How are we saved?

[SteveGC]

Hi SteveGC, It’s me again ED, On post # 1 JJ59 a confused Catholic asked how to be saved, no one answered JJ59’s question, I did three times 214, 710, 922 doesn’t any one of the regular members care to answer? Also Post 921 SaltnPeppa thinks works are the way to salvation. I don’t think you agree with that? I gave SaltnPeppa my answer. Why aren’t the regular members answering that post? Isn’t it our Christian duty to save sinners from going to hell? There seems to be an obsession to squelch Ralph. Why? No offense meant, just asking. Ed

The OP’s post was answered as early as post #2. I would wager, without reading through the rest of it, that your post #214 was somewhere around the 200th response to him, most of which were Catholic responses. So, I’m not sure you are looking observantly at the details of the thread. Post 921 is just now being absorbed by the Catholics here reading it. You will soon enough see plenty of Catholic responses, correcting the assumptions in that post.

We’re focusing on ralph, and you, because you both are the most vocal, most stubborn in terms of your predisposition toward Catholicism, and the most belittling of our faith (atleast that’s my observation of this particular thread). That’s why the attention.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Ed, try as you may, it doesn’t work. Peter told them, “…knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.” What they had been taught was passed on through the Church. There was only the Catholic Church for 1500 years, then the Protestant reformation took place and men began interpreting scriptures for themselves. Then there were many interpretations and many denominations began. Now, who should a Catholic turn too? Should they hold to their steadfastness, or risk everything on a private interpretation? Which private interpretation is correct? Which interpretation comes from the unwise?

Protestants speak to Catholics as if they have all the answers, but their answers were conclusions based on private interpretations 1500 years later.

The Church hierarchy existed from the beginning and was setup by Christ. The Apostles kept this teaching with Apostolic succession and the imposition of hands.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

Where are the writings of all 12 Apostles? They had different assignments.

How could Paul interpret scriptures? He was of the hierarchy and he learned many things through oral tradition.

St. Paul also wrote about Jannes and Mambres, the two magicians for Pharoah. Remember, Moses’ staff, turned into a snake, ate their staffs turned into snakes. Jannes and Mambres are not written about anywhere in scriptures. The only way St. Paul could have known their names, was through oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

St. Paul also wrote about the rock that followed the Israelites, during the Exodus led by Moses. The rock that followed them, is not written about anywhere else in scriptures.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

Jesus rebuked several people for not knowing scriptures. That is an example of being rebuked by the Lord for misinterpretations.

You act as if a mother taught her son the Old Testament from writings she had. The Old Testament writings were kept in the Temple and synagogues. Women did not have full access to the areas the men had access too. He knew scriptures from his infancy, because they were read to them at the Temple and synagogues.

The Old Testament does give a very clear example of an official interpretation of scriptures being taught to the people.

Nehemiah 8

**1And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

2And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

4And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.

5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

6And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

7Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.**

So if the Old Testament needed an official interpretation, wouldn’t the New Testament need an official interpretation? Agree?

Look at Acts 8 and tell me, did the eunuch understand the writings of Isaiah he was reading? Not until Philip, of the hierarchy of the Church preached Jesus to him.

The canon of the New Testament was not defined in the first century. The writings of the New Testament were letters and epistles written over a period of time, around 60AD, and sent to individual Churches scattered all across Asia. Revelations is estimated to have been written around 100AD. All these letters had to be brought together at some point in time and among them were many other writings, some forgeries.

The men of Catholic Church prayerfully researched all the documents and defined a New Testament canon. Then the Church preserved the Bible until the 1500s. That’s when the Protestants took the Bible and began teaching themselves. That’s when many denominations began.

When scriptures tell Christians to hold fast to the traditions they learned, by word or epistle, and to avoid those dissensions, and to be of full accord and of one mind and judgment, they are telling us to hold to the first teachings and not the multiple teachings of Protestantism.

ProdicalSon1, In your opinion, Paul knew the names of Jannes and Mambres and Jesus is the Rock through tradition. I’d say because he was a very devote Jew and knew the Old T. Scriptures better than any of the Apostles. People LISTENED to Nehemiah read, there was no printing press. He’s not around who’s going to teach me? ED

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ProdicalSon1, In your opinion, Paul knew the names of Jannes and Mambres and Jesus is the Rock through tradition. I’d say because he was a very devote Jew and knew the Old T. Scriptures better than any of the Apostles. People LISTENED to Nehemiah read, there was no printing press. He’s not around who’s going to teach me? ED

The names of Jannes and Mambres are not mentioned in the Old Testament. A rock that followed the Israelites is not mentioned in the Old Testament.

Did you read Nehemiah 8?

Nehemiah 8

**1And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

2And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

4And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.

5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

6And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

7Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.**

Just as priests were available to teach the people then, there are priests of His Church who can teach us today.

 

[paul_c]

ProdicalSon1, In your opinion, Paul knew the names of Jannes and Mambres and Jesus is the Rock through tradition. I’d say because he was a very devote Jew and knew the Old T. Scriptures better than any of the Apostles. People LISTENED to Nehemiah read, there was no printing press. He’s not around who’s going to teach me? ED

No. the fact is, Jannes and Mambres are not listed anywhere in the OT so Paul had to have learned it somewhere else.

 

[EdOsiecki]

The OP’s post was answered as early as post #2. I would wager, without reading through the rest of it, that your post #214 was somewhere around the 200th response to him, most of which were Catholic responses. So, I’m not sure you are looking observantly at the details of the thread. Post 921 is just now being absorbed by the Catholics here reading it. You will soon enough see plenty of Catholic responses, correcting the assumptions in that post.

We’re focusing on ralph, and you, because you both are the most vocal, most stubborn in terms of your predisposition toward Catholicism, and the most belittling of our faith (atleast that’s my observation of this particular thread). That’s why the attention.

Hi SteveGC I didn’t realize that I, too, was a target to be squelched. The reason I’m very vocal because this is a Forum to discuss “How to be saved”. Is it not? It seemed to have gotten way out of control. The regular members should have nipped it in the bud and stopped it. I’m still going at it with ProdicalSon1 per 917, 928, 947. I don’t like to be made fun of (30,000 Protestant denonminations) any more than the Catholics here hate to have their past brought up. In my opinion, that kind of nonsense does more to separate us than who has the correct interpretation of Scripture. ED

 

[SteveGC]

Hi SteveGC I didn’t realize that I, too, was a target to be squelched. The reason I’m very vocal because this is a Forum to discuss “How to be saved”. Is it not? It seemed to have gotten way out of control. The regular members should have nipped it in the bud and stopped it. I’m still going at it with ProdicalSon1 per 917, 928, 947. I don’t like to be made fun of (30,000 Protestant denonminations) any more than the Catholics here hate to have their past brought up. In my opinion, that kind of nonsense does more to separate us than who has the correct interpretation of Scripture. ED

You’re not a target to be squelched, Ed.

You’re a brethren who has gained our attention, to be corrected by us as to what we believe.

You can claim we’re “making fun” and “targeting” you for silence…but that’s merely your misconception, or rather, the inevitable failure of your presumption that what you profess on here is truth.

You didn’t really think that Catholics were going to agree with you on much of this stuff, did you? Try not to interpret the disagreement as an attempt to “squelch” you. We seek to help you in any way we can. What makes it tough, is that you’re not here for help, you’re here to inject protestantism. Ralph, too.

That’s why we pay attention to you, so as to ensure that others who genuinely seek answers, actually find them.

 

[Philthy]

EdOsiecki;:

Thanks Philthy (Edited)

H

owever: my faith is in JESUS CHRIST who purchased and redeemed me by his precious blood. He took my sins upon Himself and in return imputed me with His righteousness. That I understand. I also understand that He (Jesus) was sacrificed ONCE and for all and He now sits as my High Priest at the right hand of God which allows me to have access to the Father. Because Jesus paid the ransom price for my salvation, He is the ONE and ONLY mediator between God and man.

All good stuff Ed, but it doesnt have anything to do with my post you quoted. You claimed you never heard about “the BLOOD” when you were Catholic, I called you on it by pointing out that it is preached at EVERY SINGLE MASS and your response is, what? This stuff above? I maintain that you were either poorly taught your faith or never bothered to learn it past a 6th grade level. Just my opinion - it doesnt make it correct.

IN CONTRAST! As I see it, your being so very highly intelligent place your faith in the institution of the Roman Catholic church, and in some of their non-Biblical teachings.

biblical interpretations are up for grabs Ed - ask any one of the dozens of Protestant interpretations of Scripture.

Such as, Jesus is sacrificed and re-crucified over and over again at Mass.

Uhhh, this isnt a Catholic teaching Ed - Jesus isnt recrucified. Like I said, you simply never knew the Catholic faith and still don’t. Yet you remain a self-described “expert” based on your impressive resume of having gone to Catholic grade school and serving as an altar boy.

I may be ignorant, as you say, only because I was taught by Roman Catholic nuns and priests while in grade /high schools, who , as well as I, have been prohibited from reading the Bible because the Roman Catholic church banned it untill 1964.

I didnt say you were ignorant. I said you were ignorant of the Catholic faith - your emotional ramblings here have considerably validated that appraisal.

Blessings

 

[golfjack]

Mark 16:16 is often quoted by Catholic’s to prove that water baptism saves. But what does this verse mean? First of all we have to believe to be saved ( faith), then we must receive the New Birth ( baptized). The dispute is over the word baptize. You see, even the devil can believe, but those who are saved, must be born again. If this word meant to be water, it would have said it.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[SteveGC]

Mark 16:16 is often quoted by Catholic’s to prove that water baptism saves. But what does this verse mean? First of all we have to believe to be saved ( faith), then we must receive the New Birth ( baptized). The dispute is over the word baptize. You see, even the devil can believe, but those who are saved, must be born again. If this word meant to be water, it would have said it.

     Peace,   Golfjack

That’s somewhere around half-right. Baptism is with water, no doubt about it. We don’t need it to be in Mk 16:16…it’s all over the NT, so an exclusion of the word “water” here and there doesn’t change a thing. And I don’t know about other Catholics, but I don’t use Mk 16:16 to show water baptism…I use the entire NT in context.

How about this:

Repent. Be baptized. Both of these together save (forgive past sin), because repentance implies genuine belief (faith), and baptism seals the Holy Spirit (grace) within, and adopts us as sons and daughters of God. Then continue in grace, availed through sacraments, granting us strength in our faith and capacity to cooperate with God’s will through good work (obedience). Allow Christ to work in you for those you encounter, extending His mercy, love, charity, and justice. Repent and confess of all future sin. Do this until the last breath.

That’s salvation.

 

[Philthy]

]If I received a very poor education, I got it from the Roman Catholic priests and nuns.

 

[paul_c]

EdOsiecki;5292831:

Of course its their fault Ed. What are you supposed to do…actually read a book for yourself? What an outrageous idea. Gosh I feel so sorry for you Ed that your grade school teachers didnt do a better job teaching you because, I mean, how else would Eddie learn anything? I mean the Catechism is expensive! Its like 8 bucks and its really confusing! Yes Ed, its everybody else’s fault and you are innocent. You dont have time to actually investigate what the Catholic Church teaches - you are too busy with your apologetics! Your time is much better spent trying to convince sincere, educated Christians about what they should believe the bible says based on your private interpretations.

Ya Ed, thats makes plenty of sense - keep up the good work!

I am flattered - thanks for the free advice Ed! I think I’ll pass - though its not because I dont think Paul is a worthy role model.

You must be an old geezer Ed! Your talkin’ about 50 years ago, right? I cant blame you for just giving up, I mean there’s no way to know what they are saying at Mass when its in Latin. Knowbody knew what they were saying, right? You might actually have to be interested enough to look at an English translation of the Mass which is available in every English speaking country in the world - thats too much to ask. Of course the Catechism has always been around in English…plain English…not that funny King James stuff. :yup:

Blessings

Actually, the catechism is available on line so it doesn’t cost you anything: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[EdOsiecki]

SaltnPeepa,
Your post is a little confusing, you say you must work for your salvation and then you say everyone will be saved anyway. Isn’t this a contradiction?

Its a nice thought that everyone will be saved, but it is absolutely refuted in scripture. For instance, in matthew 7: 12-23

Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets. "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.

The Catholic view on salvation is as follows:
To gain eternal life, you first need to be demonstrate your faith by being baptized in the name of Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. By this act, your sins are forgiven through god’s mercy and the reconciling actions of Jesus on the cross, you become a member of the Church and you get sufficient grace to be saved. However, salvation is not assured at this point. You now need to live your faith, doing the will of God by loving him and your neighbors as yourself. By doing so, you will stay in the state of Grace. If you turn from God thorugh sin, you can be reconciled to God and regain his graces if you confess your sins to a priest through the sacrament of reconciliation, repent and do penance in reparation for your sins. If you die in the state of grace, you will be given eternal life in heaven (although your entrance my be delayed while you are purified in purgatory to reach the level of holiness required in heaven)

As a universalist, you may not believe in Jesus Christ. I will ask you a simple question then. What is the meaning of your life? We Catholics would believe that life is a journey and a test to see whether we will choose to do God’s will and go to heaven or to resist his will and go to Hell. This is completely based on our free will. The church was commissioned by Jesus through St. Peter to help us make the right choices and gain eternal salvation. This forum is one of the avenues to do that. Please take advantage of it.

PaulC, “do penance for reparation” what does that really mean? Also Phil 1:6 speaks of God completes His work in us. I take that to mean before we die. Heb 9:27 " Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment". I take that to mean, it’s too late to be purified after death. As a result of Purgatory, do Catholics then ignore 1John 5:13 never knowing that they have eternal life. Also 2 Cor 1:22 they are never sealed, guarateeing what’s to come. Could please elaborate. Thanks ED

 

[EdOsiecki]

Of course its their fault Ed. What are you supposed to do…actually read a book for yourself? What an outrageous idea. Gosh I feel so sorry for you Ed that your grade school teachers didnt do a better job teaching you because, I mean, how else would Eddie learn anything? I mean the Catechism is expensive! Its like 8 bucks and its really confusing! Yes Ed, its everybody else’s fault and you are innocent. You dont have time to actually investigate what the Catholic Church teaches - you are too busy with your apologetics! Your time is much better spent trying to convince sincere, educated Christians about what they should believe the bible says based on your private interpretations.

Ya Ed, thats makes plenty of sense - keep up the good work!

I am flattered - thanks for the free advice Ed! I think I’ll pass - though its not because I dont think Paul is a worthy role model.

You must be an old geezer Ed! Your talkin’ about 50 years ago, right? I cant blame you for just giving up, I mean there’s no way to know what they are saying at Mass when its in Latin. Knowbody knew what they were saying, right? You might actually have to be interested enough to look at an English translation of the Mass which is available in every English speaking country in the world - thats too much to ask. Of course the Catechism has always been around in English…plain English…not that funny King James stuff. :yup:

Blessings

Yes Philthy, I’m that old geezer you mention above. At 80 years old I’m still kicking shame on you. In Christ’ love EDs

 

[paul_c]

PaulC, “do penance for reparation” what does that really mean?

It means that we are responsible for rectifying our sins. For example, , if you are really sorry for having stolen something from someone, you will give it back. If you are not willing to provide restitution, then you are not truly repentent. The reason you might be uncomfortable with this statement, is that while Catholics are taught that they will be held responsible for their personal sins, many Protestants believe in the false doctrine of sola Fide, where you are saved by Faith alone, regardless of what you do in life. This doctrine has been thoroughly discussed on many other threads and shown to be contrary to scripture. In Matthew 19: 16-19, when asked directly what it takes to gain eternal life, Jesus did not say “: Have faith and that is enough” he said:

Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"

He further said in Matthew 7:21-23:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers

St. Paul in 1Corinthians 13: 1-3 says:

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing

And St James says:in James 2: 14-26:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Also Phil 1:6 speaks of God completes His work in us. I take that to mean before we die. Heb 9:27 " Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment". I take that to mean, it’s too late to be purified after death. As a result of Purgatory, do Catholics then ignore 1John 5:13 never knowing that they have eternal life. Also 2 Cor 1:22 they are never sealed, guarateeing what’s to come. Could please elaborate. Thanks ED

Sure Ed. I’d be glad to. God does complete his work in us. But it doesn’t have to mean before we die, does it? And man certainly does die one and after that to face judgement. But that judgement can be that we need to be purified before we enter heaven. You see, our sins can be forgiven without us becoming personally holy. But you must not only die in the state of grace but you must become personally holy to enter into the presence of God in heaven. As for assurance of heaven, we have no such assurance until we die and are judged because until the point of death, we still have the opportunity to repent and be saved or to apostacize and be condemned. This view is completely consistent with scripture.

In Philippinas 3:8-14, St Paul says,
. It is not that I have already taken hold of it or have already attained perfect maturity, but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it, since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ (Jesus). Brothers, I for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession. Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind but straining forward to what lies ahead, I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God’s upward calling, in Christ Jesus. Let us, then, who are “perfectly mature” adopt this attitude. And if you have a different attitude, this too God will reveal to you. Only, with regard to what we have attained, continue on the same course

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ProdicalSon1, In your opinion, Paul knew the names of Jannes and Mambres and Jesus is the Rock through tradition. I’d say because he was a very devote Jew and knew the Old T. Scriptures better than any of the Apostles. People LISTENED to Nehemiah read, there was no printing press. He’s not around who’s going to teach me? ED

Hello Ed,

I am waiting for your to respond to my post #928. I know you said Paul knew the Old Testament scriptures, but Jannes and Mambres are not named anywhere in scriptures, including the Old Testament. The same is true for the rock that followed the Israelites. I’m open for correction if you wish to provide the scriptures that names the magicians that worked for Pharoah or specifically speaks of a rock following the Israelites.

In my post, I also emphasized part of Nehemiah to show that there were those (Levites) that made sense of the scriptures and caused the people to understand, which supports the view that there was a “magisterium” that helped the people interpret scriptures.

As for your comments Ezra was not around to teach you, the priesthood is still around to this day.

 

[Philthy]

Yes Philthy, I’m that old geezer you mention above. At 80 years old I’m still kicking shame on you. In Christ’ love EDs

Kicking…and screaming!
I’m sorry if I offended you Ed, but your attacks on the Catholic faith deserve rebuttal. I have no doubt you are a nice, sincere individual with our best interest in mind. The only problem, as I have tried to point out, is that you think you know what the Catholic faith is, but you don’t and you never did.
I am impressed that you are online and keeping up!

God bless

 

[EdOsiecki]

Randy, This is Ed. After my going through some of the earlier posts, I say this very respectfully, I came to this conclusion, it seems to me that every time you see the words “water” “wash” or “baptism” you attribute them to water baptism that remits sins. Here’s an example of what you said on post 271: “After meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, Saul was struck blind for three days, and he fasted during that time. Then Ananias came to see him. Ananias did not preach the gospel to him nor did he ask Saul to recite the sinner’s prayer nor accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. Instead, Ananias said simply, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name’ " (Acts 9:16) “

That’s not true. This is what the Bible states: “ Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul (Acts 8:17) he said ‘ Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be FILLED with the Holy Spirit”. v18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized. He was not water baptized but was baptized in the Holy Spirit and healed by Ananias’ laying of the hands. As per Acts 8:17 PTL ED

 

[Canto]

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Water - now why would Jesus say water if he didn’t mean water?
If its symbolic why didn’t He just say be baptised with the Holy Spirit
The Council of Carthage (200s) and fathers before and after link this verse to Baptism

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.

36 As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being **baptised?” **

38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he** baptised **him.

 

[paul_c]

Randy, This is Ed. After my going through some of the earlier posts, I say this very respectfully, I came to this conclusion, it seems to me that every time you see the words “water” “wash” or “baptism” you attribute them to water baptism that remits sins. Here’s an example of what you said on post 271: “After meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, Saul was struck blind for three days, and he fasted during that time. Then Ananias came to see him. Ananias did not preach the gospel to him nor did he ask Saul to recite the sinner’s prayer nor accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. Instead, Ananias said simply, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name’ " (Acts 9:16) “

That’s not true. This is what the Bible states: “ Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul (Acts 8:17) he said ‘ Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be FILLED with the Holy Spirit”. v18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized. He was not water baptized but was baptized in the Holy Spirit and healed by Ananias’ laying of the hands. As per Acts 8:17 PTL ED

How do you come to the conclusion that he wasn’t water baptized? There is a discrete activity following the laying on of hands, isn’t there? He GOT UP AND was Baptized. This happened after the laying on of hands and after the scales fell from his eyes. Baptism has meant water baptism since the beginning. To deny it is to deny scripture.

 

[ralphy]

How do you come to the conclusion that he wasn’t water baptized? There is a discrete activity following the laying on of hands, isn’t there? He GOT UP AND was Baptized. This happened after the laying on of hands and after the scales fell from his eyes. Baptism has meant water baptism since the beginning. To deny it is to deny scripture.

If you take a look at Matt 20:22,23, you will see that baptism does not always mean water. Ralph