So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[benhur]

There’s a lot of them out there that teach this false doctrine. Most evangelical churches teach this. Some examples of denominations are: Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Wesleyans, Pilgrim Holiness, and others. The only one in that list that I know of that teaches the very false and dangerous doctrine of “once saved, always saved” is the Southern Baptists. I grew up as a Southern Baptist before converting to Catholicism and that false doctrine is one of the reasons I left.

Is that what that means ,OSAS ? Why do you assume it means not persevering or having fruitful works, or of repentance etc., etc ?

 

[ltwin]

I haven’t finished reading through the thread yet, so if this has already been addressed then I apologize, but I had to comment on this.

Let’s look at what St. Peter says in this passage:

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

(1 Peter 3:18-22)

How can you say that St. Peter is not talking about water baptism when he expressly connects “baptism, which saves you now” to the story of Noah’s ark, in which eight people “were saved through water”? He explicitly states that this event, where eight people “were saved through water” prefigured baptism. If he is not talking about water baptism as you claim, he sure picked the most misleading and confusing way possible to “not talk about water baptism” by referencing an event in which people were saved through water–actual water that flooded the earth for 40 days, not water in the sense of a spiritual metaphor.

It was not addressed.

I’m not sure what more I can say.

1 Peter 3:20-21 often comes up in these debates, but I don’t think it makes a strong of a case for automatic conferral of grace in baptism. Peter does say that baptism saves, but he immediately makes explicit what he means. He writes “not by removing dirt from your body,” indicating that he is not referring to a physical, outward act.

He goes on to say, “but as a response to God from a clean conscience.” Other translations have, “but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Undergoing a rite of baptism is not what saves. It is the individual’s appeal to God, the request for a clean conscience and a new heart and forgiveness of sins that saves. Baptism is the outward sign of this appeal, but the inward appeal is what is effective. This scripture even rules out infant baptism, because it makes baptism contingent on being old enough to make such an appeal to God.

Indeed.

If it’s not water baptism, it certainly is talking about a type of baptism that uses a substance that can remove dirt, as well as something that Noah’s ark floated in.

The larger context of the passage is talking about suffering for the sake of righteousness. Christ suffered for us. We have been buried with Christ and risen with him, passing through death and judgment. There is no longer condemnation. We receive this by faith (appealing to God), and we express our faith by baptism.

 

[ltwin]

This is in direct contrast to the entire body of Scripture, which has numerous examples of the wishes and desires of parents/siblings/the Church community/friends effecting some sort of salvation/covenant/healing/positive outcome on another.

This is in direct contrast to our life experience. Parents make life and death decisions in all areas of their child’s life. Why should a decision regarding the child’s eternal life be any different?

Because parents do not have the power to give new life to their children. The Scriptures say you must be born again. Parents have a lot of power and responsibility in the life of their children, but this is just simply not something they can accomplish.

I don’t know about all of the above.

I haven’t read a single verse in Scripture that says any of the above.

In fact, I do know that Scripture does state that we can save others, so I don’t see why any of the above would be true.

If Scripture is clear on one thing, it is that we cannot save ourselves. We certainly cannot save others. Christ alone saves. There are various ways that we can be used by God: evangelism, prayer for lost people, sharing God’s love, etc., etc. We can be ministers of reconciliation to those who have fallen into sin. But we are not “helping” God do what he has already accomplished. We are merely

Well, the good old Catholic both/and is at work here.

Christ did it. And when our parents join their sufferings to His Atoning Death, well, miracles happen.

All Christians should be willing to suffer so to bring grace to others. As Paul said, “death is at work in us, but life in you” (2 Corinthians 4:12). We are called to live sacrificially. Yet, our sufferings cannot justify others. Our sufferings cannot bring to life those who were once dead. It is Christ and only Christ. We have the privilege to share in his suffering and to be used by him to lead others to the Cross.

Our parents cannot pass through death and judgment for us. We must do that in Christ by faith.

This simply flies in the face of reality.

Just like if a parent doesn’t vaccinate his son against polio, he’s not going to be immunized against that virus.

The baby’s immunity and physical health is contingent upon the actions of the parents.

That’s how everything is in life. Why would spiritual life be any different?

Because Christ didn’t come so that our parents could vaccinate us against original sin. Christ came so that whosoever will could come. In the Old Testament, the people of God were the physical descendants of Abraham, but in the New Testament, those who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham by faith are members of the church. We have a better covenant.

If baptism corresponds to circumcision, then it is interesting that Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness before he was circumcised. He became the father of both them who believe but are not circumcised as well as those who are circumcised yet walk in the faith of Abraham (Romans 4:9-12).

The point being, it is not about whether your parents circumcised your flesh, but whether your heart is circumcised by the Spirit. Likewise, it is not about whether your parents baptized you into water, but whether you are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, which is by faith.

 

[ltwin]

One more time, kindly show me where your position is the ONLY acceptable method for baptism from the Bible?

I have explained why infant baptism falls short of biblical baptism. Baptism without an acknowledgment of faith on the part of the one being baptized does not conform to what Scripture says. Add to that, no where in Scripture are we commanded to baptize infants.

Therefore, we have no reason to baptize infants. Therefore, we don’t do it.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry I’m so late back; this thread has moved quite quickly in my absence.

To PR: Yes, baptizing infants was certainly a practice in the third century,

Excellent!

And we can see, since this practice has continued for 2000 years, that the Church discerned that we ought not refuse baptism to any child.

though some great names have recorded that infants ought not to be baptized.

And let’s consider their reasons for stating so.

Tertullian, I understand, felt it was better to delay baptism because he thought that if one sinned after baptism, salvation was lost.

So his reason for delaying baptism was based on…a false premise.

Again to Nicea: What do you think about waiting to Baptize if there is no danger however?

Why would we refuse a chance for an infant to become a member of His Body?

 

[PRmerger]

Cool. So water baptism is not necessarily regenerative, converting a heart of flesh to a heart after and in the the spirit.

Yes, water baptism is the normative way to be regenerated.

Regenerated is not the same thing as having a conversion of heart.

I understand but just don’t buy your proposal. Not even sure what you mean by regenerated.

What do you mean by “regenerated”? We Catholics mean born again as a child of God through baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

Tell me, in your Christian walk do you believe today exactly as you did when you first began ? Did you not hear new things for the first time and receive them ? Was Abraham or Moses told everything from the beginning or did they have to keep listening to His voice at different junctures ? Can one listen to God at any juncture without being converted, regenerated first ?

Yes. That is the Catholic position.

And now I see that you are of the same position as the CC. An unregenerated spirit CAN believe.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure what more I can say.

Perhaps if you could answer the question in a sentence or two:

What type of baptism is it that St. Peter is talking about if it’s NOT water baptism?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 3:21[/BIBLEDRB]

He’s not talking about water baptism.

 

[dronald]

Excellent!

And we can see, since this practice has continued for 2000 years, that the Church discerned that we ought not refuse baptism to any child.

And let’s consider their reasons for stating so.

Tertullian, I understand, felt it was better to delay baptism because he thought that if one sinned after baptism, salvation was lost.

So his reason for delaying baptism was based on…a false premise.

Can you prove this to me? That he would think Salvation was gone forever and one could not repent if they sin after Baptism?

Why would we refuse a chance for an infant to become a member of His Body?

Saint Gregory thought it made sense.

 

[PRmerger]

In fact, I do know that Scripture does state that we can save others, so I don’t see why any of the above would be true.

If Scripture is clear on one thing, it is that we cannot save ourselves. We certainly cannot save others. Christ alone saves.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the works of the NT in their entirety, ltwin.

For there are numerous passages in which the NT states that *we *can indeed save others. In fact, it states that we can save ourselves.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 4:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Of course, we all understand that this is only through our union with the salvific action of Christ through His atoning death.

But Scripture does indeed state that we save ourselves.

And St. Paul says that *he *saves us. (Yes, he as in “Paul”. Not Christ.)

To wit:

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 11:14[/BIBLEDRB]
Again, we know he means because he is baptizing his gospel with the gospel of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Saint Gregory thought it made sense.

In the end, the authority of the Church won out, dronald.

You can deny the covenant to infants, if it were up to you. But the Church in her wisdom does not refuse salvation to children.

 

[dronald]

In the end, the authority of the Church won out, dronald.

You can deny the covenant to infants, if it were up to you. But the Church in her wisdom does not refuse salvation to children.

Okie dokie.

 

[PRmerger]

Can you prove this to me? That he would think Salvation was gone forever and one could not repent if they sin after Baptism?

The words of Tertullian (bold mine)

For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.–http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

 

[dronald]

The words of Tertullian (bold mine)

For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.–http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

It doesn’t seem as if Tertullian says one loses Salvation forever if they sin once after Baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t seem as if Tertullian says one loses Salvation forever if they sin once after Baptism.

I think it does. The implication is that if they develop an evil disposition…they won’t be forgiven.

Otherwise, why even mention it in this context.

 

[dronald]

I think it does. The implication is that if they develop an evil disposition…they won’t be forgiven.

Otherwise, why even mention it in this context.

It’s saying that the sponsor may come to see the little child for whom they stood for develop an evil disposition.

 

[benhur]

Yes. That is the Catholic position.

And now I see that you are of the same position as the CC. An unregenerated spirit CAN believe.

per your definition of regeneration, abraham and moses were not regenerated and maybe all ot saints except som epriests who may have been water baptism before ordination

 

[benhur]

Yes, water baptism is the normative way to be regenerated.

Regenerated is not the same thing as having a conversion of heart.

What do you mean by “regenerated”? We Catholics mean born again as a child of God through baptism.

to me they are the same: conversion= born again= regenerated= born of of the spirit as opposed top born of the flesh=to be “righteous”=justified=perfect. These are all synonyms for being in the one of only two camps in this life. Either you are son of the serpent or son of adam and eve, carriers of the first promise(as per genesis, “her (eve) seed and your (serpent) seed”.) Just as there will be two camps in the afterlife :those united and one with God and those eternally separated from God.

 

[ltwin]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the works of the NT in their entirety, ltwin.

For there are numerous passages in which the NT states that *we *can indeed save others. In fact, it states that we can save ourselves.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 4:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Of course, we all understand that this is only through our union with the salvific action of Christ through His atoning death.

But Scripture does indeed state that we save ourselves.

He tells Timothy to keep watch on himself and to make sure he teaches sound doctrine. He saves himself in the sense that any of us cooperate with God; since we are free moral agents with the power to choose to follow Christ or not, salvation involves follow through on our part. The believer is instructed to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13).

We must not “depart from the faith” as the Spirit expressly says that some will devote themselves to the teaching of demons, and we must train ourselves for godliness. Furthermore, ministers have a responsibility to teach these things to their “hearers”–who then must obey these commands in their own lives. So, yes, in that sense Timothy did save himself and those who heard him in so far as they themselves obeyed what Timothy taught them.

Similarly, parents who followed Timothy’s instructions and taught them to their own children saved themselves as well as their children in so far as their children followed through with what they were taught.

And St. Paul says that *he *saves us. (Yes, he as in “Paul”. Not Christ.)

To wit:

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 11:14[/BIBLEDRB]
Again, we know he means because he is baptizing his gospel with the gospel of Christ.

He says that he magnifies his ministry to the Gentiles, and hopes that this will provoke the Jews to jealousy and they will be receptive to the Gospel. He also says in 1 Corinthians 9:

19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

But he’s clearly talking about sharing the gospel through word and deed. In the sense that any of us lead people to Christ, we have saved them. Yet, it’s not on our own confession of faith that they will be saved. If they are not personally won to Christ, placing their faith and trust in him and repenting of their sins, then we cannot be said to have saved them.

 

[ltwin]

Perhaps if you could answer the question in a sentence or two:

What type of baptism is it that St. Peter is talking about if it’s NOT water baptism?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 3:21[/BIBLEDRB]

As I’ve said before, it is the baptism into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, which occurs when we have faith and repent of our sins, appealing to God for a clean conscience.