Criticizing Roman Catholicism

[Melanie]

The RCC is quite specific on that there is no salvation outside of it. However, in true theological moebius strip like debates....there are wherefores ad nauseum.... this is God's turf so to speak, only He knows the heart and soul of His creatures, so it is for Him to decide.

You CAN be a person of great faith and NOT be RCC through what is called "invincible ignorance" ( please don't go up in flames about this, they are not my words), although I suspect these merry terms are what cause endless arguments if not wars.:tonofbricks:


On a more light hearted note, the new pope was crowned today......:flower:

 

[Matt Black]

Inaugurated, not crowned - I think +++John XXIII dispensed with the triple tiara in 1958 and I would be flabbergasted if +++Francis reinstated it; he's gone for a cheap papal ring.

PS I wonder if he allowed Joe Biden to receive communion?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

yes, water baptism was given by the Lord to be done to those ALREADY had received Him by faith!

Its to be given to those already having been saved, as it symbolising that they already died in Christ to their old way of life, and raised with him in newness of life, but as paul said, we received the Holy spireit when we heard and believed, not when baptised as an infant, how can they hear and believe?

And the ONLY thing that cleanses from Sin is blood of Christ, and that cleansing happens instant one received jesus as Lord/saviour/Messiah by faith!

If baptism were just a symbol Jesus wouldn't have commanded us to do it. We could take it or leave it. But Peter and Paul have shown it is the mode of Entry into the covenant with the Lord and yes its done on faith and faith isn't just an individual faith but a community faith. And entire families can enter into this faith covenant by baptism. Scriptures are clear that baptism isn't a mere symbol but the Mode which Jesus asks us to enter into covenant with him.

 

[KJVRICH]

If baptism were just a symbol Jesus wouldn't have commanded us to do it. We could take it or leave it. But Peter and Paul have shown it is the mode of Entry into the covenant with the Lord and yes its done on faith and faith isn't just an individual faith but a community faith. And entire families can enter into this faith covenant by baptism. Scriptures are clear that baptism isn't a mere symbol but the Mode which Jesus asks us to enter into covenant with him.

we also see in the scriptures that it is FAITH FIRST.....then baptism, this is where the RCC has it backwards. IMO

 

[Thinkingstuff]

we also see in the scriptures that it is FAITH FIRST.....then baptism, this is where the RCC has it backwards. IMO

No, that is wrong. Catholic Church teaches faith first always first.

The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

So faith initiates baptism. However, as for infants they aren't excluded from the covenant relationship with God. Following in the principle in Deut where it says

You shall teach them to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

or in Prov

Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.

So we baptize our children into our covenant relationship and train them that they may continue of their own accord in that covenant relationship. I think you forget what covenant relationship with God is. In the scriptures it (covenant relationships) always includes our children which is why Peter said

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No, that is wrong. Catholic Church teaches faith first always first. So faith initiates baptism. However, as for infants they aren't excluded from the covenant relationship with God. Following in the principle in Deut where it says or in Prov So we baptize our children into our covenant relationship and train them that they may continue of their own accord in that covenant relationship. I think you forget what covenant relationship with God is. In the scriptures it (covenant relationships) always includes our children which is why Peter said

I wonder why paedobaptists always leave off the rest of that verse. Including the last part changes the thrust of it, that's why.

I understand training your children and covenant; Baptists do that, and a very good job of it. But parents cannot have faith for their children.

The difference between baptists and paedobaptists is that the latter see the new covenant as a continuation of the old, whereas baptists see it for what it says it is, namely, "New".

 

[Matt Black]

The New fulfils the Old, it doesn't replace it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The New fulfils the Old, it doesn't replace it.

Conceding that truth, I still see no scriptural justification or basis for infant baptism. Parents cannot have faith for infants or children. They can pray for them and teach them, but they cannot have faith for them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Conceding that truth, I still see no scriptural justification or basis for infant baptism. Parents cannot have faith for infants or children. They can pray for them and teach them, but they cannot have faith for them.

That is true when they get to what you call the "age of accountability" where they are responsible for their own faith. And it is then they can continue in the covenant along with their parents or discard it of their own volition.

 

[Matt Black]

Conceding that truth, I still see no scriptural justification or basis for infant baptism. Parents cannot have faith for infants or children. They can pray for them and teach them, but they cannot have faith for them.

Then why circumcise baby boys under the Old Covenant?

 

[KJVRICH]

[

Then why circumcise baby boys under the Old Covenant?

Genesis 17

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, that's the chapter and verse; my point is that that drives a coach and horses through the anti-paedo-covenanters' (whether that be circumcision under the Old Covenant or baptism under the New) argument that reason and faith of the recipient is necessary. An 8-day old does not have any faith yet he is incorporated in the covenant by a 'work' (as some here would lable it).

 

[church mouse guy]

The RCC is quite specific on that there is no salvation outside of it. However, in true theological moebius strip like debates....there are wherefores ad nauseum.... this is God's turf so to speak, only He knows the heart and soul of His creatures, so it is for Him to decide.

You CAN be a person of great faith and NOT be RCC through what is called "invincible ignorance" ( please don't go up in flames about this, they are not my words), although I suspect these merry terms are what cause endless arguments if not wars.:tonofbricks:


On a more light hearted note, the new pope was crowned today......:flower:

Thanks for the information about no Salvation outside the walls of the Catholic Church. You would be amazed how many American Catholics say that they have never even heard that. The American Catholic Church is more liberal than in other countries in my opinion.

 

[KJVRICH]

OK, that's the chapter and verse; my point is that that drives a coach and horses through the anti-paedo-covenanters' (whether that be circumcision under the Old Covenant or baptism under the New) argument that reason and faith of the recipient is necessary. An 8-day old does not have any faith yet he is incorporated in the covenant by a 'work' (as some here would lable it).

agreed, an 8 day old doesnt have faith, but God said to Moses to do this.


I am not familiar with any new testament verse where God/Jesus says to us to baptize infants.

 

[KJVRICH]

Thanks for the information about no Salvation outside the walls of the Catholic Church. You would be amazed how many American Catholics say that they have never even heard that. The American Catholic Church is more liberal than in other countries in my opinion.

how many american catholics own a copy of their catechism? and have read even a part of it?

 

[Matt Black]

agreed, an 8 day old doesnt have faith, but God said to Moses to do this.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

I am not familiar with any new testament verse where God/Jesus says to us to baptize infants.

But baptism under the New Covenant corresponds to circumcision under the Old - see Col 2:11-12

 

[Walter]

how many american catholics own a copy of their catechism? and have read even a part of it?

How many American Catholics are just 'cultural Catholics' for that matter? Being Catholic in name only.

Now, as far as faithful Catholics that own a copy of the catechism but are familiar with it, you would probably be surprised.

Are you just making assumptions based on your interaction with 'cultural Catholics'? I know I used to.

The faithful members of my parish are, by and large, quite active in evangelism and bible study. There are a number of bible studies with many people in attendance.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

But baptism under the New Covenant corresponds to circumcision under the Old - see Col 2:11-12

No, it doesn't.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Then why circumcise baby boys under the Old Covenant?

Briefly....the Old Covenant was physical and nationalist. The New is only spiritual.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Briefly....the Old Covenant was physical and nationalist. The New is only spiritual.

ONLY spiritual? Are you gnostic by chance?

When Jesus said at the last supper "This cup is the New COVENANT in My Blood, which is shed for you", did He mean the blood He was about to shed on the cross for our sins was not really physical?