M
Masters_Servant
Guest
Pass em’ out.
A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.
- Status
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
You didn’t answer me if the “little ones” are non-elect or elect or not. I am in agreement with you that in order to reject one must be aware and have full knowledge of the act.
MS:
Since babies have the sin nature but cannot commit actual sin, then how can God and sin nature co exist since “nothing unclean with enter Heaven” (Rev 21:27)? Yes, I’ve picked up a Bible, there’s where all these verse referred to come from
MS:
No, I’m asking for your comment on this specifically regards to Mary and Joseph’s relations you’ve alluded to earlier:Post 852 doesn’t contain a question and the comments you made are not found in the Bible; so what would youl ike to hear…“great post” or “good job” or “thatta-boy”?
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
Romans 6:24 does not exist. Col 2:12 is not water Baptism; see Matthew 3:11, then Titus 3:4-7 and pay careful attention to the last line in Matthew 3:11; if you put the two together you have the gospel & salvation by God’s own sovereign will. The Bible teaches God’s sovereignty and human responsibility; something humans cannot understand fully; only God can, a paradox. Is this evangilization; am I trying to remove anyone from their Catholic faith, their Parrish or trying to get them to move to some other church? Nope. Perhaps throwing the pearls when I shouldn’t.
Nothing about water baptism there either; Jesus is speaking to a devout Jew and the only Baptism that was around at that time was John’s, so the Catholic idea of baptism would not have even been part of that conversation, but now being the high ranking Jewish leader Nicodemus was; Ezekiel 36:25-27 “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. . . . And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.” This is what ole’ Nicodemus would have been thinking and he would have been right, Jesus is speaking of the “New Birth”; noting, did I say nothing, shall I say NOTHING to do with water baptism, nothing.
Also, notice who does the sprinkling - GOD, not MAN.
Jesus is saying, in effect, that the time of the new covenant promises have arrived. Ezekiel’s promise is coming to pass by the Spirit in connection with Jesus. The Spirit gives life (John 6:63). And I am the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). And when the Spirit connects you, Nicodemus, to me, Jesus, by faith, then you will experience a new birth. There are at least two ways to look at this New Birth: cleansing from the past and renewal for the now & future.
If you want a good article that is short and sweet and in the vernacular, then I can send you an email with a link, but I cannot post it here for it is a not a Catholic link and therefore considered “antiCatholic”.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Guanophore in black; Doki in color.
You can’t become Catholic because Catholics wrote the NT?
We should have the original post for me to show you why I said what I said.
LOL. Were you advocating that she had other children by supernatural means? Or is there some way a person can continue to be a virgin, and still have kids? You’ve got it backwards. My argument wasn’t that she had children; only that she most likely was not a perpetual virgin.
Oh, maybe you just meant she was sexually active with Joseph? Now you’ve got it.
Why do you think all the first generation of Apostolic disciples misunderstood this? Why did they think Mary was a perpetual virgin? ** I’m not sure which disciples you are referring to; if you are speaking of those in the 2nd century, then yes they were mistaken, IMO. If youre speaking of the 1st century disciples, I see no evidence they believe as you do.**
Also, if the Church got this wrong, what happened to the powerful Jesus we see in the Book of Rev? Why was He too weak or disinterested to correct them? Jesus is NIETHER too weak nor disinterested. The problem isn’t with Him; it’s with us. He always has His remnant.
If they got off the rails with this fact, then how many other things are wrong? Let’s look at the Bible; It’s got the answers to many of those questions. How can we know the NT is right? ** It was penned by 1st century disciples/apostles, most of whom were eyewitnesses (including Paul - road to Damascus). Personally, I trust eyewitnesses than those who came after the happenings.** Everyone present who helped to put the 27 books together believed Mary was a perpetual virgin! 300+ yrs after the fact. I’m sure they had honest hearts thinking they were honoring the mother of Jesus.
You can’t become Catholic because Catholics wrote the NT?
We should have the original post for me to show you why I said what I said.
LOL. Were you advocating that she had other children by supernatural means? Or is there some way a person can continue to be a virgin, and still have kids? You’ve got it backwards. My argument wasn’t that she had children; only that she most likely was not a perpetual virgin.
Oh, maybe you just meant she was sexually active with Joseph? Now you’ve got it.
Why do you think all the first generation of Apostolic disciples misunderstood this? Why did they think Mary was a perpetual virgin? ** I’m not sure which disciples you are referring to; if you are speaking of those in the 2nd century, then yes they were mistaken, IMO. If youre speaking of the 1st century disciples, I see no evidence they believe as you do.**
Also, if the Church got this wrong, what happened to the powerful Jesus we see in the Book of Rev? Why was He too weak or disinterested to correct them? Jesus is NIETHER too weak nor disinterested. The problem isn’t with Him; it’s with us. He always has His remnant.
If they got off the rails with this fact, then how many other things are wrong? Let’s look at the Bible; It’s got the answers to many of those questions. How can we know the NT is right? ** It was penned by 1st century disciples/apostles, most of whom were eyewitnesses (including Paul - road to Damascus). Personally, I trust eyewitnesses than those who came after the happenings.** Everyone present who helped to put the 27 books together believed Mary was a perpetual virgin! 300+ yrs after the fact. I’m sure they had honest hearts thinking they were honoring the mother of Jesus.
D
Dokimas
Guest
It doesn’t ofter come out this way but I love to help other laugh, even laugh at me. I’m glad to put a smile on you face.
Thanks Doki, I needed a good chortle!
I’m also glad it was one topic Elvis and I are in agreement.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Guanophore in black; Doki in color.
Thank you for that very honest statement. I REALLY appreciate this comment. God be with and bless you richly, now and forever.
I can see how people might misunderstand the Scriptures on this point. So what? Those who have received the Apostolic faith accept that Mary was a perpetual Virgin. When this is rejected, people have departed from the Apostolic faith. The problem is that the faith is ONE. IT is a seamless garment. When one begins to start unravelling that which was handed down by the Apostles, very quickly one has a “different gospel”.
I’m in total agreement that there farther we get from what we were given (teaching, doctrine) from the ORIGINAL apostles the more our faith unravels. I look at some of the beliefs and I see people trusting in ritual for salvation and NOT in Jesus. That’s a different Gospel, IMO, and potentially very dangerous.
I agree. I don’t think it is possible to “prove” from the NT that the Apostles baptized infants. We understand what is written in the way we do because we have accepted Sacred Tradtition.Thank you for that very honest statement. I REALLY appreciate this comment. God be with and bless you richly, now and forever.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Doki - stay with me here. This* isn’t* brain surgery.
You said:
Your statement is contradictory.
Whether ot not Mary had other children is the SAME argument as to whether or not she remained a virgin.
Got it now?
Maybe you misunderstood me like Guanophore did.
I’m sure you understand that there are several women in the Bible that had husbands and were barren. They had sex (gave up their virginity at marriage) yet did NOT have children.
In short, you are correct that this is not brain surgery and I am NOT contraditing myself. I think if you look closely at your statement you’ll be a little embarassed. Join the club of making mistakes. I’m the president.
S
simspt
Guest
Was Paul an eyewitness to Jesus ministry? Or was he a Johnny come lately and sought assurance that he was to be considered as legitimate as the apostles after his conversion.
If the second century Christians got off the track with some things, how about the things they were on track with?
Why do you trust these very Christians who defended apostolic tradition and played the role they did in canonization?
How do you know the Gospel of Thomas isnt more authentic than the Gospel Mark or John?
Isnt the NT the tradition of the Church not vice versa?
There were many Christians preaching and believing before the NT writings…
E
elvisman
Guest
Then I guess I stand corrected.
So, now you’re implying that she didn’t keep her virginity intact and that she didn’t have any more children . . .
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
God is not the God of error; which is why the Apocrypha should be rejected and when they are not, then it demonstrates anything can be truth and doctrine becomes less and less important and this is what we see across the board in Christendom.
Wolves were penetrating the church very early; as soon as it was established on the day of Pentecost; it is the very reason Paul wrote warnings and admonishments in nearly every single epistle, the same is true with all the writers. This is why also the warning of looking at genealogies (i.e. I am of Paul, I am of Peter, I am of Apollos et al) was given and the result of what would happen would be error in doctrine perpetrated by false teachers. The reason is simple, the pastoral Espitles give the qualification that God has ordained, but when you go by I am from this person and that person is form so and so and on down the line; you end up putting people in the ministry that are not qualified; whereas a man is to be tested by the standards God has set in 1 Tim & Titus. This is religion and is the most damning form of Christianity IMHO and it is across the board.
The PEW.ORG organizations is a great resource to see exactly how this has played out in America. A majority if Protestants and Catholic believe there is more than one path to God, which includes at least one or more non-Christian religions. Very few took the view taught in the Bible, which is by Grace through Faith In Christ. But this corresponds with Jesus own words in Matthew 7:13-14; he said there are two roads, both are marked heaven, one is the road of religion and works and the other is what I call the “Gospel Road” which is the narrow road and few there be that enter by it and few there be that find it according to God Himself in the Person of Jesus.
When you look at these other books; one must presume that the Scripture is without error as the earliest church taught in the Book of Acts; but now you see Scripture under attack doctrine is set aside in favor of “having their ears tickled” and following a works-based standard, never found in Scripture as many try to argue, but they are on the broad road, the religious road, not the Gospel Road. Being dogmatic about the Word of God is considered “intolerant” and “arrogant”; intolerant I agree, but arrogant is just a smear in God’s face.
If you look at the places in the world where persecution of the church exists, China comes to mind, the church flourishes because the true Christians are the ones who are willing to pick up their cross, the professors are scattered. But in a country like ours, where complacency is the norm, the church is infiltrated with wolves disguised as Angels of light spreading their darkness.
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
I’ll ask God when I see Him; I do not think you can apply elect or non-elect to those that have the capacity to reject. God says He does the saving and He also says humans are accountable for their rejection; how God works that out is something you not I will ever comprehend; part of what makes God, God. His ways are higher than ours and His understanding, grace, mercies, and justice are beyond our complete comprehension. But I will ask Him or some other saint when I see them.
Jesus atonement can cover whomever the Father gives to the Son.Since babies have the sin nature but cannot commit actual sin, then how can God and sin nature co exist since “nothing unclean with enter Heaven” (Rev 21:27)? Yes, I’ve picked up a Bible, there’s where all these verse referred to come from
Why not seek the Scripture, there you will find the answer and it is obvious, but you do not believe the Scripture IMO. Mary and Joseph had sexual relationship that produced children after the birth of Jesus; Jesus Himself said he had brothers and all who knew Him said he had brothers and sisters, but you do not believe it, so what more is there. I say the Bible says this and you say your church teaches that, I say the Holy Spirit teaches the individual and you say the magisterium does. One is correct and one is wrong; so we will know the truth when God decides the time is right.
E
elvisman
Guest
MS -
I’ve issued the challenge about a dozen times on this thread and nobody has been able to answer it - least of all YOU.
**Show me where Scripture states that Mary had other children. Don’t show me where it saysd Jesus had "Adelphos(oi) because I’ve already PROVEN over and over again that this term is use on the Sptuagint OT AND the NT to mean uterine brothers, half-brothers, cousins, neighbors, in-laws, fellow countrymen, etc.
when you take the Scriptures WITH the testimonies of the ECFs - you find the Catholic position that Mary remained a virgin all her life.
When you read the testimonies of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) you will find that they were convinced of the very same thing. When did you become right and the ECFs and the Reformers wrong?**
**You are under the false notion that ALL truth must be found in the Bible - it doesn’t. **As a matter of fact - the Bible not only NEVER claims this about itself - it makes the unmistakable claim that the CHURCH contains the truth (John 16:12-15, 1 Tim. 3:15).
Sorry, but until you can prove that Scripture is our sole and last authority - the onus is upon you to prove differently as to Mary’s perpetual virginity.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Then I guess I stand corrected.
So, now you’re implying that she didn’t keep her virginity intact and that she didn’t have any more children . . .
What part of my comment that my ‘argument’ isn’t about her having more children am I not able to get accross to you?
I DO NOT know from the Bible if Mary had more children. My guess is yes. Jesus did have brothers. Seems most likely they were from Mary but the Bible isn’t conclusive on that point.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
elvisman
Thank you for the link.
Now about your challenge. I have tried to answer it many posts back. But I quess I did not give the correct answer. But I did try.
Thank you for the link.
Now about your challenge. I have tried to answer it many posts back. But I quess I did not give the correct answer. But I did try.
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
Rather than looking everywhere outside of the Word of God, which you must because you are unable to understand the Word of God for it is so obvious that Mary and Joseph had sexual relationships and too many times is Jesus referred to as having brothers and sisters that only a natural man would deny the obvious.
All you did was prove it is a possibility based on a Greek word; so in context of Scripture and the numerous references, then a Christian can conclude one thing, she had relations with Joseph that produced children; it would be unusual for a couple back then to have a single child and it would be contrary to Gods character to go against what He ordained, which was marriage, and what He encouraged, which is to procreate. So I have noted these threads become a matter of defending the Word of God to teachings that contradict, not complement the Word IMO.
I cannot continue to dialogue with you for several reasons; I do not want to be drawn into sin by disobedience to MY LORD and MY SAVIOR. Some other protestants also need to recognize their sin of disobedience and refrain from some of the dialogue.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Rev. you did a great job. Nothing is ever good enough unless you agree with him. But I agree with you 100%
J
JohnChrysostom
Guest
How come I feel like I’m on the high school debate team?
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
Don’t be so generous; it is more like a school yard brawl…LOLHow come I feel like I’m on the high school debate team?
- Status