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

[Pancras]

.
I had a nice conversation with a Lutheran pastor one day and he assured me that there is no need for a Christian to confess his sins to a priest. He said, “That’s between you and God.” I have known several Lutherans who were dying and wanted their preacher man to give them some kind of assurance that they were free of their sins, and all he could tell them was that God knows their intentions, and that’s all they need.

Catholics don’t have that problem. We can go to Confession and receive the absolution of the priest which assures us that we are free of our sins. When we are dying we can receive the Anointing of the Sick, which properly includes Confession and absolution, and if we are unconscious, the priest has the power to anoint us and give us conditional absolution so that if we’re hearing what he says but we can’t respond, we can be assured of God’s grace anyway. This is the assurance that the dying Lutherans desired but couldn’t have because their pastor told them “no,” basically (he was unable to give it to them).
.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, I do believe that the biblical pattern (which few churches these days seem to want to

enact) is that new converts are baptized when they believe, I do not think that Scripture gives any positive proof that regeneration is accomplished through baptism. It certainly rules out regeneration by baptism alone (as is the case in infant baptism where the baptized are incapable of having faith).

So all the children who are born mentally retarded will have faith…when?

So did Joseph and Mary take Jesus to be circumcised because he had faith?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

There are many Evangelicals who believe this as well.

I don’t have a problem with it either. In fact I took it directly from Catholic Answers and apparently I am still “misquoting scripture”.

 

[Pancras]

.
Dear Nicea325,
Are you aware that due to the way you placed your quote codes, anyone who quotes your post will therefore display the following? :

Well, I do believe that the biblical pattern (which few churches these days seem to want to

So all the children who are born mentally retarded will have faith…when?

So did Joseph and Mary take Jesus to be circumcised because he had faith?

…Was what you intended to post perhaps, supposed to look something like this?** :**
"Nicea325:

Well, I do believe that the biblical pattern (which few churches these days seem to want to enact) is that new converts are baptized when they believe, I do not think that Scripture gives any positive proof that regeneration is accomplished through baptism. It certainly rules out regeneration by baptism alone (as is the case in infant baptism where the baptized are incapable of having faith

).

So all the children who are born mentally retarded will have faith…when?

So did Joseph and Mary take Jesus to be circumcised because he had faith?

 

[Pancras]

I don’t have a problem with it either. In fact I took it directly from Catholic Answers and apparently I am still “misquoting scripture”.

Can you cite any specific references? How about, for example, a Catholic prayer that has been approved by a local ordinary as suitable for the Faithful to use after Mass? An example would be the Hail Holy Queen (Salve Regina), which is commonly said after the Rosary, so its orthodoxy is above reproach. This prayer has been in general use for several hundred years and is found in the Divine Office, with several Chant renditions.

Are you familiar with the *Salve Regina? *
.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Please discuss the subject with charity as per forum rules.
They are found in my signature.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

It doesn’t matter to me what any saint believed. Do you think that the apostles while boldly proclaiming the gospel of salvation to others walked around with their fingers crossed hoping that they were actually really and truly saved?

Actually, yes I do believe that, and here’s why:

More than that, I even consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things and I consider them so much rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having any righteousness of my own based on the law but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God, depending on faith to know him and the power of his resurrection and [the] sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. It is not that I have already taken hold of it or have already attained perfect maturity, but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it, since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ [Jesus]. Brothers, I for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession. Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind but straining forward to what lies ahead, I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God’s upward calling, in Christ Jesus. Let us, then, who are “perfectly mature” adopt this attitude. And if you have a different attitude, this too God will reveal to you. Only, with regard to what we have attained, continue on the same course. (Philippians 3:8-16 NABRE)

Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that St. Paul had “his fingers crossed,” (and he would never do that any way since it is superstitious ) but he by no means counted his salvation as already assured. Indeed, he counsels those who do have that attitude (those who are “perfectly mature”) that they should instead forget that which is in the past (i.e. their assurance of salvation) and continue their pursuit toward the goal. In other words, as he instructed earlier in the same letter, “work out your salvation in fear and trembling.” (2:12)

 

[dronald]

It is not the place of laymen to interpret Scripture, and that is a doctrine found in Scripture itself.
.

Why don’t we just make this the official Catholic response?

 

[JustaServant]

So what verses are used in support for this doctrine? Is it biblical? I would also like to know when they mean “saved” is it a past-tense and you can no-longer lose your salvation?

Unless one is willing to ask uncomfortable questions (which strike at the very heart of ‘eternal security’) one is stuck in a very inticing, but notheless dangerous, web.
The answer is that ‘eternal security’, OSAS, whatever you want to call it, is based on a psychological subjective ‘experiece’ that **cannot be pinned down **because it means something different to every adherant to OSAS.
That is at the heart of the matter. For many its too scary to consider, so they never step out of that ‘comfort zone’ that is ultimately psychological in nature, not spiritual.
Here’s another way of looking at it. Suppose you bought an insurance policy, but there is no way you can ever tell if it will ultimately be collected. No one is around to say ‘yes I was paid off, the policy is good’. What do you do? Well you put wording in the policy that makes it clear the company (Eternal Life Inc.) will keep thier word. But whose word is it? Is it being interpreted correctly?
I trust God.
I just don’t trust the insurance salesman.

 

[ltwin]

So all the children who are born mentally retarded will have faith…when?

God himself knows far better than any person whether an individual who is intellectually disabled is capable of faith or not. A God who condemns the mentally disabled to hell solely because he created them with the inability to have faith and their parents did not have the foresight to baptize them to give them the divine insurance policy is not a God I want to serve in any case.

I have seen a girl with downs syndrome kneel at an altar and accept Christ when the Gospel was explained to her in terms she could comprehend. She was about 18, but she had enough childlike faith. In the end, don’t we all have to become as children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

If there are people in this world who live with intellectual abilities truly too low to comprehend any concept of the Gospel, then I trust in the justice and mercy of God that he will work out all things for his glory until he is finally all in all.

Since baptism has no effect apart from faith, it would make no difference if it were an infant, the intellectually disabled, or a mature adult.

So did Joseph and Mary take Jesus to be circumcised because he had faith?

No. They had him circumcised because he was a male born to Jewish parents, and the sign of the God’s covenant with Israel was circumcision. This physical circumcision was given to all male children of Israelites and male slaves of Israelites. This was done irregardless of a person’s inward spiritual condition, even though we know that:

“But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God” (Romans 2:29).

If it makes you feel better to baptize the children of believing parents, I suppose you could treat it like circumcision. It would not, however, erase the distinction between the inward and the outward cutting away of the flesh. One deals only with externals; the other is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit.

 

[Nicea325]

**God himself knows far better than any person whether an individual who is intellectually disabled is capable of faith or not. **A God who condemns the mentally disabled to hell solely because he created them with the inability to have faith and their parents did not have the foresight to baptize them to give them the divine insurance policy is not a God I want to serve in any case.

I have seen a girl with downs syndrome kneel at an altar and accept Christ when the Gospel was explained to her in terms she could comprehend. She was about 18, but she had enough childlike faith. In the end, don’t we all have to become as children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

If there are people in this world who live with intellectual abilities truly too low to comprehend any concept of the Gospel, then I trust in the justice and mercy of God that he will work out all things for his glory until he is finally all in all.

Since baptism has no effect apart from faith, it would make no difference if it were an infant, the intellectually disabled, or a mature adult.

No. They had him circumcised because he was a male born to Jewish parents, and the sign of the God’s covenant with Israel was circumcision. This physical circumcision was given to all male children of Israelites and male slaves of Israelites. This was done irregardless of a person’s inward spiritual condition, even though we know that:

“But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God” (Romans 2:29).

If it makes you feel better to baptize the children of believing parents, I suppose you could treat it like circumcision. It would not, however, erase the distinction between the inward and the outward cutting away of the flesh. One deals only with externals; the other is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit.

Interersting,but I disagree with your position and non-Catholics holding to such a position.

 

[ericc]

I can not find anywhere in the Bible where it states that if you “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour you will be saved”. Anyone can quote book/chapter/verse?

 

[mackbrislawn]

So, yes, in baptism we are buried with Christ, and we are raised with him through faith. Once again, Paul is assuming that those who are baptized have faith and repentance while being baptized. Apart from saving faith (of the individual, not the faith of the Church), baptism is a meaningless rite.

 

[Cinderbella]

So what verses are used in support for this doctrine? Is it biblical? I would also like to know when they mean “saved” is it a past-tense and you can no-longer lose your salvation?

This is a long standing, bitter and divisive debate between Christians and no good comes of it.

 

[bornagainagain]

So what verses are used in support for this doctrine? Is it biblical? I would also like to know when they mean “saved” is it a past-tense and you can no-longer lose your salvation?

ublished on Jan 3, 2014

Rev. Jesse Duplantis shares how Jesus Christ transformed him from a cold-hearted 1970s rock musician into the passionate evangelist some have dubbed “The Apostle of Joy”.

he said he got “saved” when he was 24 years old

youtu.be/EID6AQeDjsY

 

[SyroMalankara]

ublished on Jan 3, 2014

Rev. Jesse Duplantis shares how Jesus Christ transformed him from a cold-hearted 1970s rock musician into the passionate evangelist some have dubbed “The Apostle of Joy”.

he said he got “saved” when he was 24 years old

youtu.be/EID6AQeDjsY

Sounds like a another con-man to me, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Adamski]

So what verses are used in support for this doctrine? Is it biblical? I would also like to know when they mean “saved” is it a past-tense and you can no-longer lose your salvation?

When someone asked me if I have jesus in my heart I say yes and in my tummy also

 

[Itineris]

When I attended an Evangelical church I sometimes wondered about how people were saved in all those years before the Reformation too place. As far as I know, Christians didn’t use the terminology or methodology that many current-day Protestant use. I eventually figured out that few, in any in that type of church had an interest in that type of question.

 

[babylonfalling]

So what verses are used in support for this doctrine? Is it biblical? I would also like to know when they mean “saved” is it a past-tense and you can no-longer lose your salvation?

Most of them believe you cannot lose your salvation. But on the other hand, they have back door means of condemnation, it you don’t believe as they do, then you don’t have the Holy Spirit, which in turn means you were never REALLY saved to begin with.

 

[JonNC]

=Pancras;11997203].
I had a nice conversation with a Lutheran pastor one day and he assured me that there is no need for a Christian to confess his sins to a priest. He said, “That’s between you and God.” I have known several Lutherans who were dying and wanted their preacher man to give them some kind of assurance that they were free of their sins, and all he could tell them was that God knows their intentions, and that’s all they need.

Not what scripture says. Not what the confessions say. Not what the history/tradition of the Lutheran Church says. A pastor who is unwilling to hear confession and grant absolution should be forced out of his vocation.

Catholics don’t have that problem. We can go to Confession and receive the absolution of the priest which assures us that we are free of our sins. When we are dying we can receive the Anointing of the Sick, which properly includes Confession and absolution, and if we are unconscious, the priest has the power to anoint us and give us conditional absolution so that if we’re hearing what he says but we can’t respond, we can be assured of God’s grace anyway. This is the assurance that the dying Lutherans desired but couldn’t have because their pastor told them “no,” basically (he was unable to give it to them).
.

They were able to give it, but chose not to. That’s even worse. An outrage!

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

It is well known that we have so elucidated and extolled [that we have preached, written, and taught in a, manner so Christian, correct, and pure] the benefit of absolution and the power of the keys that many distressed consciences have derived consolation from our doctrine; after they heard that it is the command of God, nay, rather the very voice of the Gospel, that we should believe the absolution, and regard it as certain that the remission of sins is freely granted us for Christ’s sake; and that we should believe that by this faith we are truly reconciled to God [as though we heard a voice from heaven].

How dare they refuse to hear confession and grant absolution!
I encourage you to invite this pastor here, so he can (try to) refute what I’ve said. Denying a sacrament! What a monstrous thing to do! :banghead::banghead:

Jon