By what authority should we accept your “repudiation of infant baptism?” There are plenty of non-Catholic Christian churches that practice infant baptism, some of which hold to teachings on the subject that are quite close to ours. Why should I accept that you’re right, and all those fine individual interpreters of scripture are wrong?
BTW I actually went to this web site. Interesting to read that liberals like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, John MacArthur, Rick Warren, C.S. Lesis, James Dobson etc. are apparantly as much heretics as the Catholics are.
That is… in reference to the statement I made…
Your response to my statement is precisely what I expected.
Repentance cannot be “mustered up” on our own as CCC#1431 insinuates. But is granted by God…
Paul was writing about a “godly sorrow” working repentance to salvation. This type of repentance can only mean a "changing of one’s mind to the acceptance of God’s plan of salvation.
Oh, BA, but if you had only read on in the catechism to the very next paragraph (1432), you would have read the following:
So, we find that, once again, you have mis-represented the faith of the Catholic Church in your attempt to refute it. Why is that?
Now, she hasn’t, and no amount of sophistry and distortion on your part will change that fact. It is obvious one of two things is going on here.
And he accused the Catholic Church of teaching in a “discursive and ambiguous manner?”
I’m sorry, but you are being decieved.
Repentance, according to CCC#1432 is represented right. God grants repentance by illuminating (revealing) the truth of His love and His righteousness.
According to the previous quote from CCC#1432, and in the light of CCC#1257; baptism and repentance are the same thing, because they both are necessary for salvation. Baptism being the act of submission called for by God for men to be saved.
The Catholic scenerio would be…
The Catholic understanding of repentance, baptism, and conversion is perverted by human intellectualism.
Lol. That’s cute, considering the sophistry just displayed in your post above…
When dealing with this level of intellectual dishonesty, I prefer to consider the material as an illness and take the Christian Science approach: just ignore the material and pray it goes away.And he accused the Catholic Church of teaching in a “discursive and ambiguous manner?”
OK. So now I’m really confused. Not only do you contradict Scripture and historical Christianity, but now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Is or is not repentance granted by God? It seems that whatever the Church says, you are willing to contradict, even if in so doing, you contradict yourself.
You know what St. Peter says about the igorant, unstable and scripture…
I admit, I’m having a hard time parsing what you’re saying (and I’m not going to read 5 articles of yours to try to figure it out…if you can’t explain yourself here, so be it). Especially your little equations there at the end. Whatever they mean, though, I can assure you that baptism, in Catholic thinking, does not equate with repentance, your little pastiche of the catechism notwithstanding.
Now, let’s look at the order. By the help of divine grace, we are moved *freely *(i.e., no imposition on the will) toward repentance, which is defined above at length. This repentance occurs before baptism. And until baptism occurs, in Catholic thought, no justification has occurred. Once we have been baptized, we have been justified, which includes sanctification of the interior man.
. Baptism being the act of submission called for by God for men to be saved.This is complete garbage. Especially the first and last lines. Moreover, you offer no scriptural support for your assertions, yet the Word of God does indeed say. “37 And again another scripture saith: They shall look on him whom they pierced.” (John 19) and again, in Mark 15:39 it says, “39 And the centurion who stood over against him, seeing that crying out in this manner he had given up the ghost, said: Indeed this man was the son of God.”
I think that the Ethiopian Eunuch & St. Philip would beg to differ with you. Acts 8:36-38 reads as follows. “36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? 37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.”
Not to at all! Yours is based on a literalist denominational interpretation and not what the Word of God simply states. The important difference is best explained briefly HERE.
Why then do we pray that God grant men repentance?
It always sounded to me like the God was the primary actor in the conversion of the human heart, not man. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people…” And, “Thus says the Lord God: I will gather you from the peoples, and assemble you out of the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel…And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.”
I’m pretty sure the devils don’t do any good works, either. Remember, “faith without works is dead.”
I’m pretty sure washing our sins away (as multiple Bible passages attest to as the effect of baptism) qualifies as the reception of grace.
bibleapologist and his church apparently, since he seems to assert that he is infallible in his teaching, but so far I don’t see him proving that he actually accepts what the Word of God says to begin with. Instead his preaching implies that he alone is the infallible source of correct understanding of the Bible. Seeing as he disagrees with 2,000 years of Christian teaching as well as the verifiable historic writings of the early church as well as the plain sense of the Word of God, I’m still waiting for better evidence than he has offered so far.
Sheesh!! Well, I guess that takes me right out of the running too…http://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/4.gif
OMG…He is one of those…Pope’s the Anti-christ…We worship Mary and and Saints…etc…All we can do is pray for him.
