R
Rogare
Guest
Well, let me ask you then. Is God’s Word not sufficient for salvation?
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
Matt 7:21:
"Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
R
Rogare
Guest
That’s somewhat of a non answer. The same will be said to many Catholics who acknowledge your Traditions.
From reading the Word of God, I understand the following:
What exactly am I missing out on?
From reading the Word of God, I understand the following:
I have repented of my sins; I believe and confess that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead. I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I live each day keeping his commandments.
What exactly am I missing out on?
P
pablope
Guest
C
CaptainPicard
Guest
Hi Rogare,
I always hate to jump into these conversations mid-thread (things get confusing), but here goes…
I’ve always regarded that passage in Ezekiel itself as being a prophecy of water baptism. If memory serves, I think many of the Fathers did, too. I could try to dig up some examples if you want. I don’t really have any issue with Ezekiel being perhaps one of a family of verses that Jesus was referring to. In both instances, there are two “ingredients” – water and Spirit.
After reading your first post I was left wanting a little more explanation. What is your interpretation of John 3 and the passage in Ezekiel? What information did Jesus mean to convey to Nichodemus? What are the ramifications that you see in Jesus’ referring to Ezekiel? How is one born again, according to Jesus’ statement here?
Also, I hope you’ll read the essay in my signature. It’s long, but will give you a more in-depth defense of baptismal regeneration with material that I just about guarantee will be new to you. It’s really difficult to cover a lot of ground in a forum or small article.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Yes God’s Word, Christ, is sufficient for salvation. He is, afterall, “the way, the truth and the life”. Salvation is found in no one else.
God bless
J
joclucsylv
Guest
You are missing out on the Eucharist!!!
P
panevino
Guest
As kepha pointed to Ambrose also wrote*
“But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?” (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).*
And Augustine who was converted based in part by Ambrose preaching (see his book confessions) wrote the following*
“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart * if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism” (ibid., 4:22:29).*
“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matt. 10:32]” (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).**
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Of course the above is a true statement.
Conversely, even if Rome is proven wrong, that does not make Protestantism right by default. However, Rome must first be proven wrong in order to allow for even the possiblitly of Protestantism to be right.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Rogare and friends should read read Why Catholics Are Right by Michael Coren, and If Protestantism is True by Devin Rose. available from Amazon (and Catholic Answers?).
Until Rogare (and others like him) establishes that his interpretations are infallible, they’re mere opinion, like the opinions of all the thousands of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations and their millions of members.
Since his interpretations are merely opinions, the most I can say is ‘thank you for sharing your opinions.’
Jim Dandy
P
pneuma07
Guest
Hi Rogare ! If it is not too late to add an answer to the ones received in the thread, I'd begin with Augustine on Ez 36:25 : *Now that this is a prophecy of the New Testament, to which pertain not only the remnant of that one nation of which it is elsewhere said, “For though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall be saved,”[6] but also the other nations which were promised to their fathers and our fathers; and that there is here a promise of that washing of regeneration which, as we see, is now imparted to all nations, no one who looks into the matter can doubt. De doctrina Christiana Book III, Chapter 34 * In case we should doubt that by “washing of regeneration” Augustine would mean water baptism *"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another's will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn...'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam." Augustine, To Boniface, Epistle 98:2 (A.D. 408). * In his Summa, asking himself whether immersion is necessary for baptism , Aquinas responds like this: * I answer that In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ez 36,25: "I will pour upon you clean water," as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized.* So IMHO not only is the baptismal reading of John 3:5 built on solid patristic foundations ( for which, quotations could be aboundantly offered, as some were in the present thread ) but also the beautiful pericope in Ez would be seen as baptismal prophetical reading. You could ask those teaching alternative expositions of John 3:5 to offer comparable witnesses to them through the centuries of Christianity.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Now Let’s come to the specific issue of the necessity of the sacrament of baptism, and how that is to be understood, and in particular the seeming tension between affirming the necessity of the sacrament, after John 3:5, and the belief that people who did not receive it may dwell in the Lord. As for authoritative statements the CCC teaches: * VI. The Necessity of Baptism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments*. Theological reflection through the generations lead the Church to believe that God is not bound by the sacraments he asks the Church to confer for our salvation. We can find this concept openly stated eg in Aquinas and Peter Lombardi, with wordings similar to the Catechism. Now, John 3:5 does not offer any explicit exemption, for sure. But how could you know that there are no implicit exemptions there ? Shall we believe that statements in Scriptures cannot have implicit exceptions ? Then, eg, we have to believe that John the Baptist is greater than, or at least as great as Jesus. I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Luke 7:28
P
pneuma07
Guest
Eugene IV declares that I have to persevere in my union with the Church. If I consciously leave the Church, while knowing she is His Church, and do not come back home, the Church cannot see how I can be saved ( but by the mysterious mercy of the Lord ). That has not to do with baptismus flaminis. Furthermore, if you consider “baptismus flaminis”, or baptism of desire, as an invisible sort of union with the Church, than you can hardly consider IMHO anything in Cantate Domino as contradicting it.
Coming to Ambrose, as already mentioned in the present thread, he openly teaches “baptism of desire” as well as “baptism of blood” * But even for a long time he had this desire that … he should be baptized… Surely because he asked, he received, and hence there is the Scripture: ‘The just man by whatsoever death he may be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’… If [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his devotedness and intention washed him" (De obitu Valentiniani consolatio).* Do then the quotations you offered show schizofrenia or anything like that ? Now, in De mysteriis, On Sacraments, he speaks about…sacraments, namely about baptism in the quoted passage. Water baptism, which is a sacrament. ( Baptism of desire, let’s remember, is not a Sacrament. ) The sentence you underlined means IMHO that we have no mystery, or sacrament, of regenaration without physical water. And that is what the Church would consistently teach: no water no sacrament of regeneration. In the light of Ambrose’s belief that “devotedness and intention” wash, and in the given sacramental context, we could read in the passage from On Sacraments, that what for sure catechumens lack is sacramental remission.
Here we have simply to look at the sentence that follows ( which I wonder why is so often omitted in the cybersphere ) * No one is excepted, not
……the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however,
have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know
whether they have the honor of the kingdom." *The
latter sentence makes it clear he means that, whereas the Scriptural utterance
expresses no exception, Ambrose does not exclude that
exceptions, e.g. state of infancy or actual impossibility or non-culpable ignorance may have been presumed. I hope this can help. God bless you Rogare.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I thought that according to double predestination, some were predestined to go to hell before they were ever created. Those who were predestined to hell, and those to heaven were so predestined on no merit or action of their own. If that is correct, then it would seem that God does create some people just to send them to hell.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
R
Rogare
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
Let me give you a personal example. My cousin is a classic easy-believist sort. He was raised in a heretical oneness Pentecostal church. He went to church every Sunday, “asked Jesus into his heart” (don’t worry, I hate that phrase too), and even went to church camp [/sarcasm]. However, he lives like a complete heathen; so much so that our family has pretty much disowned him.
be one of those saying “Lord, Lord” some day.
I wouldn’t dare qualify his bare assent to Christ as actual “faith.” That’s a mockery of Christ, God’s Word, and the true Christians. However, me, you (hopefully, I don’t actually know your character), and probably many others on this board have true saving faith that has resulted in us performing good works. (For more on good works, look at my post in the “What must I do to be saved” thread).
Yes…seems Cs and Ps have defition problems.
of our sins were taken away at the cross: past, present, and future! Praise God!
Yes, you are correct, that this is where we differ. Of course I would have to disagree with you on your last sentence in this part.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Ok, brother/sister…
[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 10:26-27[/BIBLEDRB]
Uhh… Future sins? Really? If that were true then why is Paul issuing dire warnings like that one? “No longer a sacrifice for sins…” No Calvary… No salvation, right? So these guys had salvation and lost it.
Please read this quick answer before responding. Your feedback helps build better QAs. Thanks.
R
Rogare
Guest
How about we look at the context rather than simply rip out two verses?
To whom is Hebrews addressed? Jewish believers. Furthermore, what is the writer talking about? In the surrounding context, the writer discusses the OT sacrificial system. Based on these two facts, the context of the passage you quoted is addressed to a Jewish audience and is concerned with showing how the OT sacrificial system has been done away with in Christ. Therefore, the “no more sacrifice for sin” would refer to the OT sacrifices that were earlier referenced: there is no sacrifice that can take away deliberate sins. This was true in the OT and still in the NT. It is a deliberate sin to reject Christ, thus there is no sacrifice to atone for this.
Look at the next two verses after the ones you quoted in Hebrews 10:
This is the sin the writer is referring to: rejecting Christ. This passage is a warning to Jewish believers warning them about the dangers of attempting to return to OT sacrifices and thus rejecting Christ’s sacrifice. Anyone who rejects Christ’s sacrifice never had salvation.
With that, there is no difficulty in this verse.
Please deal with my text as I have dealt with yours. Thank you
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
I withdrew that one to work on it some more, but since you are so fast on the draw, here we go…
Moreover, rejecting Christ how? By word or also by deed?
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 25:31-46[/BIBLEDRB]
Hold that thought.
Are you sure? Let’s see…
Problem: The Jews did not have any sacrifice that could take away sins. If they did, Calvary would have been unnecessary surplusage. Since there was no sacrifice that could take away sins in the OT then Paul’s admonition cannot be referring to the OT sacrifices at all.
[bibledrb]Hebrews 10:26-29[/bibledrb]
Problem: Paul is referring to one who was sanctified by Christ’s blood. Look at verse 29 and notice the past tense. That cannot refer to a Jew who has not yet converted. It must refer to a Christian, and specifically, who had salvation under the New Covenant… and lost it.
Moreover, rejecting Christ how? By word or also by deed?
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 25:31-46[/BIBLEDRB]
- Status