R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I’d imagine it’s a tight squeeze.
- Status
D
Della
Guest
Only for those who insist on wearing their theology inside out and backwards. 
A
adrift
Guest
I am not understanding you. You state that God told Noah how to build and Ark to save his family then you state there was nothing saving about it. 
Are you disagreeing with Peter
Again this confuses me.
Please provide a scripture that states that James speaks of faith AFTER accepting Christ as personal savior.
What is the purpose of Baptism? It removes the original sin and makes us children of God. Jesus said you must be baptized.
He also said
There are scriptures that state that whole households were baptized. Yet it doesn’t say that everyone in the household chose it.
Yes for adult this is true but just as circumcision made the Jews part of God’s people. This was a foreshadowing of Baptism which now makes us children of God. Just as the Jew could choose for his child we now can choose for our children. Since baptism is commanded
and Jesus says that no one can go to the Kingdom without it and there is nothing in Scripture that says children are an exception than baptism of children is necessary.
C
crochet_lady
Guest
Church Militant
A quote that you included about /God said it and that’s good enough / – very true. Cause John 14:6 says “I am the Way, the Truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.” That’s Jesus Christ talking.
A quote that you included about /God said it and that’s good enough / – very true. Cause John 14:6 says “I am the Way, the Truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.” That’s Jesus Christ talking.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
And the way that He set up to come to Him is through His Body, the Church.
Eph 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
Eph 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Inocente. You said:
(Paraphrasing Ronald Regan to Jimmy Carter (in response to being mischaracterized . . . .again . . . .in a debate regarding Regan’s objections to the Government attempting to take over health care incrementally way back in 1980).
This is WHY as I said, I do NOT say:
And I wish you too would refrain from intimating the Sacraments that God gives mankind as “magic” because of YOUR apparent incredulity and apparent LACK of FAITH to believe the words of the Holy Spirit.
I have no problem with debating the issues but when you keep telling me (wrongly) what I think and (wrongly) what I am doing, especially after you are corrected, it merely amounts to anti-Catholicism and does not add to the debate.
And if you try to toss that premise into the debate again, I’ll call you on it again.
If you want to debate the Biblical issues and the ideas, I am happy (as are others) to do so.
I am not going to whine to the moderators. That’s just what an anti-Catholic might want (not necessarily you Inocente but a different anti-Catholic), so they can pat themselves on the back thinking the Catholics had no answer and walk away from this debate–but we DO have an answer and you need to address the Biblical issues not what you distort Catholicism into.
As I have also pointed out before:
John Martignoni is a Catholic apologist. Martignoni who sends out free inbox Catholic Apologetics Newsletters (here) that anyone may sign up for, has a pretty good definition of anti-Catholicism.
Here it is (with minor spelling and syntax corrections and bold mine) . . .
“There you go again Inocente”
(Paraphrasing Ronald Regan to Jimmy Carter (in response to being mischaracterized . . . .again . . . .in a debate regarding Regan’s objections to the Government attempting to take over health care incrementally way back in 1980).
This is WHY as I said, I do NOT say:
And the reason I don’t run around saying this, is it would be a mischaracterization of what YOU teach.
And I wish you too would refrain from intimating the Sacraments that God gives mankind as “magic” because of YOUR apparent incredulity and apparent LACK of FAITH to believe the words of the Holy Spirit.
I have no problem with debating the issues but when you keep telling me (wrongly) what I think and (wrongly) what I am doing, especially after you are corrected, it merely amounts to anti-Catholicism and does not add to the debate.
And if you try to toss that premise into the debate again, I’ll call you on it again.
If you want to debate the Biblical issues and the ideas, I am happy (as are others) to do so.
I am not going to whine to the moderators. That’s just what an anti-Catholic might want (not necessarily you Inocente but a different anti-Catholic), so they can pat themselves on the back thinking the Catholics had no answer and walk away from this debate–but we DO have an answer and you need to address the Biblical issues not what you distort Catholicism into.
As I have also pointed out before:
John Martignoni is a Catholic apologist. Martignoni who sends out free inbox Catholic Apologetics Newsletters (here) that anyone may sign up for, has a pretty good definition of anti-Catholicism.
Here it is (with minor spelling and syntax corrections and bold mine) . . .
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Well, it’s easier, isn’t it, when facts align against you, to debate against a strawman of one’s own making than to address the real issues.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I’m well familiar with that quote which was common among both the SBs and AoGs that I was part of.
It goes, “God said it, (in His Word), I believe it, (in my heart), That settles it, (forever).”
Which is a pretty decent profession of faith, so far as it goes I guess.
I tend to go a bit farther with this and agree completely with what St. Augustine of Hippo said about his faith.
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
He also said, “Thou hast prompted him, that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee.”
I
inocente
Guest
But the NT isn’t written in English legalese!
The Concordant Greek interlinear will sort this one:
to-UN-PERSUADing-ones when ONCE OUT-RECEIVED THE OF-THE God FAR-FEELing IN DAYS NOAH OF-beING-constructED ARK INTO WHICH FEW this IS EIGHT souls WERE-THRU-SAVED THRU water to-WHICH AND US INSTEAD-type NOW IS-SAVING DIPism [baptism] NOT OF-FLESH.
Would supernatural be a better word? We don’t believe in that. We believe in credobaptism (believer’s baptism) rather than pedobaptism (infant baptism).
I’m not sure what more can be said on baptism now we know each others’ position, it’s not like we can solve hundreds of years of debate on an internet forum.
Plato’s cave bro, Platos’ cave. We only see the shadows on the wall, we must discern the reality. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
I
inocente
Guest
Whoa, back up there. I don’t remember if we’ve ever met before and think maybe we got off on the wrong foot.
I didn’t understand most of your post, but we can’t have a free discussion if one party immediately starts talking about running off to the moderator. And btw, the forum rules say “Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice” so I could report you for saying my belief shows apparent incredulity and lack of faith. But I won’t.
Not sure what you mean by anti-Catholic. I moved to my country of my own free-will knowing that virtually everyone here is Catholic, and without the slightest interest in converting them, or whatever the expression is.
Might be an idea to drop the personal stuff now and get back to the topic.
I
inocente
Guest
I translated part of the Pope’s recent interview for another thread.
The section below is about those who rate dogmatic certainty above meeting with God, in essence it might be a commentary on Jesus saying "You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
I agree with what Francis says here, it’s a good read.
*"Yes, in searching and finding God in all things there is always a zone of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says he has met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of doubt then it’s not good. For me this is a major key. If someone has the answers to all the questions, that’s proof that God is not with him. It means he is a false prophet, who uses religion for himself. The great guides of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You have to leave room for the Lord, not to our certainties; you have to be humble. In uncertainty there is in every true discernment that is open to the confirmation of spiritual consolation.
“The risk in seeking and finding God in all things is therefore the willingness to explain too much, to say with arrogant human certainty “God is here”. We would find only a god in our image. The correct attitude is in St. Augustine: search for God to find him, and find him by always searching. And we seek by groping, as we read in the Bible. This is the experience of great fathers of faith, who are our model. You need to re-read chapter 11 in the letter to the Hebrews. Abraham started without knowing where it would lead, by faith. All of our ancestors in the faith died seeing the promised goods, but from afar … Our lives are given as an opera libretto in which everything has been written, but you go, walking, doing, trying, seeing … you must enter into the adventure of searching and encounting God”.
"Because God is first, God is first always, Dio primerea. It’s a bit like the flower of the almond tree in your Sicily, Antonio, which always flowers first. I read in the prophets. Therefore, God you meet walking, on the journey. And at this point someone may say that this is relativism. Is it relativism? Yes, if it is intended as evil, as a kind of indistinct Pantheism. No, if understood in the biblical sense, by which God is always a surprise, and therefore we never know where and how we’ll find him, we can’t fix the time and place for meeting with him. We must therefore discern the meeting. For this discernment is critical. "
“If the Christian is legalistic, restorationist, if you want everything clear and certain, then you’ll find nothing. The tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open new spaces to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists - they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have one dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life, God is in the life of each. Even if a person’s life has been a disaster, if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in his life. You can and should seek in every human life. Even if a person’s life is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a place where the good seed can grow. You have to trust God”.
laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/3216.pdf*
The section below is about those who rate dogmatic certainty above meeting with God, in essence it might be a commentary on Jesus saying "You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
I agree with what Francis says here, it’s a good read.
*"Yes, in searching and finding God in all things there is always a zone of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says he has met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of doubt then it’s not good. For me this is a major key. If someone has the answers to all the questions, that’s proof that God is not with him. It means he is a false prophet, who uses religion for himself. The great guides of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You have to leave room for the Lord, not to our certainties; you have to be humble. In uncertainty there is in every true discernment that is open to the confirmation of spiritual consolation.
“The risk in seeking and finding God in all things is therefore the willingness to explain too much, to say with arrogant human certainty “God is here”. We would find only a god in our image. The correct attitude is in St. Augustine: search for God to find him, and find him by always searching. And we seek by groping, as we read in the Bible. This is the experience of great fathers of faith, who are our model. You need to re-read chapter 11 in the letter to the Hebrews. Abraham started without knowing where it would lead, by faith. All of our ancestors in the faith died seeing the promised goods, but from afar … Our lives are given as an opera libretto in which everything has been written, but you go, walking, doing, trying, seeing … you must enter into the adventure of searching and encounting God”.
"Because God is first, God is first always, Dio primerea. It’s a bit like the flower of the almond tree in your Sicily, Antonio, which always flowers first. I read in the prophets. Therefore, God you meet walking, on the journey. And at this point someone may say that this is relativism. Is it relativism? Yes, if it is intended as evil, as a kind of indistinct Pantheism. No, if understood in the biblical sense, by which God is always a surprise, and therefore we never know where and how we’ll find him, we can’t fix the time and place for meeting with him. We must therefore discern the meeting. For this discernment is critical. "
“If the Christian is legalistic, restorationist, if you want everything clear and certain, then you’ll find nothing. The tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open new spaces to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists - they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have one dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life, God is in the life of each. Even if a person’s life has been a disaster, if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in his life. You can and should seek in every human life. Even if a person’s life is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a place where the good seed can grow. You have to trust God”.
laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/3216.pdf*
A
adrift
Guest
Sort what out? They say the same thing.But the NT isn’t written in English legalese!
The Concordant Greek interlinear will sort this one:
to-UN-PERSUADing-ones when ONCE OUT-RECEIVED THE OF-THE God FAR-FEELing IN DAYS NOAH OF-beING-constructED ARK INTO WHICH FEW this IS EIGHT souls WERE-THRU-SAVED THRU water to-WHICH AND US INSTEAD-type* NOW IS-SAVING ***DIPism [baptism] NOT OF-FLESH.
.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
inocente. You said,
Foundations and terminology need to be correct so when we discuss things we are not using the same terms for different meanings.
Otherwise it makes it harder to have a fruitful discussion.
The “credobaptism” false-contrast argument was EXPLICITLYstated by a Baptist to me. He said:
And I want to say here just what I told him. “WE Catholics PRAY for the Holy Spirit TOO. But then we obey Jesus and couple our prayer to Baptism.”
I am not trying to say Baptists are DISOBEYING but I am saying you at least are INCORRECT about refusing to couple your prayer to the water (as per Baptism) and inventing a “sinners prayer” to substitute for the words of faith Jesus gave us.
YOU would say, “Catholics are incorrect coupling their prayer to the water, etc.”
That’s fine if you think that for now.
That is better than wrongly asserting anything like “Catholics just sprinkle a little water”.
This means we can at least have the discussion.
But what I don’t want in the process of the discussion, is you or anyone else beating up on a straw man (attacking anything less than the Catholic position).
If you don’t understand Catholic theology correctly, you will not see our position when we show it to you stated in Scripture (you don’t have to agree with our theology, but I DO want you to understand what Catholics are saying, that’s all).
The other issue I take is caricaturing the Catholic view of Baptism as “pedobaptism”. This is a partial truth. Catholics Baptize adults too.
Adults being Baptized in the Catholic Church believe, repent, and rise (stand and come forth of their own volition) and are subsequently Baptized.
Now you might respond by saying, “Well you Catholics Baptize infants don’t you?”
And we DO (as commanded by God).
But that’s NOT the whole story.
Just like when we as Catholics discuss Old Covenant circumcision, we would not call it “pedocircumcision” despite the fact that it is the usual case.
It was usual but not exclusive for infants to be circumcised in the Old Covenant.
Why not? Because ADULTS were circumcised too. Father Abraham was circumcised as an old man (as were his adult servants). Adults who were proselytes to Old Covenant Judaism were circumcised. That’s on reason WHY the Judaizers expected Gentile converts to be circumcised (and St. Paul told them this is not necessary anymore). That’s WHY St. Paul himself would insist that St. Timothy had to undergo circumcision as an adult (see Acts 16:1-3) so as not to scandalize the Jews (who EXPECTED Timothy to be circumcised).
Someone MIGHT call “circumcision” “pedocircumcision”, but they would be mischaracterizing it if that were all they presented. I know Baptists DON’T call circumcision “pedocircumcision” from my own personal experience in attending Baptist Sunday School and an Anabaptist youth ministry (although I never became Baptist).
I have NO ISSUE with you discussing Catholic Baptism in the context of “pedobaptism”, but I DO take issue with an apparent reducing of Baptism to MERE “pedobaptism” and I have seen this conclusion drawn from Baptists and other Anabaptists using this terminology frequently.
So if you want to call the Catholic view of Baptism “andragogic Baptism AND pedobaptism” that would not be potentially misleading (lengthy but at least a fuller expression). We just call it Baptism.
And if you want to call the Catholic view of Baptism “credo AND hudor (water) baptism” that would be more correct too—but again just calling it “baptism” is fine too as long as we all know what the Catholics are affirming.
You might think I am being overly pedantic. I am not. Why? Because I have seen firsthand too many misconceptions out there by Anabaptists concerning what the Catholic faith teaches.
You must define your Catholic terms you are going to use appropriately if we are going to have the discussion.
If you are referring to Catholicism, the distinction you draw is only a partial truth inocente.
Foundations and terminology need to be correct so when we discuss things we are not using the same terms for different meanings.
Otherwise it makes it harder to have a fruitful discussion.
- Contrasting “credobaptism” to Catholic theology on Baptism is only part of the story and taken by itself may distort the Catholic faith.
- Painting Catholics as merely practicing “pedobaptism” is only part of the story and again taken by itself also distorts the Catholic faith.
- And I have already pointed out your coupling the Catholic view of Baptism to “magic” is erroneous (on both occasions you asserted that).
Catholics likewise have belief and prayer tied to our Baptismal liturgy. As a matter of fact in its fullness, the Baptismal liturgy includes prayers of exorcism even before the Baptism.
The “credobaptism” false-contrast argument was EXPLICITLYstated by a Baptist to me. He said:
Now I am not saying YOU are asserting this inocente (I am not saying you are not either). But I am saying with your partial characterizations of what we as Catholics teach concerning Baptism, someone COULD easily read what you have stated and come up with exactly what this Baptist man tried to tell me we as Catholics believe (but don’t).
And I want to say here just what I told him. “WE Catholics PRAY for the Holy Spirit TOO. But then we obey Jesus and couple our prayer to Baptism.”
I am not trying to say Baptists are DISOBEYING but I am saying you at least are INCORRECT about refusing to couple your prayer to the water (as per Baptism) and inventing a “sinners prayer” to substitute for the words of faith Jesus gave us.
YOU would say, “Catholics are incorrect coupling their prayer to the water, etc.”
That’s fine if you think that for now.
That is better than wrongly asserting anything like “Catholics just sprinkle a little water”.
This means we can at least have the discussion.
But what I don’t want in the process of the discussion, is you or anyone else beating up on a straw man (attacking anything less than the Catholic position).
If you don’t understand Catholic theology correctly, you will not see our position when we show it to you stated in Scripture (you don’t have to agree with our theology, but I DO want you to understand what Catholics are saying, that’s all).
The other issue I take is caricaturing the Catholic view of Baptism as “pedobaptism”. This is a partial truth. Catholics Baptize adults too.
Adults being Baptized in the Catholic Church believe, repent, and rise (stand and come forth of their own volition) and are subsequently Baptized.
Now you might respond by saying, “Well you Catholics Baptize infants don’t you?”
And we DO (as commanded by God).
But that’s NOT the whole story.
Just like when we as Catholics discuss Old Covenant circumcision, we would not call it “pedocircumcision” despite the fact that it is the usual case.
It was usual but not exclusive for infants to be circumcised in the Old Covenant.
Why not? Because ADULTS were circumcised too. Father Abraham was circumcised as an old man (as were his adult servants). Adults who were proselytes to Old Covenant Judaism were circumcised. That’s on reason WHY the Judaizers expected Gentile converts to be circumcised (and St. Paul told them this is not necessary anymore). That’s WHY St. Paul himself would insist that St. Timothy had to undergo circumcision as an adult (see Acts 16:1-3) so as not to scandalize the Jews (who EXPECTED Timothy to be circumcised).
Someone MIGHT call “circumcision” “pedocircumcision”, but they would be mischaracterizing it if that were all they presented. I know Baptists DON’T call circumcision “pedocircumcision” from my own personal experience in attending Baptist Sunday School and an Anabaptist youth ministry (although I never became Baptist).
I have NO ISSUE with you discussing Catholic Baptism in the context of “pedobaptism”, but I DO take issue with an apparent reducing of Baptism to MERE “pedobaptism” and I have seen this conclusion drawn from Baptists and other Anabaptists using this terminology frequently.
So if you want to call the Catholic view of Baptism “andragogic Baptism AND pedobaptism” that would not be potentially misleading (lengthy but at least a fuller expression). We just call it Baptism.
And if you want to call the Catholic view of Baptism “credo AND hudor (water) baptism” that would be more correct too—but again just calling it “baptism” is fine too as long as we all know what the Catholics are affirming.
You might think I am being overly pedantic. I am not. Why? Because I have seen firsthand too many misconceptions out there by Anabaptists concerning what the Catholic faith teaches.
You must define your Catholic terms you are going to use appropriately if we are going to have the discussion.
- Catholics affirm prayer AND water in Baptism.
- Catholics affirm infants AND adults may be baptized.
- Catholics decry “magic” as much as Baptists.
- (Incidentally Catholics also affirm immersion Baptism, but we also affirm sprinkling and pouring—another area of confusion I have seen amongst what Anabaptists think about Catholic teaching).
- (And one last point, we affirm ONE Baptism for the forgiveness of sins).
I
inocente
Guest
I love it, ignore all the other words, I guess it’s much more convenient that way.
So you read it one way and others read it another way. As I said yesterday, I’m not sure what more can be said on baptism now we know each others’ position, it’s not like we can solve hundreds of years of debate on an internet forum.
I
inocente
Guest
Hang on, I said “We [Baptists] believe in credobaptism (believer’s baptism) rather than pedobaptism (infant baptism)”.
That was 11 words. You then write over 900 words, not about what I said but about all the things you think I might have said.
That’s not dialog and it’s not explaining, it’s lecturing from on high.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
inocente. I am glad you agree with Pope Francis (post 186) to some extent:thumbsup:. We have common ground here and I am thankful for that.
The issue that Pope Francis brings out of course is who is having an “authentic meeting with God” versus their own personal “dogmatic certainty”?
The Catholic (I am admittedly paraphrasing the verses below from memory for brevity, we can and will talk specifics on this thread also and I am sure we will do so soon)
The Catholic would cite many of the Scriptural verses and affirm them all (“believe and be Baptized”, “Repent and be Baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”, “Baptism . . . now saves you”, “you were buried with Him (Jesus) in Baptism”, “arise and be Baptized”, “make disciples of all nations Baptizing them”, put on the “circumcision” of Christ, put on Baptism, we were Baptized into one body" the body of Christ, “he who believes and is Baptized, will be saved”, “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water”, “he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit”, “the promise is for you and for your children”, “you must be born again . . . you must be born of water and the Spirit” etc. etc.).
The Anabaptist
You would give us a formula that is not explicitly stated anywhere in Scripture. And the “formula” has always varied, depending upon who my “preacher” was at the time.
That is of course the discussion concerning being “born again” and I am glad we are having it.
Which perspective is the Scriptural perspective. Which perspective is the personal dogmatic certainty of the Christian (not the Church) perspective?
And I am glad we are having the discussion.
The uncertainty part Pope Francis discusses centers upon US
The “uncertainty” Pope Francis is warning about is us (Christians [not the Church] who have a legalistic, restorationist, etc. view).
The certainty part Pope Francis discusses centers upon GOD
I have one dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life, God is in the life of each. Even if a person’s life has been a disaster, if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in his life.
(This does NOT mean the Pope has ONLY one dogmatic certainty and I am not saying you are suggesting that inocente)
There is a sphere of certainty and in another sense of uncertainty in the Christian life.
(For example you cannot say, “I am CERTAIN there is NO CERTAINTY in the Christian life.” As that would be a self-contradiction.)
There is in a sense, an element of uncertainty as you state and I agree with you (I won’t go into it any more here as the thread concerns being “born again” but I wanted to give Catholics who may read this a little more depth).
Billy Graham even agrees with this principle when he talks about at least one element of uncertainty regarding an altar call.
Billy Graham: “When I ask people to come forward and a thousand people respond, I know in my heart they’re not all converted.”
The Council of Trent teaches the same thing with perhaps a little more depth.
Sense of certainty:
. . . even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments,
Sense of uncertainty:
. . . no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
Here is a quote from Trent partially unpacking this principle (in case there are Catholics who may not agree with Pope Francis).
**Council of Trent CHAPTER IX.
Against the vain confidence of Heretics. **
But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ’s sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
That is the whole point about the “born again” thread is HOW you have “meeting with God” vrs your own personal dogmatic certainty.
The issue that Pope Francis brings out of course is who is having an “authentic meeting with God” versus their own personal “dogmatic certainty”?
The Catholic (I am admittedly paraphrasing the verses below from memory for brevity, we can and will talk specifics on this thread also and I am sure we will do so soon)
The Catholic would cite many of the Scriptural verses and affirm them all (“believe and be Baptized”, “Repent and be Baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”, “Baptism . . . now saves you”, “you were buried with Him (Jesus) in Baptism”, “arise and be Baptized”, “make disciples of all nations Baptizing them”, put on the “circumcision” of Christ, put on Baptism, we were Baptized into one body" the body of Christ, “he who believes and is Baptized, will be saved”, “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water”, “he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit”, “the promise is for you and for your children”, “you must be born again . . . you must be born of water and the Spirit” etc. etc.).
The Anabaptist
You would give us a formula that is not explicitly stated anywhere in Scripture. And the “formula” has always varied, depending upon who my “preacher” was at the time.
That is of course the discussion concerning being “born again” and I am glad we are having it.
Which perspective is the Scriptural perspective. Which perspective is the personal dogmatic certainty of the Christian (not the Church) perspective?
And I am glad we are having the discussion.
The uncertainty part Pope Francis discusses centers upon US
The “uncertainty” Pope Francis is warning about is us (Christians [not the Church] who have a legalistic, restorationist, etc. view).
The certainty part Pope Francis discusses centers upon GOD
I have one dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life, God is in the life of each. Even if a person’s life has been a disaster, if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in his life.
(This does NOT mean the Pope has ONLY one dogmatic certainty and I am not saying you are suggesting that inocente)
There is a sphere of certainty and in another sense of uncertainty in the Christian life.
(For example you cannot say, “I am CERTAIN there is NO CERTAINTY in the Christian life.” As that would be a self-contradiction.)
There is in a sense, an element of uncertainty as you state and I agree with you (I won’t go into it any more here as the thread concerns being “born again” but I wanted to give Catholics who may read this a little more depth).
Billy Graham even agrees with this principle when he talks about at least one element of uncertainty regarding an altar call.
Billy Graham: “When I ask people to come forward and a thousand people respond, I know in my heart they’re not all converted.”
The Council of Trent teaches the same thing with perhaps a little more depth.
Sense of certainty:
. . . even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments,
Sense of uncertainty:
. . . no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
Here is a quote from Trent partially unpacking this principle (in case there are Catholics who may not agree with Pope Francis).
**Council of Trent CHAPTER IX.
Against the vain confidence of Heretics. **
But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ’s sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
S
sennincatholic
Guest
Interesting thread! I read all posts in all 13 pages so far and i learned alot.
Della,Cathoholic,jmcrae and Church Militant…you guys have done a great job presenting the Catholic position on baptism and being born again.
Della,Cathoholic,jmcrae and Church Militant…you guys have done a great job presenting the Catholic position on baptism and being born again.
A
adrift
Guest
What did I ignore? The one who is ignoring is you. I stated that the translation and the Greek mean the same thing instead of saying anything of consequence you say “sort out” and “ignore all the other words” Guess you do know convenience. What did you say
Yep you nailed it.
A
adrift
Guest
It always amuses me when posters post how many pages. Pages depend on what you have set for your options. You can set the number of post you see per page from 5 to 100.Interesting thread! I read all posts in all 13 pages so far and i learned alot.
Della,Cathoholic,jmcrae and Church Militant…you guys have done a great job presenting the Catholic position on baptism and being born again.
I have mine set at 100 so there are only two pages at the moment.
I certainly agree that there has been a great job done.
A
adrift
Guest
You counted how many words he wrote
Part of communication is correcting a misunderstanding. Cathoholic wrote
He is telling you what he sees. If this is incorrect than it would behoove you to tell him what his mistake is rather than tell him how many words he used that is true discussion. He specifically stated that Foundations and terminology need to be correct . Instead of addressing his post you counted it:shrug:
- Status