Ninja
Okay so why do you baptize babies then?? They are not old enough to understand they were born in sin, I mean they cant even talk. So how on earth can they confess of they're sin and get baptized??? ( Acts 2:38 - "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.")
It's a safe guess Peter was just talking to the grown-ups, who certainly would need to repent, as we all do. One would imagine at least a few mommies in the crowd had their babies along and they were baptized as well, but the babies probably weren't paying much attention. It would've been cute if Peter bent down and said, "Would baby wike to get baptee-tized too?" But I guess he considered it unnecessary somehow.
As to why we baptize them... why
not baptize them?
Yes, they are too young to "understand" what's going on. But baptism isn't an acceptance of Christianity by the child, that's what confirmation is partly for. (And First Communion among Catholics.) The baby doesn't need to realize the significance of ceremony for it to be valid.
So I repeat, why not baptize them?
It's a sweet little ceremony. The baby is dressed up, and the proud parents and godparents are officially initiated into their duty of raising the child in the Church. Then everyone has cake. It's just a lovely thing to do.
More importantly, it erases the stain of sin. Sin is bad. Why leave evil's stain on your precious little baby if it's in your power to wash it into purity?
(" Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?") How can we be "truly good" yet a deceitful heart?
Because the Greek word for heart is, kardia, has a completely different meaning from the word for nature. We were discussing
nature, right? Good. The Greek
kardia refers merely to emotion. (Emotion isn't our nature, of course.) The Greek words for nature, (primarily) are phusis, phusikos and phusikôs. These words are far more all-encompassing.
Yet again, we see one of mannny problems with
Sola Scriptora. (Though I will continue to argue on those grounds just for the fun of proving your protestants wrong with your own rules.) The Bible in English simply isn't the same as the original texts. Would Spain be able to set up an identical government to the USA's using an Arabic translation of the Constitution? So maybe Jesus established with a specific head (like maybe a pope) to keep things in order with consistent beliefs... but that's just crazy Catholic talk.
("Matthew 24:36-39 - "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." ) How were the days of Noah?
So what does this have to do with anything? It says quite specifically that all this will happen when Christ comes again. Which he hasn't. At least one would hope not. If the world has ended, nobody's bothered to even mention it. No one tells people anything.
So if man is good by nature why did he do wrong from the start?? How can man who is fallen and has a sinful body be "good" at heart or "nature"??
Because we are easily tempted. "The spirit is willing enough, but the flesh is weak." That doesn't mean we tend towards evil, only that we can do it if given a push. Also, or actions' don't mean a thing about our nature. If a tree falls, it's a fallen tree. Its action was falling. But it's still a tree. It hasn't turned into a bird.
Incidentally, neither you nor God's Girl have even tried to directly attack the logic provided in the case for our nature being
love.
Christian
In advance, your last post was rather annoying. It may or may not get an answer, but let's leave it alone, at least for the moment. This post will be long enough without refuting ancient arguments. And I've never had the displeasure of even hearing of your John MacArther until now. But Catholics read stuff by Peter Kreft and Scott Hahn all the time, they're Catholic household names. Haven't heard of em? Not surprised. You're looking in the wrong places, kid. They have an answer for every single dated thing your silly blockhead spewed.
Incidentally, to state the obvious, if your MacArthur "Catholic" theologian holds such opinions on Catholicism, he's not even Catholic, whatever he may say.
Council of Trent wrote:
Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice (righteousness) of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema.
It seems to be saying that we shouldn't assume the grace given us by God is inconsequential. Christ
died in part to give us grace. That does indeed help save us. And its point is, obviously, that the grace that saves us isn't the favor of God. The word favor, after all, implies earning something. It's a gift, given to all of us.
Council of Trent wrote:
Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
This has nothing to do with "saved by works" either. It's just saying we're saved by God. Notice the words "confidence if divine mercy." Basically, if we were saved by having "confidence in divine mercy", we would be being saved through our own confidence. That is, our own works. That phrases says the
polar opposite of what you're trying make it seem to say.
Council of Trent wrote:
Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.
In other words, value good works, and believe God values them as well. Perfectly true. That doesn't mean we're
saved by the good works.
Council of Trent wrote:
Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
So? All it's saying is we can't count on not paying time in purgatory. After all, we can't even count on necessarily going to Heaven. That's a very important fact. We can have our sin washed away by Christ in a variety of ways, but that doesn't erase the need for continued repentance.
Council of Trent wrote:
Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema
But good works
do mean that we will "merit an increase of grace and eternal life" given the conditions it mentions. God himself tells us many times we will be paid for good works in Heaven:
For we must all stand before Christ to be judged. We will each receive whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in this earthly body.” 2 Corinthians 5:10
“But I, the LORD, search all hearts and examine secret motives. I give all people their due rewards, according to what their actions deserve.” Jeremiah 17:10
None of your quotes support your case. Again, one of them even says the exact reverse of your point. You've made your case, ah, somewhat weakly.
On the other hand, there
is some pretty solid Catholic base saying we
aren't saved by works.
"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (Session 6; can. 1).
What's that from? Why, the Council of Trent, of course.
Oh, one final thing.
"By the way, "let him be anathema" means "let him be excommunicated," not "let him be cursed to hell." The phrase was used in conciliar documents in a technical, theological sense, not in the same sense as the word "anathema" is found in Scripture. Don't let "Bible Christians" throw you for a loop on this one."
(Catholic Answers.com)
God's Girl
"full of grace," means full of unmerited love or favor.
Ah yes, finally it's your turn. I never would have guessed you were such the debator, you've been the biggest challenge so far, and I've had to think about your words a bit.
John 1:14-16 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, ' He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace..."
How can full of grace be "unmerited" grace if it's referring to Christ? How can you say full of grace means "full of unmerited love or favor" when it says the Word, that is
God, is full of grace? God merits favor and love, one would presume.
In any case, where on earth did you get that information? It doesn't mean that at all, it's simply linguistically an error.
John MacArthur's notes: v. 16 grace upon grace, "This phrase emphasizes the superabundance of grace that has been displayed by God toward mankind, especially believers..."
Meaning, that he has displayed grace upon all of us, not just Mary
Amen. Absolutely, God has given us all grace. God's grace reaches out to everyone. But that means Mary can't have had sin's stain removed before conception? How does that follow? It's certainly a special and unique grace to be given such a gift. It's unaffected by that verse.
Romans 3:23 Mary was included in the term "all" and everyone since Adam and Eve would be included in this verse, i.e., "all (we - every person) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
If Mary was born sinless and pure then Paul either would have noted this as an exception about Mary in the verse above, or he would have been lying about the term "all."
Even though babies have not sinned yet, they will, therefore making them included in the "all". I've already addressed the reasons he didn't need to note the exceptions of Jesus or the angels.
Whoa there, girl. How so? Sure babies will sin. (Wow. Didn't know that.) But that doesn't make them sinful as of now. Paul made quite a grammatical mistake if he included babies in the "all." Incidentally, speaking of grammar, by the time they are able to sin, they won't
be babies. Babies are pure. Period. Exclamation mark.
Furthermore, if Mary were sinless: 1. there would have been no need for Christ to have died for her and His sacrifice on the cross and His resurrection from the dead would have been meaningless, 2. all of the OT and NT Scriptures that address that the Law could not save would be false, because Mary then would have been pure under the Law, or else some Scripture(s) would surely have excepted her from the Law or the need for salvation through Jesus Christ, 3. Luke 1:47-48 Mary prays, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of his bondslave." Would Mary need to pray such a prayer if she was without sin - she was admitting / submitting to the need for a savior and that she surely knew the true God. Hopefully all of us pray a similar prayer for we have the exact same need as sinner Mary, blessed as she was (we are too and forever), in Christ Jesus.
Nope, nope, nope. This part's actually easy. This is a very old Protestant song and dance.
Suppose there is a pit of mud in the road, and travelers fall into it at night. But then a kind stranger comes and pulls them out. Now, suppose a young woman is walking along, and the kind stranger calls out to her before she… catch my drift?
God did save Mary. In a way greater and more beautiful than he saved us. He saved her from ever being touched by sin. She had more reason than any of us to call God her savior!
But his resurrection meaningless!? How? Mary was a single individual, who God saved along with the rest of world. After all, before then, all souls were kept from Heaven, waiting for their salvation. Even saints and prophets. His death on the cross paved the way for her to go to Heaven. He died for his mother as much as for us. Perhaps even more so.
Samantha
Why, hello, Froggy! Typically we dress up in slacks and such for the boys, and the girls, if not dresses or skirts, will be wearing a fancy type blouse. Some teenagers like to go casual, but it's not encouraged on actual Sunday celebrations.
We have a big variety... generally hymns, but some more modern music occasionally. During some celebrations, at my church, we'll even have an electric guitar or two.
And yes, we do have a youth group. It's pretty fun, but I don't go all that often.
Anyway, I am disgusted at your offence at a great pastor who is very well informed about Catholics. That Revelation 22 verse clearly proves Mary worship wrong.
