No, Ed. The Bible cannot be infallible. The charism of infallibility applies only to persons. In order to be fallible, one must be able to act, to choose, to discern, and to take responsibility. Scritpure, however, Holy, does not posess these characteristics. That is why Jesus built a Church, made of persons. The Scripture is inspired and inerrant.
It is this error or ascribing qualities to Scriptures that it does not posess that has produced so many divisions in the Body.
Ed, none of these people or events at all relate to the charism of infallibility. The fact that you bring them as evidence to that fact demonstrates that you do not understand the doctrien.
No, Ed. Papal infallibility was established by Jesus when He promised to send His spirit to lead the Church into all Truth. He kept His promises that the gates of hell would not prevail.
Of course He calls upon all to repent and believe. Repent means to turn away from sin and to God. No one can, of themselves, present an appeal of a clean conscience toward God. Only the HS, by the blood of Jesus, can cleanse the heart and conscience.
In this case it is, Ed. In the Rite of Christian Baptism, the candidate calls upon His name and is then baptized in His name.
EdOsiecki;5609981:
Rom 10:13 mentions only the calling of his name You then tell me it’s both calling on His name and baptism.]/quote]
When you explore the ancient rites of baptism, you will see that these have always gone together.
Yes, you and millions of other individuals, each coming up with his own ideas. The nature of reading is that we interpret what we read. Catholics read from the point of view of those who penned the books. You do not. That is why we understand it differently.
No, Ed. God is not bound my the sacraments. He can save whoever He wants, however He likes.
Both of these are included together in the Rite. The Apostles never separated them.
Hi guanophore, thanks for your reply. -----LINE #1 above, If the Bible is not infallible then the Roman Catholic church has no claim to be either since they get their information from the Bible and not in reverse. I suggest that you read John 1:14 and stay on that verse until you can understand it. “The WORD became flesh—” The WORD is Jesus. Why is Jesus being called the WORD?------LINE #2 Lot’s of mumbo jumbo no substance. If you know the doctrine so well state it. -----LINE #3 Apparently you don’t understand Pentecost. There were 120 women and men who received the Holy Spirit. Not the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. It didn’t exist. The peole are the church-----LINE #4 You got this one right. The Holy Spirit convicts, the Blood of Jesus forgives sins and clears the conscience. There’s nothing left for baptism to do is there? It’s an act of righteousness as Jesus states Mat. 3:14 and commands us to do per Mat 28:19.-----LINE #5 This is where you have a problem, an infant can not call on His name. Why then baptized them?------LINE #6 What does exploring the ancient rites have to with my question? Nothing! They may have always gone together but calling on the Lord to be saved is not doing something that the Lord has commanded. LINE #7 Here you insinuate that your method of interpretation by Magisterium only, which in essence means leave your brains at the door, is superior to what the Holy Spirit teaches through individuals. That contradicts Scripture my friend . John 1:27, ”As for you, the anointing you received from Him (Holy Spirit) remains in you, and you DO NOT need anyone to TEACH you.” This is as clear as it can be to me and it ought to be to you also. ------LINE #8 You got this one right. God is not bound by the sacraments. He can save whoever He wants. So why then do you baptize infants and force salvation on them?------LINE #9 I know that ! ED O.
