Posted on 02/15/2022 5:49:53 AM PST by kinsman redeemer
The Diocese of Phoenix said 'all of the baptisms he has performed until June 17, 2021, are presumed invalid'
"The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes," Olmsted said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Good catch. Reminds me GWB talking about gynecologists love for their patients.
Would performing an action Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to do not confer grace? See Matt 28:19
They're doing so in his name, since Baptism is a commandment of Jesus to his followers.
Another point, your requirement of a "Direct statement of a theological point" criteria is not really biblically sound.
After all, did Jesus directly say he was God or strongly imply it so that people could decide to believe in Him?
No, Jesus did not say in the scriptures to his followers, oh btw, I am God you know. Instead He strongly suggested he was to the point of His divinity being obvious if one were understanding the context.
There very scriptures you reference undoes your argument.
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
That ends it, sentence ended, nothing left to do. The rest goes on to display the evidence of their faith which is what a baptism does. Paul did not say believe AND be baptized. They were baptized yes but Paul clearly answered without adding, AND be baptized.
You are adding that context the scripture and Paul do not.
And continuing on, from there V 33 Paul Baptized the whole family immediately.
Which implies there is both belief and baptism as essential things to do. he didn’t say Believe only, He said believe, and then baptized them immediately after they confessed belief.
Again, that is entirely coherent to Acts 2:37-38
Except that gift you just mentioned is not freely given, your own belief is that it can only occur AFTER another man performs a baptism and says the correct phrase, only then can one be saved.
There is nothing free about that and G-d has been removed as the final arbitrator of grace in that scenario, man becomes the judge in grace through baptism.
No it is not, the sentence ended there in a complete thought, You simply to impute the rest into that thought to comport to your argument.
I can perform many actions after a decision, those actions are not necessary to have finalized that decision. Once does not logically nor rationally flow from the other.
Paul stated believe and ended the statement, Paul was absolutely one of the most intelligent, gifted and enlightened writers AND educated Jews of his day. He absolutely would have added after that believe, AND be baptized if he thought that was also required.
Even more significant the Holy Spirit that lead his hand would have ensured something so critical would have been completed in that thought. Not added as an appended action after the question was asked and answered.
Of course there is something free with that. You are incorrect there. First it costs no money. Second, its not like God has any obligation to save us in any way.
But since he did so, anything a person can do by which one can be saved is freely a gift of God. Because He is not obligated.
Its not a purchase, its a submission to the will of God. That would be entirely keeping with Jesus demand that people "keep his commandments." Mat 28:19
And yet you are defending the notion that a priest who failed to use the right words invalidated hundreds or believers grace? Seriously?
Beautifully put
To find the narrow gate one must
pick up their cross and follow Him
many are called but sadly
very few will make the journey.
7
Because the words had meaning too. Else, why would both Peter and Paul say that people should repent and confess belief in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
Words mean things, and Actions mean things. Jesus insists that both right confession and right action are necessary to be his followers.
Circular, and I think you know it.
Per your logic one must be baptized to receive grace, to be baptized you have to convince the person baptizing you that you have meet whatever criteria you choose, does not matter what you choose you have to still prove it.
Evidence in point, people have been refused baptism in your belief system, as such man, not God not chooses who can be saved.
Debate and mince all you want, what I just described is accurate and has happened. You cannot get around the fact in your belief that some human must first find you appropriate, worthy, justified, use whatever word you want, to then earn baptism
It has become salvation through works at that point, not grace.
This would be a strawman, I did not say "whatever criteria." Show me where I stated this. Don't put words into my mouth, and pretend you found circular reasoning.
Peter and Paul only looked for confession of faith and repentance, and that is clear in the text. You cannot get around the fact in your belief that some human must first find you appropriate, worthy, justified, use whatever word you want, to then earn baptism
Where have I stated that a person must earn baptism?
At this point I must add, unless you are prepared to say Catholicism has never refused to baptize someone our discussion is at an impasse.
Given baptism is required for grace, the ability to refuse baptism transfers that gift to the authority granting it. When the Catholica church refuses to perform a baptism they have replaced G-d with whoever has denied that sacrament.
God is not giving grace, the priest is now.
Man has taken on the role of God in salvation. That does not define a gift and it is not free, that defines something required to be earned and even made into a privilege one must struggle to obtain.
I said you were all over the map regarding that which God in Heaven requires from us in terms of displaying reverence and in avoiding all manner of irreverence.
I asked you how much patience you believe God has for irreverence.
I suggested that you are resisting the need to comprehend what I was saying to you about the reverence due at all times to God.
I was asked by another, who read my Ed Koch quote, to explain.
To my mind, you are to failing to come to grips with what it means to work out one’s salvation with fear and trembling.
If irreverence is a dealbreaker when it comes to achieving the Beatific Vision, and I believe it is, humble obedience and genuine reverence is the obvious “antidote” to this common human failing (with respect to which protestants, and I mean this with all due affection to our “separated bretheren”, seem to suffer from a chronic “blind spot”).
As I said, please don’t try to hook me in on the discussion about the Church’s instructions on infant baptism. I could engage on that. Perhaps another day, though.
The point was the church has denied baptism, to deny something one must exercise judgement against some criteria, you know this.
I did not say you said it, I stated that has happened in your belief system. Do you deny that Catholicism has refused to baptize people?
The ability to refuse ABSOLUTLY imputes the authority to a priest and takes it from God’s domain. Man has usurped God’s authority in that situation.
You can justify it all you want with context like do God’s work or ordained to exercise his will, but then you have to somehow make that priest infallible and perfect in the very judgment he renders. No man is perfect but Christ.
He remains a priest in good standing:
Quotes from the link above:
>>> The Diocese of Phoenix said Arango “has not disqualified himself from his vocation and ministry” and “remains a priest in good standing.” <<<
>>> He said he resigned, effective Feb. 1, so he could “dedicate my energy and full time ministry to help remedy this and heal those affected.” <<<
This whole thread is on baptism, you are just working in distractions. I would argue derailing a serious conversation with intent on the focused subject is very irreverent. God’s word deserves much more respect than to try and change the subject when a serious discussion is occurring.
I believe fervently I am showing deep reverence in respecting God’s absolute divinity and authority to give salvation without interlocutors.
Explain for me what is so difficult for confession of faith and repentance?
If it matters so much for salvation it should be nothing in comparison.
Ageed.
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.