WHY are you NOT a Catholic?


How could rejecting the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo suggest that God is not all powerful?!?!

The Bible both teaches that God is all powerful and also contains no hint of creation ex-nihilo.

Peter Hayman records:
Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C. E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism.” (Peter Hayman, “Monotheism – A misused word in Jewish Studies?”)

Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6

In the Bible God does not start with nothing.


The doctrine of the Trinity is NOT found in the Bible as these quotes from Catholics show.

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

Note this from the New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 14 page 295:

Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century

I hope this helps…


I am not a Catholic anymore because I was searching for understanding of the gospel/etc which I did not find, resulting in me searching elsewhere. My search took where I am now and I am happy in the decision at the time and how my faith and conviction has grown greatly.


The full quote as noted at bible.ca/trinity/trinity-fortman.htm

The doctrine of the Triune God has had an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation. I start the study from the authentic record of divine revelation that is found in the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments. What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, a wonderful God of life and love and righteousness and power and glory and mystery, who is the creator and lord of the whole universe, who is intensely concerned with the tiny people of Israel. It tells us of His Word, Wisdom. Spirit, of the Messiah He will send, of a Son of Man and a Suffering Servant to come. But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. To study the gradual transition from an unformulated Biblical witness to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to a dogmatic formulation of a doctrine of the Triune God, we look first to the Eastern Church where most of this development took place. The Apostolic Fathers were witnesses to the Biblical data and the traditional faith rather than theologians, but they furnished useful insights into the lines along which the Church’s unconscious theology was developing. Most of them indicated quite clearly a belief in the divinity of Christ, less clearly a belief in the distinct personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. They gave solid evidence of a belief in three pre-existent ‘beings,’ but they furnished no trinitarian doctrine, no awareness of a trinitarian problem.


I disagree. Please see my entry at 122 above and which I copy here:

"In addition to these passages, there are two passages in Acts that describe baptisms. First, Acts 10: 24 - 48 describes how Cornelius and his relatives and friends were baptized. In Acts, 16: 25 -34 shows that the jailer and his entire household were baptized. It could be assumed that these entire families were baptized and that this would include children.
The Church Fathers also testifiy to the baptism of infants: Origen: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism to infants.” (Commentaries on Romans 5,9 AD 244)
St. Cyprian of Carthage: “As to what pertains of infants: you said that they ought not to baptized with the second or third day after their birth, and that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified with the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. (Letter of Cyprian and of his Colleagues in Council to the number of Sixty-Six; To Fidus [64 (59), 2] AD 251/252) Please note here that the dispute is WHEN the infant should be baptized not IF he should be baptized.”

Please especially note Origen’s statement that this teaching comes from the apostles. It should be noted that if what Origen had written was a novelty, other of the Fathers would have been all over it. There is no evidence that they did.


You are precisely correct.

God Bless you,



Dear friend I would point out that the words , bible, catholic, Protestant, sacraments and so on are not in the BIBLE ether. Catholicism is 2,000 years old and the Ot at least 3,000 years old. The RCC is Organic and pragmatic.

Please check out this site on the Trinity in the OT


God Bless you,


So you’re saying something did EXIST before God? OR did that “something” just created itself without GOD, or it “always existed”?

God Bless you FFIEND



My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[Douay explanation]
[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes
“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

God Bless you,



I would also point out my friend that Jesus IS part of the Trinity AND the Trinity of Father,Son & Holy Spirit are Co-equal and Co-eternal. Amen

God Bless you,


Your opening statement is simply in error.

Another POSTER on this thread HAs correctly pointed out that Paul references two incidents of Baptism relating to FAMILIES, that logically [the Jewish Tradition was to HAVE children] MOST likely DID include children.

This IS further cemented by the 2 passages I shared [John 3:5 & Mt. 28:19-20] wherein Jesus [GOD] commands [1] that ALL MUST be Baptized [2] And charges the RCC to fulfill that command.

To presume this NOT to be true is to sentence INFANT deaths to hell, or to proclaim that the bible either is in error or JESUS misspoke…

God Bless and guide you friend,



PLEASE Read John 21 & 22 the fianl two passages in each.

God Bless you,


My husband had a short prior marriage, about 14 months, in his very early twenties. We have been married almost 21 years. I’m 99% sure he would not try for an annulment. Nor would I really expect him to. I’m not sure that I would ultimately convert, but I would definitely be in RCIA, if not for the prior marriage.


Because then He would need stuff to create.

There was a story that I heard that might be used as a way of example:
A group of scientists came to God and told Him that He wasn’t so great. They could create life as well. God told them to go ahead an show Him. So the scientists started gathering different chemicals, dirt, water and the like. At this God said “Hold on, get your own stuff!!”

The point is this: just like the scientists in the above story, if God needs stuff to create, then He is not all powerful. Someone or something other than God would have had to create the stuff that God used to create. God would then be beholden to the someone or something and could not be all powerful and thus could not be God.



LIked the story



Friend is it MORE reasonable that YOU are “happy” or that your GOD is “happy”


Heb. 6: 4-10 "[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
[5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
[6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.
[7] For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.
[8] But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. "

PRAY very much friend,


My dear friend in Christ,

Your reply indicates both [IMO] an ignorance and a ignorance in the formation of Dogmatic pronouncement:

Mt 3:15-17 [RSV bible] "[15] But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented.
[16] And when Jesus was baptized,[GOD THE SON] he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT] and alighting on him;
[17] and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son,[GOD THE FATHER] with whom I am well pleased."

Further there are a great many individual accounts of ather,r Son and Holy Spirit recounted in the NT… so are going to listen to the WORD of GOD or you’re not fully sharing friend?

Your friend is correct technically, because the formation of DOCTRINE is not defined until such time there is is a challenge to it…

The Council of Nicea in 325 AD dified it[The Nicene CREED]; BUT the Bible was FULLY authored by the end of the 1st Century:grinning:, some 1,900 years ago.

God Bless you,


Thank you!!



Acts 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name

New-born babies are incapable of believing. This verse clearly shows there were not any infants in the household of Cornelius.

Acts 16:33, 34 He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once. He brought them up into his house and provided a meal and with his household rejoiced at having come to faith in God.

Infants are incapable of rejoicing so there clearly were no infants in the household of the jailer.

The detail scripture provides regarding these marvelous events shows that there could not have been infants in these families.


Not all ECFs testify to the correctness of infant baptism. Note what Tertullian said…

And so, according to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable. This is particularly true in the case of little children. For why is it necessary – if baptism itself is not so necessary – that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger?.. Let the children come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning – while they are learning where to come. Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? …If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation. (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3.678)

I hope this helps…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.