How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[HailMary]

He will now be baptised in the Catholic Church.

[SIGN]Praise God![/SIGN]

 

[HailMary]

Referring to:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2625634&postcount=28

He is probably referring to the salvation of the physical body. The bible is very clear that when you trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, you are saved and sealed, forever.

I am very sure, I will list some verses tommorrow. Many, of them.

Ok, I will conceid that. You’re right. Good explaination.

You have progressed into the truth but you will now how to determine what St. Paul was talking about in Romans 13:11 still since it was not the “redemption of the body”.

 

[jmcrae]

We absolutely strive for that perfection, but it is unattainable in this life.

Did Jesus give us a commandment that we are unable to obey, then, in commanding us to be perfect, even as the Father in Heaven is perfect?

What kind of cruel monster is Jesus, to make such a demand on us, if it is impossible to achieve?

 

[Linkowski]

Are you asking how a baby joined God’s people under the Old Covenant? Circumcision for boys, presentation for girls. That was what made the child a part of God’s people. Notice that babies didn’t need faith to be circumcised. Babies didn’t need faith to be admitted to the Old Covenant any more than babies now need faith to be baptized into the New Covenant. But under the false doctrine of “faith alone,” babies must go to hell when they die, since they cannot enter the New Covenant by exercising faith.

Was circumcision salvific as you make Baptism out to be? No it is not…

Romans 4:10-11 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, **a seal **of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

We are justified by faith and not by baptism…baptism does not accomplish regeneration as you might say…

1 Peter 3:21 NAS95 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There are no baptisms of infants in the Bible nor are we specifically instructed to do so…

 

[Church_Militant]

1. Baptised…check
2. Go to a bible believing church…Not only does the Church I go to believe in the bible, it wrote the thing!!!

 

[Church_Militant]

The Catholic Church does not blott out or reject Jesus. Even the Pope himself have written books about the Messiah. The current Pope wrote a book on his reflection on Jesus called "Jesus of Nazareth.

I don’t think that is what he’s saying Manny…
You seem to have taken it wrong.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

There are no baptisms of infants in the Bible nor are we specifically instructed to do so

Hello Linkowski!

Can you enlighten us as to where (chapter and verse, please) in the Bible is listed

1. the statement that the Bible is the “end-all, be-all book” for salvation and Christianity?
2. what rites are allowed or what are not allowed?
3. where the baptism of infants is excluded from Christian practice?
4. where every thing is listed (I assume you look to the NT more than the OT here) as what constitutes ‘Christian worship’?

You seem to know a lot of Scripture. Could you enlighten me, please?

Thanks

Robert

 

[Church_Militant]

What if you murder someone after that? Do you still automatically go to heaven?

Yep.

Wow, Jesus will disregard His own statements as written in the bible and exhonerate you regardless of how you live your life? That’s interesting.

That is crazy. Did you not know that nothing impure gets into heaven?

There shall not enter into it any thing defiled

, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb. Rev 21:27

A murderer cannot get into heaven unless he repents, confesses his sin, and attain forgiveness from God.

This is a dangerous doctrine, which I think you believe in OSAS, a doctrine dangerous for the soul because it gives a false sense of security.So…Frodo…since you reject the scriptural sacrament of confession, you are asserting that even without confessing that murder that this person still is welcomed into the Kingdom of God?

That’s not scriptural…

 

[Gamera]

Was circumcision salvific as you make Baptism out to be? No it is not…

No. I never said it was. No souls entered heaven until Jesus redeemed them. The Old Covenant didn’t get people into heaven. Re-read my post. I said that circumcision joined one to God’s people under the Old Covenant. A baby personally entered the Old Covenant by being circumcised — not by having faith. A baby who died circumcised was under the protection of the Old Covenant and would go to Abraham’s Bosom. I never said that circumcision washed away original sin. Only upon Jesus’ death did the Old Testament saints get admitted into heaven.

Do you follow me now? Babies were circumcised, and thereby entered into the Old Covenant, even though they lacked personal faith. So why can’t babies be baptized, despite their lack of personal faith?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Hello Linkowski!

Can you enlighten us as to where (chapter and verse, please) in the Bible is listed

1. the statement that the Bible is the “end-all, be-all book” for salvation and Christianity?
2. what rites are allowed or what are not allowed?
3. where the baptism of infants is excluded from Christian practice?
4. where every thing is listed (I assume you look to the NT more than the OT here) as what constitutes ‘Christian worship’?

You seem to know a lot of Scripture. Could you enlighten me, please?

Thanks

Robert

BUMP!

O Linkowski?? Wherefore art thou?

Robert

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Do you follow me now? Babies were circumcised, and thereby entered into the Old Covenant, even though they lacked personal faith. So why can’t babies be baptized, despite their lack of personal faith?

I don’t think Jesus believes they have a lack of faith. Just because they can’t talk to us doesn’t mean they don’t talk to Jesus. He knows their little hearts better than we ever could.

Matthew 19:14 - 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.

Parallel passage in Mark 10:14 Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. (D-R)

The Greek word translated “little children” here is paidion which means infants. I think Jesus is most assuredly pleased when people bring their newly born children to Him for baptism, and He welcomes them into His family.

 

[Church_Militant]

Why do you keep asking me if things are in the old testiment? What does that have to do with anything?

Humor me… It’s important, I assure you. Show me where the things I asked you about are in the Old Testament please.

As far as not finding any writings on certain things within the church, I told you that the catholic church persecuted Christians and murdered them for 1,400 years.

You’ve got a faulty source there. You need to verify all that from regular old history and not some book by someone who wants you to believe what they say.

I am sure that was sufficient time to destroy anything that they disagreed with.

This sounds good as a conspiracy theory, but you cannot support it from a valid non-biased historical source. But I welcome you to try…

Read the Fox’es book of martyres, before you do, look at the reference section. It’s quite extensive. You will be very upset with the Catholic church by the end of that book.

I have read it…but I have also read this…

John Foxe or Fox (1518-1587), a staunchly Protestant divine, wrote his book as this story seen from the Protestant point of view. The Acts and Monuments of the Christian Church, better known as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, was first published in English in 1563. (see Bibliographic Note). **In this enormously long history of the Church from the death of Christ to the accession of Queen Elizabeth I, he is anxious to prove firstly the complete hatefulness, evil and corruption of the Catholic church, the papacy and the monastic orders, and secondly to assert the right of the monarch to appoint bishops and clergy, and to dispose of church property and income at will. Everything (and that means everything) which supports this view goes in; everything which does not is either left out, glossed over, or rejected as ipso facto untrue because asserted by his opponents. If his sources support his prejudices, his credulity knows no bounds; he is as ready to peddle the myth of Jewish blood-sacrifices of Christian children as he is to believe in the foundation of the church in England by Joseph of Arimathea. **When he gets closer to his own times, however, his accounts are in most cases taken from eye-witness evidence or official documents and must be accepted as basically factual. There is no doubt that Protestants were savagely persecuted by Henry VIII and especially by Mary I and that this contributed to the fear and hatred which animates the book. The gruesome and enormously detailed accounts of the martyrdoms of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and all the other victims of Bloody Mary’s tyranny are sober fact. Nonetheless, any students tempted to regard the book as a work of history are warned to check anything Foxe says with some more even-handed historian before reproducing it. (We recommend Reformation: Europe’s House Divided by Diarmaid MacCulloch)

Here’s where that comes from.
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs – INTRODUCTION

I didn’t say that catholics reject Jesus. My concern is that they seem to add to salvation.

Ga 1:6

And your concerns are misinformed, as I have already demonstrated. In fact, the verse that you have cited more accurately applies to the Baptist (and all other post reformation n-C communities) which have their actual doctrinal original no earlier, (in spite of propaganda to the contrary) that about 500 years ago.

They weren’t Catholics either,** they didn’t have denominations in those days**

.Well, you know what they say about a stopped clock. Yet if you actually look at the history and compare it to the New Testament, you’ll pretty quickly discover that you have been taught doctrinal error.

I know you would like to think that your church is that church, but protestants believe that your church has deviated from the teachings of the first churches.

Yeah… but Protestants are dead wrong about a great many things, especially the fundamental doctrine upon which all the rest of their doctrines are based.

So… how could they possibly have arrived at right doctrines when they start off with a grossly fundamental error?

 

[Church_Militant]

I believe in an age of accountablity.

It is generally accepted that the “age of accountablity” is probably when the person is old enough to understand the gospel, but no one knows for sure.

We base it on:

2Sa 12:23.Your verse citation is twisted to support something that it does not even relate to.

You need to reconsider your belief.

Look at the wording you use in presenting it. “I believe in an age of accountablity.” and “probably when the person is old enough to understand the gospel, but no one knows for sure.”

 

[jabelltulsa]

The very word Baptizo, literally means:

1. baptizw baptizo, bap-tid’-zo
   Search for 907 in KJV

from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:–Baptist, baptize, wash.

Mt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Sorry…Should have been more clear…I know Baptism means fully emersed…I meant the part that reads “Head in water (represents His death, burial) head back out of the water (represents His resurrection)” where did this interpretation come from.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Who is the president Laura Bush or George W. Bush? If you say George W. Bush then can Laura Bush give you a pardon? No, but the bible says that

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

If that’s true than under your logic she is George W. Bush. But we know that she isn’t and doesn’t have His authority. He can give her authority, but Jesus hasn’t given the church the authority to save. He has given the church the responsibiblity of pointing people to Himself as the Savior, not to the bride, but to the groom. The bride isn’t the Savior, the groom is.

first, I haven’t read ahead, sorry If I overlap.

Second you are comparing Authority given by men to men to Authority given by God to his Church.

third. once married I believe that my Pardons are my husbands and vice versa…you become One flesh. works agianst your point.

This is the Same idea with the Church and Christ (binding and Loosing) What the church bind will be bound what the chuch Looses will be loosed…Christ Honors his Bride…

Fourth…The Church (Apostolic succesion) were charged with teaching, Baptizing, Confessing, Binding and loosening…sound like Salvation to me.

 

[Church_Militant]

Remember guys that we’ve gotta stay on topic…salvation. or the thread’ll get closed for sure, okay?

Sometimes it’s really hard because n-Cs tend to tangle all their thinking about the Catholic Church into one thread, but I always try to ignore that stuff, or else offer a link to something in passing and stay with the salvation issue (in this case).

I do believe this guy is sincere. Just sincerely wrong.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t think that is what he’s saying Manny…
You seem to have taken it wrong.

I think you maybe right.

 

[CrypticWritings]

I wonder what will happen on judgement day. I wonder if God will ask us things based on bible chapter and verse and if we “knew the Good Word”.

No, I’m certain He desires us to live the gospel message and that will not happen unless one has a proper understanding in the light of Tradition and Apostolic succession which is found only withing the One, Holy, Catholic Church, not a protestant “interpretation” along with the Grace of God.

What does that mean “to know” Surely to know Christ you must keep His Commands. That is indeed scriptural.

Protestants “choose” themselves and I’ve heard them call themselves Apostles. How can that be that they consider themselves apostles? Christ chooses the Apostles, not us.
So how does a sola-scripture believe interpret John 15:16:
You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you

Where do these protestants get their “authority”!? Oh, I get it, you can just make it “mean” whatever you feel like is convienient for you after “feeling” that God answered your question. No wait, that can’t be, there are thousands of different interpretations and Truth (God, which all authority comes from) can not disagree.
Reason always trumps “feelings”.

I was at the barber today. He knew I was Catholic and started telling me how the Catholic Church should “make changes”.
“What do you mean?” I asked…
He said “Well, priest should not be celibate, that’s not even biblical…”
If that were so why then does Christ say in** Matthew 19:12 **:
For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

And then St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians Chapter 7 (which I will not cut and paste) remarks on how it is good for a man not to touch a woman if he is able (by God’s Grace) to remain chaste/celibate. That is also where the discipline of priestly ceibacy is indeed scriptural.

Protestants don’t know, they just interpret as they please. They are “knowledgable” of scripture, but they do not know scripture because they do not know or accept the True Authority behind it which was instituted by Christ. That is in the end, a rejection of the Holy Ghost.

Hmmm…I’m surprised this thread is still going!
Where is “xfrodobagginsx”??? He hasn’t posted in a while…I wonder if him and that other little hobbit are too busy taking the ring to Mordor…Oh please hurry back Frodo Baggins, Middle Earth is counting on you…

 

[japhy]

I wonder what will happen on judgement day. I wonder if God will ask us things based on bible chapter and verse and if we “knew the Good Word”.

Much to many Protestants’ chagrin, Jesus will judge us for our actions! Rom 2; 1 Cor 4:3-5; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 20:12-13.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

So, men were just automatons with no (name removed by moderator)ut into the Scriptures?

Why did St. Paul say, “I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.” (1 Cor 1:16)

God, writing Scripture with Paul’s hand, did not know if Paul baptised anyone? Utterly preposerous.

God spoke through them as they were filled with the Holy Ghost. When God speaks through us, He also, in my opinion, seems to take on the personality of the writer.

This is what I mean:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: