Posted on 06/08/2018 8:54:57 AM PDT by Salvation
We are justified by saving faith, the kind of faith that produces works, as opposed to mere intellectual assent, that does acknowledge the truth but is nothing more than recognition of it.
Works do NOT contribute in the least to salvation and adding them to intellectual assent does not make it saving faith and save anyone.
That does not change my point.
It IS forced on an infant and then the claim is made that there’s nothing they can do to remove that *indelible* mark*.
They have no choice in the matter.
I’m caught up in this thread; time to look at the others I’m in for any overnight stuff...
You would think in Romans or Galatians Paul would have carved out, or noted Mary as the exception to all have sinned.
Or somewhere it would be explained that the bread and wine actually change as claimed by Rome and we are not to just do this in remembrance.
Or somewhere Paul would have explained purgatory....or even indicated it was a legit topic.
But as Rome did not formalize its canon until Trent you would think they would have included any of the writings they derive their "Tradition" from. But they did not.
That is telling and should be a concern for any Roman Catholic.
Be careful....the hall monitor may chastise you for being late to the party!
When did Rome formalize goddess Frig day, holy Satyr day and astarte sun day as the first/chief importance of the gospel, as opposed to Paul’s 1st/chief importance of Passover, Unleavened Bread and First Fruits, in accordance with the scriptures?
x
Matthew 25:31-46 has to be understood in relation to believers and non-believers.
In Scripture, believers are referred to as sheep; non-believers as goats.
The sheep [the righteous] are on His right as they are His.....the goats on His left as they are not.
Will believers produce fruit? Yes. The NT is clear that is part of the changed life of the believer.
The goats though had nothing to do with Christ. They never believed in Him.
Now the question to be asked is this:
If a Hindu were to visit someone in prison, or give a cup of water....is that person a sheep or a goat?
You might want to explain your position a little more.
[quoteYou might want to explain your position a little more]
What day does the Old Testament scriptures, Paul referenced to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 15, says the Passover Lamb was to be slain?
Passover, in accordance with scripture, or Rome’s goddess good Fri day, in accordance with Rome?
Paul calls Him our Passover Lamb for a reason. Rome doesn’t have that Passover Lamb. They formalized goddess Friday instead at some point.
When?
“well....that’s what happens when you’re late to the party, you don’t know the basis of the discussion and then jump to ridiculous charges.”
That isn’t the case, though, because I did read your post #24 before I commented on this question. Before commenting at all on this question, I followed back and read again all the comments you and others made on this particular question. I actually read all the comments for this article up through yesterday.
Now again, I wrote this:
“And what is the point to your claim about New Testament Scripture? Are you saying you don’t believe it’s legitimately God’s Word?”
And I ask those questions again, because your claim that Jesus never instructed His disciples to write Scripture is one thing, but then it raises a much larger question of how you regard Scripture. Do you believe Matthew and John wrote their Gospels against Christ’s will?
And again, you can say that nowhere in Scripture did Jesus instruct His disciples to write, other than in Revelation, because whether it was Jesus or His angel, it was absolutely His direction, but you can’t claim to know all that went on that isn’t recorded in Scripture, so you can’t rightfully claim that Jesus never instructed His disciples to write anything.
So will you now believe?
Augustine
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). “Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not to be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
There is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism. Christ himself proclaimed the suitability of infants for initiation into the kingdom (Luke 18:15-16), and Peter declared: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38–39).
The apostolic Church practiced the baptism of whole households, with no exceptions mentioned for small children (Acts 16:16, 33, 1 Cor. 1:16). There is no record anywhere in the Bible of a child of a Christian first having to reach the age of reason and then being baptized.
The Lord explicitly “called infants to him[self]” in Luke 18:15-17:
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
These were not just children who were being brought to Jesus, the Greek word here is “brephe,” which mean infants. And again, the Jews listening would understand that the parents’s belief and obedience suffices for the child until he is old enough to own his own faith. The parents bringing children to Christ, according to Christ, is equivalent to the children coming to him on their own. Moreover, because babies are icons of what we all should be, i.e., they put up no obstacles to the work of God in their lives, and they can most obviously do absolutely nothing to merit anything from God, they are reminders of “the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation” as CCC 1250 says.
Household Salvation
From the very beginning whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe infants would not have been included (cf. Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; I Cor. 1:16). For brevity’s sake, I will use just one of the five examples cited in that parenthesis while I’ll encourage all reading this to take a look at the other four examples as well.
When St. Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31, emphasis added). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that? St. Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/infant-baptism
Scripture was defined and compiled via tradition.
Christ never told his disciples to write anything, he told them to preach.
And here’s why I didn’t reply directly to 24 — there’s a gaping hole in it that I wasn’t going to take time to address, but since you brought it up, I will. You say Scripture was basically judged to be Scripture by “tradition,” and that’s after the fact, and you make your claim about Jesus and the disciples, but in all that you don’t address how Scripture got to be written in the first place.
And regarding what you say about tradition, all the world has traditions. All the religions of the world have them, countries and peoples can have them.
But what only the Christian faith has is God’s Holy Spirit. He directed the writing of Scripture, the recognition that it was God’s Word, the preserving of it, and the discerning of what’s Scripture and what isn’t.
There are many atheists who would say that The Last Temptation of Christ or Jesus Christ Superstar are as inspired by God as a sermon delivered by a born-again Christian and even the Bible itself, if not more so. That’s because they don’t have the Holy Spirit to be able to discern what’s of God and what’s not.
You are entitled to believe whatever you desire.
So the forgiveness of original sin is a problem? Why?
Very true. That’s a good point.
God is the judge. Not you or me.
I was certainly surprised that a Catholic priest would make that claim. I would think he’d know differently. It’s absurd on its face, for one thing, and you’d think a Catholic priest would see that, but you’d also think he’d want to track down where the claim came from to see whether it was true or not.
There are definitely some arguing on this thread who are glossing over most—possibly even all—of the content presented to them. They use their automatic talking points to set aside information they appear not even to read. It’s a real shame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.