Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

I took my blinders off to take another look at what I was agreeing too and I don’t see a mention of symbolism at all in his post.

No I did not specify symbolism as one of the four, but it is. I mean if they don’t accept a consubstantial view, nor a spiritual view, they most certainly wont accept a symbolic view, or symbolic spiritual view. But certainly some especially later, took a straight Real Presence, view, and left it at that, like the Orthodox, with no explanation.

Such differences are not due to one citing the symbolic nature of eucharist within same understanding that it is also a literal, real presence, which Georgias alludes to. This is beyond cherry picking.

We have seen contrary beliefs exist simultaneously before ( the IC), and not surprising that a few historians cite these differing Eucharistic views in earliest church also.

 

[mcq72]

The stumbling block for Nicodemus was that he was trying to figure out baptism and being born again as a theological concept, rather than taking Jesus at his word as authority

Actually I take it the other way around. Nicodemus did not take Jesus (and John the baptist) and their words as authoritatve, from God, precisely because he was not born of the spirit, he was not drawn by the Father, which is spiritual thing. This is exactly what Jesus says at the end of this discourse.

 

[mcq72]

The authoritative word is that babies are born again when they are baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit, Grace, and their parents and sponsors teach them to observe all that Christ has commanded the disciples. The Holy Spirit worked in John the Baptist in his mother’s womb, and worked in me when I was a baby, and I am here today to tell about it.

So be it according to your testimony. John the Baptist certainly is a thing to ponder , and some could say is the exception not the rule.

I hope I have been careful to state that baptism and circumcision can be effectual, but it can also be not. Nicodemus and John the Baptist came out of the same doctrine of circumcision and bar-mitzvah. One believed Christ and one did not. Jesus explained why one did not. So did Paul. They were not circumcised of the heart.

As to your journey, one must also consider the role of confirmation, sealing the deal so to speak, or overlapping baptism.

And as one accepts your testimony, I would hope you accept others. I am not saying agree with their terminology, or perspective, but that certainly there has been an encounter with a living Christ, and that they have a nature (spiritual) with Him.

 

[John_Martin]

precisely because he was not born of the spirit,

Gratuitous Grace is an authorized representative speaking to a person, and then that person by his free will trusting in and wanting to be with Jesus, wanting to be baptized, happen before one receives the Holy Spirit. ( or a baby’s parents wanting the baby baptized)

It is sanctifying Grace that is received in baptism with the Holy Spirit. This is needed to do works of righteousness, this is the writing of the law upon the heart rather than on Stone.

John Martin

 

[mcq72]

Gratuitous Grace is an authorized representative speaking to a person, and then that person by his free will trusting in and wanting to be with Jesus, wanting to be baptized, happen before one receives the Holy Spirit. ( or a baby’s parents wanting the baby baptized)

Yes, Nicodemus was not graced to hear that authorized representative, the Father, to trust in John (his words), or Jesus ( his person). Perhaps pride in his religion got in the way, God resisting the proud, Nicodemus resisting the grace.

But I believe that one can not even hear (Jesus says “see”) the kingdom representative, much less want to trust or be with Jesus, or gladly be baptized, and exercise that free will, until one is born again.

Nicodemus did not believe in Jesus and Jesus said he needed to be born again, then he could see and believe., and be baptized and later receive the Holy Ghost.

Repentance is change, from unbelief to belief. Being born again is change. No one is baptized till they repent and believe.The old man, the flesh, the stony heart, can not believe and gladly follow Jesus. The new heart, the changed heart and quickened born again spirit can.

 

[John_Martin]

Nicodemus did not believe in Jesus

Nicodemus did believe in Jesus but he did not understand which was his problem trying to understand as opposed to Simply believing in Jesus. Jesus was telling him, “Stop trying to interpret for yourself, just take my word for it.”

“Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him.”

By the end of the Gospel of John we see Nicodemus following Jesus, because he believed Jesus that night, not because he received the Holy Spirit first.

Nicodemus, who had previously come to Jesus at night, also brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. So they took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths with the spices, according to the Jewish burial custom.

He wanted Jesus more than anything and so he buried him richly. We do not see it, but when he was baptized he did receive the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus like another Saint, Saint Augustine, thought the following types of thoughts:

“Such thoughts as these was I turning over in my miserable Soul, weighed down as it was by the gnawing anxieties that flowed from my fear that death might overtake me before I had found the truth. Faith in your Christ, Our Lord and Savior, as I found it in the Catholic Church, still persisted steadfastly in my heart though it was a faith still in many ways unformed, wavering and at variance with the norm of her teaching, yet my mind did not abandon it but drank it in ever more deeply as the days passed.”

 

[LoyalViews]

Here is my advice: read upon St Thomas Aquinas, but also read some C.K. Lewis and Tolkein.

 

[MT1926]

If the flesh ain’t killed totally by your baptism, or in your confession of faith, you aren’t their yet , not in saving grace yet, for no flesh shall enter the kingdom.

I don’t agree with this view. Why would God’s free gift of grace be dependent on what we do or say? also if it is as you state here that would mean anyone who hasn’t made a confession of faith is damned, including children in your very own congregation.

Well, has nothing to do with OSAS.

Don’t agree because we don’t believe being born again = a guarantee of salvation. We believe someone can be born again and then later in life walk away from Christ and lose their salvation.

Just stating that if you are wrong, that infant baptism is not necessarily effectual, then you may have a lot of frustrated Catholics trying to be holy in the flesh, never having been born in the spirit, like Nicodemus.

I would say that these Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians (I’m 99% sure they all baptize babies) are only frustrated because they were to lazy to learn their own faith. Yes I’ll be blunt, all of those Catholics who left claiming they were never fed or never heard the gospel message were to lazy to pay attention during mass. They can’t blame their frustrations on anyone but themselves.

What Nicodemus faced is what many Catholics and many Protestants have come to face.

I think the reason you think this is because these are the Catholics that end up in your Church. They are the ones who don’t understand the Catholic faith. They are the carnal ones, as you call them. You need to spend some time around Catholics that understand and are excited about their faith. Then maybe you would see the sacraments in a better light. Your only experience of the Sacraments are from people who didn’t understand them

He was not born again, even though he was a rabbi/ priest type.

Actually, he was not born again because Jesus hadn’t yet sent the Paraclete, giving us the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Baptism. Not sure why you would believe he could be born again before Jesus even sent the Holy Spirit?

So, from the lips of Jesus, we see that an outward rite, even though God ordained, is not indicative of any inward working.

You might but the rest of us don’t believe Jesus was chiding him.

God Bless

 

[John_Martin]

Here is my advice: read upon St Thomas Aquinas, but also read some C.K. Lewis and Tolkein.

Well said!
And another quote from Saint Augustine:

“I was still trying to trace the cause of evil, and found no way out of the difficulty. Yet you allowed no flood of thoughts to sweep me away from the faith whereby I believed that you exist, that your essence is unchangeable, that you care for us humans and judge our deeds, and that in your Son, Christ Our Lord, and in the Holy Scriptures which the authority of your Catholic Church guarantees, you have laid down the way for human beings to reach that eternal life which awaits us after death.”

It is not new that the authority of the Catholic Church guarantees that the correct scriptures have been put into the Bible and are interpreted correctly.

 

[mcq72]

You might but the rest of us don’t believe Jesus was chiding him.

I mean chiding as in critical, as opposed to condoning.

“Art thou a teacher of Israel, and you don’t know these things?” John 3:10

This is right after showing no clue about being born in the Spirit, about being born again. “How can these things be?” John 3:5-9

 

[MT1926]

Again, we misunderstand each other.

No I’m pretty sure I dont. You said

I know there are a few scriptures that allude to that perception of regenerational baptism but we must align that with the few scriptures that say by no works of righteousness are we saved

So my question was if you consider Baptism to be works righteousness and as I explained a baby does absolutely nothing when They are born again. That would mean, by your own standards you would have to do even less than a baby when you are born again. That’s what I mean by stuff.

For one who has been infant baptized, the latter could only be seen as a stumbling block, as it was for Nicodemus.

As I already stated, only if they are to lazy to learn and understand their faith.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Actually, he was not born again because Jesus hadn’t yet sent the Paraclete, giving us the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Baptism. Not sure why you would believe he could be born again before Jesus even sent the Holy Spirit?

Regeneration, being born of God, born of the Spirit, and born again are the same thing, not to be confused with dispensations of the ministry of the Spirit.

Jesus said that one can not see the kingdom of God, then that one could not enter the kingdom, unless one is born again.

We are told that Abraham did both, that He saw the kingdom of God but from afar off, and certainly was taken up to heaven with the Lord’s ascension, along with all the other OT saints. They had to have been born again, born in the Spirit. They may not have had the Holy Spirit indwelling, or His baptism as we do, but the Spirit certainly walked with him, was with him, as He was with the apostles before Pentecost. Their once dead spirits were quickened, and not dead in trespasses and sins.

Being born again was an OT thing, though going by other names. Nicodemus should have known this but did not, and was called on the carpet for it being a teacher himself, by Jesus.

 

[mcq72]

Nicodemus did believe in Jesus but he did not understand which was his problem trying to understand as opposed to Simply believing in Jesus. Jesus was telling him, “Stop trying to interpret for yourself, just take my word for it.”

Exactly. Die to yourself so that He can raise in New life, and have His mind. Be born again. Let go, let God.

Yes he believed him to be a teacher, even from God. He did not believe His words, His witness. Jesus told him, “Ye believe not.” Again, because he was not born again, yet.

He certainly was being drawn toward the light, but in darkness, not just because of the night, but of his understanding. Again, because he was not born again, yet.

 

[mcq72]

I don’t agree with this view. Why would God’s free gift of grace be dependent on what we do or say?

What does baptism signify according to the epistles, but that we die in Christ as we go down under the waters, but arise with Him in new life. We die to ouselves, crucifying our carnal man, the old unbelieving man, and put on Christ.

I am not sorting out grace and works here, but merely going over what happens, whether by grace or by works, whether by our cooperation or by His doing, etc

I am pretty sure Catholic teaching agreed to dying to self, even mortifying the flesh, even final purgation thru a purgatory. Again not dealing with the how here but the what

 

[John_Martin]

Exactly. Die to yourself so that He can raise in New life, and have His mind. Be born again. Let go, let God.

No he was not saying, “Be born again.”

He was saying, “You must be born again; your Mother, the Catholic Church, must give birth to you by baptizing you and giving you the Holy Spirit, which I give to the Catholic Church to give to people when they baptize and confirm them and teach them to obey all that I have commanded them. Don’t try to be born again as if you could do it yourself, instead ask the Church to give you birth, to bear you. Trust my Church, I taught them everything they know, they cannot lead you astray in their authorized actions and teaching.”

 

[mcq72]

Don’t agree because we don’t believe being born again = a guarantee of salvation. We believe someone can be born again and then later in life walk away from Christ and lose their salvation.

Being born again is being born again. Doctrines of eternal security and perseverance, Calvinism, Armenianism are something else, something after new birth.

would say that these Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians (I’m 99% sure they all baptize babies) are only frustrated because they were to lazy to learn their own faith. Yes I’ll be blunt, all of those Catholics who left claiming they were never fed or never heard the gospel message were to lazy to pay attention during mass. They can’t blame their frustrations on anyone but themselves.

Well, for the most part they freely admit it is their own fault, that it was quite natural to be spiritually lazy, even indifferent or lacking passion , even frustrated, when one is not born again.

But you are correct, that they are not oblivious to the fact of the differences of teaching on this matter, from one church to the other. I do think they recognize some Catholics they may know as also being born again.And finally, most seem to be grateful for the seeds of truth implanted in them about Jesus and righteousness and judgemnet, etc., even the notion of spiritual hunger vs carnal hunger, that their families and churches tradition faithfully bestowed on them.

Your only experience of the Sacraments are from people who didn’t understand them

Yes some for sure, but others no. Remember the early defectors such ad Huss and Luther were very well catechized. Many I know were altar boys, went to parochial schools, even high schools,(Jesuit).

 

[mcq72]

No he was not saying, “Be born again.”

He was saying, “You must be born again;

Well,seems the same.

It was not a future event. Others believed Jesus and His testimony. Nicodemus did not. Others were born of spirit, born of God, born again. Nicodemus was not.

You are confusing dispensation of Holy Spirit with the age old regeneration of man’s spirit, that has been happening since the fall. A reviving of the spirit of man towards God that was once dead because of sin.

 

[MT1926]

Again not dealing with the how here but the what

Well then we are on different pages then. Because the thing I am hearing from you is all of this stuff has to be TOTALLY completed. or you’re not their yet.

It sure seems like you are saying unless you can see evidence in someone that they have are ALREADY fully died to themselves, they have TOTALLY crucified their carnal man, 100% gotten rid of the old unbelieving man, and put on Christ to the fullest extent, then it is to DANGEROUS to let them even think they are born again.

Please tell me if I am wrong here, but this is how I am understanding what you are presenting. You might not want to have to explain the how but unless you can explain the how the what doesn’t make sense.

I am not sorting out grace and works here, but merely going over what happens, whether by grace or by works, whether by our cooperation or by His doing, etc

And it seems to me that I am saying Catholics Baptize babies, which is evidence that being born again is 100% a work of grace. The baby did nothing to “earn” brace and become born again. Where as you sure seem to be saying it is by works when you state that something has to be totally completed or you’re not there yet.

Faith is a journey. Being Born again is the beginning of that journey not the final step in the journey.

I am pretty sure Catholic teaching agreed to dying to self, even mortifying the flesh, even final purgation thru a purgatory.

It seems the difference between us is we don’t believe salvation is a one time deal, it is journey in which if we persevere to the end we will be saved. So we believe we are born again in Baptism. Whether we are 20 days old or 20 years old doesn’t matter. Both are born again in Baptism. Baptism gives us the grace we need so that Jesus gives us what we need to die to ourselves, not once but daily. So that graces will continue to strength us so we can crucify our carnal man, which for many might take a lifetime or might not be completed until Purgatory. So that we can let go of the unbelieving man and put on Christ.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding here but that is the stuff I am talking about. It sure seems like you are saying WE need to show Jesus the evidence before Jesus will allow us to be born again.

If you are not saying we need to show evidence of all of this stuff first then I see no reason why Baptizing a baby into God’s covenant family is such dangerous proposition.

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

Exactly. Die to yourself so that He can raise in New life, and have His mind. Be born again. Let go, let God.

No he was not saying, “Be born again.”

He was saying, “You must be born again; your Mother, the Catholic Church, must give birth to you by baptizing you and giving you the Holy Spirit, which I give to the Catholic Church to give to people when they baptize and confirm them and teach them to obey all that I have commanded them. Don’t try to be born again as if you could do it yourself, instead ask the Church to give you birth, to bear you. Trust my Church, I taught them everything they know, they cannot lead you astray in their authorized actions and teaching.”

You have an amazing ability to expand on Jesus’ words to make them more understandable. No wonder Nicodemus didn’t get it!

 

[MT1926]

Doctrines of eternal security and perseverance…

Still don’t see your point. A Catholic parent and Catechesis teaches children that they were born again in Baptism. You were sealed with a mark on your soul and became a Christian, belonging to Christ. You were welcomed into God’s covenant family and are now a child of God. How is telling someone they are born again and bring them up in the faith so darn dangerous.

I think telling someone if you haven’t done all of this stuff then you are “not there yet” is a far more dangerous position. I could see some trying to show everyone they are there on the outside, instead of actually being there on the inside. Which is pretty much what Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus.

they freely admit it is their own fault… when one is not born again.

Sounds like it’s my fault, but not really my fault.

But you are correct, that they are not oblivious to…

Actually I think they ARE OBLIVIOUS to what the Catholic Church teaches. I mean no disrespect to anyone who left the Catholic Church but it sure seems like most of those who leave blame it on the Church didn’t feed them or didn’t help them become born again or never preached the Gospel.

Where as the majority of the converts to Catholicism seem to have understood the faith they were brought up in and once they started to compare and contrast the differences and the origin of their own faith they converted. Basically, they studied their way into the Catholic Church.

I do think they recognize some Catholics they may know as also being born again.

I would think only God truly knows the heart. So if your going to claim the only basis for one being born again is because they can see the evidence. Then I would say they THINK they recognize who is and isn’t born again. Because someone can show evidence all day long and still not be born again.

Remember the early defectors such ad Huss and Luther were very well catechized.

I meant your only experience is the people who left the Catholic Church. Anyway I am not following your thought process here. Lutherans baptize babies?

Many I know were altar boys, went to parochial schools, even high schools,(Jesuit).

Still not following you? I was an altar boy for 12 years and honestly can say I knew very little of my faith back then. If it wasn’t sports, girls or video games I didn’t give it the time of day.

Like I said, from personal experience, Catholics who leave the Church do so most like because they were to lazy, just as I was, to pay attention and learn what the Church actually teaches.

God Bless