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

[benhur]

Baptism is not a work instituted by any man. It was instituted by God before Jesus ever uttered a single word of the Gospel. You can choose to ignore that fact, but it doesn’t change the fact that even Jesus humbly subjected Himself to Baptism, in submission to the Will of His Father. He most certainly didn’t need to be washed of His sins. But, there had to be a very important reason for Him to do that, and I don’t mean that He just did it to show obedience to His Father. There was much more to it than that. Everything that Jesus did was to teach us all an important lesson. So, what was that lesson, if not that it really is necessary for our salvation?

I think it’s presumptuous for any of us to believe that Jesus didn’t really expect us to follow any defined rules. God always gives us rules to follow, otherwise we are much more inclined to follow our own, which are very far from perfect and often lead us astray. I believe Jesus most certainly did give us His rules/laws to follow. Didn’t He say, “Follow me.”, many times? How can we know how to follow Him the way He wants us to, if there are no rules? We could say that all we have to do is follow the Bible, but most people find it hard to agree on how to interpret even the most obvious verses, so how are we supposed to know if what we believe is right? So, we are also given free will to not believe Jesus gave us any kind of laws, and ignore what the Church teaches about them. In the end, it’s always our own choice to make.

I tend to trust those that He instructed to teach me the right way to live and follow Him, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But, maybe that’s just my way of trusting in Him, and taking Him for His word, that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into all truth. If you can trust yourself to make all of your own decisions, then that might be good for you. I just don’t think I’m smart (or holy) enough to be able to do that on my own. God bless you if you’re that confident to make your own decisions, without worrying about ever being wrong. Call me weak, but I could never do that.

A work is a work whether of God or of man. Circumcision was a work created by God. Obeying the Mosaic law was a work created by God. Clement and Paul are very clear that any work does not justify, be it man or a God work. So now what about the work of baptism. Then the only question is does it justify you or not . Did the Lord do it for justification and do we do it for justification ? Do we do it for sanctification ( I think so which is not justification). As I stated in another post, priests in OT were sometimes baptized before entering ministry, not for justification, but for sanctification, a setting aside for the job at hand ( a clear conscience). Scripture says we are justified by faith which comes before baptism, and is a prerequisite for the rite.

 

[ltwin]

Of course it’s about deciding.

Unless you think it’s ok for this group to profess that the Epistles of St. Paul are not inspired? lasttrumpetministries.org/

Unless you believe that you can worship with this group, which ate grass because they were told by their pastor that this was a Biblical command to bring them closer to God?

http://deadstate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ds-pastor-2.jpg

So, yes. You do decide when it’s time to be inflexible.

Flexible does not mean anything goes. It means flexible. I can worship God in a Pentecostal church, a Baptist church, an evangelical Episcopalian church, and even a Catholic church if it was an only option. But that doesn’t mean I will eat grass.

With all due respect, you can join them and amiably worship together…until you start talking about doctrine.

Then, not so much anymore.

If I go to a Calvinist church knowing full well that they believe in TULIP I am not going to storm out the church when the pastor preaches on TULIP. Nevertheless, as long as the gospel is preached (despite the imperfections of the TULIP understanding of that gospel), if sinners are exhorted to confess their sins and repent, the sacraments are administered, prayers and petitions are made to God, and praises go up to heaven then I can worship with them. If an evangelical Calvinist church was the only church within a 100 miles, I could worship with them, even if I may not in good conscience be able to join the church.

Now, if the pastor of my Pentecostal church started preaching TULIP, that would be another story entirely. If I wanted to hear TULIP on Sunday mornings, I would go to a Calvinist church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Flexible does not mean anything goes. It means flexible. I can worship God in a Pentecostal church, a Baptist church, and Episcopalian church, and even a Catholic church. But that doesn’t mean I will eat grass.

If I go to a Calvinist church knowing full well that they believe in TULIP I am not going to storm out the church when the pastor preaches on TULIP. Nevertheless, as long as the gospel is preached (despite the imperfections of the TULIP understanding of that gospel), if sinners are exhorted to confess their sins and repent, the sacraments are administered, prayers and petitions are made to God, and praises go up to heaven then I can worship with them. If an evangelical Calvinist church was the only church within a 100 miles, I could worship with them, even if I may not in good conscience be able to join the church.

But you are missing the point, who sets the parameters.

Ultimately it’s each individual, and no one defines the boundaries of Christianity the same. Many may include Mormons and who are you to say they are wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately those who feel compelled to prove that Protestants are “not Christian” or “less Christian” consistently try to use the number of Protestant denominations as some sort of proof positive.

I would hope that with your dozen Masters-level classes in Catholicism you would be able to address any Catholic who labels Protestants as “not Christian” with some quotes from Catholic documents. You ought to be able to tell them, “You have divorced yourself from Catholic teaching if you call Protestants ‘not Christian’ for your own Catechism says otherwise.”

As I’ve posted elsewhere, that’s a spurious argument, since it is based on an opinion that monolithicity is superior to unity in diversity. I won’t even go into whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is truly monolithic; it’s essentially irrelevant.

Just so you know, (or ought to have known already), the CC is not Roman. The Roman, or Latin Rite, is only one of a multitude of rites and churches which constitute the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

That’s why this forum is called Catholic Answers Forum. NOT Roman Catholic Answers Forum.

And why the Catechism is called “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”. NOT “The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

A work is a work whether of God or of man. Circumcision was a work created by God. Obeying the Mosaic law was a work created by God. Clement and Paul are very clear that any work does not justify, be it man or a God work. So now what about the work of baptism. Then the only question is does it justify you or not . Did the Lord do it for justification and do we do it for justification ? Do we do it for sanctification ( I think so which is not justification). As I stated in another post, priests in OT were sometimes baptized before entering ministry, not for justification, but for sanctification, a setting aside for the job at hand ( a clear conscience). Scripture says we are justified by faith which comes before baptism, and is a prerequisite for the rite.

What is justification in your mind?

What is sanctification?

Why is there a distinction.

Catholics believe no one is allowed into heaven (justified) without Christ and his sacrifice offered freely to everyone.

Salvation comes from accepting that gift. In your heart, through baptism, through walking in A living faith in Christ.

Sanctification is the process of becoming a saint. Of transforming into the image of Christ which is completed in heaven.

What is wrong with that in your view?

 

[PRmerger]

Flexible does not mean anything goes. It means flexible. I can worship God in a Pentecostal church, a Baptist church, an evangelical Episcopalian church, and even a Catholic church if it was an only option. But that doesn’t mean I will eat grass.

So who decides where the boundaries lie in Christianity?

Incidentally, you are always welcome to worship in our Catholic Church. Not sure why you mention “if it was an only option.”

If I go to a Calvinist church knowing full well that they believe in TULIP I am not going to storm out the church when the pastor preaches on TULIP. Nevertheless, as long as the gospel is preached (despite the imperfections of the TULIP understanding of that gospel), if sinners are exhorted to confess their sins and repent, the sacraments are administered, prayers and petitions are made to God, and praises go up to heaven then I can worship with them. If an evangelical Calvinist church was the only church within a 100 miles, I could worship with them, even if I may not in good conscience be able to join the church.

I, of course, would never countenance storming out of a church that you have visited.

However, the point is that you can only worship together with them if you agree not to talk about theology.

Once you do, there is going to be great disagreement.

That’s a big problem.

 

[ltwin]

But you are missing the point, who sets the parameters.

Ultimately it’s each individual, and no one defines the boundaries of Christianity the same. Many may include Mormons and who are you to say they are wrong.

I don’t know of any evangelical who thinks Mormons are really Christians. They may be sub-Christian, but they are clearly not Christian. They clearly preach a different gospel.

 

[edkw55]

I wish there was a catechism of evangelical church. There’s not though and even evangelicals on this board argue about what evangelical doctrine is!

Alas it is unknowable except by opinions of people who claim to it’s adherence!

I admit that you have made a very good point.

Ed

 

[stewstew03]

Didn’t you say at one time that you had studied something like a dozen Masters-level classes in Catholicism?

I find it hard to believe that you could have done that yet profess something as absurd as the above.

You ought to have recalled from all of these Masters-level courses that the CC does not extend God-breathedness to papal bulls, encyclicals and the CC.

That is reserved for Sacred Scripture only

Yes, *theopneustos *is reserved for Sacred Scriptures. But what Faithdancer said (if I read him/her correctly) is that there is no more divine inspiration. If that’s true, then God has left us life-saving water with no way to discern whether or not it’s poisoned. [paraphrasing John Cardinal Gibbons]

 

[benhur]

But you are missing the point, who sets the parameters.

Ultimately it’s each individual, and no one defines the boundaries of Christianity the same. Many may include Mormons and who are you to say they are wrong.

Well, our predecessors couldn’t decide something as basic as to a resurrection ? And Jesus said salvation is of the Jews ?

 

[Porknpie]

I’m convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is a far different entity from the disparate group of Christians who compiled canonical Scripture in the first and second century.

These Christians were Catholic bishops. And they first met to do so at the Council of Rome in 382 and not the first or second century. In fact, they wanted a universal canon of scripture so that all the Christian churches, all Catholic mind you, could have the same set of books for reading at Mass. Interesting it is that this Catholic Christian Church had 73 books in the biblical canon, just as that same Roman Catholic Church does today.

Council of Rome

Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle." Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

Likewise, if you don’t like the answer from the Council of Rome, in North Africa, Catholic Bishops there also affirmed 73 books in the bible at the Synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 398 ad.

If you believe that these early Christians were guided by the Holy Spirit, then I suggest getting a Catholic bible with all 73 books and not 66.

I’ve said this before and it is very much true: Catholics are the original bible Christians as the bible was written by, for and about the Catholic Church.

PnP

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t know of any evangelical who thinks Mormons are really Christians. They may be sub-Christian, but they are clearly not Christian. They clearly preach a different gospel.

I know many evangelicals who hold that they are Christian. Many of the ones with Mormon family.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, our predecessors couldn’t decide something as basic as to a resurrection ? And Jesus said salvation is of the Jews ?

What?

 

[ltwin]

So who decides where the boundaries lie in Christianity?

Incidentally, you are always welcome to worship in our Catholic Church. Not sure why you mention “if it was an only option.”

Let’s just say that if there were suddenly no Pentecostal churches in existence than I would attend an evangelical Methodist/Wesleyan-Holiness or a down-to-earth Baptist church or non-denom. Next choices would be evangelical Presbyterian or evangelical Episcopalian. If all of the evangelical Protestant churches suddenly disappeared then I would turn to the Catholic parish because even though I don’t agree with a ton of Catholic theology it’s still more biblical than the eccentric mainline Protestant church that’s decided that God is a she.

I, of course, would never countenance storming out of a church that you have visited.

However, the point is that you can only worship together with them if you agree not to talk about theology.

Once you do, there is going to be great disagreement.

That’s a big problem.

Not really. Worshiping God is not really about us talking about the finer points of theology. Yeah, how I worship will reflect what I believe about God, but at the end of the day evangelical worship is focused on glorifying God and evangelical preaching is focused on leading men and women to the cross. That is not denomination specific.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, *theopneustos *is reserved for Sacred Scriptures. But what Faithdancer said (if I read him/her correctly) is that there is no more divine inspiration. If that’s true, then God has left us life-saving water with no way to discern whether or not it’s poisoned. [paraphrasing John Cardinal Gibbons]

I think he was conflating two textual areas of importance in Catholicism: Scripture and the writings of the magisterium.

He ought to have known that Scripture has a primacy in Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

Not really. Worshiping God is not really about us talking about the finer points of theology.

That is not very Scriptural, ltwin.

Scripture commands us to love God with our entire heart, soul, strength…and MIND.

When we love God with our MIND that is nothing but an expression of theology.

 

[edkw55]

I have a feeling, ed, that if you were asked to articulate what exactly the CC teaches on any number of issues, and why she professes what she professes, you would not be able to provide any reasonable apologia for our teachings.

That is, you are rejecting what you don’t really know. :sad_yes:

I understand and respect what you say. The truth is that my understanding is crystal clear on what the CC is teaching and I know exactly why I am rejecting it.

Ed

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s just say that if there were suddenly no Pentecostal churches in existence than I would attend an evangelical Methodist/Wesleyan-Holiness or a down-to-earth Baptist church or non-denom. Next choices would be evangelical Presbyterian or evangelical Episcopalian. If all of the evangelical Protestant churches suddenly disappeared then I would turn to the Catholic parish because even though I don’t agree with a ton of Catholic theology it’s still more biblical than the eccentric mainline Protestant church that’s decided that God is a she.

Interesting.

Could you answer the question as to where the boundaries lie in your flexible inflexibility? And who gets to decide?

It sounds like you wouldn’t countenance a denomination that refers to God as a she.
What about one which has an ordained woman at the pulpit?

It also sounds, if I read between the lines, that you wouldn’t countenance a denomination which denies the inspiration of the Pauline epistles.
What about one which states that Pauline epistles are Antilogoumena and not Homologoumena?

You wouldn’t eat grass as a liturgical practice.
But would you do this?

 

[stewstew03]

I think he was conflating two textual areas of importance in Catholicism: Scripture and the writings of the magisterium.

He ought to have known that Scripture has a primacy in Catholicism.

But, his (or her?) broader point seems to be that God has stopped speaking… (again, I’m drawing a distinction between theopneustos and divine inspiration, generally)

 

[ltwin]

That is not very Scriptural, ltwin.

Scripture commands us to love God with our entire heart, soul, strength…and MIND.

When we love God with our MIND that is nothing but an expression of theology.

I’m not disregarding the importance of theology. I’m only saying that there can be unity even in the absence of complete knowledge or precision. Recognizing that we all see through a glass darkly is not sinful. Recognizing that there are people in different denominations who share the same faith as I do, even if they explain it, rationalize it, and arrange the details in a different way than I do is not wrong or incoherent. And if I do share the same faith with a person or group of persons, then it follows that I can worship together with them. There are a lot of things I disagree with John Piper on (Calvinism, women pastors, etc.) but if I lived in Minneapolis I’d be tempted to attend his church because of his deep knowledge and love of the Word.