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

[Telstar]

again is faith a gift of God to OT saints ? Ok it seems you are saying man, OT, is capable of righteousness as a fallen man . He can still be spiritual,spiritually minded, non sensual…why do we need to be born again and they did not ? My flow chart was not about flow but synonyms. Do you really need to define ,born of the spirit or the new man. The whole idea is that no one is born with a spirit towards god unless god gives it to him, it is not automatic as or with fleshly birth, born of water from our mothers womb. …so how were they holy if they were not regenerated or born again nor born of the spirit. How can they in OT be holy if their spirit were dead in sin ? Born again ,regeneration is at least a revived heart,even a new heart a new inner man after god? How can you say they were holy and inspired like nt saints yet they had no rebirth unlike nt saints?..you make it sound like the new and old had nothing in common,nor even any foreshadowing, kind of cold and creepy. We do have the better portion and abundantly but they certainly had a downpayment as surely as we do. We have all been ransomed and given seals to that end…All are reconciled towards God via the blood of Christ,old and New Testament saints. They looked forward to Calvary as we look back.

The OT Saints were only made ‘righteous’ (worthy of God) by faithfully following God’s Law. That was the purpose of the Law. The Old Law provided the means for them to atone for their sins, by offering sacrifices at the Temple, and doing penance. But, that atonement was not perfect, because it didn’t completely wash away their sins, as Baptism does for us. So, that was only a temporary solution until the Savior came to offer Himself as the only pure and Holy Sacrifice. The only Sacrifice worthy to open the Gates of Heaven for mankind to be able to enter.

Even when they lost their way, God never completely abandoned His people. He would always seek to find someone that still had even a small spark of love for Him, in their heart. Those are the ones He chose to bring them all back to Him.

As I said in my last post, the Old Covenant was not the same as the New. It does foreshadow some of the New Law of Christ, but not everything in the Old can be seen in the same way. Similarities are just that; similar. They are not the same, or perfect. Perfection only comes through Jesus in the New Testament, so that’s what we really need to focus on.

I’ll have to take a look back at that ‘flowchart’.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

OK, we’re making progress, but we’re still not quite speaking the same language. You still haven’t defined exactly what you mean by the term ‘regenerate’. I don’t understand your use of the term because it’s not one that Catholics ever use (at least not that I’m aware of). It’s found nowhere in the Catholic Bible. I’ve searched several online versions and it’s just not there. There are only a few references to “born again”, also. So, that makes it very difficult to understand exactly what you mean by it.

(Note: The below reply isn’t directy solely at you, Telstar, but is for the benefit of anyone reading this thread, including benhur, as to the Catholic understanding of “regeneration.” I simply quoted your post to give the proper context to my reply.)

In the Catholic understanding, regeneration occurs at baptism. I believe it originates from Titus 3:5:

4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

(Titus 3:4-7 RSV 2CE)

This “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” is baptism. (Note: as with pretty much every verse in the Bible, different translations render the phrase “washing of regeneration” differently. The NABRE, for example, calls it the “bath of rebirth,” so that may be why you had trouble locating a reference to “regeneration” in the online Bibles you searched, Telstar.) As explained in the CCC (emphasis mine):

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: **“Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”**5

I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6

1215 **This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.”**7

1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding . . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, “the true light that enlightens every man,” the person baptized has been “enlightened,” he becomes a “son of light,” indeed, he becomes “light” himself:9

Baptism is God’s most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God’s Lordship.10

I especially love the second half of paragraph 1216. It is just such a beautiful way of describing the sacrament. It is a quote from St. Gregory Of Nazianzus (Oratio 40,3-4). The whole section on baptism is obviously too lengthy to quote here, but I would encourage everyone to check out the link above for the rest of it, as it really does an excellent job of beautifully explaining the sacrament.

 

[benhur]

The OT Saints were only made ‘righteous’ (worthy of God) by faithfully following God’s Law

No." By the works of the law is no man justified "

That was the purpose of the Law.

No it was not. Paul says it was the schoolmaster, not as in teacher but as one who gathered the kids to bring to the Teacher. Big difference.

The Old Law provided the means for them to atone for their sins, by offering sacrifices at the Temple,

Yes,“for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins”.

and doing penance

.???only if you mean restitution when applicable.

But, that atonement was not perfect, because it didn’t completely wash away their sins

Yes it did and I thought one of my posts quoted one scripture OT. They were not half washed. “Create in me a clean heart” I think is a Psalm, the cry of David I think. No, the trouble was the continual need for sacrifice for continual sin., .

So, that was only a temporary solution until the Savior came to offer Himself as the only pure and Holy Sacrifice. The only Sacrifice worthy to open the Gates of Heaven for mankind to be able to enter

. Alleluia.Pay dirt. (yet where did Enoch and Elijah go ? Cool exceptions,no ?)

Even when they lost their way, God never completely abandoned His people. He would always seek to find someone that still had even a small spark of love for Him, in their heart. Those are the ones He chose to bring them all back to Him.

Amen. Please don’t think of any reformers ?

As I said in my last post, the Old Covenant was not the same as the New. It does foreshadow some of the New Law of Christ, but not everything in the Old can be seen in the same way. Similarities are just that; similar. They are not the same, or perfect. Perfection only comes through Jesus in the New Testament, so that’s what we really need to focus on.

Yep, for all of us are justified by faith, unto good works. All of us who are born of the spirit, OT and NT saints.

 

[Sabacthani]

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?

Mormons don’t use the term “personal,” but they do believe that Jesus personally took upon himself the pains and sins of every individual in order that he might become our savior.

But Mormons think that accepting Jesus as your savior isn’t just something we do with our mouth. A change of heart is more than just a flash in the pan.

One of my favorite LDS hymns, associated with the sacrament which Catholics more accurately call Communion, describes what it means to accept Christ as your savior:

lds.org/music/library/hymns/reverently-and-meekly-now?lang=eng

1. Rev’rently and meekly now,
   Let thy head most humbly bow.
   Think of me, thou ransomed one;
   Think what I for thee have done.
   With my blood that dripped like rain,
   Sweat in agony of pain,
   With my body on the tree
   I have ransomed even thee.

1. In this bread now blest for thee,
   Emblem of my body see;
   In this water or this wine,
   Emblem of my blood divine.
   Oh, remember what was done
   That the sinner might be won.
   On the cross of Calvary
   I have suffered death for thee.

1. Bid thine heart all strife to cease;
   With thy brethren be at peace.
   Oh, forgive as thou wouldst be
   E’en forgiven now by me.
   In the solemn faith of prayer
   Cast upon me all thy care,
   And my Spirit’s grace shall be
   Like a fountain unto thee.

1. At the throne I intercede;
   For thee ever do I plead.
   I have loved thee as thy friend,
   With a love that cannot end.
   Be obedient, I implore,
   Prayerful, watchful evermore,
   And be constant unto me,
   That thy Savior I may be.

 

[benhur]

OK, we’re making progress, but we’re still not quite speaking the same language. You still haven’t defined exactly what you mean by the term ‘regenerate’. I don’t understand your use of the term because it’s not one that Catholics ever use (at least not that I’m aware of). It’s found nowhere in the Catholic Bible. I’ve searched several online versions and it’s just not there. There are only a few references to “born again”, also. So, that makes it very difficult to understand exactly what you mean by it.

Yeah, I know but iron can sharpen iron. It is rarely thought of in some circles and it is assumed the way it is with one’s youthful faith is the way it is. A few Catholics do have "conversions’’ that I hear about on Catholic radio, to a deeper walk, and I’m pretty sure they experienced what many new believers do in Protestantism of “new birth” but they(Catholics on radio) can not use same words, definitions to explain their experience. It would go against CC doctrine to admit they were truly born again, as a protestant convert would. Because CC teaches it all happens in the rites of baptism and confirmation and that is it. Not that it cannot deepen or mature but that it must be in terms of building upon rites, and can not be new birth. I should add some protestants believe in effectual regeneration at baptism/confirmation also and thus must define any future big time life changing spiritual experiences carefully so as not to contradict their church’s teaching…

 

[benhur]

]You still haven’t defined exactly what you mean by the term ‘regenerate’

Ok here are some more “ideas” from scripture that color new birth. “John 1:12-13
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,…
Psalms 87:4-6
“I shall mention Rahab and Babylon among those who know Me; Behold, Philistia and Tyre with Ethiopia: `This one was born there.’” But of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; And the Most High Himself will establish her. The LORD will count when He registers the peoples, “This one was born there.” Selah.
Titus 3:5
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
1 Peter 1:23
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1 John 2:29
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
1 John 5:3-4
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world–our faith.”

• See more at: bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Birth,-Spiritual#sthash.Ejyx3eSM.dpuf…See also Isa. 29:10 , Deut. 30:6 , Ps. 51: 6 and Ps. 51:10

 

[benhur]

When the Apostles or Jesus refer to someone who is “of the flesh”, they indicate a man that sees the world only in ‘worldly’ (or scientific) terms, a man that doesn’t believe in God or any spiritual existence

Yes but why ? Why doesn’t he believe in spiritual existence ? Because he is dead in sin and trespasses ? Because he born only in flesh due to fall ? Because he is not born in the spirit ? It is not a thing about will or choice. You make it sound like it is there in the fleshly man, he just has to turn it on or just desire it. How can something dead even know how to desire anything ? I tell you the term designates a man who is not born of God (or is born in the spirit but acting in the flesh, but look at context).

They are not ‘tuned in’ to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Again why ? Cause they are backsliding or cause they have never been born again ?

But, occasionally, they might understand it.

Only if born in the spirit, for only spirit can understand spirit.

If they respond to it and act on that inspiration, then, they open themselves up to God.

The scenario needs more defining, otherwise it might only be conviction ,which is not inspiration. The most one could say is that God somehow lets flesh see it is dead in sins and dead spiritually ,That much even God makes happen in flesh, but that is not evidence of spiritual life.

Just because man doesn’t always understand inspiration, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t* try* to inspire them

Yes, God is striving for us . As he told Job, “who can turn the heart of a man” or Ezekiel, who can revive life out of dead bones ?

But, if they do respond, that’s still only the beginnings of a true ‘conversion of heart’. It takes much more than that for them to actually believe (have true faith) in God.

Yes, grace given conviction wants to lead to grace given new spiritual birth for faith to abide in which leads to grace given walking out of that faith in good works.

 

[benhur]

Because, being ‘born again’ refers to our being reunited with God, through Jesus ChristYes but were not OT saints united with God while they walked the earth or were they not at peace with Him (has nothing to do with final resting place of OT and NT saints )

The Old Covenant was the Promise

 

[benhur]

Rehashing the events of the Old Testament to somehow find reasons to ignore anything that we find in the New Testament, won’t do any of us any good.

Don’t feel I am ignoring anything. More than anything we agree that one must be born again to see heaven. This new birth is for today and yesterday. My yesterday goes back to the Garden and Genesis and includes all saints since that are now in heaven. Your yesterday goes back to Pentecost or Calvary and her saints now in heaven. This new birth is not dispensational but for all covenants as sure as faith in God’s plan and love are, in my opinion.

 

[Telstar]

(Note: The below reply isn’t directy solely at you, Telstar, but is for the benefit of anyone reading this thread, including benhur, as to the Catholic understanding of “regeneration.” I simply quoted your post to give the proper context to my reply.)

In the Catholic understanding, regeneration occurs at baptism. I believe it originates from Titus 3:5:

4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

(Titus 3:4-7 RSV 2CE)

This “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” is baptism. (Note: as with pretty much every verse in the Bible, different translations render the phrase “washing of regeneration” differently. The NABRE, for example, calls it the “bath of rebirth,” so that may be why you had trouble locating a reference to “regeneration” in the online Bibles you searched, Telstar.) As explained in the CCC (emphasis mine):

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: **“Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”**5

I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6

1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding . . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, “the true light that enlightens every man,” the person baptized has been “enlightened,” he becomes a “son of light,” indeed, he becomes “light” himself:9

Baptism is God’s most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God’s Lordship.10

I especially love the second half of paragraph 1216. It is just such a beautiful way of describing the sacrament. It is a quote from St. Gregory Of Nazianzus (Oratio 40,3-4). The whole section on baptism is obviously too lengthy to quote here, but I would encourage everyone to check out the link above for the rest of it, as it really does an excellent job of beautifully explaining the sacrament.

Thank you! I was just reading another thread (“Mormons 17 Points of True Church”) and LivingWaters7 posted all of it, in its entirety, in Post # 112 & #113. I was just coming back here to comment on it. I guess this proves that, “God moves in mysterious ways”, indeed!

I guess that explains why I couldn’t find the word ‘regenerate’ in a Catholic Bible. I didn’t think to search for other forms of the word. So, it is a reference to the Sacrament of Baptism, itself. It really is a beautiful description of what the Sacrament is, what it does, and why we believe that it’s the most important Sacrament of all. Not that they aren’t all extremely important, but, without Baptism, we wouldn’t have any of the others.

Good job!

 

[mackbrislawn]

This thread is about the general evangelical belief that salvation comes by responding to the Holy Spirit’s calling through the proclamation of the Word of God with saving faith and repentance that leads to verbal confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior (i.e. conversion).

Not everyone who adheres to the above understanding of conversion believes that initial conversion alone guarantees you a place in heaven. You are only assured salvation to the extent that you persevere in faith and repentance.

Even though salvation is not assured by initial conversion alone (there is the possibility of backsliding and losing one’s faith), it is Scriptural to say that those who have repented of their sins are “saved.”

To me, once saved, always saved is unbiblical.

Agreed!

It seems a “saving faith” is one that leads to repentance and confession, and that enables one to persevere? I suppose one who’s faith is not strong enough to continue confessing under persecution is not a “saving faith”?

 

[mackbrislawn]

ltwin;12036021]Saving faith is simply faith that saves. There are those who know God but do not obey him (Romans 1:32; James 2:19).

Yes, a rose is a rose is a rose. And saving faith is faith that saves! But faith does not save, Jesus does.
I gather that a “saving faith” is one that is such that the possessor obeys Jesus.

Yes, but all faith comes from God. It’s not something we can achieve apart from the Holy Spirit and Word of God. Active faith, saving faith, faith in action, is merely God working in us, so that man can boast in himself.

Agreed, “saving faith,” is faith in action, as I said. (But not agreed that man can boast in himself, but on the contrary, boast in God.)

I think you’re missing the point. “Saving faith” is simply a useful term to distinguish what the Bible really means by faith and mere belief or lighthearted confession of Jesus Christ. Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord will enter heaven. There must true faith, saving faith.

I think it’s the other way around, about missing the point.

It seems to me that the non-biblical term, “saving faith” was invented by those who hold to the “once saved, always saved” belief (not you!). Because experience showed to them that there were Christians among them who presumably were “saved” but nevertheless backslid and even quit or denied the faith. These seemingly had faith and were “saved,” but obviously then they didn’t have “saving faith” since they eventually fell away.

From this point of view, since you (and I) are not OSAS, we are using the term “saving faith” in a less specific sense than they.

And it’s true, a lighthearted confession is unlikely to persevere under threat of the lions or the stake; it won’t stand up under duress.

 

[mackbrislawn]

twin;12036021]
I didn’t say it was right that Quakers, etc. do not obey Christ. I simply noted that most Protestants who are the subject of this thread (i.e. “born again Christians”) DO baptize those who declare that they have been born again, so the accusation that people are disobeying Christ by not being baptized really has nothing to do with the theology under discussion here.

An evasion.
No, you didn’t say it was right. But I presume that the Salvation Army folks think they are born again?

You wrote in post, “Sure, one who has ‘saving faith’ and has the intention of being baptized but dies beforehand, that will be counted to him as righteousness, but if one says he does not need to be baptized, that means his faith is not saving faith because he is not obeying Jesus, but is listening to something else.”

Since born-again Christians do not teach that Christians should remain unbaptized, I can only assume that you are suggesting that born-again Christians are being disobedient to Christ’s command even though they teach that we need to be baptized because Christ commanded it.

Doggone it, I still don’t quite follow your comment.

Anyway, only those “born-again Christians,” (not you) who teach they do not need to be baptized are disobeying Jesus’ command. Obviously those “born-again” Christians who teach they need to be baptized and are baptized are not disobeying Christ’s command.

Of course, this is ignoring the question of why Christ commanded it.

Why would you think that? Is there a rule that we can only quote Scripture?

Touche’! Sarcasm against sarcasm!

No, I was hoping that the term “means of grace” came from a higher place than it turned out to be. And I was hoping that I would get more than a man-made explanation. Since you are not OSAS, “means of grace” are important in your theology, as in Catholic theology. Although I don’t know if “means of grace” fit in with OSAS theology.

Baptism does save, but not the baptism in water. It is baptism into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit that saves us. Union with Christ by faith

.
Almost agreed, except that it is water baptism that is how one gets baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think so. I think this is a nuance that Catholics often miss. When Protestants say that sacraments/ordinances are symbolic, we do not mean that they are merely symbolic. The Holy Spirit can be at work within the life of a believer during water baptism even though baptism does not literally wash away sins. It is wrong for anyone to say that there is no spiritual benefit at all to baptism. Where there is genuine faith on the part of the person being baptized, then the Holy Spirit is at work.

Of course, that water baptism does literally wash away sins as per scripture is the point of disagreement. But if that is denied, then some other, non-biblical, explanation of the benefits of baptism have to be manufactured.

I am Pentecostal, and it is not unusual for people in my tradition to be visibly affected with joy, praise, shouts, and tears when they are baptized. This is simply an external and emotional response to the Holy Spirit’s blessing and work. This makes perfect sense to us, because water baptism is instituted by Christ himself and the Holy Spirit is present to supply whatever the believer needs in Christ.

Fair enough.

So, faith precedes baptism or does baptism give us faith? And how is this true of infants, who do not submit to baptism personally?

Yes, faith precedes baptism. Those to whom Peter preached in Acts were convinced by his speech; that is they believed and then what next? Peter answered, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” And in Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who disbelieves will be condemned.” (It is true Mk 16:16 is in the long ending so you may not consider it truly part of scripture, but at least it is an early witness to what the early Christians thought about baptism.)

And yes, baptism does increases our faith. All the sacraments do that. They help us “gird our loins” and persevere.

Infants? Others are discussing that topic, as I am not.

But what if someone is being baptized without the intention of appealing to God for a good conscience?

Good question. But, why would someone be baptized if they disbelieved? How about forcible baptisms?
Although, it is true, a small boy being washed by his mother gets clean whether he likes it or not.

 

[mackbrislawn]

…no where does it say if you believe and are not baptized you are lost,without eternal life

It is clear that if you believe and don’t bother with baptism, you don’t have “saving faith”!

But as I said before, if you have the intent to be baptized but are prevented from it, God will not hold it against you, because you did have “saving faith”!

 

[Telstar]

No." By the works of the law is no man justified " No it was not. Paul says it was the schoolmaster, not as in teacher but as one who gathered the kids to bring to the Teacher. Big difference.

Remember, I’m talking about the purpose of the OT Law, long before Jesus was even born. What Paul says is only relevant to the time after the resurrection… so you’re comparing apples to oranges. You asked me how OT saints could be ‘justified’.

Yes,“for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins”…???only if you mean restitution when applicable.

Penance is not a ‘dirty word’. It’s used all over the Bible, in the NT & OT. If we don’t do penance, we’ll just have to ‘pay the piper’, later on.

“Leviticus 5:5 Let him do penance for his sin, [6] And offer of the flocks an ewe lamb, or a she goat, and the priest shall pray for him and for his sin:”

“3 Kings (1 Kings) 8: [33] If thy people Israel shall fly before their enemies, (because they will sin against thee,) and doing penance, and confessing to thy name, shall come, and pray, and make supplications to thee in this house: [34] Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and bring them back to the land which thou gavest to their fathers.”

“Job [22] He hath pulled down the strong by his might: and when he standeth up, he shall not trust to his life. [23] God hath given him place for penance, and he abuseth it unto pride: but his eyes are upon his ways.”

Yes it did and I thought one of my posts quoted one scripture OT. They were not half washed. “Create in me a clean heart” I think is a Psalm, the cry of David I think.

Yes, but as the examples above show, the blood sacrifice also had to include some form of ‘penance’ and prayers. The sacrifice alone was not ‘perfect’.

No, the trouble was the continual need for sacrifice for continual sin., . . Alleluia.Pay dirt. (yet where did Enoch and Elijah go ? Cool exceptions,no ?)

Amen!

Unfortunately, there’s still a need for all of us to do penance, because we all fall back into our old sins at some point, or find new ones to add to the list. ('cuz we all kinda suck at that whole ‘being perfect’ thing ) Baptism washes away all of our sins at that moment in time, and those are gone forever, but the sins we commit *after *Baptism are not fully covered by it. We still need to do some kind of penance. The gifts freely given to us in Baptism can be lost, if we fall into serious (mortal) sin, and don’t humbly ask God to forgive us, with true sorrow in our heart for whatever we did. We should also do something as penance, to atone for our sins.

That’s why Catholics have the Sacrament of Confession (given to us by Jesus, when He washed the Apostles’ feet). We confess our sins, and the Priest (who sits in the place of Jesus) absolves us of our sins, then assigns an appropriate penance to us (usually prayers). Since we all fall so often, we all need to go to Confession often, too. Even Popes have to go to Confession, once in a while.

(yet where did Enoch and Elijah go ? Cool exceptions,no ?)

Enoch? I have no clue, because the Bible doesn’t really say. But, Elias was taken up into Heaven on a whirlwind, with a chariot of fire. Very cool!

Amen. Please don’t think of any reformers ?

Sorry, but I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Yep, for all of us are justified by faith, unto good works. All of us who are born of the spirit, OT and NT saints.

I think I can mostly agree with that.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

It is clear that if you believe and don’t bother with baptism, you don’t have “saving faith”!

But as I said before, if you have the intent to be baptized but are prevented from it, God will not hold it against you, because you did have “saving faith”!

The Church refers to this as “Baptism of Desire,” since the person desired and intended to be baptized but was prevented from it by death. From the CCC (italics text = emphasis in original; bold text = my emphasis. I added the footnotes in parentheses inline in the text):

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 (Cf. Jn 3:5.) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 (Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.) Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 (Cf. Mk 16:16.) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 (GS 22 § 5; cf. LG 16; AG 7.) Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 (Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4.) allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[mackbrislawn]

This thread is about the general evangelical belief that salvation comes by responding to the Holy Spirit’s calling through the proclamation of the Word of God with saving faith and repentance that leads to verbal confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior (i.e. conversion).

Not everyone who adheres to the above understanding of conversion believes that initial conversion alone guarantees you a place in heaven. You are only assured salvation to the extent that you persevere in faith and repentance.

Even though salvation is not assured by initial conversion alone (there is the possibility of backsliding and losing one’s faith), it is Scriptural to say that those who have repented of their sins are “saved.”

To me, once saved, always saved is unbiblical.

I pretty much agree with everything said here. Of course I would add that the response to the Holy Spirit would include obedience to Jesus’ command to be then cleansed of one’s sins by the washing of rebirth.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

l

twin;12036022]This thread is about the general evangelical belief that salvation comes by responding to the Holy Spirit’s calling through the proclamation of the Word of God with saving faith and repentance that leads to verbal confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior (i.e. conversion).

The OP is addressing that particular faith expression by non-Catholic Christians, but that is not what saves you.

The biblical teaching is that “baptism saves now”.

The Evangelical belief to “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior” by only a profession of faith is never biblical, but is an invention by men introduced in the late 19th century by non-Catholic Christian Evangelicals, that splintered off the Sola fide, Sola Scriptura protestant doctrinal invention by men.

Although their is a biblical confession related to the saving grace that God gives to the believer by being baptized with water in the Holy Spirit which includes the profession of faith.

The biblical practice of baptism has always been attached with that particular profession of faith, which Catholics have been practicing since apostolic times with the apostles creed.

One cannot enter nor see the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. That teaching comes from Jesus Himself (John 3:3-5).

When one is only making a profession of faith without baptism, is making a kingdom to himself. When one is making a profession of faith (Apostles Creed) with baptism, God brings the kingdom of God full of Grace and Truth to the believer in Jesus Christ.

If one reads the whole context of the new testament as it relates to baptism and the profession of faith. One will see an Apostle putting the question as the Catholic Church still does today unchanged. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ”, Do you believe etc…(see Apostles Creed). From this exchange what follows is baptism.

When one separates the biblical profession of faith from the sacramental baptism of Jesus Christ is never saved, but is in need of the biblical sacramental “baptism which saves now”.

When the protestant Evangelicals removed the profession of faith from the saving baptismal waters and the Spirit, they separated themselves from the communion of the body of Christ in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith unchanged for 2000 years.

To “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior” does not save anyone. Satan and demons themselves are eternal Spirits who know who is Jesus is, yet because they are spirits and made their choice from the eternal’s that is not subject to change, these demonic Spirits cannot be reconciled to God.

Not everyone who adheres to the above understanding of conversion believes that initial conversion alone guarantees you a place in heaven. You are only assured salvation to the extent that you persevere in faith and repentance.

I think your comment sends the wrong message, that may imply Works by themselves assures salvation. When a die-ing infant can be saved by baptism with the two witnesses according to biblical practice who profess their faith for the die-ing infant being baptized in that one name Trinity. It is here when the Hosanna is realized that it is God who saves not man saves himself.

Which introduces the sacrament of reconciliation or confession. It is in the Sacraments when God saves because man cannot save himself.

Even though salvation is not assured by initial conversion alone (there is the possibility of backsliding and losing one’s faith), it is Scriptural to say that those who have repented of their sins are “saved.”

One who repents is saved in baptism, because God through the baptism of water and Spirit removes all sin in one day according to the prophet Ezekiel.

Those who have been saved by baptism and fall into sin, are never saved again, but they are reconciled back to God from their repentance in the sacrament of reconciliation when all the angels rejoice over one sinner who repents.from his/her sin. That is a biblical practice and biblical teaching confirmed in 2000 years of Christian Apostolic Catholic sacred Tradition (practice).

To me, once saved, always saved is unbiblical.

The above is another invention by Evangelicals who broke away from their Protestant tradition of Sola fide, Sola Scriptura.

Peace be with you

 

[mackbrislawn]

l

The OP is addressing that particular faith expression by non-Catholic Christians, but that is not what saves you.

The biblical teaching is that “baptism saves now”.

The Evangelical belief to “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior” by only a profession of faith is never biblical, but is an invention by men introduced in the late 19th century by non-Catholic Christian Evangelicals, that splintered off the Sola fide, Sola Scriptura protestant doctrinal invention by men.

Although their is a biblical confession related to the saving grace that God gives to the believer by being baptized with water in the Holy Spirit which includes the profession of faith.

The biblical practice of baptism has always been attached with that particular profession of faith, which Catholics have been practicing since apostolic times with the apostles creed.

One cannot enter nor see the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. That teaching comes from Jesus Himself (John 3:3-5).

When one is only making a profession of faith without baptism, is making a kingdom to himself. When one is making a profession of faith (Apostles Creed) with baptism, God brings the kingdom of God full of Grace and Truth to the believer in Jesus Christ.

**If one reads the whole context of the new testament as it relates to baptism and the profession of faith. **One will see an Apostle putting the question as the Catholic Church still does today unchanged. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ”, Do you believe etc…(see Apostles Creed). From this exchange what follows is baptism.

When one separates the biblical profession of faith from the sacramental baptism of Jesus Christ is never saved, but is in need of the biblical sacramental “baptism which saves now”.

When the protestant Evangelicals removed the profession of faith from the saving baptismal waters and the Spirit, they separated themselves from the communion of the body of Christ in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith unchanged for 2000 years.

To “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior” does not save anyone. Satan and demons themselves are eternal Spirits who know who is Jesus is, yet because they are spirits and made their choice from the eternal’s that is not subject to change, these demonic Spirits cannot be reconciled to God.

I think your comment sends the wrong message, that may imply Works by themselves assures salvation. When a die-ing infant can be saved by baptism with the two witnesses according to biblical practice who profess their faith for the die-ing infant being baptized in that one name Trinity. It is here when the Hosanna is realized that it is God who saves not man saves himself.

Which introduces the sacrament of reconciliation or confession. It is in the Sacraments when God saves because man cannot save himself.

One who repents is saved in baptism, because God through the baptism of water and Spirit removes all sin in one day according to the prophet Ezekiel.

Those who have been saved by baptism and fall into sin, are never saved again, but they are reconciled back to God from their repentance in the sacrament of reconciliation when all the angels rejoice over one sinner who repents.from his/her sin. That is a biblical practice and biblical teaching confirmed in 2000 years of Christian Apostolic Catholic sacred Tradition (practice).

The above is another invention by Evangelicals who broke away from their Protestant tradition of Sola fide, Sola Scriptura.

Peace be with you

Good points. I think one needs to read the whole New Testament, in particular read it from front to back. Perhaps that is the mistake evangelicals make, they read the bible backwards. That is, they read Paul, think they understand Paul, and then finally read the parts of scripture that contain earlier teachings, and have to retroactively interpret those first and earlier teachings in light of what they think Paul was teaching later. If they are ignorant of first teachings, they will misinterpret later teachings. They need to read 2Peter 3:16 and following verses.

Another example of reading the bible backwards is the Watchtower Society, Jehovah’s Witnesses. They read that Jesus was put to death in the flesh, but was raised a life-giving spirit. From this they conclude that Jesus was not raised bodily, physically, but was re-created as a spirit creature. The appearances of the resurrected Jesus were merely manifestations generated by God simply to convince the disciples. Then, when the JW’s finally get around to reading the gospels which clearly teach Jesus’ body itself was raised, they have to resort to ingenious explanations and misninterpretatons to explain that away.

But if the JW’s had read the gospels first, they would have firmly planted in their minds the fact that Jesus’ body itself was raised and would not misinterpret the later passages of scripture.

I believe evangelicals make the same mistake. They need to read and understand the first foundations, then, and only then, go on to later teachings, such as Paul’s. First foundations of course are the Gospels, and Acts, especially Acts 2:37,38. Here the normative basis is set: hearing the word, believing the word, and consequently repentance, and baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

This sequence is the background for all subsequent understanding of scripture and needs to be firmly in mind. “You therefore must keep in your hearts that which you heard at the beginning…” 1Jn2:24. This understanding of baptism is handed down in the heart of the Church from the beginning.

However, if one cuts oneself of from the heart of the Church, or is ignorant of what was heard at the beginning, ie tradition, it is possible to wrest scripture to one’s own destruction.

These are tough words, but even scripture uses tough words.

 

[benhur]

Remember, I’m talking about the purpose of the OT Law, long before Jesus was even born. What Paul says is only relevant to the time after the resurrection… so you’re comparing apples to oranges.

So was I and St. Paul and St. Peter (talking about the purpose of the law waaaaaay before Christ, during Christ and even now - there are still Jews today living under the law which the Spirit is trying to reach). By the works of the law or works of righteousness no man is saved, yesterday, today or tomorrow, Any law/works, any covenant, any time. The law is the schoolmaster. Again the idea is saved by grace by faith, lest any man boast.That is all…Maybe that is why St. Paul says, " I came not to baptize but to preach the gospel…" 1 Cor 1:17 It is like baptism is a work in righteousness, that in itself does not save for it is faith in Christ by grace we are saved. Again it is the why of baptism we are discussing. That is being converted by the gospel is what saves you. Paul knew it and hence put the bigger emphasis on it than water baptism.

Penance is not a ‘dirty word’. It’s used all over the Bible, in the NT & OT. If we don’t do penance, we’ll just have to ‘pay the piper’, later on.

Now we have our testaments/covenants mixed up . Penance is not in my bible but the idea is only in the OT. The NT has a more perfect sacrifice where indeed “it is finished” and you do not cover/atone your sin with your work, for Calvary covers it,past present and future. The term in NT is repentance not penance and I believe newer Rheims bibles no longer translate metanoeo as penance. So did the adultress who was caught and forgiven by Christ the High Priest have to do any penance ? No. She had to “manteneoe” repent -“go and sin no more”.

Yes, but as the examples above show, the blood sacrifice also had to include some form of ‘penance’ and prayers. The sacrifice alone was not ‘perfect’.

Yes, as we covered above, an OT thing. My point though was they had a way to be clean but more so had a new heart, a rebirth in the spirit. The idea is not just in cleansing but actually changing the moral proclivity of the heart, two different things.

Amen!

OK I got a thumbs up. I need one more to keep Siskel company (or is it Ebert you gave me?)

Sorry, but I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that.

This is what you posted, “Even when they lost their way, God never completely abandoned His people. He would always seek to find someone that still had even a small spark of love for Him, in their heart. Those are the ones He chose to bring them all back to Him.I think I can mostly agree with that.”… I do agree with your post…and sometimes think these reformers also fit your description, as in Huss or Tyndale Savanrola and Luther if I may say.