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

  • Thread starter Thread starter namer0331
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ltwin said:
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?
Click to expand...
It has been the constant teaching of the Church that all who are baptized are baptized on their will, or the will of their parents or guardians.
 
ltwin said:
OK. Thanks I guess. Not really sure why you thought I needed help understanding Protestant interpretations of Romans though. :confused:
Click to expand...
Maybe it was Benhur…or Ed…one of you!

It was interesting to read the Protestant commentary speaking of how our works are judged.
 
ltwin said:
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.

But it has been. The question I am asking Catholics is does your church teach that such baptisms are effective?
Click to expand...
You initially said there was no place where it said he who is not baptized is condemned. However, Mark 16:16 does say this. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who disbelieves will be condemned.”

It goes without saying that he who disbelieves will not be baptized, but will simply go away. And since he is not baptized he will be condemned.

Bringing up the subject of forced baptisms is not to the point of this scripture. Therefore it is a red herring. Whether or not forced baptisms are valid or right is neither here nor there. What is here and there is that he who is not baptized will be condemned. That is Mark’s point.
 
Jon_S said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s what I was thinking. Through an overzealous desire to “save souls”, there were probably some Catholics that might have overstepped the bounds of discretion by Baptizing people against their will. I don’t think it was ever approved by the Church, but I’m not really sure. In any case, it is certainly not the way it should ever be done. Jesus didn’t force anyone to follow Him, as we can clearly see in the account of Him telling His disciples that they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. He didn’t even try to stop any of them that chose to walk away. Salvation is a gift that’s freely offered to us by God, but He would never force anyone to take it against their will. It’s sad to think that some Catholics might have thought that the ends would justified the means. 😦
 
Jon_S said:
Maybe it was Benhur…or Ed…one of you!

It was interesting to read the Protestant commentary speaking of how our works are judged.
Click to expand...
Yes, Protestants do believe we will be judged and held accountable for our actions.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, if you have something from the magisterium that states otherwise, I’d be happy to engage with you about it. 🤷
Click to expand...
No, I don’t have anything from the magisterium one way or the other. I do know that it is an historical fact that people were forced or pressured into baptism at various times and places. It could be that everyone just thought that was what the church wanted or it could be that everyone knew that was what the church wanted.

In any case, I’m glad to hear from Catholics that, at least today, no one is baptized against their will and that sorrow for sin must be indicated for the sacrament to be effective.
 
ltwin said:
OK. If you say so.
Click to expand...
Infant Baptism is a whole ‘nother kettle o’ fish. Catholic parents have every right to have their children Baptized, for the same reason Jews have the right to have their sons circumcised. God has ordained that it should be done. Jesus taught that it was necessary for salvation. I really can’t understand why anyone would not believe that the Apostles would have Baptized infants. They were Jews. They never hesitated to do whatever God ordained to be done. They knew the necessity of Baptism as well as they knew the necessity of having their sons circumcised, as soon as possible. It was a non-issue that would not have been questioned by any of them. If it was something for them to argue about or question, they would have discussed it at some point, but they didn’t.
 
benhur said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? Take a look at Matthew 23:1-3:

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoeer they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."

Jesus indicates that those sitting on “the chair of Moses” are such an authority, as he commands the Jews to “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you.” That is a pretty broad teaching authority. Jesus carried this teaching authority of the chair of Moses over into the new covenant, transferring it to the chair of Peter (i.e. the Pope and the bishops in communion with him).
 
ltwin said:
No, I don’t have anything from the magisterium one way or the other. I do know that it is an historical fact that people were forced or pressured into baptism at various times and places. It could be that everyone just thought that was what the church wanted or it could be that everyone knew that was what the church wanted.

In any case, I’m glad to hear from Catholics that, at least today, no one is baptized against their will and that sorrow for sin must be indicated for the sacrament to be effective.
Click to expand...
Please, don’t try to put words in our mouths. The part I bolded is your own addition. In the case of adults, that is true. They must also be well educated in the Faith, and accept all that the Catholic Church teaches before they are Baptized. If they have any doubts at all, then they should not be Baptized. If you’re trying to show a contradiction in the case of infants, see my last post.
 
SoMissCatholic said:
Are you sure about that? Take a look at Matthew 23:1-3:

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoeer they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."

Jesus indicates that those sitting on “the chair of Moses” are such an authority, as he commands the Jews to “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you.” That is a pretty broad teaching authority. Jesus carried this teaching authority of the chair of Moses over into the new covenant, transferring it to the chair of Peter (i.e. the Pope and the bishops in communion with him).
Click to expand...
The Sanhedrin was the high council of the Jews. Jesus never taught any of His followers to disobey those that had legal or moral authority over them. That’s why I can’t understand people that claim Jesus was a political figure in history, as opposed to being a religious figure. Maybe the Jews thought He would be a political ‘leader’, but He never did anything that could be misconstrued as politically motivated. He was subject to the Law of Moses and Roman law, just like everyone else was.
 
Telstar said:
The Sanhedrin was the high council of the Jews. Jesus never taught any of His followers to disobey those that had legal or moral authority over them. That’s why I can’t understand people that claim Jesus was a political figure in history, as opposed to being a religious figure. Maybe the Jews thought He would be a political ‘leader’, but He never did anything that could be misconstrued as politically motivated. He was subject to the Law of Moses and Roman law, just like everyone else was.
Click to expand...
Excellent points,

When Moses came down from the mountain, the Israelites submitted to his God given authority.

No doubt, some wanted to keep their golden calf, but they submitted to authority rather than dividing into 2 sects…one of God and one of the calf.
 
ltwin said:
No, I don’t have anything from the magisterium one way or the other. I do know that it is an historical fact that people were forced or pressured into baptism at various times and places. It could be that everyone just thought that was what the church wanted or it could be that everyone knew that was what the church wanted.
Click to expand...
While it is tempting to look at how members of a church act in order to determine what a church teaches, we all know that this is not a judicious way to assess a particular church’s teachings.

Else some might have judged Jesus’ teachings by how Judas acted, no?

Better to look at what the Church actually professes.

I suspect centuries from now there will be a non-Catholic or two who will try to argue that the Catholic Church actually encouraged abortions. They will say, “I do know that it is an historical fact that Catholic women had abortions.”

That would be a sad but true historical fact. It’s just the conclusion that one draws from that fact that would be erroneous.
 
Telstar said:
The Sanhedrin was the high council of the Jews. Jesus never taught any of His followers to disobey those that had legal or moral authority over them. That’s why I can’t understand people that claim Jesus was a political figure in history, as opposed to being a religious figure. Maybe the Jews thought He would be a political ‘leader’, but He never did anything that could be misconstrued as politically motivated. He was subject to the Law of Moses and Roman law, just like everyone else was.
Click to expand...
Indeed. In fact, the Scriptures command us to obey those who have legal and moral authority over us.
  • Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls–Hebrews 13:17
 
Porknpie said:
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?
Click to expand...
👍
 
PRmerger said:
Indeed. In fact, the Scriptures command us to obey those who have legal and moral authority over us.
  • Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls–Hebrews 13:17
Click to expand...
Exactly. To think that God would leave us without any kind of structured authority would be completely contrary to everything He did throughout the entire Old Testament. God knows that we can’t be trusted to always do the right thing without someone to lead us, and to correct us when we start to stray off the right path. That was the whole purpose for Jesus choosing 12 Apostles as well as other disciples, so there would be a whole group with the authority to teach the people how to follow Jesus along “the way”.

Also, by giving us the image of Jesus being the “Good Shepherd”, then telling Peter to “feed my sheep”, was His way of passing on the responsibility of guiding His whole flock to Peter, after Jesus Ascended back into Heaven. There was never meant to be more than one ‘flock’. All were supposed to be gathered together into one. Every flock has one shepherd to oversee the whole bunch, along with his helpers that watch out for strays, and help to keep the group together. All the while, they have to watch out for the wolves that are always lingering nearby, to find the weakest ones and pull them away.

Everything Jesus taught us has many multiple layers of hidden meanings. Some are fairly obvious and easy to figure out, but others need to be pondered a little deeper. We just need to open up our hearts and minds to see them for what they really are.
 
Jon_S said:
Maybe it was Benhur…or Ed…one of you!

It was interesting to read the Protestant commentary speaking of how our works are judged.
Click to expand...
The recently released Lutheran/Catholic Dialogue Document, The Hope of Eternal life, speaks specifically to the issue, beginning at paragraph 64.
  1. Catholics and Lutherans affirm together that God, who calls us into a life of communion with him, holds us accountable for our whole lives. The grace we have been given in Christ and the Spirit is not a “talent” to bury, but should become our empowerment for praising God in freedom and contributing to the good of our fellow creatures (cf. Mt. 25:1-14). We also cannot forget that God’s gifts to us can be squandered. Each Christian must take seriously Paul’s admonition, “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12, RSV).
Click to expand...
  1. The truths that God will judge our lives, that what we have done in the dark will be brought to light, and that we will know as we are known, all affirm both the seriousness of how each of us lives and God’s faithfulness to his human creatures. Both our traditions reject “security” in the face of divine judgment, while recalling that from those to whom much has been given, much will be required (cf. Lk. 12:48).
Click to expand...
  1. Both of our traditions, however, form us to live in joyful confidence and certainty of hope. We know that God’s grace is sufficient. God’s judgment is one aspect of the comprehensive establishment of God’s justice, that is, the very justice that is an essential aspect of our hope. Judgment, as our encounter with God revealing the truth about the lives we have lived, is an important and necessary moment of our entrance into the joy of eternal life and thus should be an object of our hope as well.
Click to expand...
  1. Foundational for our hope, however, is that our Judge will be none other than our Savior. We can entrust the judgment of our lives to the one who died for our trespasses and rose for our justification (cf. Rom. 4:25).
Click to expand...
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The recently released Lutheran/Catholic Dialogue Document, The Hope of Eternal life, speaks specifically to the issue, beginning at paragraph 64.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon
Click to expand...
Thanks!

Yes I think the parable of the talents is very clear and helpful on this issue !

Ed,

I’m sorry to see you go, you contributed to a great dialogue. Keep seeking the truth. I hope you truly understand what you are protesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top