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

[moondweller]

Everything that occurs in an infants life is done with ‘force’. His parents make decisions (out of love) for him for his sake because he cannot.

Nevertheless, there’s no free will expressed, is there? However, not everything is forced on an infant. Parents don’t force feed it, they patiently waits until it’s hungry and it willfully receives the food. But your church, through its parents, via baptism, does force its “faith” on it.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not telling anyone to do anything; that is your own interpretation.

Of course you are, Tanner. Every time you exhort us to “search the scriptures” and be like the Bereans, you do so in the imperative (command) mode. You are most certainly telling us what to do.

And, you also exhort and warn us that, if we don’t understand the scriptures the same way that you and MD do, it is because we don’t have the indwelling “teacher” and therefore are not guided into the same truth that you have.

  I encourage folks to search the scriptures to see if what anyone, especially myself, says in relation to what the Bible teaches and discern for yourself.

Poor method, because it rests upon the frailties of man.

The Bible does not “teach” Tanner. Teaching is an activity that requires a person, and is authorized by God to His flock for the building up of the Body. Jesus did not intend for the sheep to go into scripture and establish for themselves what was right doctrine. He taught the right doctrine to the Apostles, authorized and gifted them, and commissioned them to teach the truth. You are rejecting the Truth He committed to the Church, the Truth He promised to preserve among them.

So if a lay person can do it; then where is the “mystical power” you all so tightly associate the “key” and the power to permit or forbid, loose and bind. The is no mystery or mystical power as some suppose;

The lay person is authorized to do a great many things, but this does not include separation from the Apostolic Succession. There are plenty of mysteries in the Christian faith, and mystical power as well. Frankly, I am astonished anyone would say this who also claims to believe in miracles. However, there is nothing mysterious about the authority He appointed over the Church, except in your mind. It may seem mysterious to you because you have rejected it.

really is not very complicated, but when you take a verse out of the Bible and impose onto what you want it to say and ignore the whole of Scripture and ignore the practical example I presented, then you can build entire religious systems on this by interpreting the Bible

It is good to see that you understand this principle. One day, perhaps, you will see that this is what your forefathers in the faith have done, such as the application of a past tense passage about predestination to the present.

Rather than letting God speak for Himself,

Jesus authorized the Apostles to speak for HIm, since He intended to ascend into heaven. He told them that those who received them, received Him. They gave this authority to their successors, whom you have rejected.

all false religions will crash and burn when the patience and long suffering of the Lord has expired.

Is this your prediction of what will happen to the Catholic Church?

One thing will will see with false religions, for example the JW’s and Mormons, is always a large body of information to explain the position they have taken against what the Word of God actually, really and practically says. Again, don’t take my word for it; search the Scriptures for their you will find eternal life.

This is an example of the imperative mode (command). You claim that you are not telling us what to do, but you have done it often.

The Catholic Church has a “large body of information” because there have been many prolific writers over a 2000 year period.

I think if you were to be intellectually honest, you would realize that the Reformed traditions have quite a great amount of extrabiblical writing as well. I dont’ think that Luther and Calvin were writing “against the Word of God”, though they were. They believed they were expounding upon it, and applying it.

Did you do an honest search of the Scripture as I suggested?

It was not a “suggestion” but a commandment! You question implies that an “honest search” will result in understanding it the way you do.

What was the major error the Jewish authorities were condemned by Jesus for? how would this relates to works; in light of faith? Works will not add to justification or merit saving grace as the Bible clearly teaches.

Actually, the opposite can be shown. Good works do cause us to progress in sanctification.

I agree, though the grace by which we are saved cannot be merited by any actions we can do. We are saved by grace, through faith, not of works, lest any of us boast. That grace that saves us also produces good works in us. These works are not to be separated from the grace by which we are saved through faith.

Verse 10 is important, but not in the context of showing the apparent contradiction between James and Paul; however it is a good clue to how the two can be reconciled.

It is also clear that the Apostles never separated the good works from the grace by which we are saved.

 

[Thing]

I did not know that, the once a year sackcloth. I don’t believe I have heard anyone ever mention that before…thanks. Does the Pope set the example and put on Sackcloth?

Yes, everyone does. Go into any Catholic Church on a Saturday and you will see them.

 

[guanophore]

I have addressed this in numerous spots, but for your sake I will do it again.

Your evangelistic zeal and commitment to making converts is truly commendable.

It is not what I say that should be seen as true unless you first are able to verify it from Scripture;

The reason this is false is because scripture means different things to different readers. People often look into it, and verify what they believed before they looked. You have said as much yourself. You have clearly stated that this is what several people posting here have done.

if what I say is true because God said it was true, then embrace the Scriptural teaching;

It seems like you believe that your understanding of the scripture is equivalent with what God thinks.

The Scripture does not “teach”. Teaching is an office and a gift given to persons by Christ. You have been “taught”, and are now here trying to “teach” us to believe according to what you have embraced.

then show me why it is not so I don’t make the error again.

I think you have made it quite clear that you are not here to learn anything, and have no use for any “Catholic Answers”.

few people use the Scripture to verify much; therefore you have all kinds of bad teaching not from God.

Although I agree that we have all kinds of teaching that is not from God, I think Sola Scriptura is the source of this.

 

[Thing]

Nevertheless, there’s no free will expressed, is there? However, not everything is forced on an infant. Parents don’t force feed it, they patiently waits until it’s hungry and it willfully receives the food. But your church, through its parents, via baptism, does force its “faith” on it.

Like food, the child is free to reject it at some stage, and many do later reject the CC.
But;
In your version of christianity, if I understand, where once you are ‘saved’ you cannot be unsaved; in that case you would have forced the child to be saved, not against its will but without its knowledge.
As you strain at the idea of baptising infants one can hardly help feeling that heaven must be something you personally must dread; as heaven is a place every child would rush to, its their natural home;
But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.

 

[guanophore]

I have proven I am able to take many many insults since I have been here; just like the one you are giving now; but I have the full armor of God and do not need to concern myself of the fiery darts thrown at me.

So, it seems you are equating the criticism you are receiving here with attacks from the devil.

Did God send you here so that you could take on those in the grip of evil?

It was only a suggestion; you could observe them and learn a great deal about how to actually attempt to defend your faith; you don’t need to follow my advice and I don’t really expect you to nor do I care. [/qjuote]

Actually, most of your “suggestions” appear in the imperative mode, causing them to come across more like commandments.

If you don’t expect or care if we follow your advice, why are you on CAF giving it? Do you so much enjoy the act of giving it that you fulfill yourself in doing so?
Tanner9188;5619918:

The only advice I would give that would bring joy to my heart would be if you and everyone else would search the Scriptures in regards to what anyone says or teaches to see if they are true.

I believe you are sincere in your conviction that this is the right course of action.

Unfortunately, reading the scriptures separate from the Apostolic TEaching that produced them is inherently problematic.

I’ll let God answer for you; would that be okay?

It seems like you really believe that what you are representing is what “God says”. Your understanding of Scripture, in your mind, is identical to His mind.

 

[Crimean]

Nevertheless, there’s no free will expressed, is there?

People are free to reject the Church and its faith when they are able to do so, just like every thing else in their lives.

However, not everything is forced on an infant. Parents don’t force feed it, they patiently waits until it’s hungry and it willfully receives the food.

There is very little that an infant experiences that isn’t forced. The clothes it wears, jabs it receives, etc. Things being ‘forced’ on to infants is just what happens, because a parent does things out of love and care for it – that’s what it comes down to. In the end ‘free will’ is what will determine whether or not the individual adheres to the Catholic faith throughout its life.

But your church, through its parents, via baptism, does force its “faith” on it.

Same as above.

 

[guanophore]

I would explain nothing to an unregenerate (a psuchikos, a natural man). I would present to him the gospel of Jesus Christ by which, through faith, he could be saved and receive the free gift of eternal life.

This is an interesting statement, considering how much "explaining’ you do here with all us “psuchikos” Catholics. I guess that means it is all really evangelistic in nature for you, since we are all unregenerate, and have to be saved first, before you could explain anything to us.

I would simply explain to him that, according to the Scriptures, as the "*Lamb of God*" the Man Christ Jesus died a sacrificial death FOR his sins that were, at that time, imputed to Him on the cross, and that He died, *once for all*, TO his sins, and rose bodily to new life on the third day.

Do you believe that the sins “became” HIs sins, so that He had to die “to” them?

 Just as Paul and his companions responded to the Philippian jailer when he asked: "*Sirs, what must I do to be saved*?"Acts 16:31 "They said, "***Believe*** in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,"

I think what gets missed here is the nature and extent of the belief. When Paul said this, he meant to believe in all that He did and taught. He meant a faith that obeys.

As I said. I don’t explain anything of the sort to an unregenerate.

I have to commend your zeal along with Tanner’s. To spend so much time and energy here on CAF with “unregenerates” like us shows a great deal of dedication to your evangelistic work.

  However, when an unbeliever turns from his unbelief and believes the gospel message concerning Christ, sin, the gift of salvation and eternal life, at the time of true belief he is *regenerated* by the Holy Spirit and having been made *spiritually alive* he knows he's saved.

This is a notion of Calvin, generated 1500 years after the gospel was taken into the world by the Church. It represents a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

It also sounds a bit like the “burning in the bosom”.

  He'll then grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and his salvation through other born again believers who have the gift of teaching and studying the written Word of God which reveals all "...*the things FREELY* given to us by God" (1 Cor. 2:12).

No, MD, Paul is not referring to only the written Word in this passage. Nor do the Apostles believe or teach that the revelation of God is confined to Scripture.

 There are no "*levels*" of belief in respect to salvation.  There are, however, "*false brethren*" who have professed belief.  These are the "*tares*" planted among the wheat by the enemy (Matt. 13:24-30)

Does this describe your perception of Catholics?

  the gravity of his sinful state having been convicted by the Holy Spirit of sin and judgment, and after hearing the gospel message of Christ regarding his sins, believes in Christ, yes, then of course, he is at that moment gifted salvation by God (Eph. 2:8-9) and created a new creature in Christ (v. 10).

I understand how this concept is derived. However, it is a departure from the Apostolic Faith.

One of the works of the Holy Spirit coming into the world is to convict the world of judgment (Jn. 16:8). That would result in a healthy fear of Hell. Which would be a very good and effective reason for turning from unbelief to belief in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life.

Yes, but not everyone is convicted, and not everyone is repentant. Yet, the grace is given to all.

No one is saved through a "*love of Christ*."

I am glad to hear you say this. In the past, you have asserted that no created thing can separate us from the love of God, as if that was a statement that we could not “lose salvation”. God does love us, He does so enough to allow us to walk thru the gates of hell.

 Salvation based on one's "*love of Christ*" is the Catholic "gospel."It's not a quantity of belief, but quality.

Hmmm…I think we are in agreement that a saved person loves God, and wants to be obedient to Him. As He said, if we love Him, we will keep his commandments. I agree, it is a quality of belief, not a quantity. When Paul writes “nothing counts but faith, working through love” he is describing our appropriate response to saving grace.

 Assurance of eternal life is based on divine revelation, the written Word of God (see for instance, Jn. 3:14-18; Rom. 6:23; 1 Jn. 5:9-13). True faith also results in believing God's Word as revealed in Scripture.  A false faith argues against it.The "*once saved*" is based on divine revelation.  It's understood when one believes....

This seems kinda circular. OSAS will appear scriptural to persons who believe that it is there in scripture. It is divine revelation to the persons to whom it has been revealed as true.

It seems that you are stating that the Catholic faith is a 'false faith", since we argue against your interpretation of scripture.

This belief and you own admission that you dont’ bother to “explain anything to the unregenerate” cause one to wonder why are you here?

It seems your entire purpose is evangelistic.

… Jesus Christ as revealed in the theopneustos Scriptures. As He said to the prophet Jeremiah:

Jer 1:12 "Then the Lord said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over My word to perform it.”
​

It is interesting that you believe God can do this in writing, but not in persons. It seems like your concept of God is too weak to watch over His Word alive in the Church.

And Peter wrote to his fellow Jewish believers:2 Pet 3:18 "...*but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ*. To Him {be} the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen."

Catholics do not separate the growth in grace from the initial justification by grace. That is why we consider them both aspects of salvation.​

 

[guanophore]

You see SteveGG; you guys can’t even agree on what Scripture means; Gunaphore says it is legislation type of matter of authority and nothing to do with a message or messengers.

Which really adds to the confusion. All you all sure you belong to the 1700 year unified church where the teaching hasn’t changed in 1700 years? Some mystical bubble you live in IMO - its insanity!

Perhaps I missed the point of the arguement? I have seen that you deny the authority contained in the keys, and in the Apostolic succession. It pertains to message and messengers to the extent that properly authorized messengers and messages are consistent and in unity with those to whom the keys, binding and loosing was given. Your spiritual ancestors departed from the keeper of the keys. They were not sent out authorized to preach and teach.

Nowadays, people just take it upon themselves that they are “sent” in the name of God, because “the Spirit bears witness” to the in their hearts.

Despite the simple and practical and realistic “what really happens in the observable world”; you still bury you heads in the sand; my gosh.

No, I do not, Tanner. I never claimed that all Catholics agree with each other. The unity is in the Apostolic Teaching, which never changes. We will be in unity to the extent we embrace the unchanging teachings of Jesus kept in the Church.

Perhaps this will help explain and open your eyes to what God really said.

Perhaps. However, what my eyes are open to right now is that your perception is what you believe equates to “what God really said”. You have overlapped your own perceptions with what you believe is the will of God.

Yep; solid “straw-man” argument and against the “Living, Enduring, and God Breathed Word of God”. Wouldn’t want to be in shoes of the person who puts up such a argument against God.

Not a bit! Those who receive the teaching of the HS through the Scripture will have beliefs consistent with those that wrote it.

Playing God are we; judging who God has sent and who He has not. Wouldn’t want to be in those shoes either.

No again! We know those whom He has sent because they are in unity with the ones He authorized to do the sending.

There are many groups out there that like to change His grace into something other than divine mercy by adding works or meritorious activities; such as rituals and traditions and/or sacraments and other religious activities they claim adds and “cooperates” to His “saving grace” that results in removing the “free” out of the "free gift"of grace.

I don’t think so, Tanner. I don’t believe there are “many groups” like this. I do believer that you think Catholics do this. But for us, these elements of salvation are not “added” as they seem to be from your perspective. This is because we do not stop reading Eph. 8 at v. 9 like you do . We continue into v. 10, and we see that the grace that saves through faith is the same grace that produces these meritiorious activities.

Rituals, traditions, and sacraments are given by God to lead us to Himself. I am not sure what “other religious activities” may be, possibly bible reading, prayer, fasting, etc.? These are also to lead us to heaven.

No, cooperation with God’s plan for our lives, and partaking of the Divine nature does not remove “free” from the gift of grace. On the contrary, it is the appropriate expression of gratitude and participation in His grace.

These ungrateful and Gift rejecting religious people claim to be partial givers of His gift; coming from within themselves through their works, thus denying the glory do to the true Giver.

I suspect this is how you describe what you believe Catholicism is.

Unfortunately, I don’t think you will be able to have this misconception corrected here. As James has aptly pointed out, you have an impenetrable foil over your head.

 If they make the wrong decision; then the anger of God will be poured out onto each individual that chose to reject or pervert the "free gift" of grace and He will be glorified in His wrath against them.  For He has promised justice and is faithful to His Word.

Sounds consistent with the rest of your evangelical activities here, Tanner.

 

[nuntym]

Hello again people, I’m back

You know what Tanner, I’m changing my mind: you are being guided by the Holy Spirit, because, well, I can scarcely believe it: almost every post you upload shows me (and I think every Catholic here) how right the Catholic Church is in her teachings…and your posts give us the reasons why. I think the Holy Spirit is guiding you to a grand big adventure in faith. Anyways, let me show you what I mean:

Let’s Talk About the Sacrament of Baptism

Which Baptism saves or Who saves?
Matthew 3:11 - (cf Luke 3:16)
"As for me, I baptize you with 1) 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 2) Holy Spirit and 3) fire.
**
Who saves? God! Which of the 3 shown above is God? Which is the true Baptism in the versus you cited above? The immersion or indwelling of the Holy Spirit into the believer. Do you see the consistent theme on relation to the saved and the Holy Spirit. Water does nothing to remove sin and is not a biblical teaching; it is God that saves, not water; how foolish IMO to give water some divine authority. Al we would have to do is bath every night before we went to bed and hope we dies in our sleep.**

Tanner, you remind me of General Naaman. The first time I heard about this guy was when I was a little kid, when I read his story in a picture book. Here is his story:

[1] Na’aman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master and in high favor, because by him the LORD had given victory to Syria. He was a mighty man of valor, but he was a leper.
[2] Now the Syrians on one of their raids had carried off a little maid from the land of Israel, and she waited on Na’aman’s wife.
[3] She said to her mistress, “Would that my lord were with the prophet who is in Sama’ria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”
[4] So Na’aman went in and told his lord, “Thus and so spoke the maiden from the land of Israel.”
[5] And the king of Syria said, “Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So he went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten festal garments.
[6] And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, which read, “When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you Na’aman my servant, that you may cure him of his leprosy.”
[7] And when the king of Israel read the letter, he rent his clothes and said, “Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Only consider, and see how he is seeking a quarrel with me.”
[8] But when Eli’sha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, he sent to the king, saying, “Why have you rent your clothes? Let him come now to me, that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel.”
[9] So Na’aman came with his horses and chariots, and halted at the door of Eli’sha’s house.
[10] And Eli’sha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.”
[11] But Na’aman was angry, and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and cure the leper.
[12] Are not Aba’na and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.
[13] But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, `Wash, and be clean’?”
[14] So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
[15] Then he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him; and he said, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.”
2 Kings 5:1-15 (RSV)

Tanner, read what Naaman said:

“Are not Aba’na and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?”

And read what you posted:

how foolish IMO to give water some divine authority. Al we would have to do is bath every night before we went to bed and hope we dies in our sleep.

How can I not say you are being guided by the Holy Spirit?

Tanner, when I first read that story all those years ago, even then I understood what it was all about. The water was not what cured Naaman, for if it was, any water from any river could have cured him; it was not even how many times he dipped in the water. The thing—rather, the One—who cured the valiant soldier was God. And the thing that triggered the cure was obedience to God. That is the moral of the story: obedience to God saves.

But that’s not all. For the Catholic Church properly understood this story to be the prefiguration of the Sacrament of Baptism. And you are right: just as in the cure of Naaman, it is not the water that saves us from the disease that is sin, but the power of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church accepts this much, and every Catholic who knows his/her faith will never say that the water has “divine power” by itself to save men and women. And yet what is it that triggers this power of the Holy Spirit? It is just as in General Naaman’s case, and it is what you fail to see, or maybe see, but cannot accept: obedience to God.

[5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
John 3:5 (RSV)

According to Jesus, even if the baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit are different, both are needed to enter the kingdom of God. Why include the baptism of water? I don’t know. The Church does not know. It is not our right to question why it must be so. But even if we don’t know why, we DO know that both are needed ordinarily to enter the Kingdom of God, because God (Jesus) said so.

continued…

 

[nuntym]

Now let us see, Tanner, if the Holy Bible passages you quoted supports your teachings or the teachings of the Catholic Church. I’ll use the reply you gave to James.

**James; I love you man! I never met anyone who could throw it out there and say poured (like as in abundance - like when Jesus poured out His blood) and filled, as in to the max, could be remotely related to infuse, process of extracting.

I do appreciate that you gave me a verse I have been seeking that really leaves no doubt as to the effect of water baptism concerning sin, it is the first act of obedience in the life of a new believer and coming from the lips of your King Peter. My how God can use anyone; praise God James!

The true baptism that saves is the receiving of the Holy Spirit, not the immersion into water.

Matthew 3:11 (cf Luke 3:16) "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? **

OK…and what happened after St. John the Baptist said this?

[13] Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
[14] John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
[15] But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
[16] And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;
[17] and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3:13-17 (RSV)

Hmm, does this in any way tell anyone that water baptism is NOT needed? Why did the Father say that He is well pleased with His Son? (clue #1: what triggered General Naaman’s cure again? clue #2: read verse 15) What does it say about water baptism when the Holy Spirit visibly descended unto Jesus AFTER he was baptized? Isn’t this descent of the Holy Spirit unto Jesus the baptism of the Holy Spirit you were talking about, Tanner? Is there any other part of the narrative of the Gospels where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are manifested through the natural senses to all present? Can you not see how IMPORTANT water baptism is?

You are quoting out of context again Tanner :tsktsk:

What did the apostles teach?

Indeed, what? Let us see.

Acts 1 - (Jesus speaking and teaching)
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?

I answered already which ones save according to the Word of God, Jesus Christ Himself.

Is this remotely close to what your “Church” or “religion” teaches?

Yes. For it is the Catholic Church is the same Church that received the Holy Spirit almost 2000 yrs ago during Pentecost day, which is what Jesus is talking about here. As you will see.

Nope

Are you so sure? Let’s see what St. Peter’s actions in your next quote say.

Acts 10 – (King Peter Speaking)
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit **just as we {did,} can he?”
**
Can you get more definitive as this? Well maybe, moving along in Acts and stopping for a visit in chapter 15.

Argh, tanner, you are quoting out of context again! Why are you always leaving out the parts that go against your own teachings? :tsktsk: For what happens after your quotation, in the very next verse?

[48] And he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 10:48 (RSV)

Now, can you see the teaching of the Apostles? **Even if the baptism of the Holy Spirit has already been given, the baptism of water must still be given, per Jesus Christ’s commandment because **both baptisms are needed to be saved. God said so!

[5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
John 3:5(RSV)

continued…

 

[nuntym]

Acts 15 - (King Peter speaking)
"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,

Yeah! God just gives that “listen then believe the gospel, then immediately receive” Holy Spirit - just like that, all of grace.

That is Acts chapter 11, not 15…but anyways…

Is that how it always goes, Tanner? Is that the most sure way of baptizing with the Holy Spirit? When One hears and believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the time the Baptism of the Holy Spirit happens? Always?

[14] Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
[15] who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;
[16] for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[17] Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:14-17 (RSV)

I want you to take note of these observations, Tanner:

1. The Samaritans received the Word of God (and that was most probably from Jesus Christ Himself; remember the woman at the well? (Gospel of John chapter 4);
2. Yet, they did not receive the Holy Spirit, contradicting your position, Tanner;
3. The Church had to send apostles (Bishops, not any ordinary disciple of Jesus) so that the Samaritans may receive the Holy Spirit;
4. The apostles John and Peter then laid their hands on them, and the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit.

Again,

[1]While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
[2] And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
[3] And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
[4] And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
[5] On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
[7] There were about twelve of them in all.
Acts 19:1-7(RSV)

And what do you know, there is such a thing as the Sacrament of Confirmation.

1300 The essential rite of the sacrament follows. In the Latin rite, "the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand (by the Bishop), and through the words: ‘Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti’ [Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.]."114 In the Eastern Churches of Byzantine rite, after a prayer of epiclesis, the more significant parts of the body are anointed with myron: forehead, eyes, nose, ears, lips, chest, back, hands, and feet. Each anointing is accompanied by the formula SfragiV dwreaV PneumatoV ¢Agiou (Signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti): "the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit."115
Catechism of the Catholic Church

And yet, the Catholic Church covers the possibility of what happened to the centurion’s family in Acts 15, for before adults are baptized, they undergo the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), wherein the Full Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed to the catechumens (the cadidates for baptism) prior both the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.

**Acts 2:38 - (In correct grammatical form and in accord with the whole of Scripture)
Peter {said} to them, "Repent and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

Notice the grammatical structure here? Repent (third-person singular simple present -repents) and receive (third-person singular simple present - receives) are present tense and go together, justt as baptized (Simple past tense and past participle of baptize.) and forgiveness (From forgiven + -ness.=Past participle of forgive.)**

So? During the RCIA the catechumens undergo what is called the Period of Purification and Enlightenment, during which they scrutinize for past sins and repent for them.

This period tends to correspond with Lent and is intended to be a period of increased introspection and coming closer to God. The aim of this period is to eliminate what is weak and sinful, and affirm what is holy. During this period the Elect undertake a number of Rites, including the Scrutinies and Presentations.
source

So now, Tanner, do you still really think the Sacrament of Baptism is still not needed?

another topic, another post…later…

 

[SteveGC]

Because of who they are, Who indwells them, and who their Father is.Can you give me a quote from one of my posts?You really have no idea how one is redeemed, do you?You’re the one expressing all the “notions” here.No. It’s exactly the word I meant to use. Here’s a just a couple of the many exhortations found in Scripture:Rom 12:1 “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”

Eph 4:1-2 "Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."These are exhortations to a spiritual, holy walk before the Lord. Not FOR salvation, but because of their salvation, because of who they ARE. Such a walk is volitional.I’ve always shared with you only what the Scriptures teach.

Have to apologize to you, moon.

I am involved in a few different threads, many in which I debate with those who espouse a sort of post-regenerate automation wherein the “saved” by their very nature WILL conform to the will of God without any need of exhortation. I erroneously overlapped threads. My apologies.

Just to be clear then of your beliefs on this matter…

The “saved” retain volitional exercise of their actions…and indeed can choose to not conduct themselves in the way St Paul and others exhort them to behave. And if they choose not to, their salvation is not jeopardized at all. They are simply being exhorted to live in this way because they ARE the “saved”?

Or is it that they indeed WILL choose to behave in this righteous manner, but their exhortation still exists because they do need to be introduced to proper behaviors?

Wouldn’t surprise me if I get this a bit wrong…help me clear up your position, if you will. And yes, I do indeed know how one is redeemed, thanks. I must admit I may not know what YOUR version of that is, however.

 

[paul_c]

Moondweller,
you are allowing yourself to get distracted in the free will discussion by infant baptism. In Catholic Theology, man makes the conscious decision to do God’s will or not at every stage of his life and does so continuously and based on those decisions, he will be judged and either allowed into heaven or condemned into hell. The fact that an infant who has not reached the age of reason can’t make those decisions for himself is obvious. But unlike your theology, the infant is not locked into heaven or hell simply because he was at one point justified.

Contrast that with your theology. At no point in his life does a man ever have a choice whether to be saved or unsaved. This decision was made prior to the beginning of time for him. And thusly a large component of humanity will suffer ever lasting pain without deserving or asking for it. How can this be consistent with a just and loving God?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Nevertheless, there’s no free will expressed, is there? However, not everything is forced on an infant. Parents don’t force feed it, they patiently waits until it’s hungry and it willfully receives the food. But your church, through its parents, via baptism, does force its “faith” on it.

I guess you take Jesus’ commandment to “Bring the Children to me” (Mat 19:14) as too forceful for your liking?

Are you playing Devil’s Advocate MD to give Satan his fair chance with the children?
Or are you just envious that deceased baptised Catholic children are getting saved before you get your fair chance to offer them your false ‘sugar-n-spice and all things nice’ neo-Christian sugar-candy gospel?

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs47/300W/i/2009/195/7/f/Child_Catcher_by_Dandy_Highwayman8.jpg
Piece of Candy Little Girl?

Time to go on a diet MD and get off the fluff and sweets neo-Christianity gospel. OSAS is deadly to your spiritual health.
1 Cor 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. *

James

 

[QuickCat]

I had a Catholic friend who died recently. I had presented the simple gospel to her several times and she rejected it everytime. I asked her how she planned to get to heaven. She told me, “I will tell God that I am sorry for my sins just before I die.” She was mowing her lawn and suddenly dropped dead. What do you think???

 

[CentralFLJames]

Of course you are, Tanner. Every time you exhort us to “search the scriptures” and be like the Bereans, you do so in the imperative (command) mode. You are most certainly telling us what to do.

I tried googling to “search scripture” like the Barens using “his terms and criteria”:
+True Christian +“Once Saved Always Saved” +“Anti-Catholic” +Secular +Reformed +Gospel

You will NOT believe where it landed! Right here on CAF in a thread called
Assembly of God: what do they believe?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=32766&page=2



Not kidding - try it.

James

 

[Tomster]

I had a Catholic friend who died recently. I had presented the simple gospel to her several times and she rejected it everytime. I asked her how she planned to get to heaven. She told me, “I will tell God that I am sorry for my sins just before I die.” She was mowing her lawn and suddenly dropped dead. What do you think???

I think your simple Gospel is bogus. Fundamentalism makes the forgiveness of sin merely a concealment of it, so to speak, and of sanctification a declaration of justification, or an external imputation of the justice of Christ. The true Church teaches that justification consist of an actual obliteration of sin and an interior sanctification: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity” (1 John 1:8).

The contrast between Fundamentalist and Catholic doctrine, as well as between Fundamentalist doctrine and Holy Scripture, here becomes very striking. For according to the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers become an interior sanctifying quality in the soul itself, which it makes truly just and holy in the sight of God.

Fundamentalist doctrine on justification reaches its climax in the proclamation that “fiduciary faith” is the only requisite for justification.

 

[paul_c]

I had a Catholic friend who died recently. I had presented the simple gospel to her several times and she rejected it everytime. I asked her how she planned to get to heaven. She told me, “I will tell God that I am sorry for my sins just before I die.” She was mowing her lawn and suddenly dropped dead. What do you think???

I think she was very wise to reject what you were trying to tell her: that all you need is belief in order to be saved. She already had that, so if that was the limit of the requirement she was saved, right? But she knew she needed more than that. She knew she needed to live out her faith by living a sacramental life and doing the will of God. And her goal was to humbly confess her sins before she died and beg for God’s mercy. A very Catholic thing to do. Now none of us can judge the status of her soul, but what she said is in keeping with Catholic theology and is certainly more than is required by Protestant theology, so if you are right, she is more than covered.

 

[SteveGC]

I had a Catholic friend who died recently. I had presented the simple gospel to her several times and she rejected it everytime. I asked her how she planned to get to heaven. She told me, “I will tell God that I am sorry for my sins just before I die.” She was mowing her lawn and suddenly dropped dead. What do you think???

Sounds like your friend was a CINO. But only God knows her heart, and may He have mercy on her soul.

CINO = Catholic In Name Only. aka non-practicing Catholic, still identified as “Catholic” because she was baptized and reared in a Catholic family (who also could have been CINO).

You didn’t think that all Catholics go to heaven simply because they can call themselves “Catholic”, did you?

You also don’t think that the Catholic Church taught her to reject the “simple” Gospel, do you?

Convenient for you to be able to identify Catholics by name when it comes to those who are obstinate in their disbelief, or weak in their faith, but probably don’t allot any of your time to identifying faithful Catholics who likely have a relationship with Christ deeper than any non-Catholic you know.

I’m always amused at people who call it the “SIMPLE” Gospel, who also rightly believe that the path to righteousness and to heaven is the narrow path that not all will find nor be willing to walk. Talk about an oxymoron. What exactly is the “simple” Gospel? IOW, what precisely makes it “simple”?