How does a Catholic increase the chance of getting into Heaven?

[CentralFLJames]

Their right relationship with God occurred at the time of belief in Christ. It’s their belief in Christ through Paul’s preaching the gospel to them that caused their salvation. It was their regeneration (made spiritually alive) by the Spirit that caused those Ephesian believers to publicly denounce their old practices (Eph. 2:5; read 2:1-10; also Col. 2:13).

Thank you for your opinion MD but you do not speak for God – the Catholic Church is the sole authority on earth to speak on Christian theology. The Catholic Church teaches what it has always taught – one must repent and be baptized to enter into a “right relationship” with God. You are just trying to justify your own personal theology that the Catholic Church tells you is an invalid belief. You seem obstinate in your desire to gamble your eternity on a personal theology that no apostle ever taught. You are teaching a different gospel than what the apostles taught and Paul cursed those who did that. No one deserving of a curse will gain heaven.

No, no conjecture is needed. It’s easy to see that their publicly acknowledging old practices is in conjunction with their being born again by the Holy Spirit at the time of their belief in Christ. Just as Paul writes:
2 Cor 5:17 “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, {he is} a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”
They acted according to their new identity in Christ.

You are describing baptism but there is no evidence that these were baptized therefore you can’t claim they have been born again unless you want to assume they were baptized. But you are the one who does not want to assume anything unless it is written so you can’t project your own assumptions and have a double-standard. The Holy Spirit comes when one is baptized into the Church – this is what The Church has always taught. But we do not see any explicit statement to that effect in these verses however it would be reasonable to assume that these that publicly repented were baptized soon thereafter. The fundamental theme we see over and over again is “Believe the Good News, REPENT and be BAPTISED”.

None of these actually speak of confessing sins for divine absolution in regards to one’s salvation (soteriological absolution).

Don’t be ridiculous. The phrase “so that your sacrifice may be pure” in the Didache is a clear case of confessing sins for absolution to be pure so one may receive the Eucharist worthily.

You are now rejecting the plain evidence out of pure obstinacy. You purposely ignored the other reference I gave of Hippolytus (who was known to be a “rigorist” about “too lax” standards that many bishops were giving for to absolving serious sinners – murders, adulterers and fornicators). Why did you drop that reference? Was it too explicit of evidence for you that he prays that God will accept his priestly authority to forgive sins so he can tend to his church? What part of this don’t you believe: And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins…" Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).?

Are you sure you are a “believer” MD? You seem to lack the basic facilities to overcome some organic suspicion, skepticism and mistrust at a personal level and are now arguing just to be obstinate. Something tells me that its not just a difference of theology but you would take a contrarian view on most any subject just for the sake of being argumentative.

The further away you get from the Apostolic age you see gradual theological changes. That’s why one must always go back to the theopneustos Scriptures for the ORIGINAL Apostolic teachings on sin, faith, salvation and eternal life.

And what I often see is Catholics reading their time developed doctrines into the the very early Patristic writings. Nevertheless, those writing are not theopneustos and hold no authority. We can learn something about what they may or may not have believed, but doctrine is to be developed from divine revelation only. It’s what separates and distinguishes true Christianity from all other religions on earth with their man-made doctrines.

This is your opinion again MD. You really do not have a historical clue to know what the early church did or taught. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that there was NO bible cannon for over 350 years after Christ and what really happened is what we hold in our sacred tradition and the scriptures were never intended to be a ecclesial discipline book nor a history book. If you want to know what the early church was really like – ask us Catholics since we are the same Church and know what changes we made to the original practices. They were mostly changes in the liturgy but the basic core mass-celebration is still formed on the early Church. It is ONLY YOU MD who seem to have a doubt about what the early church did – we Catholics don’t. We don’t need to try to use the bible as a history book because our Church and our traditions IS and ARE the history. If you insist on “being pure” in exactly how the early church celebrated – then go start having candle light gatherings in the catacombs and use the primitive liturgy and find a consecrate priest who will confect the Eucharist for you. But you don’t believe in real presence so why pretend you know a thing about what the early church did???

You believe in a religion that never was and never will be except for in your own mind MD. Your personal theology will gain you nothing on your day of judgment if you lack grace due to not repenting and being forgiven of grave sin. Willful obstinacy against the truth is grave matter.

At this point I do not believe further dialog is productive. You have an intrinsic problem with accepting evidence and are obstinate in your commitment to rejecting Catholic Teaching irrespective of the evidence you are given to counter your objections. The only thing MD believes is that MD is right and everyone else is wrong. I suppose in your frame of mind that makes you a “true believer”.

Congratulations - you are a church of one.

James

 

[SteveGC]

moondweller:

He didn’t say, “Repent of your sins…” In fact, that term isn’t found in the Scriptures. To repent is to change one’s mind, one’s direction.

Sin is having one’s mind on one’s self…to move in a direction away from God.

If you acknowledge that repenting is changing one’s mind - placing the mind on God…and changing one’s direction - making the direction toward God…then how can you say that when we repent, we are not repenting of our sins? What else is there to repent of? Is it not “sin”?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Send me a PM with the link to this; I would like to look more into that for future reference…thanks.

I actually like the part where we get to see how our sin affected or influenced each individual on down the line or vice verse how our good deeds influenced. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t recall any Scripture to support that.

MD’s editorializing of the Catholic teaching is in “the ball park” but has his regular counter-clockwise spin on things. Here is a link to the official teaching:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

Read the following 2 paragraphs:
I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
V. THE LAST JUDGMENT

The surrounding paragraphs are good to read too.

James

 

[brb2]

This is your opinion again MD. You really do not have a historical clue to know what the early church did or taught.

you don’t believe in real presence so why pretend you know a thing about what the early church did???

You believe in a religion that never was and never will be except for in your own mind MD. Your personal theology will gain you nothing on your day of judgment if you lack grace due to not repenting and being forgiven of grave sin. Willful obstinacy against the truth is grave matter.

You have an intrinsic problem with accepting evidence and are obstinate in your commitment to rejecting Catholic Teaching irrespective of the evidence you are given to counter your objections. The only thing MD believes is that MD is right and everyone else is wrong. I suppose in your frame of mind that makes you a “true believer”.

you are a church of one.

Dead on ! You have summarized Moondweller’s theology quite well. A theology that is disfunctional, disjointed, illegitimate theory.

Md … You ALONE compose your church of ONE. Your ‘Faith Alone’ = you alone. Claiming to be a BAC, yet you can’t find in Book of John & Bible any scriptures relating to Indwelling [Infusion] of Holy Spirit — which is the Sine Qua Non of true BAC status.

You alone, compose your ‘church of one’, a church you refuse to name for us , since it is hypothetical — nameless, desolate, and extra-terrestrial. Your hubris is a mile wide, and has caused your great fall and enmity with Christ’s Church & the legitimate BAC’s who belong to her.

When you change your screen name … we will know you have undergone true conversion. Godspeed, & may you make your peace with God’s Elect and His Church — before your final day.

 

[moondweller]

Dead on ! You have summarized Moondweller’s theology quite well. A theology that is disfunctional, disjointed, illegitimate theory.

Md … You ALONE compose your church of ONE. Your ‘Faith Alone’ = you alone. Claiming to be a BAC, yet you can’t find in Book of John & Bible any scriptures relating to Indwelling [Infusion] of Holy Spirit — which is the Sine Qua Non of true BAC status.

My dear friend, you claim to be a Catholic and you have no idea what “infused” means (I’ve corrected you on this before) which has to do with your doctrine of “sactifying grace” vs. “actual grace.” As for the Holy Spirit, He’s never said to be “infused.” In respect to the believer He indwells, baptizes, seals and regenerates but can YOU show me in the Book of John or any Book of the Bible where He’s “infused?”

You alone, compose your ‘church of one’, a church you refuse to name for us , since it is hypothetical — nameless, desolate, and extra-terrestrial.

Why are you soooo obsessed with knowing the name of my church fellowship? I wasn’t educated in the faith by it. You’ll never hear me say I go to such-and-such church and therefore I believe this and that. I know being Catholic you can’t at all relate to this spiritual freedom in Christ because you, a Catholic, ascribe all power to a separate entity you call “mother church.” But that’s not my relationship, nor will it ever define my association, with any church. What “I believe,” and more importantly, “in Whom I’ve believed,” has been communicated to you in the content of all my posts. But you’ll never be able to say, “You’re such-and-such, therefore you believe…” No church defines my faith. My faith is Biblical not ecclesiastical. My faith is in the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ, and my theological content is strictly Biblical.

Your hubris is a mile wide, and has caused your great fall and enmity with Christ’s Church & the legitimate BAC’s who belong to her.

Ah-huh, and Festus said Paul was out of his mind and his learning was driving him mad; but in return he testified to that unbeliever that he was not, but he utters words of sober truth. I do the same! And like Paul I wish that all would become as I.

When you change your screen name … we will know you have undergone true conversion.

I was truly converted when I believed and was born again, no longer in Adam but now forever “in Christ.”

Godspeed, & may you make your peace with God’s Elect and His Church — before your final day.

Because you believe my salvation depends on this reconciliation?

 

[SteveGC]

moondweller:

No church defines my faith. My faith is Biblical not ecclesiastical. My faith is in the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ, and my theological content is strictly Biblical.

And yet…that same Bible tells you that the pillar and bulwark of the truth…is…

the church

Would you not also agree that such a characteristic (pillar of Truth) should certainly be highly involved in defining our faith?

Are you sure you want to hold fast to the notion that such a fortification of the Truth does NOT define your faith? Surely you should be able to express to us just how it is that your “church” (whatever it may mean to you) upholds, protects and fortifies the Truth for you, yes?

 

[SteveGC]

md, how is indwelt different from infused? Makes no sense to me that you see these characteristics of the Spirit as opposed to one another.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner …

You came back just in time. Md needs your help on understanding the Gospel of John. Seems he’s never read in scipture about the ‘Indwelling of Holy Spirit’ … yet he claims to be bac [born again christian].

Can you help him with Gospel of John … on infusion / indwelling of H.S. ?

LOL…infusion: defined -

1. The process of extracting certain active properties (as a drug from a plant) by steeping or soaking (usually in water)
2. the act of infusing or introducing a certain modifying element or quality; “the team’s continued success is attributable to a steady infusion of new talent”
3. The Catholic’s righteous journey toward salvation; traceable to a steady infusion of Gods saving Grace

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.

Propitiation- “hilasmos” -

1. The act of atoning for sin or wrongdoing

20 meaning “that which expiates or propitiates” or “the gift which procures propitiation”. The word is also used in the New Testament for the place of propitiation, the “mercy seat”. Hebrews 9:5. There is frequent similar use of hilasterion in the Septuagint, Exodus 25:18 ff. The mercy seat was sprinkled with atoning blood on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:14), representing that the righteous sentence of the Law had been executed, changing a judgment seat into a mercy seat (Hebrews 9:11-15; compare with “throne of grace” in Hebrews 4:14-16; place of communion, Exodus 25:21-22).

Another Greek word, hilasmos, is used for Christ as our propitiation. 1 John 2:2; 4:10, and for “atonement” in the Septuagint (Leviticus 25:9). The thought in the Old Testament sacrifices and in the New Testament fulfillment, is that Christ completely satisfied the just demands of a Holy God for judgment on sin, by His death on the Cross of Calvary.

The reason why Catholic teaching uses infusion as opposed propitiation; which is exactly what the Bible and Septuagint actually and really teach; is that it is implicit to Biblical doctrine of Justification - by 100% grace through faith in Christ. The reality of what the Bible teaches destroys the co-joining of justification with sanctification as taught in the Catholic doctrines.

The result is an attack on Jesus’s work on the cross as being 100% sufficient and on the security of the believer, which would further result in loss of power and control over the faithful.

But hey; only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture and if they say propitiation really means infusion, then who are you O’man to question the divine authority of the “Church”.

Romans 3 -
for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed {Jesus} publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

1 John 4 -
By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation for our sins.

 

[Tanner9188]

And yet…that same Bible tells you that the pillar and bulwark of the truth…is…

the church

Would you not also agree that such a characteristic (pillar of Truth) should certainly be highly involved in defining our faith?

Are you sure you want to hold fast to the notion that such a fortification of the Truth does NOT define your faith? Surely you should be able to express to us just how it is that your “church” (whatever it may mean to you) upholds, protects and fortifies the Truth for you, yes?

Actually the better translation id “pillar and support” of the gospel, which is the truth. This is done through the preaching and teaching of the word of God.

support - “hedraiōma”:

1. the act of bearing the weight of or strengthening; “he leaned against the wall for support” or " to a new believer or weakened saint, an individual of the body, “the new convert or weakened saint leans against the mature believers for support and edification of his new life in Christ Jesus”

Bulwark -An embankment built around a space for defensive purposes. Used in the OT for putting up a defensive wall or structure.

The Douay-Rheims Bible
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.

So MD actually holds onto the truth of the gospel and is himself a pillar and support of that truth; since he himself is part of the body of individual believers, which is the church; just as I am.

 

[Tanner9188]

md, how is indwelt different from infused? Makes no sense to me that you see these characteristics of the Spirit as opposed to one another.

see post# 606

 

[Charlotte408]

What does a catholic need to do to increase their possible of getting into heaven when the die ???

thnx

well…i just read the first couple comments and they all say, conform yourself to God, confess, love Him, live by Him…etc etc…

but the first thing that came to my mind was as catholics our religion has the fullness of His truth, ALL of the sacrements… we are held to a higher accountability because we shoud know better…since we’ve been given the fullness of His teachings…

 

[Charlotte408]

lol…to clarify i dont think that it increases your chances just because you say you are catholic, you have to fully utilize the tools given to you, the bible, confession, etc…

kinda like, if you give to people the same job…and only give one person one tool (sacrement) and the other ALL the tools…ones gonna have somewhat of an advantage…

but even with all the tools were still just people…and just as likely to mess up as any other person…

 

[moondweller]

And yet…that same Bible tells you that the pillar and bulwark of the truth…is…

the church

Absolutely! But nowhere in the Bible is this church described as the Magesterium of the church of Rome. You impose that interpretation on to the text.

Would you not also agree that such a characteristic (pillar of Truth) should certainly be highly involved in defining our faith?

No. Nor does that Biblical verse state such a thing. The church of the living God, as a pillar, is to support the truth, the truth as revealed to us and preserved for us in the theopneustos Scriptures - the Scriptures define (doctrinally) my faith and reveal the One in Whom I’m to put my faith. Nowhere is it said that I’m to put my faith in “the church.” God’s Word is Truth and the job of the true church is, like a pillar, to support it - but it, itself, is not “the Truth” (Jn. 14:6).

Are you sure you want to hold fast to the notion that such a fortification of the Truth does NOT define your faith?

Certainly!

Surely you should be able to express to us just how it is that your “church” (whatever it may mean to you) upholds, protects and fortifies the Truth for you, yes?

Yes. It doesn’t “exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6), but weekly presents expository teachings on the written Word of God, supports missionaries in the field, encourages love of the brethren, communion of the saints, the observance of the Lord’ Supper with the saints, and meets the physical needs of its members and others as the Lord gives opportunity.

 

[moondweller]

md, how is indwelt different from infused? Makes no sense to me that you see these characteristics of the Spirit as opposed to one another.

What does your doctrine of infusion actually state?

 

[CentralFLJames]

LOL…infusion: defined -
…
1 John 2:1-2

Propitiation- “hilasmos” …-

The word is also used in the New Testament for the place of propitiation, the “mercy seat”…

Another Greek word, hilasmos, is used for Christ as our propitiation. …

The reason why Catholic teaching uses infusion as opposed propitiation; which is exactly what the Bible and Septuagint actually and really teach; is that it is implicit to Biblical doctrine of Justification - by 100% grace through faith in Christ. The reality of what the Bible teaches destroys the co-joining of justification with sanctification as taught in the Catholic doctrines.

The result is an attack on Jesus’s work on the cross as being 100% sufficient and on the security of the believer, which would further result in loss of power and control over the faithful.

But hey; only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture …
Romans 3 -

1 John 4 -

That’s all very interesting academic theory Tanner but it’s not what The Church ever taught. Your secular sophistry is an attack on reason.

It’s rather peculiar to us Catholics to watch a Protestant come into these forums and try to “jump through the Greek” so to speak to try to reverse engineer what it was the Church Father’s and the apostles actually taught and what the early Christians DID and believed. Although nothing on the planet comes close to the depth of intellectualism of Catholic theology we don’t really need to try to analyze scripture and come up with new Justification theories because we are the living traditional Church and still teach and DO the same things that the early Church did. You are trying to “teach” yourself into salvation - a useless scholastic work that will earn you the grade of “F” at the judgement seat of God if you have been disobedient to The Church and what Christ and the apostoles actually taught. God is not going to care that your theories "seem’ to make sense to YOU if they don’t actualy result in a conversion of the natural soul to the divine soul that is lifted up from its natural human gravity to spiritual death. There is no “formula salvation” Tanner in the sense you’d like to make Christianity. All you need to do is conform yourself to the same faith of our fathers - and that is the ONE faith of The Catholic Church - the same faith that has been handed down for 2,000 years. You will find no salvation in man made formulas and doctrines. You can prove in your own mind that 1+1=3 but it won’t add up to Eternal Beatitude if you are not OBEDIENT to Christ’s actual teachings.

Outside of the apostolic succession there is no religious teaching pedigree with any divine accreditation. There is some legitimate Protestant scholarship in history and generic theology and language analysis but nothing that is relevant to salvation except by what is plagiarized from Catholicism.

Also, FYI, your theories are all shot full of assumptions and gross errors. You are trying to compare grace to the Holy Spirit - its not exactly the same thing. Nor is Propitiation the thing you make it nor applied in the context you want to use it. I really don’t think you have a clue what propitation means or what the concept entails. You cast doubt on your credibility by even attempting to compare propitation to “infusion of grace” in a context of opposition. It’s an irrational and artificial comparison - creating a faux conflict for the sake of sophistic argument. One is cause and one is effect. You would slaughter and shred the written truth with rhetoric just to sprinkle yourself with a confetti of self righteousness to feel “justified”. But what matters is what changes INSIDE you.

For an exhibition on propitation you need to read Psalm 129. propitiation is God’s Divine Law of Mercy - a law of love vice a law of fear. The law of love gives forgiveness to sins, blots out the past, warns concerning the future; forsakes not its companion by the way, becomes a companion to him whom it leads on the way . But it is needful to agree with the adversary, while you are with him in the way (Matthew 5:25) - this is “The Way of Life” - and it is the Catholic Faith.

For the Word of God is your adversary, as long as thou dost not agree with it. But you agree, when it has begun to be your delight to DO what God’s Word commands. Then he who was your adversary becomes your friend: so, when The Way is finished, there will be none to deliver you to the Judge. Follow The Way Tanner - not the way of your own wishful thinking. You really must DO what Christ commands - and that means to not only obey Christ and His Church but to “be holy as your heavenly father is holy”. You MUST avoid sin and repent and be forgiven if you fall into post-baptismal sin.

See St. Augustine’s Exposition on Psalm 130.

Furthermore,if you want to quote OT you need to understand that it was all a prefigurement of what Christ was to fulfill and perfect. The Levitic priesthood, was a mere “shadow of the things to come”. It is just a faint type of the high priesthood of Christ – yet the complex sacrificial cult, prefigured the one sacrifice of the Cross. The OT blood sacrifice served only the legal “cleansing of the flesh”. The Levitical sacrifices could effect no true “forgiveness of sins”. That inefficacy becomes a practical prophesy of the perfect Sacrifice of propitiation on Golgotha. This was “participated” in at the Last Supper in the upper room - Christ even told us on the eve of his betrayal explicitly to recall this same sacrifice for all time. This is how we PARTICIPATE in that same ONE propitiation. The Catholic mass does exactly what Christ commanded and this is HOW a Christian participates in that same One Propitiation of the Sacrifice of The Mass in the celebration of Eucharist - a thing completely alien to you. Where do you go to be covered and imputed with the blood of Christ? You go to scripture - but Catholics go to the Upper Room to receive in an infusion of grace giving Divine Food that illuminates the soul and the intellect - and again in the same instant to the foot cross as Mary and John did to witness the blood and water flowing out of Christ’s side as the New Adam’s side is pierced and God creates the New Eve - His Church.

You just don’t get it Tanner. Get some scholarship - get out of Protestant Sunday School and start getting a real apostolic teaching from men who actually know what they were talking about and don’t have to recreate and revise The Way of Life from 2,000 years distant by using “totally depraved” and mentally conflicted intellects.

Pax,
James

 

[Tanner9188]

well…i just read the first couple comments and they all say, conform yourself to God, confess, love Him, live by Him…etc etc…

but the first thing that came to my mind was as catholics our religion has the fullness of His truth, ALL of the sacrements… we are held to a higher accountability because we shoud know better…since we’ve been given the fullness of His teachings. Always learning but never coming to the truth.

Hi Charlotte;

That is great for Catholics, but for the true church of Christ, which are the individuals who believe God and God has received - we actually receive the fullness of Christ Himself and all that it entails, which is His character and attributes. Believers know the fullness, which is Christ and all of His attributes and character, which we are called to imitate.

Consider what God says:
John the baptists testimony in John 1 -
For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.

Ephesians 1 -
And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. I wonder if this

Ephesians 3 -
being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us,

Ephesians 4 -
for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. - The fullness belongs to the mature believer.

As you can see the “unity of the faith” is not yet accomplished and will not be until the all the elect are called in, then there will, at that time, be perfect unity-but not for now, as reality testifies; even among the Catholic faith.

Colossians 2 -
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God

Notice, “removal of the body of the flesh” (AKA: Full Atonement of SIN) by the circumcision of Christ.

I’ll bet you believe the verse above refers to water baptism that moves original sin, but it is representative of the “believers water baptism” and just as circumcision symbolized man’s need for cleansing of the heart and was the outward sign of that cleansing of sin that comes by faith in God. Just as circumcision was unable to remove sin save; likewise water baptism is unable to save or remove sin, but is symbolic of a change in heart.

The true baptism that save is is the receiving of the Holy Spirit, not the dipping in water.
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Which baptism is the true and effective in regards to salvation? Here are your choices: 1) fire 2) water or 3) Holy Spirit?

People wonder why Jesus never did any water baptizing and why Paul made a very strong comment to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1:17 -
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void…by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

It is in Christ, which is all of grace, Who became to believers the justifier, sanctifier and redemptifier.; just as Romans 8 confirms.

Acts 15 -
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as {He did} upon us at the beginning. 16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as {He gave} to us also **after believing **in the Lord Jesus Christ,

When does one actually receive the Holy Spirit? AFTER BELIEVING

Acts 1 - (Jesus speaking)
Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” {He said,} **“you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit **not many days from now.”

Which baptism is the one that saves according to the Word? Is this the same as your “Church” or “religion” teaches?

So how do increase your chances of getting into heaven; deal with your sin against God on His terms, believe and submit fully to King Jesus and you will be saved.

 

[moondweller]

SteveGC:

If you acknowledge that repenting is changing one’s mind - placing the mind on God…and changing one’s direction - making the direction toward God…then how can you say that when we repent, we are not repenting of our sins? What else is there to repent of? Is it not “sin”?

Luke 24:44 "Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins (not repentance of sins) would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem (see Acts 13:38). You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."Notice in your question you agreed that “repentance” is a change of mind, a change of direction. But then you “repented” and said “What else is there to repent of? Is it not sin?” You changed your mind on its definition.

Peter stood before his fellow Jews through whom their Messiah was delivered over to crucifixion. In respect to their Messiah they had chosen their direction: that of unbelief. But after he’d testified to them concerning His sacrificial death and subsequent bodily resurrection, which they themselves had eye witnessed, they were “pierced to the heart” and asked, “what shall we do?” His response to them was to “Repent,” IOW, change their minds concerning the One whom they’d rejected and delivered over to crucifixion.

Repentance, this side of the cross, is always connected to turning from unbelief to belief in the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation (saved from one’s sins) through faith in Him:Acts 2:38 "Peter {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."What were they to do? They were to “Repent,” IOW, change their mind about Jesus and turn (their direction) from unbelief to belief.

But don’t misinterpret this verse. It would be their repentance toward Jesus, their turning away from unbelief to belief in Him, that would be the cause of the forgiveness of their sins. Baptism “in His name,” was to occur after the repentance, and was an outward, public, testimony of their inward faith in Him. Repentance “for” the forgiveness of their sins, not repentance “of” their sins was Peter’s message. In the Scriptures only those who first believed were subsequently baptized. I suppose, technically, if they repented “of” any sin, it was that of unbelief. They turned away from unbelief to belief. For only the sin of unbelief prohibits men from being saved, receiving the forgiveness of ALL their transgressions (Col. 2:13-14) and inheriting eternal life (Jn. 5:24). Only those who personally believe should be baptized.

 

[Charlotte408]

Hi Charlotte;

That is great for Catholics, but for the true church of Christ, which are the individuals who believe God and God has received - we actually receive the fullness of Christ Himself and all that it entails, which is His character and attributes. Believers know the fullness, which is Christ and all of His attributes and character, which we are called to imitate.

Consider what God says:
John the baptists testimony in John 1 -
For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.

Ephesians 1 -
And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. I wonder if this

Ephesians 3 -
being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us,

Ephesians 4 -
for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. - The fullness belongs to the mature believer.

As you can see the “unity of the faith” is not yet accomplished and will not be until the all the elect are called in, then there will, at that time, be perfect unity-but not for now, as reality testifies; even among the Catholic faith.

Colossians 2 -
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God

Notice, “removal of the body of the flesh” (AKA: Full Atonement of SIN) by the circumcision of Christ.

I’ll bet you believe the verse above refers to water baptism that moves original sin, but it is representative of the “believers water baptism” and just as circumcision symbolized man’s need for cleansing of the heart and was the outward sign of that cleansing of sin that comes by faith in God. Just as circumcision was unable to remove sin save; likewise water baptism is unable to save or remove sin, but is symbolic of a change in heart.

The true baptism that save is is the receiving of the Holy Spirit, not the dipping in water.
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Which baptism is the true and effective in regards to salvation? Here are your choices: 1) fire 2) water or 3) Holy Spirit?

People wonder why Jesus never did any water baptizing and why Paul made a very strong comment to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1:17 -
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void…by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

It is in Christ, which is all of grace, Who became to believers the justifier, sanctifier and redemptifier.; just as Romans 8 confirms.

Acts 15 -
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as {He did} upon us at the beginning. 16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as {He gave} to us also **after believing **in the Lord Jesus Christ,

When does one actually receive the Holy Spirit? AFTER BELIEVING

Acts 1 - (Jesus speaking)
Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” {He said,} **“you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit **not many days from now.”

Which baptism is the one that saves according to the Word? Is this the same as your “Church” or “religion” teaches?

So how do increase your chances of getting into heaven; deal with your sin against God on His terms, believe and submit fully to King Jesus and you will be saved.

ummm…I’m sorry, but the comment you quoted me on, if you read above, I didnt say some of that??? did you add words?? I even looked back…I never said other religions were ‘always learning but never get the truth’???



lol…sorry i just had to point that out…now imma go back and read what you put…

 

[CentralFLJames]

…
Notice in your question you agreed that “repentance” is a change of mind, a change of direction. But then you “repented” and said “What else is there to repent of? Is it not sin?” You changed your mind on its definition.

…

His response to them was to “Repent,” IOW, change their minds concerning the One whom they’d rejected and delivered over to crucifixion.

Repentance, this side of the cross, is always connected to turning from unbelief to belief in the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation (saved from one’s sins) through faith in Him:
…
What were they to do? They were to “Repent,” IOW, change their mind about Jesus and turn (their direction) from unbelief to belief.

…

Is nothing in scripture sacrosanct to your proclivity to twist and bend it to make it conform to your own private theology MD? Good gracious MD! Show some reverence for scripture!

Your pattern of attacking practically every single Catholic teaching shows your true nature. You use the Catholic teachings as an an outline of what to try to contradict and redefine just to be different – just to be in opposition to the Catholic Church. That pattern betrays what you are all about MD. You are in deliberate, conscious and hostile opposition to Catholic dogma on virtually every of the apostolic teachings we have handed down to us from the apostles. If you were just a nerdy theologian interested in making himself feel relevant by inventing a new religion from scratch you would have new concepts and things untaught by the Catholic Church. But this is not the case. You have an anti-Catholic disposition and simply copy-cat and innovate almost a contrarian position against our theology, nearly point for point. Why do you hate The Catholic Church MD? What made you so obstinate in your commitment to counter-teach everything the Catholic Church teaches? You are well beyond reason now.

What you say here in editorializing scripture is just more of your same old nonsence and hyperbole. Prove that ANY of what you say here was ever taught by anyone in the early church. I have been asking you this for over a week now and not a single ECF quote has been given. MD, wants us all to believe him at face value in contradiction to everything that the early church taught and can offer nothing more compelling than his own anonymous opinion. Again, what is your pedigree MD?

It is absurd to now try to redefine “repentance” to mean a change of belief about Christ when the very first message we get from John the Baptist is REPENT of YOUR SINS. Mark 1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. After this we get Christ telling us to repent: Luke 5:32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Even the angels in heaven know that repentance is all about turning away from sin Luke 15:7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one **sinner who repents **than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent..

You have nerve MD if you think you can twist scripture and word semantics to redefine core Christian concepts and get away with it. Have you no shame?? Really, it’s well beyond ignorance - you are here DELIBERATELY obfuscating & twisting scripture. We see the pattern of “repent from sin” over and over ad-nauseum in scripture MD. You can’t say what you do with a straight face. Here in Luke repentance is tied to sin again. "Luke 17:3 If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. Nothing here about repenting by changing disbelief in Jesus MD. How can somone disbelieve in Jesus before He has totally revealed Himself yet??? That’s just nuts.

Here are some Patristics that rebut you again MD:

*Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…
**Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165). **

“The Pontifex Maximus–that is, the bishop of bishops–issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) **repentance, the sins **both of adultery and of fornication.’” **Tertullian, Modesty, 1 (A.D. 220). **

The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?" **Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, I:7-8 (A.D. 388). **

“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.” **Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397). **

Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30 - the faith we have must be a repentant faith, not just an intellectual faith that believes in God. Repentance is not just a thought process (faith), but an act (work) by which we ask God for His mercy and forgiveness.

John 21:15-17 – Peter is re-justified before God after he negates his three-fold denial of Jesus with a three-fold confirmation of his love for him. Jesus then charges Peter to feed the Lord’s sheep. Peter was justified, loses his justification, and regains it again through repentance and love. Did Peter fail to believe in Jesus? NO! He was simply human and was afraid for his own life and sinned but repented of HIS SINS.
*

Are you stepping through the Catechism Table of Context on a search-and-destroy mission to attack each and every Catholic teaching MD? You have not made a single argument that has prevailed against Catholic teaching. If you are going to try to gain salvation via your intellect you need to take lesson from the old “Cool Hand Luke” prison warden "MD, You gotta get your mind right!”

James

 

[Tanner9188]

MD’s editorializing of the Catholic teaching is in “the ball park” but has his regular counter-clockwise spin on things. Here is a link to the official teaching:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

Read the following 2 paragraphs:
I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
V. THE LAST JUDGMENT

The surrounding paragraphs are good to read too.

James

I beg to differ; here is the link to the true teaching.
searchgodsword.org/