Are Catholics "born again"?

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi Maria,
Just one more thing to add. The reason I believe the way I do about salvation and baptism is because whenever the bible talks about baptism it also speaks of believing. A baby just cant do that yet. I do not see in Scripture where it says someone else can do it for you(I think that is what the CC believes about baby baptism, the intentions of the parents–am I right ) At my church we have baby dedications–where the parents and congregations promise to raise the child to know and love God. Actually our baby dedications are identical to baby baptisms except the final step of baptism. I noticed that after I went to a few catholic baptisms and around the same time some baby dedications. The bible says we have to believe and then get baptized so I guess I cant imagine an infant believing yet.
I was baptized as a baby and so were my children(out of my feeling of obligation to me episcopal church and mom)I knew it was only ceremonial but I did it to please my parents. Trust me I knew nothing about the truth until Jesus Christ saved me about 10 years ago At 30 I was most certainly able to get it I, of course, can only speak for myself.

God Bless

AFH

 

[jim1130]

Catholic Salvation is…

Through RCC(846)
Merited by good works(1815,1821,2010,2027)
Attained by man (2010,2027)
A process from Baptism through
Never assured in this life(1036,2005)

Sadly, you claim Catholics as unbiblical. If you would not the footnotes attached to the CCC you listed then you will see a healthy does of the Bible; however, I suspect the Catholic interpretation does not “mesh” with your interpretation so therefore the Catholics are wrong.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21L 3,1169; De unit.L 4,509-536.
336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it.80 But “faith apart from works is dead”:81 when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.
80 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1545.
81 Jas 2:26.

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94 She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven: Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.95

92 Cf. Rom 8:28-30; Mt 7:21.
93 Mt 10:22; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1541.
94 1 Tim 2:4.
95 St. Teresa of Avila, Excl. 15:3.

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord’s words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"57 - reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty. A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.’"58
56 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1533-1534.
57 Mt 7:20.
58 Acts of the trial of St. Joan of Arc.

(continued)

 

[jim1130]

JCPeacekeeper:

Catholic Salvation is…

Through RCC(846)
Merited by good works(1815,1821,2010,2027)
Attained by man (2010,2027)
A process from Baptism through
Never assured in this life(1036,2005)

(continued)

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618 Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619
618 Mt 7:13-14.
619 LG 48 § 3; Mt 22:13; cf. Heb 9:27; Mt 25:13,26,30,31-46.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Allforhim,

Hi, In the bible:thumbsup: The Authors of the bible wrote what they did.
Yes I know you can show Scripture and we could probably go on forever and ever about it. So we should probably agree to disagree. I am just not interested in going in circles.
With all due respect that doesnt mean they were correct There were many false teachings back then as well and false intrepretations.Honestly, if God didnt give us the bible I cant imagine what we would be thinking The bible of course:thumbsup:
Your sister in Christ,
AFH

Oh, I’m sorry, I did not realize you never go to Bible studies with your church.

Yes, that was sarcastic. Not meant meanly. Just trying to get you to realize the danger of hiding you head in the sand and fool yourself into thinking you get your interpretation “from the bible”. Those who are JW’s “just read the bible”. Do you think they are right? Why not? One can more easily see that they have “come along” with false teachings, teaching so false it cannot even be called Christian anymore in my opinion.

The bible does not interpret itself. While the Holy Spirit is capable of enlightening us through scripture alone, most of us do not do that. We rely on learned men who can help us understand scripture better. We hunger for a deeper understanding. JW’s rely on those who write the Watch Tower. Baptists tend to rely on Calvin. Methodists tend to be Wesley fans.

Maybe you are different than I was, but I know I could always get so much more out of Scripture when I studied with others. But those you are studying with, did not get taught like Paul did, but are following the writings and expounding on the interpretation of Scripture from other men, honest men who feel they are led by the spirit, but they are not “just using scripture”.

I would think that the warnings in Scripture that tell us to look out for false teachers who come along would impell a person to actually look critically at what they were taught from scripture.

You are not in fact getting your INTERPRETATION from scripture but from a man who came along who uses scripture.

While I doubt you will do so, since it appears you are comfortable with your view, someday, pick up a hardcopy (ie not online, so much easier to settle down with and read your bible with) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Find Baptism in it. And read what the catechism says about it. It will have footnotes which will refer you to SCRIPTURE to show you where these beliefs are found in scripture.

Read scripture about baptism. Read how the Catholic Church interprets that Scripture. Ask the Holy Spirit to led you and show you all truth as you do so. I know you trust in Him so take the time and do this and you will never regret your time searching through the scriptures in this manner. If nothing else, it will give you a better understanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church that can only help you.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Hi Maria,
Just one more thing to add. The reason I believe the way I do about salvation and baptism is because whenever the bible talks about baptism it also speaks of believing. A baby just cant do that yet. I do not see in Scripture where it says someone else can do it for you(I think that is what the CC believes about baby baptism, the intentions of the parents–am I right ) At my church we have baby dedications–where the parents and congregations promise to raise the child to know and love God. Actually our baby dedications are identical to baby baptisms except the final step of baptism. I noticed that after I went to a few catholic baptisms and around the same time some baby dedications. The bible says we have to believe and then get baptized so I guess I cant imagine an infant believing yet.
I was baptized as a baby and so were my children(out of my feeling of obligation to me episcopal church and mom)I knew it was only ceremonial but I did it to please my parents. Trust me I knew nothing about the truth until Jesus Christ saved me about 10 years ago At 30 I was most certainly able to get it I, of course, can only speak for myself.

God Bless

AFH

Hi AFH

What we see talked about in scripture mostly is adults talking to other adults about how it is done. It is 100% correct to believe that if one is an adult, one needs to believe, repent and be baptized.

The problem is, this is only part of the story when one relies ONLY on the written word and fails to follow the Traditions that were oral, (or in this case seen).

Scripture compares baptism to circumcision.

:bible1: Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

In the Jewish religion, one can bring their children into the covenant through circumcision. God doesn’t change. Why would He institute this one for infants but change this in the NT and say you have to be adults? Why would God inspire Paul to write these words that could be misconstrued?

Because God did not just give us His written word but also faithful men who it was entrusted to. In the Early Church the question was not whether or not one could baptize infants but whether or not one had to wait until the eigth day as one does with baptism.

A believers baptism ONLY, excluding children from the covenant until the can decide for themselves is a “modern” (last 400 years) invention.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Plenty of things happen to you everyday that are not in the Bible! I was speaking of religious tradition, doctrine and dogmas. Not everyday life. Not all teaching are anti-biblical but if even one is not found or does in fact go against the bible then you have to ask yourself why. Paul rebukes the Judaizers in Galatians for adding one thing to salvation, circumcision.

What “mission” are you on? To save catholics? Are you the second coming of Christ? (all rhetorical questions)

Its obvious you do not understand Paul’s teaching. The central debate in Paul’s time was if Jewish customs (sacraments) applied to gentile converts. Paul said if you practice one sacrament of the old law, you would be part of the old covenant. Not only would a gentile be subjected to circumscision, but to animal sacrifices, and the laws in the Talmud. The spirit behind it was one of self-importance and a move by some to have the appearance of being better than the rest. Paul called them on it and rightly so. He wasn’t making the case for sola scriptura. Paul did not say don’t believe or follow ANY traditions!

Look at Galatians 6. Paul clarifies to the church what he meant in chapter 5. Their motives WERE to have the outward appearances of a Jew, be able to exalt themselves as super Christians, AND escape persecution.

Let me take a stab at this and assume you’re circumscized. If you read Galatians literally, you ARE subject to the old law. I hope you like Ghenna buddy.

No, I spoke too soon. Thank God Paul said “you know…it really doesnt matter if you do it or not.”

Since we still have our literalist glasses on, it appears we can follow traditions as much as we want providing we don’t develop a self-righteous attitude.

I would refute your understanding of the CCC, but it would be pointless. You seem to have hatred towards the Catholic church for an undiscloed reason. It appears to be clouding your better judgement.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Yes, that was sarcastic. Not meant meanly. Just trying to get you to realize the danger of hiding you head in the sand and fool yourself into thinking you get your interpretation “from the bible”.

Hi Maria, Thanking you for writing a disclaimer because I didnt think you were that type of person.

Maybe you are different than I was, but I know I could always get so much more out of Scripture when I studied with others. But those you are studying with, did not get taught like Paul did, but are following the writings and expounding on the interpretation of Scripture from other men, honest men who feel they are led by the spirit, but they are not “just using scripture”.

Yes I do like to study with other people. I also get mcuh out of group bible studies.

I would think that the warnings in Scripture that tell us to look out for false teachers who come along would impell a person to actually look critically at what they were taught from scripture.

Exactly, that is why when I learn something from someone else, I always go back to Scripture and pray the Holy Spirit shows me the truth. My minister always tells us to check it out and see if what we are taught lines up with the bible. If it doesnt it is false.

God Bless

AFH

 

[djrakowski]

The bible says we have to believe and then get baptized so I guess I cant imagine an infant believing yet.

It does? Where?

I believe you’re referring to this verse:
Mark 16:16 (NIV):

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

It doesn’t say what you’re trying to force it to say. It says “believes and is baptized,” not “believes and **then **is baptized.” It implies that both need to be done, but not necessarily in that sequence.

In addition, the verse lists two requirements for salvation - belief and baptism - but only one for condemnation - unbelief. In other words, it appears possible from this verse that some who are baptized may not achieve final salvation.

Furthermore, there’s at least one occasion in scripture where the faith of others affected the healing of another person:
Matthew 8:5-10 (NIV):

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”
The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Why was the centurion’s servant healed? It wasn’t because of his own faith, but because of the faith of his master, the centurion. In the same way, Catholic parents present their children (typically very young infants) for baptism based upon their faith.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi AFH

What we see talked about in scripture mostly is adults talking to other adults about how it is done. It is 100% correct to believe that if one is an adult, one needs to believe, repent and be baptized.

The problem is, this is only part of the story when one relies ONLY on the written word and fails to follow the Traditions that were oral, (or in this case seen).

 

[dalcent]

ALLFORHIM,

Are you interacting with the Catholic material at all? Could you put forward the Catholic and evangelical positions with equal accuracy. If you could do this fairly you would have a full grasp of both sides which is scholarly and very impressive .

 

[dalcent]

ALLFORHIM,

Are you interacting with the Catholic material at all? Could you put forward the Catholic and evangelical positions with equal accuracy. If you could do this fairly you would have a full grasp of both sides which is scholarly and very impressive .

 

[dalcent]

ALLFORHIM,

Are you interacting with the Catholic material all? Could you put forward the Catholic and evangelical positions with equal accuracy. If you could do this fairly you would have a full grasps of both sides which is scholarly and very impressive .

 

[djrakowski]

Yes and this is where we part ways. I do not think the bible needs any oral tradition attached to it. I think it holds its own.

AFH, I’ve seen many of your posts in which you write things like “I do not think” and “in my opinion.” With all due respect, why should I simply believe what you say in your own opinion? You need to back up what you say with scripture.

Here’s what the Bible says about oral tradition that you disregard so casually:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NIV) - “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings* we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (* many other translations, including the KJV, render this as “traditions,” and the NIV footnotes it as such)

The Bible even gives us evidence of an authoritative teaching and interpretive body:

1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) - “(I)f I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

It isn’t the Bible that is the pillar and foundation of truth, but rather, the church. And which one? An invisible church of all Christian believers scattered throughout the world and throughout the centuries, who can hardly agree on anything? Or a church with a visible structure and a means of passing on teaching authority to others, that has been unified in its teachings from antiquity to the present day?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM,

Are you interacting with the Catholic material at all? Could you put forward the Catholic and evangelical positions with equal accuracy. If you could do this fairly you would have a full grasps of both sides which is scholarly and very impressive .

Hi,
This is from the CARM website. I know you guys dont like this sight but I think they did a great job explaining where I stand.
Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

  One of the most nagging questions in Christianity is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The answer is a simple, "No." But you might ask, "If the answer is no, then why are there verses that say things like ‘. . .baptism that now saves you . . . ‘ (1 Pet. 3:21, NIV) and ‘ . . . Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins . . ." (Acts 2:38, NIV)? This is an honest question and it needs a competent answer. But, before I tackle this I need to lay a foundation of proper theology, then I'll address some of those verses that are commonly used to support the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation.

God Works Covenantally

  First, you need to understand that God works covenantally. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. The New Testament and Old Testaments are New and Old Covenants. The word "testament" comes from the Latin testamentum which means covenant. So, the Bible is a covenant document. If you don't understand covenant you cannot understand, in totality, the issue of baptism because baptism is a covenant sign. 
  If you don't think that God works covenantally then look at Heb 13:20 which says, "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep" (NIV). The Eternal Covenant is the covenant between the Father and the Son before the creation of the world, whereby the Father would give to the Son those whom the Father had chosen. That is why Jesus says things like, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away" (John 6:37, NIV). And, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day" (John 6:39, NIV). And, "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9, NIV). 
  If you fail to understand that God works covenantally and that He uses signs as manifestations of his covenants (rainbow, circumcision, communion, etc.) then you will not be able to understand where baptism fits in God's covenant system. 
  Second, you need to know what baptism is. It is an outward representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul. That is why it is used in different ways. It is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus. It is in this sense a sacrament. A sacrament is a visible manifestation of something spoken. It is also said to be a visible sign of an inward grace. For example, the communion elements of bread and wine are called the sacrament of communion. When we take communion we are partaking of the sacrament. 
  The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and Man where God promises to Man eternal life. It is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the condition is faith in Jesus Christ. As the Communion Supper replaced Passover, baptism, in like manner, replaces circumcision. "They represent the same spiritual blessings that were symbolized by circumcision and Passover in the old dispensation" (Berkhoff, Lewis, Systematic Theology, 1988, p. 620.).

 

[ALLFORHIM]

continued
Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant; it did not save. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties and that is exactly what the Abrahamic covenant was. God said to Abraham, “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Genesis 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also 8 day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses’ wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses’ feet. (Ex. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews).
An important question here is how is it possible for an infant to be entered into a covenant with God. There could be a lot of answers given but the point remains: it was done; infants were entered into a covenant relationship with God – through their parents.
In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to this topic it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (NIV). In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. Baptism replaces the Old Testament circumcision because 1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood but in baptism no blood is shed. This is because the blood of Christ has been shed.
If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 12:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).
Third, the Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. “By this gospel you are saved…” (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16 says, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”

 

[ALLFORHIM]

What is the Gospel?

  It is clearly the gospel that saves us. But what exactly is the gospel? That too is revealed to us in the Bible. It is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Baptism is not mentioned here. 
  Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. 
  Additionally, in Acts, Peter was preaching the gospel, people got saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days" (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality.

Let’s Suppose…

  Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? 
  Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation. That is wrong! See Gal. 2:21; 5:4. 
  All right, so this sounds reasonable. But still, what about those verses that seem to say that baptism is part of salvation? I'll address those now. But, because this subject can become quite lengthy, in fact, sufficient for a book in itself, I'll only address a few verses and then only briefly.

to be continued-----

 

[dalcent]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NIV) - “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings* we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (* many other translations, including the KJV, render this as “traditions,” and the NIV footnotes it as such)

Don’t hold your breath djrakowski, when so thoroughly cornered genus Protestantis plays dead, doesn’t breath, and waits for the thread to move on then reappears later thinking we didn’t noticed they were simply silent.

However on this occasion a simple little question was obfuscated with about 4 millions words of blurb by CARM.

ALLFORHIM: Please answer djrakowski’s query. Why do you think there is no need for Oral Tradition if scripture states otherwise as in the above verse…

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Baptism Verses

John 3:5, “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.’”
Some say that water here means baptism. But that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn’t yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism isn’t necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.
It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born “again.” This meant that he had been born once–through his mother. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he can’t enter again into his mother’s womb to be born. Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that “flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit…” The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process.
I would like to add that there are scholars who agree with the position and some who do not. Some believe that the water refers to the Word of God, the Bible, and others claim it means the Holy Spirit. You decide for yourself.

Acts 2:38, “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.‘”
This verse is a tough one. It seems to say that baptism is part of salvation. But we know, from other scriptures that it isn’t, lest there be a contradiction. What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek, “repent” is in the plural and so is “your” of “your sins.” They are meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like saying, “All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness.” Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God, that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, repent and get baptized.

1 Pet. 3:21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. But, the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, “and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.” The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means “copy,” “type,” corresponding to," “a thing resembling another,” “its counterpart,” etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is “Of what is it a type?”, or “Baptism corresponds to what?”. The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20: “who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you” (NASB).

 

[ALLFORHIM]

What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Peter, when referring to the flood waters, refers to them as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6). It was the Ark that saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion, refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God” which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart.

Acts 22:16, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”
Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart (Col. 2:11-12) which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7)? Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus’ name.

Rom. 6:4, “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
Because the believer is so closely united to Christ it is said that the symbol of baptism is our death, burial, and resurrection. Obviously we did not die–unless, of course, it is a figurative usage.

Titus 3:5, “he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”
The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us. It is not the symbol that saves, but the reality. The reality is the blood of Christ.

Gal. 3:27, “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
This is speaking of the believer’s union with Christ. It is an identification with, a joining to, a proclamation of loyalty to, etc. In 1 Cor. 10:2 the Israelites were baptized into Moses. That means they were closely identified with him and his purpose. The same thing is meant here.

 Conclusion: 
 Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12). 
  One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

That is it

 

[djrakowski]

This is from the CARM website. I know you guys dont like this sight but I think they did a great job explaining where I stand.

There’s a reason we don’t refer to the CARM website. The operator of that site has either no clue what Catholics believe, or he knows and is deliberately twisting it to suit an agenda.

Furthermore, if you use this interpretation of scripture from CARM, then you’re really not letting the Bible speak for itself, but rather, you’re letting Matt Slick offer you his interpretation, which just happens to be the one with which you agree (and with which many non-Catholic Christians quite seriously disagree).

When each of you, purportedly using the Bible alone as your final standard in matters of faith and morals, comes to a different conclusion, what then? Are we to conclude, in direct contradiction to the scriptures, that there are some doctrines on which it is safe to disagree?

1 Timothy 1:3 (NIV) - “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer”

Titus 1:9 (NIV) - “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”