I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[exrc]

MariaG:

Hi Dan:wave:

Let’s start with one that we completely disagree on . This definition is the root of much of the disagreements on this thread.
There are many sources and Scripture verses from the Bible.

Born Again as defined by the Early Church has always referred to Baptism. The key Bible verse is Jn 3:5. There is an excellent explanation which includes Scripture as well as history to show that this is what the early Church taught. I hope you actually choose to read it. It is not long. catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

Using Catholic Christian definitions, to be born again is when we are baptized and become adopted children of God. It is a miraculous work of God in which original sin is removed from our soul.

It is not an automatic ticket to heaven. It is also the reason that Catholics believe that we can be part of God’s family and choose to walk away from Him. There must be a commitment as an adult to continue to walk in His Grace.

This definition of born again has been around since the time of the Apostles. Although I realize you disagree with it, it is Biblical and historical. Obviously, you disagree with the interpretation of Scripture from the Bible, but then the question is why should I put your interpretation above the Catholic one, one that acurrately reflects the apostles teachings and can be proved from writings of the time, as well as Scripture? One that Lutherans follow? One that many of the “Reformed” Protestant religions follow?

Honestly, for me, the only way you could change my mind about Baptism being regenerative instead of just a public declaration reflecting an inward desire to follow Christ, would be to show me people who at the time of the apostles interpreted Scripture in the same way you do. I know you can show me Scripture, so can I. What I would need from you is proof that the early Church taught it and followed the teaching of adult only baptism as the true teaching of the apostles. That baptism was only a public declaration, not a miracle from God.

I do not expect you to suddenly say “The Catholics are right!” But I do hope you can understand some of our differences a little better.

Baptism is where we are born again into the family of God. It is a miracle not just a public declaration.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

p.s.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this?

I appreciate your answer Maria, but I was looking for** what** it is, and perhaps what it procures, not how it happens.

p.s. A thread might be a good idea!

Thanks! Your friend Dan!

 

[george_eastlake]

Did it have to be a bloody sacrifice? If God wanted to, he could have just showed everyone His glorious face, telling all to repent and call on his Holy Name and BAM! everyone is saved. It did indeed have to be a bloody (to say the least) sacrifice to show everyone then and for all time the devastating deadly effect of sin…that we could indeed choose to turn away from sin or perish otherwise. How is it that some say, indeed, that all you have to do is call on Jesus, accept him as Lord and Savior, and BAM! YOU’RE GUARANTEED Heaven? Here is what Luther said, and here is the fruit of novel, protestant thought, and I do quote- "Be a sinner and sin boldly". -Martin Luther

anarchy?

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Forgiving us our debts (sins) AS we forgive others their debts (sins) against us, does not apply to any believer this side of the cross, Jew or Gentile. If the criterion for the Father to forgive us our sins is based on our ability to forgive others, then the cross is made null and void and Christ died needlessly. And I might add, we’re ALL in a heap of trouble.

(read Rom. 4:25-5:1-2).

Ozzie,

You have absolutely no basis for this statement and your understanding of the Lord’s prayer in this regard is severly misguided. There is nothing in scripture that suggests that the Lord’s prayer does not apply to those on this side of the cross. This is strictly out of your own head and the errant doctrinal influences therein.

You conveniently forget who it is that presented the Good News. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing trumps the words of Jesus. Any attempts on your part to interpret Paul or anyone else in such a way as to alter the message of anything Jesus says is completely off the wall. If you wish to qualify the statements of Jesus then you must do so by additional words of the Lord. This is one of the biggest weaknesses in Protestant scripture studies. You read Paul first from your doctrinal view point without knowing the gospels. You may claim otherwise but the evidence is clear. Moreover, I have done my own (non-scientific) poll of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to find out what they emphasize and deem to be the most important books of the bible. Invariably they say, “the book of Romans and the other writings of Paul.” They never say, “the gospels.” For Catholics, it’s the gospels first. Once you understand what Jesus says, the rest of it falls into place.

If what you say is true then you make a liar out of St. John.
Since John wrote his letters to Christians that were “this side of the cross” we can be sure that you are wrong. Try the following:

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 3:10
By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.

You also call James a liar. Read the following:

James 5:14-16
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

You also call Paul a liar because he says in Romans 2:5-6
“But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works:”

I could list many more verses and many have already been quoted in prior posts but you spin them your own way.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

Try to understand that while you are right about Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, you simply don’t grasp how the righteousness of Christ is fully applied to us. Try looking thoughout scripture at what happens to the unrepentant. Try looking at personal relationships between your fellow man. We are wired and made for relationships, and we were especially made for the ultimate relationship that man can have. That relationship is the one each of us is meant to have with God. Our relationships with our fellow man teach us something about our relationship with God.

Everytime we sin against our fellow man we must repent and seek forgiveness. If our offenses are serious and we are not sorry the relationship can and will be cut off. In Hebrews 10:29 it says, “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?”

If you are not sorry for the sins you commit from day to day, then those sins will not be forgiven.

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie:

The Gospels are an account of Christ’s earthly life and ministry. They take you as far as the crucifixion and resurrection, but they do not EXPLAIN what the cross and resurrection accomplished on behalf of men. This took further, divine revelation. This is found exclusively in the Epistles. One could never know all that the cross accomplished if all we had were the Gospel accounts.

I’m not surprised that you would sumise that ALL that the cross and resurrection accomplished on behalf of men is found exclusively in the Epistles. I realize that the basis for many Christian theologies, mostly Calvinistic in nature, is exclusively the Epistles - and this is the problem with those theologies. Maybe you should go back and re-read the NT!

John 3:16-21
Luke 24:36-53
Luke 9:23-24
Matt 20:28 - For the son of Man did come to be served but to serve and to be given as a ransom for many.

…and don’t forget the OT!

Jer 31:31-34. Just to mention one.

Gotta run - Let me know if you want more references.

Cubby

 

[ncgolf]

I have read this thread since the beginning and being a Catholic hold the Catholic view of salvation. That being said I have tried to understand the Once Saved Always Saved point of view. It seems both sides can be argued from Scripture but there are some nagging questions I have about the OSAS point of view. Here they are:

1. The need for God’s judgement at the end of life seems to be not needed in the OSAS point of view. Each individual should or could know, without a doubt, what his/her eternal state will be before they die. Are these statements accurate? What would be the purpose of a judgement at the end of life?
2. All who believe they are eternally saved while still on earth, live in heaven already. Heaven can be defined as a place where there is no sin and that you will live forever with Christ. In the OSAS point of view they know for sure they will live with Christ forever so all you are waiting for is the place with no sin. Do you believe you live in heaven like place right now? From what I have have read about OSAS then a person who is saved, does live in heaven already, even though they are on earth and still have not died.
3. How do you know if the faith you have is enough. Is there an amount of faith needed or a certain strength of faith needed? How could someone be sure that they have enough faith to qualify for always being saved?

 

[Ozzie]

Cubby:

I’m not surprised that you would sumise that ALL that the cross and resurrection accomplished on behalf of men is found exclusively in the Epistles. I realize that the basis for many Christian theologies, mostly Calvinistic in nature, is exclusively the Epistles - and this is the problem with those theologies. Maybe you should go back and re-read the NT!

John 3:16-21
Luke 24:36-53
Luke 9:23-24
Matt 20:28 - For the son of Man did come to be served but to serve and to be given as a ransom for many.

…and don’t forget the OT!

Jer 31:31-34. Just to mention one.

Gotta run - Let me know if you want more references.

Cubby

Nope, don’t want any more references. Yes, there are proclamations in the Gospels, especially in John’s, such as 3:14-18. John’s Gospel is very unique in that way. And there are many, many prophecies about Christ’s first advent in the O.T. - but that wasn’t my point. It is only in the Epistles that we get a thorough EXPLANATION of Christ’s cross, i.e., the divine means for the forgiveness of sins, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, the believer’s new identity in Christ, grace vs. works etc. etc. You cannot get these explanations anywhere else. If you refuse to understand this, you will never understand the Scriptures accurately and much of it will seem contradictory (see 2 Tim. 2:15). Divine revelation is progressive.

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie:

It is only in the Epistles that we get a thorough EXPLANATION of Christ’s cross, i.e., the divine means for the forgiveness of sins, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, the believer’s new identity in Christ, grace vs. works etc. etc. You cannot get these explanations anywhere else. If you refuse to understand this, you will never understand the Scriptures accurately and much of it will seem contradictory (see 2 Tim. 2:15). Divine revelation is progressive.

You changed your words from “Exclusive” to “thorough”, and this I can agree with. However, my faith and beliefs are based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then the theology of the Epistles, it just seems that your saying this should be the other way around? Plus, obviously, your theological interpretation is different. Does your interpretation, coupled with Phil’s responses lead you to believe that we “Phils” don’t have life in Christ as devout Catholics? If so, how/why?

Also, if you don’t mind, what is your faith? Is it Independent Baptist? Nondenom, etc… I’m having same conversations with an Independent Baptist (in person, not on a forum) and I’m struggling to understand her points - or lead her to see the truth of the Catholic church - wherever the Spirit leads. Thanks.

Peace of Christ,

Cubby

 

[MariaG]

Hi Dan:wave:

I appreciate your answer Maria, but I was looking for** what** it is, and perhaps what it procures, not how it happens.

p.s. A thread might be a good idea!

Thanks! Your friend Dan!

I started a new thread for the definition and discussion or the biblical term “Born Again”. It is here: forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=24687

Under the title “Define Born Again” in the Non Catholic Religion section.

I hope all interested parties will come and put in their :twocents:

God Bless,
Maria

 

[RBushlow]

Cubby:

Just interpert “RC” as “Real Church” or “Real Christians” depending upon the context in which it is used. :dancing:

Cubby

Sorry Cubby, that’s not what Ozzie and the others mean. They mean Roman Church or some such. Let’s all use the correct term “The Catholic Church”. Thanks.

God Bless.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Ozzie,

Sorry for jumping in this thread so late in the game. It’s a really long thread.

Just wanted to ask you one question.

You said:
“It is only in the Epistles that we get a thorough EXPLANATION of Christ’s cross, i.e., the divine means for the forgiveness of sins, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, the believer’s new identity in Christ, grace vs. works etc. etc. You cannot get these explanations anywhere else. If you refuse to understand this, you will never understand the Scriptures accurately and much of it will seem contradictory (see 2 Tim. 2:15). Divine revelation is progressive.”

I know that you believe that the Scriptures are the only source of doctrine. I’ve read through the Scriptures, Old and New, many times. And spent some time studying them, too. But I don’t recall ever reading anywhere that it is only in the Epistles that we get a “thorough EXPLANATION” of the Cross. Where did you get this from? (I’m not saying that you are wrong.)

By the way, don’t you think that Isaiah 53 is a pretty good explanation of the Cross?

Blessings,
Gene C.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Ozzie (again),

I just thought of something. How did the very earliest believers know about the Cross and salvation if they didn’t have the Epistles written down yet? Paul didn’t starting writing until about 50 A.D. How did they know about their salvation in those intervening 20 years?

Thanks and blessings again,
Gene C.

 

[Ozzie]

Philthy:

One way it makes NO sense is if Christ’s sacrifice was meant to cleanse all our sins forever based exclusively on a moment of faith.

You keep getting it wrong. A person is forever cleansed of all sins the moment he believes BECAUSE of the efficacious, once-for-all, substitutionary, blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That’s the intent and nature of a sin-offering, dear fellow. The blood sacrifices of bulls and goats, prescribed in the Law of Moses, which prefigured Christ’s, one, final sacrifice, could only “atone” (cover) sins, and were required to be done year after year after year. But the one sacrifice of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, took away sin forever (Jn. 1:29), and now cleanses the BELIEVER of all sins. That’s what the “efficacy” of Christ’s sacrifice means. It’s full efficacy (its full, divine, intended sacrificial purpose) is applied to the believer at the moment of belief (please read Heb. 9-10). Even John 3:14-18 is stated in anticipation and within the context of this basic truth. The believer HAS eternal life because Christ has been crucified.

Rome’s sacerdotal/sacramental system keeps its devotees constantly focused on sin and, consequently, bound to its religion (even in fear, *i.e., *unconfessed sins). But the central focus of God’s Word is God’s own Final Solution for sin, Christ Himself, as pointed out in Jn. 3:14-15 (cf. Num. 21:9). As an Israelite, who was fatally bitten by the firery serpents, looked up at the standard of the bronze serpent and lived, so every man, this side of the cross, “bitten” by sin and under the divine judgment of eternal death because of sin, who looks to Christ by faith, does not simply live, but HAS, through/in Him, ETERNAL LIFE. Wrought by the efficacious, substitutionary death and blood sacrifice of God the Son. This is the GOSPEL message, dear brother, the “good news” concerning the cross.

It is in this context that one is to “believe” in Christ.

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie:

But the one sacrifice of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, took away sin forever (Jn. 1:29), and now cleanses the BELIEVER of all sins. That’s what the “efficacy” of Christ’s sacrifice means. It’s full efficacy (its full, divine, intended sacrificial purpose) is applied to the believer at the moment of belief (please read Heb. 9-10). Even John 3:14-18 is stated in anticipation and within the context of this basic truth. The believer HAS eternal life because Christ has been crucified.

Rome’s sacerdotal/sacramental system keeps its devotees constantly focused on sin and, consequently, bound to its religion (even in fear, *i.e., *unconfessed sins).

Why do you leave out John 3:19-21? (Interestingly enough, this deals with works - associated with coming to the light).

Where do you get your information? To say that the sacraments of the Church are focused on sin and binds us? Is this just your personal opinion? Or do you have other sources?

Also, don’t forget that it is in St. John’s gospel where Jesus said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” John 6:52-59 - but sure, in your opinion you have stated that you believe Christ is speaking figuratively…yes I’ve read your earlier posts on this…but 2000 years of Church teaching and the early Fathers of the Church and myself all disagree with you!

By the way; I like your reference to fear in the Catholic church!

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge”. Proverbs 1:7

Cubby

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

You keep getting it wrong.

No I don’t Ozzie. What I have correctly addressed for the 8th time is that the forgiveness of sins based on Christs crucifixion was not completely efficacious at the time of the crucifixion. The only thing that gets confusing is why you continue to disagree with this statement, and then proceed to make statements like…

Ozzie:

A person is forever cleansed of all sins the moment he believes BECAUSE of the efficacious, once-for-all, substitutionary, blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And here, of course, we see that Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t get applied until one believes. We both agree. What word do you use for that concept? I say the sacrifice lacks efficacy. If I’m not mistaken, and my whimpy Webster’s dictionary aggrees with me, efficacious means to actually produce an effect. Sufficiency means capable of producing an effect - but that it has not necessarily produced it. I say Christs sacrifice was completely sufficient for the forgiveness of all sins but does not actually accomplish forgiveness until one comes to faith in Christ. Alternatively, the “application of forgiveness” to an individual occurs when they come to faith in Christ. I believe the most technically accurate way of expressing this concept is to say that Christ’s crucifixion was perfectly sufficient immediately when it occured, but not efficacious until one comes to faith. If you think I am still mistaken, I would like you to provide the term that distinguishes the nature of the crucifixion that does not apply to unbelievers. For example, I would say for BELIEVERS the crucifixion is SUFFICIENT and EFFICIENT(or EFFICACIOUS). For UNBELIEVERS it is SUFFICIENT but not EFFICACIOUS (because they never come to faith). It is entirely plausible that we’re battling over words. Despite your insistence (mine too! ) that we disagree here, I don’t think we do. I think we are miscommunicating due to vocabulary.

See next post…

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:
That’s the intent and nature of a sin-offering, dear fellow. The blood sacrifices of bulls and goats, prescribed in the Law of Moses, which prefigured Christ’s, one, final sacrifice, could only “atone” (cover) sins, and were required to be done year after year after year. But the one sacrifice of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, took away sin forever (Jn. 1:29), and now cleanses the BELIEVER of all sins. That’s what the “efficacy” of Christ’s sacrifice means. It’s full efficacy (its full, divine, intended sacrificial purpose) is applied to the believer at the moment of belief (please read Heb. 9-10). Even John 3:14-18 is stated in anticipation and within the context of this basic truth. The believer HAS eternal life because Christ has been crucified.

This is now a new topic(and probably THE topic): Is the efficacy of Christs sacrifice complete at the time of faith? I know you have good, Scriptural reasons for believing the answer to be yes. Other Christians feel differently. I am continuing to read the NT as objectively as I possibly can; prayerfully; with a heart open to finding the Truth, recognizing I have undeniable bias;recognizing that my personal reveliations do not carry any more weight than those of others and knowing that Satan will be attempting to confuse me. Cut me some slack!

Ozzie:

Rome’s sacerdotal/sacramental system keeps its devotees constantly focused on sin and, consequently, bound to its religion (even in fear, *i.e., *unconfessed sins).

I disagree with your characterization here. Catholics are not focused on sin - Luther was focused on sin. Stated positively, confession is a unique means of experiencing Gods grace of forgiveness when you realize you need it most. I don’t expect you to agree or even understand.

Ozzie:
But the central focus of God’s Word is God’s own Final Solution for sin, Christ Himself, as pointed out in Jn. 3:14-15 (cf. Num. 21:9).
Yup, the final solution that doesn’t solve anything until we have faith. am I right?

Ozzie:

As an Israelite, who was fatally bitten by the firery serpents, looked up at the standard of the bronze serpent and lived, so every man, this side of the cross, “bitten” by sin and under the divine judgment of eternal death because of sin, who looks to Christ by faith, does not simply live, but HAS, through/in Him, ETERNAL

LIFE. Wrought by the efficacious, substitutionary death and blood sacrifice of God the Son. This is the GOSPEL message, dear brother, the “good news” concerning the cross.

It is in this context that one is to “believe” in Christ.

Thanks Ozzie…

Phil

 

[Ozzie]

Cubby:

You changed your words from “Exclusive” to “thorough”, and this I can agree with.

Well, if my wording this time around was more palatable for you, then so be it. But you’ll notice I did say, *“you cannot get these explanations anywhere else.” * This being their intrinsic value and the gravity of understanding them.

However, my faith and beliefs are based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then the theology of the Epistles

The theology, especially the soteriology, of the Epistles IS the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “Gospel” means “good news” and this is what they explain. Now in the literary sense, there are four “gospels,” that is, divinely, written accounts of the earthly life, death and bodily resurrection of Christ, as I pointed out in my previous post.

. Does your interpretation, coupled with Phil’s responses lead you to believe that we “Phils” don’t have life in Christ as devout Catholics? If so, how/why?

Based on my interpretation of Scripture no man has LIFE in Christ based on being a “devout” anything: R. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Islamic, Atheist, or just your every day devout run-of-the-mill pagan. You’ve read my posts, what do you think I base receiving LIFE in Christ on? You claim to have read the Scriptures, what do they say?

Also, if you don’t mind, what is your faith? Is it Independent Baptist? Nondenom, etc… I’m having same conversations with an Independent Baptist (in person, not on a forum) and I’m struggling to understand her points - or lead her to see the truth of the Catholic church - wherever the Spirit leads. Thanks.

My “faith” is in
Christ alone (I, by faith, rest only in Him) independent of any Church assembly association. I presently attend a non-denom. But how would your having knowledge of this bit of info. have any bearing on your discussion with her?

 

[Ozzie]

Gene C.:

But I don’t recall ever reading anywhere that it is only in the Epistles that we get a “thorough EXPLANATION” of the Cross. Where did you get this from? (I’m not saying that you are wrong.)

Why would you have to read it anywhere? It’s understood by reading the Epistles themselves (ex. Rom. 3-4). It’s there in the Epistles that we learn of the redemptive, reconciliatory and propitiatory nature of the cross, salvation by grace through faith, the gift of justification, the believer’s eternal inheritance in Christ, the baptism and sealing of the Holy Spirit, definition of the Church, limitation of this Church age, the future rapture of it, God’s future dealings with the nation of Israel - and much more.

By the way, don’t you think that Isaiah 53 is a pretty good explanation of the Cross?

Absolutely!! But far more is explained in the Epistles.

I just thought of something. How did the very earliest believers know about the Cross and salvation if they didn’t have the Epistles written down yet? Paul didn’t starting writing until about 50 A.D. How did they know about their salvation in those intervening 20 years?

Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 15:1-8; 1 Thess. 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:12-15; 3:1-2. They taught these things. Paul stayed for months, sometimes even years in a particular place. And obviously the letters were written and distributed even within their own lifetimes. The Apostles died off, but the Epistles (as well as the other N.T. writings) have remained to serve believers even to this present generation.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

I stated it earlier and I will state it again. Jesus declared the good news of the gospel. There is nothing anywhere in scripture that trumps the words of Jesus. The gospels are the foundation. If you interpret anything in the epistles in ways that are contrary to the gospels then you are in error.

Your “general” statements concerning the significance of the epistles might be acceptable if you did not arrive at doctrines that conflict with gospel teachings. Not only that but your doctrines create contradictions and conflicts within the apostolic letters themselves.

This is exemplified by your absolute refusal to accept huge portions of the NT letters that were quoted to you throughout this thread. You claim issues of context when the context was correctly stated and presented. You created contextual issues when none existed. Some NT scriptures that were quoted to you were so overwhelming you never even addressed them.

You cannot interpret any apostolic letter in ways that contradict the gospels. If you disagree with this I would love for you to prove that I’m wrong by using scripture. Your contentions concerning the Lord’s prayer might be a good place to start, but foundationally you need to establish, from scripture, the specific and clear proof that we are free to interpret the rest of the NT in ways that contradict the words of Jesus.

I do not believe that you can do this. Moreover, it is completely false to even suggest that such a thing is legitimate.

 

[Cubby]

“Gospel” means “good news” and this is what they explain. Now in the literary sense, there are four “gospels,” that is, divinely, written accounts of the earthly life, death and bodily resurrection of Christ, … My “faith” is in
Christ alone (I, by faith, rest only in Him) independent of any Church assembly association. I presently attend a non-denom. But how would your having knowledge of this bit of info. have any bearing on your discussion with her?

What I meant was that I take the Epistles in light of the Gospels, not the Gospel. - I think you knew that.

You ask what the scriptures say - and I must say that I am still learning! However, it makes sense to trust the church fathers and 2000 years of church knowledge. By what justification do you disregard these resources?

My discussions with my Independent Baptist friend have been the beginning of my real research of the scriptures. I was hoping you were an Independent Baptist so that I could pick your brain in regards to those teachings…

I want to pick your brain anyway! On another thread the subject of “baptism by desire” was introduced to me. Now, is this really Catholic theology? (I don’t know) - But if you’re not baptized then it seems that the only thing that saves those persons is faith in Christ. Because I can’t find the desire to be baptized as being a valid sacrament… HELP! Pax? Phil?, thoughts too!?

Cubby