Questions about when people get "saved"

[hope]

Thank you for your thoughts. Perhaps you will consider this: Jesus came as He said to fulfill. Would you agree that what He fulfilled was what was presented in the old testament? A male Jew was to be circumcised and if he was not he was cut off from the people. Circumcision was fulfilled by Jesus through baptism. The Jews did not wait for a baby express faith in order to be circumcised it was through his parents that faith was expressed. Likewise, baptism (which fulfilled circumcision) is given through the faith of the parents in which the child becomes a part of the community of God not only washing away original sin but making Jesus a brother. Do you believe when all a household was baptized they didn’t mean all but only those who could say I believe. Out of curiosity, do you have a document that shows the early Christians waited for their children to be baptized as adults? Is there any evidence that babies were not baptized? We also have Jesus saying to let the children come to Him.
On the other side there is evidence that children were baptized.
The Catechism states it the best
VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.59 Cf. ⇒ Jn 3:5[ETML:C/]. 60 Cf. ⇒ Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.

 

[hope]

Just a slight correction Ineffabilus Deus December 8, 1854.
Just because the dogma was declared on this date does not mean that it suddenly appeared then. It did not.As I posted in another thread.
The earliest written record is The Protoevangelium of James which speaks of her virginity. Origen, and others wrote about her virginity. This fails as an example of it not being built on the foundation of scripture. It builds on the scripture that Mary was full of grace It continues with her being a virgin. Scripture overwhelmingly shows that she had no other children.

This young woman is a little overwhelming but she does a good job of making the points from scripture of Mary’s virginity
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/how-do-you-know-that-mary-had-stayed-a-virgin/463622/17?u=hope

 

[ltwin]

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

It says, “in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” When we are baptized, we have faith in God’s power, which raised Jesus from the dead, and we have faith that God will raise us up with that same power like he promised us. Of course, its by God’s power. We cannot save ourselves.

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!”.

Believer’s baptism does not prevent Jesus from touching the children, since parents can still bring their infant children to the Lord without baptizing them. And no, you don’t need a complete understanding of theology to be baptized, but you do need to profess faith in Christ.

 

[ltwin]

I was just curious why this goes against the spirit of Acts 2:38? Especially in light of the fact that Peter continues in verse 39 …

39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

The promise is perpetual until Christ returns. Peter was making clear the outpouring of the Spirit was here and here to stay. The Day of Pentecost was not a special event, but the new reality. To say this means infant baptism is a stretch.

It doesn’t stipulate, nor can we assume, the children need to repent or even believe.

It says “repent and be baptized.” So, yes people who are baptized need to first believe and repent.

The father was the head of the house, his word was binding. As long as he said this house will be Christian no one else in the house had any say in the matter. This is the culture Peter was speaking to I don’t believe anyone would have questioned Peter at what age is the promise made to the children?

The father can make whatever rules he wants. If I had children and wanted them baptized as babies, that doesn’t mean I’ll have a household of Christians. It just means I’ll have a household of baptized people.

 

[ltwin]

I have no objections to the first four sentences. However, if Baptism is only effective through our faith then not only would this mean we have just given ourselves credit for something the Holy Spirit did

Not at all. Faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). He gets all the credit.

but it would also mean we would never ever be able to have assurance that we had enough faith, at the time of our baptism, to make it effective. What I mean by this is, my faith has grown a hundred fold since I’ve been chatting on this forum. From my point of view now, I didn’t have the greatest of faiths 20years ago, that I do now. What keeps me from questioning whether or not I had enough faith back then to make my Baptism effective? Hopefully, if I keep learning my faith will grow exponentially over the next 40years. Which will make me question wether or not today’s faith was really effective.

Jesus told his disciples in Mathew 17:20: "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” The mustard seed is an extremely small size. It is not the size of our faith that we should be concerned with, but the object of our faith–which should be Christ alone.

If we make use of the means of grace throughout our Christian life, our faith and confidence in Christ should naturally grow over time. Your faith in Christ should be greater as a mature Christian than as a babe in Christ. However, that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of baptism or any of the means of grace.

Basically, what I am getting at is Baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit if you think he can’t do this work on a baby or a mentally handicapped person then you aren’t giving him enough credit.

This is not a question of what God can’t do. This is a question of what the church has been told to do.

 

[ltwin]

Thank you for your thoughts. Perhaps you will consider this: Jesus came as He said to fulfill. Would you agree that what He fulfilled was what was presented in the old testament? A male Jew was to be circumcised and if he was not he was cut off from the people. Circumcision was fulfilled by Jesus through baptism. The Jews did not wait for a baby express faith in order to be circumcised it was through his parents that faith was expressed.

This is a good question, and comparisons can be made between Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism. However, the two are not completely analogous. Romans 4:9-12 says the following about circumcision:

5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness . . . 9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Circumcision was the sign of the covenant of God with Israel, and yes all males in Israel were to be circumcised because Israel was a national entity in covenant with God. Yet, Paul makes clear that ethnic, national Israel was only “children of the flesh”. Spiritual Israel were the “children of the promise” who actually followed in Abraham’s spiritual footsteps by faith. Romans 9:6-8:

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

It was fitting under the Old Covenant for physical descendants of Abraham to receive the sign of his covenant with God because Israel was always a mixture of physical descendants and a remnant of true saints.

However, the church is not a national entity. It is not an ethnic entity. It is the body of Christ, and by definition is made up of saints. As Paul says, “Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise” (Galatians 4:28). As children of promise, we inherit the blessings of the promise not by birth but by faith as Abraham did. Simply being a child of the flesh does not make one a child of promise.

 

[Vonsalza]

We cannot save ourselves.

Verily. It seems that both God and man have a role to play in salvation. Neither the most ardent Calvinist nor the most zealous free-will-er have it right.

I’m not sure how this makes your case for baptism being optional for soteriological purposes, however.

you don’t need a complete understanding of theology to be baptized, but you do need to profess faith in Christ.

There isn’t a verse in all scripture that supports your claim here, as we’ve shown over and over. And over.

…and over.

 

[guanophore]

Simply being a child of the flesh does not make one a child of promise.

Well said. This is why we say no one is “born Catholic”. We bring infants to baptism so they may enter into the promise.

 

[guanophore]

There isn’t a verse in all scripture that supports your claim here, as we’ve shown over and over. And over.

…and over.

I see plenty of Scriptures that support “believers baptism”, and the Catholic Church requires that those who are able do make their own profession of faith. This does not exclude a profession of faith made by parents and godparents on behalf of those who are unable to make their own.

 

[hope]

I don’t think I was clear. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. When Isaac asked, where is the lamb? The question was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified. The Passover was fulfilled during the Last Supper when Jesus says:

this do in remembrance of me.

The fulfillment of circumcision is baptism. Circumcision made a child part of the Jewish family. circumcision was fulfilled through baptism which makes us a part of God’s family.
Your quoted scripture is very good Your are right when you say faith was entry into a covenant just like baptism enters us into a covenant with God.
I would not disagree that faith is a key ingredient. When the boy was circumcised, it was not his faith but the faith of his parents that sufficed. As in the case of Abraham, he was an adult and so it was his faith that was necessary just like an adult who is baptized it is necessary. When the covenant was made, Abraham and all who was with them were circumcised but afterwards they circumcised children by the faith of their parents. When baptism became the command first the adults were baptized but then the Christian parents baptize their children. by their faith.

I asked if you have evidence that shows that Christian parents waited to have their child baptized.? Is there a historic objection of people baptizing their child? Is there any evidence that babies were not baptized?
The only controversy I know of is how many days old the child should be baptized. I believe the early Church understood the necessity of baptizing their children for their salvation and would not neglect having their child baptized by the faith of their parents.

 

[Vonsalza]

Precisely my point.

It is not exclusively requisite and absolutely any novel soteriology that demands otherwise is flatly wrong.

 

[MT1926]

The promise is perpetual until Christ returns. Peter was making clear the outpouring of the Spirit was here and here to stay. The Day of Pentecost was not a special event, but the new reality. To say this means infant baptism is a stretch.

Thanks for the response. However, nothing you state here answers my question of why you believe…

(they may repent of sins or not, which to me seems to go against the letter and the spirit of Acts 2:38)

If the promise is for them and their children how does it go against the spirit of Acts? Why is it not possible for the spirit to out pour on an infant?

It almost seems like you are saying a person has to become a sinner and defiled before the Spirit can out pour on them?

Once again it seems like you are saying the person has to do something first and I would respond by saying…
To not recognize infant Baptism and require Baptism ONLY as an adult is to say it is not possible for Jesus to indwell in an infant. You are saying Baptism is only possible because of something the person being Baptized is doing.

It says “repent and be baptized.” So, yes people who are baptized need to first believe and repent.

And Jesus said “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

He didn’t say let them come after they come of age and believe, then they will inherit the kingdom of heaven. He commanded us to let them come and not to hinder them.

How can these children Jesus speaks of inherit the kingdom without being Baptized first?

The father can make whatever rules he wants. If I had children and wanted them baptized as babies, that doesn’t mean I’ll have a household of Christians. It just means I’ll have a household of baptized people.

I’m not real sure how to respond to this? So no one in your household is a Christian until they reach the age of reason?

Being a Christian is being accepted into God’s New Covenant family. You were able to be accepted into God’s family in the old covenant at 8 days old, why did God make it more difficult and take years longer in order to be accepted into His new covenant family?

 

[tgGodsway]

among my separated brethren

When you say, “separated brethren” do you mean they are separated because they no longer go to your Church? Are they separated because you not longer go to their Church? In what way are they separated?

 

[tgGodsway]

have chose to use the lens of Sacred Tradition as a more authentic lens than the one I was taught in seminary, which was designed 1500 years later.

The concept of “sacred tradition” is a concept outside of the Apostolic circle despite what many say about Paul’s traditions. But in light of the teachings of Christ on tradition in general, I am not sure why you would rely on such a subjective venue.

And as far as hermeneutics is concerned, I’m not sure the early protestants were any better than the Catholics. The science of interpretation has only become what it is today within the last 50 to 75 years. Prior, to this, it has been a hit and miss attempt to find the truth of a matter.

 

[tgGodsway]

Since all the authors were Catholic? There was only one Church founded by Christ, and all who were baptized into it became Catholic.

The author’s were not Catholic guanophore. If you want to use the word Catholic the way I do, which is to say they had a network around the world, evangelizing every nation, okay. I agree, but only in part. But the earliest apostles had not reached the entire world, literally in their day. Though the Apostle Paul in his three missionary journey’s did cover much ground, he too did not reach the entire globe. So in that sense he was not Catholic.

But if you are using this word in connection with The Church at Rome who say they alone are the head of the universal body of Christ, then that certainly is different.

I believe the Catholic Church is truly Catholic or universal including many denominations and affiliations. This body includes the RC point of view, but does not stop with you. Protestants are included, Evangelicals are included, Messianic converts are included. The eastern Orthodox are included in the very large universal Church. Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord and meets the biblical standard to be in the Church, is included.

Secondly, is the Greek word for Church=ekklesia which is more about taking action than it is about a hierarchical system. The Church includes a group of people who come out from the universal body, into the public. The called out ones… those who take their faith publically. This is the way the word was used in the 1st. Century and this is what was meant to the apostles.

 

[tgGodsway]

Did you not know that the Apostle Paul was Catholic?

This question is elusive because it requires your definition of Catholic. If you mean, Paul was Catholic because he was in submission to Rome, the Pope in Rome, which would have been Peter according to you, and the authority and dominance of the Church at Rome over all other Churches in the world, … then no, Paul was not Catholic, nor did he have such a perspective.

If you simply mean Paul’s intentions were to go around the world with the gospel of Christ to every nation under heaven, … in that sense I agree he was Catholic. And so am I.

 

[tgGodsway]

There were several strong early communities that were the seat of reliable doctrine. Rome was one, and came to have the primacy.

No Church, including Rome was beyond rebuke, but you’re right, the Church had gained notoriety and a sense of trust in her doctrines and practice in it’s early years of life, but like so many things, she, over time, became top-heavy with the sin of pride and a steady diet of false doctrine entering the Church. To deny this, is the deny the very core of her problem today.

The secular government was “one” with the religious government. They were never two separate entities. What I mean, is, the religious leaders of the Church at Rome all thought like Romans, pagan or not.

The idea they could flex their spiritual muscle of authority over other Churches in the world, was, and is, the proof needed that they had become something outside of the Apostolic blue-print. It is not the way God does things. Forcing your will and dominance over other members of God’s Church, was, and is, a work of the flesh, not a divine mandate as so many think. But again, for them this was the norm in the 4th. Century. The Roman empire was all about taking dominance and it’s leaders were doing what they knew best.

 

[tgGodsway]

Not sure if you realize this, but in your attempt to discredit Mary you just proved the Catholic teaching on prayers to Mary and the saints.

If your interpretation of Paul is correct and we are told that not even one righteous person is in the world. That would mean the only righteous are in heaven. Well James tells us…

This is where hermeneutics comes in MT. In what context did Paul say there are no righteous?.. In the context of “without Christ.” In other words, there is no righteous person who were born into the family of Adam.

Secondly it is outside the concept of how righteousness is declared (by God) over a believer who by faith, received it as a gift… All of these things matter. The prayer of the righteous, as James puts it, is in the context of the saved. James, Mary and all the rest of the Saints in heaven are not righteous because they are in heaven, they are righteous because they received this free gift by faith alone when they were on the earth.

 

[MT1926]

This is where hermeneutics comes in MT. In what context did Paul say there are no righteous?.. In the context of “without Christ.” In other words, there is no righteous person who were born into the family of Adam.

I agree there are no righteous without Christ. Never once claimed someone could be righteous on their own merit. However, the context of Romans 3 is personal sin not original sin. You are taking what St. Paul says and forcing it to say “born into the family of Adam”. Which would mean original sin. Sorry but you can’t get a teaching on original sin from the text.

Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited (which you seem to be pointing out by saying “born into”). However, Romans chapter 3 deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. Therefore, my statement stands. You can’t use Romans 3 to claim Mary wasn’t righteous because it is dealing with personal sin, not original sin.

The prayer of the righteous, as James puts it, is in the context of the saved.

Agreed.

And the Bible teaches us it is possible to become one of the righteous, through Jesus Christ, before we fall into sin…

Jude 24-25

24 Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen.

The text tells us that our Lord Jesus Christ can save us before we fall and present us without blemish before God. If scripture tells us He is willing to do this for us, don’t you think His mother would be at the front of the line?

James, Mary and all the rest of the Saints in heaven are not righteous because they are in heaven, they are righteous because they received this free gift by faith alone when they were on the earth.

This statement confused me??? If “faith alone” is the only possible way for someone to be righteous in heaven then are you are saying no child under the age of reason or mentally handicapped person can get to heaven?

Doesn’t matter, I think Jude 24-25 pretty much shows us what I have said from the beginning. We are bound by the Sacraments, God is not. He can save anyone He wants any way He wants.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I believe the Catholic Church is truly Catholic or universal including many denominations and affiliations. This body includes the RC point of view, but does not stop with you. Protestants are included, Evangelicals are included, Messianic converts are included. The eastern Orthodox are included in the very large universal Church. Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord and meets the biblical standard to be in the Church, is included.

I’m just curious what you mean by “biblical standard”.

Off the top of my head I would think the Biblical standard would be…

Christ would build His Church that would last until the end of the age. Matthew 16

Christ’s Church would be united as one John 17:21. His Church’s unity would be a visible sign to the world that Jesus was sent by God for our redemption.

This visible unified society would be hierarchical as plainly seen in Acts 15.

That this unified society hold only ONE “point of view”. Which does STOP there. 1 Corinthians 1:10 & 11:16

Most of all I see Jesus’ Biblical Standard being taught by St. Paul.

Ephesians 3:10
10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

To me it is obvious from scripture that Christ intended to start a Church. Christ wouldn’t say He would do something and then not do it. Would He?

Christ promised He would be with His Church to the end of the age. Unless Christ is a liar and abandoned His Church it should be as simple as of finding Christ’s VISIBLE UNIFIED Church in every generation up to our present time.

Maybe you could point me to the “Biblical Standard” you believe Christ intended for His Church?

God Bless