How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kortyr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pepcis, you made the following unequivocal statement to una fides regarding salvation:
One thing is for sure, the Bible (the real thing) states unequivocally that the ONLY way to get salvation is through mental assent/acknowledgment of who Christ is.
Now when I asked you the following question:
Do you believe that the millions of infants that have died are burning in hell? Do you believe that those who have severe mental disabilities are condemned to burn in hell as well?
You responded:
I believe that the Lord of all the earth will do right. Mine is not to question if His actions are evil if… I am happy to know that God cannot do injustice.
Which is really a non-answer. If you can unequivocally say that one can only be saved through mental assent and acknowledgement of who Christ is, then you should be able to answer my question regarding the salvation of infants. An infant cannot make a mental assent or acknowledge Christ. Does this mean they will automatically burn in hell for all eternity, since the only way to heaven is through a mental assent and acknowledgement of Christ? The Westminster Confession, an important and well-known Calvinist statement of faith, states the following:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Do you agree with this statement? Or do you believe that this is wrong and that all infants and others “incapable of being called outwardly by the ministry of the Word” will burn in hell because they did not make a mental assent or acknowledge Christ?

God Bless,
Michael
 
Hello JCrichton, sorry it took so long to get back. Lots of storms in my area and have busy . The book I got the facts on Luther is The Facts About Luther by OHare and I read the book so dont know of an internet source. The things said about him were taken from quotes of his in his writings. Mr. Luther was an Agustianian monk who was an alcoholic. He would pray his office 9 times in one day and then not pray it for the next 8 days. There would probably have not been much to do about any of his writings at the time , but the German princes saw a chance to duck the taxes imposed by the Pope at that time. By backing him they made lots of money, and as we all know money makes the world go round. In the year 397 the Catholic Church gave a definitive decison as to which books and writings should be in the bible and which should be rejected and every book in the protestant new testament today was put there by Pope Sinicus and the Catholic Bishops. Christianity was not ment to be learned from any book or 400 years of people lived and died without hope because the new test. did not exist at that time as we have it today. Jesus never said to write anything down. He founded a church and gave it a mission. That church gave us the Bible and she wrote it and has the right to say what it means. The protestant revolt was a thing that gave us all its varied forms by each one doing his own interpeting. In our own time it has given us such people as Jim Jones, Tammy Fay Baker, David Coresh, Loyd Russell, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Jimmy Swaggert, and a host of others each claiming they have the truth as they were guided by the Holy Spirit. I`m sure it was a spirit, but doubt it was holy. Well back to Luther. In 1520 Luthers version of the Bible came out. There was at that time the catholic bible had been written in Spanish,Italian, Danish French, Norwegian,Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, and English. There were exactly 104 editions in Latin, 38 in German, 25 in Italian, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the bible with 198 in the language of the laity. This all before the first protestant bible was sent into the world. Luther rejected 7 books of the bible because they did not suit his doctrines. He had arrived at the princpal of private judgement. Of picking and choosing religious doctrines and whenever any book like Machbeaus taught a doctrine contarary to his taste he rejected it. 2 Mach.12- It is a holy and wholsome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins. He not only cast out some but mutilated others. For example St. Pauls we are justified by faith, he added alone to change the meaning of the verse.In his own words he said " I know very well the word alone is not in the latin or greek text, but Dr. Luther will have it so and my will is reason enough." St. Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Luther wrote under his own audaicity." St. James is an epistle of straw with no character of the Gospel in it", also his words. He spoke disparigingly about St. Jude, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of St. John The bible came from the Catholic Church, not the other way around. A lot of this came from Raido Replies. Some really good books are, Crossing The Tiber, Stephen Ray a Fomer baptist, Where we Got The Bible, Rt. Rev Henery Graham, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David Currie Scriptual Roots Of Catholic Teaching, Chantal Epie, Surpiised By Truth 1&2, Patrick Madrid, Catholic For A Reason, Hahn& Supernant, Evangelical Is Not Enough & On Being Catholic, Thomas Howard, The Catholic Church And The Bible, Peter Stravankas, Cults And Characters of the Reformation & How The Ref. Happened, Hillaire Belloc The Prot. Ref. In England And Ireland, Wm. Cobbett. There are lots more out there so read and learn, it is a wonderful journey. I guess to some it is just a pethetic ranting. His will be done in all our lives. Garland
 
I confess I had never really studied what it was that “water” would mean, so your post provoked me to go back and take a much closer look. I found that I was wrong. “Water”, in this passage, is an ALLEGORICAL expression for the written word of God.

Also, just because those Bible scholars interpreted it that way 1500-2000 years ago, does not mean that they were correct…
Those Bible scholars from 1500-2000 years ago practically spoke the same Greek found in the Bible, lived closer in time to the Apostolic Age, and practically belonged to the same cultural millieu as the first Christians. All of the early Church fathers for the first 500 years of the Church unanimously taught that this passage refers to baptismal regeneration and this was the unanimous orthodox teaching of Christianity until John Calvin. Martin Luther himself upheld this historic understanding of the passage. So I find it difficult to believe that holy men and women of God were somehow unable to find this “allegorical” understanding of water. Why isn’t there a single voice of dissent? How is it that Irenaeus -who knew Polycarp who in turn knew John the Apostle - got it so wrong when he lived less than a century after the Gospel of John was written? And how is it that Martin Luther missed this as well?

God Bless,
Michael
 
BTW, I just want to clarify that the only sacraments considered really necessary for salvation are the sacraments of Baptism and Confession. They are necessary because they represent the normative means chosen and established by God through which He bestows the grace of justification. We first receive the grace of justification through the sacrament of Baptism, a fact taught by Scripture, unanimously taught by Christianity for 1500 years, and even upheld by Martin Luther.

Acts 2:38

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16

**16’Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’ **

If we fall from grace, God has established a second sacrament by which He restores that person to the state of grace, namely, the Sacrament of Confession. The same way God grants the grace of justification through the sacrament of Baptism, He restores a person to the state of grace through the sacrament of Confession. A penitent subjectively appropriates the grace God offers in the sacrament through faith and repentance. If his or her confession is not motivated by genuine faith and repentance, then he or she will not receive forgiveness of sins. A hypocritical confession is invalid. And the Catholic Encylcopedia’s article on the Sacrament establishes the following fact:

Satisfaction is not, like contrition and confession, an essential part of the sacrament, because the primary effect, i.e., remission of guilt and eternal punishment – is obtained without satisfaction

In other words, the grace of justification is obtained without satisfaction/penance. That’s why one performs penance after receiving absolution.

The other sacraments are generally for those who are already in a state of grace. They were established for our growth in grace and to strengthen and faith and love for God.

When I say the sacraments are “Christocentric”, I mean that they were established by Christ in order for us to have and strengthen our vital union with Christ. Through them we strengthen and deepen our relationship with Christ. Again, you cannot get more personal then receiving Christ Himself in the Eucharist. In the Sacrament of Confession the penitent is not boasting about any good works they have done in order to receive mercy and forgiveness. Rather, they are humbling themselves and recognizing their own sinfulness and asking for God’s forgiveness. They are turning to God and trusting in His mercy, not turning to themselves and trusting in their own works.

God Bless,
Michael
 
A lot of this came from Raido Replies. Some really good books are, Crossing The Tiber, Stephen Ray a Fomer baptist, Where we Got The Bible, Rt. Rev Henery Graham, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David Currie Scriptual Roots Of Catholic Teaching, Chantal Epie, Surpiised By Truth 1&2, Patrick Madrid, Catholic For A Reason, Hahn& Supernant, Evangelical Is Not Enough & On Being Catholic, Thomas Howard, The Catholic Church And The Bible, Peter Stravankas, Cults And Characters of the Reformation & How The Ref. Happened, Hillaire Belloc The Prot. Ref. In England And Ireland, Wm. Cobbett. There are lots more out there so read and learn, it is a wonderful journey. I guess to some it is just a pethetic ranting. His will be done in all our lives. Garland
Great ranting!! A couple other books I would recommend in addition to the ones you just listed would be “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keeting, and “A Scriptural Defense of Catholicism” by David Armstrong.
 
The problem that Protestants have is that they read too much into passages that do not explicitly state “salvation by faith alone” and they reject Scripture when it explicitly state that “faith alone” does not save!

I was just reading through St. John 15:1-8… it is interesting reading since Jesus is very adamant that only He is Salvation and only if we ramain in Him are we Saved… what is interesting is that He states that the disciples (most likely eleven of the twelve) are saved by His Word only to clarify, in the same breath, that they (we) must remain in Him in order to bear much fruit; He continues to clarify that those who do not bear fruit will be cut of the vine and will eventually be burned!

Conversely, in another passage Jesus speaks about Love and He Commands that we Love Him… yet, He does not equate Loving Him with “Faith” (beliving in Him) but in obeying His Commandments. (St. John 14:15-21) Consequently when Jesus states that not all who call Him “Lord” will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but those who do the Will of the Father (which is made known as “…He is my Son, listen to Him…” and other passages such as verse 8 of St. John 15).

Note also that St. John 15:1-8 is charged with action: Salvation is not a passive “feel-good” state of mind but an active and inter-active relationship with Christ, the Savior, and the world.

Finally, when we divorce Scripture from Scriptures almost anything can be claimed… when we read further than verse 3:16 (St. John) we get a complete picture of the full interaction that takes place:

3:16 those who believe in Jesus “may have” eternal life
3:17 God sent His Son that through Him the world “might be” saved
3:18 only those who do not believe in Him are already condemned–note that the same is not said about Salvation; it is definitive that those who do not believe are condemned while not definitive that those who believe are Saved! (Interestingly enough, if taken literally this passage speaks of Salvation for those who believe in the name of God’s only Son–just demonstrating how maleable a verse or two, taken individually, can be.)
3:19 This verse defines the world’s rejection of Christ (the Light)–no auto Salvation here but exact damnation.
3:20 This verse expands on the enmity that exists (see Genesis 3:15) between those of the world and God.
3:21 As the saying goes… action speaks louder than words: the Believers must seek the Light (Jesus), to abide (live) in the Light so that his/her actions (deeds/works) may be made manifest in the sight of God (through witnessing).

Not all who say “I am saved” are because Salvation is not determined by man’s will but by God’s who has determined that we are Saved in Christ through humble obedience to His Commandments!

Maran atha!

Angel
Well said. Yes, the “obedience of faith” is a key lesson of the NT. Not just how we are saved, but for what reason? To do the will of Go. Thanks for your reflections.

Vivat Jesus!
 
But the meaning of words are established by an objective standard. You don’t suddenly create a new meaning for a word simply because it contradicts your interpretation of a passage.
I wanted to come back to readdress this statement of yours. I’m trying to be as circumspect as possible given the information that is going back and forth in this debate. One thing that I am learning is that there are Catholics (such as yourself and una fides) who are genuinely interested in correct doctrine. You are shattering some myths for me!!!

But your statement here is not really correct. In Biblical interpretation, the importance is not only found in interpreting in the immediate context of the sentence and paragraph and chapter and book, but also in the greater context of the whole of the Bible.

I say that, because it is imperative that we develop interpretations that are consistent and do not contradict other Bible verses. That is why I facetiously implied that you would consider Jesus as lying in another verse. I know that you don’t hold such a position, but that would be the natural outcome if we were to adopt your interpretation of that verse.
40.png
mikeledes:
There is only one meaning for the word “forgotten” and I can’t believe that this is in dispute.
Well, the quandry is in the fact that you want to interpret LITERALLY, while I insist on an ALLEGORICAL interpretation. To be consistent in my interpretation that we cannot lose our salvation, then I must hold that this is referring to those individuals who come into the fold, even fooling themselves that they are true believers.

This is why Jesus can say that He “never knew you, depart from me you workers of evil.”
40.png
mikeledes:
You have given me an example of the word forget being used in a dishonest way.
I’m sorry that you feel that way. I hope that by carefully explaining my position that you will come to understand that I am being quite consistent and honest in my approach to the Scriptures. Even though I have been tempted to call your approach “dishonest” I have not done so, because I do believe that you are being sincere, and attempting to adhere to your own Catholic perspective.
 
I find it interesting how you pick and choose which of my statements to respond to.
I “pick and choose” according to which statements are on topic. 🤷 I also tend to shy away from statements that are not supported by more than opinion, or would take a significant time to develop a response that would be appropriate in length, or would otherwise not engage in rabbitt trails. 😛
una fides:
Perhaps you could comment on where your Bible came from and the other points I raised, but then again, they are a little off topic, I’ll admit, but I would be interested in reading your response so I do invite you to send me a PM so we can discuss that further!
We can take a couple of posts to develop that. But primarily, my difference with you on this subject is that you want to stand by the idea that it was the Catholic Church that gave us the Scriptures as they are canonized today. Whereas I would tell you that, Yes, it was the “Catholic” church, but Catholic as defined “Universal” which is the Church that Christ founded, and not a physical representation as typified by today’s Catholic heirarchy.

To go into this would be an entirely different topic, and would envelope many off-topic discussions. We could start another thread if you would like to, or if you want to do a PM conversation. I would not devote as much time to it, but I would be glad to engage you if you really wanted to.
una fides:
The many vastly different and contradictory interpretations of protestants cannot possibly be from the Holy Spirit.
Just because I differ with you on interpretations doesn’t mean that you are doing it with evil intentions. However, if you stop and think about it, Christians can shut the Holy Spirit out of certain areas of their lives, and thereby operate in the flesh. These same Christians will live godly lives that show the Holy Spirit’s influence in other areas, but they will miserably fail in other areas. Christians are not perfect, and that’s because they fail to cooperate with God in all areas of their life.
una fides:
If [all those contradictory interpretations of protestants were from the Holy Spirit], they would agree at least on the “fundamental” issues. But then again, there is no agreement as to what issues are and are not fundamental.
I disagree. The “fundamental” issues are those which pertain to salvation. Anything that effects salvation is a fundamental issue. This is why Protestants tend to speak so terribly of Catholics, because they believe that Catholics are messing with salvation when they operate by works.
una fides:
I remember an old pastor of mine telling me that faith in a pre-tribulational rapture was one of the fundamentals of the faith that had to be believed by all Christians!
And I would stand with YOU against him. Besides being terribly wrong in his interpretation regarding eschatology, he is wrong to state that belief in dispensational theology has anything to do with salvation.
una fides:
You have been asked to cite and list these “various sects of Catholicism” and you have not done so. There is only one Catholic faith. I am assuming your feeble attempt to divide up Catholicism into different groups is based on such unimportant criteria such as whether or not incense is used in the Mass or whether the priest faces ad orientem or towards the people.
That is no different than what the book that you cited does. Tit for tat. 😛 😛
 
Let me explain a little about mortal sin . . . First, we are not robots. God gives us a free will, and man has the ability to radically separate himself from God by freely choosing to act contrary to God’s grace.
I do not believe that “man has the ability to radically separate himself from God” because that would be contrary to what God promises in His Word.

The parable of the sower is instrumental in helping us to understand these differences between you and I. If you have ever planted seeds for any purpose (flower gardening, or producing fruit and vegetables), then you know that if you don’t plant the seeds properly, they will not produce what you WANT AND DESIRE them to produce.
  • That is why Jesus said that some seed falls unpurposefully on the side of the road, and gets trampled on. It would grow and produce fruit, but the birds come and eat what they find.
  • Some seed falls on rocky soil, but growing seedlings require sufficient soil for the roots to establish themselves, and to hold moisture, which is essential to its growth. These seedlings quickly withered away.
  • Some seed falls among the thorns and heavy weeds, which do not allow the seedling to get sufficient nutrition or sunlight, and they get choked away.
  • But some seed actually finds its way into good solid dirt, and the seedling grows quickly, and will produce 100 times its own!
Some people heard Jesus’ message, and they took it to their heart (put the seed in good soil), and they went forth producing much fruit. But there were others who took his message to heart for just a little while and then quickly gave up and so produced only a little fruit. Those people were representative of either rocky ground, or thorny bushes, or the seed that fell on the side of the road. Either the cares of this world, or the abundance of evil influences in their lives, or the lack of real interest in the message fails to produce any lasting fruit, or fruit that is poor in quality.

These are the people that Peter is talking about. Peter says that these type of people quickly forget that the message they “accepted” was about how their sins were forgiven, and how they could be accepted into the heavenlies. But these people walk away.

Paul said that these people had dull minds. They read and understand the words, but fail to comprehend the message. “But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” 2Cor 3:14-16"

These people hear the message, and Peter admonishes them to remember that the message they “accepted” has taken their sins away. If they embrace it truly (allow the seed to be placed into fertile soil) then they can add to it, and produce much fruit.
una fides:
When a man [chooses to walk away from God], he forsakes God, and our Lord does not force him to stay. God gave us a free will to accept or reject him.
I agree with this statement insomuch as it applies to those individuals who the seed was not planted in good soil. They are the “sunshine” Christians. They have never truly allowed God’s Word to take root in their lives. They are not true Christians, but simply wolves in sheep clothing.
una fides:
After rejection, when man repents, you say that it is solely the man?
It MUST be. If it were God, and God planted the seed in good soil, IT WOULD PRODUCE GOOD FRUIT. But if man can walk away, then it is clear that the seed never got planted in good soil. The man NEVER became a Christian.
una fides:
Yet, when you claim that a man becomes “saved” he is merely accepting a gift?!
It is “worse” than that. He doesn’t have a choice in his acceptation of salvation. It is like a man in the middle of the ocean. He has no means to get himself out of the water. He is COMPLETELY at the mercy of anyone who happens by. He cannot will someone to save him. If someone happens by, the man cannot force the stranger to help him. He is at his mercy. Either the man will save him, or he won’t.

It is the same thing with salvation from God. Man cannot WILL himself to be born again: “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13) He is completely at God’s mercy. "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy. . . " (Romans 9:18)
una fides:
Do you see the contradiction and double standard you are creating here?
When you are coming from an Arminian POV, I can certainly understand that, yes. But my Calvinist POV is in keeping with Scripture.
una fides:
When we repent of our sins and confess them as Christ has commanded we are cooperating with his grace.
Yes, but this is one who has not fallen from salvation, but from grace.
PEPCIS said:
But, if you must work to inherit eternal life, then you are working to “get brownie points with God.” 🤷
una fides:
You fail to distinguish between works of debt and works performed in Christ through grace. No matter how many good works a man does, God will never owe him anything. Good works performed outside of Christ do not benefit us. It is only when we work in Christ and cooperate
with his grace that we can merit, meaning gain a reward for our labors in Christ.

If someone falls out of grace (according to Catholic dogma), then he is NOT IN CHRIST, therefore, he would be performing works OUTSIDE OF CHRIST. That is works-based, and has nothing to do with faith. If that person fell out of faith/grace, then he is simply a seed that was never planted in good soil, and is therefore a false professor.
 
"PEPCIS:
I confess I had never really studied what it was that “water” would mean, so your post provoked me to go back and take a much closer look. I found that I was wrong. “Water”, in this passage, is an ALLEGORICAL expression for the written word of God.
I admire your honesty in admitting you wrongfully interpreted that passage and that you did more research into it.
Thanks. I’ve learned that if I really want to learn, I must be always prepared to admit when I am wrong.
una fides:
Just to clarify, I recall that you were just claiming that your interpretation of the Scripture was the objective truth and that it was guided by the Holy Spirit so you knew that it was correct.
I believe that the Holy Spirit guides me in my Bible study, because I earnestly try to remain open to His leading. I have yet to be mislead by the Holy Spirit. 😃
una fides:
If you could interpret this passage incorrectly, how do you know you have interpreted the rest of them correctly?
I don’t KNOW that every single point of Scripture has been correctly interpreted by me. But I leave myself open to try to see whever I am wrong. That is the nature of Biblical interpretation - you must always be searching for the truth that God would have you to learn.

In this particular case, I simply blurted out that I had always taken the water to refer to human birth. I had never studied it. But after you challenged me on my interpretation, I decided to study it and see what it might be. There are some doctrines that we hold as “hills to die for.” Things like the resurrection, and the atoning work of Jesus’ blood. But I had never searched out the meaning in that passage, so I had no “hill” with which to defend my position.
una fides:
Do you also notice that all of your interpretations fit in with your baptist beliefs that you already hold and held before reading the Scriptures. Your reading of the Bible and interpreting various passages according to this understanding then supports your preconceived beliefs. If you talk with people from other denominations that base their faith on sola Scriptura you will no doubt encounter the same thing. I mean no insult by this, but just as a point of example, even Jehovah’s Witnesses, who know the Bible quite well inside and out, will tell you that it agrees with them and that they have the objectively true understanding of the Scriptures.
I understand what you are saying, but the manner in which Baptists develop their doctrinal stands on the fundamentals, and the way that the Jehovah’s Witnesses develop theirs, is totally different. The JW’s develop their positions by CHANGING the Word of God, literally, and then interpreting the changed Word of God (which really is no longer the Word of God). Baptists/protestants develop their understandings by adhering to established patterns of interpretation.
una fides:
For me, the only way to know that I have interpreted them correctly is if the universal Church has always understood them that way from the beginning.
If that were the case, then you would never have understood that Jesus was fully man, and fully God. That only came about in the year 451 in the Council of Chalcedon. Other Councils that followed in the centuries up to today, continually have FURTHER developed Church doctrine.
 
…is that that little icon that has dashes, spaces, and dots, oh my?
I can only guess what your meaning is here, and I don’t think it is worth my time.
40.png
jcrichton:
I think that you are confusing quotations with summation–here it is: quotations are used to cite a person/statement word per word; summation is used to render a succint review expressing a conclusion. The beauty is that a summation may be challenged while it is improbable to do the same with a quotation…

If you differ with any of my summations, please feel free to challange them–but understand that you are providing the material from which my summations are made.
Let me help you out a bit there, J. My disagreement with you is that you did a poor job (deliberately?) in your summations, so that your posts were literally filled with myriad Scripture quotations, and I was left to wonder how you were even tying them all together in a reasoned fashion.

I don’t have time to sift through that. If you want to debate me, don’t try to throw all your “proofs” at me without any clear exegesis of them.

You have the next move. . .
 
Do you see it? Saul was a very devout believer, his faith caused him to loath Christ’s disciples… his faith, though not empty, was confused–faith alone could not save him; Saul had lost the object of his Faith and his actions demonstrated that rather than receiving God’s favor he was spinning his wheels and had taken a direction contrary to Salvation.
No, I don’t see it. Actually, you are the one that is not seeing it. Saul had faith, but it was not “saving faith.” Saving faith must have the proper object in order to truly be saving faith. Just as Paul taught those Gentiles who had a monument to the “unknown god”, Paul did not have the known God as his object of faith. He needed to put Christ as His object. That is what happened on the road to Damascus.

Once Paul received the correct object to have faith in, he was saved. Until that time, he was murdering God’s children, and he was on the path to hell.
 
"PEPCIS:
Then you would be concluding wrongly. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a Catholic would miss the point. John 3:16 clearly states that “whoever believes [in Jesus] will have everlasting life. . .” Faith, according to Scripture, is a pre-requisite to everlasting life.
But it is not equated to Salvation.
Well, I never said it was. In fact, if you read all of my posts, you can’t but help come away understanding that salvation is a conglomeration of many facets all coalescing into the final accomplishment of life/living with God. There are several things that are required to salvation: regeneration, faith, conviction, confession/repentance, etc, etc.
40.png
jcrichton:
True, you must have Faith in Christ–but that is only the beginning… could you imagine Jesus making it so complex when all He had to tell Nicodemus: ‘…have faith and you’re saved…’ or to the rich young man: '…just have faith and you are saved…" Complexing as it may seem to you, Jesus did not say have faith but Taught them that they had to (the first) be born again and (the second) obey the Commandments, give up temporal values, and follow Him!
Actually, He did tell them to have faith. With Nicodemus, He told him that the only way that he could be saved was by being reborn, a spiritual washing that would open his eyes, and bring him into the state of belief and understanding.

With the rich, young ruler, He told Him that he had to get rid of all of his possessions and to follow him. It reminds me of the story of the Frenchman, Blondine, a famous tightrope walker. One day, he was crossing the Niagara Falls, and upon completion, he bragged that he was the greatest. The crowd was enamored with him, and they shouted to him that he was the greatest.

“Do you believe that I can take a man accross this rope on my back?”, he shouted back to them.

“Yes, yes, we believe!!!” they all shouted in unison.

You, sir, climb up on my back!! he said as he pointed to a young man in the front.

The young man refused, despite the fact that he was shouting in agreement with the rest of the crowd.

Belief, true belief, only takes root when it follows the commands of Christ. The rich young ruler claimed to believe that Jesus was the “good” teacher who had all the answers. Yet when Christ told him to jump on his back, the man refused. He didn’t truly believe.
 
jchricton:
Your analogy is flawed–Salvation on Faith alone is much like a car without wheels; they are both useless. Yet, while the wheels are a functioning part of the car (till technology advances beyond the need of wheels) “Faith” produces not a single work:
And your proof for this incredible statement is??? What?

When you make such incredible statements, you ought to be prepared to back them up.
 
I say that, because it is imperative that we develop interpretations that are consistent and do not contradict other Bible verses. That is why I facetiously implied that you would consider Jesus as lying in another verse. I know that you don’t hold such a position, but that would be the natural outcome if we were to adopt your interpretation of that verse.
What other verses cannot be interpreted to fit with the only translation of “forgot” that makes sense? I was expecting this response because it is the typical for baptists to claim that the Bible teaches, x,y,andz, but in reality it is only there interpretation thereof. If you present these other “clear” verses, you will see that they can be interpreted much easier to fit in with the obvious understanding of this passage in discussion rather than stretching it to mean something that it doesn’t. I hope our exercises here in biblical interpretation at least help you to see that one’s initial belief in doctrine shapes how he will interpret various verses. If you just start with “the Bible” and work your way out, you will not come to one unified understanding of doctrine but thousands of variations. When you start with the teachings of the apostles and their successors in the early Church, which were preserved by the Holy Spirit, then you will come to one unified understanding of Scripture that will make so much more sense.
Well, the quandry is in the fact that you want to interpret LITERALLY, while I insist on an ALLEGORICAL interpretation. To be consistent in my interpretation that we cannot lose our salvation, then I must hold that this is referring to those individuals who come into the fold, even fooling themselves that they are true believers.

This is why Jesus can say that He “never knew you, depart from me you workers of evil.”
Actually the verse doesn’t say those individuals were “true believers.” It says they forgot that they had been cleansed from their sins. Christ says to depart to all those who are outside of him either through a lack of faith or through falling into grave sin and betraying him after baptism, when they were initially cleansed of all their sins.
 
"PEPCIS:
There are many thousands of Christian groups/sects/religions/denominations which claim to have the “correct” interpretation. Very true. Among them are the Catholics.
And what sets apart the Catholic faith from all the rest is the fact that it actually began 2000 years ago and traces its founder not to a religious innovator (i.e. Luther, Calvin, etc) but to Christ himself who founded the Church and promised that against her not even the gates of hell would prevail.
Of course, catholics believe that their church is the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter, but there is no absolute manner that it can be proven that Peter was her first pope.

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants agree to the existence of a Christian community in Rome and that Peter and Paul “lived, preached and died” there. We simply reject that this signified the foundation of the Catholic Church, or that Christ’s unction to Peter (Matthew 16:18) was the installation of the first Pope.

There are Baptist churches (Landmarkism) that claim apostolic succession, and claim that only they are the “true Christian Church” and any outside of them are false and in danger of judment and hell, just like Catholics do. In fact, their claim is that their origination precedes that of Roman Catholicisms founding!! Here’s a little secret: I don’t consider them another denomination, but I do consider them quite confused. I do consider them Christian, just like I do Catholics.

So, in conclusion, there is no doubt that there was a vibrant Christian community and beginning from the time of Christ, and that there were several communities of believers that spread out from that. When the first Pope was installed is another matter, and it really has no bearing on the concept of the Universal Church. Christ established a Universal Church, which consists of all believers throughout time, from the Old Testament saints, to all the Christians who have ever lived, and will ever live to the time of Christ’s return.
una fides:
That’s a great observation. I completely agree that if no one else is interpreting the teachings of Christ the same way you are then there would certainly be a problem. Something for us to keep in mind is that there have been people around for the past 2000 years interpreting and living out the teachings of Christ as best as they can know how. Now imagine that you lived in about AD 100 around when the last book of the Bible was finished being written. You would expect to find the Christians all over the world in the various Churches that the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles founded to be generally speaking teaching and holding to the same foundational doctrines correct?
I only partly agree with that statement. For sure, the command from the apostles was to avoid those who speak contrary to what they had previously taught them. But at the same time, there are plently of doctrines that had not been developed at that time. Eschatology was a doctrine that has existed from the time of the apostles, but it continued to be refined until today. Of course, there are “refinements” which are abominations, such as Dispensationalism.

Another doctrine that had not been taught or developed significantly was the doctrine of hypostasis, or what is known as the hypostatic union - Christ being fully God, and fully man.

There were other doctrines that had not been fully developed or discussed, but as each of them became controversial during their era, they were dealt with.
una fides:
The thing is, when we read the accounts of the generations of the successors appointed by the apostles regarding baptism and these other foundational and fundamental teachings you do not find any of them agreeing with a figurative interpretation of water baptism.
I’m not so sure, and I can’t say that I’d really be interested (at this time) in going that far in history to determine if what you claim is true. Let’s just say that I take your word for it. So what?

Of course, you would answer that there is no way that these church “fathers” could be wrong. I would disagree. I would say that they were great Bible scholars, but that they were hindered in their understandings by cultural concepts and the like.

The Old Testament has a prophecy which states: ‘Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:25-26).

Why is it that the “heart of stone/heart of flesh” is ALLEGORICAL, and the “cleanse from all your impurities and desires for your idols” is a SPIRITUAL work, but that the SPIRITUAL work is only preceded by a PHYSICAL/LITERAL occurence? This is not proper Biblical interpretation.

I’m not engaging in all of your comments because to do so would be a bit redundant. I think that what I have stated here is sufficient to the debate so far. And I hope you forgive me, as I am not trying to slight any part of your argument. I am reading all of it.

Thanks!! and God Bless,

Mark
 
I never said that you claimed the Catholic Church to be the anti-Christ, but if I did wrongfully assess any of your thoughts or sounded as if I did, then I apologize.
No problem. I just wanted to make sure I clarified myself, and that I’m not your typical Protestant. 😉 😛
una fides:
Nevertheless, if you think about it, I don’t really see how you can view the Catholic Church as a “true Church” yet say that she has false doctrine.
It’s kinda like the saying “I come from a dysfunctional family.” That’s a ridiculous saying. WE ALL COME FROM A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY. Why is that we all come from a dysfunctional family? Because of sin. I don’t know anyone who came from a fully functional family. What is “functional” and what is “dysfunctional”?

It’s the same as churches everywhere. There is some dysfunction in nearly every church that ever was. We only have to read Revelation to to see that. A church can have good doctrine on nearly every issue, and then have one area where they are wrong. That makes all their doctrine suspect, but it doesn’t make them NOT a Christian church.
una fides:
She herself claims that she does not have false doctrine and that she is the only true Church.
“She” as in, all of the people who are in the controlling heirarchy of the Church. I can proclaim myself to be the official Pope, but that won’t make it so. All of the Church’s claims are based upon presumptions that emanate from Matthew 16:18. That, of course, is another argument for another day, another forum. 😉
una fides:
She either is the true Church, which she claims she is and which she has claimed to be from the beginning, or she is not.
If you insist on putting it that way, which I’m sure you will, then the only true answer would be that she is not - assuming that those are the only two acceptable answers. But there is another answer: She is A church among thousands of the one Universal Church which Christ founded.
una fides:
And again, you didn’t exactly answer my historical assessment in which I pointed out what to me seems to be quite an unreasonable conclusion that Christ left his Church in absolute error immediate after founding her until 1500 years later people then began to discover the hidden teachings of the apostles that the Church dispersed throughout the entire world had missed from the death of the apostles until that time.
That’s because I don’t see that the church was in “absolute error”, nor do I think that people began to all of a sudden “discover the hidden teachings of the apostles”. The development and refinement of doctrine is an ongoing work.
 
"una fides:
We do not have a divine right to interpret Scripture any way we want.
40.png
PEPCIS:
I have never said anything to the contrary, and you have never shown how it is that I am wrongly interpreting it.
Actually I and others on this thread have pointed out the errors of interpretation that have been presented concerning sola fide, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve seen that light.
I haven’t seen any compelling argument against sola fide. Using tradition as a means of interpretation is dangerous because you can essentially make the Bible say whatever it is that you want it to say. For that matter, it has been done - several times by the Catholic Church. The inquisitions and the crusades are two that come to mind.
una fides:
Here’s a question for you. If you lived in AD 100, 200, 300, 500, or 1000, what local church would have the authority to teach?
Depends on where I lived. Athens? Antioch? Jerusalem? Each local church has the authority over their individual members. I would agree with you that there should be a higher authority that the Protestant Church should look to here on earth, but the closest that comes to that is each denominations ruling conventions. Those are not always firm enough in their pronouncements to suit my understanding of the heirarchy and authority of the church.
una fides:
Another thing to consider is the subjectivity involved in saying that a particular local church has been vested with the correct interpretation and divine right to settle matters of dispute concerning interpreting Scripture based on the criteria that it agrees with how you already interpret Scriptures.
I wouldn’t say it like that. Each local church is responsible to ensure that their members are abiding by the governing authority of the Bible as a rule for how to live. In the Protestant tradition, there is autonomy to proceed according to the dictates of your conscience. I don’t always agree with how the conscience rules men, because some consciences are devoid of spiritual harmony. That is why I do appreciate the Catholic heirarchy.
una fides:
Also consider what happens when you change churches. I don’t know your history or whether you’ve been baptist all your life, but if your interpretation of Scripture changes or perhaps if you are confronted with another denomination’s teachings that appeal to you and you then decide to change churches, then this new church denomination now has been given a divine right to settle matters of dispute in Scripture?
True. That is why I do appreciate the heirarchy of the Catholic Church, because there is much harmony. But I much more appreciate the freedom of conscience that Protestants live under, because without that, there would be inquisition after inquisition.
 
PEPCIS said:
I have never said that my church is the only one with the correct “objective interpretation.”
una fides:
Actually what you said is that you know your interpretation is correct because it is the only objective approch.

Not quite. I’m satisfied that my interpretation is objective. Objectivity is, to me, the height of assurance. If you can show me where I have failed in my interpretation to be objective and true to the Scriptures, then I’d be glad to concede, AND to change my position to reflect the truth. That’s the beauty of the Protestant faith in its truest form - that you can change your mind according to the strength of the argument as it pertains to God’s Word.
una fides:
And if the local church you belong to has the right to settle matters of disptuted interpretations of Scriptures, then you would obviosly be believing that they agree with your only “objective approach.”
I am with a Church now that I do not agree with. But I think that it is safe to say that you could not find a handful of Catholics that would agree with every official pronouncement from the Pontiff.
PEPCIS said:
In the end, out of the thousands of different church’s/people groups/etc, there are very, very few differences of interpretation of God’s Word.
una fides:
Actually there are very many differences on virtually if not all of the fundamental issues of the faith.

On ALL the fundamental issues? Really? I guess we might differ on what is “fundamental” then.
una fides:
This statement tells me that you likely either haven’t studied the various interpretations and teachings from the many different protestant sects or that you are merely downplaying their number for the purpose of your arugment. I’m suspecting it’s the former. Just to let you know, before I converted to the Catholic faith, I had gone to the following protestant churches or schools and had heard and studied their various different teachings: episcopalean, charismatic, pentacostal, baptist, presbyterian, several “non-denominational” churches, fundamentalist, church of Christ, and I’ve also been exposed to many other protestant sects and their teachings as well. They disagree on whether baptism saves you or is just and ordinance, whether to baptize infants or not, salvation by faith alone, faith and works, faith and works and baptism, faith and works and speaking in tongues, faith alone which also includes believing in a pre-tribulational rapture, faith which also includes only reading from the KJV, I could go on and on listing various things I’ve heard and read and been quoted Scriptures in support.
I am well aware of much of those teachings, and more. The difference is that you are UP playing them, while I am DOWN playing their importance and differences. The differences on these are huge when you look at only the differences, instead of where we agree on the FUNDAMENTALS.

For example, nearly all Christians universally agree that you must have Christ as the object of your faith in order to be saved. Nearly all Christians universally accept that Christ actually died on the cross, was buried and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and sits now at the right hand of the Father’s throne.
una fides:
Here’s a text that some pentacostals use to say that if you are not baptized by the Spirit and then speak in tongues, then you’re not saved.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. But as I said, you are UP playing them to support your contentions that there are vast differences between the Catholic Church and all other Protestant denominations. I am simply saying that on the fundamentals that nearly all Christians agree.

In this particular instance, it is safe to say that both the Pentecostals and the Baptists agree with the Catholics that you must be baptized. Catholics add that you MUST be baptized in order to be saved, and Pentecostals add that you MUST speak in tongues in order to be saved. Both use Scripture texts as proofs to satisfy their position.
una fides:
You’ve probably seen or heard of the Christian serpent charmers who also use these verses as proof texts to support their practices.
Once again, that is not a “fundamental”.
una fides:
When you’re only source is your interpretation of Scripture, it is so easy to come to so many different conclusions and believe wholeheartedly that they are correct. That’s why Christ did not leave us alone to interpret Scripture. He actually left us with one Church with one set of teachings that can be traced throughout history back to the days of the apostles.
As I said, adding tradition as a source for interpretation, is adding SUBJECTIVITY to the equation. Subjectivity leads to error.
una fides:
Foot washing is a custom not a doctrine.
That’s my point in citing it.
una fides:
You must not have read what I said about being a baptist and where the baptist denomination came from and how that was a result of the passing down of their teachings throughout the generations. If you are a baptist, you are following baptist tradition.
Sorry, but I ignored it, because it isn’t the same as what Catholics do. Baptist tradition is based in Scripture. If it isn’t, then it should be ignored. Catholic tradition is in ADDITION to Scripture, and Catholics acknowlege this.
 
"PEPCIS:
The parable of the sower and the seed shows how the Word of God actually gets into the heart and life of a potential believer. He “believes” for a while, but then falls away by the cares of the world, etc. Were his sins forgiven him BEFORE he fell away from the faith?
There was definitely a work of grace achieved, yet this person fell away from the faith. I maintain that such a faith is a dead faith, because it is incapable of achieving any lasting effect. This person’s salvation was never perfected. Yet Peter could easily say to him that he “forgot” that his sins were forgiven him.
Salvation is not “perfected” until we are perfected.
That’s a small point that does not detract from my assertion. Salvation is something that we are to continue to work out with trembling and fear - for the duration of our lives. But the fact that this person’s faith was choked out, or trampled on, or withered away shows that he never truly owned salvation, but was one of the seeds which Christ spoke of in his parable of the sower.
una fides:
One can have a most sincere and genuine and strong faith, but you cannot take away free will.
I’ve said this in other threads: free will is an illusion. We do have a will, and it is “free” in the confines of its existence. But the Bible is quite clear that our wills our either bound to Satan, or they are bound to Christ. Either way, they are not “free.”
una fides:
People have the most sincere conversions, but later many decide they love sin or themselves more than God and loose their faith and fall away. They may also come back or may not. I am a living example that disproves the “true saving faith” will never be lost theory.
I’m not interested in trying to belittle your experiences, but I would sincerely disagree with you. My experiences were similar, but they have a different conclusion.
una fides:
Growing up protestant, I believed wholeheartedly in Jesus and the whole “accepting Christ as my personal savior.” I know I had a very strong faith and if anyone would have asked if I had saving faith, I would have believed completely that I did. At about the age of 14, I started hanging out with a bad crowd of people and departed from the morals I had learned and I forsook Christ and his teachings and lived life the way I wanted to without any regard for God at all. At about 18, a dramatic experience brought me back to seeking God, and I eventually mended my ways. Did I have saving faith when I was 13? Was I a Christian or did I just sincerely but wrongfully believe I was with all my heart? And if I was saved then, I most certainly after that denied Christ by my actions and regard for the things of God. A baptist friend of mine told me that God wouldn’t let me die in that state without returning to him because I had saving faith as a youth. I find that incredibly hard to believe with the many millions and millions of Christians that none ever had sincere faith at one point in their lives and then died away from God. Such a view demonstrates sincere ignorance as well as a sort of denial of man’s free will to choose God and then later choose to reject him.
Well, I tend to side with the Catholic Church when it comes to the views of Pelagius and Arminius. Apparently, you have a different perspective?
Furthermore, if one cannot know he is saved unless he has enduring faith and if one can at any time loose faith before he die, then you could only know if you are saved if your faith endures until the end. Most baptists however teach that you know you are saved at the moment you pray your prayer of salvation. But then again, there are many differing views on this issue in baptist circles, but such is no surprise.
Well, there are differing views on this subject within the Catholic Church too. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top