How are we saved?

[EdOsiecki]

Ed, Ed, Ed-

You are insistent upon an either-or choice: EITHER we are trusting in the Blood OR we are relying on baptism. That is a false choice.

It is through the shed blood of Jesus that sins are forgiven. It is through baptism that I personally am incorporated into Christ.

If the shedding of Jesus’ blood were ALL that mattered, then every man, woman and child on the planet would be saved, and no one would ever go to hell. Jesus’ death upon the Christ opened the door, but it is through baptism that we enter into the life of Christ.

Now, I want your explanation of the following verse:

Acts 22:16
16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Please note that the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 does not contain these words from the lips of Ananias; Paul emphasized the washing away of sin through baptism in his autobiographical account of his conversion YEARS after the actual baptism occured.

If Paul was so careful to connect baptism with the forgiveness of sins, why do you continue to deny that connection?

Randy, We are not communicating on the same line of thought, In the example that I gave you baptism or blood, if you didn’t believe on Jesus’ blood, all the water in the world by being baptized would not save you because your sins would not be atoned for. Same as the thief on the cross, baptism was not necessary for him. His belief in Jesus is what saved him. I’m very much aware that baptism is connected with the belief in Christ and we are water baptized into His body----- Yes ! Every person on the planet would be saved just by Jesus’ blood to have their sins atoned for if they believed in His name, Yet in reverse, only being water baptized, would not save them since their sins wouldn’t be forgiven. “THERE IS NO REMISSIOM OF SINS WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD.” Blood atonement for sins started with Adam & Eve. God didn’t allow them to be covered with leaves, He covered them with skins. Why? An animal had to killed for the blood. With Moses, God instituted the blood animal sacrifice system to temporarily cover people’s sins ( baptism was NOT necessary then? They had the original sin too) Now Jesus is our LAMB ( the animal theme carried over from the Old T.) He’s been sacrificed once and for all to atone for our sins. Only for those who call upon His name to do so. Concering Acts 22:16, And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, CALLING ON HIS NAME. If you don’t call on HIs name, zero no sins are wash. away. The Old T. must be understood to properly understand the New T. I hope you see what I’m trying to convey to you. God Bless!

 

[EdOsiecki]

Does the sacrasm come from only the Catholic side?

That’s not sarcasm, that’s the truth. Have you ever been in a saloon?

They walked no longer with Him becuase they did not believe in the Eucharist.

Inquisition. A little bit of sarcasm
Nice to know non Catholics never burnt anyone at a stake…oh wait…

 

[EdOsiecki]

Does the sacrasm come from only the Catholic side?

That’s the truth not sarcasm, I’ve been in saloons, that’s why I was shocked in this forum.

They walked no longer with Him becuase they did not believe in the Eucharist.

It doesn’t say the Eucharist or either did I mention It but if you insist, John 6: 63 After Jesus’ Eucharist dialog about eating His flesh and drinking His blood He (Jesus)said, “The words I have spoken to you are SPIRIT”. Not transubstantiation.

Inquisition. A little bit of sarcasm
Nice to know non Catholics never burnt anyone at a stake…oh wait…

I apologize if I hit a bad nerve but the “doityourself” philosophy is where the sarcasm started When you say “oh wait” is this going to be a church history battle or are we trying to get to the truth about"how are we saved ?"

 

[Canto]

I apologize if I hit a bad nerve but the “doityourself” philosophy is where the sarcasm started When you say “oh wait” is this going to be a church history battle or are we trying to get to the truth about"how are we saved ?"

Nah. Just get annoyed when people throw in the inquisitions, priestly abuse etc etc when its a one liner. Judge not lest ye be judged as they say. Enyoing the posts on how we are saved

 

[SteveGC]

Randy, We are not communicating on the same line of thought, In the example that I gave you baptism or blood, if you didn’t believe on Jesus’ blood, all the water in the world by being baptized would not save you because your sins would not be atoned for. Same as the thief on the cross, baptism was not necessary for him. His belief in Jesus is what saved him. I’m very much aware that baptism is connected with the belief in Christ and we are water baptized into His body----- Yes ! Every person on the planet would be saved just by Jesus’ blood to have their sins atoned for if they believed in His name, Yet in reverse, only being water baptized, would not save them since their sins wouldn’t be forgiven. “THERE IS NO REMISSIOM OF SINS WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD.” Blood atonement for sins started with Adam & Eve. God didn’t allow them to be covered with leaves, He covered them with skins. Why? An animal had to killed for the blood. With Moses, God instituted the blood animal sacrifice system to temporarily cover people’s sins ( baptism was NOT necessary then? They had the original sin too) Now Jesus is our LAMB ( the animal theme carried over from the Old T.) He’s been sacrificed once and for all to atone for our sins. Only for those who call upon His name to do so. Concering Acts 22:16, And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, CALLING ON HIS NAME. If you don’t call on HIs name, zero no sins are wash. away. The Old T. must be understood to properly understand the New T. I hope you see what I’m trying to convey to you. God Bless!

Ed. Have you not read any of my posts, exhaustively explaining to you that Catholics do not deny the shedding of Christ’s blood for the forgiveness of sins? Randy has never denied that. Did you know that you believe that very thing because Catholics taught it to the world? That’s why you and others get what you perceive as sarcasm. You’re so pressed to prove us wrong, you claim we believe things we don’t.

Reread, or read for the first time, some of my earlier posts.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[ralphy]

Ok, I tried to avoid it because it changes the topic of the thread, but please provide the scritpures that state the Bible is the sole authority, the scriptures that support private interpretation and the scriptures that exclude Church tradition/oral tradition from authority?

It’s a catch-22 question. We know the Bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura, private interpretation is acceptable and that the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth. It does represent what I meant about the double-standard some Protestants hold the Catholic Church too…

May I suggest that you read John12:44-50. Take a special note of verse 48. The Word of God (the Bible) will be our judge in the last day, not tradition (mans teaching). Ralph

 

[SteveGC]

May I suggest that you read John12:44-50. Take a special note of verse 48. The Word of God (the Bible) will be our judge in the last day, not tradition (mans teaching). Ralph

“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day”

“Sayings”, and “word I spoke” does not imply only those that were written. I think you’re trying to make this passage say “He who rejects Me and does not receive My written sayings, has one who judges him; the written word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day”. If it said that, Ralph…then maybe you’d have an argument. Actually, if it said that, The Church would be teaching ALL of us that.

Jesus judges, Ralph. Jesus is larger than any book. The Book, as sacred as it truly is, is not the only thing that contains the essence of Jesus for us (all of us).

 

[ron77nyc]

Jesus judges, Ralph. Jesus is larger than any book. The Book, as sacred as it truly is, is not the only thing that contains the essence of Jesus for us (all of us).

Here is an idea that I proposed on another thread that relates to “How Are We Saved?”

The old testament patriarchs, prophets and saints were in no way subject to the Roman Pontiff. They and even the early new testament believers for example: the philippian jailer and Cornelius in Acts 10 were not familiar with Catholic Tradition as we know it today. They would be equal to baptized converts of protestant missionsaries in pagan lands who have never known anything else. We don’t know what they believed about the sacraments, the Immaculate Conception, lent, celibacy, the eucharist or the Pope. The bible says they were saved by their faith.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Ed,

You’re having quite a difficult time in acknowledging cause and effect of forgiveness of sins. The blood is the cause. The water is the effect.

Catholics don’t deny the blood as the principal source of it all. We simply are trying to educate you on the fact that our necessary replication of His death (and resurrection) in our lives is effected by baptism, and the fact that this (His shed blood) then becomes efficacious for the forgiveness of sins in our lives.

Furthermore, your eisegesis on John 3 is leading you astray. You are trying to divide water and spirit when Jesus never does. You claim John 3:6 shows this division, but it doesn’t, for John 3:5 inseparably links them (water AND spirit needed for entrance to the Kingdom). Verse 6 is Jesus trying to emphasize spiritual rebirth. He’s not linking water to flesh. This business about flesh being 70% water, and how that shows that water = flesh is laughable, your link to the science page notwithstanding. You think Nicodemus knew that he was made up of 70% water?? He would’ve had to, in order for your interpretation to have any meaning. Water wasn’t the confusing thing for Nicodemus…it was spiritual rebirth. Hence verse 6.

PS1 was not “adding” to Scripture with Jn 3:5. This is the Douay Rheims translation of that verse, and it simply is a continuation of Jn 3:3. It doesn’t change the meaning at all. You don’t have a problem with born “again” in verse 3. Why do you have a problem if some translations restate it in verse 5? That’s all it is, a restatement from the previous verse of the second birth. Look at them; they’re both talking about the type of birth for entrance to the Kingdom. Even protestant translations could have “again” in verse 5, and it wouldn’t change the meaning from verse 3.

Lastly, I’d be interested in your response to my post 285.

God Bless

I’m sorry it took so long for my reply per your reply on #305. First of all this is not a laughing matter as you responded, that’s rather insulting. In John 3:5 " born of water and Spirit" Your saying that the water relates to baptism and the Spirit relates to baptism the combination makes one born again.I’m saying that Jesus is describing two types of a person (A) man born of water(natural birth, flesh which contains 70% of water or the womb water) (B) man re-born in the Spirit. The next verse, Jesus reiterates “What is born of flesh is flesh (meanig a natural flesh man remains a natural flesh man “What is born of Sprit is Spirit” ( meaning a man’s spirit is re-born and is re-born.) That’s why Nicodemus, who very clearly understood the duality, asked how can a man go back into his mother’s womb? According to your interpertation, if “born of water” meant baptism, Nicodemus should have asked,“How do I get baptized in water to become born again”? Bias for your position, like in # 305, Jesus is always being misquoted by saying, “you must be born again of water” AGAIN is not in Jesus’ statement. (adding or subtracting to God’s word is forbidden, per Duet 12:32,Prov 30:6,Rev 22:18) Peter clarifies it all in 1 Pet.1:23 whe he states very clearly " You have been born again ------through -----the WORD OF GOD.” It makes no difference what the early fathers said, they were not infalable but God’s Word is. God Bless I hope this makes it clear to you. Thanks for your intersest.smartskincare.com/skinbiology/structure.html

 

[ralphy]

I’m sorry it took so long for my reply per your reply on #305. First of all this is not a laughing matter as you responded, that’s rather insulting. In John 3:5 " born of water and Spirit" Your saying that the water relates to baptism and the Spirit relates to baptism the combination makes one born again.I’m saying that Jesus is describing two types of a person (A) man born of water(natural birth, flesh which contains 70% of water or the womb water) (B) man re-born in the Spirit. The next verse, Jesus reiterates “What is born of flesh is flesh (meanig a natural flesh man remains a natural flesh man “What is born of Sprit is Spirit” ( meaning a man’s spirit is re-born and is re-born.) That’s why Nicodemus, who very clearly understood the duality, asked how can a man go back into his mother’s womb? According to your interpertation, if “born of water” meant baptism, Nicodemus should have asked,“How do I get baptized in water to become born again”? Bias for your position, like in # 305, Jesus is always being misquoted by saying, “you must be born again of water” AGAIN is not in Jesus’ statement. (adding or subtracting to God’s word is forbidden, per Duet 12:32,Prov 30:6,Rev 22:18) Peter clarifies it all in 1 Pet.1:23 whe he states very clearly " You have been born again ------through -----the WORD OF GOD.” It makes no difference what the early fathers said, they were not infalable but God’s Word is. God Bless I hope this makes it clear to you. Thanks for your intersest.smartskincare.com/skinbiology/structure.html

Ed. I know that when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, "being born of water’. This of course He was refering to as being washed in water by the Word and receiving the Holy Spirit, born again. PTL Ralph

 

[SteveGC]

I’m sorry it took so long for my reply per your reply on #305. First of all this is not a laughing matter as you responded, that’s rather insulting. In John 3:5 " born of water and Spirit" Your saying that the water relates to baptism and the Spirit relates to baptism the combination makes one born again.I’m saying that Jesus is describing two types of a person (A) man born of water(natural birth, flesh which contains 70% of water or the womb water) (B) man re-born in the Spirit. The next verse, Jesus reiterates “What is born of flesh is flesh (meanig a natural flesh man remains a natural flesh man “What is born of Sprit is Spirit” ( meaning a man’s spirit is re-born and is re-born.) That’s why Nicodemus, who very clearly understood the duality, asked how can a man go back into his mother’s womb? According to your interpertation, if “born of water” meant baptism, Nicodemus should have asked,“How do I get baptized in water to become born again”? Bias for your position, like in # 305, Jesus is always being misquoted by saying, “you must be born again of water” AGAIN is not in Jesus’ statement. (adding or subtracting to God’s word is forbidden, per Duet 12:32,Prov 30:6,Rev 22:18) Peter clarifies it all in 1 Pet.1:23 whe he states very clearly " You have been born again ------through -----the WORD OF GOD.” It makes no difference what the early fathers said, they were not infalable but God’s Word is. God Bless I hope this makes it clear to you. Thanks for your intersest.smartskincare.com/skinbiology/structure.html

You are not laughable, Ed. And certainly God and salvation are not laughable. But your attempt to define it is. Sorry if that insults you, but you are trying to infer that Nicodemus fully understood that Jesus was referring to the body (flesh) when Jesus says “born of water…” because the body is made up of mostly water. Sorry, that’s absurd. Not the scientific fact, but the inference that Nicodemus would realize it that way. And for the rest…

Let’s lay it all out, and get honest with the sequence of events here.

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]”
4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
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.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit…

You say verse 6 is a full reiteration of verse 5, as it links flesh to water. But this makes no sense for two reasons. One, the Greek term for water nowhere points to amniotic fluid. And two, it renders verse 5 meaningless. Why would Jesus link water AND spirit together for entrance to the Kingdom, then nullify the water part in the very next verse. Answer: He wouldn’t, and He doesn’t. Verse 6, again, is simply Jesus helping Nicodemus understand the differences in birth (natural vs spiritual).

You also say that Nicodemus is prompted to ask Jesus about going back into his mother’s womb AFTER Jesus talks about the flesh vs spirit. But that’s the wrong sequence. Nicodemus asks how it’s possible after Jesus simply states that he must be “born again”. A logical question for ANYONE to ask when presented with that statement. Nicodemus doesn’t make any reference to the womb after that, because Jesus clarifies that, through Baptism, one is reborn of the Spirit. And what does Jesus do immediately after this discourse? Verse 22, He goes out baptizing. What a strange coincidence?

And no, putting the word “again” in verse 5 does NOT change the meaning. Nor is it an attempt to change the meaning. I don’t proclaim to know exactly why the DR Bible has it in there, when other Catholic translations do not. My guess is that it is for clarification of the “born again” reference two verses earlier. But I tell you what, it makes no difference if the term is “born” or “born again”. No one is trying to claim that the word “again” points to baptism, Ed. That word isn’t needed for baptism to be the subject at hand. “Born” in verse 5 means precisely the same thing as it does in verse 3…namely, born again through baptism. The words “water and spirit” are the key, not the word “again”. You’re persisting in this “adding to Scripture” without seeing that even IF we DID add that, it doesn’t change a thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

May I suggest that you read John12:44-50. Take a special note of verse 48. The Word of God (the Bible) will be our judge in the last day, not tradition (mans teaching). Ralph

Verse 48 plainly states the Word that I have spoken…

Below is the word that will judge us all…

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

You cannot produce a verse that supports sola scriptura, because it’s a man-made teaching that comes from outside the Bible, just as private interpretation is.

**1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2Th 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my word shall not pass away.

2Ti 1:13 Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand.
1Co 15:2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.

Mar 16:15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.**

**Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.**

 

[EdOsiecki]

You are not laughable, Ed. And certainly God and salvation are not laughable. But your attempt to define it is. Sorry if that insults you, but you are trying to infer that Nicodemus fully understood that Jesus was referring to the body (flesh) when Jesus says “born of water…” because the body is made up of mostly water. Sorry, that’s absurd. Not the scientific fact, but the inference that Nicodemus would realize it that way. And for the rest…

Let’s lay it all out, and get honest with the sequence of events here.

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]”
4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
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.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit…

You say verse 6 is a full reiteration of verse 5, as it links flesh to water. But this makes no sense for two reasons. One, the Greek term for water nowhere points to amniotic fluid. And two, it renders verse 5 meaningless. Why would Jesus link water AND spirit together for entrance to the Kingdom, then nullify the water part in the very next verse. Answer: He wouldn’t, and He doesn’t. Verse 6, again, is simply Jesus helping Nicodemus understand the differences in birth (natural vs spiritual).

You also say that Nicodemus is prompted to ask Jesus about going back into his mother’s womb AFTER Jesus talks about the flesh vs spirit. But that’s the wrong sequence. Nicodemus asks how it’s possible after Jesus simply states that he must be “born again”. A logical question for ANYONE to ask when presented with that statement. Nicodemus doesn’t make any reference to the womb after that, because Jesus clarifies that, through Baptism, one is reborn of the Spirit. And what does Jesus do immediately after this discourse? Verse 22, He goes out baptizing. What a strange coincidence?

And no, putting the word “again” in verse 5 does NOT change the meaning. Nor is it an attempt to change the meaning. I don’t proclaim to know exactly why the DR Bible has it in there, when other Catholic translations do not. My guess is that it is for clarification of the “born again” reference two verses earlier. But I tell you what, it makes no difference if the term is “born” or “born again”. No one is trying to claim that the word “again” points to baptism, Ed. That word isn’t needed for baptism to be the subject at hand. “Born” in verse 5 means precisely the same thing as it does in verse 3…namely, born again through baptism. The words “water and spirit” are the key, not the word “again”. You’re persisting in this “adding to Scripture” without seeing that even IF we DID add that, it doesn’t change a thing.

Thank you again SteveGC for your reply. I say that “born again of water” the water part refers to a person’s body and you say it refers to water baptism. (1) Why didn’t you then explain why Peter says we are “born again” by God’s Word, which then contradicts “born again” by water baptism? (2) Nicidemus certainly isn’t saying “how can baptism go back into his mother’s womb. Baptism, something he knows nothing about. (3) John1:12, “But to those who did accept Him (Jesus) He gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.” This verse tells me that I became a child of God just by believing in His name, no mention of water or water baptism. (4) Paul who wrote 3/4 of the New T. and started most of the churches said that he didn’t come to baptize 1 Cor 1:17 If that’s the way we get saved, you would think baptism would be his main priority. (5) Mat 3:15 the reason Jesus was baptized was to fulfill acts of righteousness (He certainly wasn’t doing it to get “born again” Titus 3:5 it’s not by the righteous deeds we do, but by the mercy of God we are saved. (the Douay Bible also is wrong Acts 2:38 " Do Penance” it should be “Repent”) It’s the belief in Jesus that saves John 3:16,18,36 John 20:31 etc.etc.etc.If you do respond would you please do it number by number. Thanks, In Christ’s love ED

 

[SteveGC]

Thank you again SteveGC for your reply. I say that “born again of water” the water part refers to a person’s body and you say it refers to water baptism.

Ed, happy to address your post point-by-point. Let me first say that I can sum up most of it by restating the crux of the disconnect we’re having…

Baptism to Catholics is NOT the source of salvation, nor a replacement of Christ’s blood sacrifice for the remission of sins. It is an efficacious portion of the transference of grace into our lives. It is the vehicle, or medium if you will, of the grace realized through the atonement. Now for your points…

(1) Why didn’t you then explain why Peter says we are “born again” by God’s Word, which then contradicts “born again” by water baptism? (2) Nicidemus certainly isn’t saying "how can baptism go back into his mother’s womb. Baptism, something he knows nothing about.

I can answer these 2 together. Again, water baptism is not separate from God’s Word. It is what makes God’s Word evident and real in our lives. You are being overly literalistic in your exegesis. We are born again by Grace! Which is God’s Word, which includes water baptism as the instrument by which it happens for us. By defining “born again” in this way does not diminish the Catholic position that we must believe, and invite Christ into our lives, and have a personal relationship with Him. It’s just that we don’t define that as “born again”, because Christ and the apostles never did, and The Church never has.

(3) John1:12, “But to those who did accept Him (Jesus) He gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.” This verse tells me that I became a child of God just by believing in His name, no mention of water or water baptism.

Acceptance and belief have to be unpacked if you want to come into fullness. There are things that must be done to demonstrate this acceptance and belief. So even the entire chapter of John 1 isn’t nearly enough to reveal what all this is, much less verses 12 and 13.

(4) Paul who wrote 3/4 of the New T. and started most of the churches said that he didn’t come to baptize 1 Cor 1:17 If that’s the way we get saved, you would think baptism would be his main priority.

You say that as if it’s the only way in which we are saved. You must stop thinking this way. Paul does baptize households and individuals in Corinth. Why didn’t you want to talk about those so much? In any event, baptism for adults is subsequent (if not immediately subsequent) to repentance. Paul’s merely stating that his mission there is primarily to preach. Taken in context, nothing in 1 Cor 1 indicates that baptism is not necessary.

(5) Mat 3:15 the reason Jesus was baptized was to fulfill acts of righteousness (He certainly wasn’t doing it to get “born again” Titus 3:5 it’s not by the righteous deeds we do, but by the mercy of God we are saved. It’s the belief in Jesus that saves

Which is it Ed, the mercy of God, or belief, that saves? You and I both know it’s by Grace (mercy) we are saved. We don’t argue the source, Ed. That’s different from the effect. And belief-alone is not the effect.

God Bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is Ed, Randy why are you so sarcastic in your reponses. Ralph asked you a simple question.Is that the kind of Christian love you have in your heart. The Bible says Let your light shine. Why would anyone want that kind of light? I think you owe Ralph an apology!

Ed-

Where is the sarcasm? My statements were straightforward.

I told Ralphy to do his homework. He didn’t.
I told him that HE needed to do his homework, because I can’t learn the material for him.
I told him how to find the answers using Google.
I suggested that he take up the matter again after he had studied it.

But thanks for judging me. (Now *there’s *sarcasm.)

 

[ralphy]

Ed-

Where is the sarcasm? My statements were straightforward.

I told Ralphy to do his homework. He didn’t.
I told him that HE needed to do his homework, because I can’t learn the material for him.
I told him how to find the answers using Google.
I suggested that he take up the matter again after he had studied it.

But thanks for judging me. (Now *there’s *sarcasm.)

I would prefer going to the author of the Bible rather than Google. I trust the Author, for He is the one who sustains and keeps me. Ralph

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nah. Just get annoyed when people throw in the inquisitions, priestly abuse etc etc when its a one liner. Judge not lest ye be judged as they say. Enyoing the posts on how we are saved

Nah. Just get annoyed when people throw in the inquisitions, priestly abuse etc etc when its a one liner. Judge not lest ye be judged as they say. Enyoing the posts on how we are saved 

---

stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by word OR by our epistle - 2 Thess 2:14

Canto , I appreciate your reply. Also God’s Word warns much about “traditions” Col 2:8, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on “human traditions” Gal.2:14, Even Peter had to be scolded by Paul, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.” I bet Peter didn’t like that but it was the truth. Even Jesus also warns, about trusting man’s testimony John 5:33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth, 34 Not that I accept human testimony,etc.etc…” Mat.15:2-4 Jesus was asked, “Why do your disciples disobey the ancient Jewish Traditions” He replied, 'And why do your Traditions violate the direct Commandments of God?” Could He be also speaking of idols? 2 Pet.2:21 states that men are not infallible. On a personal note, the above Scriptures warns me not to trust my eternal life on verbal or written traditions by whomever years ago? Now that we love as Christian brothers ought to love. Let’s get back to “How are we saved” thumbs up Thanks for reply Love yah Canto Ed

 

[EdOsiecki]

I would prefer going to the author of the Bible rather than Google. I trust the Author, for He is the one who sustains and keeps me. Ralph

Per # 347 Randy, You are right. I apologize to you and this forum, I’m sorry! I ask for your forgiveness. I over reacted. That’s part of the santicfication process that God is still working on me yet. It’s like going to a dentist, God keeps on drilling, drilling and drilling to clean me up. Love yah Ed Let’s on with “How are we saved”

 

[EdOsiecki]

Ed-

Where is the sarcasm? My statements were straightforward.

I told Ralphy to do his homework. He didn’t.
I told him that HE needed to do his homework, because I can’t learn the material for him.
I told him how to find the answers using Google.
I suggested that he take up the matter again after he had studied it.

But thanks for judging me. (Now *there’s *sarcasm.)

Hi Randy, I accidently posted my reply on 349. Please go there for my response. Sorry about that. Thank you God Bless

 

[Canto]

Canto , I appreciate your reply. Also God’s Word warns much about “traditions” Col 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on “human traditions”

Catholic tradition is the word of God
Not the word of man

Gal.2:14, Even Peter had to be scolded by Paul, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.” I bet Peter didn’t like that but it was the truth.

I seem to remember St Paul doing a similar thing to St Peter. I’m sure St Peter had legitimate reasons.

Notice Paul calls Peter Cephas (c.f. John 1:42) which is the Aramaic word for rock.

Even Jesus also warns, about trusting man’s testimony John 5:33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth, 34 Not that I accept human testimony,etc.etc…” Mat.15:2-4 Jesus was asked, “Why do your disciples disobey the ancient Jewish Traditions” He replied, 'And why do your Traditions violate the direct Commandments of God?"

Again Catholic Tradition is the word of God

Could He be also speaking of idols? 2 Pet.2:21 states that men are not infallible. On a personal note, the above Scriptures warns me warns me not to trust my eternal life on verbal or written traditions by whomever years ago? Now that we love as Christian brothers ought to love. Let’s get back to “How are we saved” thumbs up Thanks for reply Love yah Canto Ed

Peter and the apostles were given binding and losing powers etc. This didn’t cease when they all died. It continued with their successors.

The Bible is written tradition, it tells us amongst much else how we are saved, the books were selected by the Church and she chose books that did not contradict oral tradition.