Protestants who accept OSAS: How do you explain these scriptures?

[SD_Catholic]

A born again person will still sin, but this does not make that person lose his salvation. The Father will punish a child of His who does not repent, as He did with David. He may even take that child home through death.

]

This now looks like you are the one saying that Christ’s sacrifice was not enough to pay for** ALL** of our sins… if it were then why would he take our child after our death if we don’t repent of our sins? Everyone’s child (if they have one) will be taken at sometime. We all die because of Adam’s sin, not our parent’s

Are you saying that this is how someone who is “saved” is punished or whatever if they don’t repent of sins? What if they have no children or family what would a result of their unrepented sin be?

SD

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If your interpretation were correct, then no one could be saved. We all sin, as Paul pointed out in his epistles.
These verses are not speaking about what you seem to understand them to be. I do not want to waste time explaining the context and what Paul was driving at when he spoke to the Hebrews that also wanted to go back to the Jewish rituals, which no longer were valid.

Waste time? You realize that sounds like a copout? Not only a copout but you cast doubt on my interpretation and yet offer no interpretation of your own because it’s a waste of time?

To show you it’s not just my “interpretation” I am providing quotes from early Christians below. I know you have difficulty accepting anyone’s interpretation but you have to realize the Truth didn’t lay dormant until you received it. Also, please note the urls below go to Calvin College which affirms the reformed church’s traditions.

Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book II
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-59.htm#P5822_1770475

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shah devour the adversaries.”[126]

Tertullian On Baptism
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-49.htm#P11547_3263746

But the world returned unto sin; in which point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his sins:[75]

Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-104.htm

And if then ye sin no more, He will forgive you what ye have done in ignorance; but if, after ye have known Him, and He has had compassion upon you, you return to the like courses, even your former offences will be laid to your charge, and ye shall have no portion or compassion before His face.[8]

I thought we were in agreement that Jesus was the Light and the Truth as well as the ultimate sacrifice. Maybe you better look at it again.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins:
Heb 10:27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here’s the question: “Can any Catholic here give me a straight answer on exactly what Jesus meant when He said you must be born again?” Soooooooo…

I’ll give it a whack - how about this for an answer - unless you be born again by water and spirit you will not enter the kingdom…this is the Sacrament of Baptism. Each Sacrament is an encounter with the living God, and so His Triune Nature is there, Father Son and Holy Spirit. The is no division in Him. Where One is All are. When we receive the Sacrament of Baptism, whether as a child or adult, we are born again into His Kingdom. That is why we teach that Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation - it initiates the recipient into Christ and he or she is born again as a Christian. It begins a person’s life in Christ. But this is only the beginning. Life gets lived afterwards and God knowing we would need help to continue to the end gave us another Sacrament for this - Confession whereby we are also “born again” by having our sins Absolved through the life giving Spirit present in the Sacrament. Get it?

Peace,

Gail

Thank you Gail.

Sometimes it’s hard to articulate when you’re in a circular discussion. You stated it very eloquently and succinctly.

God Bless and may the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

This now looks like you are the one saying that Christ’s sacrifice was not enough to pay for** ALL** of our sins… if it were then why would he take our child after our death if we don’t repent of our sins? Everyone’s child (if they have one) will be taken at sometime. We all die because of Adam’s sin, not our parent’s

Are you saying that this is how someone who is “saved” is punished or whatever if they don’t repent of sins? What if they have no children or family what would a result of their unrepented sin be?

SD

I can see where my wording may have confused you.
Instead of re-wording it, let me say that I believe that Jesus’ one Sacrifice at Calvary paid for every sin past, present, and future of any person who is born again by the Holy Spirit into God’s family. This happens when God calls that person to come to and have true faith in Jesus and what Jesus did to redeem us from all of our sin.
Any chastisement that a born again person gets later, from the already forgiven sin which occurred before or after being saved, is what God the Father does to keep God’s born-again children in line. The born-again person’s children, if he has any, are not what I was speaking about. Prodigal Son 1 was the one who brought that up and I disagreed with that idea.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can see where my wording may have confused you.
Instead of re-wording it, let me say that I believe that Jesus’ one Sacrifice at Calvary paid for every sin past, present, and future of any person who is born again by the Holy Spirit into God’s family. This happens when God calls that person to come to and have true faith in Jesus and what Jesus did to redeem us from all of our sin.
Any chastisement that a born again person gets later, from the already forgiven sin which occurred before or after being saved, is what God the Father does to keep God’s born-again children in line. The born-again person’s children, if he has any, are not what I was speaking about. Prodigal Son 1 was the one who brought that up and I disagreed with that idea.

2Sa 12:13 And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die.
2Sa 12:14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.

It appears to me that David’s child died because of the sins of it’s father. You were the one who used this example as God chastising His followers when I asked you about God chastising the living for their sins. Please explain the two verses, in your words and how it applies to God’s chastisement of sinners.

As you speak of chastising the living for their sins, it reminds me of the protestant preacher, Pastor Hagee (I’m sure there are others), who said Katrina was God’s punishment to the people of New Orleans.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Here’s the question: “Can any Catholic here give me a straight answer on exactly what Jesus meant when He said you must be born again?” Soooooooo…

I’ll give it a whack - how about this for an answer - unless you be born again by water and spirit you will not enter the kingdom…this is the Sacrament of Baptism. Each Sacrament is an encounter with the living God, and so His Triune Nature is there, Father Son and Holy Spirit. The is no division in Him. Where One is All are. When we receive the Sacrament of Baptism, whether as a child or adult, we are born again into His Kingdom. That is why we teach that Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation - it initiates the recipient into Christ and he or she is born again as a Christian. It begins a person’s life in Christ. But this is only the beginning. Life gets lived afterwards and God knowing we would need help to continue to the end gave us another Sacrament for this - Confession whereby we are also “born again” by having our sins Absolved through the life giving Spirit present in the Sacrament. Get it?

Peace

Gail

The explanation you gave seems to say that being “born again” is something that happens again and again and again…etc.

There are some problems that I find with the idea that Baptism and Confession are the method of a person becoming born again.
(John 1:12-13)
12. “But as many as recieved Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.”
13. “Which were born, not of blood, NOR of the WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God.”

It should be obvious that Baptism and Confession are violating verse 13, since man’s will is very directly involved in Baptism and Confession.

Jesus made it clear in (John 3:8) that man is not the initiator of the born-again process. It is completely of the Holy Spirit and we can not control or even understand the how and when or where of being born again.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The explanation you gave seems to say that being “born again” is something that happens again and again and again…etc.

There are some problems that I find with the idea that Baptism and Confession are the method of a person becoming born again.
(John 1:12-13)
12. “But as many as recieved Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.”
13. “Which were born, not of blood, NOR of the WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God.”

It should be obvious that Baptism and Confession are violating verse 13, since man’s will is very directly involved in Baptism and Confession.

Jesus made it clear in (John 3:8) that man is not the initiator of the born-again process. It is completely of the Holy Spirit and we can not control or even understand the how and when or where of being born again.

Man’s will is distinctly not involved in Holy Baptism; His will does nothing towards the Holy Spirit working faith in his heart through the water and the word. I do not view confession in itself as sacramental; however, absolution is a means of grace that the Spirit uses to work faith in the hearts of those who hear the absolution and believe the promise given in it.

 

[brkn1]

Serious sins with serious consequences, yet David did not lose his salvation. One has to assume, God saw David’s loss of his son as the price to pay the debt owed. While it might have been a stretch to use the word purgation, it still shows different degrees of sins in God’s eyes. What would the debt had been if David had merely been angered or prideful instead? Would God have taken his child still? Since David’s sins were mortal sins the debt appears to have been death, or a sacrifice of David’s child. Remember, this happened way before Christ was the sacrifice for sins and God didn’t command David to offer up sacrifices.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

(2 Sa 12:14) is not talking about David’s son being a “debt” for David’s sins.
David’s son had to die because it would have “given great occassion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,”.

 

[brkn1]

Man’s will is distinctly not involved in Holy Baptism; His will does nothing towards the Holy Spirit working faith in his heart through the water and the word. I do not view confession in itself as sacramental; however, absolution is a means of grace that the Spirit uses to work faith in the hearts of those who hear the absolution and believe the promise given in it.

If man performs any part of that Baptism, then man’s will is involved. The timing alone would involve man’s will. Lifting the water to sprinkle or pour or even immersion has man’s will involved.
The claim “distincly not involved” is not convincing at all to me.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If man performs any part of that Baptism, then man’s will is involved. The timing alone would involve man’s will. Lifting the water to sprinkle or pour or even immersion has man’s will involved.
The claim “distincly not involved” is not convincing at all to me.

When a preacher preaches and teaches from the Word in a sermon, is man’s will involved? So if someone is born from above during a sermon, is that partly man’s will, partly God’s will?

God works through means to effect His purposes. He uses the means of minister, water, and font; the result is solely the will of God’s Spirit going forth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If your interpretation were correct, then no one could be saved. We all sin, as Paul pointed out in his epistles.
These verses are not speaking about what you seem to understand them to be. I do not want to waste time explaining the context and what Paul was driving at when he spoke to the Hebrews that also wanted to go back to the Jewish rituals, which no longer were valid.

I have responded to your post above in my post #102. In my response to your above post, I provided documentation from a protestant source that reaffirms my interpretation of Hebrews 10:26-27. You have ignored that response.

I do not, myself, find seeking or sharing God’s Truth to be a waste of time.

You should explain yourself as opposed to letting the post be buried unanswered and using an excuse of, “I don’t want to waste time explaining…” Doing so lowers the credibility of the arguments you put forth in this discussion. It appears that if something doesn’t endorse your belief or interpretation, it is to be ignored or said to be an misinterpretation on our part. It also puts you in the same position of many who come to these forums to “attack” the Catholic faith with closed eyes.

We don’t come here to push an agenda. We are, however, often put in a position of defending our faith a lot of the time. Most of us don’t mind being put more into a debate than a discussion but there is an expected etiquette when debating. Brushing someone off with the excuses and unfounded or unsubstantiated accusations as you have above are very poor etiquette in a debate, in my opinion.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

When a preacher preaches and teaches from the Word in a sermon, is man’s will involved? So if someone is born from above during a sermon, is that partly man’s will, partly God’s will?

God works through means to effect His purposes. He uses the means of minister, water, and font; the result is solely the will of God’s Spirit going forth.

I like your explanation about a preacher preaching the word. Man’s will is involved on the preaching part, but not the “born again” part, which is the Holy Spirit that makes the hearing of the word real.
A preacher can preach for a hundred years the same message of salvation and, if the Holy Spirit does not make that message real to a person, it will not save the person listening.
The Holy Spirit has to spiritually baptise the unsaved person to make that person born again.
That is what being “born again” means, not some man-performed ritual.

 

[brkn1]

I have responded to your post above in my post #102. In my response to your above post, I provided documentation from a protestant source that reaffirms my interpretation of Hebrews 10:26-27. You have ignored that response.

I do not, myself, find seeking or sharing God’s Truth to be a waste of time.

You should explain yourself as opposed to letting the post be buried unanswered and using an excuse of, “I don’t want to waste time explaining…” Doing so lowers the credibility of the arguments you put forth in this discussion. It appears that if something doesn’t endorse your belief or interpretation, it is to be ignored or said to be an misinterpretation on our part. It also puts you in the same position of many who come to these forums to “attack” the Catholic faith with closed eyes.

We don’t come here to push an agenda. We are, however, often put in a position of defending our faith a lot of the time. Most of us don’t mind being put more into a debate than a discussion but there is an expected etiquette when debating. Brushing someone off with the excuses and unfounded or unsubstantiated accusations as you have above are very poor etiquette in a debate, in my opinion.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

You simply quote some verses, without an exact explanation and your interpretation, and then you expect me to follow some “etiquette” of responding with more than a brush-off.

 

[mikeledes]

When a preacher preaches and teaches from the Word in a sermon, is man’s will involved? So if someone is born from above during a sermon, is that partly man’s will, partly God’s will?

God works through means to effect His purposes. He uses the means of minister, water, and font; the result is solely the will of God’s Spirit going forth.

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration? In other words, that God regenerates someone through baptism?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You simply quote some verses, without an exact explanation and your interpretation, and then you expect me to follow some “etiquette” of responding with more than a brush-off.

If you had actually read post 102, you would see I provided enough documentation, from protestant sources, to endorse that you can fall from grace and suffer, “…a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire…”

My own explanation/interpretation was, as listed below.

Seems pretty clear that sinning after having knowledge, or faith, there is no sacrifice left for sins, instead a certain judgment where the fire shall consume them.

While it is my own explanation/interpretation, it was more than, “I don’t want to waste time explaining…” which is no kind of answer at all. I then went through the trouble to look up other sources, as I keep repeating, from protestants that endorse my explanation. Of course you don’t reply to that, apparently to let it be buried which seems as attempt to ignore or avoid the information since it does not match what you’re saying.

I can go through your posts and show where you offer no more than private interpretation.

Anyone is welcome to go back and read the posts and let me know how I did not explain myself or present documentation to endorse it.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[TriuneUnity]

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration? In other words, that God regenerates someone through baptism?

God Bless,
Michael

Yes.

Baptism is the visible gospel; it has the same effect as the preached gospel; the gift of faith, new life, salvation from the world, the flesh, and the devil, through the Word.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I like your explanation about a preacher preaching the word. Man’s will is involved on the preaching part, but not the “born again” part, which is the Holy Spirit that makes the hearing of the word real.
A preacher can preach for a hundred years the same message of salvation and, if the Holy Spirit does not make that message real to a person, it will not save the person listening.
The Holy Spirit has to spiritually baptise the unsaved person to make that person born again.
That is what being “born again” means, not some man-performed ritual.

In the same way that the minister’s will is not involved in the Spirit working through the Word to bring new life to the spiritually dead; the preached Word of Baptism is not of man’s will either.

Baptism is no man-made ritual; it was instituted by Christ to bring salvation to the lost.

 

[brkn1]

In the same way that the minister’s will is not involved in the Spirit working through the Word to bring new life to the spiritually dead; the preached Word of Baptism is not of man’s will either.

Baptism is no man-made ritual; it was instituted by Christ to bring salvation to the lost.

Jesus is not described as having baptized anyone with water in the Bible.

Jesus was described by John the Baptist as “He that cometh” to baptize “with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” (Matt.3:11)

Physical water baptism does not necessarily correspond to the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Cornelius and his family were baptized by the Holy Spirit before any physical baptism took place. The Ethiopian eunuch, the jailer, the thief on the cross are other examples of spiritual regeneration before or without physical baptism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus is not described as having baptized anyone with water in the Bible.

Jesus was described by John the Baptist as “He that cometh” to baptize “with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” (Matt.3:11)

Physical water baptism does not necessarily correspond to the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Cornelius and his family were baptized by the Holy Spirit before any physical baptism took place. The Ethiopian eunuch, the jailer, the thief on the cross are other examples of spiritual regeneration before or without physical baptism.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Mar 16:15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.

Jesus may not have baptized with water but as evident in John 3:5 and Mark 16:15-16, he taught the importance of being born again of water. Remember, Jesus was the High Priest and He had Apostles and disciples to instruct and he was witness to many baptisms.

Joh 4:1 When Jesus therefore understood the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples and baptizeth more than John More than John the Baptizer? This means Jesus knew of water baptisms and evidently approved of them and might possibly have taught such a thing as stated in John 3:5.
Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples),

My comments bolded in above quote.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes. He’s not a prophet. He only taught false doctrines.

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church is not an assumption. It is a truth. Even St Paul before he was sent out he was first taught by the church. I don’t have problem with pastors or ministers teaching godliness and good morality but when it comes to faith matters and doctrines… oops, they don’t have the authority to do that. Only the apostles and their successors possess that authority.

That isn’t entirely true. Let’s examine some of the teachings of the founder of the Protestants:
Martin Luther had the belief of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Luther’s words follow:

• It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
• She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).

Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

• Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
  {Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
• Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
  {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
• A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
  {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
• Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
  When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
  {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
  Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
  Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
  {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
• “. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
  Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
• “. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
  Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)
• “Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
  (REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)
• “Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)