Questions about when people get "saved"

[Vico]

What heresy did William Tyndale write into his Translation? What was it that deserved death?

He broke the law passed by the Parliament (1401 A.D.) during the reign of King Henry IV of England. Tyndale left England. Tyndale was later sentenced to die in the court of Emperor Charles V in 1536 because his translation of the Bible was heretical containing heretical ideas, executed in Vilvoorde. King Henry VIII (both in 1531 A.D. and in 1543 A.D.) said that his translation should be rejected.

 

[Gorgias]

You ask two distinct questions here:

What heresy did William Tyndale write into his Translation?

My understanding, based on secondary sources, is based on two assertions: first, he translated certain terms in a way so as to attempt to undermine the Church’s teaching with respect to the notions of ‘church’ and ‘clergy’. Second, he defied Church teaching not only by attempting to publish an unauthorized translation but also by denigrating the Church and its teaching in his prologues.

What was it that deserved death?

That’s a different question. Inasmuch as Henry VIII was responsible, we have to ask what Tyndale did to offend Henry. His opposition to Henry’s annulment seems to be the reason for Henry’s call to have him arrested and killed.

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorgias, I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. Tyndale was guilty of bringing the Bible to English speaking people without the authority of the Church. The CC was power happy about who was allowed to teach the scripture. Here is what the CC did not know: William Tyndale was doing the Lord’s work by command of Jesus Christ, and will receive a martyr’s reward at the judgement.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, I don’t know what the heck you are talking about.

Let me try again, then: you claim to have a single “essential condition” that is required for “fellowship with other Christians.” Yet, when we identify that your “essential condition” applies to those with whom you assert that you do not share Christian fellowship, you produce other “essentials”.

Therefore, it seems that, contrary to your claim, your ability to explain your “essential doctrines” is deficient. (In any case, you list a number of ‘essentials’ that are necessary in addition to your ‘single essential doctrine’.) Your notion, then, of “essential” and “non-essential” seems either arbitrary or ill-defined.

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorgias, this is what happens when you assert yourself into a conversation you did not begin with. I’m not sure why.

 

[tgGodsway]

Timothy would and did, But heresy was running wild along with heavy persecution in the latter end of the first century and into the second. Jewish converts still teaching the law we’re undermining the apostles especially after their death. Truth moved slowly in this environment. Public proclamations were costing people their lives.

 

[tgGodsway]

First century disciples who went public with their faith are hard to come by. It would cost them their life. I need to go research that.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

I’m sorry MT but you speaking another article of Jimmy not what I have written as follows:

Well how about helping the rest of us out and posting a link to the article you used?

Here’s where I got the article…

Righteousness and Merit – Jimmy Akin

The link is directly to Jimmy Akin’s web site and the exact article you use in your title.

RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT by James Akin.

God Bless

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

Yes you are correct MT, that is the article, thank you for your help, it is a very good and educational article.
.

Everyone should read it to understand the reason:
(Quote “You don’t have to do a diddly-do-da thing after being justified by God in baptism in order to go to heaven.”End quote.
.

But I tell you MT, our glory and position in heaven will be determined by God according to the outcome of the judgment of our Works of Love what we do out of shher love for the Glory of God and out of sheer love for others.
.

Every Christian works we do confession, sacraments, evangelization, etc. we must do for the Glory of God, NOT for the reason that this works might takes us to heaven.
.
.
God’s gift of heaven is FREE GIFT, we cannot add even an iota to it, this is the reason:
“You don’t have to do a diddly-do-da thing after being justified by God in baptism in order to go to heaven.” – Any works we do for the reason to enter to heaven is faithless graceless works, at the judgment rejected by God.
.
.
.
ANNEX TO THE OFFICIAL COMMON STATEMENT

.
C. Justification takes place by grace alone (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified „apart from works“ (Rom 3:28, cf. JD 25).
.
D. Certainly, "whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it (JD 25).
.
3. The doctrine of justification is measure or touchstone for the Christian faith. No teaching may contradict this criterion. In this sense, the doctrine of justification is an "indispensable criterion which constantly serves to orient all the teaching and practice of our churches to Christ“ (JD l8).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-annex_en.html
.
.
As you see MT, Jimmy’s message (RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT by James Akin.) is the same as above, he only use different words to tell the same thing.
.

As Christians we all should do as much Works of Love as we can, it is most important, not for the reason of our salvation which is God’s FREE GIFT but for the Glory of God. – This is our Great Commission.
.

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

Latin.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, this is what happens when you assert yourself into a conversation you did not begin with. I’m not sure why.

Sorry… I thought this was a discussion forum, not a bulletin board for publicly-visible private conversations.

Nevertheless, you seemed to be somewhat unclear in what your assertion about your take on “Christian essentials” was, not only in the number of the “essentials”, but also whether they’re actually essential. Sorry if you aren’t able to defend your assertions or understand their implications.

Gorgias, I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. Tyndale was guilty of bringing the Bible to English speaking people without the authority of the Church.

He was also guilty of teachings against the Church to which he belonged. At best, that’s heresy, and more likely, schism. Given the secular power structures of the day, it was also sedition.

The CC was power happy about who was allowed to teach the scripture.

Right. Cause Christ Himself didn’t give that commission to the apostles, and gave them the proxy to rule in his name, huh?

Here is what the CC did not know: William Tyndale was doing the Lord’s work by command of Jesus Christ

Oddly enough, he did the exact same kind of work that John and Paul railed against – teaching a gospel different than the one that apostolic teaching proclaimed.

, and will receive a martyr’s reward at the judgement.

Yeah… that’s not exactly how John or Paul saw it, when they witnessed it in his day.

Glad you know who’s in heaven and who’s not, though. Where’d you get that authority and insight?

 

[MT1926]

Yes you are correct MT, that is the article, thank you for your help, it is a very good and educational article.

No problem. But it still leaves your other quotes unanswered…

Of course, a Calvinist can say (as a Thomistic Catholic would say) that both cooperation in the giving and the embracing of the eternal call are themselves produced (not just enabled) by God’s grace, and this is perfectly fine.

A Calvinist and a Catholic alike can say that our cooperation is produced (not just enabled) by God’s operation. No problem at all. End quote.

These quotes aren’t in Jimmy’s article, where do they come from?

Every Christian works we do confession, sacraments, evangelization, etc. we must do for the Glory of God, NOT for the reason that this works might takes us to heaven.

I totally agree our good works must be done for the Glory of God.

God’s gift of heaven is FREE GIFT, we cannot add even an iota to it, this is the reason:

“You don’t have to do a diddly-do-da thing after being justified by God in baptism in order to go to heaven.” – Any works we do for the reason to enter to heaven is faithless graceless works, at the judgment rejected by God.

Amen

As Christians we all should do as much Works of Love as we can, it is most important, not for the reason of our salvation which is God’s FREE GIFT but for the Glory of God. – This is our Great Commission.

AMEM

One is saved the moment one is initially justified.

This is the statement that I don’t agree with. Mainly the way you say it

The way your speech comes across it seems you are saying one can not lose their salvation after being Baptized. Is that what you mean?

You seem to respect Jimmy so here’s another article on his site.

http://jimmyakin.com/justification-in-catholic-teaching

Here’s the intro to the article…

The first two chapters deal with fallen man’s need for justification and the provision that God has made for fulfilling this need. Then there is a group of these chapters (ch.s 3-9) that deal with the initial justification, which the believer receives when he first becomes a Christian. Then the Council turns its attention to the subsequent process of justification, which starts in the Christian’s life (ch.s 10-11). Then it turns to the possibility of failing to persevere in God’s grace, of losing one’s justification, and of subsequently regaining it (ch.s 12-15). And finally, it takes up the issue of how our acts of love will be rewarded in heaven, which deals (though the fathers of Trent do not says so) with our final justification on the Last Day.

If you didn’t mean one can lose their salvation enjoy the article. If you are saying OSAS then lets talk about this article.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

But to more directly answer your question, I am not sure I would argue the Trinity as an essential to salvation only because it requires a fuller revelation of the godhead.

I’m not so sure I agree with this. I’ll come back to the trinity I think we need to discuss the Bible verse here.

I don’t see 2 timothy 2:14 saying don’t dispute with other Christians about words regarding what is and isn’t essential. St. Paul is saying silence errant teachers who are fascinated with useless speculations and become argumentative when it comes to defending their private opinions before others. See verse 23

23 Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

This would also relate back to 1 Timothy 1:3-7 & 6:3-5, which are warnings about false teachers who don’t rightly handle the word of truth spoken about in verse 15.

When I read this I don’t see the message being don’t quarrel over the essentials. I think dialogue and discussion is good, even if it does turn into an argument, as long as we can bring it back around to dialogue, like we have done here.

It seems to me St. Paul is telling Timothy I have already taught you the essentials. You Timothy were given the authority, handed down from me, to preach the truth. Don’t allow someone else to pick apart what I have written and teach a deviation from the truth.

Timothy is basically being told don’t quarrel over words that are written on the page but stand firm in the oral teachings I have given you, to interpret these words, and like verse 25 says correct your opponents with gentleness.

Now back to the Trinity, the Catholic Church followed 2 Tim 2:14 when Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ, was on the rise. Instead of fighting about the words in the Bible and what they mean they called the council of Nicea in 325 to once and for all proclaim the Trinity to be an essential dogmatic teaching of the faith.

Here’s an article on arianism that might help some.

Arianism

Arianism, a heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Read more from the original Catholic Encyclopedia.

www.catholic.com

I think the point is we need essentials for the Christian faith to be truth and to survive. You might not like looking Catholic Church History, most of which you were probably taught the original writings we have are all lies, but to ignore the Catholic Church and the part she played in history is to ignore the essentials of our Christian faith.

In this day and age, being so far removed from the Apostles, I don’t think it is enough to say this is how I understand it and what I believe. I think if we want to find truth we have to study all of history to see where our truth came from. There are so many essentials to the faith which would not be if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church battling the heresies thought history. Yes you believe in the Trinity, but have you ever asked yourself why? Just imagine if the Catholic Church had no authority to call a council and put an end to Arianism, would Christians still believe in the essential of the Trinity? Where would our faith be today if we did not believe in the Trinity?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Timothy would and did, But heresy was running wild along with heavy persecution in the latter end of the first century and into the second. Jewish converts still teaching the law we’re undermining the apostles especially after their death. Truth moved slowly in this environment. Public proclamations were costing people their lives.

I’m still not sure what you are getting at here?

What would this have to do with your original quote…

I’m sure you know that second hand, third hand, fourth hand believers had to learn on a learning curve. This is why the inspired writings of the Apostles was so necessary.

Sure I agree truth moved slowly and I agree people were martyred for the faith. However, the faith was still handed on orally. People were taught the faith by those who taught them. They didn’t pick up the Apostles writings and figure it out on a curve.

Is there any historical document you could point me to that show us people learned the faith on a curve?

 

[tgGodsway]

Sorry MT I think I cut and pasted more than I needed to. My original thought on 2 tim. 2, was based on the defection of Hymenaeus and Philetus who were going around telling everyone that the resurrection had already come.

My point was that Paul may have treated the timing of the resurrection as an essential doctrine.

But the more I think about this, there is actually two different ways to look at it.

What is necessary and essential for one to obtain eternal life? and/or… what is essential for one to enjoy fellowship in the Church?

Obviously Hymenaeus and Philetus needed to repent for their false teaching about the resurrection, assuming they were saved in the first place. And Paul would not allow them to enjoy fellowship in the Church until they repented of their false teaching.

But was Paul saying that a potential new convert must understand the resurrection, not only of Christ, but the future resurrection of all the saints at the second coming of Christ, in order to be born again? I cannot say I see it here in scripture. Paul goes on with a small metaphor about how in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor (v20) Obviously this was a reference to Hymenaeus and Philetus.

But these two questions (above) may get difference answers. And now we are back to the baptism issue.
Is water baptism an essential condition one must meet in order for him to be born of the Spirit? …

What would we do with those who repent in a place where there is no water, or no time for the water. Much like a death-bed come to Jesus moment?

What will we do with the repentant man hanging on the cross next to Jesus, after Jesus said, "this day you will be with me in paradise?

Thirdly, what will we do with the evangelistic gospel of John who did not include water baptism in his many calls to eternal life? His gospel was an “only believe” gospel.

What did Paul mean when he said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to evangelize…” 1st. Cor. 1:17 He goes on to say that his message to evangelize was to be saved. (v18)

Seeing that the word baptism shows up in various context in the N.T. and has nothing to do with physically dunking someone under water, how can water baptism be the case for receiving the gift of eternal life?

The book of Acts has several narratives where we are told converts were baptized in the name of Jesus. Was that a spiritual baptism into the body of Christ, to which Christ is the head? or was that water.
Acts 8 does use the word water in associate to salvation but was it a condition for salvation?

For us, water baptism is a public ceremony proclaiming His death, burial, and resurrection. It proclaims the fact that we too have now been baptized into Christ. 1st. Cor. 12:13.

 

[MT1926]

What is necessary and essential for one to obtain eternal life?

This is what I would consider the essentials

and/or… what is essential for one to enjoy fellowship in the Church?

This is what I would consider the non-essentials

And now we are back to the baptism issue.

Is water baptism an essential condition one must meet in order for him to be born of the Spirit? …

What would we do with those who repent in a place where there is no water, or no time for the water. Much like a death-bed come to Jesus moment?

The way it makes most sense to me is that we are bound by God’s Sacraments He is not. Basically if there is water then we best do what God told us to do, If there is no water or no time, we work with what He has given us and leave the rest it up to the mercies of God.

I believe God only holds us accountable for what we are able to do.

Luke 12:48
48 Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

If we are able to be Baptized then we will be held accountable if we say Jesus didn’t really mean we have to be Baptized when He said

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved;

You see He didn’t repeat Himself 3 times so we aren’t required to do it.

It’s the exact same scenario when people bring up the thief on the cross. I usually respond to that nonsense with "can you honestly tell me on judgement day you will look Jesus in the eye and say “Hey no fair you didn’t make the good thief do any of that stuff”.

What did Paul mean when he said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to evangelize…” 1st. Cor. 1:17 He goes on to say that his message to evangelize was to be saved. (v18)

St. Paul is not minimizing the importance of Baptism here. The problem he was facing here was these people lost sight of the Sacramental purpose of Baptism, which is to unite us with Christ (1 Cor 12:13 7& Gal 3:27).

Instead they were quarreling over who Baptized them, as if they were able to say they got a fuller gospel message because of who Baptized them. St. Paul continues in verse 17 to confirm that the truth of the Gospel is in the message not the messenger. That’s why he says he was sent to preach and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied.

This verse isn’t really talking about Baptism, it’s speaking about the people elevating the messengers (the one who performed the Baptism) above the message.

 

[MT1926]

Seeing that the word baptism shows up in various context in the N.T. and has nothing to do with physically dunking someone under water, how can water baptism be the case for receiving the gift of eternal life?

The definition of the Greek word Baptizo means to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe.

I would probably say unless the writer specifically spells out a different meaning for how they are using the word in that particular context we should probably go with it’s original meaning, which would mean they got wet.

The book of Acts has several narratives where we are told converts were baptized in the name of Jesus. Was that a spiritual baptism into the body of Christ, to which Christ is the head? or was that water.

Acts 8 does use the word water in associate to salvation but was it a condition for salvation?

I think this is evidence that you have been convinced that Baptism is unnecessary and were trained to question it’s meaning every time it pops up in the Bible.

For us, water baptism is a public ceremony proclaiming His death, burial, and resurrection. It proclaims the fact that we too have now been baptized into Christ. 1st. Cor. 12:13.

I’m just curious how did your church come up with this public ceremony. I mean no disrespect here but you question baptism every time it is mentioned in the bible. You’ve drawn up these huge theological arguments for why it is not necessary yet you do it anyway. That just doesn’t seem to make sense in my mind.

 

[JesusReigns]

44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.

45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.

46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God.

47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

Acts 10

It would seem Water was very important, along with belief and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m just curious how did your church come up with this public ceremony. I mean no disrespect here but you question baptism every time it is mentioned in the bible. You’ve drawn up these huge theological arguments for why it is not necessary yet you do it anyway. That just doesn’t seem to make sense in my mind.

MT. I did not bring up baptism at all. You did. If you remember, the larger issue here is eternal salvation. Is eternal salvation by grace through faith APART from works,? … or grace through faith INCLUDING works?

Water baptism is definitely a work, an action, a deed…

 

[tgGodsway]

the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.

Apparently the Holy Spirit wasn’t gonna’ wait for water. he fell upon them when they heard the word of God preached. Notice that, as a reaction, Peter said, Hey… you cannot deny these gentiles water baptism, after all, they’ve just been filled with the Spirit. He fell upon them. Of course water baptism was important and it should be, but in this case it was not a “condition” one must meet before the Spirit will descend on those who believe, which is what the debate MT and I have been having.

 

[MT1926]

MT. I did not bring up baptism at all. You did. If you remember, the larger issue here is eternal salvation. Is eternal salvation by grace through faith APART from works,? … or grace through faith INCLUDING works?

Water baptism is definitely a work, an action, a deed…

Actually, if you look back to the beginning I brought up Mark 16:16 just to speak about how the scriptures speak about salvation in a past, present, and future tense. “Have been saved, are being saved and shall be saved”, is what I was referencing in the verses I pointed to. That was the only point I was making. You are the one who jumped on Mark 16:16 and changed the subject to Baptism, in the need to point out that this verse is not clear because the word baptism wasn’t repeated in verse 17.

Which pretty much proves what I was asking. You seem to have a hangup on Baptism.

SO…

Why is a public ceremony necessary when you jump on any verse that even mentions Baptism, to make sure the person you are speaking to knows Baptism isn’t important?

Look back to the beginning you are the one who brought up Baptism. I only mention Mark 16:16

God Bless

So how was my interpretation of 1 Corinthians?

 

[MT1926]

Of course water baptism was important and it should be, but in this case it was not a “condition” one must meet before the Spirit will descend on those who believe, which is what the debate MT and I have been having.

Actually this is not the debate we are having. I never claimed that one must be Baptized before the Spirit will descend. I am only claiming that water Baptism is the normal mode of the Sacrament instituted by Christ.

Like I said we are bound by this mode He is not. If God wishes to have the Holy Spirit descend first that is His prerogative. Not to mention the reason God did this is because at this time the Apostles still believed the Gentiles were not worthy of salvation. God did this to show Peter that the Gentiles were worthy of Baptism.

What I am simply claiming is if Baptism is not necessary then there is no reason for it to be done. The fact that St. Peter command the Gentiles to be Baptized, as he also did at Pentecost with the Jews, in this verse makes absolutely no sense if it is not essential. That is my question why would something, that is non-essential, be repeated over and over again in the Scriptures?