CCC 1498 indulgences.

[myfavoritmartin]

So what did Jesus mean when He said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit”???

Since the bible does not contradict itself lets read
Rom. 5:1 it states that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith. It does not say faith and baptism. If baptism were part of salvation, then it would say we were justified by faith and baptism. But it does not.
If justification is by faith, then it is by faith. Baptism is not faith. It is a ceremony.
It is something we do as a ritual. Furthermore, please consider the following verses when declare how we are saved.

Rom. 3:22, “even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction.”
Rom. 3:26, “for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Rom. 3:28, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”
Rom. 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
Rom. 5:1, “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”
Gal. 3:8, “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham.”
Gal. 3:24 , “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.”
Eph. 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”

 Additionally, Paul tells us that the gospel is what saves us and that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Baptism is not included in the description of the gospel. This explains why he said 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.  **John 3:5 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the rest of scripture**.

Born of the flesh!!!

 

[YinYangMom]

Because if it didn’t we’d all be resigned to hell…

For the wages of sin is DEATH; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).

Right. But how do you know it alone was enough and that there is no other cooperation on our part required to remain in that grace which keeps us from hell, especially when Jesus goes out of His way to spend 40 days in His resurrected state to spell out for the apostles His game plan for man’s salvation and their role it it?

THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD,
His body here on earth is the Catholic Church who administers HIS sacraments by which we continue to receive His REAL graces to help us remain focused.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Right. But how do you know it alone was enough and that there is no other cooperation on our part required to remain in that grace which keeps us from hell, especially when Jesus goes out of His way to spend 40 days in His resurrected state to spell out for the apostles His game plan for man’s salvation and their role it it?
.

Rom. 5:1 says that we are justified by faith, not by faith and baptism. Rom. 3:23 says we are saved not by the works of the Law; that is, not by anything that we do. Since our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6), we must completely rely upon the grace of God for our salvation – which is by faith in Jesus who is God, the creator, in flesh.

 

[YinYangMom]

Repent= change 180%

Matthew 4:17 17From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

Do you think Jesus meant change your ways or do sacrements?

He told us to repent… and to be born of the water and the spirit.

There is no other way to intepret His instructions except to change our ways and participate in the sacraments.

Jesus said what He said. For me to second guess what He really meant by those words is for me to imply He would intentionally try to deceive or manipulate me. That is an impossibility so I must take His words at face value.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water **and **the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" - Baptism

“Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” - Eucharist

“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - Reconciliation

 

[YinYangMom]

Since the bible does not contradict itself lets…

I’ll tell you what, since JESUS does not contradict Himself, let’s read what he said and just leave it at that.

There is no need to search scriptures for other ways to interpret that which He spells out for us unless you are looking for a way around doing what He says.

The passages from Romans and Galations are from letters written to the faithful of those communities reminding them of their obligations. The source of their teachings still remains what Jesus said the first time around.

On a side note this last one you cited:

Paul tells us that the gospel is what saves us and that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

I would have waged money that all Christians would say it is JESUS which saves us.

The gospel “i have preached to you” (note: oral tradition, NOT scripture)

“by which ye are saved” - this is the Good News (gospel) of the fact that Jesus came, died, rose from the dead and instituted a means by which all could share in his saving grace through baptism of the water and the spirit. Being born again doesn’t do us much good if the gates of heaven are still locked. His death unlocked the gates, His sacraments and our faith in His graces bestowed through them helps gets us through the gates.

As for:

John 3:5 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the rest of scripture.

Jesus words don’t need to be interpreted at all.

What needs to be discerned through the rest of scripture is how we go about being born of the water and the spirit.
The early church fathers properly discerned this was through baptism. Even Jesus was baptized of the water, thus making the water by which all others would be washed HOLY in order that the stain of original sin could be removed through that action from that point forward. John baptised with water, the apostles baptised with water and the spirit of Christ (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit).

 

[YinYangMom]

Rom. 5:1 says that we are justified by faith, not by faith and baptism. Rom. 3:23 says we are saved not by the works of the Law; that is, not by anything that we do. Since our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6), we must completely rely upon the grace of God for our salvation – which is by faith in Jesus who is God, the creator, in flesh.

Now you’re talking about justification. The passages you cite speak of relying on the grace of God. It is through the sacraments administered by His Body on earth, the Church, that we affectively received His graces. He provided the conduit by which we would know with absolute certainty that His grace has been granted unto us.

I was talking about being born of the water and the spirit.
Jesus said we must do this or we cannot enter the kingdom.

However, either conversation takes this thread off topic so we can’t get into that here.

Do you have any more questions about indulgences?

 

[heisenburg]

Martin…

Respectfully…

Are you saying that when Jesus said “You must be born of water and of Spirit” That Jesus is really saying “We must be born, and then Born of Spirit”?

Forgive me if this sounds like I am making fun of you, i assure you I am not, so please do not take it that way…

I have never read or heard anywhere where it says before you do x, you must be born. In order to get a drivers license, you must be born. In order to go to school, you must be born, etc. It’s actually a little bit of a ridiculous argument.

None of the verses you quoted contradict it if it does mean we must be baptized. They talk about the Grace given to Man. They talk about the inability to do works of the old Jewish Law and be saved. About not earning heaven with works.

If Baptism is the means God gives that Grace, I do not see an issue.

I am curious what sources you used to get that interpretation. I never heard that explanation until very recently, Now I am all the time hearing it. In other words, it seems to be a new understanding.

The other problem with this understanding is that it wasn’t taught by the earliest Christians.
Example:
The Didache is considered one of the earliest Christian Writings. Some think it may even predate some of the Books in the Bible. In the Didicha, there is a detailed section on the importance of Baptism, and the methods. No where does it mention that “born of water” equates to Born of the womb.

It is important to know what the earliest Christians believed in order to properly Understand what Scripture is saying so we cannot just throw it out because its not in the bible.

Again… please do not read into this a mocking tone. I only wish to display my concerns with this logic.

May you be blessed in Christ

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Martin…

Respectfully…

Are you saying that when Jesus said “You must be born of water and of Spirit” That Jesus is really saying “We must be born, and then Born of Spirit”?

2 interpretations of John 3

The water refers to the natural birth.
or
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.
Option 1 looks to the context of Jesus’ words dealing with being born “again” (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:6). The implication is that the first birth is the natural birth and the second birth is the spiritual birth. In other words, the water refers to the water of the womb – the first birth. This seems to have support in the understanding of Nicodemus about entering into the womb to be born a second time.
The other view is the one held by the Catholic church stating that the water is referring to baptism and that it is essential to salvation.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I’ll tell you what, since JESUS does not contradict Himself, let’s read what he said and just leave it at that.

YES read in context see my above quote…

 

[Contarini]

Since the bible does not contradict itself lets read
Rom. 5:1 it states that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith. It does not say faith and baptism. If baptism were part of salvation, then it would say we were justified by faith and baptism. But it does not.

That is an unwarranted counterfactual argument. Elsewhere both repentance and baptism are mentioned as conditions for salvation. Silence here does not trump explicit statements elsewhere. Acts 2:38, for instance, mentions repentance and baptism, but not faith.

If justification is by faith, then it is by faith. Baptism is not faith. It is a ceremony.
It is something we do as a ritual.

No, baptism is not primarily something we do. Baptism is something God (through the Church) does to us. That is your basic fallacy. Stop defining baptism as a human work and your alleged discrepancy disappears, without the need to resort to these frantic expedients to explain away the plain sense of Scripture. (Yes, Acts 2:37-38 does refer to baptism in response to the question “what shall we do”–but Acts 16:30-31 also refers to faith as something that the jailer must “do”–I was responding to what seems to be your sense of “do,” as in a human work that excludes or competes with faith.)

Additionally, Paul tells us that the gospel is what saves us and that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Baptism is not included in the description of the gospel.

Since Romans 6:1-10 tells us that baptism incorporates us into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, this is manifestly not true. I know you have an alternate explanation of that passage, but I’m trying to show you that the explanation is not necessary.

This explains why he said 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).

This is a poor reading of the text–Paul did not contrast baptism and the Gospel. He contrasted baptizing and preaching.

If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it

Quite the reverse. He is making the case that he is not the center of their faith but merely a preacher. Had he baptized a lot of people, people might have thought that they were being baptized “into Paul” rather than “into Jesus.” This assumes that baptism is if anything more, not less important than preaching. Baptism is the thing preaching prepares you for. Paul is downplaying his importance by stressing his role as a proclaimer of the Gospel. Your interpretation makes no sense in the context of 1 Corinthians 1.

and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation?

But Peter didn’t exclude it–he “excluded” faith! You are unnecessarily setting Scripture up against Scripture to give yourself an excuse to provide an unnecessary “solution.”

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Elsewhere both repentance and baptism are mentioned as conditions for salvation. Silence here does not trump explicit statements elsewhere. Acts 2:38, for instance, mentions repentance and baptism, but not faith.

It’s talking about the remission of sin…
Greek (eis) in Acts 2:38(for) does not necessarily mean (in order to) see it’s usage in Matt 12:41
Do you think they repented in order(eis) to hear Jonas preach

 

[davidv]

It’s talking about the remission of sin…
Greek (eis) in Acts 2:38(for) does not necessarily mean (in order to) see it’s usage in Matt 12:41
Do you think they repented in order(eis) to hear Jonas preach

So, what will it take to convince you that indulgences are not the remission of sins?

 

[Contarini]

It’s talking about the remission of sin…
Greek (eis) in Acts 2:38(for) does not necessarily mean (in order to) see it’s usage in Matt 12:41
Do you think they repented in order(eis) to hear Jonas preach

First of all, my point was that Peter responds to their question regarding how they are to be saved. I was not building on the preposition. But since you brought the preposition up, what do you think it means here? I know quite well that “eis” does not always mean “in order to.”

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

First of all, my point was that Peter responds to their question regarding how they are to be saved. I was not building on the preposition. But since you brought the preposition up, what do you think it means here? I know quite well that “eis” does not always mean “in order to.”

Edwin

It very well could be “because of”

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So, what will it take to convince you that indulgences are not the remission of sins?

Sorry we got side tracked a couple pages back…I understand that its the removal of temporal punishment via a treasury of merits controlled by the “church”…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

View attachment 1128
or “into”

 

[Contarini]

It very well could be “because of”

How does that work? They ask what they are to do, and he tells them what they are to do *because *their sins have been forgiven? It makes no sense. He needed to tell them how their sins could be forgiven first, and then tell them what to do afterwards. This is yet another example of your adopting a manifestly more awkward reading because your tradition forbids you to accept the simpler one. Not a conflict with anything else in Scripture–just your human tradition.

Accept the fact that faith and baptism are two sides of the same coin, and it all makes sense. Faith is how we receive the gift of God of which the effectual sign is baptism.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

How does that work? They ask what they are to do, and he tells them what they are to do *because *their sins have been forgiven?

My point was the word “for” can be used different ways, not just one, so it is wrong to assume that it must mean “in order to get” in Acts 2:38.

and that Acts 2 isn’t a model plan of salvation.

 

[heisenburg]

2 Tim 2:14 NIV

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Since Romans 6:1-10 tells us that baptism incorporates us into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, this is manifestly not true. I know you have an alternate explanation of that passage,

We are commanded to repent for our sins. IN becoming Christians, we’ve done this.
Baptism is the outward identification with being a Christian for those who have already repented.

The Israelites were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2),like we Christians are baptized into Jesus.
We are publicly identifying ourselves with Christ. Likewise, in Rom. 6:1-5 where baptism is related to death, burial, and resurrection, it is again and identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. That is why it is said of Christians that we have died to sin (Rom. 6:2, 11; Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:20; Col. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:24).
This verse does not demonstrate that baptism is essential for salvation, rather baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to identify ourselves completely with Christ as a manifestation of the inward work God has done within us.