T
- Status
T
tevans9129
Guest
I admit to not being very bright but I do not see anything in my statement that states, suggests or implies that I now believe that church membership is required for salvation but to answer your question, no.
Bear
T
tevans9129
Guest
Thank you for sharing your views Robert, however, I must respectfully disagree with you. For me to be convinced that your views are correct, would require answering my questions, using scripture to support those answers and, offering a plausible explanation for the verses that, IMO, dispute your assertion, “the Church” is necessary for salvation".
As for my perspective of the word “church”, any person that is qualified, by scripture, to be called “Christian” belong to the body of Christ, His church. Membership in any worldly organization commonly referred to as a church does not automatically make them a member of Christ’s church.
Anyway, that is my story and I am sticking to it.
Bear
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Tevans,
I do not wish to sound truly and profoundly ignorant here … but, what does this mean in plain English (no Greek allowed!
)
God bless
I do not wish to sound truly and profoundly ignorant here … but, what does this mean in plain English (no Greek allowed!
)God bless
T
tevans9129
Guest
Hey Robert, first, I confess to having extreme difficulty in articulating my thoughts clearly and with brevity. So hope my ramblings will make some sense to you.
When I say, “sincerely accept Christ as savior”, the meaning is that one does so from the heart and not just intellectually mouthing the words. I further think if one is sincere, there will be a desire to know their Savior personally, to have a personal relationship with Him, and be as obedient to His teachings and commandments as is possible.
Jesus said in John 12:47 that He came to save the world and Romans 10:9 & 10 clearly states, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
I choose to believe, and trust, what Jesus promised. He makes it very clear, in my mind, what is required for us to be saved. Once that takes place, there are many instructions as to how He wants us to act and live as Christians, such as, baptism, confessing our sins, fellowship with other Christians, partaking of communion in remembrance of Him and doing all we can that benefits His kingdom.
It is my opinion that everyone that follows Romans 10:9 & 10, as well as many other like verses, belong to the body of Christ, regardless of what worldly church membership they hold. Salvation is by God’s grace as stated Ephesians 2:8 & 9,
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
Whereas, rewards and crowns are the results of our fruits and good works.
I have a theory why most worldly religious organizations have a vested interest in promoting their particular group as being the one “true faith”, and that interest does not always place the interest of God first, IMO.
Hope you can make some sense of all this and understand where I am coming from.
Bear
L
LOCO
Guest
L
LOCO
Guest
"**23 TEVENS A similar expression occurs in Jesus’ commission to Peter: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16:19). In both statements the Greek verb of the second clause is a periphrastic future perfect (ἔσται δεδεμένον, estai dedemenon, “will be bound”; ἔσται λελυμένον, estai lelumenon, “will be loosed”), a rare form in koine Greek. Generally it is explained as an alternative for the simple future passive, having lost its original force. Apparently, however, in this instance it may retain the meaning of the future perfect, which implies that its action precedes that of the first verb of each sentence. As in English today, the future perfect was a dying tense that ultimately disappeared from common usage. The appearance of the form is therefore all the more significant. The delegation of power to the disciples to forgive or to retain the guilt of sin thus depends on the previous forgiveness by God. Perhaps this concept underlies Paul’s verdict on the man in the church at Corinth who was guilty of gross immorality and seemed unrepentant (1 Cor 5:1–5). For a discussion of the grammatical problem involved, see J.R. Mantey, “The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Matt 10:19, and Matt 18:18” in JBL 58 (1939): 243–49. Mantey points out that the Greek fathers never quoted this passage in support of absolution. In the Matthean passages the future perfect is translated as a simple future passive, but properly the distinction of completed action should have been retained. The distinction between the periphrastic and the nonperiphrastic use is that in the periphrastic the participles and auxiliary have nothing between them except postpositives: note, e.g., the nonperiphrastic instances in Gen 41:36 (LXX); Exod 12:6 (LXX); Luke 12:52; and the periphrastic instances in Matt 10:22; John 6:31; 16:24; 19:19; Eph 5:5; James 5:15.
Tenney, M. C. (1981). John. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 9: John and Acts (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (194). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
**
The authority to bind and loose and retain and forgive sins was not a one time event. It is ongoing, similarly, our path to salvation is a lifetime process not a one time event. Jesus was preparing his Disciples for the work to come, he knew his time was short. If he did not mean it to be passed on, then that would mean he abandoned his church.
The first example of ‘successorship’ is the event after Judas death where he is ‘replaced’ by Matthias (chosen by the 11) drawing lots after a prayer to the Lord seeking guidance.
"We see no statement in the New Testament that after the apostles die, so did their authority. On the contrary, we see Paul entrust to Timothy the function of guarding the deposit of faith; Is the deposit of faith limited to scripture?
Let us examine Paul’s words: 2 Tim. 1:13-14: “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” Notice that Timothy must go by the words that he heard from Paul: oral tradition. This oral tradition is guarded by the Holy Spirit, exactly as the church teaches.
Explain how the early Christians practiced their faith without the Bible as we know it? The Catholic Church did not compile the Bible until centuries after Our Lords death and ressurrection. This is before the invention of the printing press. They only had limited access to the Jewish Scriptures (OT).
"Acts 15 shows 1) papal authority, 2) binding authority of non-Apostles, and 3) the power of the church to legislate, all individually fatal to Sola Scriptura.
When Jesus uses the word church, it is within the context of authority, binding and loosing (Mt. 16:18-19; 18:17-18). The assertion that the church does not have this power is thus unbiblical. Going by the bible alone is unbiblical and causes mass confusion."
(MICHAEL LOPEZ)
Tenney, M. C. (1981). John. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 9: John and Acts (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (194). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
**
The authority to bind and loose and retain and forgive sins was not a one time event. It is ongoing, similarly, our path to salvation is a lifetime process not a one time event. Jesus was preparing his Disciples for the work to come, he knew his time was short. If he did not mean it to be passed on, then that would mean he abandoned his church.
The first example of ‘successorship’ is the event after Judas death where he is ‘replaced’ by Matthias (chosen by the 11) drawing lots after a prayer to the Lord seeking guidance.
"We see no statement in the New Testament that after the apostles die, so did their authority. On the contrary, we see Paul entrust to Timothy the function of guarding the deposit of faith; Is the deposit of faith limited to scripture?
Let us examine Paul’s words: 2 Tim. 1:13-14: “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” Notice that Timothy must go by the words that he heard from Paul: oral tradition. This oral tradition is guarded by the Holy Spirit, exactly as the church teaches.
Explain how the early Christians practiced their faith without the Bible as we know it? The Catholic Church did not compile the Bible until centuries after Our Lords death and ressurrection. This is before the invention of the printing press. They only had limited access to the Jewish Scriptures (OT).
"Acts 15 shows 1) papal authority, 2) binding authority of non-Apostles, and 3) the power of the church to legislate, all individually fatal to Sola Scriptura.
- Paul and Barnabas have trouble with those who want to impose circumcision. How do they handle it, do they debate scripture passages and decide? In fact if the Sola Scriptura principle was in place, it is more likely that circumcision would have been reimposed as Gen. 17 says that the covenant with circumcision was to last forever. No, they take it to the apostles and elders, and the head apostle, Peter decides the issue. Paul and Barnabas were arguing with the Judaizers, but when Peter spoke, the Council became silent (vv. 7-12, 13) when he infallibly declared circumcision not necessary.
- Luke carefully distinguishes apostles and elders throughout (v. 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22-23) and asserts that these elders likewise have binding authority that all are commanded to follow. This destroys any assertion that only apostles had binding authority. In fact James, who is not even an apostle, shows binding authority (although his speech of course does not adjust Peter’s infallible decree that circumcision was not binding).
- The church legislates laws that are binding on the believers. For pastoral reasons, James, along with the apostles and elders decide that one can not eat food offered to idols, eat blood and meat of strangled animals (vv. 20, 29). It would be a sin to disobey this law, even though eating food offered to idols in and of itself is not itself a sin. Later Paul shows that this binding law is no longer in place (1 Cor. 14).
When Jesus uses the word church, it is within the context of authority, binding and loosing (Mt. 16:18-19; 18:17-18). The assertion that the church does not have this power is thus unbiblical. Going by the bible alone is unbiblical and causes mass confusion."
(MICHAEL LOPEZ)
R
rinnie
Guest
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Hi Tom,
Yes, I’ll explain. Actually, I myself didn’t include the Catholic Church among the confusing, man-made churches–it is the ordinary, man in the street, non-Christian, who does that because he doesn’t know any better. This is from the perspective of someone who looks around and sees the bewildering array of churches out there to choose from. They all appear somewhat arbitrary to him. He is ignorant of Christian history and may be interested in religion and the bible, but has no idea of how to distinguish among all those “churches.” He will include the Catholic Church in this array because he doesn’t know history. You and I wouldn’t do that, but an ignorant person may.
I should have said, when you are baptized you enter into a saved state, or condition. Catholic theology would call it a state of grace. I was primarily speaking to non-Catholics there, using their terminology. The primary question is church membership. Is it necessary? Well, to be saved is it necessary to be in Christ? Yes. Okay, in that case, how do you become ‘in Christ’? Well, Paul says you are baptized into Christ. You are clothed in Christ. And now you are a member of the assembly of those who are clothed in Christ. You are a member of that assembly, or ekklesia, or church. So, yes, church membership is necessary, and is automatic upon baptism.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Depends on the definition? Would you say the same about the U.S. Constitution? Does it depend what one means by “Consitution” depending what state one resides?
Sorry, but your belief and tradition is faulty and novel. The belief there exists thousands of “true” churches is bogus and without any merit…historically speaking. Care to show us where the Apostles all founded their own churches teaching their own thing?
So you mean to tell us that every single non-Catholic church teaches and believes exactly what you said? Second,who told you what you stated is all that one needs to belong to the church of Jesus Christ? Let us see here:
35,500 splits (as of the middle of 2002) of the Body of Christ in Protestantism.
Today there are over 36,400 splits in the Body of Christ in Protestantism with new ones being added every week, and the end is not in sight.
Many Protestant sects accept abortion it while others are against it Did GOD change His mind about abortion? Is GOD now Pro-Choice? Many Protestants are.
Baptism saves,but for others it does not save
Baptism is an ordinance for others a sacrament
Some Christian churches do not allow female ministers., yet now there are female ministers in many Protestant sects, Anglican, Methodist, and Episcopalian, just to name a few.
Baptism is ONLY for believers and one must be accontable,but others baptize at different times and stages of one’s spiritual life.
Should I go on?
It does not change its structure? Really? Look at what I wrote above and you tell me if that is the church Jesus founded?
No one can tell you where you’ll end up after this life.
And I am sure you know about the Bible also being an idol, if not careful? Your name states Bible believer-right? I do not believe in the Bible,but in GOD!
T
tevans9129
Guest
I disagree, there are many scholars that do not interpret it to be referencing baptism, therefore, I do not see how it can be “clear”.
OK, that seems to support my position that baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation, therefore, neither is church membership. They both come after salvation.
Why did you choose to not quote all of v21?
OK, now some questions.
1 Peter 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
- do you agree that Peter is comparing the saving of Noah’s family to that of Christians?
- does v20 say they were saved “by” water or, “through” water?
- do you disagree that water did not save anyone but totally destroyed everyone but the eight that God saved?
1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Two points, it specifically says that it does not remove the “filth of the flesh”,
and, is “the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.
Why could it not mean that baptism is a public decoration that one has been saved through the resurrection of Jesus, after, they have accepted Him as their Lord and Savior?
Bear
Peace,
Robert
A
ajpirc
Guest
So are you saying that your salvation came 2000 years before you were born? If not, whose salvation came before the Church and baptism?
Without baptism, we cannot be saved for it washes away the original sin that keeps us from receiving God’s grace. You believe in original sin and grace, don’t you?
A
ajpirc
Guest
According to you, your religion is:
What do you mean by “Born again?” Is this “born again of water and Spirit” as Christ says you must do in order that you attain salvation?
T
tevans9129
Guest
Part 1 of 2
OK, would you quote scripture that makes that assertion?
I have been so baptized, believe in Jesus, love God and people, but I am not Catholic. I claim to be a Christian and a member of the body of Christ, am I saved or not, in your opinion?
Sounds as if we pretty much agree. My definition is, “the church”, all those that make up the body of Christ, and then, the worldly churches, those that make up the Catholic and Protestant faith. Some of whom belong to the body of Christ and some, who do not.
That is the way I see it.
When I first began reading the Bible, I did not believe in OSAS either, primarily due to verses in Hebrews and James. However, there are a number of other verses that I believe make it very clear. The caveat is that one is truly saved to begin with and in that I mean that one has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior from the heart, not by words.
My question is that if one does not love God, why would they invite Him into their heart to be their Lord and Savior? Loving others is something that can take time to accomplish, more so for some of us than for others. We have “faith” that God will do what He promises and save us and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we stride to obey all of his teachings. How can one be obedient to Jesus without, the Holy Spirits’ help? And how do we receive the Holy Spirit? Ephesians 1:13 says,
"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, HAVING BELIEVED, YOU WERE SEALED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE,
To be continued.
Bear
T
tevans9129
Guest
Part 2 of 2
Up to this point, I agree with what you say.
Perhaps it is only semantics, however, I disagree that His grace “makes” us perform good works. I believe that we perform works in appreciation for what Jesus did for us on the cross and, to show others by our works that we belong to the kingdom of God. I believe scripture strongly suggests, perhaps even states, that our works result in rewards and crowns as when Paul talks about running the race, which comes “after” salvation.
Where does scripture say that one cannot be saved without works? I agree that if one does not produce good fruit, there would be suspicion of that person not being saved. How about the thief on the cross with Jesus, how many good works did he do?
I totally agree with that, and what does repent mean? Perhaps the following quote will help.
"There are three Greek words used in the New Testament to denote repentance.
(1.) The verb metamelomai is used of a change of mind, such as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin, but not necessarily a change of heart. This word is used with reference to the repentance of Judas (Matt. 27:3).
(2.) Metanoeo, meaning to change one’s mind and purpose, as the result of after knowledge. This verb, with
(3.) the cognate noun metanoia, is used of true repentance, a change of mind and purpose and life, to which remission of sin is promised.
Easton, M. (1996). Easton’s Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
That is not correct and I do not believe you can quote me ever saying that. I contend that salvation is a free gift of God, and if we believe that we have to perform works for that salvation, or, even to retain it, then we are disobedient to His word as Ephesians 2:8 & 9 clearly state,
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
I think if you read some of the posts in this forum, you can see evidence of “boasting”, at least in my opinion.
That I agree with.
Since I do believe in OSAS, I disagree with your statement, however, that is another topic.
As I have previously said, there are many issues that I agree totally with the CC on, and there are some that I do not. One thing in particular, I think there are people in the CC that will be in Heaven, and some that will not, just as is true of other earthly churches.Based on what I have read from your responses, what you believe about salvation sounds pretty Catholic to me!
IMO, scripture clearly asserts that when one accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior, that person instantly becomes a member of the body of Christ. But just being a member of a named church does not make such a guarantee.
Thanks for your comments and sharing your views Joey.Joey
Bear
R
rikkk1958
Guest
tevans, if we based what Jesus, the apostles, disciples, and Church Father said, yes you can not be saved if you are not baptized within the Church who is the Pillar and foundation of the truth. However, any man knows what God can do and of course He can save anyone He wants. The point here is, I am a Catholic. I would rather be in the Church rather than outside the Church, because I want to obey and follow the instructions of the Lord. Yes, you seems to be very proud of your arguments and I think they are valid, but in my opinion, you are more on defensive stance because you want us to understand your position, and because you want to argue against our position.
This is why according to the core of Catholic teachings, Catholics should not force those who do not wish to become Catholic especially a christian brothers like you whose defense is about salvation. The main point of the Catholic Church is that it believes that all doctrines are based on scriptures and traditions therefore because of its history and successions it thrives to continue what Jesus instructed his apostles when He no longers walk on earth as the Son of man. When you go to the Catholic Mass, you will find that our rituals are all according to scriptures. This is not just a man made rituals but this is obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Yes, Peter is comparing the saving of Noah’s family to that of Christians. It was through water that they were saved. Peter is saying it is through the waters of baptism that we are saved now.
In my opinion, it is the property of water to float things that saved Noah and the ark. It is also the property of water to drown people that destroyed the others. Yes, God saved them, but Noah had to do a lot of work in building the ark, had have a lot of faith in God, to do it. God didn’t save the eight and the animals by levitating them up miraculously above the water, but God saved them by natural means. And the others were destroyed by natural means, by drowning.
I agree, Jesus saves us, but it is by means of water, the mechanism of baptism, that Jesus does it. He gives the waters of baptism that power, that property.
Yes, Peter is comparing the saving of Noah through water to the saving of us today through the water of baptism.
No, it does not say that. Read it more closely…“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience.” RSV
That passage does not say that it does not remove the “dirt from the body”, what it does say is that washing your body is not what you are going into the water for. It says you are going into the water to acquire a clear conscience. To wash your conscience instead.
Of course, water, by its natural ability, will remove dirt from your body. Because, ordinarily, you go into water to bathe and clear your body of dirt. But now, in baptism, that is not what you are going into the water for, it is to clear your conscience. (Now, the water will also wash the dirt off your body at the same time, but that is an incidental side effect in baptism.)
Note that Peter says baptism is an appeal to God for a clear conscience. This means that baptism is a prayer, an appeal, for God to forgive your sins. You make that appeal or prayer to God, not by answering an altar call, but by means of baptism!
And, how do you know God will answer your appeal? The answer is through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him! Compare to 1Cor 15:17 and 20, 17: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” 20: “But in fact Christ has been raised.”
(Notice again the use of the word “through.”)
Why not a public declaration? Because I don’t know of any scripture that says anything to that effect, but scripture does have strong declarations otherwise. Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized…for the forgiveness of your sins.” Plus, baptism doesn’t have to be public. The eunuch that Philip baptized wasn’t before the congregation.
Well, that is my opinion of what Peter is saying. I believe my opinion is just as good as any other. So, your job is to show how it is wrong.
A
ajpirc
Guest
You have been baptized which makes you a child of your Holy Mother, the Catholic Church.
You have been born of your mother.
Though you reject her sacraments and teachings because you are not Catholic.
You reject your mother’s teachings and you cannot be nurished because you ran away from home.
It is not very likely for someone without the grace from the sacraments to be saved.
You will die in the wilderness because you don’t have any food to keep you alive.
In my opinion (actually it’s a fact) you aren’t saved because you are on Catholic Answers posting replies to other replies; this tells me that you’re still alive. How can you be on Earth and be saved in heaven at the same time? And don’t tell me that you’ve never sinned before:unless you had confession to absolve your sins, you would have to go through Purgatory before you’re saved.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Tevans,
Let me address just one section of your post, and hopefull shed some light…
Such an approach may challenge any real dialogue, don’t you think?
Let’s start off with some distinctions: Redemption is the wonderous grace we have all received by Christ coming down to earth and through His Life, Death and Resurrection removed from us the guilt of sin we inherited from Adam and Eve plus all of the sins we have actually committed. Because God is outside of time - eternity - everything is in the all present Now - and the grace of Christ’s actions were applied from Adam and Eve to the very last human being to be conceived on earth. Redemption is totally passive on our part - and totally active on the part of Christ. This is what is meant by, ‘Christ died once and for all’ (1Peter 3:18).
Salvation is the wonderous grace we have to cooperate with the graces God gives to us for us to do His Will. It is the use of our free will that enables us to freely accept or reject these graces - and it is how we will be judged by God (cf. Matthew 25). While we have all been redeemed by the Blood of Christ, we will not all be saved because some will freely choose to sin, live in sin and ultimately renounce God. The only place for such people is Hell.
While Christ was on earth (and right before He ascended into Heaven) He spoke about the necessity of Baptism. One of the basic snags with grabbing a ‘proof text’ and wielding it around like machine gun is that it gives the impression of knocking down everything not in agreement with this single verse. “Believe in the Lord and you will be saved!” Well sure that is true - for as far as it goes … but, it does not go the distance. Someone can lead a purposefully sinful life, yet believe Christ is God - and on this soul’s judgment do you think he will be saved? By the same token, we have a person born in the US - so this person is a US Citizen, He may have heard someone say, “Be born here and you will not go to jail!” But, we all know this would be an incomplete statement. While this person would not be arrested for bein in the US illegally, if he broke laws - he has every reason to expect capture and punishment. We must look at the entire Scripture to get the idea of what it is that Christ wants us to do.
Christ Himself was baptized by John - not because He was sinfl, but to show all of us that this is the example He has set. Do you think this was a meaningless act that He imposed on John the Baptist? It is at the Baptism of Christ that we have the Father announce to all that this is His Son - and the Holy Spirit was also present for all to see (Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:1-22 : John 3:22-26)
Look at the millions and millions of murdered unborn babies. They were not baptized nor did they know about God so that they could respond - at least to our knowledge. The Catholic Church has never taught that such souls go to the Hell of the Damned. Actually, Pope Benedict XVI has looked on the matter of unbaptized babies (at whatever stage of their development) and made an announcement: usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm Since there was no way that these babes could be baptized, they are not held accountable. We however had no such excuse.
God makes the rules - and He is free to hold to them or release them according to His Divine Will. There is an interesting exchange between the Pharisees who challenged Christ and His Apostles for eating grain on the Sabbath - and Christ gives them an example of where David did a similar deed. Mark 2:23-28 identifies how this matter was resolved. And, do not forget, Christ is Lord of the Sabbath.
Christ goes to great lengths to establish His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on earth. There, of course is Matt 16:18 where Peter is chosen by God the Father and this choice is announced by Christ to the Eleven - and then Christ gives Peter the symbol of authority: the Keys (and, there weren’t eleven other sets given out). Then there is the First Pentecost Sunday (the birthday of the Catholic Church) and look where the First Pope’s teaching goes: belief, repentance - and BAPTISM! (Acts 2:14-36).
It all fits together… and, that is the take home message.
God bless
Let me address just one section of your post, and hopefull shed some light…
You seen to be saying that if someone supports your position then they are correct. Is this what you really mean?
Such an approach may challenge any real dialogue, don’t you think?Let’s start off with some distinctions: Redemption is the wonderous grace we have all received by Christ coming down to earth and through His Life, Death and Resurrection removed from us the guilt of sin we inherited from Adam and Eve plus all of the sins we have actually committed. Because God is outside of time - eternity - everything is in the all present Now - and the grace of Christ’s actions were applied from Adam and Eve to the very last human being to be conceived on earth. Redemption is totally passive on our part - and totally active on the part of Christ. This is what is meant by, ‘Christ died once and for all’ (1Peter 3:18).
Salvation is the wonderous grace we have to cooperate with the graces God gives to us for us to do His Will. It is the use of our free will that enables us to freely accept or reject these graces - and it is how we will be judged by God (cf. Matthew 25). While we have all been redeemed by the Blood of Christ, we will not all be saved because some will freely choose to sin, live in sin and ultimately renounce God. The only place for such people is Hell.
While Christ was on earth (and right before He ascended into Heaven) He spoke about the necessity of Baptism. One of the basic snags with grabbing a ‘proof text’ and wielding it around like machine gun is that it gives the impression of knocking down everything not in agreement with this single verse. “Believe in the Lord and you will be saved!” Well sure that is true - for as far as it goes … but, it does not go the distance. Someone can lead a purposefully sinful life, yet believe Christ is God - and on this soul’s judgment do you think he will be saved? By the same token, we have a person born in the US - so this person is a US Citizen, He may have heard someone say, “Be born here and you will not go to jail!” But, we all know this would be an incomplete statement. While this person would not be arrested for bein in the US illegally, if he broke laws - he has every reason to expect capture and punishment. We must look at the entire Scripture to get the idea of what it is that Christ wants us to do.
Christ Himself was baptized by John - not because He was sinfl, but to show all of us that this is the example He has set. Do you think this was a meaningless act that He imposed on John the Baptist? It is at the Baptism of Christ that we have the Father announce to all that this is His Son - and the Holy Spirit was also present for all to see (Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:1-22 : John 3:22-26)
Look at the millions and millions of murdered unborn babies. They were not baptized nor did they know about God so that they could respond - at least to our knowledge. The Catholic Church has never taught that such souls go to the Hell of the Damned. Actually, Pope Benedict XVI has looked on the matter of unbaptized babies (at whatever stage of their development) and made an announcement: usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm Since there was no way that these babes could be baptized, they are not held accountable. We however had no such excuse.
God makes the rules - and He is free to hold to them or release them according to His Divine Will. There is an interesting exchange between the Pharisees who challenged Christ and His Apostles for eating grain on the Sabbath - and Christ gives them an example of where David did a similar deed. Mark 2:23-28 identifies how this matter was resolved. And, do not forget, Christ is Lord of the Sabbath.
Christ goes to great lengths to establish His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on earth. There, of course is Matt 16:18 where Peter is chosen by God the Father and this choice is announced by Christ to the Eleven - and then Christ gives Peter the symbol of authority: the Keys (and, there weren’t eleven other sets given out). Then there is the First Pentecost Sunday (the birthday of the Catholic Church) and look where the First Pope’s teaching goes: belief, repentance - and BAPTISM! (Acts 2:14-36).
It all fits together… and, that is the take home message.
God bless
A
ajpirc
Guest
I’m confused about this article. At the beginning, didn’t it say that the unbaptized infants might go to Limbo and then said they would participate in the beatic vision? I thought Limbo was closed after Christ came and that’s when Purgatory was opened.
- Status