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

[Telstar]

If they understood that the two go together, then why didn’t they go together in Jesus’ corollary?

Because, He didn’t have to state the obvious. What He said was:
"Mark 16: [15] And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

[16] He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."He was clearly talking about those that would hear the Gospel preached by the Apostles. If they believed what they heard, then, they would also be baptized by them. If they didn’t believe what they heard, obviously they would not have been baptized, so it wasn’t necessary for Jesus to have to say that they were also condemned because they weren’t baptized, because it was a “given” that they wouldn’t be.

 

[SteveVH]

If they understood that the two go together, then why didn’t they go together in Jesus’ corollary?

Because it didn’t need to be said; it was already understood. To say “without water you will die” does not mean that we do not also need food in order to live. We all understand that. We can find verses that say that in order to be saved we must believe in Christ. We then find verses that explain simply believing in Christ is not enough (even the demons believe, and they shudder), but that we must also keep all of God’s commandments. Scripture must be taken as a whole and when we look at the whole of Scripture concerning Baptism we find that it is indeed regenerative, sanctifying and necessary for salvation.

 

[South_Bound]

SteveVH:

We can find verses that say that in order to be saved we must believe in Christ.

True. And we can also find verses that say we’re not saved by works such as baptism.

We then find verses that explain simply believing in Christ is not enough (even the demons believe, and they shudder), but that we must also keep all of God’s commandments.

So, righteousness comes by the law?

Scripture must be taken as a whole and when we look at the whole of Scripture concerning Baptism we find that it is indeed regenerative, sanctifying and necessary for salvation.

I disagree. When I look at scripture as a whole, I find that baptism is commemorative.

 

[SteveVH]

True. And we can also find verses that say we’re not saved by works such as baptism.

Please cite the verse that reads “we are not saved by works such as Baptism”. The sacraments are not human works. They are actions of God; channels of his grace.

So, righteousness comes by the law?

“Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.”

I disagree. When I look at scripture as a whole, I find that baptism is commemorative.

Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ **, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Does that sound “commemorative” or like something is actually happening, i.e remission of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit?

As has already been demonstrated by other posters, there are many other verses that convey the same meaning. For the sake of discussion, however, please tell me how the verse I quoted is simply commemorative?**

 

[South_Bound]

Honestly, Steve, I’m not interested in debating this with you and, in fact, the forum rules prohibit me from saying much to defend our belief, anyway.

It was my understanding that this thread was about asking us what we believe and why, not debating us about which belief is better.

 

[ltwin]

If it has no scriptural confirmation, then why did Peter say on the day of Pentecost for All to be baptized?

Because he was talking to people who had heard the Good News, were pierced to the heart (i.e. they were convinced by the Holy Spirit), and had asked him “what shall we do.” Peter’s answer was to “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Whatever your belief about baptism and the forgiveness of sins, this is a completely different dynamic from infant baptism. The command was not that everyone be baptized. The command was that they all repent and then receive baptism. Three thousand were baptized THAT DAY.

In Acts he said it was spoken through the prophet Joel. It will come to pass in the last days says God says that I will POUR out a portion of MY SPIRIT upon ALL FLESH. Your SONS and DAUGHTERS shall phophesy,

The gift of prophecy implies speech. This verse is not talking about infants. Peter is applying Joel’s prophecy to the events of that Pentecost, when those in the upper room were baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues prophesying and proclaiming the glory of God to all those in Jerusalem who spoke other languages. Today, this outpouring of the Holy Spirit continues but not on infants but on those who proclaim the gospel under the unction of the Holy Spirit.

Continue on. What are we to do my brother? Peter said to them Repent and be Baptised EVERY ONE of you for the forgivenss of sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit. This promise is made to YOU and Your CHILDREN and to all those far off.

Yes, evangelicals believe that everyone should be baptized–when they repent of their sins. The promise of the outpouring of God’s Spirit was not for that Pentecost alone. It is for all who call on God’s name whether in 30 AD or 2014. This is not referring to infant baptism but to the Spirit’s empowerment.

The reason you cannot comprehend Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is simply you reject that we are all born into sin, Original sin. You don’t understand it or accept that we are all born into given to us by Adam and Eve.

I do believe in original sin. “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51). I simply reject that water baptism is the remedy for original sin.

Very few people actually know that Baptism is not only the outpouring of the Holy Spirit but it is for forgivenss of original sin. St Peter tells you Baptism is for forgiveness of your sins. Although we never committed Original sin, we are born into it.

I agree that we are born with original sin. I disagree that Peter tells us baptism removes original sin. He said, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Even if you interpreted this verse to say that baptism forgives sin, it is still just one ingredient in the recipe. It’s not even the first ingredient. It’s the second. The context makes clear that repentance precedes, or at least is simultaneous, with baptism. Anytime you separate baptism from repentance, you strip the former of any meaning.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I think so.

So there you go. Your church has edited one of the “hard sayings” of Christ, to make it more palatable.

The Catholic Church does not do that.

Does the CC recognize all marriages by divorces as not valid?

If someone is validly married the first time, and then is divorced, he/she cannot marry someone else, because he/she is already married.

That would be adultery. And those are not our wishes, or something we just made up. Those are the words of Christ.

We do not remove the “hard sayings” from the kerygma.

This is a sincere question as my Uncle is married to a different woman than his first wife; and although he sinned,

Why do you believe it’s a sin? I don’t understand how you can say that it’s a sin, yet then also permit the sin and enshrine the sin in a ceremony in your church?

in Catholicism can he not be forgiven and is he sinning every time they try to have a child?

He can be forgiven if he repents of his sin.

But clearly, he hasn’t repented (hypothetically speaking, in general terms, of men/women who divorce and re-marry) if he continues to sin with this woman.

Right?

 

[PRmerger]

Honestly, Steve, I’m not interested in debating this with you and, in fact, the forum rules prohibit me from saying much to defend our belief, anyway.

There are a multitude of non-Catholic posters here who have thousands and thousands of posts to their name.

Clearly, the forum rules do not prohibit them from saying much to defend their beliefs, so it’s curious that you would feel bound by the rules here on the CAFs.

It was my understanding that this thread was about asking us what we believe and why, not debating us about which belief is better.

All threads naturally segue into different dialogues.

 

[dronald]

So there you go. Your church has edited one of the “hard sayings” of Christ, to make it more palatable.

The Catholic Church does not do that.

If someone is validly married the first time, and then is divorced, he/she cannot marry someone else, because he/she is already married.

That would be adultery. And those are not our wishes, or something we just made up. Those are the words of Christ.

We do not remove the “hard sayings” from the kerygma.

Why do you believe it’s a sin? I don’t understand how you can say that it’s a sin, yet then also permit the sin and enshrine the sin in a ceremony in your church?

He can be forgiven if he repents of his sin.

But clearly, he hasn’t repented (hypothetically speaking, in general terms, of men/women who divorce and re-marry) if he continues to sin with this woman.

Right?

Although it’s wrong to divorce, are you saying that it’s impossible?

 

[sallybutler]

Jesus said that whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else is committing adultery. The same applies to a woman who remarried. Mark 10:11-12.

 

[PRmerger]

Although it’s wrong to divorce, are you saying that it’s impossible?

It’s wrong to divorce and re-marry, dronald.

Do you believe that? Because Christ surely said it.

And yet your church marries people who have been previously married.

I don’t understand that.

And I really don’t understand your acknowledging that it’s a sin to do this, but how you don’t think it’s wrong to enshrine this sin in a ceremony presided by your pastor.

Could you please explain to me how you justify this?

I could at least understand if someone said, “We don’t believe divorce and re-marriage is a sin, so that’s why we marry people who are divorced here in this church!”

But if you say that it’s a sin, why cherish and nourish and embrace this sin by a ceremony?

 

[Porknpie]

So, if baptism is required for salvation, then why isn’t a lack of baptism the reason for condemnation?

South Bound. Perhaps it was assumed given the words of the previous sentence. The word “and” is a conjunctive.

One can not just dismiss the word. That’s doing harm to the text.

The text says

“He who believes AND is baptized will be saved”

You’re wanting the text to say

“He who believes-] AND is baptized/-] will be saved”

That’s changing scriptures meaning and we are warned not to do so.

The early Church understood the Catholic belief that water Baptism saves.

“[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water** and** of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’” Cyprian, To Stephen, 71:72 (A.D. 253).

“And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit…Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258).

They understood AND means AND.

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

True. And we can also find verses that say we’re not saved by works such as baptism.

What verses say “We are not saved by works such as baptism”?

 

[dronald]

It’s wrong to divorce and re-marry, dronald.

Do you believe that? Because Christ surely said it.

And yet your church marries people who have been previously married.

I don’t understand that.

And I really don’t understand your acknowledging that it’s a sin to do this, but how you don’t think it’s wrong to enshrine this sin in a ceremony presided by your pastor.

Could you please explain to me how you justify this?

I could at least understand if someone said, “We don’t believe divorce and re-marriage is a sin, so that’s why we marry people who are divorced here in this church!”

But if you say that it’s a sin, why cherish and nourish and embrace this sin by a ceremony?

I agree; a couple should not get divorced and remarried, as it’s a sin. I can’t think of a reason a couple would do this as I have never gone through such. I plan on getting married in October and it is so clear to me that we’ll never leave each other.

But for someone who does sin I would think they can be forgiven.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree; a couple should not get divorced and remarried, as it’s a sin.

So why do you belong to a church that enshrines this sin in a ceremony/“sacrament”?

I can’t think of a reason a couple would do this as I have never gone through such. I plan on getting married in October and it is so clear to me that we’ll never leave each other.

Congrats!

But for someone who does sin I would think they can be forgiven.

Of course. That’s the Catholic way.

But when they sin again, engaging in adultery, in the “marital act”, then they need to repent and ask forgiveness.

And, clearly, if they keep doing this, they haven’t repented.

Are we agreed on that?

And that is why the Catholic Church is the only (original) church which has not edited Christ’s “hard sayings” and made them more palatable.

 

[South_Bound]

South Bound. Perhaps it was assumed given the words of the previous sentence. The word “and” is a conjunctive.

One can not just dismiss the word. That’s doing harm to the text.

The text says

“He who believes AND is baptized will be saved”

You’re wanting the text to say

“He who believes-] AND is baptized/-] will be saved”

That’s changing scriptures meaning and we are warned not to do so.

Again, this isn’t something I’m interested in debating and, in fact, according to the rules of CAF, my hands are somewhere tied, so I don’t believe I’d be allowed to present a defense of our beliefs, lest I be accused of speaking against Catholicism.

If you’d like to come over to Christianforums where I can discuss this freely, then I’d be happy to meet you there and discuss it.

 

[dronald]

So why do you belong to a church that enshrines this sin in a ceremony/“sacrament”?

I can’t really tell when it comes to the hearts of each individual and I’m not sure my Church does remarry divorcee’s. I know they make you go through a long interview process before they’ll ever marry you.

Can I get back to this one for you? I’m going through the process now, but I would love to ask what their policy is for divorcees.

Congrats!

Thank you!

Of course. That’s the Catholic way.

A wonderful Church it is. I mean that sincerly too.

But when they sin again, engaging in adultery, in the “marital act”, then they need to repent and ask forgiveness.

And, clearly, if they keep doing this, they haven’t repented.

Yes, it would seem so.

Are we agreed on that?

And that is why the Catholic Church is the only (original) church which has not edited Christ’s “hard sayings” and made them more palatable.

I love the hard sayings; I feel like if I’m too lax, or making excuses for anything the Bible says then I’m obviously not acting in Christ.

Edit- Perhaps someone who does have a Protestant Church that re-marries devorced people could let you know why they think so. I’m honestly not sure why one would, except for in the case of adultery or if the person recognizes their sin, asked forgiveness and wants to move on.

 

[SteveVH]

Honestly, Steve, I’m not interested in debating this with you and, in fact, the forum rules prohibit me from saying much to defend our belief, anyway.

It was my understanding that this thread was about asking us what we believe and why, not debating us about which belief is better.

Well, then, I would suggest that you start a thread where each person states his position and leave it at that, with no dialogue. Not very interesting, in my opinion, especially if the goal on this forum is to seek truth. There is also the possibility that you just don’t have an answer to my question.

 

[Porknpie]

Again, this isn’t something I’m interested in debating and, in fact, according to the rules of CAF, my hands are somewhere tied, so I don’t believe I’d be allowed to present a defense of our beliefs, lest I be accused of speaking against Catholicism.

If you’d like to come over to Christianforums where I can discuss this freely, then I’d be happy to meet you there and discuss it.

South Bound -

You should be able to state your beliefs without breaking the rules. It’s only when someone says something uncharitable that I have ever seen a person get in trouble with a moderator. If you still feel uncomfortable, feel free to PM me. Would love to have your insights and thoughts here. No pressure though from me to do so.

It’s a very interesting thing that if you read the writings of the early Church, prior to the bible canon, no where will you see them saying that all one has to do is believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.

Scripture says AND. And one must be baptized. James says “even the demons” believe. And we know that they are not saved.

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t really tell when it comes to the hearts of each individual and I’m not sure my Church does remarry divorcee’s. I know they make you go through a long interview process before they’ll ever marry you.

Can I get back to this one for you? I’m going through the process now, but I would love to ask what their policy is for divorcees.

Thank you!

A wonderful Church it is. I mean that sincerly too.

Yes, it would seem so.

I love the hard sayings; I feel like if I’m too lax, or making excuses for anything the Bible says then I’m obviously not acting in Christ.

Edit- Perhaps someone who does have a Protestant Church that re-marries devorced people could let you know why they think so. I’m honestly not sure why one would, except for in the case of adultery or if the person recognizes their sin, asked forgiveness and wants to move on.

to all of the above.