[quote=malachi_a_serva]Hello everyone. To my surprise. I have been more “accepting” of the teachings of the RCC. A few I would like to discuss/get info on.
“Born Again”. I understand it is the RCC view that one becomes “born again” at Baptism. When I read scripture, I get the perspective that allot of it is talking about “who we were” - which would be before conversion - and who we are now - which would be after conversion -. I do not see how that perspective applies, if one is “born again” at infant baptism. I realize the deficiency when I start a comment with “to me”, however please allow me the liberty so as to present my point in which I seek further explanation.
1 Cor 7:20 “Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him” NIV. To me, this is an example of a “born again” moment. I Cor 7:24 “So, Brethren, in whatever station or state or condition of life each one was when he was called, there let him continue with and close to God”. Amplified. One where “before conversion” one was in a specific “state”…
1 Peter 1:23 “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever” KJV
1 Cor 6:11 "And such were some of you, but ye are washed…"
Again, to me demonstrating a “before” and an “after”.
Another item would be the infant Baptism. I am familiar with all the quotes for and against. I am wondering why Mary and Joseph were not told to baptize Jesus as an infant. As well, from what I understand, the term Baptism, is pretty much not translated but kept the same from the Greek, which means to actually “put asunder” being the whole body.
Please bear with me. From what I gather, the word “church” is derived from the word “ecclesia” which literally means “called out ones”, so even if the church was headed by Peter, the gates of Hell would not prevail against his “called out ones”, not necessarily a hierarchical structure.
Thank you for your time and I await many responses to help me understand. Thank you
First, I think you need to understand that the letters which appear after the Acts were just that letters written to certain groups who were being warned against particular heretical ideas. If you think about that time in which these things took place, most of the believers were converts from some other religion. It was specifically their baptism into the faith which is being refered to here. Secondly I dont know exactly which passage it is, but Paul refers to an entire family which he has baptised, that did not exclude the children. The Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion, in which they were instructed by God to be circumcised 8 days after birth. Baptism replaces circumcision. Jesus Himself say suffer the little one to come to me. I suggest that if anything you read in the letters contradicts what Christ taught in any way, then your interpretation is wrong. To me that is one of the great things about the Catholic Church, that I dont have to interpret the Bible according to my own opinion. I have found that if I have a question about a certain passage I can not only find out what the Church says about it but also how they came to see it that way.
To your other point, if it was just the chosen people who would be the church then how do you understand the parable of the weeds and the wheat, which is a direct parable of the Church. And how do you have a church without knowing whos in it for only God knows the secrets of mens hearts and since none of us can know who is chosen then it only makes sense that he was talking about a visible church. Not to mention, after Peter’s death it was specifically these other men who chose the next Pope. Seems to me they understood that Christ wanted a hierachical church, with a visible head. Trace all the churches back and you will only find one which goes all the way back to the apostles. Lastly, Christ came to fulfill the Jewish religion, there should be some similarities between the two. Like the Priesthood, Sacrefice, Forgiveness of Sins, Liturgy, oh and Gods guiding of His chosen.