Test F i 2 Luv wrote:
Baptism - So Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans - all who insist
on infant baptism - aren't Christians? Infant baptism and adult baptisms
are both mentioned in the Scriptures. While I am not a proponent of
infant baptism myself, the issue can be argued either way. Some
protestants demand baptism after conversion. Is that not a form of
"works"?
Penance - Similar to what we protestants refer to as repentance. Our
confession of sins is not supposed to be just a one time thing. People
like to quote 1 John 1:9, but they don't seem to realize the verb tense
indicates an ongoing confession. If we don't continue to repent, is our
faith true? If we do continue to repent, is that not a type of work?
Eucharist - Somewhat similar to our protestant communion, with a major
difference being that we treat it as symbolic rather than believing we
are literally eating Christ. This is an issue where I am also very
critical of the RCC. Despite my critical viewpoint on the Eucharist, I'm
far from convinced that all RCs are non-Christian.
If a person is born-again, but lives his/her life without reading or
meditating on the Scriptures, praying, fellowshipping with believers, or
proclaiming the gospel, is he/she a Christian? If he/she does do all of
this, don't they qualify as works?
Faith without works is dead. Works without faith is worthless.
Baptistrw responded:
Infant baptism is NEVER mentioned in the Scriptures in any place.
Baptism after salvation is a step of obedience in allowing one to
display publicly their unity in Christ via His death, burial, and
resurrection, an infant a few days old cannot believe the gospel.
Repentance and Penance are far different. Penance requires good deeds to
pay for the bad, repentance is changing ones mind about sin. The
eucharist is the reoffering of Christ for sins, which is blasphemy
because Christ was offered once for all Hebrews 10:10. I have never met
a Catholic who was Christian, the taking of the mass is a work that a
catholic believes will ultimately save them, as their cathechism will
show.
Test F i 2 Luv response:
Infant baptism is NEVER mentioned in the Scriptures in any place. Let's
assume you're right. The canon is complete around 100 A.D. Name a
specific church or specific individual who didn't teach infant baptism
between 100 AD and 1550 AD or so. I think you'll be hard pressed to
find individuals who promoted only adult baptism in the church for the
first 1450 years AD.
The problem that arises is that the RCC, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic Churches are
the main ones that existed for the first 1500 years of the church. Even after Lutheranism came around through the Reformation,
the theology of infant baptism remained. All of these denominations taught/practiced infant baptism. You seem to assume they pull their theology out of
the air for the first 1500+ years of the church. I flat out disagree with their
theology, but at least understand it wasn't completely baseless. You point your
finger at the RCC and say it's not a Christian church because of it's position on,
among other things, baptism. There are a number of other churches that should be
getting pointed at as well; essentially any that existed for the first 1500 years of
Christianity's existence.
There are a couple passages in the scriptures that discuss baptism and
refer to families. Acts 16:15 and 1 Cor 1:16 both refer to "households"
being baptized. The passages don't go into details about who lives in these
households, either. There is no indication that all were adults, there
is no indication that there were children. These passages are among those used by
churches(RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Lutherans) that promote/practice infant baptism, though.
Repentance and Penance are far different. Penance requires good deeds to
pay for the bad, repentance is changing ones mind about sin. You like
to refer to the Catechism. CCC 1430-1460 will explain the RCCs position
on this issue. You need to have a version of the catechism that
contains the footnotes because the footnotes give Biblical references in
support of RC theology.
The eucharist is the reoffering of Christ for sins, which is blasphemy
because Christ was offered once for all Hebrews 10:10. They consider it to be a
single, perpetual sacrifice. CCC 1366-1367. While the RCC teaches
transubstantiation, other older churches teach consubstantiation. This
would also be a form of cannibalism, which you complained about with
RCs in post 41. Why aren't you booting the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Lutheran
churches as non-Christian for their doctrine of consubstantiation, which also would
be a form of cannibalism?
I have never met a Catholic who was Christian... You've apparently met
a lot of nominal RCs. I know I have. Fortunately, I've become familiar with a few
good ones as well. My experience is that a lot of RCs misunderstand their own
faith. But, so do a lot of protestants. Too many RCs think they can earn
salvation. Unfortunately, too many protestants aren't in any better shape, thinking
that being baptized in a particular church as an infant is all that they need to
have eternal security. Then there are those who claim to make a commitment to Jesus
Christ as Lord and Savior but never demonstrate a transformed mind/heart. Truth is,
there are problems in all the denominations.
...the taking of the mass is a work that a catholic believes will
ultimately save them, as their cathechism will show. RCs go to mass,
they don't "tak[e] of the mass". Whereas a protestant would probably
say "I'm going to church" or "I'm going to the morning/evening service",
RCs say "I'm going to mass". At mass, they take the Eucharist. The
taking of the Eucharist is the high point of the mass and, really, the
high point in the RC walk. Like the other sacraments, communion is
aimed at keeping them on the path to salvation and to helping them grow
in their faith. It is also the high-point of their unity with Christ.
The catechism doesn't tell them that mass or the Eucharist will save
them. I recommend people read the catechism to see what it actually
says on the Eucharist. CCC 1322-1344 discusses it. In this portion of the
catechism is a section(labeled "III") called "The Eucharist in the Economy of
Salvation". Interestingly, aside from the section header, the word "salvation"
doesn't appear in the paragraphs of the section. The word "saved" doesn't appear in those paragraphs either.
