Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 560,750
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#404783 Nov 25, 2012
who="Michael"
More conflicting bible stories.......
.......... The hometown of Jesus' parents, neither gospel can agree where it was. Matthew says they live in Bethlehem in Judea, while Luke says they lived in Nazareth in Galilee.
I thought these gospels were the inspired "accurate" words of God?
.....something is wrong!

**********

Read the whole thing more carefully. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He was taken to Egypt until Herod died. Then the family moved to Nazareth.

KayMarie
marge

Ames, IA

#404784 Nov 25, 2012
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
marge good friend
I clearly understand what you are saying here.
In recent, but memorable times, things were less complicated. Families and friends were in smaller groups, people knew each other, and a general fear of society, or contamination was not as prevalent as in today's world.
Today with mass communication(news, and amusements which are mostly bad), and transportation, things don't look so bright, and it may be that some are called to live away from the world.
This is more a sign of the times in which we live. In a similar way, some of the early Christians also tried to get away, living in isolated circumstances. Note also the Essenes in Jesus' time....
This existed in the even the early times of Christiantiy, and of the CC when religous persons became cloistered, and still goes on today. And Catholic education is still more preferable to the state education.
On the other hand Jesus sat, ate, and drank, and talked with, and was associated with sinners of his day. And in general, we must go amongst the unsaved to accomplish the Great Commission.
So there will be a conflict of getting one's hands dirty in order to live in the world, and not be of it....The recourse when one does get dirty is of course repentance and God's Mercy.
Hey Robert I agree with your post and yes we must associate with sinners and try to save them God-willing.

But i was talking about those who claim to be of the true church when their works show they are evil.

Thanks again for the post and blessings to you.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#404785 Nov 25, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
No Dust Storm did not say Jesus said his priests were not to be married. You made that part up. Actually it is a discipline not a doctrine. It can be changed. It can be argued against. The problem comes when people defy the church and do what they want in defiance of the church.
There is biblical precedence for marriage as well as well as celebacy. No one forces anyone to become a priest. It is a choice they make. It is not for everyone. Many protestants even who marry agree it would be better if they were not.
The Cathars preached marriage in general was evil and forbade it. There are many good arguments both biblical and non-biblical for celibacy. There are both pluses and minuses to marriage. It is a whole topic which has been gone around before. No sense in repeating it to people who did not listen to anything said the first time.
DustStorm says......The problem comes when people defy the church and do what they want in defiance of the church.

Michael says.....the church does not control peoples lives (maybe yours)

You see Duststorm you practice faith instead of conscious living, you live under a cloak of fear. It teaches you to fear being different, fear standing up for yourself, and fear of being an independant thinker like myself.

You practice that you are unworthy, a sinner, and unclean. I don't practice that.

Your reasoning is always the same. You submit to the will of an external authority. You believe you are inadequate if you don't submit to this authority.

YOu give away your personal power, you follow their rules and procedures, and live in fear the rest of your life hoping what you are doing is pleasing God, and just maybe it will turn out OK at the end..

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#404786 Nov 25, 2012
who="Michael"
.......There are differences in the nativity story which serve to lessen its credibility. As an example, in an attempt to parallel the importance of Jesus' birth with that of Moses, Matthew describes the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by king Herod as he attempts to kill the infant messiah.
This extraordinary event is not attested to by any SECULAR SOURCE from that period, nor even referred to by Luke. Indeed, Luke has the family return peacefully, to Nazareth after Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:22,39).
If the massacre did take place, it does not make sense that Herod's son later on does not recall the event by his father about Jesus nor his importance (Matt. 14:1-2). Moreover, if Herod and all the people of Jerusalem knew of the messiah's birth (Matt. 2:3), why is it that later in Jesus' life, the "same" author claims that people had not heard of his miraculous origin and still questioned his miracles and his teachings (Matt. 13:54-56)?
.....conflicting information or what!
....something is wrong DustStorm...

**********

Secular sources, then as now, doggedly attempt to discredit the story...NOT proclaim it.

KayMarie
Fr Robert Dye

Tulsa, OK

#404787 Nov 25, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually having just seen it I would like clarification. I think the catechism and Catholic Apologists and theologians are quite clear on this subject. I think the subject was more than covered multiple times on this thread. If Fr Dye is advocating that baptism is not necessary until the age of reason then he would be contrary to the teachings of the church
We are bound by the sacraments but the Lord is not.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/thief-...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
The Church baptizes babies because baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), just as the circumcision of eight-day old babies was the sign of the Old Covenant (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). In Acts 2:39, Peter says baptism is for children as well as adults. The word used for children ("teknon") means infants, which is proved by Acts 21:21 in reference to eight-day old infants. We see in Acts 10:47-48; 16:15,33 and 1 Cor. 1:16 that entire households were baptized. Household ("oikos") included infants and children. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." It would have been unthinkable from a Jewish perspective to exclude children from God's covenant kingdom. See also in Matt. 9:2, Mark 2:3-5, Matt. 8:5-13, Luke 6:10, Mark 9:22-25 where people are healed based on another person's faith (just as babies are washed away of sin based on their parents' faith).
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism_qa.h...
.
There is a difference between what is "truly necessary" and what is "allowed."
.
From its origins, the Church has alway allowed infant baptism.
.
We have rocked back and forth as to whether it is truly necessary.
.
For example, if we regard that infants who die before baptism have no salvation, then it would be silly to have a mass of Christian Burial for them. But with the children of Christians, the Church does this, commending such children to God's mercy.
.
Jesus said we must be born again, of water and the Spirit. There it is. Thunk.
.
So ... how to deal with the parents of a child who has died, when we have refused them baptism because they have not attained the age of reason?
.
It makes much more sense to do (as the very early Church seems to have done) baptism for infants presented to the Church for this, and continue in catechesis when they are capable of receiving it. The Holy Spirit can act as He chooses, and if He chooses to pour out sufficient grace for Heaven on an infant, baptized or unbaptized, who would we be to question it?
.
God is not bound by the sacraments, but WE ARE, and shoukd not act as roadblocks to God's grace.
.
Rob

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#404788 Nov 25, 2012
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Robert,
A baby/infant/small child is not yet able to believe/faith or to make a personal decision to follow Christ and take up his cross.
Truth good friend

I don't think I disagree with you here.

But in theory can anyone be "old enough" to believe, or only have faith within themselves to make a decision for Christ? Conversion may be quick or long in coming. In some, like Paul's "quick" conversion, it takes being aware, and understanding the Gospel working in our minds, but also for God to touch us in a supernatural way, to make us alive in Christ, and then repent of former ways....

So there are two aspects of baptism. It therefore behoves us to be an instrument of God to carry out baptism of infants. As this may begin God's touching them at an early age....Later on the repentance and decision is made....

So it doesn't matter which order this happens.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#404789 Nov 25, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
Michael said:
Christmas trees are a pagan tradition.
Pictures and statues of jesus have him with long hair and a beard. Did he have long hair and a beard?
Traditions, traditions, things are added along the way to add DRAMA to the story
**********
Human 'logic' often spoils a beautiful picture. The Christmas tree is an EVERGREEN. The Tree of Life in Revelations is along both sides of The River of Life proceeding from the throne. It is EVERGREEN bearing fruit EVERY MONTH. There is a DIFFERENT FRUIT every month.
Thus the EVERGREEN tree with its various colored ornaments is not 'pagan'.
We don't know how long Jesus' hair was. Why fuss about it?
KayMarie
Being protestant I am wondering why you didn't say why do catholics have statues and pictures depicting a man that no one has a clue what his real image would have been......if he had existed.

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/pagan-symbols....
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#404790 Nov 25, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
Michael said:
Christmas trees are a pagan tradition.
Pictures and statues of jesus have him with long hair and a beard. Did he have long hair and a beard?
Traditions, traditions, things are added along the way to add DRAMA to the story
**********
Human 'logic' often spoils a beautiful picture. The Christmas tree is an EVERGREEN. The Tree of Life in Revelations is along both sides of The River of Life proceeding from the throne. It is EVERGREEN bearing fruit EVERY MONTH. There is a DIFFERENT FRUIT every month.
Thus the EVERGREEN tree with its various colored ornaments is not 'pagan'.
We don't know how long Jesus' hair was. Why fuss about it?
KayMarie
Jeremiah 10:1-6

1 Hear what the Lord says to you, people of Israel.

2 This is what the Lord says:

“Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
though the nations are terrified by them.

3 For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.

5 Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good.”

6 No one is like you, Lord;
you are great,
and your name is mighty in power.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#404791 Nov 25, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Michael"
.......There are differences in the nativity story which serve to lessen its credibility. As an example, in an attempt to parallel the importance of Jesus' birth with that of Moses, Matthew describes the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by king Herod as he attempts to kill the infant messiah.
This extraordinary event is not attested to by any SECULAR SOURCE from that period, nor even referred to by Luke. Indeed, Luke has the family return peacefully, to Nazareth after Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:22,39).
If the massacre did take place, it does not make sense that Herod's son later on does not recall the event by his father about Jesus nor his importance (Matt. 14:1-2). Moreover, if Herod and all the people of Jerusalem knew of the messiah's birth (Matt. 2:3), why is it that later in Jesus' life, the "same" author claims that people had not heard of his miraculous origin and still questioned his miracles and his teachings (Matt. 13:54-56)?
.....conflicting information or what!
....something is wrong DustStorm...
**********
Secular sources, then as now, doggedly attempt to discredit the story...NOT proclaim it.
KayMarie
KayMarie says.......Secular sources, then as now, doggedly attempt to discredit the story...NOT proclaim it.

If someone brought me back from the dead, whether secular, jewish, pagan etc. I would be telling my story to everyone in sight.

The 3 major religions all acknowledge that there was a Jesus. ONLY ONE religion claims him to be the son of God.

Do I believe there was a Jesus? Quite possibly. Was he the son of God? I don't believe so. I don't believe in the trinity.

3 equal persons (persons means human)in one god, yet in the scriptures it appears that God the father calls the shots for the other two persons in God. I thought they were all equal. Wrong again!
Fr Robert Dye

Tulsa, OK

#404792 Nov 25, 2012
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is one that few Catholics get -- e.g. if the RCC were truly appointed and guided by God in matters of faith and morals -- then there would have been no immoral, faithless Inquisitions in the name of Jesus, period.
The Greatest Power in in Universe did not allow its appointee to carry out such crimes.
History and reality render the One-True claim 100% absurd.
.
B your (flawed) logic, Israel was never appointed or guided by God, or they would never have become involved in idolatry ever again. They would never have failed to hear the cry of the poor in their midst. They would never have failed to live Od's law.
.
But they did all these things, despite what God was calling them towards, and God allowed punishment to come down upon them, time and again, always bringing forward a faithful remnant.
.
The Church is not perfect. You can see that in the prayers of the Church. We ask to be cleaned of all sin, and kept free from all sin.
.
It makes no sense to pray this way, unless we can see the opposite happening.
.
Rob
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#404793 Nov 25, 2012
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Dust Storm good friend
I believe,(and I am sure Father Rob), that infant baptism has infused virtues....
The question comes in as to a person's ability to reason at infancy, and therefore the effects of the infused cardinal virtues are difficult to realize see.
Infants display cardinal virtues of faith, hope, love, especially towards their parents, which is easily seen. But do not display for instance prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude until years later. And for all purposes the age of reason is a good place that they seem to begin in an affective way(IMHO).
All well and good.

Well I cannot speak for Fr Rob, but the summation of the argument is that Christ said water and spirit and its regenerative. We know that some Protestants today argue that baptism is not necessary at all nor is rengenerative but merely a symbolic gesture. Some argue about how it needs to be done, others argue about when it should be done and the age of reason will vary from church to church and culture. Some say it has nothing to do with water and outline various types of baptism. Some say its only valid if you do it in the name of Jesus, some say in the name of the creator. I dont think its that complicated. Its not a bath as Peter says. In faith we accept the gift offered for our children and the new convenant.

The Lord was angry when Moses wife did not want their child to be circumcized. It was a command and it was a sign of the covenant a work carried out in faith. The faith of the Centurion and the faith of the Parents. A Jewish person could of course reject the Jewish faith upon the age of reason just as a Catholic does not have to reaffirm their baptismal vows or participate in confirmation or leave the church. We have free will to walk away from God and reject Christ.

We can nurture our faith or suppress it. We can seek knowledge or we can avoid it. We can look for answers outside the church or within it. We can look to the beginning for old questions that repeat themselves or we can ignore them.

I believe it is a gift for children. The Jewish baby girls were cermeonially washed. St Paul did not just believe he got baptized. I would rather accept this gift for you and your children in faith knowing that God is a merciful God and believe that while we are bound by the sacraments the Lord is not. He said to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#404794 Nov 25, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Michael"
More conflicting bible stories.......
.......... The hometown of Jesus' parents, neither gospel can agree where it was. Matthew says they live in Bethlehem in Judea, while Luke says they lived in Nazareth in Galilee.
I thought these gospels were the inspired "accurate" words of God?
.....something is wrong!
**********
Read the whole thing more carefully. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He was taken to Egypt until Herod died. Then the family moved to Nazareth.
KayMarie
KayMarie.....

If both Joseph and Mary knew that Jesus had no human father, why would they have not told Jesus so? And if they did, why did Jesus not claim from the beginning that his miraculous birth was proof that he was divine?

Why, if this man was hailed by so many at his birth as the savior of Israel, did the people of his hometown place no credence in him (Matt. 13:53-58) and why was his true nature such a startling discovery by his disciples so late in his career (Matt. 16:15-17)?

Jesus own brothers did not believe him to be the son of God. Why? Mary and Jesus brothers had to go and retrieve Jesus when he was speaking for they claimed he was out of his mind.

something is wrong!
marge

Ames, IA

#404795 Nov 25, 2012
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Dust Storm good friend
I believe,(and I am sure Father Rob), that infant baptism has infused virtues....
The question comes in as to a person's ability to reason at infancy, and therefore the effects of the infused cardinal virtues are difficult to realize see.
Infants display cardinal virtues of faith, hope, love, especially towards their parents, which is easily seen. But do not display for instance prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude until years later. And for all purposes the age of reason is a good place that they seem to begin in an affective way(IMHO).
If infant baptism or any water-baptism had infused virtues, not Scriptual, not proven.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#404796 Nov 25, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Michael"
.......There are differences in the nativity story which serve to lessen its credibility. As an example, in an attempt to parallel the importance of Jesus' birth with that of Moses, Matthew describes the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by king Herod as he attempts to kill the infant messiah.
This extraordinary event is not attested to by any SECULAR SOURCE from that period, nor even referred to by Luke. Indeed, Luke has the family return peacefully, to Nazareth after Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:22,39).
If the massacre did take place, it does not make sense that Herod's son later on does not recall the event by his father about Jesus nor his importance (Matt. 14:1-2). Moreover, if Herod and all the people of Jerusalem knew of the messiah's birth (Matt. 2:3), why is it that later in Jesus' life, the "same" author claims that people had not heard of his miraculous origin and still questioned his miracles and his teachings (Matt. 13:54-56)?
.....conflicting information or what!
....something is wrong DustStorm...
**********
Secular sources, then as now, doggedly attempt to discredit the story...NOT proclaim it.
KayMarie
There are clear indications that the virgin birth story was a later addition or invention, given that it does not bode well with the original accounts of the life of Jesus. Example, in other gospel passages Mary shows little or no understanding of Jesus and his special role.

According to Luke, the message of the angel Gabriel made it perfectly clear to Mary that Jesus was ordained to be the messiah, the king and savior of Israel. This message was also reinforced by the prophesies of Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:34,38)

Surely, such predictions and the miracle of her virginal conception would have indicated to Mary that Jesus was someone special, if not divine. Yet Mary does not understand Jesus' reference to the temple as his father's house (Luke 2:48-50).

Every king or pagan savior from the past acknowledged their special purpose from the very beginning. Yet Jesus went 33 years and still couldn't convince his jewish brethern who he was as christian tradition teaches.

Was the entire Jesus story fabricated and the ending having to be that Jesus went from helping the poor to becoming a rebel rouser or serious trouble maker and make the jewish leaders so mad they wanted to kill him.

Scriptures claim 10s of thousands of jews loved this Jesus, and no enemies in sight, yet a very very short time later, no one loves this man anymore because no supporters show up at his crucifixion.

Jesus or Barabas.....they were given a choice. The crowd determined the fate of this man as christian tradition ONLY teaches. What would have happened if the crowd flipped a coin and it was Barabas to be crucified. Afterall the scriptures said it was a choice between jesus or barabas. How would christianity have ever started if Barabas was crucified?

makes no common sense.....
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#404797 Nov 25, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
.
There is a difference between what is "truly necessary" and what is "allowed."
.
From its origins, the Church has alway allowed infant baptism.
.
We have rocked back and forth as to whether it is truly necessary.
.
For example, if we regard that infants who die before baptism have no salvation, then it would be silly to have a mass of Christian Burial for them. But with the children of Christians, the Church does this, commending such children to God's mercy.
.
Jesus said we must be born again, of water and the Spirit. There it is. Thunk.
.
So ... how to deal with the parents of a child who has died, when we have refused them baptism because they have not attained the age of reason?
.
It makes much more sense to do (as the very early Church seems to have done) baptism for infants presented to the Church for this, and continue in catechesis when they are capable of receiving it. The Holy Spirit can act as He chooses, and if He chooses to pour out sufficient grace for Heaven on an infant, baptized or unbaptized, who would we be to question it?
.
God is not bound by the sacraments, but WE ARE, and shoukd not act as roadblocks to God's grace.
.
Rob
Thank you for that clarification. See my post to Robert.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#404798 Nov 25, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
You sick, demented and foolish woman. The Pope never justied any of what you claim. Apparently it is your Christian duty to lie and slander.
The Pope is the CEO, the top banana, the buck stops here! of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Shouldn't the Pope had known?

Back in the 1970s/80s in german catholic dioceses when sex abuse by clergy was running rampant. The current Pope today was a priest and a bishop in germany then. Your damn right he would have known what was going on back then, yet when the abuse scandals broke in the news a few years back including Germany the Pope acted dumbfounded as if he had no knowledge of abuses going on anywhere.


makes no common sense...
Clay

United States

#404799 Nov 25, 2012
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
More conflicting bible stories.......
.......... The hometown of Jesus' parents, neither gospel can agree where it was. Matthew says they live in Bethlehem in Judea, while Luke says they lived in Nazareth in Galilee.
I thought these gospels were the inspired "accurate" words of God?
.....something is wrong!
You try desperately to convince Catholics to care about your assertions... But we don't.
Your stuff doesn't matter to us. It only matters to you. I'm sorry man, you don't offer anything fresh or shocking. I
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#404800 Nov 25, 2012
Like all catholics from a young age I was taught that God has a divine plan for all his creation.

He sat down figured out a plan, checked his plan, determined it was a good plan, created the earth and all its creations. The plan was that God would know everything before it actually happened. He would know when someone was going to be sick, when someone was destined to die, when animals got sick and died when plants grow and are harevested. Gods plan knew everything.

Along comes mankind who decides that after awhile they are not happy with things and they start to pray. Praying to God to change something from its present form. Trying to change Gods plan.

Everyday now BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of prayers prayed to God wanting God to change his plan.

I am sure God wonders what was the point in me making a divine plan if every smuck coming along prays and tries to change my plan.

Praying makes the person praying feel good. Other than that it serves no purpose. I do not pray I figure things out myself. If it doesn't work it wasn't meant to be. At 63 I am doing just fine.
Fr Robert Dye

Tulsa, OK

#404801 Nov 25, 2012
4GVN wrote:
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmmm ...
Which strikes me as absurd. I'll grant, I don't know of any god to compare God to, but it seems to me that, if God is truly Good, He would not condemn unbaptised infants.
.
Jesus DID say it was necessary, but He also seems to make exceptions, such as the Good Thief.
Rob
.
Rob
Rob, have you truely considered the possibility that Jesus 'does not make exceptions' but perhaps there is a flaw in the understanding of what the 'GOSPEL' truely is and what part if any, baptism has in ones salvation. And perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what 'born of water' truely means. Is it possible that it is not in referance to water baptism at all?
.
I don't think there is any question that the Christ commanded water baptism as a condition of salvation, and all who are capable of hearing that and understanding it are bound by it.
.Does this mean that Jesus Himself is bound by it? I don't see why He would be.
.
Jesus is the One in Charge. If He chooses to make exceotions to His own rule, who are we to question that.
.We know the rule, and should be following it.
.
Infants cannot know the rule, and I seriously doubt that God would hold them to it.(Might He hold their parents to it? it's possible ...)
.
We do what we can. With infants, if we are going to err, we will err on the side of caution, and baptize.
.I cannot find your earlier post, so I will try to address it as best I can from memory.
.
It is my belief that baptism of infants confers grace. Does this involve the HS? Yes, of course. All graces involve all the Persons of the Trinity.
.
Is the grace received at baptism of an infant (or an adult, really) the same as being "born from above?"
.
Well, we need to be careful not to be twisted up by semantics.
.
ALL grace comes "from above." so, is a person born again from water (baptism) "born from above?"
.
Well ... in a manner of speaking... yessssss ...
.
But Jesus spoke of this as two different things, so let us treat them as two different thing.
.Jesus said we must be reborn of water and the Spirit.
.
Okay. The water part is easy. It is the "death of baptism," the symbolic drowning, and coming back up out of the water ... this is "born again of water.
.
Born of the Spirit seems to imply some new relationship to the Spirit. If we treat it as analogous to baptism (and Jesus DID speak of both in the same breath, so linking them this way is not without justification), then it would be a "death to our old life, and a rising to a new life." A "death" to the life of sin, and a "rising" to a new life of virtue.
.
In other words, just getting baptized won't do it, at least not for anyone capable of doing more.
.
Luke 3:

"7 Then said [John the Baptist] to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

They are called not just to the eternal sign (baptism), but to live an INTERNAL one as well, repentance.
.
Do infants receive grace from the HS at baptism? Of course.
.
Are they capable of living repentance?
.
No, not at all.
.
When they DO become capable of repentance, and they do repent, do they enter into a new and DEEPER relationship with the Holy Spirit?
.
I woukd insist that they do, and that it wad this that Jesus refers to.
.
Rob
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#404802 Nov 25, 2012
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth good friend
I don't think I disagree with you here.
But in theory can anyone be "old enough" to believe, or only have faith within themselves to make a decision for Christ? Conversion may be quick or long in coming. In some, like Paul's "quick" conversion, it takes being aware, and understanding the Gospel working in our minds, but also for God to touch us in a supernatural way, to make us alive in Christ, and then repent of former ways....
So there are two aspects of baptism. It therefore behoves us to be an instrument of God to carry out baptism of infants. As this may begin God's touching them at an early age....Later on the repentance and decision is made....
So it doesn't matter which order this happens.
Robert,

Baptism is not only an obedient response...it is also an IMMEDIATE response to our salvation by Christ.

How can an infant/small child have an OBEDIENT and IMMEDIATE response to their salvation by Christ???

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 13 hr PopeIsDemon 83,903
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Sat Mr Sir 8,723
Pope challenges Muslims to condemn violence Dec 26 QUITTNER Dec 26 2014 4
Pope's role in Cuba deal fractures Cuban-Americ... Dec 23 woodtick57 4
Cuba Deal Is Major Victory for Pope's Diplomati... Dec 22 John 4
Vatican signals new tone on US nuns Dec 21 Raymond F Rice 2
Pope plays key role in Cuba-US policy shift Dec 21 Doc Proper 12
More from around the web