Posted on 02/06/2015 8:31:36 PM PST by Steelfish
“That’s faith in the Catholic Church.”
That’s faith in Christ and His actions. He made the Church.
“Catholics follow and have faith in the Catholic Church.”
Catholics follow and have faith in Christ who founded the Catholic Church.
“Christians follow and have faith in Christ alone. Cannot serve two masters.”
We don’t. The Church is Christ’s Body and Bride.
The saddest part of the previous post is that I knew EXACTLY what was going to be posted to me next. Once someone becomes familiar with the mental illness of anti-Catholicism it is easy to predict what will be posted because those afflicted with it always make the same mistakes over and over again. They can’t help it apparently.
When it is repeated that much, it is no longer a “mistake”.
Did you just call baptism in the Lord “branding”?
NO.
Did you call a Catholic infant ceremony a mark?
I’m sorry, you didn’t say that baptism in the Lord was a “branding”. You did suggest that infant baptism is branding though....due to the “mark” that you abhor so much.
The mark is what’s called an indelible mark on one’s soul and it’s meant to be a good thing, an indication that one is baptized in the Lord. Not some “horrible” mark like the branding of an animal.
Proof of that definition with documentation please.
And Protestants believe that the Holy Bible fell out of the sky from heaven and refuse to believe that Catholics had one thing to do with it. Easier to believe a children’s fairytale that it is to give Catholics credit for anything. The truth of the matter is the Bible is a Catholic document compiled by Catholics for Catholics, and without the Catholic Church determining what scriptures were true and untrue and what was going to be included in the Bible and was going to be left out of the Bible, protestants would have no clue who Jesus Christ was or is.
And God used Judas to advance His will also. God using someone for His purpose is no guarantee of a good future.
St Paul speaks of baptism as the new circumcision in Christ. Baptism spiritually marks a Christian in the New Covenant as circumcision physically marked a Jew in the Old Covenant.
I see what your trying to get at but no, it doesn't work as you think.
True circumcision, as Paul preaches in Romans 2:29, is that of the heart, and it is accomplished by the Spirit. In other words, a person today enters a covenant relationship with God not based on a physical act like baptism but on the Spirit’s work in the heart. Baptism has nothing to do with that.
In Israel every male was circumcised, whether he showed any devotion to God or not. Moses commanded the Israelites in Deuteronomy 10:16 to circumcise their hearts, and even promised that God would do the circumcising (Deuteronomy 30:6).
So, baptism is not necessary?
When reading of those whom are referred to as Early Church Fathers, it is undeniable that is a range of opinion expressed -- yet most often also, unity as for essentials.
And how do we know what the essentials are, but that those were written.
Necessary for what?
Salvation.
“No vladi, your overall, general thesis simple does not work...”
Actually it works perfectly - unlike the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
That is heresy.
LOL I’m sure to the cult of Catholicism it is.
“Actually it doesn’t, for the very reasons just pointed out to you.”
Actually, it does, and you posted nothing that negated anything I said.
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.