Wrong. They have already been baptized into Christ as an infant. Furthermore, as an Eastern Catholic, my daughter received baptism, confirmation, and first communion at the age of two weeks–and has received communion almost every day since.
And how do you know this?
And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (**Luke 1:41)
In every instance in scripture, where the Greek or Hebrew words for household is used it means the entire family and servants and slaves. It always indicated children. It may be speaking from silence, but it speaks very loudly.
Neither will you find a prohibition against it.
So is Baptism something you do? Or something done to you? Is it a promise form you to God or from God to you?
I do not need to justify the Catholic Church by pointing to the sins of others. We are all sinners.
I agree.
Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant so in a very real sense it coming to Christ or being brought to Him. Of course this needs to be “ratified” by faith. But baptism is a promise from God to someone ans we are baptized in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Son so being baptized into Him is coming to Him.
**
**
What of the other households where it does not say this. Further, it would be pretty silly if it said her whole household believed, except the babies of course. Somethings are assumed. If you say “My whole family came to my house for Thanksgiving dinner” must we assume there are no babies in you family because babie can’t eat turkey?
See my thanksgiving analogy above. You are takena n unnatural, wooden literal approach to the text because you have a preconception, not because the text warrants it. If your pastor says he preached to the entire congregation and there are babies in the audience would you say “No you didn’t, Pastor, babies can’t understand you”.
YOU brought it up to bash the Catholic Church as less than generous, and now you want to back out of it because you don’t have the facts. You’re not convincing me. Once again, you made the assertion that Catholics are far less generous per capita than evangelicals, using your evangelical congregation of 18,000 relatively wealthy Americans as your basis of comparison to the worldwide Catholic Church that includes rich and poor from every corner of the globe. In other words, I’m left to conclude that you want to do nothing but throw up smokescreens, and retreat when challenged on them.
A fact that is backed up in scripture, though you are either ignoring it or putting a different interpretation than what the plain words of scripture say (James 2:14-24, though I’m sure you already know that). Furthermore, you’re engaging in mere speculation in asserting that Catholics consider these works to be a burden. Speaking for just about every serious Catholic I know, the works they perform are out of profound love for God and the grace He has given us to live a Christian life, and are not a burden. They are a self-willed act of love for Our Savior, and for you to say otherwise is an exercise in reading men’s hearts that I would prefer to leave to God.
So, you determine evildoing by the presence of lawsuits? Did you even bother to read the links I presented you? There are real Protestant ministers in real Protestant churches abusing real Protestant churchgoers (including children) at about the same rate as it happens in Catholic Churches. Lawsuits against Catholic entities do not make their actions more egregious than the very same actions undertaken by non-Catholic clergy. Of course, that would not fit your stereotype that everything evil is done by the Catholic Church, so you ignore it and throw up more smokescreens. And, does the fact that a lawsuit is brought immediately indicate guilt?
Give us a break, and back it up with facts. If this assertion were true, then you should be able to prove with **facts **that married people are less likely to sexually abuse children than those who aren’t married. Either you can’t, or you won’t, because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notion of legions of Catholic priests running around molesting children. Again, you’ve thrown up another smokescreen to avoid the unpleasant facts about your assumptions, and are losing credibility every time you respond.
You know exactly what I meant by that, and instead of addressing the content of the question, you’ve attempted to change the subject. You claimed that Catholic doctrine is to blame for clergy sex abuse, and yet you cannot back that up with even one statement from the Catholic hierarchy, a quote from a Church council or the Catechism, or a decree from a pope. Again, a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the **facts **that have proven you wrong, time and time again.
That’s a load of unsubstantied nonsense, and you know it. What you’re reading as insecurity is our complete lack of patience in dealing with the **lies **with which anti-Catholics continually attack our holy faith. Instead, should we stand by as our faith is attacked with unsubstantiated claims, and allow you to make statements like you made about clergy sex abuse go unchecked? And you’ve not backed up a single assertion with fact, and every time you are asked to do so, you divert us by bringing up yet another objection to Catholicism.
Good for you - really! Now, work on overcoming your prejudices against the Catholic Church, and I’ll back off.
I was born again in the spirit when I was chosen a few years ago, after repenting and dedicating my life to my Lord and Savior. After being born again in the spirit, I wanted to be born again by water as an act of obedience to my Savior. However, this does not mean that I believe that a person is saved through an act of the flesh.
John the Baptist was a very special case. Are you saying all babies are like John the Baptist?
Nice, but that’s not what you said in your previous post, in which I quoted you as saying, “Yet it was done, and I would imagine it is done a lot. My friend did not like sharing this with me. This is the kind of truth that Catholics tend to hide from and blind themselves to, rather than rebuking the Priest.” So which is it - not common in all Catholic parishes, or it is done a lot and we like to hide it from you and the poor, unsuspecting Catholics who worship there?
So, which is it - sanctimonius flaptrap, or something all churches, including the Catholic Church, does for the poor? It is getting hard to follow you with all the contradictions and backtracking going on in your responses.
Fantastic. But, earlier you tried to tie this into the idea that Protestant evangelicals are more generous than Catholics, and have offered no **facts **to back that up. Furthermore, that verse doesn’t say what you claim it does. It says, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It doesn’t say that the Bible is the Word, but rather, Jesus.
Fantastic. But, if the scriptures are plain in and of themselves to inform the Christian unto salvation, then why do I need the writings of a fallible human being, no matter how saintly? How much more information would that saintly individual give me that isn’t already revealed in sacred scripture? Nobody is afraid of reading this book, but your theology of Bible alone seems to make it unnecessary, no?
More nonsense. Excommunication does not have any bearing on one’s salvation, and men, of course, do not have anything to do with one’s salvation. It behooves you to learn what we really believe before you criticize it.
Not at all. I was most recently a parishoner in a non-denominational Church called Calvary Chapel. If I were pressed to name a Church home, that would be it at present but I do have some serious issues with their eschatology, but then eschatological doctrine is left considerably wanting throughout the Christian Church and I am sure that even yours would not claim a franchise on the truth in this regard.
Having been in this forum for a little while now I understand your fear of a simple Bible study.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what being born again is. ALL Christians are born again, otherwise they aren’t Christians. And quit foaming, it’s unbecoming.
This is another load of nonsense. We are not afraid of reading the works of your chosen pope, but rather, would like to know why you keep inisisting that we do, as though he is infallible. What are his qualifications, beyond what you quoted me earlier about saintliness and such? Why should I trust his interpretation of scripture and eschatology to be more accurate and Holy Spirit-inspired than all the others competing in the marketplace of Protestant evangelical ideas?
I couldn’t get the link to work. Can you explain the bolded? Does this mean that a priest can absolve a sinner from their sin?
Upon thee I have leaned from my birth; thou art he who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of thee.** (Psalm 71:6)**
This would be that last thing I would want to do. You can’t read something like this when you try to squeeze it through a doctrinal filter. You would have to have a genuine interest in understanding it on it’s own merit.
I didn’t suggest that you should.
It is different and interesting because it is linear historic context regarding fulfilled prophecy. This is generally not found in the Church today in regard to Second Coming prophecy. But interestingly it is the way most of us understand First Coming prophecy unfolding steadily as the Old Testament period advanced to the Cross.
Sorry about the link. Here’s a corrected one.
Fine, I understand the distinction, and thank you for making it. However, I ask again: how do you know that he corrected the errors in your previous views on eschatology, and how do you know he is right, and all the others preaching and writing on this topic are wrong? You’ve practically endowed him with infallibility where eschatology is concerned.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, or why you think that the Second Coming should hold such prominence in Christian theology. Does it really matter how and/or when Christ returns? Where is the focus on doing what Christ said, living a Christian life, loving God and loving our neighbor? I used to attend a church that preached heavily on the pre-millenial, pre-tribulation rapture view of eschatology, and a few (not many) focused on that to the exclusion of all else, and used it as a measuring stick as to who was really ‘saved’ and who wasn’t. So I must ask, why do you focus so heavily on eschatology?
Perhaps you find Revelation and Daniel this way but most don’t.
I didn’t indicate that you need them at all. I am fascinated by eschatology. The false eschatological in the Church today is not a salvation issue.
An understanding or even study thereof is not necessary for salvation. If it doesn’t interest you there would certainly be no reason to study it. But it does help with understanding of other scripture.
Right. Most don’t - including myself. But then again, most sola scriptura adherents I know in the evangelical world (note, I’m not trying to generalize this statement to all evangelicals, as they’re all over the map on sola scriptura, from those who insist on strict solo scriptura, to those who hold to prima scriptura) insist that all scripture is open to the understanding of the individual believer, with the guidance and assurance of truth provided by the Holy Spirit. It isn’t my view, of course, but then leads to the question, why should I trust your chosen teacher of eschatology over all the others? Is there something special about him that other supposed exegetes don’t possess?
For one who claims we should take the Bible literally, you sure seem willing to discount alot of evidence that belief and response to God happens even in the womb. While there are certain blessings that were give to John the Baptist not afforded most, it sure looks like God give the unborn more credit than you.