I
Ignatius
Guest
Why do you assume that the good thief wasn’t baptized? First, where does the bible say that the good thief wasn’t baptized?
- Status
M
mdifrancesco
Guest
this is my biggest pet pieve… You always try to use the defense of “prove it’s not” or “prove he wasn’t” when you get backed against a corner. Im not buying it. He was not baptised. You won’t find it… There was no rain that day… He wasn’t sprinked by accident by a bystander - there is no way you can prove it. Period.
M
mdifrancesco
Guest
you are now taking the stance that god can break his rules. That is not the way it works. If that was the case, jesus would have never had to die. God would have just changed the rules. He takes his word seriously - he watches over it even before his own name.
And as far as the command of baptism before he died… That one is not even worth responding to. Read the new testament. Jesus was baptized. People got saved and were baptized. (and yes… His command was to be baptized - but not as a requirement for salvation). But now you want to use that as an argument? Why then did people get baptized before jesus died? Answer: His requirements never changed. It was a command of obedience. Period.
P
paul_c
Guest
I’m not sure what your argument is. Are you making the case that baptism is required but does not factor into salvation? Why would it be required then? and if it doesn’t count toward salvation, are there any ramifications at all to not being baptized?
M
mdifrancesco
Guest
Yes, they are there. You seem to be mixing up justification and salvation. That passage you gave talks about us being JUSTIFIED by our works. And that is true. If you read James 2: 14-26 what it is CLEARLY talking about is FAITH JUSTIFIED by WORKS.
What I said above is “Baptism is a work. And the Lord clearly told us that we are NOT SAVED by works.”
And here is your scripture:
2 Timothy 1:9
“who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity…”
PLEASE DO NOT TWIST WHAT I SAY…
M
mdifrancesco
Guest
The same thing could be said for not loving your neighbor. Jesus commanded us to do it. What are the ramifications of not loving your neighbor?
The point I am making is that Jesus commanded us to do many things and the things He commanded us to do, we SHOULD do. It proves we are His. But none of those things are going to get us into heaven. Only faith in Him.
That’s all… nothing more.
P
Pax
Guest
mdifrancesco in Christ,
You need to read the scriptures over again. James is not talking about “FAITH JUSTIFIED by WORKS.” Nowhere does James ever say such a thing. He instead says that we are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” There is a huge difference between what James says and what you claim.
Moreover, scripture says that faith is a work. I can give you the passages if you need them.
God bless.
P
paul_c
Guest
You, my friend, are decieved. Everything you do counts toward your ability to gain eternal life. . If you fail to love your neighbor, you will not go to heaven. If you choose not to be baptized, you will not go to heaven.
What good is faith without works? If you had faith enough to move mountains, but don’t have love, you are nothing. (1corinthians 13). Faith without works is dead (James 2).
Heed Paul’s words for Romans 2:
Do you believe Scripture? If so, you must understand that faith alone is insufficient to gain eternal life. You must actually follow Jesus and all he taught, not just acknowledge him.
P
panevino
Guest
WHat does the word “justified” mean to you?
Also
how do u interpret the word “water” in John 3:5? Is literal water or something else ( so
e Protestants see it as 1. Word 2. water of Physical birth.
Also what is your view of
1peter3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
and
rom6:44 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
P
panevino
Guest
do you believe in OSAS?
P
Pax
Guest
A good way to understand baptism of desire in addition to the explanations already given is to look at the OT. We all know that the old testament saints were saved in the same way we are even though they lived and died before the time of Jesus. They were baptized and saved.
The people that God took out of Egypt are the people of Israel and they are referred to as the “Chosen People.” Moreover, God repeatedly refers to them as “My People.” These people were saved. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10:1-4 that. "I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
This verse from the NT summarizes a great deal for us in terms of salvation and baptism. The only difference now is that Jesus formalized the sacrament of baptism in the New Covenant. In the Old Testament it is clear that God baptized the people in the cloud as they passed through the sea even though they did not know it. This is because they desired God and wished to follow God according to the word handed onto them by Moses. This is baptism of desire at work,just as it was at work in the good thief on the cross.
God is not breaking his own rules. We are obliged by Jesus command and covenant oath to baptize and believe. We are bound by that, but God is not. Scripture tells us that if we are baptized and believe then we will be saved. That is scripture and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that truth. God’s infinite mercy and perfect justice are to be satisfied when it comes to salvation and condemnation. God will not condemn a person who cannot be baptized but otherwise qualifies for his mercy and meets the requirements of God’s perfect justice. This is why the quote from Cor 10:1-4 concerning the OT Israelites and the NT narrative concerning the good thief are properly understood by way of the Catholic explanation as opposed to any other.
God bless.
The people that God took out of Egypt are the people of Israel and they are referred to as the “Chosen People.” Moreover, God repeatedly refers to them as “My People.” These people were saved. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10:1-4 that. "I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
This verse from the NT summarizes a great deal for us in terms of salvation and baptism. The only difference now is that Jesus formalized the sacrament of baptism in the New Covenant. In the Old Testament it is clear that God baptized the people in the cloud as they passed through the sea even though they did not know it. This is because they desired God and wished to follow God according to the word handed onto them by Moses. This is baptism of desire at work,just as it was at work in the good thief on the cross.
God is not breaking his own rules. We are obliged by Jesus command and covenant oath to baptize and believe. We are bound by that, but God is not. Scripture tells us that if we are baptized and believe then we will be saved. That is scripture and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that truth. God’s infinite mercy and perfect justice are to be satisfied when it comes to salvation and condemnation. God will not condemn a person who cannot be baptized but otherwise qualifies for his mercy and meets the requirements of God’s perfect justice. This is why the quote from Cor 10:1-4 concerning the OT Israelites and the NT narrative concerning the good thief are properly understood by way of the Catholic explanation as opposed to any other.
God bless.
P
Pax
Guest
mdifrancesco in Christ,
You are making a claim based upon your doctrinal tradition rather than scripture. We can demonstrate the error of your thinking with a plethora of scripture, but I will simply leave you with one.
Rev 21:7-8
Please be advised that the verse opens with “He who conquers…” Clearly we have something to do. Moreover, look at those that do not conquer. They are the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, murderers, fornicators etc. The will go to hell. This should give you pause about your doctrinal claims. Moreover, look through the book of Revelation for the use of the word “conquer” as it occurs in Chapter 2 as Jesus addresses John concerning the seven churches. Those numerous instances fully reinforce what I have pointed out in Rev 21:7-8.
I hope this helps.
J
JustaServant
Guest
When I was Protestant, this was typical of the arguments against infant Baptism:
The Church certainly didn’t expect people to wait until some fuzzy “age of reason” to be baptized, in part because it has always taught the regenerative nature of Baptism, the reality of original sin, and the necessity of Baptism as the normative means of entering into the New Covenant, and it has never out and out taught that this was to be witheld from infants.
If infant Baptism was an innovation, where is the historical proof? Where is the opposition to such an ‘innovation’?
If infant Baptism is a a later innovation, where is the historical proof? While I was still Baptist I searched long and hard through early church records to find some sort of ‘start date’, where I could point and say “That’s when it started.” I was unable to.
More importantly, where is the opposition to such an ‘innovation’? If it was not taught by the Apostles, why (using thier logic) why was it accepted so readily?
And yet one of the earliest Church Councils (Carthage in 252) debated whether to wait 8 days before baptizing.
The Church certainly didn’t expect people to wait until some fuzzy “age of reason” to be baptized, in part because it has always taught the regenerative nature of Baptism, the reality of original sin, and the necessity of Baptism as the normative means of entering into the New Covenant, and it has never out and out taught that this was to be witheld from infants.
If infant Baptism was an innovation, where is the historical proof? Where is the opposition to such an ‘innovation’?
If infant Baptism is a a later innovation, where is the historical proof? While I was still Baptist I searched long and hard through early church records to find some sort of ‘start date’, where I could point and say “That’s when it started.” I was unable to.
More importantly, where is the opposition to such an ‘innovation’? If it was not taught by the Apostles, why (using thier logic) why was it accepted so readily?
P
Pax
Guest
mdifrancesco in Christ,
When you make an assertion it is not unreasonable for someone to ask you to prove it. Thus far you have not done so, and there is no reason for you to be irritated.
God bless.
M
mdifrancesco
Guest
2 Timothy 1:9
“who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity…”
Work your way in all you who THINK you know the truth. One day we will all stand before Him and give an account. When I stand before Him it will be relying on His Blood alone. My life, radically changed by His sacrifice I will bow before him. And everything I have done for His sake (the things which are not burned up), I will cast those crowns before Him. And He will say “well done good and faithfull servant”.
You on the other hand, will be surprised when you try to add all those things to the work He has already acomplished. You can pray to whoever you want at that time - it will do you no good.
I am exiting this forum - not to return. Some will say good ridance (and that’s okay). I learned some valuable things which will help me when witnessing to the lost.
May the Lord open your eyes to the Truth of His Word…
P
panevino
Guest
Why r u giving up allready?
Are you leaving with understanding of catholics doctrine? Or what u Thought/think it is.
M
Murphs10
Guest
It is obvious from your statements that you do not have a true understanding of Catholic doctrine regarding salvation. The confidence you have in your comments suggests that you feel you do, but I can assure you, they only highlight that you do not. I don’t say this to insult you, but to encourage you to take the time to give an honest look at what the Church DOES believe and teach on this matter. This way these forums can fulfill its purpose of honest dialogue. It is a waste of time to respond to criticisms that are based on bad information…this should be the case for all of us who posts here
P
paul_c
Guest
First of all, he did call us, not according to his works but by his grace, but once called, we must follow Jesus’ example.
Secondly, do you really think you will be better off on judgement day with no works to your credit, no graces form the sacraments and only an acknowledgement of Jesus’ sacrifice than someone who took his message of love to heart and worked on doing God’s will every day?
I
Ignatius
Guest
You keep making that completely unfounded assumption.mdifrancesco;6286540:
He wasn’t baptized.Ignatius:
Im not buying it. He was not baptised.
There is no way you can prove it. Period
- Status