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

[Jon_S_1]

From the Westminster Confession on justification:

CHAP. XI. - Of Justification.

1. Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

This is more or less in line with Catholicism, except we believe God both pardons and infuses righteousness by his grace.

1. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

Exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

1. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

This is inline with Catholic teaching as long as one is talking about the eternal debt/consequence of sin.

1. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

This is fine too as long as we acknowledge the free will of all men.

1. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

Sounds a lot like the Sacrament of Reconciliation to me.

1. The justification of believers under the old testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the new testament.

Sounds right.

 

[edkw55]

I just wanted to leave one last post to say goodbye. Some of you I can tell are very sincere in wanting to help. Some of you are just outright rude and arrogant. I’m no apologist or debater and I’ll leave that to those whom God has gifted with this particular gift. I was born and raised Baptist and for whatever reasons(mostly pretty selfish)decided that wasn’t enough. I spent a few years wandering around the world of Roman Catholicism only to find that Evangelicalism is my true home. For all you new converts to Roman Catholicism remember what the Bible is, the Word of God. As for justification, “how shall I be saved”, don’t look to Rome, turn back to God’s word for the answer to that question, The message of the Gospel is so simple a child can understand it. The Roman Catholic Church has turned “how shall I be saved” into the most elaborate complicated complex system of works righteousness ever devised by man. Don’t be fooled by all the fancy words and sophistry of these people. Evangelicalism has really went of the rails big time these days but please don’t abandon her. I know I’m not going to. Anyway, just wanted to say goodbye, not just disappear.

To each and everyone of you…the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Amen

Ed

 

[edkw55]

Besides that ya all drive me nuts…

 

[stewstew03]

I just wanted to leave one last post to say goodbye. Some of you I can tell are very sincere in wanting to help. Some of you are just outright rude and arrogant. I’m no apologist or debater and I’ll leave that to those whom God has gifted with this particular gift. I was born and raised Baptist and for whatever reasons(mostly pretty selfish)decided that wasn’t enough. I spent a few years wandering around the world of Roman Catholicism only to find that Evangelicalism is my true home. For all you new converts to Roman Catholicism remember what the Bible is, the Word of God. As for justification, “how shall I be saved”, don’t look to Rome, turn back to God’s word for the answer to that question, The message of the Gospel is so simple a child can understand it. The Roman Catholic Church has turned “how shall I be saved” into the most elaborate complicated complex system of works righteousness ever devised by man. Don’t be fooled by all the fancy words and sophistry of these people. Evangelicalism has really went of the rails big time these days but please don’t abandon her. I know I’m not going to. Anyway, just wanted to say goodbye, not just disappear.

To each and everyone of you…the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Amen

Ed

With due respect, Ed, arrogance is (1) coming on CAF (2) telling Catholics what they believe and (3) getting it wrong.

:bible1:

 

[benhur]

What?

Our predecessors, those whom we are grafted into,Israel, Judaism. Some keep insisting on a final authority, to take divisions to, to settle them,as in the CC,or that she has an advantage over others in this . So may I suggest or ask how pertinent is that if the Jews had no such thing, for they couldn’t even decide amongst themselves things about the resurrection, yet salvation is of the Jews as Jesus said.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Our predecessors, those whom we are grafted into,Israel, Judaism. Some keep insisting on a final authority, to take divisions to, to settle them,as in the CC,or that she has an advantage over others in this . So may I suggest or ask how pertinent is that if the Jews had no such thing, for they couldn’t even decide amongst themselves things about the resurrection, yet salvation is of the Jews as Jesus said.

Jesus is a Jew in the line of David, therefore salvation is if the Jews.

Answer me this,

If Jesus intended for us to have no consensus on who he is, what he taught, etc…

Why did he teach anything at all?

Why did he have 12 disciples?

Shouldn’t he have just said- "believe I am God and be nice to each other " and call it day.

If he wanted his church to not declare truth in disputes, why teach Matt 18?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Actually, Reformed Christians would say that regeneration makes faith possible. Unless God , by his Spirit, regenerates us, it is impossible to have faith.

You’re highlighting a difference in soteriology between evangelicals on the Reformed side versus those evangelicals on the Arminian side of the theological spectrum. One side emphasizes God’s sovereignty in salvation while the other side emphasizes man’s cooperation.

As an Arminian, I would say that we are enabled to have faith and repent of our sins by the power of the Holy Spirit. This then brings us from spiritual death to life in Christ.

From the Reformed perspective then, it is not faith that saves us. God regenerates those He has predestined?

To me, the Arminian view makes more sense, that we are enabled to have faith and repent by the power of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit can regenerate a person dead in their sins, why can’t He can’t he have the power to enable a person to have faith before regeneration? It would be more in keeping with salvation by faith.

 

[mackbrislawn]

What others seem to be saying is that we have faith, believe, before we are born again or regenerated. I am saying if you have faith, believe, you are born again. It is like if you are born you breathe, and I am not discerning which comes first, for they seem to be simultaneous. So no, it is not like you are born again and for a while have no faith…my main point is that faith is an expression ,resides in, the new inner man and is a result of being born in the spirit…it is not like I have faith, believe then days or hours or months later am water baptized to be born again, born of the spirit, where all things become new. No, all things became new when I first saw, when I first believed, that which I did not see, did not believe. My profession of faith in Christ before baptism is evidence of new birth…before the rite.

My understanding of the evangelical view is that a sinner hears an evangelist preach, (“Faith comes through hearing”) and believes the message, the gospel, preached by the evangelist, and then at the moment that he believes and repents, that is when he is saved, or regenerated. So there is not a time lag as you suggest, but right away. So regeneration is still a result of faith, not faith a result of regeneration, even if they occur at pretty much the same time. As a consequence of the sinner’s belief and acceptance of the gospel, he then decides to repent and accept Jesus, which is when regeneration occurs.

“Whatever, for sure the natural man cannot please God thru faith. Choose ye this day.” This is a quote from your other post. Is it a quote from something else?

 

[ltwin]

My understanding of the evangelical view is that a sinner hears an evangelist preach, (“Faith comes through hearing”) and believes the message, the gospel, preached by the evangelist, and then at the moment that he believes and repents, that is when he is saved, or regenerated.

Just as a point of clarification: No evangelical Christian worth his or her salt will say that repentance is just a momentary decision. Biblical repentance is a change of mind that results in a change in action. As Acts 26:20 states, “they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.”

 

[ltwin]

From the Reformed perspective then, it is not faith that saves us. God regenerates those He has predestined?

To me, the Arminian view makes more sense, that we are enabled to have faith and repent by the power of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit can regenerate a person dead in their sins, why can’t He can’t he have the power to enable a person to have faith before regeneration? It would be more in keeping with salvation by faith.

The Reformation principle is that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. You wrote earlier that evangelicals believe that faith saves. That’s not actually true. Evangelicals believe that faith in Christ saves. It is not faith itself that saves but faith in Christ.

 

[mackbrislawn]

ltwin;12087203]

Well, I’m sorry that human history and human nature doesn’t make sense to you. Let me make it simpler:

This is a red herring, and isn’t to the point, which is why it still doesn’t make sense.

Mark 16:16 says “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who disbelieves will be condemned.” Now Mark wasn’t thinking about forced baptisms, he was assuming that he who disbelieved would simply go away without baptism. Threrefore Mark does not need to say something like “He who disbelieves and is not baptized will be condemned.”

But even those who are baptized are not guaranteed of going to heaven.

Are we still talking about water? I thought we were talking about regeneration.

I said “The boy jumping in and out of the bath water will get clean whether he likes it or not. Water does that you know.” You replied, except it doesn’t. I replied, except it does.

No sarcasm. I’m deathly serious. Also, I am not saying that there are Catholics today who would support coerced baptism. What I am saying is that in the past Catholics did support the practice, and even if they did not support the practice, they contributed to a rationalization of the practice in many ways.

Who says sarcasm and seriousness don’t go together? But sarcasm is unbecoming.

What some Catholics did in the past I am not defending, and bringing up their past actions is a red herring to deflect attention from Mark 16:16.

OK. So what happens to those people. Are they washed of their sins? Are they born again? Have they, in baptism, died and risen to new life in Christ?

I don’t know. However, even the boy who unwillingly gets into the water gets clean, whether he likes it or not.

It seems to me that in saying that they have (which it seems to be the Catholic position must say that they have, but perhaps Catholic theologians have a way around this?), a mockery is made out of sacrament instituted by Christ.

I think you’re right, it is a sacrament instituted by Christ, and shouldn’t be used in that way.

 

[Porknpie]

I would suggest that you spend time studying the entire first 8 chapters of Romans to put this verse in context. Chery picking verses out of context can be very convincing but at the same time misleading. If after doing this you choose to believe what you believe I totally respect this.

Ed

Ed,

So here’s a quick look at scripture in the first eight chapters of Romans. All of Romans is a Catholic book, consistent throughout and consistent with the apostolic faith for 2000 years. St Paul and St James both believe we are saved by grace, through faith, working in love and that faith without works is dead. A dead faith can not save. Faith is made complete by works. An incomplete faith can not save.

Chapter 1 - St Paul is writing to believers (your thesis is that believers should be saved correct?)
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world.
Chapter 2 - But the Believers will be judged by their deeds … only those that do good will have eternal life. Not all believers.
5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
Chapter 5 - Justified by Faith (this is very Catholic but notice it does not say justified by faith alone)
1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith

Chapter 5 - We rejoice in the hope of our salvation. The key word is hope, not assurance.
2 through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God

Chapter 6 - The Wages of Sin is Death (again St Paul is writing to believers; believers can lose their salvation)
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Chapter 8 - The Believers Can Die Living in Sin (believers can lose their salvation)
13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Chapter 8 - Again St Paul refers to the hope, not assurance of salvation. If St Paul believed in OSAS, than why would he only hope?
24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen?

 

[mackbrislawn]

The Reformation principle is that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. You wrote earlier that evangelicals believe that faith saves. That’s not actually true. Evangelicals believe that faith in Christ saves. It is not faith itself that saves but faith in Christ.

You make a good point. In fact, I believe that is Paul’s point. One has to have faith in the right thing! Don’t put your faith in the wrong thing! Not faith in the Mosaic Law, nor following it. Not faith in pagan gods. Those kinds of faith do not save. But faith in Christ alone saves. If you have faith in Christ, you will call upon Him, follow His Law, and be saved.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Reformation principle is that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. You wrote earlier that evangelicals believe that faith saves. That’s not actually true. Evangelicals believe that faith in Christ saves. It is not faith itself that saves but faith in Christ.

I think you might find this Protestant commentary on Romans 2 helpful.

bible.org/seriespage/study-and-exposition-romans-21-16

Here’s a snippet

C. Full Exegetical Outline

I. Jews who judge Gentiles hypocritically, thus despising God’s mercy, will themselves be judged by God impartially according to truth and their works (2:1-11).

A. Jews who judge Gentiles hypocritically are without excuse since they practice the same sins and will also be judged by God in accordance with the truth (2:1-4)

1. The Jews are without excuse when they judge Gentiles because they practice the same sins (2:1).

1. Paul and other Jews know that the judgment of God is according to the truth (2:2).

1. Jewish hypocrites will not escape God’s judgment (2:3).

1. Some Jews show contempt for God’s kindness, etc. not realizing that his kindness leads them to repentance (2:4).

B. That God’s judgment is impartial is seen in that both Jew and Gentile have law and that both are judged on the same basis, i.e., works (2:5-11).

1. Jews who are hard-hearted and unrepentant are storing up wrath for themselves—a wrath they will receive on the day of God’s righteous judgment (2:5).

1. God will reward each one according to his works (2:6)

1. There will be eternal life for those who by perseverance in good works seek glory, honor, and immortality (2:7).

1. There will be wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth, but follow unrighteousness (2:8).

1. There will be affliction and distress for those who do evil, and glory, honor, peace, for everyone who does good (2:9-10).

1. God is impartial (2:11).

 

[ltwin]

This is a red herring, and isn’t to the point, which is why it still doesn’t make sense.

How is it a red herring? Correct me if I am wrong. The Catholic Church believes that sacraments are effective ex opere operato. As a sacrament, baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Therefore, a person baptized, even against their will or under coercion or under false pretenses with insincere motives, has been cleansed of original sin. Is this a correct summation of Catholic teaching?

If this is correct, it really makes “belief” irrelevant. Only baptism is necessary, at least in the short term because Catholics do believe in the need for reconciliation when post-baptismal sin is committed.

I don’t see how that is a red herring. I think how Catholics view the effectiveness of coerced or insincere baptism (whether historical or hypothetical) says a lot about how they read Mark 16.

I think you’re right, it is a sacrament instituted by Christ, and shouldn’t be used in that way.

But it has been. The question I am asking Catholics is does your church teach that such baptisms are effective?

 

[Jon_S_1]

How is it a red herring? Correct me if I am wrong. The Catholic Church believes that sacraments are effective ex opere operato. As a sacrament, baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Therefore, a person baptized, even against their will or under coercion or under false pretenses with insincere motives, has been cleansed of original sin. Is this a correct summation of Catholic teaching?

If this is correct, it really makes “belief” irrelevant. Only baptism is necessary, at least in the short term because Catholics do believe in the need for reconciliation when post-baptismal sin is committed.

I don’t see how that is a red herring. I think how Catholics view the effectiveness of coerced or insincere baptism (whether historical or hypothetical) says a lot about how they read Mark 16.

You are incorrect. Ex opere operato refers to the sacrament working regardless of the impeccability of the priest or participant.

It does not mean that the sacrament is always valid or licit.

See the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

§2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

I suggest you read the entire section on baptism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

 

[PRmerger]

You are incorrect. Ex opere operato refers to the sacrament working regardless of the impeccability of the priest or participant.

It does not mean that the sacrament is always valid or licit.

See the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

§2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

I suggest you read the entire section on baptism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

Well done, sir! :clapping::tiphat:

 

[ltwin]

You are incorrect. Ex opere operato refers to the sacrament working regardless of the impeccability of the priest or participant.

It does not mean that the sacrament is always valid or licit.

See the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

§2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

I suggest you read the entire section on baptism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

So then, the historical examples of forced baptisms have always violated Catholic teaching and have always been thought of as being ilicit and of no effect? Or is this a more recent teaching?

Not trying to play gotcha here. I am just genuinely curious how Catholics explain this?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So then, the historical examples of forced baptisms have always violated Catholic teaching and have always been thought of as being ilicit and of no effect? Or is this a more recent teaching?

Not trying to play gotcha here. I am just genuinely curious how Catholics explain this?

First I do not know how accurate such accounts would be, but it would have always been wrong.

I imagine there was a sad time in history where Indians and Africans and others were seen as “unable to understand” and “like infants”. As such they may have been incorrectly treated as infants.

I am simply guessing and will allow others to chime in.

 

[ltwin]

I think you might find this Protestant commentary on Romans 2 helpful.

bible.org/seriespage/study-and-exposition-romans-21-16

Here’s a snippet

OK. Thanks I guess. Not really sure why you thought I needed help understanding Protestant interpretations of Romans though.