Questions about when people get "saved"

[guanophore]

I see a discrepancy in the conversation above but it is not my place to point it out. It is not my conversation!

Of course it is! It is a public forum and all are welcome to participate. Please point!

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

I see a discrepancy in the conversation above but it is not my place to point it out. It is not my conversation!

Of course it is! It is a public forum and all are welcome to participate. Please point!

I will in due course but would like to give tgGodsway a chance first. He perhaps has not seen these posting yet.

 

[guanophore]

God bells you Hope and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Are you asking for God to hit us with a large bell?

Our part to do in our water baptism is the SYMBOL of our salvation NOT the cause of our salvation.

Symbol in the sense that it is a material enactment of a spiritual reality.

Our water baptism COULD NOT be the cause of our salvation, because at the time as God’s children predestined to heaven we perform our parts of our water baptism, we are already IRREVOCABLY SAVED by our Initial Justification which is God’s part to do in our baptism.

Ahh, perhaps we are back to that Reformed Theology again? Your formulation is not consistent with Catholic theology, which teaches that intitial justification occurs in baptism.

And although the baptized soul is saved/justified before God, most of us who are baptized do not die immediately afterward and there are opportunties for sin to separate us from our heavenly reward.

God’s part to do in our baptism (Initial Justification, etc.) ALWAYS PRECEDES our water baptism.

So, LATER when we do our water baptism, we are ALREADY irrevocably saved.

Very Calvin of you!

Continue

Don’t bother…

I have posts on this thread where I explain baptism in fine details in the light of the related HIGHEST LEVEL teachings of the CC, posts # 322 – 328, if you have time and you like to have a detailed information on baptism please read it.

Yes, it seems to appear in many places on the forum. You seem to have a pre-occupation with it.

If you Hope have any questions concerning baptism or any questions in the related teachings in the above posts # 322-328 please ask and I answer your questions or the questions of any readers of the CAF.

Yes, Hope, you will get an interesting amalgamation of Reformed theology with Catholicism.

 

[tgGodsway]

Actually I CAN have it both ways. Tyndale was used of God to the decree that God could use Tyndale. The same applied with Luther. God could only use Luther to the degree that Luther could understand the word of God. Calvin could only be used of God to the degree Calvin understood the word of God.

We applaud their efforts to go against the grain of what seem to be the official view of the CC. Luther had an epiphany so to speak, when he saw the scripture which said, “the JUST shall live by faith.” He was known for unraveling this truth for so many. The justified believer was now called to live by faith. Justification for Luther was understood to mean a declared position in Christ and not an earned state of being. This was what Luther contributed to the reformation. But did this mean he got everything right? of course not . … but that’s okay. Luther was just one stone in this very large and universal structure. Others would come along to correct, or refine Luther’s position. Actually, it just hit me. Luther’s successor, so to speak, I can’t think of his name right now, took the Lutherans in the opposite direction when Luther died. On the subject of salvation, Luther’s replacement was in disagreement with Luther on faith alone and eternal security. To this very day the Lutheran denomination is closer to the CC than any reformed group. How crazy is that?

Many of our contemporary theologians, (in my opinion) are well beyond the reformers of Luther’s day in terms of understanding scripture. But the protestant reformation has many groups who are reformed in certain things, but on certain essentials like salvation have drifted back to a more Catholic understanding. Of course they will say it isn’t true!

However, I would surely be kicked out of any reformed group for my views on the holy Spirit. My views on this particular subject are much more in line with a Charismatic or Pentecostal view.

It really isn’t about any particular circle or denomination, or spiritual order. The body of Christ is very large, much larger than the parameters of the CC and much larger than that of the protestant Church. These are all buzz words with personal bias attached to each.

The key for me is not to become arrogant about the group I find yourself in.

 

[tgGodsway]

I agree with what you are saying. but you do not believe it. The Catholics say the Church is infallible but the Apostles never did. The 1st. Century Church never said they were infallible. But I agree to the “divine elements.” Those divine elements are what you say, Christ the head, the Holy Spirit, (the soul so to speak) He is the teacher of the Church. Allow me to add just one more: And the word of God is His teaching. So now we are down to just a few things. (1) How things should be interpreted (2) Should there be an on-going voice of revelation, via, papal decree and council, equal to inspired scripture?

We’re stuck on the interpretation of a lot of things and haven’t really dealt with decreed things, a concept not found in the new testament. We’ve got a long way to go for the unity that the Apostle Paul prayed for.

 

[ltwin]

It seems that this thread has wound down but there is one more point I would like to make.

Yeah, I kind of lost interest when it seemed as if the thread had become a Tyndale thread.

Paul tells us In Romans 6:

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his

He repeats this in Colossians 2:12.

I have no problem with the understanding that water baptism is a means of grace that every Christian is called to walk in. My issue is that Catholic theology appears to separate this sacrament from the faith of the participant. Colossians 2:12 highlights that we rise with Christ through our faith:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Now, I know Catholics say that there are sponsors who are supposed to ensure that the child is brought up in faith, but the sacrament, according to Catholic theology, is effective right then and there (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Regardless of what may or may not happen to the child as they develop later in life (they may repent of sins or not, which to me seems to go against the letter and the spirit of Acts 2:38), at the moment they were baptized they were also regenerated and washed of original sin. Therefore, according to Catholics, they were raised with Christ not through their own faith but because of parental faith.

(Continued in next post)

 

[ltwin]

In Galatians 3:27 he says For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The whole context of this statement is justification by faith:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

We are justified by faith, and in baptism we by faith put on Christ–meaning we clothe ourselves in him, hide ourselves in him. His death becomes our death. His life becomes our life. His righteousness, perfection and holiness becomes ours. It is faith in Christ that accomplishes this, not the act of washing itself. Baptism is only effective through the faith of the one being baptized.

It is obvious that Paul blieves that baptism is necessary for salvation in being united with Christ.

Paul only echos what others say. Peter when asked how to be saved said to repent and be baptized.

Yes, repent and be baptized. Seems churches these days like to separate the two, but Scripture is clear that these go together.

It is not the only time that Peter mentions baptism. He speaks of the ark saving 8 people and connects the ark as a type of baptism which he than state that baptism saves us now.

1 Peter 3:21-22 does say that baptism saves:

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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

It is clear why baptism saves–because the person is appealing to God through faith for a good, clean, pure conscience, for forgiveness of sin, and new life in Christ. Baptism is the ultimate act of calling out to God to be forgiven, washed clean, and united with Christ.

If baptism occurs but the person is not seeking God, appealing to Him for forgiveness through faith in Christ, there is no salvation. None of this amazing stuff happens.

(Continued in next post)

 

[ltwin]

Jesus’ own command to baptize should not be ignored.

That goes without saying.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Jesus not only commands baptism but tells us that is the way they are made disciples. Confirming again the necessity of baptism.

I agree that baptism is part of the process by which we become disciples of Christ. Yet, it should always be emphasized that the blessings we receive in baptism are received through faith in Jesus Christ and that baptism is our appeal to God–not someone else’s.

This is why I believe one can be saved even though they have not been water baptized. Ideally, baptism should take place soon after one receives Christ in their life to fulfill the biblical pattern (repent and be baptized). Yet, baptism is one part of becoming a Christian–not the totality.

Imagine that we have an unbaptized person who had repented of their sins and placed their faith in Christ beside a baptized person who had not repented of their sins and did not have faith in Christ. It would make a mockery of the Christian religion to say the latter was regenerated while the former unregenerate.

I hope I haven’t offended anyone with this post, and if I’ve mischaracterized any aspect of Catholic teaching, please know it was not intentional.

 

[Vonsalza]

I agree that baptism is part of the process by which we become disciples of Christ. Yet, it should always be emphasized that the blessings we receive in baptism are received through faith in Jesus Christ and that baptism is our appeal to God–not someone else’s.

Hi Itwin,

You don’t have a clear scripture reference for this belief and we both know it, else there wouldn’t be such a wide, swaying range of beliefs within wider protestantism as it pertains to baptism.

So since this is just an opinion, it’s readily dismissed by a “meh”.

The “Catholic view” that you’re concerned for running afoul of is that baptism is something that God does. He cleanses away the stain of original sin.

“Believer’s Baptism” is something that enjoys little-to-no support in the NT after one realizes that John’s baptisms were performed on Jews who likely remained Jews - at least there’s nearly zero evidence that these particular Jews became Christians.

This is why I believe one can be saved even though they have not been water baptized.

The words of God Himself on the matter: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”.

Imagine that we have an unbaptized person who had repented of their sins and placed their faith in Christ beside a baptized person who had not repented of their sins and did not have faith in Christ. It would make a mockery of the Christian religion to say the latter was regenerated while the former unregenerate.

I agree completely. Which is why “Baptism of Desire” exists as a theological concept in Christ’s visible Church.

I hope I haven’t offended anyone with this post, and if I’ve mischaracterized any aspect of Catholic teaching, please know it was not intentional.

You’re a scholar among Pentecostals, as I encounter them. Most aren’t so learned.
Thank you for your dialogues.

 

[ltwin]

You don’t have a clear scripture reference for this belief and we both know it,

The Scriptures @hope brought up and I commented on make it clear that baptism is through faith. Colossians 2:12 says that in baptism we are raised with Christ through faith. Galatians 3–sons of God through faith, put on Christ through baptism. 1 Peter 3:21-22, baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience (tell me how we can appeal to God without faith?).

The words of God Himself on the matter: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”.

“whoever does not believe will be condemned.” I’m not a Bible scholar, but I find it interesting that the final clause does not include baptism. Perhaps its assumed that those who believe will seek baptism, which I think is what should happen.

As you say concerning baptism of desire, even the Catholic Church does not hold strictly to the idea that being unbaptized automatically means condemnation.

You’re a scholar among Pentecostals, as I encounter them. Most aren’t so learned.

Thank you for your dialogues.

Thanks . . . I think.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with what you are saying. but you do not believe it.

I don’t believe what I am saying, or I don’t believe that you agree with me?

The Catholics say the Church is infallible but the Apostles never did. The 1st. Century Church never said they were infallible.

There are many things that are not specified in the Bible that were believed by the early church. Can you explain to me how a group of people making a decision can make a mistake if the Holy Spirit is guiding the outcome?

(1) How things should be interpreted

Yes, this is critical. Catholics believe that things should be interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition (the faith we received from the Apostles). Children of the Reformation most often believe we should interpret in the light of Sola Scriptura, which is why there are so many divergent views.

(2) Should there be an on-going voice of revelation, via, papal decree and council, equal to inspired scripture?

No. We believe there is one divine deposit of faith, the contents of which closed with the death of the last Apostle. This deposit contains Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition.

What is ongoing is Jesus’ promise to guide the Church into all Truth.The councils and dogmas are a reflection of that once for all deposit of faith, not an addition to it.

If you think there are no Apostolic decrees in the NT, you seem to be reading with one eye blind!

 

[Latin]

Latin:

Ahh, perhaps we are back to that Reformed Theology again? Your formulation is not consistent with Catholic theology, which teaches that intitial justification occurs in baptism.

And although the baptized soul is saved/justified before God, most of us who are baptized do not die immediately afterward and there are opportunties for sin to separate us from our heavenly reward.

God bless you Guanophore and God bless every readers of the CAF.
.

FIRST
If you would read my post carefully you would realized:
According to my post, Initial Justification takes place at God’s part to do at our baptism.
.

SECOND
It seems to me you are Guanophore you don’t really know the differences between Catholic Soteriology and Reformed Soteriology.
.

So, I present for you some of the HIGHEST LEVEL teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject which probably seems like to you it is Calvinism but it is very much Catholic.
.
.
.
The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a DE FIDE Dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

THE CATHOLIC DOGMA. – The predestination of the elect.
.
Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, has

been IRREVOCABLY FIXED FROM ALL ETERNITY. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it

were possible that a predestined individual should after all be CAST INTO HELL or that

one not predestined should in the end REACH HEAVEN, then God would have been

MISTAKEN in his foreknowledge of future events; He would NO LONGER be omniscient.

.
(2) The second quality of predestination, the DEFINITENESS of the number of the elect,

follows NATURALLY from the first. For if the eternal counsel of God regarding the

predestined is UNCHANGEABLE, then the number of the predestined must likewise be

UNCHANGEABLE and DEFINITE, subject NEITHER to ADDITIONS nor to

CANCELLATIONS. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of

certitude in God’s knowledge and would DESTROY His omniscience.
.

THE THEORY OF PREDESTINATION prævisa merita

THIS THEORY, CHAMPIONED BY all Thomists and a few Molinists (as Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, Francis de Lugo):

Asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment. End quote.
.

Continue

 

[Latin]

Continuation
.

As you see above Guanophore if even only one of them would reject salvation related graces IN ALL Christian history, he would end up in hell and God would instantly lose His omniscience.
.
.

DON’T STOP HERE LET’S GO A BIT FURTHER.
.
FR. WILLIAM MOST TEACHES THE SAME ABOVE THEOLOGICAL FACTS

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 Fr. William Most

What does the Catholic Church teach on Predestination?

Predestination is gratuitous: For even before God considers human merits, He predestines, and because the sole and total cause of predestination is the goodness and love of the Father which moves spontaneously WITHOUT stimulus, merit, or condition. End quote.
.
.

Now Guanophore the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Predestination: explains for you who are those who are end up in hell. – Please read it very carefully.
.
.
According to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Predestination:
.
The majority of theologians STRONGLY CONTESTED not only positive predestination to hell/positive reprobation to hell, but they also STRONGLY CONTESTED even negative predestination to hell/negative reprobation to hell.

They also the same way automatically and STRONGLY CONTESTED the so called: Predestination to Grace. – The people Predestined to Grace are the very people who are ALREADY predestined to hell from all eternity.

.
Quote: Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it CANNOT be harmonized with the DOGMATICALLY certain UNIVERSALITY and sincerity of God’s salvific will.
.
For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the ABSOLUTE will of God “NOT TO ELECT” a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, “to EXCLUDE them from heaven” (Gonet), in other words, NOT to save them.
.
How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has DECREED from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation?
.
He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avail’s him NOTHING.
.

Continue
.

 

[guanophore]

It seems to me you are Guanophore you don’t really know the differences between Catholic Soteriology and Reformed Soteriology.

If you wish, Latin. We see it differently.

Continue

Please, there is no need. I have read your posts repeatedly. Posting the same material over and over is not really a good use of bandwidth. Why not just post it on a blog page then you can keep linking to it?

Now Guanophore the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Predestination: explains for you who are those who are end up in hell. – Please read it very carefully.

I hate to break this to you, Latin, but the Catholic Encyclopedia does not constitute the highest levels of Teaching in the Church.

 

[Latin]

Continuation
.

Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to TAKE CARE that they die in their sins.
.

(An explanation for you Guanophore if you may not clearly understand the above statement:
If a predestined to grace would die in the state of grace, would end up in heaven and God would instantly lose His omniscience, so God would have to TAKE CARE that every predestined to grace die in the state of mortal sin.) – In the brackets added.
.

Is this the language in which Holy Writ speaks to us?

No; there we meet an anxious, loving father, who wills not “that any should perish, but that ALL should return to penance” (2 Peter 3:9).
.
Lessius rightly says that it would be INDIFFERENT to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be CERTAIN.
.
The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the SAME THING as damnation.
.
A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist. End quote.
.

Continue

 

[Latin]

Continuation
.

If you have knowledge Guanophore in Catholic Soteriology then you KNOW:
.

FIRST

God predestined His elect to heaven from all eternity:

“For even before God considers human merits, He predestines, and because the sole and total cause of predestination is the goodness and love of the Father which moves spontaneously WITHOUT stimulus, merit, or condition.”
.

At their Initial Justification when God performs His part at their baptism all receives God’s grace The Gift of Final Perseverance which is an Eternal Protection of their Salvation/Eternal life. – DE FIDE Dogma. + Infallible teachings of the Trent.

Without the above protection every elect would end up in hell. – Infallible teachings of the Trent.
.
.
SECOND

From the above Soteriology we also know:
When God predestined His elect to heaven, God automatically with the same DECREE predestined the rest of mankind to hell.
.
This is not Calvinism, this is Catholic Soteriology, please read it in the Catholic Encyclopedia Predestination, it is described above as well.
.
.

A quote from your post Guanophore as follows:

And although the baptized soul is saved/justified before God, most of us who are baptized do not die immediately afterward and there are opportunties for sin to separate us from our heavenly reward.
.

As you see Guanophore: You know now, your above statement contradicts Catholic Soteriology. - NOTHING can separate God’s elect from God.
.

There are two conditions to end up in heaven, to be among the Predestined to heaven and to receive God’s UNDESERVED GRACE The Gift of Final Perseverance at our Initial Justification when God performs His part of our baptism which ALWAYS PRECEDES our part to do in our water baptism.

Of course the two above UNDESERVED GIFTS of God cannot be separated, they always goes together.
.

God bless you Guanophore and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Latin

 

[Vonsalza]

The Scriptures @hope brought up and I commented on make it clear that baptism is through faith. Colossians 2:12 says that in baptism we are raised with Christ through faith.

Colossians 2:12 also cites that it was done “in the power of God” (NABRE) or “of the operation of God” (DRA).

Galatians 3–sons of God through faith, put on Christ through baptism.

If you’re talking about 3:27 (For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. - NABRE), you’re reading-in “sola-credo-baptism”. It simply is not present in the text.

1 Peter 3:21-22, baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience (tell me how we can appeal to God without faith?).

Who says it’s only your own explicit appeal? For instance, the Church has practiced paedobaptism since the literal beginning. You think the infant made a direct appeal?
When Christ told us to suffer the little children, He seemed to have left out the caveat “I mean only those who thematically understand salvation in the context of the Fall and my coming death, burial and resurrection!”.

It seems Christ should have asked for your advice so God could communicate his teaching a little more clearly.

And, more directly to the point we were discussing, Peter seems to think Baptism is required in v. 21. Christ and Peter certainly seemed to be on the same page about the necessity of baptism, if indeed you still think they were both wrong.

“whoever does not believe will be condemned.” I’m not a Bible scholar, but I find it interesting that the final clause does not include baptism.

It is interesting, but irrelevant. God incarnate spoke “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”.

Since you don’t have an authoritative Church established by Christ himself to do this for you, your task is to cobble together a soteriology that accounts for all scripture. Not just the bits and bobs you really like.

If you do it right, it’ll end up looking Catholic anyway.

Thanks . . . I think.

Sure. Most Pentecostals I encounter are so because they really enjoy the clinical group mania of their services (what they insist is the “movement of the Spirit”). Not because they’ve really systematically studied their theology as you appear to have done.

Now, you’ve probably done this in order to secondarily provide an apologetic for a faith you were probably brought up in - thus you’re naturally compelled to defend it anyway. But it is an accomplishment nonetheless.

 

[tgGodsway]

Can you explain to me how a group of people making a decision can make a mistake if the Holy Spirit is guiding the outcome?

If it weren’t for the fact that many of the decisions made in these Church councils were not simply tweaking what already is, but revoking the very foundational doctrinal stances (at the Apostolic level) that have always been.

In other words, they weren’t building upon the foundation found in scripture, but they, in many cases were rebuilding the foundation itself.

For example, it wasn’t until 1953 when the CC decided to decree that Mary was “… preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, by the singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God.” (from the papal bull, Ineffabilus Deus, quoted in the Tablet, Dec. 12, 1953.)

This was not a “building upon” what already is, kind of decision. It was a re-construction of what already is. By deciding Mary was sinless from conception, this collective decision brought Romans 3:23 into question. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” It now should read, “For most have sinned and come short…”
Paul’s point of view (which actually was the Holy’s Spirit’s teaching) has been undermine despite the fact that his view has many O.T. witnesses in support.

So, the real question is this: Were these people in this particular council being led by the Spirit of God in the first place. My conclusion is simple. No way.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes, this is critical. Catholics believe that things should be interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition (the faith we received from the Apostles). Children of the Reformation most often believe we should interpret in the light of Sola Scriptura, which is why there are so many divergent views

This understanding, in my view is preposterous. This whole idea of “sacred tradition” is also a product of a council decree which came centuries later. We are not instructed to gain our faith by receiving it from the Apostles. Why not? They passed away in the first and second century. But they left us inspired scripture which answers the “faith” issue. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” Rom. 10:17

The word of God, the scriptures, is a very distinct and supernatural venue by which we learn doctrine and practice. It is profitable for correction, see. 2nd. Tim. 3:16.

Any and all tradition handed down by the Apostles should be understood in light of holy scripture and in subjection to it. Tradition in general was spoken of in a negative light by our Lord and savior because of it’s potential abuse. So that a careful approach should always be considered. The idea that tradition holds the same weight of authority as scripture is actually a violation of scripture. This too was decreed centuries in time.

 

[tgGodsway]

No. We believe there is one divine deposit of faith, the contents of which closed with the death of the last Apostle. This deposit contains Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition

If this is true then you must produce the apostolic evidence that tradition was to be considered sacred and hold the same weight of authority as scripture. At best tradition compliments sacred scripture. And at no time should it ever contradict scripture. But that is not the case with many of the decrees that have emerged over the centuries.

Tradition and scripture should be one and the same, but they are not. This is where the CC needs to become honest with herself instead of posturing a superiority over the rest of the body of Christ. In actuality they become the weakest link in the chain.