Sincere question for catholics.

The "powers" argument was published BY the RC sources - I am simply reposting it.

Take it up with them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I like the Nicene Creed. I'll take it. </font>[/QUOTE]"One baptism for the remission of sins"?</font>[/QUOTE]Yup, that part, too.

 

The point made at the end of those RC sources SHOWING their reliance on "powers of the priest" and then showing they want/need to deny that and appeal to the FAITH of the one receiving - remains unnanswered in the case of infant Baptism.

 

I like the Nicene Creed to. I have no problems with any of it since that is essentially a quote of Acts 2:38.

tragicpizza said,

"It looks like Baptism to the Baptist is self-focused, identifying the baptizee as someone who decided to "do the right thing," and to the Catholic as focused on reliance upon God for each step of growth and spiritual awareness. "

And I will say again, you cannot divorce the statements from the overall Calvinist theology of those historical confessions. You also are selective in your quotes. It is clear that Baptism is described as a Covenant. I find it interesting since you are Presbyterian that you are criticizing what the Baptist confession says since it essentially repeats much what the Westminister Confession (Confession of the PCUSA) states.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. How do baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:6, 7), and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3; Mt. 28:19).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob,
The first part of this quote from the Baptist Catechism, not Catholic

 

But what about baptism "for the remission of sins" - how does that square with Baptist theology?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The "powers" argument was published BY the RC sources - I am simply reposting it.

Take it up with them.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]but I don't think that the RC source specified "magical" powers. I think you added that. Are you saying that God has no power?

 

Bob,
I read your article and nowhere did I see it refer to as "magical" powers.

 

Ok "powers" as in "POWERS".

If you are aware of "everyday powers to confect God" feel free to elaborate.

 

How does putting words in upper case change their meaning?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I don't see how that is in conflict with Baptist theology. Especially those influenced more by Calvin's view of the sacraments/ordinances instead of Zwingli's empty symbol view.

The 1677 Orthodox Baptist Confession of the General Baptists had the Nicene (as well as the Apostles, Athanasian) as part of their confession. Baptists, Presbyterians as well as Methodists and some Anglicans don't hold to Baptismal regeneration yet affirm the Nicene Creed statement.

John Calvin commented on Acts 2:38,

We see similar statements from the Anabaptist Reformers,

Conrad Grebel
Baptism is the mark of change in the inner man. It is the mark of a new birth, a washing away of sin, and a promise to walk according to Christ.

Menno Simmons
the holy baptism of believers in which we bury our sinful flesh, take on a new life, seal and confess our faith, testify to the new birth and a good conscience to rise and follow Christ.

 

The "does not lose his POWERS" argument did not refer to "GOD not losing Powers" it said that an EXCOMMUNICATED PRIEST retains "HIS POWERS" to confect God and to forgive sin and to... mark the soul of a NON-BELIEVING infant.

That DIRECTLY contradicted the Catechism's statement about no power in the priest just the BELIEF and willing acceptance of the one who RECEIVES the sacrament. Obviously the infant does NO such thing!

Obvioulsy when EVEN the RC historians THEMSELVES comment on the EFFECT this had on creating a "sacred Clergy vs Profane laity" we can not simply "ignore the details".

Obviously when EVEN the RC publications themselves declare these men to RETAIN POWERS that regular Catholic christians DO NOT have - then in fact IN THE DETAILS we do SEE "powers" assigned EVEN to EXCOMMUNICATED priests but NOT given to Catholic Christians otherwise.

And "no" that is not a statement about God being "excommunicated" or "retaining his powers".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't think it does - neither does the addition of "magical" (to mean supernatural) - the point being that they HAVE powers that Christians don't have and that they RETAIN even if excommunicated.

The point being that these POWERS are what "confects God" and so they RETAIN them even though excommunicated.

What "should" have been said (if in fact they HAD NO POWERS) was "nobody CAN confect God but God and God does so for anyone... It is not THE PERSON that determines what gets confected - but God. So when you have communion in your home YOU confect God every bit as much as the RC priest does - which is NOT AT ALL. And a priest even after being excoummunicated STILL can not confect God since in fact HE NEVER COULD any more than you can".

FAR from that statement is the ACTUAL logic used to defend how and why a Priest RETAINS HIS powers.

It is "in the details" that see what they actually are saying. And this one is glaring, obvious, difficult to sweep under the rug.

In Christ,

Bob

 

How long a time in purgatory?

Is our period after death, time dependent, or does this exist outside of TIME.

Therefore, is heaven or hell time dependent, is God constrained by time and/or any natural laws?

Pax vobus

 

Catholics claim that Purgatory can be measured in DURATION or in INTENSITY and then claim that DURATION (strictly a TIME based concept) has no TIME element.

So there is a lot of "doublespeak" in their myth.

What is fascinating is that all the NON-TIME in purgatory allows ENOUGH TIME so that you HAVE time to go EARN a plenary indulgence that will get a loved one OUT of spending MORE non-Time in purgatory than they have ALREADY spent by the TIME you actually EARNED the plenary indulgence.

So they are "stuck in time" though they don't want to admit it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
you keep bringing this up.

As I mentioned this statement below is NOT FROM THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM, BUT FROM THE BAPTIST CATECHISM

 

Bob,

Here is what the Catholic Catechism states with regards to who can be baptized.

IV. WHO CAN RECEIVE BAPTISM?

1246 "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized."46

The Baptism of adults

1247 Since the beginning of the Church, adult Baptism is the common practice where the proclamation of the Gospel is still new. The catechumenate (preparation for Baptism) therefore occupies an important place. This initiation into Christian faith and life should dispose the catechumen to receive the gift of God in Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.

1248 The catechumenate, or formation of catechumens, aims at bringing their conversion and faith to maturity, in response to the divine initiative and in union with an ecclesial community. The catechumenate is to be "a formation in the whole Christian life . . . during which the disciples will be joined to Christ their teacher. The catechumens should be properly initiated into the mystery of salvation and the practice of the evangelical virtues, and they should be introduced into the life of faith, liturgy, and charity of the People of God by successive sacred rites."47

1249 Catechumens "are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity."48 "With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own."49

The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

Faith and Baptism

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. 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!"

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

 

Here's an aside that I thought of while reading L4H's post...

I've many times seen Baptists be baptized again-- NOT because they were baptized as infants. In the cases I am thinking of, the people were baptized as children (7, 8 years old-- whatever) and then they "rededicated" their lives to Christ and were baptized again. This has always been a questionable practice to me. Thoughts?

 

Makes sense to me.

Baptism is a symbol - a marker for your decided surrender to God. Something to look back on as a significant milestone that will encourage you in years to come.

Many of these children are caught up in the emtion of the moment and get dunked but later in life make a real "memorable" commitment to Christ and can barely remember the level of commitment that existed when they were 5 or 6 or 7. They are looking for a place to set up a milestone that they can remember and that can serve as real valuable realestate for encourage them to "persevere" by recalling the vivid memory of their "first love" in conversion and dedication to Christ.

What good is it to charge someone with "leaving their first love" when they can not remember that it was all that "loving" just kind of a blurr or fog?

Others may have very vivid memories of a decision made when they were only 7. Those people may be perfectly happy to let that stand as the great milestone of their first love that they can look back on and re-kindle.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here see Baptism "CONFERRED" and we DO NOT see "the faith of the ONE who RECEIVES IT" as in the previous quote from L4H.

What a HUGE contrast!!

NOTHING about the faith of the infant - because "FAITH comes from HEARING and HEARING by the WORD of God" Romans 10.

And of course as Heb 11 states "WITHOUT FAITH it is IMPOSSIBLE to Please God"!!

So we are back to "magical powers" where Baptism is not so much RECEIVED in faith - but it is "CONFERRED" by the powerful Priest whose soul has been MARKED giving him POWERS to confer baptism and thush MARK THE SOUL of the infant transfering them into God's Kingdom.

Well what did you expect? - "He can ALSO CONFECT GOD!"

In Christ,

Bob