First Muslim Congressman

spike

New Member
Yes, that's true but we were talking about catholicism and baptism as a requirement not to go to hell.

There are some other christian religions that require baptism for salvation but I doubt the catholic church recognizes these baptisms.

In Catholic teaching, baptism plays an essential role in salvation. This teaching dates back to the teachings and practices of first century Christians, and the connection between salvation and baptism was not, on the whole, an item of major dispute until Martin Luther's teachings regarding grace. The Church teaches that "baptism is necessary for salvation" (Catechism, 1257) and entry into heaven; and therefore, a person who knowledgeably, willfully and unrepentantly rejects baptism has no hope of salvation. Three forms of baptism are acknowledged by the Church. Baptism by water refers to the traditional baptism where the individual is immersed or infused with water in the name of the Trinity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#Catholic_baptism_and_salvation
 

tonksy

New Member
I know that you were discussing Catholics but you were quoting Acts 10:45–47 which is not there for Catholics alone.
 

spike

New Member
Well, I'm certainly curious about other viewpoints on this from other religions. I looked up the passages you mentioned.

Acts 10:35

In every nation, etc... That is to say, not only Jews, but Gentiles also, of what nation soever, are acceptable to God, if they fear him and work justice. But then true faith is always to be presupposed, without which (saith St. Paul, Hebrews 11:6) it is impossible to please God. Beware then of the error of those, who would infer from this passage, that men of all religions may be pleasing to God. For since none but the true religion can be from God, all other religions must be from the father of lies, and therefore highly displeasing to the God of truth.

10:45

And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.

It's hopeful that even those without their penis mutlilated can get grace from the Holy Ghost poured on them.

10:47. Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

And then even baptized. This is a requirement not to go to hell?
 

rrfield

New Member
Yes, but like most of the others they think their's is the only one that counts.

That's not true and you know it. Any baptism - including baptism of the blood, orthodox baptism, protestant baptism, etc. - counts. Please don't let your hate for the Church cloud your judgment.
 

rrfield

New Member
She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he can see what God is Doing (writes Bokonon).
 

spike

New Member
Any baptism - including baptism of the blood, orthodox baptism, protestant baptism, etc. - counts. Please don't let your hate for the Church cloud your judgment.


Any baptism counts for salvation to any other christian church? What about Jewish to Christian or vice versa?
 

rrfield

New Member
The Catholic church recognizes other Christian baptisms. I know this to be true because adults entering the Church who have been baptized in other churches do not need to "redo" the sacrament of Baptism.

Unsure of Jewis -> Catholic conversions.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
Well, with the quotes I referenced earlier I can certainly understand why they might have thought that was the church's position.

Actually, misinterpretation goes on a lot. Some unknowingly do it, while others do it for their own agenda.

Do they take the same position on Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists?

Yes, in fact, the Catholic Church acknowledges that there is some truth in all religions.

Okay your article says "This grace was given in the past without means of baptism—and in certain instances it is still given without baptism when people have either no knowledge of baptism or no access to it. Acts 10:45–47 demonstrates unambiguously God giving Cornelius the Holy Spirit (that sanctifying grace necessary for salvation) before Cornelius received baptism. This was after Christ and the apostles had already preached the necessity of faith in Christ and baptism for salvation."

It sounds as if the catholic position is that either you need to be a baptized catholic, no knowledge of baptism, or no access to it. I take that to mean that people who have knowledge of the catholic church but like their own religion are going to hell.

Baptism of desire is what this passage is referring to.

I just want more clarification on the catholic church, not god.

The Catholic Church received its authority from God. The Church cannot declare with certainty who is in hell. The Church can only profess that which it can understand and was revealed.

If all those people are in danger regardless of how good a person they are then I personally feel it's ridiculous. It's exactly why I'm not religious anymore.

People are in danger if they personally reject their own Savior. What's so ridiculous about that? Remember there is a difference between rejecting Him and never knowing anything about Him. Or even being brought up that Christianity and other religions are all based on myths and so it is psychologically hard to accept Jesus as your Savior. Salvation is still possible for these people. If you don't mind me asking, what is your religion that you no longer follow?

I feel that catholics especially put so much emphasis on rituals that they forget what's important. If there's a god that cares more if some priest dribbled water on a frightened baby than the way that person has lived their life I want no part of it. Jesus was not so judgmental really.

Jesus wasn't so judgmental? He talked about hell more than any other person in the Bible.

Catholics and other Christians put emphasis on baptism because Christ Himself put emphasis on it. He even commanded his Apostles to go out and baptize people. I think you will find this article interesting: The Necessity of Baptism

Another weird ritual is the sacrament. I was taught that catholics actually believe that the wafer and wine is actually physically the body and blood of Christ, not just a symbol. I'm not a cannibal, why would I want to eat Jesus?

That's correct, we do believe that we are actually eating His body and His blood because there is a real presence in the Eucharist. No, it's not cannibalism. Here is why...

Your question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).

In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.

We can still say Christ's flesh and blood are consumed sacramentally in Holy Communion because what is eaten is literally his body and blood, even if the physical action of eating affects only the accidents of bread and wine.

Source

I do understand the tactic from a marketing perspective. A lot religions have to promote their religion as the only religion that will get you to heaven in order to get and retain followers.

The path to God is narrow, not wide. Again, the Catholic Church does not declare that only Catholics will be in heaven. It does, however, profess that it is the true Church established by Christ. All Protestant Churches came after the Catholic Church from which they splintered from.

Every few months I go to a non denominational christian local church that I like that focuses on living well, the teachings of Jesus, meditation, and even has a regular guest speaker who is homosexual who speaks about about their world travels and the great points of other religions they have surveyed.

Yeah, my sister-in-law's family goes there. Those kind of churches have no substance. They serve crackers and juice to represent Christ's body and blood symbolically. They advocate that the path to God is wide, which is not biblical. They cherry pick what to believe in and they are just shy of preaching that your salvation is unconditional. I can see why people find these churches attractive.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
-Mohandas Gandhi

I'm not sure of the context of this quote but that is not true for all Christians, obviously.

If you really want to be exposed to some thought provoking teachings on how to live well instead rote religious dogma check out J. Krishanmurti.

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/

Just from looking at the first page I can see it is concentrated on self rather than of God. I'm not surprised.

Re: Does the Catholic Church recognize other Christian baptisms? Yes, they do if they are valid. Most Protestant baptisms are. One of the conditions that must be met for a baptism to be valid is that the person must be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. As for Jewish baptisms, I don't think they are valid since they are not Trinitarian baptisms. But I'm not sure, so don't quote me on that.

BTW, I wouldn't use Wikipedia to learn about the Catholic Church. Actually, I wouldn't use it all.
 

freako104

Well-Known Member
I am confused about something: If Catholocism can accept baptisms from other Christian religions, and accepts them why is there such a schism that lasted since Martin Luther?
 

tonksy

New Member
The Catholic Church or the Christian Church in general?

Oh! In general! Definitely....in fact, I would say more so with Baptists and Methodists. Catholics have a sense of guilt that keeps them grounded and slightly less holier than thou....plus there aren't a whole lot of Catholics round this way..although there are tons in Louisiana.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
I am confused about something: If Catholocism can accept baptisms from other Christian religions, and accepts them why is there such a schism that lasted since Martin Luther?

The Church accepts their baptisms because they hold the same faith (the Trinity) and use that same formula applied to baptisms. While the Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches are united in that regard, they differ in many other aspects. There are many different Protestant churches (over 30,000) and each one have a difference in faith.

Martin Luther originally had good intentions when he protested against the corrupt behavior practiced in the Church. However, he went too far when he wanted to change the faith too. There was nothing wrong with the faith the Church had been keeping for over 1,500 years during Luther's time and the Church wasn't going to change it for him and his followers.

Personally, I don't think Luther ever meant to create a separate church.

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united". - Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519 (more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses quoted in The Facts about Luther, 35)
 

freako104

Well-Known Member
So because they have the same tenets they will accept each other? I did not know Luther did not intend for a separate church, I only knew he protested the church's corruption (he nailed something to a Church door but for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it) nor did I realise he intended no schism to happen as a result
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
So because they have the same tenets they will accept each other? I did not know Luther did not intend for a separate church, I only knew he protested the church's corruption (he nailed something to a Church door but for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it) nor did I realise he intended no schism to happen as a result

Not just that they both have some of the same tenets, but that they share the same belief in the Trinity and that they use roughly the same formula in baptizing (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which is called a Trinitarian baptism).

I'm not sure if most or any of the Protestant churches accept a Catholic baptism.

BTW, Luther nailed the Ninety-Five Theses.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Personally, I don't think Luther ever meant to create a separate church.
That's how I always understood the story too. He wanted reform, not a separate church, IMO. In fact (also IMO) the Roman Church pushed protestantism forward by excommunicating him. I suspect the protestant reformation would have occurred anyway, but that certainly helped it along, don't you think?
I'm not sure if most or any of the Protestant churches accept a Catholic baptism.
Nor do I but I'd be surprised. I know for certain that southern baptists (at least the ones I've discussed it with) don't even consider catholics to be christian at all (no, I don't get it either).
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
I know for certain that southern baptists (at least the ones I've discussed it with) don't even consider catholics to be christian at all (no, I don't get it either).

Allow me to interject here that being Southern AND being baptist does not necessarily make one a Southern Baptist. I can honestly say that 95% of all internal conflict I have experienced in the realm of religious belief has been caused by trying to figure out Southern Baptist dogma as it clashes with my own beliefs as a Baptist from the South. I finally concluded that some people put more value in structure and membership than in faith and obedience.
 
Top