(Why become a Roman catholic.)

[stevehut]

I tire of this exchange.

[Charles Sloan]

I tire of repeating myself:

See Luke 18:15--they're called infants (brephe, sucklings). 

So just following the context, if we don't receive the kingdom when we are infants we can't enter in? (v. 17)

[CDHealy]

That does not follow from my line of argument.

Rather, we ought not prohibit infants from baptism.  And if we are to have the sort of faith Jesus says we are to have, it needs to be the sort that infants and children have.

[kensington]

That does not follow from my line of argument.

Rather, we ought not prohibit infants from baptism.  And if we are to have the sort of faith Jesus says we are to have, it needs to be the sort that infants and children have.

Baptism is not what brings us to Jesus...  The Holy Spirit is.

And...

But, in actual fact, infants *do* make acts of faith.  Refer again to St. John the Baptist in the womb and to Jesus' words about infants' faith.

That was not an act of faith, that was in response to the HOLY SPIRIT in Jesus.  It had nothing to do with anything John thought or controlled.  Give me a break.

[kensington]

  Do you all ever stop?

Ok, All I'm asking is ... do you all ever  --like sneaking into a back bedroom with your new lover --- do you ever just take a break and lay on your bed and open  ----like sunbathing --- to a few moments to basking in the Presence of God?

Do you ever still your mind?   Don't answer me - it is rhetorical.

Have you ever taken one single solitary message, instruction from God/ Jesus and followed it for a week to a TEE... At every breath?

Say ---for one week -actually only sought  the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven... To trust Him
completely in every aspect of your life... Whether you don't know what to wear to a party - or don't know how to discipline your child or you don't know whether to eat that second piece of cake ----have you really practiced relying singularly on our Lord's instruction to seek first His Kingdom.

I am so sick of all your words, words, words. Aren't you?

Thank you for indulging me my plea,
Elaine

Elaine... this is a discussion forum.  And this is a secondary forum for the reasons you have just noted.  It gets heated.  Yes... people do take breaks...  look at the posting times... I haven't concerned my self with this much today at all.   Don't worry about it.  I don't.

[Circuitridingpreacher]

So, God's mercy is different than his redemption?  Is that difference nominal (in name only, superficial) or essential (radically and utterly different)?  And what is that difference?

This first one is the most important so we will deal with it in most detail.

It is an essential difference.

This, as I will show, a very dangerous, and indeed an heretical assertion.  As your words below bear out, you are asserting more than one essence to God.  That is a problem, as I will show.

Essence is an incorrect term, attribute is more accurate, and God has more much than one attribute, here is a short list: mercy, justice, love, hate, sovereignty, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, eternal, jealousy, ...... etc...

The mercy of God is extended to all in this lifetime, even the lost, whereas salvation of a soul for eternity depends entirely on redemption. The lost get rain, food, air, life, children, work, etc. and because "all have sinned

[Charles Sloan]

That does not follow from my line of argument.

Rather, we ought not prohibit infants from baptism.  And if we are to have the sort of faith Jesus says we are to have, it needs to be the sort that infants and children have.

I see no mention of baptism anywhere in this chapter, so this is just another misuse of passages to support infant baptism.

[CDHealy]

Baptism is not what brings us to Jesus...  The Holy Spirit is.

Well, St. Peter says baptism saves us (1 Peter 3).  I think you need to read your Scripture more closely.

And...

But, in actual fact, infants *do* make acts of faith.  Refer again to St. John the Baptist in the womb and to Jesus' words about infants' faith.

That was not an act of faith, that was in response to the HOLY SPIRIT in Jesus.  It had nothing to do with anything John thought or controlled.  Give me a break.

Sorry, that's not what the text says.  It says the *baby* leapt in the womb.  And not to put too fine a point on it, Elizabeth, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, points out that the baby leapt for joy at the sound of the virgin's greeting.

No, you have no case because you would rather spout your polemic than look at what the text actually says.

Maybe your husband, God bless him for his service to our country, can explain it to you.

[CDHealy]

Essence is an incorrect term, attribute is more accurate, and God has more much than one attribute, here is a short list: mercy, justice, love, hate, sovereignty, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, eternal, jealousy, ...... etc...

So, is the difference essential or not?  You appear to be contradicting yourself.  You said earlier it was essential.  Now you appear to be claiming it is accidental (i.e., not essential, not substantial).

If you are claiming it is not essential but accidental (of the attributes), your position gets worse, for now you have qualities within God that contradict one another.  More on that in a moment.

Before I deal with the rest of your reasoning on this, I am gathering that you are having difficulty reconciling the justice of God with His mercy. If that is the case, please clarify if you believe, either, 1) that there is no hell, 2) that there is but no one goes there, or 3) that hell is a place of mercy?

I'm not having any trouble reconciling God's justice and mercy--that is the problem with your position.

To answer your questions: 1) there is a hell, 2) some persons go there, 3) hell is a matter of God's mercy or love.

Redemption is not an essence, it is what Christ accomplished.

So if it is not an essence, is it a part of Christ or only "what [he] accomplished"?

There was much that Christ did that was not redemptive in and of itself; including His work as a carpenter, his exercising of bodily functions, and according to 1 Cor 15:17, everything He did until the resurrection. "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

[CDHealy]

That does not follow from my line of argument.

Rather, we ought not prohibit infants from baptism.  And if we are to have the sort of faith Jesus says we are to have, it needs to be the sort that infants and children have.

I see no mention of baptism anywhere in this chapter, so this is just another misuse of passages to support infant baptism.

The passage is about infants and faith.  Pay attention if you're going to make comments.

[kensington]

Baptism is not what brings us to Jesus...  The Holy Spirit is.

Well, St. Peter says baptism saves us (1 Peter 3).  I think you need to read your Scripture more closely.

And...

But, in actual fact, infants *do* make acts of faith.  Refer again to St. John the Baptist in the womb and to Jesus' words about infants' faith.

That was not an act of faith, that was in response to the HOLY SPIRIT in Jesus.  It had nothing to do with anything John thought or controlled.  Give me a break.

Sorry, that's not what the text says.  It says the *baby* leapt in the womb.  And not to put too fine a point on it, Elizabeth, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, points out that the baby leapt for joy at the sound of the virgin's greeting.

No, you have no case because you would rather spout your polemic than look at what the text actually says.

Maybe your husband, God bless him for his service to our country, can explain it to you.

My husband says to keep that blessing, anyone who talks to his wife the way you do, has no merit in his eyes and the blessing is just words... meaningless words.   

[Circuitridingpreacher]

Essence is an incorrect term, attribute is more accurate, and God has more much than one attribute, here is a short list: mercy, justice, love, hate, sovereignty, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, eternal, jealousy, ...... etc...

So, is the difference essential or not?  You appear to be contradicting yourself.  You said earlier it was essential.  Now you appear to be claiming it is accidental (i.e., not essential, not substantial).

If you are claiming it is not essential but accidental (of the attributes), your position gets worse, for now you have qualities within God that contradict one another.  More on that in a moment.

The difference is essential as per your previous definition of the word, (utterly different). The dilemma you have is most easily settled with your answering whether or not you have been redeemed, purchased, bought by the blood of the Lamb? Is the transaction complete and irrevocable, IE Do you now have everlasting life? And that life everlasting, it cannot end? In John 1 terms, are you a son of God? Per Gal 4:5 have you been adopted? If so, there is no un-adoption process.

Mercy can be revoked or withdrawn (Hos 1:6), redemption cannot (Heb 9:12).

This is the crux of the issue. As you have stated, the papist/orthodox/etc. trust in mercy and mercy being able to be withdrawn leaves them with no assurance of sins forgiven. Were you to trust in the eternal redemption of Christ alone, you would actually have everlasting life and be certain of it.

Before I deal with the rest of your reasoning on this, I am gathering that you are having difficulty reconciling the justice of God with His mercy. If that is the case, please clarify if you believe, either, 1) that there is no hell, 2) that there is but no one goes there, or 3) that hell is a place of mercy?

I'm not having any trouble reconciling God's justice and mercy--that is the problem with your position.

To answer your questions: 1) there is a hell, 2) some persons go there, 3) hell is a matter of God's mercy or love.

Now we are getting somewhere. I see you chose number 3, please explain exactly what you mean by hell being a matter of God's mercy or love.

Redemption is not an essence, it is what Christ accomplished.

So if it is not an essence, is it a part of Christ or only "what [he] accomplished"?

Redemption is the work He has done in the offering of Himself to the appeasement of the wrath of God on the behalf of men. As the Redeemer, He must have the qualifications necessary to pay the price, but the redemption is not complete until the price is paid and received. You seem to want to make the qualifications to make the payment equal with the payment. Kind of like writing a check to pay a bill, and then not giving it to your creditor, it may have all the qualifications to make the payment, but until it is cashed it is not the payment.

There was much that Christ did that was not redemptive in and of itself; including His work as a carpenter, his exercising of bodily functions, and according to 1 Cor 15:17, everything He did until the resurrection. "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

[midnight]

It is a meaningful way to express your love for the Trinity; acknowledge Christ's sacrifice for our sins; and receive God's justification through baptism and sanctification based on a lifelong relationship with Christ - the result of a full participation between Christ and ourselves, resulting in salvation! 

How exciting!

[papist1]

Steve
Good point.  and that is why I say those connected to the RC do much good in spite of the leadership.  You know from my other posts in other threads I have little use for the institutional church and the RC IMO is the worst offender.  Yet like in all institutional churches there are some who have not bowed their knee to Bail.

In what way does the heirarchy of the Catholic Church  that Christ instituted stand in the way of those within the Church doing good for God and others?

Did the leadership and servantryof the apostles stop those below them in authority from doing the will of God, or did the apostles and Bishops, and Deacons actually help guide them in their faith?

peace, papist

[Tu Es Petrus]

When the history of The Roman catholic church is as violent and murderours as the Islam of today???

I don't know if you all have noticed it or not, but the history of MANKIND is violent and murderous. Catholic Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, white, black, yellow, red...   ....blood drips from the hand of us and all our ancestors, because we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. So don't single out Catholics, thank you very much.

And remember this: Every sin each of us sin is another stripe on the back of Jesus. So let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Tu Es Petrus]

When the history of The Roman catholic church is as violent and murderours as the Islam of today???

I don't know if you all have noticed it or not, but the history of MANKIND is violent and murderous. Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, white, black, yellow, red...   ....blood drips from the hand of us all and from the hands of all our ancestors, because we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. So don't single out Catholics, thank you very much.

And remember this: Every sin each of us sin is another stripe on the back of Jesus. So let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[3AM]

 To become a Roman Catholic, is to favor the Pope, over the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is as simple as that.

To be a Romans Catholic...is to reject what God tells a person in the Bible , and allow the Pope, to tell you, what is best for you.

It is as simple as that.

[Tu Es Petrus]

To become a Roman Catholic, is to favor the Pope, over the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is as simple as that.

That has GOT to rate among the DUMBEST all time posts I have ever read in a forum

To be a Romans Catholic...is to reject what God tells a person in the Bible , and allow the Pope, to tell you, what is best for you.
It is as simple as that.

I take that back: THIS has got to be the DUMBEST of all time DUMB posts I have ever read in a forum