Questions from a seeker

[BriTe]

Hi,

I am (was) a long-time Protestant. I do not consider myself a Protestant any more, and am moving towards the Catholic (or Orthodox) faith. I have a few questions:

1. I recently attended a Catholic Mass where several children were being confirmed. The priest told them they received the Holy Spirit not at their confirmation, but at their baptism. However, Acts 10:48 says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”, indicating that these people already had the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Was the priest wrong (I’m not sure what the “official” teaching is), or am I misunderstanding something?
2. I have been reading through the early ecumenical council documents. It is common for them to say about those that reject certain teachings “Let him be anathema” (as does 1 Cor 16:22). What exactly does this mean? Does it mean one would go to hell if they died in an “anathemized” state?
3. The ecumenical council at Ephesus, Canon VII seems to indicate that creating additional creeds beyond the Nicean Creed, that would make one deposed (if a Bishop or clergy) or anathema (if a layman). But hasn’t the Church made several more creeds since Nicea? Related, why was “and the Son” added to the Nicean Creed if the Nicean Creed was by definition (of coming from an ecumenical council) infallibly given?

I had a few other questions, but they escape me at the moment, so I’ll ask them later. Thanks for any replies.

Brian

 

[Bookcat]

Hi,

I am (was) a long-time Protestant. I do not consider myself a Protestant any more, and am moving towards the Catholic (or Orthodox) faith. I have a few questions:

1. I recently attended a Catholic Mass where several children were being confirmed. The priest told them they received the Holy Spirit not at their confirmation, but at their baptism. However, Acts 10:48 says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”, indicating that these people already had the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Was the priest wrong (I’m not sure what the “official” teaching is), or am I misunderstanding something?
2. I have been reading through the early ecumenical council documents. It is common for them to say about those that reject certain teachings “Let him be anathema” (as does 1 Cor 16:22). What exactly does this mean? Does it mean one would go to hell if they died in an “anathemized” state?
3. The ecumenical council at Ephesus, Canon VII seems to indicate that creating additional creeds beyond the Nicean Creed, that would make one deposed (if a Bishop or clergy) or anathema (if a layman). But hasn’t the Church made several more creeds since Nicea? Related, why was “and the Son” added to the Nicean Creed if the Nicean Creed was by definition (of coming from an ecumenical council) infallibly given?

I had a few other questions, but they escape me at the moment, so I’ll ask them later. Thanks for any replies.

Brian

1. There may have been a mishearing here… but yes the Holy Spirit comes at Baptism and Confirmation…and of course even prior and in other comings too…You are correct too. (one finds in Acts the Holy Spirit also coming again…)
2. jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/10/anathema_sit.html
3. The Church has created many creeds…and this is perfectly fine (one should not create a creed in opposition to what the Church professes of course). The Church can always expand on a creed as new questions came up or new confusions. I can say God is one…then later need to explain the Trinity and so add that there are three persons in one God…the second explains further the first…a truth can be very true…but this does not mean one cannot add another truth to it…

of course for sure make use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in your readings…

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

In Christ Jesus

Bookcat

 

[Todd_Easton]

Ecumenical councils touch on many matters, including unchangeable matters of faith and morals and changeable matters of church discipline. The Ephesian canon on creating new creeds that you asked about was not a matter of faith or morals but a matter of church discipline. It would be in force until changed by an authority of equal (or greater) authority, until changed by a later ecumenical council (or by a later pope).

 

[Scoobyshme]

BriTe,

 You might enjoy listening to a nice overview of Church History at the following link (all free, no signup, etc.):

alabamacatholicresources.com/church_history.html

You might also enjoy any of the following (Origin of the Bible):

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

Or you may also enjoy a series of talks on the fundamentals:

alabamacatholicresources.com/fundamentals.html

God bless!

 

[BriTe]

Thanks for the answers!

Follow up on the anathema question. The link in the first reply seemed to indicate that anathema is equivalent to excommunication, and thus only applies to those already in the Catholic Church - i.e. that one who is not in the Catholic Church is not “anathema” because one cannot be excommunicated from that which one is not even a part of in the first place. So now I’m more confused about this. If one is “anathema”, i.e. outside of the Church, and that one must be part of the Church to have salvation available to them, how can the Church say that those outside (i.e. Protestants) can also attain salvation, when the would be “anathema”?

One other question I had: when a Protestant adult converts to Catholicism, and goes to their first confession, why do they have to confess ALL their sins that they can remember, if they have already previously confessed them to God as a devout non-Catholic Christian? Does this not imply that all those sins were in fact not already forgiven, and that they would not have gone to heaven if they had died as a Protestant?

Thanks,
Brian

 

[Liraco]

If one is “anathema”, i.e. outside of the Church, and that one must be part of the Church to have salvation available to them, how can the Church say that those outside (i.e. Protestants) can also attain salvation, when the would be “anathema”?

Let me take a shot but I hope I’m corrected by others if I’m mistaken.

I need clarification though, are you saying here that all who are outside the Church are “by definition” anathema? Because all Christians who are properly baptized are connected with the one true Church even if incompletely (because baptism is one of the 7 sacraments Jesus gave us, and the one aside from matrimony that most protestants still validly keep).

Again though, going with the response given to you from Jimmy Akin’s blog, the “anathema” excommunication is meant for members of the Church as a medicinal measure to prompt repentance. Excommunication is not a sentence of damnation, and it doesn’t apply to those outside the Church.

One who is ignorant of the Truth cannot reject it because they’re not rejecting it, they simply don’t know it. That is why we believe that while salvation comes through the Church, people can be saved outside its visible boundaries (so even a non-Christian could be saved if they lived the best live they could and never learned the truth about God).

One other question I had: when a Protestant adult converts to Catholicism, and goes to their first confession, why do they have to confess ALL their sins that they can remember, if they have already previously confessed them to God as a devout non-Catholic Christian? Does this not imply that all those sins were in fact not already forgiven, and that they would not have gone to heaven if they had died as a Protestant?

When we sin even Catholics should immediately ask God for forgiveness of our sins, but the sacrament of confession was instituted for our own good. It’s one thing to privately say to yourself “I’m sorry God”, but if you have an attitude of “I already told God, I don’t need to tell anything to the priest” then look in your heart and ask yourself: are you really sorry? If you are then you’ll be humble before God and do as he asks. It’s one who isn’t repentant that decides to do things their way and not His way.

I think confession is meant to be a humbling experience to get us out of our own selfish self, and to really open up our heart to God. It’s also a very healing experience as you hear the words of Jesus through the priest giving you the assurance that you have been forgiven of all your sins (even if you forgot to mention one that you’re sorry for).

Tying it to my previous response, God doesn’t hold against a Protestant the fact that he doesn’t have the sacrament of confession available. We cannot judge the state of a person’s soul, that’s God’s call and if that person is truly repentant then they can surely be saved if they perform an act of perfect contrition (which means detachment from sin).

If you die as a protestant then God will surely look at your repentance, but once you become a Catholic you are required to confess your sins to a priest to be validly absolved.

Remember what Jesus said to the Apostles in John 20:21-23
‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’"

The “retaining” of sins is only done when a priest sees an unrepentant heart (because even if he wanted to absolve the person it would have no effect). Remember that to those who much is given, much is required. I can’t answer whether you were forgiven by God, as Tim Staples says “I’m not in management, just in sales”, but if you are asked to go through confession then I’d pray for the strength to do it if you are reluctant. Remember everything is for the betterment of your soul and to improve your relationship with God.

I hope this at least gives you some light in the right direction and not confusing you more.

 

[James224]

Hi,

I am (was) a long-time Protestant. I do not consider myself a Protestant any more, and am moving towards the Catholic (or Orthodox) faith. I have a few questions:

1. I recently attended a Catholic Mass where several children were being confirmed. The priest told them they received the Holy Spirit not at their confirmation, but at their baptism. However, Acts 10:48 says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”, indicating that these people already had the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Was the priest wrong (I’m not sure what the “official” teaching is), or am I misunderstanding something?Brian

My answer:You receive the Holy Ghost at Baptism but you receive the full anointing of the Holy Ghost at Comfirmation -a strengthening. 2 Cor 1:21 says, “Now he that confirmeth (strengthen) us with you in Christ and that hath anointed us, is God…” DRV . To see Confirmation in scripture, you first have to understand that it is intertwined with Baptism. Some verses sound like Baptism but are Baptism and Confirmation or Confirmation only. Both of these sacraments were given at the same time or close together in the early church. At least one verse I will use is complex and I hope to simplify it for you. Secondly, to add to the complexity is the fact that the Catholic Church has not defined when Baptism was instituted by Christ. The Church simply says that Christ instituted it (CCC 1114). This plays a part into seeing Confirmation.

Acts 8:14-17 says, “8:14. Now, when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. 8:15. Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 8:16. For he was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 8:17. Then they laid their hands upon them: and they received the Holy Ghost.” Notice: It says that those in Samaria had received the word of God (Baptism) yet it then says that Peter and John “…prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost.” This, at first glance, would seem to show that at Baptism they had not received the Holy Ghost, however, it says the Samarians were “only Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”(v16) At Baptism is when we receive the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 says that when you are Baptized, your sins are wiped away. This doesn’t happen unless you received the Holy Ghost. Then, in verse 17, Peter and John “Laid hands upon them” and they received the Holy Ghost. Notice: Peter and John “Laid hands upon them”. This is Confirmation. The Samarians received the “Full anointing of the Holy Ghost” when Peter and John laid hands on them. Notice too: It was Peter and John who did this. Philip had already Baptized them. This is significant because Peter and John were apostles, therefore, Bishops. This is why only bishops can confer this sacrament. A priest can do it with a bishop’s permission.

Acts 19:1-6 says, “19:1. And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus and found certain disciples.
19:2. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. 19:3. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism. 19:4. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance saying: That they should believe in him, who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. 19:5. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 19:6. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them: and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” These verses are more complex because it depends on when you agree that Christ instituted Baptism. Thomas Aquinas and some of the early church fathers believed it was when Christ plunged into the Jordan (Matt 3:16, John 1:29-33). I hold this view. Others say it was when Christ said in Matt 28:19 which says, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This was when Christ “Commanded” it but may not be when He instituted it. There may be a couple of other possibilities. Version 1: We can take these verses literally and say that Paul Baptized them with water (v5) and then Laid hands on them – Confirmation (v6). Confirmation ,therefore, can still be seen here. Version 2: In Acts 19:2, Paul is asking them if they had been Confirmed. This verse sounds like it is saying that they didn’t received the Holy Ghost at Baptism, however, Confirmation is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Confirmation is a Baptism (see Heb 6:2 – Baptisms- this is why this is plural. Baptisms means Baptism and Confirmation). You see this if you look at Acts 19:3 where Paul asks them in what they were baptized. They said John’s Baptism. Remember: John’s Baptism “Alone” did not confer grace but John’s baptism “With Christ”(Matt 3:16-Christ plunged into the Jordan) does confer grace. Acts 19:5-6 should be coupled together and mean one thing – Confirmation. Notice: They began to speak in tongues and to prophecy. This is the “Fullness of the Holy Ghost”. The full anointing. (see Baptism File #9) **Notice: Paul Confirmed the disciples. Why? Because he was a Bishop and only a Bishop can Confirm. **

May God bless,

James224

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks for the answers!
Brian

First off Anathema as a penalty no longer exists. And those born outside the visible Church are not excommunicated…

the Church does not mean that only those who are officially Catholics can be saved…

From the Catechism:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

and

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

continued…

 

[Bookcat]

and

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

---

Remember it is Jesus who saves…so even if a person has never hear of him…but Jesus saves him in some way we do not know…it is still Jesus who saves and he puts him in relation to his body the Church too in this…

*One other question I had: when a Protestant adult converts to Catholicism, and goes to their first confession, why do they have to confess ALL their sins that they can remember, if they have already previously confessed them to God as a devout non-Catholic Christian? Does this not imply that all those sins were in fact not already forgiven, and that they would not have gone to heaven if they had died as a Protestant?
*

They would need to confess all mortal sins since their Baptism…

When they confessed them to God in prayer…they may have been forgiven…but even a Catholic who has already been forgiven via an act of perfect contrition needs to confess any mortal sins that were committed. For Jesus said at the end of the Gospel of John that those sins the Apostles forgave are forgiven and those they hold bound are held bound…which would require of course that they know what those sins are and that one is sorry etc…to be able to judge if to forgive (normally the case) or hold them bound (for instance when the person is not willing to stop the adultery etc…)

 

[Masters_Servant]

Hi,

I am (was) a long-time Protestant. I do not consider myself a Protestant any more, and am moving towards the Catholic (or Orthodox) faith. I have a few questions:

1. I recently attended a Catholic Mass where several children were being confirmed. The priest told them they received the Holy Spirit not at their confirmation, but at their baptism. However, Acts 10:48 says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”, indicating that these people already had the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Was the priest wrong (I’m not sure what the “official” teaching is), or am I misunderstanding something?
2. I have been reading through the early ecumenical council documents. It is common for them to say about those that reject certain teachings “Let him be anathema” (as does 1 Cor 16:22). What exactly does this mean? Does it mean one would go to hell if they died in an “anathemized” state?
3. The ecumenical council at Ephesus, Canon VII seems to indicate that creating additional creeds beyond the Nicean Creed, that would make one deposed (if a Bishop or clergy) or anathema (if a layman). But hasn’t the Church made several more creeds since Nicea? Related, why was “and the Son” added to the Nicean Creed if the Nicean Creed was by definition (of coming from an ecumenical council) infallibly given?

I had a few other questions, but they escape me at the moment, so I’ll ask them later. Thanks for any replies.

Brian

It is exactly as you read it and as John the Baptist said would happen in Matthew 3 and there is another place in Acts where the exact scenario takes places and also if you look closely at the Apostles Paul’s conversion you will see the same; it is no coincidence that you read it exactly as Scripture teaches…KUDOS!!

The term anathema has changed in meaning over time; it use to mean you are damned, now it has a new and softer meaning.

It is the “non-evolving ever-evolving”-just accept it or you will never get it. It took me a while to figure out how these contradiction, excuse me, apparent contradictions worked themselves out without ever really changing nor contradicting - the rules are ever evolving, not changing, but evolving as more revelation comes to the Church, which is why the teaching of the Church such as the catechism , bulls, dogmas are “equal” to Scripture.

What helps me to understand and comprehend all of this is to see the relationship between justification and sanctification as presented in Scripture verses how through evolution and additional revelation it has been knit together by the Church. Once you are able to see the differences, then you will understand everything better; st least for me it worked after reading the CCC 3 times and lots of other material, including a strong focus on the Council of Trent, then trying to figure how there is so much in common with all of Christendom, but yet so different in additional doctrines. The missing piece that brought it all together is the distinctions between that of justification & sanctification in relation to the context of Scripture and the knitting together of these doctrines into one doctrine by the Catholic Church. This is not putting down the Church because it has plenty of good which has come forth from it; the first thing that comes to mind are hospitals; I don’t know how it is now, but at one time a vast majority of hospitals in American had its establishment in the Catholic Church, but their is also the bad and I won’t get into that as it is not appropriate in this venue as I am a guest and respect the faith of Catholics.

I don’t know if that helps or confuses, but I can only speak from my own research and looking at both sides of the issue in relation to Church history, both the good and the not so good and looking at the reasons for the reformation, again the good and not so good, then putting in light of the only reliable source of truth in my opinion, the Scripture. It has really been a very time consuming; yet fascinating and enlightening as well.

 

[James224]

Hi,

I am (was) a long-time Protestant. I do not consider myself a Protestant any more, and am moving towards the Catholic (or Orthodox) faith. I have a few questions:

1. I recently attended a Catholic Mass where several children were being confirmed. The priest told them they received the Holy Spirit not at their confirmation, but at their baptism. However, Acts 10:48 says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”, indicating that these people already had the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Was the priest wrong (I’m not sure what the “official” teaching is), or am I misunderstanding something?
2. I have been reading through the early ecumenical council documents. It is common for them to say about those that reject certain teachings “Let him be anathema” (as does 1 Cor 16:22). What exactly does this mean? Does it mean one would go to hell if they died in an “anathemized” state?
3. The ecumenical council at Ephesus, Canon VII seems to indicate that creating additional creeds beyond the Nicean Creed, that would make one deposed (if a Bishop or clergy) or anathema (if a layman). But hasn’t the Church made several more creeds since Nicea? Related, why was “and the Son” added to the Nicean Creed if the Nicean Creed was by definition (of coming from an ecumenical council) infallibly given?

I had a few other questions, but they escape me at the moment, so I’ll ask them later. Thanks for any replies.

Brian

**My Answer: **

1. If the priest said what you say, he was wrong. Your receive the Holy Ghost at Baptism. You receive the full anointing of the Holy Ghost at Confirmation. Acts 10 is about Cornelius. In Acts 10: 47-48 you see Baptism of Desire. Once Peter saw this, He gave Cornelius the Sacrament of Baptism. This shows, for certain reasons, initial Justification can be given prior to the general command to Baptize with water (Matt 28:19). The normal means of receiving the initial justification is the Sacrament of Baptism with water. This example was necessary because God needed to begin the process of bringing gentiles into the church and Cornelius was a gentile.
2. Yes, however, this applies to souls who have full knowledge of the Catholic Faith and leave it. Only God can ultimately judge this. Souls born in other denominations don’t have the knowledge of the faith and aren’t responsible in most cases.
3. There are no other Creeds. The Filioque “proceeds from the Son” was added because of the heresies that were overwhelming in the early church such as the Nestorian Heresy, Sabellian Heresy and the Arian Heresy. They all had to do with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
   May God bless,
   James224

 

[Masters_Servant]

**My Answer: **

1. If the priest said what you say, he was wrong. Your receive the Holy Ghost at Baptism. You receive the full anointing of the Holy Ghost at Confirmation. Acts 10 is about Cornelius. In Acts 10: 47-48 you see Baptism of Desire. Once Peter saw this, He gave Cornelius the Sacrament of Baptism. This shows, for certain reasons, initial Justification can be given prior to the general command to Baptize with water (Matt 28:19). The normal means of receiving the initial justification is the Sacrament of Baptism with water. This example was necessary because God needed to begin the process of bringing gentiles into the church and Cornelius was a gentile.
2. Yes, however, this applies to souls who have full knowledge of the Catholic Faith and leave it. Only God can ultimately judge this. Souls born in other denominations don’t have the knowledge of the faith and aren’t responsible in most cases.
3. There are no other Creeds. The Filioque “proceeds from the Son” was added because of the heresies that were overwhelming in the early church such as the Nestorian Heresy, Sabellian Heresy and the Arian Heresy. They all had to do with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
   May God bless,
   James224

One problem; that is not what Scripture teaches. The poster nailed it on the head on his/her observation and there is no such thing as “initial justification” taught in Scripture either. If you going to “advise” at least be accurate to the teaching of Scripture and leave personal opinion behind.

You said “This example was necessary because God needed to begin the process of bringing gentiles into the church and Cornelius was a gentile.” Do you just make this up as you go or do you have a “secret book of hermeneutics”?

I don’t mean to be so harsh, but my gosh you are so far off that you may unintentionally lead someone away from the water of life ; if that were possible.

I am out of here I can’t stand to see how this one is going to go; this is going to be like the typical Bible study found in churches across the country.

 

[James224]

One problem; that is not what Scripture teaches. The poster nailed it on the head on his/her observation and there is no such thing as “initial justification” taught in Scripture either. If you going to “advise” at least be accurate to the teaching of Scripture and leave personal opinion behind.

You said “This example was necessary because God needed to begin the process of bringing gentiles into the church and Cornelius was a gentile.” Do you just make this up as you go or do you have a “secret book of hermeneutics”?

I don’t mean to be so harsh, but my gosh you are so far off that you may unintentionally lead someone away from the water of life ; if that were possible.

I am out of here I can’t stand to see how this one is going to go; this is going to be like the typical Bible study found in churches across the country.

**My Answer: **Don’t leave! You believe someone can be saved by doing nothing because you are predestined to heaven or hell. You would have to throw out the whole bible to believe that.

All I’m saying about Acts 10 is that it’s an exception to the general rule. Baptism is the initial justification because justification is a process and not a one-time event.