Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
In their lust for unity the Emergent Church and post-evangelical “Protestants” are right now embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. But the issue is simple: If, as taught the Church of Rome, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without “the new birth in baptism” then we are now in hopeless contradiction with the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)
Speaking The Truth In Love
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for the Roman Catholics who may read this work in Christ from Apprising Ministries. I personally am former member of the Church of Rome and care very deeply about those, such as the majority of my own family line, who are trapped in this apostate man-made system of religion known as Roman Catholicism. I also fully realize that what I say may sound “unloving” and possibly even “harsh.” However, there is just nothing that I can do about that. By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.
(Excerpt) Read more at apprising.org ...
It seems so yes. And not just "my" church but also the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Churches, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Lutherans, and I believe Methodists as well. So if you're keen on holding that view, then you must hold all of those Christians teach a different Gospel as well.
Is it fair to say I am relying on Scripture and you are relying on your church having it right? If I'm wrong where in Scripture do we see unbelieving babies indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
No. Not fair to say. In the Catholic mind, Scripture and what the Church teaches can never ever disagree, because God who gave us the Scriptures also gave us a Church to properly interpret them. I would say, rather, that you are relying on specifically your interpretation or your church's interpretation of Scripture, and I am relying on my Church's.
Which gets to your second point. The Christian revelation cannot be artificially confined to merely what is directly stated in Scripture. If that were the case, we could never use the word "Trinity" or the phrase "Two natures in one person." Even though there are no explicit infant Baptisms in Scripture, they aren't explicitly forbidden either. So at most we can say Scripture is neutral.
LOL...you are indefatigable my friend! :)
Ah, excellent! I did not know that. Thanks!!
It cuts both ways, but you're right. It is a shame. We can disagree on doctrinal issues, but it often gets very ugly. Shouldn't be that way.
I do not believe that Methodists teach that water baptism is essential for salvation (unless something has changed since I left the church 8 years ago).
“As a Christian, do you think that adults from different religions are out of luck also?”
The question concerns infant baptism. What is your church’s position on unbaptized babies/infants who die?
I’m not too eager to call anyone a heretic over a non-core issue of Christianity.
What Quix believes in terms of the details of Christianity . . . is inconsequential.
What God believes is significant.
How humbling.
Thanks.
This is a longstanding debate. In short, we're not real sure. St. Augustine took one of the more harsh positions, and he basically said that they go to hell but there undergo a punishment so mild, that it couldn't really be punishment at all. A couple of folks in the Middle Ages went even farther than that, but they were called "baby torturers".
Generally, however, the position has been that the unbaptized babies suffer no pain at all. Here's what Gregory of Nazianzus said:
It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Orat., xl, 23]In recent years, the Church has also been a little more speculative on whether such babies might even enter heaven. Personally, I'm a little wary of that position as it cuts too close to condemned doctrines. But like I said before, it is certainly possible, particularly since we know that in certain cases the desire for the sacrament can be accepted by God in lieu of its actual reception.
We had a miscarriage last year. We would have baptized our baby if we could have, and I'm not entirely certain that that baby didn't go to heaven. I guess we shall see.
I admit that there was a cabal of authorities that murdered Christ.. not only the Romans.. The politics was a mishmash of jewish and roman dynamics.. with intriques in both
Ok, good to know, thanks. How about infant baptism? They do practice that?
Or else wikipedia lied to me. ;)
“the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God,”
That is basically our position. That’ why I cited the David example.
Yes, they do. It is part of a dedication ceremony rather than having anything to do with salvation. (The parents promising to bring the child up in the Lord.)
:)(((Hugs)))You know what I mean.The Religious Mod should get a medal and our constant prayers-heheee
There is that, alright.
I think it will be tragic to look back on our lives and see all the missed opportunities for prayers and their results.
Good, neither am I. :)
What Quix believes in terms of the details of Christianity . . . is inconsequential. What God believes is significant.
Right. Claud's totally inconsequential too. Our difference is how we can figure out for sure what God believes. We say through the Church, you say through Scripture alone. All comes down to authority. But at least we can agree that you and I have no authority on our own! ;)
imho . . .
God’s Holy Spirit dispenses authority and power more or less moment by moment . . .
One may be anointed, ordained into an office . . . but walking intimately with God is required . . . moment by moment . . . to continue in moment by moment anointing.
I haven’t seen much, if any of that in 61 years.
Even the most anointed I’ve seen have moments or hours of anointing vs a continuous seam of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.