Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

No for infants. Once again as I have said over and over again if we insist God’s hands are tied unless we first come to an age where we understand then it is based on what we do for God not what God does for us

You still miss my point. It is what the ministry of Holy Ghost does for us in this pre salvation work of His, to convict of sin, judgement and righteousness.

But correct , not sure how this can be applied to infants, unless in hindsight

I’m sure you would agree that God can and does save some before they fall into sin.

Do you mean no original sin, or just one who never sinned ? I did not know there was any save Jesus.

We can desire to be born again out of love, like a child desiring to be with their father. We don’t have to wait until we are unruly teenagers who come to realize dad was right all along.

yes, and not sure why the same could not be a sinner, or why that could not be a tired unruly teenager, or even an old timer.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Yes, not a good analogy. Those who are referred to, are NOT disciples…yet. If they become disciples, THEN they WILL be one with the apostles.

There is zero evidence that he was against the apostles, and not one with them…

Disciple or not , he did exactly what the apostles were sent out to do…he acted like a disciple

“for whoever is not against us is for us.”

Jesus ultimately required everyone to be together. Not just sort of together, but perfectly together.

Jn 17: (all emphasis mine)

“I do not pray for these only, (He’s talking about the apostles) but also for those who believe in me through their word, (everybody else) 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.(that is a oneness that is absolutely perfect. No division what so ever) 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

As in ZERO division

mcq72:

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,"…Paul

I don’t find that quote. Could you give the reference?

BTW, Paul wrote more about condemning division than anyone.

mcq72:

The pre pentecost, Holy ghost apostles failed in ministerial envy, period.

Paul did better (of course after Pentecost, to be fair to the apostles, who even were calling Jesus “teacher”), and still praised that the gospel went out even if by those who were at odds with him.

Pentecost is when the HS came upon the apostles in a special way. It’s the official start of the Church

Who did Paul check with and spend 3 weeks with, to make sure his own preaching was true?

 

[mcq72]

Jesus ultimately required everyone to be together. Not just sort of together, but perfectly together.

Jn 17: (all emphasis min

Yes, that is another teaching, but in this one , there is zero evidence of any division, but of carnal envy…scripture is not afraid to show the good, bad ,and ugly of the children of God.

Again, here is the sad part, that despite doctrinal harmony and same works, you have envy.

 

[MT1926]

You still miss my point. It is what the ministry of Holy Ghost does for us in this pre salvation work of His, to convict of sin, judgement and righteousness.

I think I get your point. It seems you are saying we can’t be born again until we become sinners and are in need of being convicted of our sin by the Holy Spirit. So we have to first do something, become a sinner, before we can be born again.

This is the reason why I think you are against Baptizing infants. Because they have yet to become sinners. That’s what you mean by hindsight correct?

Do you mean no original sin, or just one who never sinned ? I did not know there was any save Jesus.

I assumed we were talking about actual sin when you used the words convicted of sin. Which is what I meant when Isaid God can save infants, make them born again, before they commit actual sin.

yes, and not sure why the same could not be a sinner, or why that could not be a tired unruly teenager, or even an old timer.

What I meant by out of love was before sinning, like infants. The unruly teenager was one who already sinned.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

I don’t find that quote. Could you give the reference

Phil 1:18

BTW, Paul wrote more about condemning division than anyone.

Yes, which included what not to be divided over,when to tolerate or accept some differences.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus ultimately required everyone to be together. Not just sort of together, but perfectly together.

“And be ye perfect, as the Father is.”

“Live peaceably amongst others, as much as is possible”.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus ultimately required everyone to be together. Not just sort of together, but perfectly together.

Jn 17: (all emphasis min

Yes, that is another teaching, but in this one , there is zero evidence of any division, but of carnal envy.…scripture is not afraid to show the good, bad ,and ugly of the children of God.

Again, here is the sad part, that despite doctrinal harmony and same works, you have envy.

Jesus prayer [Jn 17:20…] was not limited to envy. That is just one of many sins to avoid.

Re: Division / dissension διχοστασίαι , from the Greek study bible, http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm ,That same Greek word is used in both the following passages Rom 16:17 & Gal 5:20

And

The consequence for one who dies in that sin?
(Gal 5:21] “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

There is no worse consequence.

Open the link describing / identifying “division/dissension”. as Paul is using the term. I put both terms depending on one’s translation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I don’t find that quote. Could you give the reference

Phil 1:18

thanks

my translation says

18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice.

BTW, Paul wrote more about condemning division than anyone.

mcq72:

Yes, which included what not to be divided over,when to tolerate or accept some differences.

understood.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus ultimately required everyone to be together. Not just sort of together, but perfectly together.

“And be ye perfect, as the Father is.”

“Live peaceably amongst others, as much as is possible”.

Q:​

what translation are you using?

 

[John_Martin]

Do you mean no original sin, or just one who never sinned ? I did not know there was any save Jesus.

Oh my, you do too know of another - Our Mother Mary, who was immaculately conceived, no original sin but the full presence of the Holy Spirit, for the LORD was / is with her.
We are all taught this by the Infallible Teaching of our Holy Mother, the Church, who does not tell us anything but what is truth, and is without error in what she teaches in matters of Faith and Morals.

Everything you are saying here is an attempt to say that you understand differently than the Church, and you are correct. The Catholics here are trying to give you insight into the fact that Catholic teaching is not foreign to the reading of Scripture, but you deny it as a legitimate reading, because it is not your reading.

You cannot understand heavenly things such as the working of Grace that happens effectively to all the Baptized, adults and babies; you do not comprehend the infusion in the Soul of Grace, the infusion within the Soul of the Theological Virtues, and the necessity of Co-operation in Sanctification, wherein the Grace and Virtues are become Active. So, unable to comprehend, you deny the Holy Spirit rather than being like Nicodemus and seeking to learn from Christ in his Apostolic Body, and ask “tell me how this is true so I will know.” You think that Cornelius was “born again of the Spirit” because he spoke in tongues, but you do not know that he was “not saved” when the Spirit came upon him. The Spirit came upon him to be a message to Peter to do the Baptizing of Cornelius and his household, it was no sign nor salvation for Cornelius. That happened when Peter baptized them.

“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who disbelieves is condemned”.
In 21st century English for the slow of mind, that is translated: “My disciples, you are going to preach that I am the Christ, and you will tell people that you can give them citizenship in my Kingdom, along with my Spirit which you will also give them to change them into righteous people (justified people). Some of them will take you and your successors at your word, meaning they would also have believed me in person, so you are me “in persona”. When they believe you, they will ask you to Baptize them. Do it, Baptize them, that is where you are giving them Citizenship, salvation, the Holy Spirit. From now on, that person who believed you and whom you baptized is to be regarded by you as “Saved”. Then you must teach them to use the infused Grace and Virtues, and thus be perfect just like their Father in Heaven. Of course, if anyone does not believe you or your successors, it goes “without saying needed” that they will not ask you to Baptize them, and it goes “without saying needed” that you will not then baptize them, so you are to regard those who did not believe you or your apostolic successors as “not saved”, as still IN the world and OF THE WORLD, meaning regard that they are apart from the Grace I have given you to give to the Church of the Faithful.”

John Martin

 

[mcq72]

You think that Cornelius was “born again of the Spirit” because he spoke in tongues, but you do not know that he was “not saved” when the Spirit came upon him. The Spirit came upon him to be a message to Peter to do the Baptizing of Cornelius and his household, it was no sign nor salvation for Cornelius. That happened when Peter baptized them.

I think the bible says Cornius was devout and God fearing by Jewish terms, the One True faith of the time. In my opinion he was already born again, before Peter even arrived. Unless of course you don’t believe righteous saints of OT were born again, like Mary and Joseph or Elizabeth or Simeon, etc…

No doubt the falling of the Spirit on Cornelius was at least a sign as you say to show Peter that God was not a respector of persons, Jew or Gentile. And yes to proceed to water baptism, to a public confession. But to say to be born again is a forced box, which the text is trying to set us free from, the Lord , like the wind, moving in the hearts of men.

And just like today, God is still not a respector of baptisms whether water or Holy Spirit or new birth, from this church or that, Catholic or Protestant etc…

 

[mcq72]

. Of course, if anyone does not believe you or your successors, it goes “without saying needed” that they will not ask you to Baptize them … (they are) not saved”, as still IN the world and OF THE WORLD,

Well most P’s and O 's have been baptized. And many are baptized as in a sacrament and some as in a rite.

 

[John_Martin]

I think the bible says Cornius was devout and God fearing by Jewish terms, the One True faith of the time. In my opinion he was already born again, before Peter even arrived. Unless of course you don’t believe righteous saints of OT were born again, like Mary and Joseph or Elizabeth etc…

Oh, come now; you don’t expect anyone to buy that logic - Nicodemus was a fully devout Jew, fully a true fearer of God, with the True Faith of the time, - and like Cornelius, Nicodemus needed the Body of Christ to Baptize him and grant him the New Birth. To this fully validated Jew, full of Trust in God, Jesus declared, “You must be born again.” And Cornelius needed that as well, even with the speaking in tongues he needed to be born of the Spirit, not just used as a tool of speech.
God is a respecter of Baptisms, as Jesus swore to his disciples, “what you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven; if you forgive the sins of any, they are indeed forgiven, and if you retain the sins of any they are indeed retained. Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me, so then, Go and Preach; whoever believes you and asks you to baptize them, do it, and then regard them as saved, Period. If they do not listen, do not seek the sacraments from you, walk away, shaking the dust from your feet.”
These promises were to the Apostles and to their successors, and we hear them.

You can find reasons to not listen, to not accept the apostolic proclamations and definitions of the truth. That is fine that you do not want to be confined, but we have our King and the official Gospel he sends to us by official messengers, thus Paul must say, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Official Message from the King that I was sent to preach.”

 

[mcq72]

you do not comprehend the infusion in the Soul of Grace, the infusion within the Soul of the Theological Virtues, and the necessity of Co-operation in Sanctification, wherein the Grace and Virtues are become Active

And who comprehends this ?

Yet as John says in epistle, “…little children, ye know all things, and have an unction from the Holy One”

 

[John_Martin]

And who comprehends this ?

Why, everyone who submits to the Official News, with the Obedience of Faith to being Baptized and Taught by the Sent Apostolic Messenger, and living out a life of Holiness by using the Virtues and Enlightenment given in the Sacrament.

John Martin

 

[mcq72]

What is “soul of grace”? That grace has a soul, or is it a soul has grace, like the “inner man, the new man”, to use biblical terms? And do “Theological Virtues” have a soul ?
Have seen that specific terminology before.

 

[John_Martin]

What is “soul of grace”? That grace has a soul, or is it a soul has grace, like the “inner man, the new man”, to use biblical terms?

You didn’t quote the whole phrasing:

you do not comprehend the infusion in(TO) the Soul of Grace,

This means that Grace, a concrete reality (not just God “favoring” you within Himself), the Substance “Grace” is in the"atmosphere" of your soul just like real photons of sunlight are permeating the air for you to see in the daytime.
You will not comprehend this until you give up being your own guide and ask the Church, the living Apostolic Aurhority to teach you and keep explaining until you realize, “I understand.”

John Martin

 

[mcq72]

You didn’t quote the whole phrasing:

you do not comprehend the infusion in(TO) the Soul of Grace,

Lol…ok…putting in the “to” helps…or like the “the soul being infused with grace”…never seen it worded as you did, “the infusion in the Soul of Grace”, but I got it now, thank you.

Not sure where or who says grace is only favor within God Himself towards us, as if we are ourselves are not recipient of it…I mean is not grace the conveyor belt of anything good anything Righteous, Godly, Christ like, of the Virtues you were expounding, even in action, change within us, the inner man, the new man, though ypu only say “soul”?

 

[John_Martin]

Not sure where or who says grace is only favor within God Himself towards us, as if we are ourselves are not recipient of it…

A little web search will show you what all those believe who left the Catholic Church to define religion on their own rather than receiving what was preached to them by the Living Apostolic Authorities; Anyway, how can one work with the Spirit or use the Virtues if one has no idea what or where they are in himself, or what exactly his Soul might be and how it operates and moves his whole being? This is what you miss by not subjecting yourself to those Apostolically Sent to you. It is not a “better argument” that makes a Catholic, it is the Origin of the Living In-Person Preacher: Jesus said it well, "What was the source of John’s baptism? Was it from heaven or from men?” It is the same with the Priests, Bishops, Pope today; are they preaching what was received from Heaven, from God, or their own analysis of the Bible?

Lutheran: What it means to be truly Lutheran: Grace alone – WELS

“Grace, however, is a quality in God. In fact, it defines who the true God is and what he does…
The standard catechism definition of grace is “God’s undeserved love.” Yet grace is deeper than that. It is the love that moves God to act for those who cannot act for themselves and need his loving action. God acts in grace simply because God wants to act in grace. That is who God is and what God does. Martin Luther defined grace this way: “Grace means the favor by which God accepts us, forgiving sins and justifying freely through Christ” (Luther’s Works Vol. 12, p. 376).”

At the same webpage, a word about Catholics by the Lutherans:

"Roman Catholicism has traditionally taught that grace is a quality that God injects into people so that they can obey his will and earn his blessings. "

Southern Baptist:SBCLIFE.NET

“1. Grace: The unmerited favor of God. Everyone knows this standard definition, but few realize how rich it is. God has the right to send every person who has ever lived or will ever live to hell. That is exactly what we all deserve. But He has chosen, because of His grace, to grant eternal life to those who have faith in Christ and repent of their sin.”
Presbyterian: https://firstpresbyterian.org/sites/default/files/other/What-Presbyterians-Believe-Session2.pdf
God’s work in providing salvation in Jesus Christ is a work of God’s grace. “Grace” means God’s unmerited favor."
Presbyterian Beliefs "Grace: Grace is defined as favor, blessing, or goodwill offered by one who does not need to do so. It is unearned and undeserved favor. In our sinful condition as humans, undeserving as we are of God’s love, it is God’s goodwill and favor reaching out to redeem us. "

John Martin

 

[mcq72]

Anyway, how can one work with the Spirit or use the Virtues if one has no idea what or where they are in himself, or what exactly his Soul might be and how it operates and moves his whole being

Sounds quite intellectual, and Catholicism does suit many with an intellectual bent. Yet as I posted from John, where he calls us little children , “that we know all things, by an unction from the Holy Ghost”. As I also posted, He is neither Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Protestant.

IT is the same with the Priests, Bishops, Pope today; are they preaching what was received from Heaven, from God, or their own analysis of the Bible?

Yes, which is it , and is it all or nothing, all either or, like a high pressured sales pitch ?
Jesus answered or did not answer, one specific question, dealing with one specific aspect, of the working out of the old covenants. So I think it wise also, to take up the question of whether the pope and bishops are speaking for God or from the tradition of men, one aspect, doctrine, practice at a time