repent

[SpiritualBeing]

Repentance is the first stage in the development of the church in a person.

The communion known as a church is composed of as many people as have the church in them; and the church enters into a person when he is being regenerated. Everyone is regenerated by abstaining from sinful evils, and shunning them as sins against God. As a person advances into early manhood there are many ways in which he is prepared for the church and brought into it; but it is acts of repentance which really bring this about in him. By acts of repentance are meant all that prevent him from willing and so from doing the evil actions which are sins against God. For until this happens, he stands outside the process of regeneration. If at that time any thought about everlasting salvation occurs to him, he may incline towards it, but very soon he turns his back on it. It does not reach further into him than the ideas he is thinking about, though from these it may emerge as spoken words, possibly also as gestures in keeping with what he says. On the other hand, when it enters the will, it becomes a part of the person, for the will is the real person, because it is where his love resides. Thought lies outside him, unless it comes out of his will. If so, will and thought act as one and together make up the person. The consequence of this is that for repentance to be genuine and effective in a person, it must come from the will, and from thought coming from the will, not from thought alone. In other words, it must be expressed in action, not merely on the lips.

William

 

[believers]

You can only carry guilt for a sin committed by you.

What does this verse mean to you?

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

 

[believers]

hello ,

I have a question . If ew have inherited the wounded nature o fthe capacity to sin from the act of eating from the tree, where adam and eve sinless or have the capacity to sin ?

If they didnt have the capacity to sin then how did they sin ? If they did have the capacity to sin then surly we would have the capacity to sin without them having to eat frm the tree in the first place.

any comment?

They were both given free will. God said not to eat. Adam disobeyed. Disobedience is sin.

 

[water]

You’re an ex-Catholic and you don’t know the answer to this?

The nick is “believers”. That might explain it.

 

[Eden]

What does this verse mean to you?

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

You’ve already gotten the answer to your question several times already. Your attempts to rework it to get some sort of Protestant answer are futile.

The judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism. What we inherited was a state, not an act. Original sin is a state into which we are born. We do not inherit the guilt of the sin.

 

[John_Lawrence]

Call me blasphemous but I, though I be a lowly man subject to God, do and always will completely reject any idea that God holds us all in a state of original sin from birth, carte blanche. no, sorry, but that’s very archaic thinking and its purposes were anything but Godly and certainly not from God anyhow. It was a control thing. Make people believe they were doomed from the start, then perhaps they will flock to the church for salvation. Sorry. No.

 

[believers]

You’ve already gotten the answer to your question several times already. Your attempts to rework it to get some sort of Protestant answer are futile.

The judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism. What we inherited was a state, not an act. Original sin is a state into which we are born. We do not inherit the guilt of the sin.

What we inherited was condemnation. That means we are guilty of sin. Unless you have faith on Jesus Christ and repent, you are not justified. You still have a sin problem. Water baptism does nothing. John the Baptist said that he baptized UNTO repentance. Jesus said he came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Jesus sent out His disciples in two to preach repentance. Paul preached repentance.

 

[believers]

Call me blasphemous but I, though I be a lowly man subject to God, do and always will completely reject any idea that God holds us all in a state of original sin from birth, carte blanche. no, sorry, but that’s very archaic thinking and its purposes were anything but Godly and certainly not from God anyhow. It was a control thing. Make people believe they were doomed from the start, then perhaps they will flock to the church for salvation. Sorry. No.

You’re supposed to flock to Jesus for salvation. If you turn to Him faith, you’ve become a born-again believer and joined His Church.

 

[John_Lawrence]

You’re supposed to flock to Jesus for salvation. If you turn to Him faith, you’ve become a born-again believer and joined His Church.

Be that as it may (or may not), that has nothing to do with the concept of “original sin.” In a backwards kind of way, you have practically agreed with me, if you think about it…

 

[Eden]

Believers -

Wrong. Your response is entirely unbiblical!

believers:

Unless you have faith on Jesus Christ and repent, you are not justified.

You are referring to Acts 2:38. Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” You are using this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

In Acts 2:39, Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

believers:

Water baptism does nothing

In Acts 2:38, Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

There is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. **There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved. **

In Mark 16:16, Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says** believing is not enough**. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

In Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 and Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5, raise the question “If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church** immediately seek baptism**?”

And take a look at St. Paul, directly chosen by Christ and immediately converting to Christianity, in Acts 9:18 *still *had to be baptised and forgiven his sin! Even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ, baptism is salvific.

In Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ!!! This proves that Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Ananias’ phrase “wash away” comes from the Greek word “apolouo.” “Apolouo” means an actual cleansing which removes sin.** It is not a symbolic covering up of sin**. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

I wish every Protestant would read scripturecatholic.com before posting at CA.

 

[Zooey]

yes we are sinner like our father but even if we inherited the ability to sin ,that doesnt mean we inherited the sin ,and according to Ezekiel ,we have the way to pay or being forgiven

first ,christ didnt choose to pay for our sins ,simply bec there is no need to pay if you repent
if we still paying for our sins .

no ,its not going like that ,when God forgive sins ,he just forgive ,like when you do me something bad and i forgive you ,i dont hurt myself or make you hurt me again to forgive you
sorry but your words are contradicting ,

so we didnt inherit sin of eating from the forbidden tree?

so we didnt inherit “original sin”

sorry but thats not true ,the original sin is the action of eating from the forbidden tree ,not the nature of doing that .

sorry but Ezekiel say that we will pay for our sins ,and even we dont need to pay if we repent
if as you say that christ paid to break slavery to sin ,we wouldnt sin again bec we are set free after the so called crucifixtion (i dont believe in crucifixtion)

guess who is back…

And banned again pretty quick smart. Some folkses don’t learn.

[SIGN]
:banghead: :banghead:
He can’t live without us!!!
[/SIGN]

 

[John_Lawrence]

I wish every Protestant would read scripturecatholic.com before posting at CA.

Why? Why should you assume a Protestant is going to find stock in a site specificly geared towards a Catholic view on scripture?

You know what, I think you should read all of Martin Luther’s writngs, or Calvin’s, Zwingli, etc. before you enage a Protestant in debate. Judging by wht you said, certainly you should agree with me…

 

[Eden]

Why? Why should you assume a Protestant is going to find stock in a site specificly geared towards a Catholic view on scripture?

You know what, I think you should read all of Martin Luther’s writngs, or Calvin’s, Zwingli, etc. before you enage a Protestant in debate. Judging by wht you said, certainly you should agree with me…

I don’t get the analogy.

Firstly, because www.scripturecatholic.com was created specifically for the purpose of illustrating that the Catholic faith is completely in harmony with Sacred Scripture and to point out where Protestants err in their interpretations.

Secondly, I don’t see the comparison of www.scripturecatholic.com to the theological works of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, as the website’s purpose is to illustrate how the Catholic faith and Sacred Scripture are in harmony, not to create their own new religions and justify those creations.

Thirdly, this is a Catholic website. If I were to go and engage in debate on a Protestant site, wouldn’t it make sense that I would research Protestant theologies first?

And finally, your only comment is on the last sentence of my post? No comment on the errors of baptism as symbolic?

 

[John_Lawrence]

I don’t get the analogy.

Firstly, because www.scripturecatholic.com was created specifically for the purpose of illustrating that the Catholic faith is completely in harmony with Sacred Scripture and to point out where Protestants err in their interpretations.

Secondly, I don’t see the comparison of www.scripturecatholic.com to the theological works of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, as the website’s purpose is to illustrate how the Catholic faith and Sacred Scripture are in harmony, not to create their own new religions and justify those creations.

Thirdly, this is a Catholic website. If I were to go and engage in debate on a Protestant site, wouldn’t it make sense that I would research Protestant theologies first?

And finally, your only comment is on the last sentence of my post? No comment on the errors of baptism as symbolic?

Your haughty and arrogant suggestion that protestants should check out scripturecatholic.org is all that interested me, thus I responded to it.

 

[Eden]

Your haughty and arrogant suggestion that protestants should check out scripturecatholic.org is all that interested me, thus I responded to it.

Your personal attacks on me are easy doings. Do you have anything of substance to offer on the Protestant errors regarding baptism and salvation?

 

[John_Lawrence]

Do you have anything of substance to offer?

LOL I know where this is going, I retract what I have said up to this point as to avoid an obvious flame war. My apologies.

 

[Eden]

LOL I know where this is going, I retract what I have said up to this point as to avoid an obvious flame war. My apologies.

Where this is going, is that I’m inviting you to add something of substance to the conversation. So, what is your belief on baptism? Do you believe it’s salvific or symbolic?

 

[John_Lawrence]

Where this is going, is that I’m inviting you to add something of substance to the conversation. So, what is your belief on baptism? Do you believe it’s salvific or symbolic?

Symbolic. Symbolic of salvation. But I do not wish to debate with you or share more because you are convinced you are right and I am wrong so I hardly see the point. And yes I am guilty of the same thing, which serves even more to keep me from delving in to this.

 

[Eden]

Symbolic. Symbolic of salvation. But I do not wish to debate with you or share more because you are convinced you are right and I am wrong so I hardly see the point. And yes I am guilty of the same thing, which serves even more to keep me from delving in to this.

I’ve already contributed my evidence using scriptures that baptism is salvific and you have chosen not to respond directly to it. You know where the Catholic Church stands on this issue. But, O.K., if you’re not interested in debate, that’s fine.

 

[John_Lawrence]

I’ve already contributed my evidence using scriptures that baptism is salvific and you have chosen not to respond directly to it. You know where the Catholic Church stands on this issue. But, O.K., if you’re not interested in debate, that’s fine.

Thank you for proving my point.