Infallibility of Church?

[Wannano]

thistle:

It means born again in Christ when baptised.

Basically, what I am getting at is some believe being born again is a new birth in Christ. This birth is the beginning of our faith journey not the end.

Where as it seems others are saying when we are born again we are there, it is the end of the journey, it is finished and we have the Holy Spirit within us and all of the gifts that come with the Holy Spirit.

I say seems here because that what it seems they are saying, which is why I ask for clarification.

Thanks,

God Bless

Hmmm, I don’t want to mess anything up but if the misunderstanding is centered on the beginning or end of our journey, then it seems simple to me, unless I am missing something.

I don’t see anywhere that it is said that we are at the end of our spiritual journey when we become born again. My logic tells me it is at the beginning of my spiritual journey. The difference it seems to me, is when did my spiritual journey begin? The understanding that I have, is that it started when I reached the age of reason and was capable of making my own personal decision to allow Christ to be my Savior and Lord. I was born physically as a baby and had no choice in being born and who my parents were. I was born again not physically but spiritually when I was presented with the reality that I had to make a personal choice of who my Master would be, myself or my Heavenly Father. That is not a choice someone can make for me. God’s plan for the salvation of my soul was completed with Christ’s death and resurrection and is freely offered to all who believe.

 

[mcq72]

Where as it seems others are saying when we are born again we are there, it is the end of the journey, it is finished and we have the Holy Spirit within us and all of the gifts that come with the Holy Spirit.

I am jumping ahead (like to answer sequentially)… but so far have not referenced anything beyond new birth, being born again. Have not gone into sanctification or justification, even final glorification.

No one has said anything about the trail and the end of the journey. Only mentioned new birth, the beginning of life in the kingdom of God. We are His children now. We are somehow seated in heavenly places now. Like it is said of Abraham, he was only sojourning thru this earth, while a citizen of a kingdom in sight but afar off yet.

Being born again is not a “process” as like growing and maturing and persevering in Christ. I mean when you are born again that is it, a finality to the birthing process, you are a child of God where upon once you were at emnity. Being born again does not continue to your death etc…

 

[MT1926]

Hmmm, …unless I am missing something.

There is more to it than that. It’s just part of the misunderstanding. Which is why I am trying to get concrete definitions on how people define being born again.

the beginning of my spiritual journey.

My logic is in line with yours. I think our difference might be that I believe, in some cases (infants), being born again (becoming a child of God) can occur before we even know what sin is. Basically, meaning God isn’t waiting for us to mess up before He redeems us. He is willing to save us before we fall.

…started when I reached the age of reason and was capable of making my own personal decision to allow Christ to be my Savior and Lord.

Which I don’t disagree with, I believe this is one way. However, I don’t believe Jesus intended to wait for our personal decision when He gave us the Sacrament of Baptism. Like I said above He isn’t waiting for us to mess up first.

had no choice in being born and who my parents were. I was born again…when I had to make a personal choice …That is not a choice someone can make for me.

I’m not following your logic here. Which is why I would disagree. In my mind…

If it was God’s and your parents choice to bring your physical body into this world why do you think God would switch it 180 degrees and it would suddenly be your choice regarding your spiritual soul?

Let’s use logic again like you did to deduce that it is the beginning of your spiritual journey.

What’s more important in this life your physical mortal body or your spiritual eternal soul?

I’m hoping you would agree that it is your spiritual eternal soul. Well why would God place the care of your “less important physical mortal body” in the hands of your parents but leave the care of your “infinitely more important soul” unprotected and blowing in the wind until you reach the age of reason?

If we give children no choice of when they go to the doctors or get there immunizations for their mortal bodies why would we give them a choice of when they get their immunization (Baptism) for their eternal souls?

I know this isn’t Biblical but just set that aside and think logically for a minute. Why would God make someone wait 8 to 14 years to become one of his new covenant children? Does that sound like an all loving God?

God’s plan for the salvation of my soul was completed with Christ’s death and resurrection and is freely offered to all who believe.

Partially agree. I believe it is offered to all, God isn’t waiting on us to choose Him before He chooses us. Without God’s initial offer of Grace we can’t even begin to believe in the first place.

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I might not agree with everything but I think I can better understand what you believe.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I am jumping ahead (like to answer sequentially)… but so far have not referenced anything beyond new birth, being born again. Have not gone into sanctification or justification, even final glorification.

That’s good because I’m still trying to understand your definition of being born again.

No one has said anything about the trail and the end of the journey. Only mentioned new birth, the beginning of life in the kingdom of God. We are His children now. We are somehow seated in heavenly places now. Like it is said of Abraham, he was only sojourning thru this earth, while a citizen of a kingdom in sight but afar off yet.

OK that’s good to know.

Being born again is not a “process” as like growing and maturing and persevering in Christ. I mean when you are born again that is it, a finality to the birthing process, you are a child of God where upon once you were at emnity. Being born again does not continue to your death etc…

I agree that it is not a process. Just can’t understand why God will allow a sinful (yet repentant) adult to begin life in the Kingdom of God, but no kids allowed?

If God set it up that we begin our physical lives knowing nothing, yet still being part of an earthly family, not allowing us to wait until we choose to be, why would He set it up completely different to be a part of His heavenly family.

God knows human beings learn by example and what is around us. He set our earthly families up to be a vision of His heavenly families. Father’s, son’s brothers, etc… Why would He give us this example and say I know the family is a great example but it doesn’t work this way in heaven.

Just my thoughts,

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Hmmm, …unless I am missing something.

There

My

…started when I reached the age of reason and was capable of making my own personal decision to allow Christ to be my Savior and Lord.

Which I don’t disagree with, I believe this is one way. However, I don’t believe Jesus intended to wait for our personal decision when He gave us the Sacrament of Baptism. Like I said above He isn’t waiting for us to mess up first.

had no choice in being born and who my parents were. I was born again…when I had to make a personal choice …That is not a choice someone can make for me.

I’m not following your logic here. Which is why I would disagree. In my mind…

If it was God’s and your parents choice to bring your physical body into this world why do you think God would switch it 180 degrees and it would suddenly be your choice regarding your spiritual soul?

Let’s use logic again like you did to deduce that it is the beginning of your spiritual journey.

What’s more important in this life your physical mortal body or your spiritual eternal soul?

If we give children no choice of when they go to the doctors or get there immunizations for their mortal bodies why would we give them a choice of when they get their immunization (Baptism) for their eternal souls?

I know this isn’t Biblical but just set that aside and think logically for a minute. Why would God make someone wait 8 to 14 years to become one of his new covenant children? Does that sound like an all loving God?

God’s plan for the salvation of my soul was completed with Christ’s death and resurrection and is freely offered to all who believe.

Partially agree. I believe it is offered to all, God isn’t waiting on us to choose Him before He chooses us. Without God’s initial offer of Grace we can’t even begin to believe in the first place.

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I might not agree with everything but I think I can better understand what you believe.

God Bless
[/quote]

---

Honestly, and I mean this sincerely…I don’t think you do understand what I believe. Basic to that thought, I agree totally that a loving God would not forsake a child before it reaches the age of understanding…for it has no responsibility for original sin. We are born with a sinful nature and given a propensity to sin but certainly a loving God would not withhold His lap from an unbaptized infant. If the Church really believes that I cannot understand why each baby isn’t sprayed with water as soon as the head crowns at birth in case it never draws it’s first breath. A child is one of God’s covenanted children while he is innocent.

God chose every human being at Calvary. Now it is up to each one of us to respond to the message Peter gave at the start of the church…repent and be baptized.

 

[mcq72]

Well why would God place the care of your “less important physical mortal body” in the hands of your parents but leave the care of your “infinitely more important soul” unprotected and blowing in the wind until you reach the age of reason?

I’m enjoying your post while in line at walmart…

This is so either or. You think that being reared in a Christian home unbaptized is “unprotected and blowing in the wind”?

Reminds of folks but who believe in all sorts of church heirarchy, from P to O view, but who dont believe in pope , are then cited by Catholics as being “orphans”.

All or nothing is what high pressure salesmen use.

I don’t think you mean what you say at least with further more thought and scenarios.( We do dedicate our children in place of baptism, and promise to raise them up in fear and admonition of the Lord).

 

[MT1926]

I don’t think you do understand what I believe.

No offense taken. I freely admit I don’t. That’s why I asked for a clear definition of born again. Which no one wants to give me.

I agree totally…for it has no responsibility for original sin.

I’m guessing we have a different understanding of original sin. Because that is not the reason why I believe this.

Maybe you could define what you mean when you say original sin?

My basic understanding of original sin. When Adam was in the garden he had God’s favor(grace). Adam sins gets deprived of grace. This lack of grace is original sin, it is where our fallen nature comes from. So the reason it doesn’t work id because neither children nor adults are held “responsible” for Adam losing our inheritance (original sin).

Here’s a good article that ties together original sin and infant Baptism.

a loving God would not withhold His lap from an unbaptized infant.

I agree, however we both must admit that this is based on our own conclusions. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach this. In fact Jesus teaches specifically in John 3 that one must be born anew. He does not give the disclaimer well except for infants.

If you know where in scripture I am proven wrong on this feel free to share and I will be more than willing to study it.

If the Church really believes that…

Actual we do. The Church takes this very seriously. I know of babies diagnosed with a terminal condition prior to birth. The Priest was waiting outside the delivery room to Baptize the baby after delivery.

A child is one of God’s covenanted children while he is innocent.

I mean no disrespect, this is not a stab at you. I am just trying to understand using logic based on my definition of being born again since I know no other yet. Logically speaking if the child is one of God’s covenant children when they are innocent (my definition of one born again). Then why do they need to be born again when they get to an age of reason?

God chose every human being at Calvary. Now it is up to each one of us to respond to the message Peter gave at the start of the church…repent and be baptized.

Agree God is the one who made the choice for us. That is why I am having a hard time seeing the big deal about Baptizing infants. Like you said above God already chose them because their innocent of sin. Which is basically what repent means. Repent means to turn away from sin, it does not mean confess your sins(not saying you believe it does just have heard many call into CAL thinking St. Peter was saying confess here and not turn away from).

Well in my mind isn’t an innocent infant already turned away from sin? So why withhold Baptism?

If you get a chance for some definitions that would sure help.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

This is so either or. You think that being reared in a Christian home unbaptized is “unprotected and blowing in the wind”?

Like I said above no I don’t believe this. However, like I also stated this belief is my private conclusion. None of this is taught in scripture. If I am wrong feel free to post where Jesus teaches that a child who is yet to be born again is automatically saved.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The definition of unless - the word is used to say what will or will not happen

This verse is the basis of my comparison. Jesus is the one using and either/or when He says unless. Why do you take offense when I pattern a question based on the words of Jesus?

Do either of these additions change the meaning of Jesus words here…

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless AN ADULT is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless AN INFANT is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The word one in Jesus statement is everyone (Every Man, Woman and Child). He gives us no reason to believe He meant anything other than EVERYONE here.

All or nothing is what high pressure salesmen use.

truly , I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

Truly , I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Truly , truly , I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Truly , truly , I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Truly , truly , I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Truly , truly , I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

“If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,

Truly , truly , I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.”

There are many, many, many more verse straight from the mouth of Jesus
(THE KING OF HIGH PRESSURE SALESMAN)

I don’t think you mean what you say at least with further more thought and scenarios.

I agree I don’t want to believe what I say here. However, at the end of the day it all comes down to what I want to believe. Feel free to point out in scripture where Jesus says infants can enter the kingdom without being born again. I am willing to read it with an open mind, because as I already stated I don’t believe unbaptized infants are damned, but at the same time I have no evidence that proves they are saved in the “born again” sense of salvation. The Bible is silent when it comes to this.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

I am willing to read it with an open mind, because as I already stated I don’t believe unbaptized infants are damned,

Good. I am glad you are free from the error that plagued the church for a long time.

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

So not believing damns ( not not being baptized), and babies would be exempt from such a judgement.

 

[mcq72]

but at the same time I have no evidence that proves they are saved in the “born again” sense of salvation. The Bible is silent when it comes to this.

Yes, sometimes I wonder also. I even think maybe the JW 's have something when they say there are two kinds of eternal life peoples ( the nation’s that bring homage to Jerusalem/ heaven on earth and those inhabiting the new Jerusalem, the saints). Again, this is found in Revelation, for I ask who are all the “nations”?

 

[mcq72]

None of this is taught in scripture. If I am wrong feel free to post where Jesus teaches that a child who is yet to be born again is automatically saved.

Ok. So one must be baptized to be automatically born again, even saved in perseverance, per CC.

Yet I thought we settled it, that God knows how to judge those who have not ever heard the gospel.(indigenous people, aborigines, etc), that this is a biblically founded"doctrine". So why would this not also apply to infants and toddlers etc?

Furthermore, no one has answered how OT saints are saved, for they certainly were never water baptized. And their circumcision ( which some equate to our baptism, and i partly agree) was not for females, and certainly was no guarantee of spirituality as in Nicodemus.

 

[MT1926]

Good. I am glad you are free from the error that plagued the church for a long time.

What error would that be? Are you trying to say none of the Church Fathers or early Christans read scripture with an open mind?

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

So not believing damns ( not not being baptized)

I don’t see how reading your theology into a proof text makes it official teaching. Jesus is teaching something to the Apostles that must be read in context of every other teaching.

and babies would be exempt from such a judgement.

Where does Jesus state that babies are exempt? You’re just making that claim so this verse fits into your theology. Because without the exemption Babies would be in the nonbelievers category.

So Mark 16 here would need further teaching to show that babies are exempt.

Like I said believing unbaptized babies will be saved is a personal belief that we want to see in scripture, but at the end of the day it is not taught in scripture.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Yet I thought we settled it, that God knows how to judge those who have not ever heard the gospel.(indigenous people, aborigines, etc), that this is a biblically founded"doctrine". So why would this not also apply to infants and toddlers etc?

Yes I believe we did discuss this. I do believe God judges people by a standard of what they received. Luke 12:48.

However, let’s think about this. If we had the opportunity is it better to leave the indigenous person in their ignorance, so they will be judged less harshly , or is it better to share the a Gospel with them?

In the same way why would we leave an infant outside of God’s covenant family when we are told Baptism, the sign of the new covenant, now saves us and the promise is for us and my our children!

Furthermore, no one has answered how OT saints are saved, for they certainly were never water baptized. And their circumcision ( which some equate to our baptism, and i partly agree) was not for females, and certainly was no guarantee of spirituality as in Nicodemus.

I didn’t realize the question was asked?

From my understanding The OT saints were in Sheol awaiting The redeemer salvation and the vision of God. Their salvation didn’t occur until Jesus descended there after his death and preached to them.

Keep in mind we believe we are bound by the Sacraments God is not. If He chooses to save someone apart from a Baptism that’s His choice not ours.

God Bless

 

[JohnStrachan]

I can say both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed without hesitation. I would say that this is the minimum that one must believe to be a Catholic. It is some of the things in the Catechism that I have difficulty with.

Glenn, I can say those things as an Anglican - we say the same creeds.

 

[mcq72]

saved

Well you asked for bible verses , or where Jesus taught something, then I give verse ,just like you did, but it is not good , it is private interpretation or something.

Look, if you want to be pedantic on this then you must apply it the other way. All unbelievers are damned. That is all those who die in unbelief go to hell, from infants to mentally retarded to aborigines etc.

If I make the verse fit my theology you do likewise. No where does Jesus say infants who are baptized go to heaven. No where in scripture, not enough to be pedantic about.

Ps…maybe pedantic is wrong word…perhaps we are dealing with balance of legalism and spirit of the “law”.

 

[mcq72]

What error would that be? Are you trying to say none of the Church Fathers or early Christans read scripture with an open mind?

The error that put terror in a many mothers and fathers that if their dying baby would not be baptized they would be separated forever…that drop of water on the forehead, enough to roll down, said with Trinitarian formula, was the key to peace.

I am sorry, I just see it mixed in with the limbo thing, and lack of knowledge of baptism of desire even for their infant and with God’s character and action being defined by ungracious rules.

Only One fulfilled every jot and tottle, paid down to that last penny, completed every last saving work of righteousness, so that we may rest and have peace, with God, in and thru Christ ( and His saving works).

I can not force the channeling of that thru one drop of rolling water. Perhaps in representative fashion yes, a thing of beauty. But as effectual, the releasing key, no. Not compared to the faith in the heart of the believer ( parents) in the Holy One. There is the golden key, the work of God.

That is from an “open mind” of a Christian of any time period.

 

[mcq72]

From my understanding The OT saints were in Sheol awaiting The redeemer salvation and the vision of God. Their salvation didn’t occur until Jesus descended there after his death and preached to them.

Did Jesus then baptize them? How were they born again, for they surely saw the kingdom from afar while alive, and certainly entered with Christ therafter?

 

[MT1926]

Well you asked for bible verses , or where Jesus taught something, then I give verse ,just like you did, but it is not good , it is private interpretation or something.

If you don’t want to admit that you are reading that into the verse fine, but it still doesn’t prove the only point I am trying to make. WE DON"T KNOW, scripture doesn’t tell us. Which is exactly what the Church teaches and is exactly what I believe.

Sometimes you are unbelievable. You respond to me with all kind of jabs, saying I remind you of a high pressure salesman, even though Jesus was one, and then you accuse the Church of being plagued with the error of reading scripture with a closed mind. And now you turn around and refuse to read Mark 16:16 with an open mind.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

You say…

So not believing damns ( not not being baptized), and babies would be exempt from such a judgement.

Think about it, with an open mind, Jesus is speaking with the Apostles here. He’s giving them two teachings:
First teaching belief + baptism = saved
Second teaching unbelief = condemned

There is no mention of Baptism in the second teaching because if someone doesn’t believe why would the Apostles Baptize them in the first place? This is why Jesus doesn’t mention it in the second sentence. If we are to treated every missing scenario in the Bible as an exemption we could find a loophole in every one of Jesus commands.

Look, if you want to be pedantic on this then you must apply it the other way. All unbelievers are damned. That is all those who die in unbelief go to hell, from infants to mentally retarded to aborigines etc.

I thought I made it clear that I do. Remember this is the reason why we Baptize infants???
For those not Baptized I pray that God will grant them peace. He hasn’t revealed this to us so all I can do is pray about it.

If I make the verse fit my theology you do likewise. No where does Jesus say infants who are baptized go to heaven. No where in scripture, not enough to be pedantic about.

I don’t see how you are making this comparison. You are the one adding an exemption to Mark 16. And now you accuse me of adding an exemption to John 3 when anyone with an open mind can see you are the one adding the exemption there as well.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The word “ONE” means everyone (Man, Woman & Child) you are making this verse fit your theology by claiming this word means adults only. Other translations use the word man or person or someone or no one, but no mention of adults only.

Come on you’re better than this. Just agree with me that God has not revealed to us what happens to the unbaptized.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

The error that put terror in a many mothers and fathers that if their dying baby would not be baptized they would be separated forever…that drop of water on the forehead, enough to roll down, said with Trinitarian formula, was the key to peace.

I’m not seeing your point. First you haven’t provided any evidence that this was an error. You are the only one making the claim here. Second I’m not sure which Church you are talking about but as I already said the Catholic Church never taught these children were damned, she outright said WE DON"T KNOW. Now some Church Fathers speculated a limbo of eternal happiness for them but this was never official Church teaching. So not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.

Finally, like I already pointed out to you Jesus was a high pressure salesman. Do you believe Christians should take all the rest of His teachings so lightly?

I am sorry, I just see it mixed in with the limbo thing, and lack of knowledge of baptism of desire even for their infant and with God’s character and action being defined by ungracious rules.

I think this might go back to that open mind we were talking about. Maybe try looking at it from a different angle. There is no limbo thing officially taught and the Church does teach about Baptism of desire. Not sure what you mean by ungracious rules but basing this on the misinformation you were already given I would think maybe the mix up is in what you were told.

Only One fulfilled every jot and tottle, paid down to that last penny, completed every last saving work of righteousness, so that we may rest and have peace, with God, in and thru Christ ( and His saving works).

Not sure who teaches this. Once again your mind is closed to believing things about the Catholic Church that she does not teach.

That is from an “open mind” of a Christian of any time period.

Statement like these pretty much tells me your mind is closed. You quite often speak in absolutes, like you do here. People with closed minds speak in absolutes, because they are incapable of opening their mind to any other possibility. Think about it do you have evidence that your statement was is in agreement with 2000 years of open minded Christians? or are you claiming that all of Christianity up until you have had closed minds? Keep in mind the Catholic Church is not the only Church who Baptizes infants. If you don’t have any evidence then why do you believe this absolute statement?

Not trying to be harsh here, just point out that a lot of what you say seems to be based on misunderstanding what the Church actually teaches.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Did Jesus then baptize them?

Not seeing the point you are trying to make here. What’s the difference?

I freely admit that the scriptures do not tell us if Jesus baptized them and you need to admit that it does not tell us if didn’t.

Personally, I would have to agree that He didn’t Baptize them with water, mainly because they did not have bodies. However, Jesus is not bound by the Sacraments I am sure He is allowed to Baptize or not Baptize them. His prerogative.

How were they born again, for they surely saw the kingdom from afar while alive, and certainly entered with Christ therafter?

Once again don’t know the Bible doesn’t tell us.

However, keep in mind Jesus commanded the Apostles to Baptize

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

We are bound to do what Jesus commands He is not. If He wants to let someone in without being Baptized that is His business not ours. He even teaches us this here…

Matthew 20:10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage.11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? 14 Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

I mean no disrespect but don’t you think people who give these types of defenses sound just like the workers in verse 11. Well the OT saints didn’t need to be Baptized, the good thief didn’t need to be Baptized. Seriously? Did that ever work with our parents when we said but Timmy didn’t have to…

God Bless