Iām thinking that is a rhetorical question and that you really donāt want an answer except maybe to give a condescending reply? And why wouldnāt you want everyone to be here?Oh good. I always appreciate being corrected when I have misunderstood.
Godās love does not save everyone, including those who have made a profession of faith in Him.
This would not be an accurate conclusion. We got on this topic with regard to the baptism of infants, remember? I can declare with certaintly that infants do not seek God and repent of their sins. From an apostolic point of view, they cannot be guilty of any sin, and only carry the stain of original sin.
God indeed has unmerited favor and mercy. He has ordained that this should be applied to the individual in baptism.
I am in agreement with you on this point. In Him all things hold together. He is that which prevents entropy from pulling the universe apart. However, none of this means that infants do not need to be baptized.
I hope you did not think I was suggesting that any Catholic Teaching is contradicted by Scripture. The NT was created by, for, and about Catholics. there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.
How is it condescending to wonder about your motives? Are they bad motives? You have stated that Scripture is the be all and end all of the faith. If that is the case, why come to a forum for discussion?
Everyone does not belong here. CAF is a ministry for providing Catholic Answers. Some donāt want them. Some want to use the threads as a venue to evangelize Catholics (who they see as unsaved) to become ābible christiansā. Some want to use CAF to bash our beloved faith, and make disparaging comments.
You have answered my question, thank you. So you are here to provide non-Catholic answers?
Arenāt you supposed to put
, after an answer like that?And you personally can give a specific, real example of a person who has made a profession of faith and who has not been saved? The CCC would seem to disagree, yet we know that there are wheat and tares and those that reject Godās love.
I never said that it excuses sin. You seem stuck on this line of thinking.
Exactly why infants are in the kingdom according to scripture. When they are no longer children, they are held to Adamās sin and then their own sins.
If one lists all the scriptures on baptism and all the scriptures on faith, faith outweighs baptism for when sin is forgiven or when we are born again or when the blood is applied.
I see in scripture both points.I am in agreement with you on this point. In Him all things hold together. He is that which prevents entropy from pulling the universe apart. However, none of this means that infants do not need to be baptized.
Scripture says it was created by God, hence it is called the Word of God. The first Christians who relayed these words are the shared ancestry to all Christians. Catholic was first used as an adjective by later Christians and then over time became a noun. So, yes, I do find some RCC thought that is not supported in scripture. Iām not sure I would say contradict but I think the conclusions have led to carnal behavior.I hope you did not think I was suggesting that any Catholic Teaching is contradicted by Scripture. The NT was created by, for, and about Catholics. there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.
No one is that powerful, nor is God that weak! I already gave you scripture that a child is in the kingdom of heaven by Godās grace.
Wondering or judging? I come to forum to hear what people have to say. I am not anti-RCC, I am pro-scripture. I see many denominations that ignore parts of scripture. That sounds arrogant but I am not saying I have the answers for everyone, I am saying that scripture does and God guides us through it on our journey. I have found some very compelling ideas behind the doctrines put forth by some RCC posters without malice. I have found more that are contentious, even amongst each other; such as, the pre-Vat2 and post-Vat2 camps, or the anti-charismatics. You talk about unity but I see a gap in RCC thought.
Bad catechisis is in every congregation, RCC included. Remember, if one is taught that catholics are not saved, shouldnāt you be thankful that someone cares enough to share with you what they know? It would be prideful to be otherwise. If you are certain of your truth, you have nothing to fear. You can gently correct them. Some are very nasty, just as some catholics are very nasty, wheat and tares.
I am here to share Christian perspectives based in scripture.
Doesnāt it have to be or that church is in schism? Whether or not it uses that adjective, it must be in submission to Rome, so what is the difference? Am I wrong in this?By the way, the Catholic Church is not āRomanā.
That is very interesting and thought provoking, can you give me some examples?
Only if you are being facetious. I am always genuinely happy to learn that my brothers and sisters have not fallen into heresies.
No, the Apostles taught that our salvation is not accomplished in this life. Therefore, we only know those who are in heaven by what has been revealed to us, and this is only a small minority of the saved. A profession of faith, followed by baptism, is saving, but there is more to being saved than the prayer and the washing.
Are you under some misapprehension that the CC thinks all who are baptized are saved?
The nature of sins has not changed. Sin separates people from God, in the past, and the present. The notion I have heard forwarded here by my Reformed brethren that sin no longer has the same effect āthis side of the crossā is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching.
Except that Scripture does not say this. :tsktsk:
This is not an appropriate use of scripture, gt. We receive the doctrine of Christ as it was committed to the Apostles. They never made any attempt to create a complete compendium of faith through the Scripures. The doctrine of baptism and salvation is reflected in scripture because the NT was produced by, for, and about catholics. There is nothing in the NT that is not Catholic. that is why there is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the Catholic faith.
Yes, and this is true for adults, but not for infants. Infants were brought into the covenant through circumcision, just as infants are brought into the New Covenant through baptism.
The Catholic Church is not āRomanā.
Indeed, God is the primary author of Scripture. He used Catholics, who espoused Catholic faith, to write, protect, promulgate and canonize it. You are right, Catholic was first used by Luke to describe the Church throughout. By 107, this term was in regular use to describe the One Church founded by Christ. The name stuck.
It is clear that you have very little understanding of Catholicism, so the fact that you think there is a contradiction with scripture does not hold much weight.
No, gt. You gave a scripture that supports infant baptism. Baptism is the means by which we are joined to Christ in His death and resurrection. Why would Jesus tell them not to hinder the children from coming, then refuse them the means by which they come to Him?
Ok, but the CC (which is not Roman) is also pro-scripture. You have some anti-catholic views of Scripture. Perhaps you donāt realize this.
Clearly you have received some anti-catholic guidance.
Unity is not defined by those that depart from it. To the extent that any individual or group departs from the One Faith, the have departed from the unity of the Church founded by Christ.
CAF is here for people to get corrected about their wrong ideas of the Catholic faith. Yes, I am thankful that people come here to find answers to their questions.
Yes, but this does not change the Truth of the Teachings. It just makes it more difficult for some people to access because they are not exuding the fruit of the Spirit.".
Why would a Catholic try to evangelize another Christian? The Church recognizes all Trinitarian baptism as valid.
Yes, faith is indeed believing the Gospel. However, you have receieved a truncated gospel, so part of Godās commandment in how He wants us to worship Him has been lost. It is not your fault, you got it from an abbreviated source.
Good.
No. There are 23 Catholic sui juris churches(often called āRitesā), all in communion with the bishop of Rome.
My point in quoting John teaching that we know we have eternal life is that we can have confidence and thus act appropriately. If a child does not feel secure in a family, his actions will reflect this insecurity and he will relate to the father out of fear. A Christian will act insecure also coming to God out of fear of punishment if he doesnāt realize his standing in the kingdom.
Your link in a chain analogy falls short of the Gospel. It suggests works in obtaining salvation, like a twelve step program. This is not what Paul is teaching when he said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. I too have been baptized out of obedience. However, my right standing before God came about when I believed, there are so many scriptures that support this. Since my sins had to be remitted to have right standing, the conclusion is that baptism is a seal but the blood is applied by faith.
Of course there are spiritual effects in baptism - a circumcision of heart, a seal is applied to our conscience. However, baptism looks back to faith in Jesus for the remission of sins. Baptism is not optional, it is a step in our discipleship.
Yes.
gt, you have revealed here both a misunderstanding of Catholicism, and of the 12 steps.
Yes, but the two are not separated from one another. The Apostles never separated the coming of the HS from the ābath of regenerationā. The āwashing of water and the wordā that cleanses our conscience before God does so because the HS circumcises our hearts. In baptism, the merits of the blood of Christ shed on the cross are applied to our soul, as the soul is united with Him in His death and buriel.
This is certainly true of adults and all who are able to reason as Abraham did. However, circumcision was not withheld from infants, just as baptism is not withheld from infants. Since there is nothing we can do to earn salvation, there is no need to jump through any hoops to āqualifyā for it.
I am glad that you believe the Apostolic Teaching that there are spiritual effects in baptism. Indeed, the spiritual reality of being buried with Christ is essential to understanding our identity as Christians. Baptism transfers us from the Kingdom of darkness into Kingdom of light.
Yes, this is true.
Well, the two are not opposed to one another. Our NT relationship with God also reflects itself in the physical realm. The nature of salvation has always been the same. People were always saved by grace, through faith. As in the NT, following the ordinances of the Law could only be accomplished by grace, through faith.
are you suggesting that people in the OT were not related spiritually to one another? Did not the Apostle teach that āa Jew is one who is a Jew inwardlyā?
The answer would be the same as the Jews in the OT before all their canon was complete. They had the Holy Spirit as believers do in 1John 2:27 teaching them. NT believers also had the added benefit of the OT as Paul refered to in 2 Tim 3:16. Hope this helps.The question is, if sola scriptura is the way to go, then what did Christians who didnāt have the whole New Testament do?
Remember though that the Jews were still formulating a canon when Christianity arrived. Are you telling me that the Holy Spirit was leading both of them at that point? Something else, is that there are many, many āChristiansā who claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them. What can you give as evidence which makes you and others the ones with the actual Holy Spirit?
The Apostle Paul certainly believed and affirmed there was enough scripture present to sufficiently lead believers in the way of faith and salvation. 2Tim 3:15-17 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Is that right?
They did, but they interpreted it according to the Apostolic Instruction, which is the part that is lost in SS circles today.
You donāt believe Paul was infallible when he wrote Ephesians? And do you believe thereās an error somewhere in the Gospel of Mark?
What āHoly Spiritā is this, jericho? The one that leads all to One Truth?
This is descriptive of the life style they were living not prescriptive. They were obviously living contrary to the instruction of God they had received.