Questions about when people get "saved"

[Vonsalza]

Consider the work of William Tyndale, one of the greatest masters of both the Hebrew and Greek languages. The man spoke I think five different languages. He risked his life to give us the English translation of the bible. The RCC burned him at the stake.

A perfect example of anti-Catholic lies so many protestants are raised to believe…

The RCC didn’t burn him at the stake.

Henry VIII of England wanted Tyndale dead after Tyndale publicly shamed the King about his annulment.

King Henry contacted Emperor Charles of the Holy Roman Empire to have Tyndale brought to England.

This didn’t happen. Imperial authorities seized and killed him under trumped charges of heresy (recall that Church and State weren’t very separate in those days).

Henry wanted Tyndale dead. And he succeeded.

 

[tgGodsway]

What does your church teach in regards to your children who have not reached an age of reason and believe? Are they saved or not?

Jesus said, do not prevent the children from coming to Me. We believe that, #1 God’s wrath on sin is quenched by the Cross of His Son. God is not angry anymore. He loves the little ones who are ignorant to the concept of sin. If they die in that state God will not judge them as sinners. Ro. 5:13.

If they understand and commit sin then the age of accountability is over. They need Christ to save them. We have altar calls at our Church for children. These children get saved by accepting Jesus Christ as savior at a very young age.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, it is clear from this scripture that the Holy Spirit wished to demonstrate convincingly to Peter that believers needed to be baptized, and made the point to Peter by making the gifts of the HS visible at his preaching. We see that the Apostles never separated the Holy Spirit from the water baptism, and Peter immediately called for them to be baptized with water.

God is not bound by any of the sacraments. He has promised that He will work in and through them, but He also works outside of them. From the beginning, the Church beleived that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Church taught then, as she does now, that baptism washes away all sins, both original and personal. At baptism a person is “saved”.

 

[tgGodsway]

You did here exactly what I just said you keep doing, you read what you wanted into the verse to discredit Baptism. Paul didn’t wash their wounds it was the other way around. See verse 22

Yeah, you’re right, I read it too fast. I have forgotten about this verse until yesterday. But the jailer obviously believed according to verse 32. But verse 33 is interesting,

"And he (the Jailer) took them, (Paul and Silas) the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And IMMEDIATELY he and all his family were baptized.
If I wanted to argue from the standpoint of the literalness of this verse, I could say that the Jailer and his family were not water baptized at all, seeing that the passage doesn’t literally say so. Nor does it give any detail about how they were baptized. I could argue from a 1st. Cor. 12:13 point of view here that “by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body…”

But honestly I don’t know. What I do know is that Paul answered the man’s question about what it takes to get saved in verse 31. “believe” and in verse 34 the bible says the Jailer and his family met those qualifications. “… having believed in God with all his household.”

Again, Paul and Silas shared this one divine condition on eternal salvation with the gospel of John which is to “believe” Jesus is the Christ.

 

[Vonsalza]

MT … you miss the excitement of it. You miss the passion of it.

Perhaps he think his religious experiences shouldn’t routinely involve group mania?

When she came up out of the water, she was no longer drunk. She was sober, totally. My friend and I were blown away at the wonders of God that day.

Praise the Lord!

I still hope she wasn’t the one driving home that day.

Baptism symbolizes a spiritual deliverance from one place to another.

Or death. Or cleansing. Or anything you want it to so it fits your narrative.

It to me speeds up one’s desire to walk with God, as opposed to one who refuses to be water baptized.

Got a scripture that says baptism “speeds up one’s desire to walk with God”?

---

I appreciate your enthusiasm. I shared it myself when I was an evangelical Baptist. But I found it so vapid and sensationalist. I wanted something authentically holy and sacred. Something were I didn’t determine God’s truth because it already existed independently of me.

I found it in the Catholic Church.

 

[MT1926]

God is bound to keep His word. He does not do anything willy-nilly. He has already promised to save those who believe. He is faithful to keep His word

If God doesn’t do anything “willy-nilly”. How come he haphazardly threw the word Baptism into Mark 16:16?

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

According to your interpretation of this verse God’s word doesn’t mean what we think it means. Which would mean God did something “willy-nilly”.

 

[MT1926]

We believe that, #1 God’s wrath on sin is quenched by the Cross of His Son. God is not angry anymore.

God was never angry, it is not possible for him to be angry. God is pure Spirit. God does not change, for Him to become angry, which is a human emotion, would indicate a change which would mean He is not God.

We are incapable of understanding God’s perfect justice so the sacred writers need to apply human emotions to get their point across. This is call anthropomorphizing.

He loves the little ones who are ignorant to the concept of sin. If they die in that state God will not judge them as sinners. Ro. 5:13.

You can’t just grab a scripture verse and say see God will not judge them as sinners. You’re trying to twist Romans 5:13 to say we no longer have original sin. When in actuality original sin is exactly what he is teaching about, in these verses. This verse isn’t talking about there being no new covenant law. It is speaking of the time between Adam and Moses, when there was no law. Read verse 14 it says yet death reign…when did it reign? When there was no law.

These verses are teaching us that all descendants of Adam are born into the world in a state of spiritual death and in need of salvation. This state is what is known as original sin. All born would include babies.

If they understand and commit sin then the age of accountability is over.

Where do you see this teaching in the Bible?

We have altar calls at our Church for children. These children get saved by accepting Jesus Christ as savior at a very young age.

Where does the Bible teach us to do an altar call?

 

[tgGodsway]

Jesus wanted them to be baptized, that is why He said it. He wanted to show them His pattern left by His own baptism. I am not saying that baptism should be treated willy-nilly.

Jesus subjected Himself to His (earthly pastor) John the Baptist who took Him under the water, symbolizing a spiritual death, according to Rom. 6:3,4 (yet to be realized at the cross.) John then took Him up out of the water, symbolizing a resurrection, (yet to be realized three days after the cross,)
Then and only then, “the heavens were opened and the Spirit descended upon Him like a dove and a voice from heaven said this is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” This was a pattern for all who believe. Everyone who is in Christ should be baptized. Why do it? Because it declares to others that we too have died spiritually, and resurrected spiritually and now a voice from heaven has said, this is my beloved child…"

But notice the Mark 16:16 passage again,

“he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Notice when Jesus reverses His logic by saying "he who does not believe will be condemned, He failed to reverse the consequences of not being water baptized.

It should read like this, He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe and is not water baptized will be condemned."

Every word is deliberate. Logic concludes that water baptism is not a condition for salvation. Only to believe is, which is consistent with so many other passages.

 

[tgGodsway]

God was never angry, it is not possible for him to be angry. God is pure Spirit. God does not change, for Him to become angry, which is a human emotion, would indicate a change which would mean He is not God.

We are incapable of understanding God’s perfect justice so the sacred writers need to apply human emotions to get their point across. This is call anthropomorphizing.

Yes I am aware of this argument… However, you assume that anger is ONLY a human emotion. I agree the bible uses these kind of expressions so that we can understand God. But if God cannot express anger, neither can He express love. This we know not to be true. How about Joy. Does our God express Joy?.. We were created in His likeness and Adam had His image as well. God is the author of our emotions and scripture highly suggest that He too expresses them. Even Jesus, expressed anger when He overthrew the money changers.

This argument is unconvincing to me.

 

[tgGodsway]

You can’t just grab a scripture verse and say see God will not judge them as sinners. You’re trying to twist Romans 5:13 to say we no longer have original sin. When in actuality original sin is exactly what he is teaching about, in these verses. This verse isn’t talking about there being no new covenant law. It is speaking of the time between Adam and Moses, when there was no law. Read verse 14 it says yet death reign…when did it reign? When there was no law.

These verses are teaching us that all descendants of Adam are born into the world in a state of spiritual death and in need of salvation. This state is what is known as original sin. All born would include babies.

Thank you MT, but in my humble opinion I think you are wrong again.

Jesus addressed the Pharisees over guilt when He said, “If you were blind you would have no guilt; but now that you say ‘we see’ your guilt remains.”

On this principle, we know that little children are blinded to know what is evil and have not made any choices to do evil. In that sense, they are still innocent. I am not saying they do not have a nature to sin. But that nature has not yet developed into acts of sin which breed guilt. So when Jesus said to the Pharisees, "If YOU WERE BLIND YOU WOULD HAVE NO GUILT. His message suggested that those who are spiritual blind to sin, are guiltless.

When Jesus spoke to his disciples in Jn 15. He said, If I had not come and spoken to them, (Israel) they would not have been guilty of sin."

It was a reference to God giving them the Law. But because the Law exposed their guilt, they have no excuse for their sin.

Guilt comes through the knowledge of sin. Little ones do not have this knowledge.

 

[MT1926]

But notice the Mark 16:16 passage again,

“he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Notice when Jesus reverses His logic by saying "he who does not believe will be condemned, He failed to reverse the consequences of not being water baptized.

It should read like this, He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe and is not water baptized will be condemned."

Every word is deliberate. Logic concludes that water baptism is not a condition for salvation. Only to believe is, which is consistent with so many other passages.

Yes I remember this is the whole argument that you used when you brought up Baptism the first time.

As you said to me once in this discussion, why are you adding something to the text that is not their. Jesus does not tell us what will happen to the person who is not Baptized, and neither should you. Every word from Jesus mouth is deliberate if Baptism wan’t necessary for salvation He shouldn’t have deliberately said it along with believe in Mark 16. Jesus knows what He deliberately means you are the one who is trying to twist his words.

Logic concludes that it is the Holy Spirit that does the Baptism. Which you agreed. The Holy Spirit is perfection in all that He does. Jesus never brought it up because it is not possible for a mere human to undo Baptism when it is the Holy Spirit that makes that mark on your soul.

Just like it was not possible for you buddy to re-baptize you in the swimming pool, because the Holy Spirit already put that mark on your soul the first time.

 

[tgGodsway]

As you said to me once in this discussion, why are you adding something to the text that is not their. Jesus does not tell us what will happen to the person who is not Baptized, and neither should you. Every word from Jesus mouth is deliberate if Baptism wan’t necessary for salvation He shouldn’t have deliberately said it along with believe in Mark 16. Jesus knows what He deliberately means you are the one who is trying to twist his words

MT. you are so full of accusation. Actually I wouldn’t even argue that Jesus was talking about eternal life at all in Mk 16. He is talking about salvation= which is deliverance. He who believes will be delivered… This concept may include eternal life, but does not necessarily. This passage is too inconclusive. John’s gospel when specifically talking about eternal life, says so emphatically and repetitiously.

“I assure you; Anyone who BELIEVES has eternal life.” Jn. 6:47.

Was John simply not paying attention with his repetitious message to just believe? Or was he driving home a point that you simply hate.

It’s time for Church. I have to go.

Be blessed MT.

 

[MT1926]

MT. you are so full of accusation. Actually I wouldn’t even argue that Jesus was talking about eternal life at all in Mk 16.

Now your back to arguing that John’s Gospel is the only one that speaks of eternal life. Give me a break. So no one knew the truth until John wrote some 60 years after the Resurrection? Matthew, Mark and Luke are of no benefit in figuring out salvation. Seriously?

Was John simply not paying attention with his repetitious message to just believe? Or was he driving home a point that you simply hate.

Wow I would have to say that was uncalled for, uncharitable and un-Christian like.

How does the fact that I believe Jesus when he says

John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

As well as when he says

John 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

As well as when he says

John 10:27-28
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

As well as Mark 16 and many other places in the Mathew, Mark, and Luke.

How does the fact that I believe everything Jesus says and not just what is said in John equal I hate Jesus’ message of belief in John?

God Bless

PS I was actually studying John 6 this morning, why don’t you study a little Greek on John 6 and then we can discuss it.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Not a fan of any of that…too much Brother Loves Travelling Salvation Show for me. I strive to be worthy of salvation, Jesus will take care of the rest.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

I proved my above two statements with the above teachings of the Catholic Church.

If you MT don’t agree with my above two statements, please prove, my above two statements are incorrect, you can choose whatever you like to prove my above statements are incorrect.

.

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

You are misunderstanding my point. I am not saying predestination is not taught in the Catholic Church. All I am saying is the Catholic Church does not teach you can know with infallible certainty that you are among the predestined. You are presenting your argument in a way that makes it look like you are saying you do infallible know you are among the predestined.

Nothing you quote proves that you can have infallible certainty that you are one of the predestined.

Therefore, my statement stands…

To claim you are among the predestined is to claim to know what only God knows.

I am having dejavu here.

I had this exact same conversation with a guy back in March who copied and pasted the exact same information, with the exact same misconceptions, about Catholic teaching, you are posting. His tag was LatinRight. That’s not your account as well is it?

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

Thank you for your post.
.

Yes we having dejavu here, my account use to be LatinRight.
That account doesn’t exist any longer.
.

You probably remember MT you helped me to stay in the Catholic Church by pointing me out Jimmy’s article on anathema and I thank you for that.
.

So, we still have an unfinished business on Once Saved Always Saved.
.
Please remember Once Saved Always Saved and to able to know we are among them or we are not, it is a DIFFERENT issue, this is NOT an issue here.
.

Do you believe MT, every child of God called to Eternal Life, at their Initial Justification receives God’s special grace His Gift of Final Perseverance which is an Eternal Protection of their Eternal Life, so they are Once Saved Always Saved?
.
.
What is your answer to the above question MT, yes I believe it or I don’t believe it?
.

a. If your answer is: Yes I believe every child of God called to Eternal Life, at their Initial Justification receives God’s special grace His Gift of Final Perseverance which is an Eternal Protection of their Eternal Life, so they are Once Saved Always Saved.
.
b. If your answer is: I don’t believe it, please explain your reason/s you don’t believe it.
.
.
If your answer is a. I can answer your post # 168, in fact this post shows you have a gifted logic.
.

Thank you in advance.
.

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

Latin

 

[Reuben_J]

@tgGodsway

The Catholic Church is the apostolic Church. One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. You can say she started at Pentecost in that upper room, not in Rome. They were all there, in Jerusalem.

Here is a testimony by a Protestant Historian who converted to Catholic. - A. David Anders, Ph.D.

The Protestant Reformers had justified their revolt by an appeal to “Scripture alone.” My studies in the doctrine of justification had shown me Scripture was not as clear a guide as the Reformers alleged. What if their whole appeal to Scripture was misguided? Why, after all, did I treat Scripture as the final authority?

When I posed this question to myself, I recognized that I had no good answer. The real reason I appealed to Scripture alone was that this is what I had been taught. As I studied the issue, I discovered that no Protestant has ever given a satisfactory answer to this question. The Reformers did not really defend the doctrine of “Scripture alone.” They merely asserted it. Even worse, I learned that modern Protestant theologians who have tried to defend “Scripture alone” do so by an appeal to tradition. This struck me as illogical. Eventually, I realized that “Scripture alone” is not even in Scripture. The doctrine is self-refuting. I also saw that the earliest Christians knew no more of “Scripture alone,” than they had known of “faith alone.” On the issues of how-we-are-saved and how-we-define-the-faith, the earliest Christians found their center in The Church. The Church was both the authority on Christian doctrine as well as the instrument of salvation.

By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the Apostles. I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, but it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my Evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.

 

[Reuben_J]

Continue:

Modern American Evangelicals teach that Christian life begins when you “invite Jesus into your heart.” Personal conversion (what they call “being born again”) is seen as the essence and the beginning of Christian identity. I knew from my reading of the Fathers that this was not the teaching of the early Church. I learned studying the Reformers that it was not even the teaching of the earliest Protestants. Calvin and Luther had both unambiguously identified Baptism as the beginning of the Christian life. I looked in vain in their works for any exhortation to be “born again.” I also learned that they did not dismiss the Eucharist as unimportant, as I had. While they rejected Catholic theology on the sacraments, both continued to insist that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Calvin even taught in 1541 that a proper understanding of this Eucharist is “necessary for salvation.” He knew nothing of the individualistic, born-again Christianity I had grown up with.

 

[Latin]

@tgGodsway

The Catholic Church is the apostolic Church. One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. You can say she started at Pentecost in that upper room, not in Rome. They were all there, in Jerusalem.

Here is a testimony by a Protestant Historian who converted to Catholic. - A. David Anders, Ph.D.

The Protestant Reformers had justified their revolt by an appeal to “Scripture alone.” My studies in the doctrine of justification had shown me Scripture was not as clear a guide as the Reformers alleged. What if their whole appeal to Scripture was misguided? Why, after all, did I treat Scripture as the final authority?

When I posed this question to myself, I recognized that I had no good answer. The real reason I appealed to Scripture alone was that this is what I had been taught. As I studied the issue, I discovered that no Protestant has ever given a satisfactory answer to this question. The Reformers did not really defend the doctrine of “Scripture alone.” They merely asserted it. Even worse, I learned that modern Protestant theologians who have tried to defend “Scripture alone” do so by an appeal to tradition. This struck me as illogical. Eventually, I realized that “Scripture alone” is not even in Scripture. The doctrine is self-refuting. I also saw that the earliest Christians knew no more of “Scripture alone,” than they had known of “faith alone.” On the issues of how-we-are-saved and how-we-define-the-faith, the earliest Christians found their center in The Church. The Church was both the authority on Christian doctrine as well as the instrument of salvation.

By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the Apostles. I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, but it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my Evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.

God bless you Reuben_J and God bless every readers of the CAF.
.
I wonder, when is the point A. David Anders, Ph.D. believes an atheist become a Christian and saved?

Latin

 

[Reuben_J]

You can look Dr. Anders up, Latin. I saw his testimony as a historian in search of the truth.

 

[Latin]

You can look Dr. Anders up, Latin. I saw his testimony as a historian in search of the truth.

Thank you Reuben_J.

God bless you.

Latin