Non-Catholic Christians, why have so many non-biblical practices.
I am an ex-Protestant 50 years and I mean no disrespect, but I have some questions. Why do you believe that teaching and practice and the following is not supported in the Bible but you say that Sola Scriptura is itself a heresy?
Why pay practices and the use of wedding rings? The Protestant Church must have its origin in the pagan religions and cults have such practices. Reformers were the first non-Christian and pagan? Why teach faith alone when the Bible says that faith alone is dead faith? Why teach baptism by immersion, when there is nobody in the Bible that never was submerged? The Bible not only teaches believers baptism. Why teach and practice this. Why ban the infant baptism when Jesus tells the children to him and the Bible says this replaces circumcision? Why add to the Lord's Prayer taught by Jesus? Why pray to Jesus, when Jesus said in Scripture to pray to the Father? Where in the Bible is called the altar or prayer of a sinner? The Bible teaches us to serve wine in communion, why grape juice? Not that unbiblical? When and where did Jesus say that the Eucharist is merely a symbol? The Bible says that He said it was twelve times that of his body and blood, and said that gnaw. Why not honor the blessed mother of God when the Bible says she was blessed among women?
- Biblical fundamentalists to demand that Catholics Protestants use the Bible to explain Catholic practices?
- Biblical fundamentalists to demand that Catholics Protestants use the Bible to explain Catholic practices?
- The Antichrist has cast the truth to earth? Dan 8:12?
- It is the "Hail Mary" A Prayer?
- The Roman Catholic Church, Christ's example?
Ha! It is time for some of the bible-THUMPERS here was the other side of the sword Christian vs Christian for once!
CJ - lol! I did not even attempt to respond to their own doctrine.
You know what this surprising? Is melted who think they can play the game against all the Catholics want us in their will … but when we joined the offensive, it's heresy, but all!
Catholics are the real victims, the oppressed who really, here in R & S. We respond to the merged with Catholic doctrine several times each day. However, when it is finally turn refuse to pay even a single reliable answer.
Congratulations to JW on me. Even he (no offense intended, respectable lord) took the liberty of offering a response that explains their faith.
A note to cast: As a Catholic, and I know the point of Fr. Joe's question is not necessarily the strange questions. Is to show what you dish melted to the U.S. every day.
Not being a Protestant I can only speak to your first question, that's not all that Catholics were not expelled by the Protestant Reformation. If, in fact, exchange of rings is a pagan custom which is done by Catholics Protestants, because it did not because the cats like Luther and Calvin were pagans private.
I feel like I knew that even though they are and trying to needle Proddies.
About 50 percent of their questions are mistakes or misunderstandings. The rest can be argued very well from the Protestant position.
The case of the immersion is radically better than spraying. There isn't a single case of someone who is baptized by sprinkling in the Bible.
However, all baptisms in the Bible are found in bodies of water.
You are about 50% right.
Why teach baptism by immersion, when there is nobody in the Bible that never was submerged? In the original Hebrew text in Mattityahu (Matthew) 3:13, for example, is said to Yeshua (Jesus) came to Yarden (Jordan), which is mikvah (submerged) by Yohanan (John).
If you really want to know what the Bible really says, you have to go to the original language it was written.
Edit: Sorry, I used the wrong word. The word is tevilah (immersion). Tevilah (dip) in the mikvah.
Original Gospel of Matthew (Mattityahu) was written in Hebrew. Soon the whole world know.
Edit: One more thing: the immersion in water as a spiritual cleansing practice was Jewish long before John the immerse.
Of all the Christian denominations, Catholics are much closer to paganism than any other. Catholics were the first name, and then there was a Protestant movement in the Renaissance times because people believed that Catholics were too Pagan. If you ask 100 people to their definitions and beliefs, you get 100 responses, so there is no cut and dry answer. People believe what they do because it feels right to them and what is raised to believe in most cases.
That's a lot of assumptions with Bible verses from the Bible out none.
Choose an argument at a time and I will show the error of your ways.
Oh and by the way. Constantine (the founder of the Catholic / Roman religion) was the blending of pagan and Christian together.
Two Babylons
The Pope and Worship
Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his wife
By the late Rev. Alexander Hislop
P.S,
Baptist or Protestant were never part of the Catholic Church
They will say that none of these things only matters, if you believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Remember that Christianity has become a system based solely on what you think, not how to act …
P. Good questions. Joe. I doubt you'll get good answers anyway.
As a former Protestant myself, I can tell you that I thought practicing Catholics unbiblical things, but never turned in my microscope religion.
Protestants have the highest number of traditions that are not in the Bible as any other Christian group.
and salvation by faith alone and Bible Doctrine by themselves are not in the Bible!
Some people may be deceived sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo …
No offense.
To Him who sits on the throne and the Lamb be praise and honor and glory for ever and ever. Jesus Christ is Lord.
Wow. Catholics gathered all that gives us all the thumbs down. I guess the SFECU has not heard of this issue.
So why Catholics then used wedding bands .. because all my cousins exchanged rings in Catholic ceremonies …
Perhaps those in glass houses should not throw stones …
I guess the cast are not used to being defensive. They are more comfortable is the bashers.
These should be separate issues.
And for the record (which follow the rules R & S), my answer to your question "Why have so many non-biblical practices": NO.
Why Catholics and Protestants fight constantly? Get ready for the response of CJ.
Very good question. Protestants and casting can not support their own doctrines. Lol.
P. Great questions. Joe. :). It is a pity that everything has ido most of the Protestant leaders
I wonder what Jesus would say to these questions? Do you want to know more? Is it really love?
As a Protestant in a predominantly non-Christian country, I find it very disturbing attack Protestant.
If RC or Protestant or Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran (I am unable to add the Jehovah's Witnesses and Bible Students), we are all Christians and WH YH following Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Whatever the route chosen should ultimately lead to the 'light'. We, in India, see more pagan practices and rituals, many both inside and outside the Church. But all these are saving?
I guess that is all set in the mind: if you want to go and meet his Creator and that (as far as possible) to him without sin? More important than any ritual or practice.
Personally, I am glad that a couple of generations before me my pagan ancestors came to know Christ through missionaries and I am following the true path shown by them due to their hard work. May it lead me to true salvation. God bless.
Some of his points are wrong, you know. On the one hand, not all Protestants believe or do all the settings you have listed there. Many Protestant denominations use wine, others the practice of infant baptism, while others recite the Our Father (Lord's Prayer) as given in writing. Grape juice is not unBiblical. "The fruit of the vine" is fine, even without fermentation.
Jesus Himself was baptized by immersion, like all the disciples of John. ( "When the water rose" indicating that it was not?) The Bible teaches that believers "baptiam. Truly. Repent and be baptized it is often said.
Please do not paint all the Protestants with the same brush, like you do not want to paint all Catholics with the same either.
I am neither Catholic nor Protestant. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
USE OF WEDDING BANDS:
Do priest wear wedding bands? Getting married is baptized Catholics used wedding bands?
The reformers were PAGANS AND EARLY CHRISTIANS?
AGREEMENT: As Catholics are the first Christian reformers payment.
WHY TO TEACH THE FAITH ALONE?
AGREEMENT: Faith alone is a false teaching. Faith apart from works is dead.
WHY DO YOU TEACH BELIVERS ONLY AND IMMERSION BAPTISM BAPTISM?
Because that is what the Bible teaches. In Acts 8:38 the Bible says, both Philip eunch and fell into the water. Mt 28:19 and Acts 8: 12 states, where people believe … which proceeded to be baptized, both men and women. Infant baptism is unscriptural.
WHY DO YOU ADD TO the Lord's Prayer?
AGREEMENT: The Lord of the prayer is a model example of how to pray. Christians must not plagerize the Lord's Prayer.
Why pray to Jesus when Jesus said to pray to the Father?
AGREED: All prayers should be directed to the Father (Jehovah) and end in the name of Jesus, the mediator. Those who pray to Jesus did not obey the Scriptures.
WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS THE ALTAR CALLS AND PRAYERS sinners?
AGREED: It can not be found in the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with any of these practices.
THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT WINE, GRAPE JUICE THAT is not UNBIBLICAL?
AGREEMENT: The wine is correct. However, perhaps a situation where the wine is consumed not for health reason and the grape juice must be used.
WHERE IN THE BIBLE Eucharist is only a symbol?
The Bible says that Christians are not to participate in the blood. Christians who are part of the blood are bloodguilty. Do you think God would allow the wine becomes the blood for humans to drink?
Why not honor the Blessed Mother that the Bible says was blessed among women?
Because that would be idolatry. Mary, the mother of Jesus was not the only woman in the Bible that says it is "blessed among women." Mary is the mother of God. God has neither a mother nor a father.
How to recognize false Christianshttp: / / http://www.counterfeitchristians.info/
Much of it comes from Baal and sun worship Roman …. here is a link that will help you see what happened when Roman Christians adopted the Roman religion .. http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/ Soli …
Roman Emperor Constantine, who was among the first Christo-pagan (Christian) maintained the title of "Maximum Pontifus" the high priest of paganism, and remains a worshiper of Apollo. His coins were inscribed: "SOL Comiti INVICTA" which is interpreted as "Committed to the Invincible Sun." During his reign pagan Sunday worship is blended with the worship of the True Creator (syncretism), and officially entitled "Christianity" by the (less than holy) Roman Empire and its "official church (less than holy) catholic ( universal) church.
Cybele, the Phrygian goddess, known by his followers as "the mother of god", is closely related to the cult of Mithras. As Mithraism was a man of religion, the cult of Cybele was practiced by women. The priests of Mithra were known as "Fathers" and priestesses of Cybele as "Mothers." After the baptism in the Mysteries of Mithra, the initiate was marked on the forehead. The sign of the cross formed by the elliptic and the celestial equator is one of the signs of Mithra. Sunday (Deis Solis), the day of the Sun, was considered sacred by Mithraist a rest day. December 25 (Mithra's birthday) was celebrated as the birth of the sun, given birth by the "Queen of Heaven" - "Mother of God." Mithraists The festival celebrates a mithraic love. This party consisted of bread decorated with crosses with the wine, which the priest pronounced a mystic formula. Mithra was considered mediator between God and man.
Good question, although I see many people here really humble arrogant not to consider the issue and examine the Protestant denomination which they are associated. I really have to look at the history and doctrine of Christ through the Apostles to see the errors of their ways.
Jim BTW the Baptist, of course, not without its history. You are a Baptist who is a sub-AD 1521 Anabaptist denomination founded by Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer, who in Germany (Get this) protested against the Roman Catholic Church. Bautista was founded in1609 AD by John Smyth in Amsterdam. So you're a technical Protestants protesting against the Protestant denomination that protested against the Roman Catholic Church in which it is based. LOL TALK irony!
SirenSong you need to understand that there are Protestant, even post-apostolic times. Arius had some heretical views, and founded his own name called Arianism. The Saints made every time they entered "the Church" (Roman Catholic) went through a lot of control, any form of heresy or schism, and was excommunicated in one place, it was to protect the Divine Tradition. The Symbolum Apostolorum was an oral tradition, therefore, is not in Scripture. The question is whether it is original and comes to us from the Apostles themselves. There should be little doubt on this point. If some think that in the early years of Christianity no trace of the symbol appears in the Church, should know that the policy of the Christians of those days, called the Discipline of the Discipline-secret-BORONITA was in full operation. The knowledge of the deepest mysteries of Christianity was carefully pagans and Jews, as well as those who, for some time, he underwent training in faith. Discipline of the secrets necessary to prevent the preservation of the writing on the Creed, which contains the principal mysteries of religion. According to the old caution, the Creed was learned by heart and never to be recognized in writing. Discipline of the secret of the apostolic times. It is mentioned by Origen against Celsus, in the third century, and before him by Tertullianγ belonging more to the second century. This reservation applies to all the sacraments, but especially the Holy Eucharist and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Not until the truth of the Unity of God had sunk deep into the heart of a pagan, which could safely be instructed in the deeper mystery of the Trinity. For that reason, they were never taught to the catechumens before they were ready to receive baptism. We know from St. Ambrose in the Epistle to his sister Marcellina. He said the Lord's Day, in dismissing the catechumens, the Creed taught only to those, who are sufficiently advanced. St. Cyril also wrote: "No to all the gentiles we declare the secret mysteries that relate to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Ε This is more significant if one considers that St. Ambrose lived in the century St. Cyril IV, the fifth in a time when there was not much danger of persecution. However, even then, it was considered prudent not indiscriminately disseminate the lessons that refers to the Holy Trinity. Was preferred rather than that everyone should commit to memory the Creed, to protect against the mockery of a mafia unfaithful and the faithful have in discerning Pagans and Jews. This commitment to the report also explains why this doctrine of the Trinity, as contained in the Creed, has been maintained on a continuous basis. Due to the disciples of the Holy Apostle and that the time has ensured that the traditions are uncorrupted by the heresy of schismatics and heretics.
What is sad is that she did not even know that Martin Luther was wrong: a curious letter from Martin Luther to his mother, has been among the many valuable manuscripts in the library of the Dominican Convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome. The poor lady, who would not dare to blame her son for his religious aberrations, which fell from the idea of being separated from him for ever, he wrote and asked if she should change her religion and adopt his new persuasion. The pride of Saxony can not make her mind to participate in common with a shipwreck that he loved him so dearly, so he replied: "No, remain a Catholic because I did not cheat or betray my mother. "What better refutation of the arch heretic doctrine that there can be an answer, which eliminated the conscience of his filial affection.
Not all non-Catholic Christians have adopted the doctrine of "only the Scriptures" (obviously, I would have thought …) so, the next question
Where does the Bible say that only those who repent can be baptized.
Most of these are potentially problematic only for "Scripture alone" Protestants, so ignore those.
1) Why teach faith alone when the Bible says that faith alone is dead faith?
This is a problem of semantics Protestant. (Roman Catholic teaching is equally confused by the terms used). While many refuse to admit it, Protestant teaching according to Catholic teaching on this matter.
a) salvation comes only through the grace of God, given through faith in Jesus
b) works and obedience are necessary parts of the life of a Christian who has received God's saving grace
The problem with the wording defining the Protestant faith as a result * * necessarily in obedience and good works. Not only is this not a definition that gives the word "faith" in the English language, we also know that "even the demons believe - and their belief does not result in good works or obedience.
Roman Catholics (RC), unfortunately, the collapse of all the ton of bricks without notice. "The faith, obedience and good works." However, like the Protestants, CRs also believe that faith alone is enough *. * Do not take my word for it: what about the deathbed conversion? I mean, when someone dies * * sincerely repent of their sin and sincerely * believe Jesus died for their sins. How much obedience and good works are performed by someone (like Constantine), who becomes his deathbed? Like the "good thief", is the faith * enough - but the obedience and good works are a necessary part of life * a Christian life after salvation has been obtained.
Therefore, the protesters should stop being so attached to the phrase "faith alone" and use the English definition of faith: "salvation is gained by our faith, but obedience and good works are a necessary part of Christian life. " Resident coordinators should do the same - which explains that there are some * is * a chronology involved, and that faith in certain circumstances may be sufficient for salvation.
2) Why teach baptism by immersion, when there is nobody in the Bible that never was submerged?
The Greek word used indicates immersion. (literally: "dip, sink, washing, immerse") http://answers.yahoo.com/question/answer …
Look here, "etymology" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.h …
In the same article, look in "material and form of the sacrament" and the subheading "Proximité art" and the notification
"The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably the dive."
There are scriptures that indicate that the Scriptures (or recorded) were performed baptisms by immersion. However, there is no prohibition against the scriptures of other forms of baptism.
Good point on circumcision = baptism thing, BTW. You should have the verse reference (10-11) http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.p …
3) Why add to the Lord's Prayer taught by Jesus?
The doxology "seems to be a later addition - but was included in the majority of old bibles, and indeed, in both Orthodox and Roman Catholichttp: / / en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Lords_praye …
It would be interesting to know if it appears in the Clementine Vulgate, so … no! Interesting. It also does not appear (naturally) in the original Douay-Rheims translation. Unauthentic bible just another step taken by the Protestants. There is nothing wrong with it - but do not appear to have been spoken by Jesus.
4) Why do you pray to Jesus, when Jesus said in Scripture to pray to the Father?
Actually, in my experience the majority of Protestants DO pray to the Father in Jesus' name.
5) The Bible teaches how to serve wine in communion, why grape juice? Not that unbiblical?
According to the official Protestant excuse - which I must admit, it is persuasive - all types of grape juice - regardless of alcohol content - were identified as "wine". Very weak and watered wine would have been common in the first century. Grape juice may be closer in the alcohol content of wine consumed by then the average person that the "table wine" of modern times. SO, here, "wine" in the former sense is more inclusive than the use in our modern - as in "birds" in the Old Testament.
6) When and where did Jesus say that the Eucharist is merely a symbol?
A sensitive issue. But let's face it - CRs even admit that the Eucharist is not physically human flesh. When Jesus said, "This is my body," which clearly does not mean, "this is the fabric of human cells" - and also the blood / wine. Therefore, we know that Jesus was speaking symbolically. CRs and some Protestants believe that Jesus was speaking symbolically of a spiritual nature ( "this is my body [spiritual - not just bread]"), while others believe that Protestants are speaking of bread and wine as a symbol of his body and blood (this is [representative] of my body "). My point: you can not use Scripture to change the opinion of the "symbolic" Protestants, even symbolically taking CRs.
7) Why does not honor the blessed mother of God when the Bible says she was blessed among women?
Well, this is an easy task. The fact that God blessed her more than any other woman is not incitement to it * * worship in the form of CRs. Certainly, she is honored by Protestants (all, as far as I know) for his role in giving birth to our savior. After all, God did not pick the first girl I went through. She received the same honor as the other early Christian women in most Protestant churches - that of a very holy person, faithful and devout Christian. That's about the honor of most any of us to give ANY Protestant Christians - and an honor that is very impressive, to be widely known for his devotion to Jesus.
A restrictive interpretation of unfortunate events. When Peter. Speaking to an audience of adult men were asked, "what should we do to be saved," replied, "repent and be baptized." Unfortunately, some of my fellow Protestants assume this indicates that all should repent before being baptized. They ignore the public and asked the question. Peter did not say, "repent and be baptized, and that goes for all the children too, even if you do not ask about them and they are not here right now …"
Do not assume that all Protestants are the same. Examine the practices of the Anglican Communion must convince us that not all Protestants believe that the things that make you think.
Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/selector_rc …
No
And really, you want to enter non-biblical rituals? Catholicism is full of extra-scriptural practices.
Sorry, Jack. This does not bother too hard to give a real answer a.