council forcibly prevailed throughout the entire Roman empire. See concerning this, H. Montdn. Nietigh., page 79.
From this it appears that this doctrine of baptizing only upon true faith, was accepted by very many at that time; for otherwise it would not have been necessary for the Emperors to threaten its defenders with the great power of their edicts, and, as it appears, to persecute them even unto death.
A. D. 425. Bapt. Hist., page 411, Maximus (Homil. 71, de Baptism. Christi) says, "Jesus was baptized, not for Himself, but for us; not that He might be purified with the water, but that He (so to speak), might sanctify the water. The new man was baptized, that He might confirm the mystery of the new baptism.
When, therefore, Maximus introduces here the baptism of Christ, which took place when the latter was about thirty years old, and says that it was not done for Himself, but for us, that is, for an example to be followed, and that He thereby confiirmed the mystery of the new baptism, he certainly indicates thereby, that he is not speaking of he baptism of infants, since Christ, who, through His baptism, confirmed baptism, was not a child when He was baptized, but an adult person. Moreover, as no other contrary testimony concerning him is found in the history of holy baptism, it seems probable, that he was not acquainted with any other baptism, and, consequently, not with infant baptism, or, at least, did not observe it.
A. D. 428.-There were many persons accused, through the writings of Augustine, of being Anabaptist, or at least, of defending Anabaptism, inasmuch as they maintained that baptism administered by heretics or unbelievers was not to be regarded as true baptism, and that, therefore, those who had been baptized by such persons, ought to be rebaptized; in short, that there was no true baptism except that administered in the true church, and upon true faith. Among those thus accused Cresconius was not one of the least; in Augustine's writings the following things are laid to his charge
Bapt. Hist., page 416, "That there is but one true baptism; for it is written: One God, one faith, one baptism, one undefiled, true church: those who are not in it, the same cannot have any baptism."
Again, "In baptism, regard is had to the certainty that he who administers it is such a one that does it in a holy manner; but this certainly respecting the one who baptizes, is not judged by the uprightness of his heart, which cannot be seen, but according to his good reputation, and the respect in which he is held."
Again, "It -is written: 'The oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head': hence it follows it is not the will of God, that an open sinner shall baptize."
Again, "In view of this passage, can anything more absurd be said, than that one polluted person should purify another? that one impure person should wash another? that one unclean person should cleanse another? or that a blasphemer should make any one innocent?"
Again, "You, our gainsayers, do not distinguish between a believer and an unbeliever."
Again, "If it were wrong [what we confess], and baptism may not be annulled [or re-administered], no matter who has administered it, then the apostles would not have baptized those who had been baptized by John; but the contrary is seen," Acts 19:5.
Again, "In Acts 2:38, Peter commands every Jew to be baptized upon (or in) the name of Christ, though their forefathers had been baptized in the Red Sea (I Cor. 10:2) hence, the previous baptism (that is, the one which has not been administered rightly), may justly be annulled or changed."
These are the words, or, at least, the meaning, of Cresconius and his companions, as described by Augustine, and quoted in the History of Holy Baptism; from which it may be seen that also at that time but one baptism was recognized, which must be administered in the true church, by blameless teachers, and upon true faith, as stated elsewhere.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs023.htm

Oh, Augustine was NO Christian, nor was he a "saint", but a perverter of the Word of God.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 3:49PM

Augustine was a Catholic, not a Christian. If I were to be permitted to get anywhere near his stinking toga, I would have told him to repent and believe the gospel of God.

The history of men like Augustine and how they perverted the Scriptures into saying that because infants are born with sin, they had to be baptized else they'd go to Hell?

Yes, it is true. That is what they still teach to this very day.

The Bible says that Sin is in our members, as it is written in Scripture.
Yet the Catholic (not Christian) teaching holds that baptism removes SIN, which it does not.
The Catholic teachings says that Salvation is by baptism, not by saving Grace.

This is why they erroneously teach that infants must be baptized.

Read some history here:

"It deserves mention, that in those times infant baptism was based upon original sin, so that it was thought that infants, for the removal of said original sin; must necessarily be baptized; from which the conclusion was derived, that infants that were not baptized, and, consequently (in their opinion), not cleansed from original sin, must necessarily be damned, as is still taught at the present day by the Papists."

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs023.htm

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 4:43PM

"WILLIAM WHITE, FATHER ABRAHAM OF COLCHESTER, AND JOHN WADDON, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT NORWICH, IN ENGLAND, A. D. 1428
When the light of the Gospel began to break forth with power also in England, so that some persons not only believed and adhered to, but also taught and propagated the truth of Christ, the Romanists, proving themselves children of darkness, evinced their old nature towards these people, inasmuch as they informed the King of England, then only a child of six years, of this matter, aiming to provide against it.
Thus it happened A. D. 1428, that this childking, induced by the fathers and heads of the Roman church, immediately resolved to give orders to the officers appointed thereto, to apprehend these persons and all who were of their persuasion, in order that they might be punished according to the laws of England.
COPY OF THE LETTER OF KING HENRY VI, TO JOHN EXTOR, AND JACOLET GERMAINE, GOV ERNORS OF CHOLCHESTER, TO APPRE HEND WILLIAM WHITE AND HIS ADHERENTS

"Henry, by the Grace of God, King of England and France, Lord of Ireland, to his beloved friends, John Extor, and Jacolet Germaine, Governors of the Castle at Cholchester, greeting, "Be it known unto you, that, perfectly relying on your fidelity and prudence, we have charged you, both together and each separately, to arrest and apprehend William White, priest, and Thomas, chaplain, formerly at Settling, in the county of Norfolk, and William Northampton, priest, and all others that are suspected of heresy, whoever they may be, and wherever they may be found, whether in free cities or without; and to send them, as soon as you have apprehended them, to our nearest jails or prisons, until we shall have given orders for their release., "And, therefore, we charge you strictly to keep a close surveillance on the aforesaid persons, and to faithfully observe the above in the manner stated before., "We likewise command and charge each and all of our justiciaries, who have the care of the common peace, as mayors, margraves, bailiffs, constables, and all our other faithful officers, by the contents of these presents, that they render you, both together and each separately, good assistance, and help and advise you to execute the preceding command, as becometh them., "In witness of this, we have ourselves caused our letters patent to be executed, and have signed them at Westminster, the sixth day of July, in the sixth year of our reign, coinciding with A. D. 1428." See John Fox, Angl., p. 607.
In old records we find that by virtue of this commission of the King, John Extor, who was one of these commissaries, shortly afterwards apprehended six persons at Bungay, in the bishopric of Norwich, and delivered them into the custody of William Day and William Rowe, constables of the city of Bungay, to be brought within ten days to the castle of Norwich., "The names, however, of these six persons," writes John Fox,"owing to the age of the writing, had almost entirely faded out, so that they could not well be read, except three or four." But what further transpired with them, and what sufferings

Page 346
or death befell them, we do not find clearly expressed.
In the meantime there were also apprehended and brought to Norwich, three eminent and virtuous men, namely, William White, formerly a priest, Father Abraham of Cholchester, and John Waddon, who, after preceding examination, made confession of the following articles
CONFESSION OF FAITH OF SAID THREE MARTYRS, TOUCHING THEIR BELIEF AGAINST THE ROMAN CHURCH

1."That the children of Christians are sufficiently baptized in the blood of Christ, and, hence, need not be baptized with water.
2."That no tithes need be given to the pastors of the Roman church.
3."That marriage properly consists in the consent or agreement of union between man and woman (with rejection, as it seems, of the superstitions which the Romanists are wont to observe in connection with it).
4."That auricular confession is not necessary, and that one need not go and confess to the priests, but to God alone; since no priest has power to forgive a sinner his sins.
5."That no priest has power to make the body of Christ, or to consecrate it in the sacrament of the altar; but that after the words are pronounced, there still remains purely material bread, just as it was before.
6."That each and every Christian believer is a priest before God.
7."That no one is bound on pain of damnation to observe lent or any other fast days commanded by the Roman church.
8."That the pope is the antichrist, and his prelates disciples of antichrist; and that the pope has no authority to bind or loose on earth.
9."That it is lawful for all Christians to perform bodily works on holidays, except sins.
10."That it is lawful for priests to marry.
11."That the excommunications and ecclesiastical punishments decreed by the prelates are not to be regarded.
12."That in particular cases it is not lawful to swear.
(NOTE.-This article seems not to have been recorded correctly by the notary; for it appears that these people prohibited the oath not only in particular cases, but in any wise, seeing the following martyress, Margaret Backster, pronounces these men faithful preachers of the Word of God, and confessed herself, that one might not swear at all, neither by God, nor by, etc.).
13."One ought not to go on pilgrimages.
14."That no worship at all is to be bestowed upon images, the crucifix, Our Lady, or any other saint or saintess.
15."That the holy water consecrated by the priest in the church, is not holier or more efficacious han any other river or spring water; because the Lord blessed all waters together after their creation.
16."That the death of Thomas Becket (archbishop of Canterbury), was neither meritorious nor holy.
17."That relics consisting in bones of the dead may not be worshiped, exhumed, placed on altars in the church, or inclosed in chests.
18."That prayers made in every place are equally acceptable to God.
19."Saints should not be worshiped, but God alone.
20."That bells and hand-bells in church, are instituted for no other purpose than to fill the purses of the priests.
21."It is no sin to oppose the commands of the (Roman) church.
22."That the (true) Catholic church is only the congregation of the beloved children of God."
These are briefly the principal articles which they together unanimously maintained, and whereupon they also suffered death, inasmuch as they, after severe examination and manifold torments, refusing to apostatize, were condemned to be burnt alive; which also took place with them, namely, first with William White, in September, 1428, in the city of Norwich, and then with father Abraham, and John Waddon, who, having commended their souls into the hands of God, offered up a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable unto God."

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs048.htm

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 4:58PM

Augustine, the whack job, after saying a bunch of insanity concerning the baptism of infants, concluded with saying this:

"From all this it follows, that even for the life of infants was His flesh given, which He gave for the life of the world; and that even they will not have life if they eat not the flesh of the Son of man."

Sooo.. infants will not have life, according this arrogant lying Reprobate, unless they "eat not the flesh.."

Infants!!!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 5:22PM

A partial comment by the Apsotate Religion of Catholicism concerning infant baptism, by "The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith".

"Later, the Council of Carthage in 418 condemned "whoever says that newborn infants should not be baptized," and it taught that, on account of the Church's "rule of faith" concerning original sin, "even babies, who are yet unable to commit any sin personally, are truly baptized for the forgiveness of sins, for the purpose of cleansing by rebirth what they have received by birth."[11]

Do you know what this "Congregation" was called, before it was changed?

Of which the CURRENT POPE was the head of.

THE INQUISITION.

Yes, the Inquisition, whereby the Satanic Papists tortured and killed the Bible believing Christians for their REFUSAL to baptize infants, because they adhered to The Word of God which states that "The Kingdom of God belongs to children", AND that Repentance and the receiving of the Holy Spirit is FOR those who have the need of it, namely, SINNERS, of which infants have not the capability to commit SIN, and therefore have no possible CALL to baptism.

Further: Baptism is NOT the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, for physical WATER does not produce the Spirit of God, but the Spirit of GOD PRODUCES it.

"Jesus answered and said to him, Truly,
truly, I say to you, If one is not generated
from above, he is not able to see the kingdom
of God.
Nicodemus said to Him, How is a man
able to be generated, being old? He is not
able to enter into his mother’s womb a second
time and be generated.
Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to
you, If one is not generated out of water
and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the
kingdom of God." Jn. 3:3-5.

The being born of, or regenerated from above, is spiritual, not physical.

The Holy Spirit of God does not come from baptism, but as it is written, from Heaven.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 5:25PM

"Of which the CURRENT POPE was the head of."

That is, the so called, "Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith".

That is a "congregation" of Catholics, NOT Christians.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 5:53PM

"Do you know what this "Congregation" was called, before it was changed?

Of which the CURRENT POPE was the head of.

THE INQUISITION."

Oooooo! I didn't expect the Spanish Inquistion!"
Ha-ha!

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 5:59PM

Margie,

I believe that I asked for a quote from Saint Augustine, from his numerous writings.
Not from some guy who thinks that there were Anabaptists in the 5th century, A.D. When there were not.

Was this task too hard for you?

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 6:01PM

All of your copying and pasting doesn't change the fact that Saint Paul wrote that "many were made sinners" in chapter five of Romans.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:35PM

I provided a quote. You find your own, Papist liar.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 7:33PM

No, this is not how it works, Margie.

When it is YOU who wrongly claims that Saint Augustine said that infants, who aren't baptized, go to Hell, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the source. Not MINE.

Pasting quotes from some anti-Catholic zealot, who doesn't even know that there were no Anabaptists in the 5th century, A.D., is not valid evidence for your mistaken assertion.

I can save you a lot of time, though, as Augustine's works are extensive: Saint Augustine never taught any such thing. To the best of my knowledge.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:25PM

I just quoted the Reprobates' own words, above.
Open your eyes, liar.

Augustine HATED Bible believing Christians.. anyone can do the research.

He began the edit against them, he was a murderer

Your words are meaningless.

As to ana-baptists, you're full of deceit as always, how sad.

They were called ana-baptists, they did not call themselves this. They were simply born again Christians who refused to bow the knee to the Murderous Papists concerning the baptizing of infants. And for this your filthy Popes and their minions tortured and killed them.

The same faith of Jesus Christ that these Christians had is the same faith that ALL Bible believing Christians had, and which for they were KILLED by your Popes!!

Your deceit is sickening.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:30PM

"edit" above s/b EDICT.
Ana-baptist simply means re-baptize. A label the Papists gave to ALL Bible believing Christians who reject the false teaching of infant baptism.

You are such an utter fraud, Nick.
I posted Augustine's own words, above, from his own writings concerning his "view" on infants.

You're such an arrogant cult member ready to try and deflect from the Truth of God in your attempt to try and make me look like I AM the liar.. but it is YOU.

You do not even know (recognize) your own Master's words. And that Master isn't God.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:32PM

"I believe that I asked for a quote from Saint Augustine, from his numerous writings."

I did, you fool.

Nick| 1.12.12 @ 6:09PM

Margie,

No, you didn't.
You gave me a quote from the fact-challenged Martyrs Mirror. Give me the exact quote from Saint Augustine and which book it came from.

Or, else, your claim is bogus.
God Bless

Margie| 1.13.12 @ 9:19PM

The quote from the disgusting Christian hater Augustine, was from his own writings, concerning infants.

Nick| 1.14.12 @ 12:03AM

Book and chapter, please.

Or, else, your claim is bogus.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 6:29PM

"Besides...according to you, one can receive the Holy Spirit by asking for it. How would an infant do that?"

Wow, am I to believe that this is truly Dr. Right??

"I" said it NOT: The Word of God says so:

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Lk. 11:13.

And why is it that you have ignored the other Scriptures I posted that prove that the Holy Spirit IS given BEFORE baptism, by the Will of God?

Here are some more:

Jesus says He baptizes with His Spirit:

"John answered them all, "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Lk. 3:16

His Spirit was given BEFOR baptism here:

"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Jn. 20:22.

And here:

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:4.

And here:

"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning." Acts 11:15.

And this is a wonderful account of same:

"And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

But we believe that we shall be saved through the Grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Acts 15:8-11.

Exactly what yoke are YOU putting on yourself AND others by speaking against His Word that one cannot receive the Holy Spirit without being baptized FIRST??

PJ| 1.9.12 @ 6:13PM

Your logic is a little off. If all human beings are born w/sin, I assume you mean that sin that was passed on to us from Adam & Eve, whether one has knowledge of it does not make a difference. It still exists. Baptism removes this sin & thus gives us the ability to get to heaven. That's why it's imperative to be baptized which I believe you advocate.

For infants who die before baptism, we don't know what happens to them but we can only hope that God will "break some rules" & receive these babies in heaven. But why take a chance! God has told us what the rules are & guarantee everlasting life if we follow them.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 6:48PM

God has to break no rules, He MADE the rules, and He says the Kingdom of God belongs to the children, so why would baptism be necessary??
Especially when the command to "REPENT and believe the Gospel and be baptized" is written to adults!

"Baptism removes this sin & thus gives us the ability to get to heaven."

Baptism does NOT remove sin. The Holy Spirit does:

"..He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His Grace and become heirs in hope of Eternal Life." Titus 3:5-7.

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 8:52PM

Margie you are confusing figurative language with literal language. Christ said, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." Note the comparison word "as." It is very important to the context.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 9:06PM

I didn't confuse anything. And I didn't quote that verse.

THIS is the verse where Jesus says the Kingsom of God belongs to children:

"And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them.
But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the Kingdom of God." Mt. 10:13 & 14.

Are you going to try and say He didn't mean it for the children???

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 6:41AM

Parallel passages must be considered in the formation of doctrine. God does not contradict himself. I suggest getting a copy of Kay Arthur's book "How To Study Your Bible." It costs about $15 and is an excellent book on inductive Bible study.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:37PM

The question was: Are you going to try and tell me He didn't mean to say that to the children?

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 2:52PM

Don't you just hate it when someone won't answer your question, Margie?
Ha-ha!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:57PM

You're an idiot.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 3:14PM

I forgive you, Margie.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 3:39PM

For what?
You ARE an idiot.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 4:05PM

I forgive your vile name-calling, Margie.
Water off a duck's back, remember?
May God Bless you with His Love.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 4:27PM

You're an idiot.
You're a liar, and are filled with deceit.

W| 1.10.12 @ 4:06PM

Nick,
Seriously, why do you waste time trying to have a rational conversation with the lying MullahMuensterMargie? She even attacked Dr.Right who was polite and reasonable with her.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 4:53PM

W,

Because it is a command from Saint Peter:

"15 Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
16 and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17 For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong." - 1 Peter 3:15-17

I can't remember, did I ever give you the link to the article "The Church Militant or the Church Belligerent"? If not, here it is:

http://www.catholic.com/magazi.....elligerent

I'm not saying that I always follow Saint Peter's command, or the advice of Rev. Scalia, far from it; but, I must constantly try to do so. We all should, don't you think?

If you were honest with yourself, W, where would you say that some of your comments come from? The Holy Spirit?
I know that far too few of my comments come from the Holy Spirit, but, come from my own sinful pride. When they do, I'm acting like a member of the Church Billigerent.
God Bless!

W| 1.10.12 @ 5:43PM

Nick, my Deeetroit friend,
Of course you are right, and you are a nicer person than I am. But you have to admit the Mullah is a rich target and hard to resist.

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 7:14PM

Thanks, W.

I'm sure I'm not nicer than you. If you could only hear the things that come out of my mouth!

If only there was a submit for the tongue, huh?

And, yes, I know, all too well, how irresistible it is to respond, in kind, to Margie.
As Catholics, we must resist. Or, is it resist we much? Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 5:32PM

You are not only idiots, but liars, and perverts.

You see fit to lie concerning my person, what I believe, and IN WHOM I believe, according to the Scriptures, and not only that but you seek to pervert the Grace of God and the Scriptures without repentance.

GOD promises your future, unless He sees fit to grant you liars repentance:

"But for the cowardly and faithless ones,
and disgusting ones, and murderers, and
fornicators, and users of magic, and idolaters,
and all liars, their part will be in the
Lake burning with fire and brimstone,
which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

NOTICE the Greek translation, "DISGUSTING ONES."

"

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 5:43PM

Margie,

You don't even know what the second death is, do you?

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:37PM

You don't even know Christ.
You know that Vatican.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 7:42PM

Who made you pope, Margie?
Who gave you the power to excommunicate?

I know history, the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the Gospel of Christ. I'm no expert, that's for sure.
But, I'm not the one who constantly gets corrected on these subjects, am I?

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:21PM

"Who made you pope, Margie?"

The Pope is a FRAUD, and so are you.

There is no such thing in the Bible as Popes, it is a LIE.
You are serving a lie.

And as to how I know this?
I know the Lord Jesus Christ, was born of His Spirit, and I serve His Truth as written in the Scriptures.

You are a deceitful man, and not a brother in Christ.

Nick| 1.12.12 @ 6:05PM

Margie,

I know that languages and word etymologies are not your forte, but, the word pope comes from the old English and Latin papa, which came from the Greek papas, which means father. Actually, it's closer to daddy.

Also, the Coptic patriarch of Alexandria has been called "pope" by the members of that church longer than the Bishop of Rome. In fact, many bishops were called papa back then.

This comes straight from the Sacred Scriptures:

"For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." - 1 Cor. 4:15

Margie| 1.13.12 @ 9:18PM

Your cult's Popes are frauds. There is no such AUTHORITY in the Bible.

You're a liar, and you lie for your perverted cult.

Nick| 1.14.12 @ 12:01AM

PAPAL AUTHORITY

"And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this kephas I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

"When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, 'Does not your teacher pay the tax?' He said, 'Yes.' And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, 'What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?' And when he said, 'From others,' Jesus said to him, 'Then the sons are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.'" - Matthew 17:24-27

"'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.'" - Luke 22:31-32

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

"I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things." - 2 Peter 1:13-15

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thess. 2:15

"Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands [...]." - 2 Timothy 1:6

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." - 2 Timothy 1:13-14

"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." - 2 Timothy 2:1-2

JohnC| 1.9.12 @ 4:36PM

No, Christ does not actually give absolution (a technical term) -- His Spirit (gradually) changes our hearts but the Lord needs the cooperation of our will to achieve this.

Grace is really the Holy Spirit working inside us but no change will come unless we examine our conscience and resist (at least try to) sin after being convicted.

God does the changing but only if we work with Him -- man must participate otherwise grace has been squandered. It is quite simple really yet amazing.

Now I do believe that many Catholics intuivitely do this when going to confession and thier hearts are changed. But this has nothing to do with the priest or absolution; it is the Lord acting as explained above.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 5:52PM

" His Spirit (gradually) changes our hearts."

Not true. How do you explain the Apostle Paul, or ANY of the Christians who gave their lives right after they were born of His Spirit.. and even before they were baptized??

When the Holy Spirit comes into a man's heart it is changed immediately.

The will of the person may not obey right away, and some DO actually obey right away, but the Spirit of God performs the miracle of the heart as soon as it enters the person. And how could it be otherwise??

"In Him was life, and the life was the
light of men;
and the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not overtake it." Jn. 1:4 & 5.

JohnC| 1.9.12 @ 6:59PM

Sanctification is gradual-- after an initial conversion we slowly acquire an affection for good as we #fight the good fight#.

The Holy Spirit, if we are willing, begins to mold us in the Lord’s image and in this way prepares us for heaven. Otherwise, we would be sinless and perfect after conversion, which does not happen.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 7:25PM

Let's go to the actual Words of God instead of arguing on the subject, shall we?

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

JohnC| 1.9.12 @ 7:42PM

Scripture is the word of God for sure but it must be understood properly and taken in context. The scripture you quoted does not say sanctification is instantaneous -- it clearly is not. And Paul would be the first to agree, as he says throughout his epistles in so many words that one must struggle and grow in the Lord.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 7:57PM

"You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you." Jn. 15:3.

And I said nothing about not having to struggle against sin, of course we do until Jesus comes back. I am pointing to the fact that if we are His, we are already made clean.

JohnC| 1.9.12 @ 8:26PM

This is one verse. What is your understanding of Already Made Clean -- in your own words?

Please put it in context regarding our inherited sinful state, our ongoing lifelong struggle to be Christ-like and instantaneous sanctification.

Ryan| 1.10.12 @ 8:49AM

That's justification, not sanctification.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:36PM

You really want to argue about this??

"But we know that to the ones loving
God all things work together for good, to
the ones being called out ones according to
purpose;
because whom He foreknew, He also
predestinated to be conformed to the image
of His Son, for Him to be the Firstbegotten
among many brothers.
But whom He predestinated, these He
also called; and whom He called, these He
also justified; and whom He justified, these
He also glorified.
What then shall we say to these
things? If God be for us, who can be
against us?
He who indeed did not spare His own
Son, but gave Him over on behalf of us all,
how will He not freely give all things to us
with Him?
Who will bring any charge against
the elect ones of God? God is the One
justifying!" Rom. 8:28-33.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 8:25PM

John C:

We're justified by faith, we're already made clean, we're saved by Grace!!

As long as we CONTINUE in that, we will be saved in the end.

"Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
and you will be hated by all for My Name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Mt. 10:21 & 22.

God bless you!

JohnC| 1.9.12 @ 8:50PM

God Bless you too Margie -- good way to end a spirited discussion.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 9:09PM

Excellent. Thank you!

"But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." Jude 1:20 & 21.

I wait for the Mercy of Christ. I know I need it.. and without it I am so lost.

Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 8:54PM

Sanctification is instantaneous. Molding us to the image of Christ takes time. Some call the latter practical sanctification, and the former positional sanctification. I have no trouble with that as it describes what actually happens as we are spiritually sanctified, while we grow in Christ as we age in Christ and become more like him if we are living after the spirit and not the flesh.

JohnC| 1.9.12 @ 9:21PM

I should be clearer – at the time of my Baptism in the Spirit my spiritual eyes were opened so there was an instantaneous change of my awareness of sin; I knew that God was now working in my life. Cursing was the first to go followed by many others areas of my life. The Lord works on us step by step molding us in His image -- for the rest of our lives

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 11:43PM

Yes but you're still justified by faith!!

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 6:42AM

Yes!

JohnC| 1.10.12 @ 8:39AM

Explain in your own words what justified by faith means?

One needs to be born again to be saved and that requires a living faith, which goes hand-in-hand with sanctification -- not perfection of course, but a willingness to change our behavior as the Spirit leads; otherwise your Faith is dead.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:28PM

JohnC,

Greetings in Jesus.

When I said you're still justified by faith, I was quoting Rms. 5:1.

"Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

And I meant it for you as an encouragement. Meaning, if you are IN Christ, if you were to die tonight, you would be justified by your faith.

If you are IN Christ. If you are IN Christ, there is no condemnation.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Rom. 8:1.

In my own words?? It means exactly what it says, and in this sense:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the Heavenly places, even as He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.

He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His Will, to the praise of His Glorious Grace which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
In Him we have redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His Grace which He lavished upon us."

For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of His Will, according to His purpose which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in Heaven and things on Earth." Eph. 1:3-10.

Christian quantum mechanics| 1.9.12 @ 6:00PM

Why argue about Christianity? As was written by Paul everything that is seen was made from things unseen. We are all at the mercy of God. We all shall be at his mercy upon our death.

Men put rules into effect to control. I pray at night because I have an understanding that if justice ruled we are all to be without love after death. That is hell.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 6:41PM

"Why argue about Christianity?"

Because it matters!

What you believe will land you in Heaven or Hell.

That's why Jesus commands us all to Repent and BELIEVE His Gospel.

"..and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Gospel." Mk. 1:15.

And it matters how?

Because God has an enemy, Satan, and Satan's whole purpose is to take others to Hell with him, where he knows he is going, and he works through the sinful flesh and our minds to deceive.

His whole way is deceit. and he uses Religion to do so.
Religions.. there are millions of them, and they all have their own rules and ways, but JESUS says HE IS THE WAY. Jn. 14:6.

Jesus' Words are found in the BIble, and it is a matter of life and death.. your very soul is at stake.. that you, we all, repent and believe in HIM and HIS WAY.

Salvation isn't by Religion, it is by GRACE given to us by the Will of God.

"For by Grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- not because of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8 & 9.

HOW is one saved? And saved from WHAT?

The Bible tells us we are ALL sinners. We all need to be saved from our sins, and from Hell.

HOW? By the Word of God:

"But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the Word of faith which we preach); because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The Scripture says, "No one who believes in Him will be put to shame." Romans 10:9 & 10.

Doctor Right| 1.9.12 @ 6:35PM

"Why argue about Christianity?"

It helps pass the time..?

SeymourGlass| 1.9.12 @ 7:11PM

Right you are, Doc. And it's a heck of a lot more constructive than arguing about American Idol. See you around campus.

steve| 1.9.12 @ 8:02PM

Doc,
Do you believe in the "trinity?"

POST American| 1.9.12 @ 10:41PM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

"Understand, the Vatican has been
totally infiltrated since the 1950's."
-MALACHI MARTIN

And with Pope Benedict Arnold stepping
into secular affairs with promptings toward
'world govern-ANTS' and 'understanding'
for occult and masonic elements ---who dares
DENY IT?

And, take deep note, as Globalism and
EUGENICS breathlessly consolidate
worldwide,
NOT so much as a peep about the Christ
condemned nature and legacy of
psyhcopathic, inbred, unaccountable
capstone USURY.

This really is the--

------------------BOTTOMLESS LINE------------------

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 10:55PM

Nah. The bottomless line is this: (At least, until He returns.. for at His return there no longer remains hope of repentance. Because, as it is written, when He returns it will be to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him, and no longer to deal with Sin. Heb. 9:28.

"While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man--though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.

But God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Since, therefore, we are now justified by His Blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.

Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we have now received our reconciliation." Romans 5:6-11.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is Eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23.

POST American| 1.9.12 @ 11:31PM

---------------BEYOND BOTTOMLESS----------------

"John Calvin was America's REAL founding
father."
-George Bancroft
1830
(America's first historian emeritus)

And we notice, in a recent browse, 'someone's'
been censoring Wikipedia on the matter
of George Washington's BALK of the Illuminati
---AND his 11th hour baptism a la Calvin.

Likewise, the wiki on Free 'MAY-SIN'
front op and Arminian heretic and tent
show operator supreme ---1840's Charles G. Finney.

Anyone interested in the stealth, incremental
takedown of Christianity, the family and
sovereignty MUST check out this background.

AGAIN

-----Unaccountable Globalist USURY
---is TREASON and begets, directly,
the most horrifying programs of
capstone EUGENICS.

There is NO getting around --ABOMINATION--

NONE

DO get with Calvin, Bunyan, Boehme and
John Gill

---------------------------Catholics included.

Scripture is Scripture.

Margie| 1.9.12 @ 11:47PM

Scripture IS Scripture, this I know.

It's the rest I can't understand!!

Except Bunyan of course, he had it RIGHT.

Ever read "Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners"?

And everyone should read "Pilgrim's Progress."

Haven't read the others.

Ted| 1.10.12 @ 8:09AM

Dr. Right said: "First of all, I was a Catholic for 32 years, so I know what I talking about."

Well, let's not be too hasty. If being Catholic for any length of time means that one can speak authoritatively on the subject, why Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden would be regular theologians.

Vlady| 1.10.12 @ 8:19AM

The best part of ALL of this? The fact that Dr. Das Reich and Mullah Margie have said lovely things about Rick Santorum and that they would vote for him.

Except I just can't see why they would. After all, what formed him as a man and a politician is his religious beliefs and faith, the same thing that they tendentiously tell is in great "detail" is a made up faith that never really existed until some dastardly people (known as Catholics of course) stole the REAL Christian faith and "twisted" it. Until the two brilliant theologians Dr. Das Reich and Mullah Margie deciphered it. From the Bible.

So if that's true, why are you all rooting for a man from such a faith?

You two are full of $h*t. And you know it. You don't know anymore about the Catholic faith than the rest of us; and in fact you seem to know a lot less.

And remember Margie.... I love you.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:55PM

The BEST part of your sickening posts?
The best part is, that you prove exactly who and WHAT you are.
A Snake!

W| 1.10.12 @ 4:07PM

MullahMargie,
Got snakes on your mind, Go play with your snakes.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 4:26PM

I don't play with snakes, but you certainly ARE one!

Ryan| 1.10.12 @ 8:52AM

In case this gets read, there's a question for QM, Dr. Right, and Margie that still has not been answered.

For the first 1500 years or so of Christianity, practically everyone who claimed Christ considered themselves Catholic of one sort or another.

Were they really Christians? If not, where were the Christians?

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 2:17PM

Ryan,

You are so much smarter than me, so much more well informed than me.. everyone knows it.

You don't know that the early Christians church was referred to as universal (catholic). You don't know that catholic means universal??

I think you do.

But it wasn't the Catholic Religion, big "C". That came about when they separated from Christianity and brought in the false and unbiblical teachings.

What false and unbiblical teachings?

You know what they are.

W| 1.10.12 @ 4:10PM

MullahMargie

Since you are the infallible Bible expert, when the the small "c" catholic church become the big "C" Catholic religion? When did this separation take place?

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 4:25PM

Do your own research, snake.

W| 1.10.12 @ 5:46PM

MullahMargie,
Still have those snakes you play with on your mind?
So your answer is you do not know, and just another of the "facts" you make up. You can't answer because you know you are lying.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 8:19PM

Scripture isn't "made up". It's from God.

Do you have a Bible, snake??

W| 1.10.12 @ 11:07PM

MullahMargie,
Still thinking about the snakes you play with?
I have a Bible but I don't pretend to be infallible like you Mullah.
Still pretending to be a Christian when you don't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus is God?
Why did you deny that your husband said you two are anabaptists? Ashamed of the history of sexual perversion of that cult in Muenster?
Again, go play with your snakes and emails, MuensterMargie.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 1:44AM

Check out the double standard here for the filthy, lying hypocrite Catholics!

Filthy lying Troll, this applies to you:

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jn. 8:44.

W| 1.11.12 @ 6:18PM

MullahMargie
I have asked you many times to specify the lie. You can't because what I wrote is not a lie. Unless your husband lied to us about your religion.
So Mullah, specify what is the lie.
All you know how to do is call everyone a liar and post some cut and paste verse that you don't understand.
Go play with your snakes and emails, MuensterMargie.

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 6:38PM

Filthy, VILE creature!!

W| 1.11.12 @ 9:53PM

Still evading the question, Mullah.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:18PM

And you're still a liar and disgusting!

POST American| 1.10.12 @ 10:13PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

"Understand, Jacobus Arminius, the
alleged author of the Arminian Heresy
(---i.e. Free Willism/ 'God Loves EVERYONE'/
enmeshment fantasy evangicalism etc.)
is himself a shadowy character who almost
certainly was deeply funded and set up."

And NOTE, all this when Netherlands
was on the move with the adventure
of Global USURY ---and about to leap
the channel to London.

Calvin is nothing more than NEO-Augustinianism.
Calvin is nothing but the prayerful interpretation
of sound doctrine and by the word scripture.

Calvin has had the cross hairs on him for
centuries by the arrayed forces of occult
CON-troll. The morbid gregariousness
of the 'Average American Joe' has been
utterly co-opted, manipulated and corrupted.

AGAIN, spend that quality time on
examining the background to Washington's
11th hour baptism ---and the later rise
of the deadly Arminian Heretic Charles
G. Finney in the Rockefeller snake oil territory
of western New York state.

Calvin, or more accurately, scripture,
is the ultimate foil to the neverending
forces of unaccountable, psychopathic
USURY feuled control ----and bottomless,
bottomless, bottomless capstone EUGENICS.

And, take heed, ---Christ did NOT turn
the other cheek in the face of USURY
invading the Temple.

The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights
and our Republic ---IS OUR TEMPLE.

-----------------OUR VERY TEMPLE------------------

--------------------------AMEN----------------------------

Margie| 1.11.12 @ 5:33PM

I have no king, but King Jesus!!