Baptism

[Jon_S_1]

So looking at the definition of Protestantism below where did I misrepresent you. The thing is you are 500 years removed from the original “Protest” or “Disobedience”. No one is arguing that at the time the Catholic Church had corrupt “Sinners” in charge and making a mess of things.

So do you believe that the “very corrupt church of his time” is still practicing that corruption?

However the Christian faith would have been better served if the reformation came from within.

A small history lesson, until the reformation the only Christian religion that existed was that of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. Both of whom have apostolic succession back to St Peter.

Protestantism is one of the major divisions within Christianity. It has been defined as “any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth” and, more broadly, to mean Christianity outside “of an Orthodox or Catholic church”.

The term protestant was not initially applied to the reformers, but later was used to describe all groups protesting Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Since that time, the term protestant has been used in many different senses, often as a general term merely to signify Christians who belong to none of the churches of Catholic tradition.

Since we are all children of God, since Christ established one Church, Protestantism broke away from the one Church Christ established, where did I misrepresent you as a “disobedient child”

All Protestants need to read Evangelical Mark Knoll’s book “Is the Reformation Over”

It addresses the case of how far from reforming the protestant denominations have gone, the changes in the Catholic Church, and forces the question “is the reformation over?” And asks the question, “Would the reformers feel the need to reform the Catholic Church today?”

Both questions deserve serious introspection.

 

[Brandall]

So looking at the definition of Protestantism below where did I misrepresent you. The thing is you are 500 years removed from the original “Protest” or “Disobedience”. No one is arguing that at the time the Catholic Church had corrupt “Sinners” in charge and making a mess of things.

So do you believe that the “very corrupt church of his time” is still practicing that corruption?

However the Christian faith would have been better served if the reformation came from within.

A small history lesson, until the reformation the only Christian religion that existed was that of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. Both of whom have apostolic succession back to St Peter.

Protestantism is one of the major divisions within Christianity. It has been defined as “any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth” and, more broadly, to mean Christianity outside “of an Orthodox or Catholic church”.

The term protestant was not initially applied to the reformers, but later was used to describe all groups protesting Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Since that time, the term protestant has been used in many different senses, often as a general term merely to signify Christians who belong to none of the churches of Catholic tradition.

Since we are all children of God, since Christ established one Church, Protestantism broke away from the one Church Christ established, where did I misrepresent you as a “disobedient child”

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Frankly, the only “protesting” I’ve done is to leave the Baptist Church, which was the faith I was born. Is that being disobedient? Call those in these separated churches a “disobedient child” when that separation occurred hundreds of years ago seems slightly inaccurate.

 

[Brandall]

So that they are able to learn about baptism and the church they are entering. In the Early church the catechumens waited 3 years typically. Now it is just a few months. Of course their is nothing barring baptism immediately or at another time should the need arise.

It wasn’t always that way.

Acts 2
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It wasn’t always that way.

Acts 2
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Yes I understand that, and like I said, there is nothing barring this from occurring today.

But times have changed, and it seems people would mostly agree that especially with the fractures within Christianity, one makes an informed decision.

This is very interesting reading on the history of the catechumens cyberfaith.com/examining/historyof2-10.html

 

[AbideWithMe]

Well,

I see how my post was taken that way and want to apologize. It was not my intent to ridicule the practice, but instead to point out the often times inconsistency in following your emotions in regard to these things. In my long tenure in Evangelicalism, I rededicated my life twice, each time very sincerely, I also saw many people due this constantly being caught up in the moment as opposed to truly conversion of heart. In time, many of these emotional following folks, walked away as the emotional side lost its flair.

It was this latter group I spoke of.

I believe, as catholic doctrine teaches, that conversion occurs daily, as we continually must choose Christ above ourselves, we must “rededicate” our lives every day in this sense, and I am sure you all agree.

I appreciate it when I am shown my posts border or cross over on uncharitable so thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks for taking the critique graciously, Jon.

I fully agree that the Christian life is a matter of continual reverting, rededicating, re-turning back to face God, if I understand you correctly in my paraphrase. I have never been taught anything else as an Evangelical.

We often sing “Come Thou Fount”—"“Prone to wander, Lord I feel it/ Prone to leave the God I love/ Here’s my heart, Lord take and seal it/ Seal it for Thy courts above.” When I was a learning to ride a jumping horse as a young girl ( it can be scary, and the horse is likely to cut out in front of a fence if the rider loses confidence), I remember being told “Throw your heart over and the horse will follow.” That lesson learned as a child reminds me of the hymn. “Here’s my heart, Lord take and seal it” reminds me to “throw my heart over” into Heaven’s courts and into God’s strong hands, and then keep my “horse” on course to follow it. Yes, casting one’s heart into God’s hands includes emotions, because a man fully alive is an emotional creature; but I take great exception to any denigration of rededication as if it’s just about an emotional high.

Regarding those who appear to be pursuing emotional moments as an end in themselves, well, we on the outside don’t completely know how God is working on them and what He’s trying to teach them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks for taking the critique graciously, Jon.

I fully agree that the Christian life is a matter of continual reverting, rededicating, re-turning back to face God, if I understand you correctly in my paraphrase. I have never been taught anything else as an Evangelical.

We often sing “Come Thou Fount”—"“Prone to wander, Lord I feel it/ Prone to leave to God I love/ Here’s my heart, Lord take and seal it/ Seal it for Thy courts above.” When I was a learning to ride a jumping horse as a young girl ( it can be scary, and the horse is likely to cut out in front of a fence if the rider loses confidence), I remember being told “Throw your heart over and the horse will follow.” That lesson learned as a child reminds me of the hymn. “Here’s my heart, Lord take and seal it” reminds me to “throw my heart over” into Heaven’s courts and into God’s strong hands, and then keep my “horse” on course to follow it. Yes, casting one’s heart into God’s hands includes emotions, because a man fully alive is an emotional creature; but I take great exception to any denigration of rededication as if it’s just about an emotional high.

Regarding those who appear to be pursuing emotional moments as an end in themselves, well, we on the outside don’t fully know how God is working on them and what He’s trying to teach them.

I completely agree.

Even those, who came for the party and left when it got boring, received something.

Here in Southern California we have a problem if keeping up with the jones’ in the evangelical churches. They all continually try to out do each other to attract the congregants and try to keep them coming. They play up the emotional at the expense of the theological/spiritual.

The problem is, as effective as that is to fill the pews initially, over time, they empty just as quickly.

So my goal in these past few posts was a bit of a reaction and combating of that church model prevalent in my area, and coming to a town near you!

 

[AbideWithMe]

…that church model prevalent in my area, and coming to a town near you!

What’s the opposite of “Amen!”???

 

[Brandall]

I completely agree.

Even those, who came for the party and left when it got boring, received something.

Here in Southern California we have a problem if keeping up with the jones’ in the evangelical churches. They all continually try to out do each other to attract the congregants and try to keep them coming. They play up the emotional at the expense of the theological/spiritual.

The problem is, as effective as that is to fill the pews initially, over time, they empty just as quickly.

So my goal in these past few posts was a bit of a reaction and combating of that church model prevalent in my area, and coming to a town near you!

I’m no fan of the “Rock and Roll Jesus” churches but they do serve a purpose. They are able to attract the unchurched. There are several in my part of the world and while I don’t want to go to them, I appreciate what they do.

 

[wmscott]

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Frankly, the only “protesting” I’ve done is to leave the Baptist Church, which was the faith I was born. Is that being disobedient? Call those in these separated churches a “disobedient child” when that separation occurred hundreds of years ago seems slightly inaccurate.

You cant cite 818 of the CCC without continuing on to 819

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

I get the feeling that the term “Disobedient Children” is a sore term for some. I apologize if it causes you discomfort.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Ahhhh

Ecumenism

:harp::hug1:

 

[Brandall]

You cant cite 818 of the CCC without continuing on to 819

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

I get the feeling that the term “Disobedient Children” is a sore term for some. I apologize if it causes you discomfort.

Sounds like no apology at all but thanks for pretending. It would be a better description of the large percentage of Catholics that have left the church than one that was raised in a different denomination. They actually left the church as opposed to the ones that were never a part of the church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Sounds like no apology at all but thanks for pretending.

If it helps, I will say the disobedient children as discussed existed in the 16th century not today.

There are plenty of disobedient children today, both Catholics who refuse and reject church authority, and Protestants who know better but continue in their comfort zones.

Alas

In the words of Pope Francis, “who are we to judge”

 

[Brandall]

If it helps, I will say the disobedient children as discussed existed in the 16th century not today.

There are plenty of disobedient children today, both Catholics who refuse and reject church authority, and Protestants who know better but continue in their comfort zones.

Alas

In the words of Pope Francis, “who are we to judge”

Why would it be up to you to judge them at all?

 

[Jon_S_1]

As individuals. I don’t.

But we all judge history.

 

[Brandall]

If it helps, I will say the disobedient children as discussed existed in the 16th century not today.

There are plenty of disobedient children today, both Catholics who refuse and reject church authority, and Protestants who know better but continue in their comfort zones.

Alas

In the words of Pope Francis, “who are we to judge”

As individuals. I don’t.

But we all judge history.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Brandall:
I am not judging anyone by saying there are plenty of people not living the faith.

 

[Brandall]

I am not judging anyone by saying there are plenty of people not living the faith.

again, no comment necessary.

 

[Jon_S_1]

again, no comment necessary.

So it is your opinion the entire world is saints living the Catholic Faith.

Well I must say that’s an interesting opinion!

 

[Brandall]

So it is your opinion the entire world is saints living the Catholic Faith.

Well I must say that’s an interesting opinion!

It’s my opinion that I don’t need an opinion. Calling someone a “disobedient child” is part of the attitude of members of the Catholic Church that makes it unappealing.

Though I will admit that I’m very glad I’ve been able to see these unappealing traits and hopefully learn to avoid them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It’s my opinion that I don’t need an opinion. Calling someone a “disobedient child” is part of the attitude of members of the Catholic Church that makes it unappealing.

Though I will admit that I’m very glad I’ve been able to see these unappealing traits and hopefully learn to avoid them.

Well disobedient child is a bit of a ridiculous statement. It certainly doesn’t have a place in apologetics in the way you seem to be taking it and perhaps the way it was originally phrased in this thread.

I believe I am a child of God and his church. I am often disobedient to God, and I would say everyone is.

As a child of the church , we are disobedient when we act against the church.

I have no reason to think that this is not the case or it is wrong to describe reality.

I don’t just stick my head in the sand and let the world disintegrate around me.