Why water into wine?

[mjrhealth]

Why. When you cook dinner d oyou go get a dirty pan than put your new dinner in it, do you use a dity coffe mug to put you new coffe in, or do you go get a clean empty cup or dish when you cook or make a new cuppa. And so it is with God, See God cant use vessels that are filled so Jesu chose the ,
Joh 2:6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. They would of being clean vessels being for purefying they would have to have being, and than He ,

Joh 2:7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

As it is written

Joh_4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Joh_7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

And what did Jesus do with that water,

Joh 2:9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
Joh 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Just as it was at Pentecost

Act 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

And so it is with us, when we go to Him as empty vessels so that He can fill us with living water, than to be filled with teh New Wine the Holy Spirit, teh Best as the Bridegroom said, was saved to last.

Act_2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

 

[BreadOfLife]

Trust me, I was born in a Catholic family and made it a point of knowing my catechism. I went to confession, done the stations of the Cross, prayed the Rosary, etc. etc. Which gives me a good understanding of salvation by works and salvation by grace. I'll take salvation by grace any day. But if you want to start a thread, you are more than welcome and maybe I'll stumble on it.

No - all that means is that you went through the motions of being a Catholic.

You don't know what the Church teaches and you left because of ignorance of the faith. That's why ALL Catholics leave the Church.
You left because of a feel-good, easy-believism of one of the thousands of Protestant splinter groups. You were easy prey for them because of your lack of knowledge of your Catholic faith.

Look, if you don't want to start a thread - that's okay. I completely understand that you don't want to get into it with an educated Catholic.
However, if you're going to make Scripturally and historically bankrupt statements like "the C church has been wrong in a large amount of their theology over the last 2000 years" - then you should have the courage and the evidence to back it up.

 

[Marymog]

Although this may be a plausible meaning or interpretation, I do have one reservation on it and that is that it would seem that the majority of the people at the wedding had no clue that this was a miracle performed by Jesus. Except for the servants and His close entourage, there is no indication that the general crowd was aware of what went on. Just saying.

I would suggest that it would be LOGICAL and PLAUSIBLE that the servants and His close entourage (his disciples) told EVERYONE about it. That is how the Jesus movement began BECAUSE of his miracles.

Are you suggesting that they kept this miracle to themselves? Would you keep it to yourself?

Curious Mary!

 

[Marymog]

No - all that means is that you went through the motions of being a Catholic.

You don't know what the Church teaches and you left because of ignorance of the faith. That's why ALL Catholics leave the Church.
You left because of a feel-good, easy-believism of one of the thousands of Protestant splinter groups. You were easy prey for them because of your lack of knowledge of your Catholic faith.

Look, if you don't want to start a thread - that's okay. I completely understand that you don't want to get into it with an educated Catholic.
However, if you're going to make Scripturally and historically bankrupt statements like "the C church has been wrong in a large amount of their theology over the last 2000 years" - then you should have the courage and the evidence to back it up.

Hi BreadOfLife,

You do a good job at backing up your beliefs with scripture and Christian history and I applaud you for that. HOWEVER, this topic is about water into wine and the wedding at Cana. Also, I have tried to get perrero to back up his "bankrupt statement" however he won't answer. Not that I think the RCC has ALL the answers to scripture. I just don't understand how perrero can call some people heretics (a very serious charge) and say that the Catholic Church or any church is wrong and he is right. His statements baffle me, HOWEVER, this is not the discussion board to cover those issues.

Therefor I am asking that you PLEASE keep this discussion about Cana, water into wine etc. and give us the Catholic version/interpretation of that event. If you present a strong argument/interpretation then you will win converts. There are a lot of us Protestants that have what are called "Catholic" beliefs. Not so much on this website

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi BreadOfLife,

You do a good job at backing up your beliefs with scripture and Christian history and I applaud you for that. HOWEVER, this topic is about water into wine and the wedding at Cana. Also, I have tried to get perrero to back up his "bankrupt statement" however he won't answer. Not that I think the RCC has ALL the answers to scripture. I just don't understand how perrero can call some people heretics (a very serious charge) and say that the Catholic Church or any church is wrong and he is right. His statements baffle me, HOWEVER, this is not the discussion board to cover those issues.

Therefor I am asking that you PLEASE keep this discussion about Cana, water into wine etc. and give us the Catholic version/interpretation of that event. If you present a strong argument/interpretation then you will win converts. There are a lot of us Protestants that have what are called "Catholic" beliefs. Not so much on this website

Mary

Absolutely.
That's why I asked Perrero to start a thread about his baseless accusations about the Catholic Church having theology that is "wrong."

I never intended to hijack the thread.
I was merely answering his inane charges and challenging him to list them - on another thread..

 

[perrero]

No - all that means is that you went through the motions of being a Catholic.

You don't know what the Church teaches and you left because of ignorance of the faith. That's why ALL Catholics leave the Church.
You left because of a feel-good, easy-believism of one of the thousands of Protestant splinter groups. You were easy prey for them because of your lack of knowledge of your Catholic faith.

Look, if you don't want to start a thread - that's okay. I completely understand that you don't want to get into it with an educated Catholic.
However, if you're going to make Scripturally and historically bankrupt statements like "the C church has been wrong in a large amount of their theology over the last 2000 years" - then you should have the courage and the evidence to back it up.

Sorry! But you do not get to judge the sincerity of my heart when I was following everything I was told to do and more. As I grew up I came to realize that all the good works and the religiosity demanded was not what God desired. All he wanted was the simple act of repentance and faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. My acceptance of His free gift of salvation never required anything but faith and trust in Him establishing a very personal relationship with Him. Something the Catholic church does not teach.
"The C church has been wrong" a statement that may be bankrupt to you because you only see from your side. Fine, that's your opinion . I've been through both. And I can tell you it's like night and day. Anyway I didn't come on this board to trash C or defend P and I only got into it a bit because Mary brought it up and pressured me to answer. I probably shouldn't have gone that far. I find most times people are too opinionated and argumentative that it's nothing but a constant banter.
I would rather do what God told me to do and that is "Now I want you to teach this to my people." This being a series of events, teachings, insights that the has given me over the years and had shown to me in a vision back in 2004. These are filled with His truths and my goal is to share. Such as this thread or these:
Who was the Good samaritan?
The Seven Gifts You Never Knew You Had.
Is there a recipe for discipleship?
How fast are you going?
The Crucible of Fire

 

[perrero]

Feel free to share....

Since we are the vein of vessels and wine, I am sure you have read Luke 5:37 "And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined."
Here again we see the wineskin vessels that are filled with the wine of the Spirit.

But before I continue, let me share these two illustrations. In the old days mother would get her milk delivered to the door by the milkman in glass bottles. Imagine her picking up the bottle and on the way to the kitchen, to prepare the children's cereal, she drops the bottle, the bottle breaks and everything is spilled on the floor. Would you think she is more worried for losing the bottle or for losing the milk?
Or let's say, for my wife's birthday, I chose to buy her an expensive brand of perfume. During my travel home, to gift her the perfume, i mange to drop the bottle on the pavement and everything shatters. Do you think I'm upset for losing the perfume or the bottle? I suspect you'll agree to the perfume.
So in both cases the liquid that lost and wanting.
Yet in our verse above, it is the opposite that happens. That's because the wineskin represents us, and if we, in the process of redemption, do not repent and get rid of the old man, if we do not allow the spirit transform us by the renewing of our minds, if we do not follow Jesus and leave the flesh behind, we will eventually break and the loss will be ours, certainly not the Spirit (Wine, Liquid).
Just a thought.

 

[perrero]

I would suggest that it would be LOGICAL and PLAUSIBLE that the servants and His close entourage (his disciples) told EVERYONE about it. That is how the Jesus movement began BECAUSE of his miracles.

Are you suggesting that they kept this miracle to themselves? Would you keep it to yourself?

Curious Mary!

Well since I don't interpret scripture based on plausibility and logic but based on what is written in the Word, such "mine hour is not yet come", this would lead me to conclude that the people didn't. There is no mention that the bridegroom asked how come, nor did the Maitre D' ask how this miracle happen MATTER OF FACT he assume that there had been no shortage of but that the bridegroom kept the best for last.

Also, I have tried to get perrero to back up his "bankrupt statement" however he won't answer.

You never asked me to back up a statement. What you wanted was to know if I truly believed what I said. You wanted to know if I had the truth. Wanted examples of doctrines held by the C church that I thought were erroneous. I gave you a list of 14. Which you probably have not researched yet.

So you have a funny way of twisting my words.

Here I'll make it easy on you, just find me the verses that support 1) Infant Baptism and 2) Purgatory. It should take you about 5 sec. because there are none.

 

[mjrhealth]

Since we are the vein of vessels and wine, I am sure you have read Luke 5:37 "And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined."
Here again we see the wineskin vessels that are filled with the wine of the Spirit.

Here He was speaking of the old and teh new. teh old relgion being mixed with teh spirit, religion as we see it today, tha thave taken teh old Jewis chruch and made it into teh moidern churhcn than tried throwing in teh Holy Spirit which broke it all. Everything after Penetcost was, sorry is, by teh Spirit, but.

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

And so it is, man doesnt wanty to change, God needs us to change, vessels already filled with learning, religion and themsleves are no good to God, He needs empty ones.

 

[Marymog]

Well since I don't interpret scripture based on plausibility and logic but based on what is written in the Word, such "mine hour is not yet come", this would lead me to conclude that the people didn't. There is no mention that the bridegroom asked how come, nor did the Maitre D' ask how this miracle happen MATTER OF FACT he assume that there had been no shortage of but that the bridegroom kept the best for last.

You never asked me to back up a statement. What you wanted was to know if I truly believed what I said. You wanted to know if I had the truth. Wanted examples of doctrines held by the C church that I thought were erroneous. I gave you a list of 14. Which you probably have not researched yet.

So you have a funny way of twisting my words.

Here I'll make it easy on you, just find me the verses that support 1) Infant Baptism and 2) Purgatory. It should take you about 5 sec. because there are none.

So let me get this straight. When you said to Wormwood in post #157 "Although this may be a plausible meaning or interpretation..." you were ok with plausible interpretations AT THAT TIME.

Now you are saying that you "don't interpret scripture based on plausibility" OR logic? I'm confused ;) Either it's acceptable or not. Maybe you just misspoke.

Are you serious when you say you don't use LOGIC to come to your conclusions when you interpret scripture? Is it not LOGICAL that we are not what Jesus called us; sheep, salt, light of the earth?

I have researched all 14 of them in the past. So my question still remains. How do you KNOW you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong? How do you KNOW what Calvin taught was heretical and what you teach/preach/believe is not heretical? How do you know your NOT erroneous?

BAPTISM: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...For the promise is to you and to your children Are you perrero saying that infants are not part of every one of you and they are not children?

Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them;...Are you perrero guilty of hindering the children?

I am sure you are aware of scripture that talks of entire families being baptized. During that time there were HUNDREDS of families being baptized; entire households. Not just the two or three families mentioned in scripture. Are you perrero saying that there were no infants in those HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of families? Logic would tell us there were infants but we can't us LOGIC when reading scripture, can we?

How about if you research what the Church Fathers said about infant baptism almost 1800 years ago? Are you perrero, 1800 years later, more knowledgeable about infant baptism then they were?

Show me a verse that says baptizing infants is prohibited. It should take you about 0 seconds because there are none.

Talk to Kepha or BreadOfLife about purgatory. That is there cup o' tea. I think the doctrine makes sense since nothing unclean shall enter heaven and I will probably be unclean when I die. However, I doubt that I will have any GRAVE sins that will prevent me from heaven.

Mary

 

[Sword]

"the C church has been wrong in a large amount of their theology over the last 2000 years" - then you should have the courage and the evidence to back it up.

here is one for you why are you and the catholic church as a whole not doing what you are told to do? You are told to lay hands on the sick/ I never heard of any instances of that coming from the catholic church.Why is that? Which now that you want to get into it. are at the highest levals anyway satan worshipers. Just look at the satanic popes guest hall. and then look at there telescope called l.u.c.i.f.e.r.

 

[perrero]

Are you serious when you say you don't use LOGIC to come to your conclusions when you interpret scripture? Is it not LOGICAL that we are not what Jesus called us; sheep, salt, light of the earth?

I grant you on this point you are right, we logically are not sheep. I guess I'm really trying to say is that Scripture is capable of interpreting Scripture. You should always be able to find to or three other verses in scripture that support what you conclude as a meaning or interpretation.

I have researched all 14 of them in the past. So my question still remains. How do you KNOW you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong? How do you KNOW what Calvin taught was heretical and what you teach/preach/believe is not heretical? How do you know your NOT erroneous?

Sorry, I will not get into a discussion on the errors of Calvinism.

BAPTISM: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...For the promise is to you and to your children Are you perrero saying that infants are not part of every one of you and they are not children?

I'm glad you chose that verse because the very first word is the most important. REPENT and be baptized. Now repentance of ones sins requires 4 things, REcognizing you are a sinner, approaching God with a PENitent, a TANgible change in attitudes and of heart, and CEasing all sin and unrighteousness. An infant or child is incapable of understanding those 4 concepts and a sprinkling of water over their heads does nothing towards the goal of salvation.

Show me a verse that says baptizing infants is prohibited. It should take you about 0 seconds because there are none.

You're right, but I refer to the above, Infant baptism is useless which is not what the C church teaches.
You Baptism is the out word expression of what has happened inwardly. When an individual comes to the cross and accepts Christ as his Saviour and Lord, he is called to die to himself and take the resurrection life of Christ. Baptism is the symbol of dying immersed in water, leaving your sins under water and rising in newness of life. It is a public confession of what has transpired in ones heart. That is why it is taken so seriously by other religions, it is the ultimate declaration of conversion. It can cost one his life.
Now tell me a child understands all that.

 

[Marymog]

I grant you on this point you are right, we logically are not sheep. I guess I'm really trying to say is that Scripture is capable of interpreting Scripture. You should always be able to find to or three other verses in scripture that support what you conclude as a meaning or interpretation.

Sorry, I will not get into a discussion on the errors of Calvinism.

I'm glad you chose that verse because the very first word is the most important. REPENT and be baptized. Now repentance of ones sins requires 4 things, REcognizing you are a sinner, approaching God with a PENitent, a TANgible change in attitudes and of heart, and CEasing all sin and unrighteousness. An infant or child is incapable of understanding those 4 concepts and a sprinkling of water over their heads does nothing towards the goal of salvation.


You're right, but I refer to the above, Infant baptism is useless which is not what the C church teaches.
You Baptism is the out word expression of what has happened inwardly. When an individual comes to the cross and accepts Christ as his Saviour and Lord, he is called to die to himself and take the resurrection life of Christ. Baptism is the symbol of dying immersed in water, leaving your sins under water and rising in newness of life. It is a public confession of what has transpired in ones heart. That is why it is taken so seriously by other religions, it is the ultimate declaration of conversion. It can cost one his life.
Now tell me a child understands all that.

Hi perrero,

I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond to portions of my post. I used your criteria for supporting infant baptism. I provided two or three verses in scripture that support infant baptism. I asked you to provide scripture that says it's prohibited. You couldn't. So I guess one can logically conclude, based on using your own criteria, it is accepted and permissible.

Can you show me two or three verses in scripture that back up your claim that it is a "public confession of what transpired in ones heart"?

I didn't ask you to get into a discussion on the errors of Calvinism. I asked you (multiple times) "How do you KNOW what Calvin taught was heretical and what you teach/preach/believe is not heretical? How do you know your NOT erroneous?"

I am still not sure what your stance on interpreting scripture using plausibility. When you said to Wormwood in post #157 "Although this may be a plausible meaning or interpretation..." you were ok with plausible interpretations AT THAT TIME. Now you are saying that you "don't interpret scripture based on plausibility" OR logic? I'm confused ;) Either it's acceptable or not. Maybe you just misspoke?

I must admit I like your use of the word REPENTENCE. Very clever. Is that in public domain or did you create it? If you created it may I use it?

However, I don't see two or three bible verses to back up your theory on infant baptism. How about if you research what the Church Fathers said about infant baptism almost 1800 years ago? Are you perrero, 1800 years later, more knowledgeable about infant baptism then they were?

If baptism is, as YOU say, just a symbol then what is wrong with baptizing an infant? After all, it's just a symbol so it doesn't really mean anything. Right?

By baptizing an infant wouldn't the family be symbolically confessing to the world in a public event that they are dedicated to raising their infant child to follow Christ after THEY (the parents) had a transformation of their heart?

Paul compared baptism to circumcision, which occurs as an infant. In the first century there was a debate if baptism should be done earlier than the 8th day which was the day circumcision was done. Christian history and scripture does not back up your belief. I have provided two or three passages....YOU have not.

BTW....Your two or three passages from scripture to back up what you believe theory is not biblical.

Mary

 

[perrero]

I have researched all 14 of them in the past. So my question still remains. How do you KNOW you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong? How do you KNOW what Calvin taught was heretical and what you teach/preach/believe is not heretical? How do you know your NOT erroneous?

OK, 2 questions! Do you believe that God is the author of evil? Careful, because your answer may be contradicted by the next answer. Do you believe that God knows all the people who are going to heaven and all that are going to hell?
Having said that if you want to have a discussion about this, start a conversation with me and we will discuss it alone.

Can you show me two or three verses in scripture that back up your claim that it is a "public confession of what transpired in ones heart"?

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.(Romans 6:4)
"having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12)

BAPTISM: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...For the promise is to you and to your children Are you perrero saying that infants are not part of every one of you and they are not children?
Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them;...Are you perrero guilty of hindering the children?
I am sure you are aware of scripture that talks of entire families being baptized. During that time there were HUNDREDS of families being baptized; entire households. Not just the two or three families mentioned in scripture. Are you perrero saying that there were no infants in those HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of families? Logic would tell us there were infants but we can't us LOGIC when reading scripture, can we?

If you liked the definition of Repentance, then surely you recognize that no infant is capable of this before baptism. When Paul was speaking to the crowd at Pentecost, these were mostly adults on pilgrimage. Granted there may have been women with infants there, but Paul's first gospel address was certainly not to the infants. When Paul said; "Repent, and be baptized every one of you" it was in response to the question of the people (the adults who understood his whole discourse) which was; "What shall we do?".
What is to you and your children? It is the promise, the promise of the Holy Spirit NOT the promise of baptism. In the last days God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh NOT pour out baptism on all flesh.
Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them;...Are you perrero guilty of hindering the children? That's your verse to support "infant baptism"? Are you kidding me?

How about if you research what the Church Fathers said about infant baptism almost 1800 years ago? Are you perrero, 1800 years later, more knowledgeable about infant baptism then they were?

Do you believe that every church father was 100% correct in their teaching and theology? If you don't then how do you determine what they said or wrote is right or wrong. You have to take what is written or declared and compare it to the scriptures, which IS 100% correct, and see if it lines up with that. So I don't put much into what anybody says, except what lines up with scriptures. Trust me it's a good habit to get into.

Show me a verse that says baptizing infants is prohibited. It should take you about 0 seconds because there are none.

I answered this already in my previous post.

Talk to Kepha or BreadOfLife about purgatory. That is there cup o' tea. I think the doctrine makes sense since nothing unclean shall enter heaven and I will probably be unclean when I die. However, I doubt that I will have any GRAVE sins that will prevent me from heaven.

Mary, be very careful of your understanding of sin. Their is no such thing as GRAVE sin. Sin is sin. And if you are guilty of one sin you are guilty of them all. (James 2:10) "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."

Finally, the definition of RE-PEN-TAN-CE, I got from God. When I was writing the 2nd chapter of my book (which is about repentance), I thought of using the 10 letters R-E-P-E-N-T-A-N-C-E to explain its meaning. I then thought that using 10 letters would eventually lose my audience. As I was thinking of another way, the Lord interjected in my thoughts and told me to use the syllables. As I thought of each syllable, He gave me each word, Recognize, Penitent, Tangible and Cease. So my answer to people, who want to use this approach, is that I do not have a copyright on anything that God gives me. It is yours for sharing.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry! But you do not get to judge the sincerity of my heart when I was following everything I was told to do and more. As I grew up I came to realize that all the good works and the religiosity demanded was not what God desired. All he wanted was the simple act of repentance and faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. My acceptance of His free gift of salvation never required anything but faith and trust in Him establishing a very personal relationship with Him. Something the Catholic church does not teach.
"The C church has been wrong" a statement that may be bankrupt to you because you only see from your side. Fine, that's your opinion . I've been through both. And I can tell you it's like night and day. Anyway I didn't come on this board to trash C or defend P and I only got into it a bit because Mary brought it up and pressured me to answer. I probably shouldn't have gone that far. I find most times people are too opinionated and argumentative that it's nothing but a constant banter.
I would rather do what God told me to do and that is "Now I want you to teach this to my people." This being a series of events, teachings, insights that the has given me over the years and had shown to me in a vision back in 2004. These are filled with His truths and my goal is to share. Such as this thread or these:
Who was the Good samaritan?
The Seven Gifts You Never Knew You Had.
Is there a recipe for discipleship?
How fast are you going?
The Crucible of Fire

Again - my intention is not to hijack this thread.
I am saying - put your money where your mouth is and start a thread explaining which things the Catholic Church is "wrong" about. EVERY ex-Catholic I've ever met left because of an abject ignorance of their faith - and my guess is that you're no different.

If you have the courage to do that - or the evidence - you know where to find me.

 

[BreadOfLife]

OK, 2 questions! Do you believe that God is the author of evil? Careful, because your answer may be contradicted by the next answer. Do you believe that God knows all the people who are going to heaven and all that are going to hell?

God knows - but He doesn't choose that fate for each person.

If you liked the definition of Repentance, then surely you recognize that no infant is capable of this before baptism. When Paul was speaking to the crowd at Pentecost, these were mostly adults on pilgrimage. Granted there may have been women with infants there, but Paul's first gospel address was certainly not to the infants. When Paul said; "Repent, and be baptized every one of you" it was in response to the question of the people (the adults who understood his whole discourse) which was; "What shall we do?".
What is to you and your children? It is the promise, the promise of the Holy Spirit NOT the promise of baptism. In the last days God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh NOT pour out baptism on all flesh.

Ummmm, what about the Jewish boys who were brought into the Old Covenant with God through circumcision - based on the faith of the parents??
St. Paul uses the terms, “circumcision of the heart” and the “circumcision of Christ” (Rom. 2:29, Col. 2:12-17) to describe the reality of circumcision being a spiritually inward act, not merely an outward sign. The Old Testament type that was circumcision is now baptism.

When St. Peter baptized Cornelius the Centurion, he baptized his entire household including children and servants (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14). We see the same thing in Acts 16:23-33 with the household of the Philippian jailer and 1 Cor. 1:16 with Stephanas’ household. The plain fact is that households include children of all ages, including infants. To say that these households did NOT include small children and infants is simply an exercise in vain denial. The fact is that NO Christian objected to infant Baptism for 1500 years – until the Protestant Revolt.

Do you believe that every church father was 100% correct in their teaching and theology? If you don't then how do you determine what they said or wrote is right or wrong. You have to take what is written or declared and compare it to the scriptures, which IS 100% correct, and see if it lines up with that. So I don't put much into what anybody says, except what lines up with scriptures. Trust me it's a good habit to get into.

This is a silly premise because we're not talking about what the "individual" ECFs were right about everything. Infant Baptism was UNANIMOUSLY taught and practiced by the Early Church as being handed down by the Apostles. In fact - the ONLY argument they had was about when to baptize them. 30 days after birth? 8 days? Immediately?

These are but a few of the comments from the Early Church on the matter:
Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Mary, be very careful of your understanding of sin. Their is no such thing as GRAVE sin. Sin is sin. And if you are guilty of one sin you are guilty of them all. (James 2:10) "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."

WRONG.
John speaks of grave sin - sin that causes death (mortal sin) (1 John 5:16-17).
As for James 2:10 - he is talking about the MOSAIC Law.

 

[BreadOfLife]

here is one for you why are you and the catholic church as a whole not doing what you are told to do? You are told to lay hands on the sick/ I never heard of any instances of that coming from the catholic church.Why is that? Which now that you want to get into it. are at the highest levals anyway satan worshipers. Just look at the satanic popes guest hall. and then look at there telescope called l.u.c.i.f.e.r.

Ummm, first of all - your last sentence is almost too ridiculous to respond to - but the onus is on YOU to provide evidence for this tripe.

Secondly - laying hands on the sick is commonplace in the Catholic Church - so I'm not really sure where you're getting your false information.
It is one of the 7 Sacraments.

Please do your homework . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

wow BreadofDeath, i am glad they let you keep posting here, being as how you are RCC, and i cannot think of a better way to drive people away from all that than to let you post, but i'm mostly curious how you think your narcissistic approach to religion, where you so obviously seek worship for yourself, could possibly find new recruits in this day and age?

if i didn't know any better i'd swear you were like a double agent or something lol. Were you raised Pentecostal, maybe? Have you ever been wrong? And admitted it, i mean? Do you see how these last two questions kind of make like a joke, when considered in relation to you?

Since i guess you obviously cannot, maybe a better way to put that is, how would you complete this sentence?

"BreadofDeath admitted that he was mistaken, on ________ thread, at post _________."

if you would be so kind (snarf) as to tear your admiring gaze away from the mirror for a moment, that is.

 

[Sword]

Ummm, first of all - your last sentence is almost too ridiculous to respond to - but the onus is on YOU to provide evidence for this tripe.

Secondly - laying hands on the sick is commonplace in the Catholic Church - so I'm not really sure where you're getting your false information.
It is one of the 7 Sacraments.

Please do your homework . . .

Show me where it is common place people being healed in the catholic church. No the onus is on you I asked you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Show me where it is common place people being healed in the catholic church. No the onus is on you I asked you.

Uhhhh, no - that's not how it works.
YOU listed some ridiculous accusations - so the onus is on YOU to provide proof.

As for laying of hands on the sick - it is a Sacrament - so I don't know where you're getting your false information.
As for people being healed - I've personally witnessed it myself.