Candy (MyBlessedHome) wrote about the same Roman Catholic documents that I did, only added distortions about what Rome actually teaches. I vehemently disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on many issues, but there are enough Biblical issues to discuss without adding falsehoods.
So I (knowing that the comment would be deleted) wrote a comment that asked Candy to write only truth. I much prefer to have a discussion on the site, but that would involve discussing and with all comments disagreeing simply disappearing without even the common courtesy of an explanation...that leaves this and I hope that some of her readers make it here.
Two points I made were that the Vatican does not teach that all will go to hell that are not inside the Roman Catholic Church. Rome DOES teach that it is possible to be saved in another denomination, but that the union is imperfect or damaged.
The other point I made is that "vicar" does not have Greek roots meaning "anti"...Candy (and she posted a rather interesting link to "prove it") says that vicar = anti (in Greek) = Vicar of Rome = Antichrist. The Greek word for "anti" is "ante" and the Greek used for "Antichrist" is "antichristos".
"Vicar" comes from Latin and means "substitute" - the Vicar of Christ (Bishop of Rome, who Roman Catholics call "Pope"), means that the Vatican teaches and believes that the Pope is Christ's appointed substitute in place while Christ is not physically on this earth.
Here is the website Candy referred us to (you decide if it is credible)
Kelly
Ellen, I came here from your comment on KitKat's site. Thank you so much for taking the time to clarify the position of the Catholic Church! I have no problem with people disagreeing, but I do appreciate it when they are disagreeing with reality. 🙂
I saw you had a link to Jimmy Akin's site, and he's a great resource. I also recommend http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ if you want to see what scripture verse the Catholic Church points to for various doctrines.
KitKat
Thank you for this, Ellen. 🙂
Kelly
BTW, I love that picture! The NIV isn't my favorite translation either (I prefer NRSV), but I wouldn't say it's that bad! LOL
Ellen
You're welcome and thanks! I took a Greek class and I asked the instructor which translation he liked - he said ESV - I own the whole batch of them.
The picture came from the home page of the "antichrist slideshow".
If you have to fight what you believe are lies with more lies, you're not making progress in truth.
Jana
I haven't read the Keepers home for some time and stumbled across is again today. Interesting. I have frineds that are Catholic but I must admit I don't know all that much. I'll be doing some research.
Thank you,
Jana
Ellen
I also have friends who are Roman Catholic - there are major differences in doctrine. But if you disagree, disagree in truth. 😉
Chrissy
Thank you!
Carrie
Well that is unfortunate. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to proclaim the RCC as a false church without using illegitimate claims.
I hope this latest news from the Pope will cause more Protestants to understanding Catholic teachings and realize why that system is in error rather than believing the more sensational (and silly) stuff.
Ellen
That was my thought - this is not new doctrine and to sensationalize it does the truth no favors.
gina
I guess a lot of people hear the phrase "No salvation outside the Church" and take it literally without doing any research. But, clearly, anyone who merely googles the doctrine can easily see that it does not mean that only Catholics can be saved.
gina
So, she really deletes comments by people who don't agree with her?
Ellen
Yes...with this one, it's pretty well known. I've submitted a total of 3, on 2 different posts. One on a KJV only post and 2 today. None of them were approved.
Kelly
Gina, I have sent her the paragraph number in the Catholic Catechism where it states that Jesus is the ONE mediator, and that we are saved by God's grace though faith, and she won't let it though. She has no interest in the reality of the Catholic church, only in this fantasy evil church.
I also told her that the Pilgrims did not use the KJV, but the Geneva bible. Moreover, it is doubtful that they were born again Christians because they were Calvinists and practiced infant baptism.
Oh, and the Anglican's don't believe we are saved by faith alone, either.
She doesn't seem to get anyone's religious beliefs correct. My degree (just a BA) is in religion, so that stuff really annoys me.
Carrie
Moreover, it is doubtful that they were born again Christians because they were Calvinists and practiced infant baptism.
Huh?
Oh, and the Anglican’s don’t believe we are saved by faith alone, either.
I'm not so sure about this one either.
gina
As far as I know, Calvinists do not believe that baptism saves us. We are "born again" through our profession of faith in Christ. Ellen, please feel free to correct me if i am wrong about that.
Kelly
I'm certainly at my weakest in evangelical/fundamentalist/born again doctrine. Yes, I know they are all different and not interchangable, but I have trouble sorting out the differences. I am happy to be corrected.
I thought that "born again" Christians always professed believer baptism. I gather this isn't correct? I mentioned Calvinism, because in the archives from Candy's old blog, she mentioned that she was opposed to Calvinism, so I wasn't sure she would consider a Calvinist a born again Christian, either.
As far as the Anglicans, I know it says "faith alone" in the 39 articles, but I thought that they agreed with the Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists on "grace though faith." I know they didn't sign the joint declaration, but I thought they generally agreed with it.
Swylv
Well I like KJV...but I do like the little comic picture here.
I agree to discussing truth also. Glad everyone leaves links so others can decide for themselves and line it up with the Sword of Truth.
IN the understandable history of the Bible reading going on over at keeping the home...I do in my comments post that I toured the dead sea scrolls exhibit and the 1604 Bible - the first KJV - commonly called the "he" Bible because they translate Ruth as a he and not she...has the apocryphal or other texts that were written only in Greek.
I watched a DVD called Biblical Collector's Series:Who wrote the Bible...and they said when Luther did his 95 thing in 1517...that he too placed the "extra written in Greek only" text in between the OT and NT and all rulers wanted the Bibles printed that way, to not include those meant being killed...it was in the 1820's that those books were dropped...Now I have no clue why these extra texts were written and I read one something suppose to be Eve's story...and it was so weird that I am glad it's not something I have to read every year as I read through my KJV Bible...ya know.
Surely we can use our own imaginations to put together how Adam and Eve lived after being kicked out of the garden. Adam worked the land to grow/hunt food for his family and Eve had children. And for sure they told YHWH they were sorry over and over but just like parents when we discipline our children, just cuz they beg and plead doesn't mean the correction become null and void...ya know.
Ellen
Kelly, most of the Reformed tradition do infant baptism, bat as a sign of the New Covenant, not as a means of salvation.
I am a member of the Christian Reformed Church and we do infant baptisms, as do most other reformed churches and Lutherans as well.
Even a couple of Arminian denominations (Nazarenes) allow for it.
Kelly
So, even though a person might have been baptized as an infant, they would have a moment of being saved later in life, it just wouldn't be followed by baptism, as it is for those who practice believer baptism? So that is how you could practice infant baptism, but still be a born-again Christian? (And do please tell me if I'm using any terms incorrectly, here).
I did read though, that the Pilgrims believed in Original Sin, and believed that baptism removed the stain of original sin. So I'm still not sure I would put them in the born-again category, which I thought didn't exist until the 18th century, though I know that is disputed by some.
Moonshadow
To my mind, these words from Candy speak volumes:
I truly believe we are the generation of the fig tree. Matthew 24:32-33
Carrie's considerations are of greater general interest: "There are plenty of legitimate reasons to proclaim the RCC as a ..." without Candy's red herrings. So, let's not piddle around with Candy's truck.
Sounds like Swylv is hedging around an OT canon point which I wish she'd/he'd clarify so I can put in my two cents (something different from what I said at Carrie's old blog).
Ellen
Kelly - is there a moment of "born again?" There is an argument to be made that no, if a child is raised as a Christian, with the knowledge that he or she is part of a covenant family, there may not be a "lightbulb moment". If we consider baptism to be the sign of the New Covenant, we can ask the same question of the Old Covenant - did a Jew who had been circumcised have another moment later in life?
Here is a little more reading that gives a general idea.
We do have a "profession of faith" time, sort of like the Roman Catholic "confirmation" only with less significance; a child professes faith, but that profession is a statement of the receiving of grace, not a means of grace.
Carrie
Look, I am a prophet:
Sounds like Swylv is hedging around an OT canon point which I wish she’d/he’d clarify so I can put in my two cents (something different from what I said at Carrie’s old blog).
Moonshadow is going to basically say that the apocrypha are inspired and that they do belong in the canon.
Kelly
Wow, I had no idea there were different theologies among those practicing infant baptism. Fascinating! Thanks so much for the info.
So, are you saying that a Christian Reformed would consider themselves a "born again Christian" or not? I'm starting to feel that I've confused in different conversations.
I said, I didn't think the Pilgrims could be considered born again Christians because they practiced infant baptism. You seem to be practicing infant baptism for a different reason from the Pilgrims, from what I gathered from the article.
Carrie
John 3:3
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Kelly,
Most believers (regardless of denomination) would consider themselves “born again” because of what Jesus said above. We are born again when we trust Jesus as our Savior, baptism is a secondary thing.
What does it mean to be born again
Some Christians identify themselves as “born-again” Christians while others don’t really use that terminology, but it phrase applies to all who have truly put their faith in Jesus as Savior.
Carrie
Let me try that link again:
What does it mean to be born again
mod note: got it (wish there was a plug in to do that automatically)
KitKat
Ellen, thanks so much for allowing the dialogue to flow here! I have learned a great deal from this conversation. 🙂
Ellen
You're welcome - even in disagreement, there can be discussion. I do have "rules" but they're more or less common sense. 😉
Kelly
Thanks for the information. 🙂
Kelly
Carrie
mod note: got it (wish there was a plug in to do that automatically)
Ellen, the problem was that I was adding the html code. It appears your software automatically changes urls to hyperlinks (which is nice) - adding the html code was messing things up.
Moonshadow
Just history. We all profess to like history:
Swylv said, "it was in the 1820’s that those books were dropped"
"It may be indicative of the Puritan or nonconformist influence in American Christianity that the first edition of the English Bible to be printed in America (Philadelphia, 1782) lacked the Apocrypha. (The first edition of the Bible in any European language to be printed in America was a German Bible of 1743; it did include the Apocrypha.)" F. F. Bruce's The Canon of Scripture, 111.
"[E]very major Protestant version of the English Bible from Coverdale to the Revised Standard Version" included the Apocrypha. ibid, 114, note 32.
We might chalk this anomaly of the Apocrypha up to Scottish thrift as much as to Scriptural purity. To wit, again, Bruce: "The [British and Foreign Bible] Society's Scottish Auxiliaries in particular opposed the use of the Society's money, however indirectly, for the distribution of Bibles containing the Apocrypha."
In the end, unfortunately, the dropping of the Apocrypha from English Bibles seems like pragmatism as much as anything to me.
Myself, I still await the ESV's Apocrypha which I recall being promised early on ... but my hope of fulfillment is waning.
Carrie
In the end, unfortunately, the dropping of the Apocrypha from English Bibles seems like pragmatism as much as anything to me.
"Included" can be a confusing word. Luther's bible contained the apocrypha, but he separated it out as not inspired.
The maps in my bible are not inspired either 🙂
Swylv
I just read this today about the apocrypha books
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight14
hth
gina
By the way, she didn't approve my comment either.
Ellen
I've been out of town for a couple of days (more info tomorrow)...I'll pick up on all of this (or similar 😉
A few thoughts on this and others.
Tony
Wow, I poke my head in and I get a pleasant surprise. Thanks Ellen. 🙂
Susan
Kelly said, "I thought that “born again” Christians always professed believer baptism. I gather this isn’t correct? I mentioned Calvinism, because in the archives from Candy’s old blog, she mentioned that she was opposed to Calvinism, so I wasn’t sure she would consider a Calvinist a born again Christian, either."
My church holds to the Westminister Confession. I've just had a look and it professes infant baptism. So far as I can tell it is Calvinistic. I've just read the relevent chapters about salvation and although it does not use the term "born again", it does not say anything which would contradict being born again. The way I understand it, all Christians are born again but there is a certain type of Christian which is known as "born again" possibly because they place a large emphasis on this particular aspect.
Ellen
Welcome, Susan!
I think that the term "born again" (being applied today) is defined by Barna (people are asked a question:
"The first is "have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?" If the respondent says "yes," then they are asked a follow-up question about life after death. One of the seven perspectives a respondent may choose is "when I die, I will go to Heaven because I have confessed my sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior." Individuals who answer "yes" to the first question and select this statement as their belief about their own salvation are then categorized as "born again."
I think that the reason that Calvin and the Reformers didn't speak much about being "born again" is that they put the focus on the sovereignty of God and the covenant between Christ and the bride, unity of the body and less on the individual. Christians today seem to put the focus on what we do and the concept of "covenant" is rarely taught and individuality is valued over unity.