Someone can lose their salvation?

[paul_c]

**What you are actually saying without realizing it; is that Scripture contradicts itself. With your current understanding you will need to reconcile the people that were saved prior to or without being baptized in water and there are several examples in the Bible.

The correct steps are repent, believe, receive the Holy Spirit, then be baptized with water. Baptism with water does not give the true baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is an outward expression of the faith you proclaim in Christ. Look at John the Baptist baptism of repentance.

Keep in mind we have both be taught by different sources and apparently different gospels; so we may not ever agree; that’s is okay, because in the end God will do the sorting.**

Seeker, you are clearly delusional. There is only one truth and one Gospel and it has been preached by the Roman Catholic Church since Christ died on the cross… You and your fellow reformers are clearly creating a new Gospel , one that did not exist prior to 1518. The reason that Que est ce and others are quoting the Early Church Fathers to you is to demonstrate the point that there is continuity to the Catholic message going all the way back to the Apostles. The truth is the truth. It did not change because Martin Luther and others didn’t like the truth. Nor can you create your own God with desires that meet your own. You have twisted scriptures to support your false Gospel of Saved by Faith only and Once saved always saved. One that does not require or drive the personal sanctity that one needs to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is indeed a new gospel, one that is to the detriment to you and all who hear that message that all one needs do to be saved forwever is to mouth the words, “Jesus saved me” . If you read the Bible even half heartedly, you will understand that God values and requires sanctity. Isn’t that what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount, or have you forgotten that? You will also realize that man is sanctified by the works he does and this, coupled with Faith in God, and repetence when we fail is required of all those who are called in Baptism… We’ve alread yin the last two days, given you all the Bible passages that support this.

 

[moondweller]

Hi, Moondweller,

I have been reading your posts for some time and think that a fair summary of them would be something like, “The Cahtolic Church teaches that Catholics are saved only (or mostly) by works.”

Catholicism does teach that one is saved “mostly” by works. Catholicism teaches a probationary “salvation” resulting from a lifetime of works, in the hope of dying in a “state of grace.” In its soteriology it gives a nod to the words grace and faith but adds works to the formula as the solidifying factor and the final basis on which God will judge him worthy for “eternal life” (lot of contradictions here).

According to Catholicism faith and grace find their substance in works; without works faith and grace have no content, no essence, no meaning.

But in Biblical reality “faith” and “grace” lose their meaning and significance when “works” are an added requirement FOR salvation (see my above post: # 669). Paul teaches the reality of this basic principle when he writes to your church concerning the Jewish remnant ushered into the church (not the RCC), during this church age, according to God’s gracious choice:Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."Ncgolf unsuccessfully tried to state that this verse is taken out of context when used to defend salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. But here’s the context of Paul’s statement:Rom 9:30 - 10:4 "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at {that} law. Why? Because {they did} not {pursue it} by faith, but as though {it were} by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who BELIEVES IN HIM will not be disappointed. Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for {their} (national Israel’s) salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness (i.e., “the righteousness which is by FAITH”) and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves (i.e., through faith) to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of law (i.e., works) for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Now the question is arranged differently and there is usually a slight change in emphasis - but, they all seem to orbit around works vs faith.

Salvation IS a works vs. faith issue. It was from the beginning of the Apostolic age and continues to this very day; indeed this very message. But it was taught by the Apostles and passed down and preserved for us in Holy Writ that salvation is based on divine GRACE alone, as Paul reasons:"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."Biblical soteriology doesn’t merely nod at the WORDS “grace” and “faith,” but explicitly teaches salvation “BY grace THROUGH faith…not as a result of works" - period. Works, according to Scripture, are reserved only for those who "have been saved by grace through faith…not as a result of works.”

Paul presents himself as the perfect example of this wondrous grace salvation wrought through the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ through faith:1 Tim 1:15-16 “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (not “saints,” via works), among whom I am foremost {of all.} Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life” (cf. Jn. 3:14-18).

 

[sodak]

It’s always instructive when a non-Catholics tries to tell me what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, especially when it’s not what the Cathlic Church believes and teaches…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seeking12,

After reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that no amount of simply stating that the CC does not teach "works-salvation’.

I’m not here to argue; you believe the Bible teaches a works-salvation and I believe the Bible teaches that salvation is wholly the work of God. Something I think we both can agree on is that there are two different gospels in this dialogue.

I have a hunch that you got this idea from your churhc about what the CC teaches - but, really, that isn’t good enough to present any type of argument. That is a second-hand story. Your argument honestly needs the ‘smoking gun’ of Catholic teaching that would identify that ‘works-salvation’. And, the challenge to you is simply to produce this evidence. Now, it can not come from what your church says abouth the CC - it must be what the CC says in its actual teaching … if your arguement is to have any validty. This is just simply logic: you must prove the point you are trying to make about what the CC teaches by showing this evidence. Now, for an almost 2,000 year old organization - there is a lot of material in print. So, failing to find it (which I truly expect) will not happen because there is nothing written - only that there is nothing written that supports your false argument about what it is the CC teaches.

I realize this is a tall order - and, one not likely to be accepted. But, if you are honest - and are honestly seeking God’s Will in your life - you really should put some effort in making the best argument possible. That is what a mature faith is all about.

God bless

 

[qui_est_ce]

Catholicism does teach that one is saved “mostly” by works. "

. Catholics teach that we are saved by God’s Grace ALONE. Apart from God we can do no good.

Paul presents himself as the perfect example of this wondrous grace salvation wrought through the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ through faith:

1
​

And what does Paul DO with his saving Grace? Do you think Paul would have been saved if he just sat there and said, “I believe, but I am going to stay home and make some more tents because I need the money.”?​

 

[Seeking12]

Hi, Seeking12,

After reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that no amount of simply stating that the CC does not teach "works-salvation’.

I have a hunch that you got this idea from your churhc about what the CC teaches - but, really, that isn’t good enough to present any type of argument. That is a second-hand story. Your argument honestly needs the ‘smoking gun’ of Catholic teaching that would identify that ‘works-salvation’. And, the challenge to you is simply to produce this evidence. Now, it can not come from what your church says abouth the CC - it must be what the CC says in its actual teaching … if your arguement is to have any validty. This is just simply logic: you must prove the point you are trying to make about what the CC teaches by showing this evidence. Now, for an almost 2,000 year old organization - there is a lot of material in print. So, failing to find it (which I truly expect) will not happen because there is nothing written - only that there is nothing written that supports your false argument about what it is the CC teaches.

I realize this is a tall order - and, one not likely to be accepted. But, if you are honest - and are honestly seeking God’s Will in your life - you really should put some effort in making the best argument possible. That is what a mature faith is all about.

God bless

**
See post #660 & #652, I did not misunderstand what the poster said. Perhaps the poster misunderstand what the Catholic teaching is; I don’t know. Perhaps you might want to ask him about that. You are the third person to make this general accusation to me, yet I only was responding to a particular individuals post in which they clearly stated a “works salvation”.

In the future, please try not to put words in my mouth as I make every effort not to offend anyone’s faith or say things out of context. Those choices and decision are between that individual and God. I do make mistakes like everyone, but even if I disagree with the content of a post; I still realize that each and everyone of us is a creation of God and therefore worthy of respect.**

 

[Seeking12]

Seeker, you are clearly delusional. There is only one truth and one Gospel and it has been preached by the Roman Catholic Church since Christ died on the cross… You and your fellow reformers are clearly creating a new Gospel , one that did not exist prior to 1518. The reason that Que est ce and others are quoting the Early Church Fathers to you is to demonstrate the point that there is continuity to the Catholic message going all the way back to the Apostles. The truth is the truth. It did not change because Martin Luther and others didn’t like the truth. Nor can you create your own God with desires that meet your own. You have twisted scriptures to support your false Gospel of Saved by Faith only and Once saved always saved. One that does not require or drive the personal sanctity that one needs to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is indeed a new gospel, one that is to the detriment to you and all who hear that message that all one needs do to be saved forwever is to mouth the words, “Jesus saved me” . If you read the Bible even half heartedly, you will understand that God values and requires sanctity. Isn’t that what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount, or have you forgotten that? You will also realize that man is sanctified by the works he does and this, coupled with Faith in God, and repetence when we fail is required of all those who are called in Baptism… We’ve alread yin the last two days, given you all the Bible passages that support this.

**It is interesting how people that are suppose to represent God, are quick to put someone down because their belief’s do not measure up to their standard.

It is almost if some of you are more interested in arguing rather than dialoging; I have make every effort to respect the faith of others here and have been called a few names in a short period of time. If this population is reflective of the Catholic faith, who would want to be Catholic? However; I know from experience that a majority of Catholics I have met are nice people.**

 

[qui_est_ce]

**It is interesting how people that are suppose to represent God, are quick to put someone down because their belief’s do not measure up to their standard. **I am sorry you feel put down, but honestly, Paul is a good guy. He is trying to explain where the Fundamental Evangelistic Theology is not correct. He an others have cited references to back up their statements. This is perhaps the first time you have been exposed to an intellectual criticism of the Catholic Church.
Seeking12;4824821:

It is almost if some of you are more interested in arguing rather than dialoging; I have make every effort to respect the faith of others here and have been called a few names in a short period of time. If this population is reflective of the Catholic faith, who would want to be Catholic? However; I know from experience that a majority of Catholics I have met are nice people.

I would never, never let anyone no matter how haughty or sinful stand between me and my Church. If Hitler were Catholic (which I believe he was baptized), he would not be an excuse for me to reject the Teachings of the Church.

 

[Seeking12]

I am sorry you feel put down, but honestly, Paul is a good guy. He is trying to explain where the Fundamental Evangelistic Theology is not correct. He an others have cited references to back up their statements. This is perhaps the first time you have been exposed to an intellectual criticism of the Catholic Church. First thank you for the encouragement, but I do not equate personal insults as any form of “intellectual criticism”; nor do I believe you would as well.
I would never, never let anyone no matter how haughty or sinful stand between me and my Church. If Hitler were Catholic (which I believe he was baptized), he would not be an excuse for me to reject the Teachings of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I’m pretty sure I explained what “water” would have meant to a Jew, it was a purification practice of the OT Jews. If you look at Nicodemus’s response; you cannot conclude this is water baptism.

Why do you suppose Jesus taught the disciples to use water for baptizing?

**Look closely at the passage again and ask yourself, what is the object (noun) of the action verb “repent”? An easier way to understand this might be rephrase to give a proper English understanding; “Repent for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit, then be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” **

This is an easier way to understand it if a person needs an anti-Catholic understanding. However, this is not what was practiced and taught by the Apostles.

See post #660 & #652, I did not misunderstand what the poster said. Perhaps the poster misunderstand what the Catholic teaching is; I don’t know. Perhaps you might want to ask him about that.

No, you are the only one here who keeps bringing up the meaningless phrase “works-salvation”. Therefore, it is you who are misunderstanding. No one can be saved by doing good works.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, Catholicism does teach that those works “prepared beforehand” are a cause of salvation. Therefore Catholicism teaches a “works salvation;” a salvation based on WORKS.

Kindly show this in a Church document. I think that you have been getting misinformation from poorly catechized Catholics. Unfortunately even baptized Catholics sometimes do not understand that we are saved by grace, through faith. I have spoken to many myself who believe that “I try to be a good person” will get them to heaven.

But Paul states in Eph. 2:8-9 that God saves “by grace through faith; the gift of God, NOT AS A RESULT OF WORKS.”

Paul says this because Paul is catholic, and this is what the Catholic Church has always believed and taught.

 Now you try to get around this by saying he meant "*works of the flesh*."  But Paul states emphatically, "***by grace through faith***...***not*** as a result of works" - period.  The only works by which God saves anyone "*by grace through faith*" is te *finished* work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

I think it is reallly more of a semantics problem than anything. You object to our conception of “initial justification”, but you will agree with all that we believe and teach about good works, if we classify it under “sanctification” rather than “salvation”.

He teaches through confirmation this same gospel of grace through faith alone to Timothy, and for him to join him in suffering for the truth of it:2 Tim 1:8 “Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with {me} in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.”

Paul writes this because it is Catholic teaching,a nd he is Catholic.

The works we do are produced by the same grace. They are His works - those that He has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

But Paul does, and this is where you error and depart from "*the gospel of the power of God*" for which Paul suffered to teach.  In Eph. 2:8-9 he teaches that salvation is "*by grace through faith...not as a result of works*."  In verse ten the "*we*" refers to those in verse eight and nine who *"have been* saved by grace through faith...not as a result of works."  IOW, he's addressing in verse ten those who ARE ("*have been*") saved by grace through faith (including himself) stating,Eph 2:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."It's those who "*have been saved* by grace through faith...not as a result of works" that are now God's "workmanship," that are now "*created in Christ Jesus FOR good works*."  The "good works" are not FOR salvation but FOR the SAVED, already created in Christ Jesus.

Well, I cannot see any error as you accuse. These are my beliefs as well, so I think you are just misunderstanding.

You totally distort Eph. 2:8-10 to fit your "*works salvation*" gospel.

i suppose if there was such a thing as “works salvation” this might be true. But this is a fantasy. There is no such thing as salvation by works. I am not sure why y’all feel such a need to invent such a fantasy, then accuse us of believeing it.

You utterly fail to understand that they come from those who “have been SAVED by grace through faith,” and who are now “created in Christ Jesus” FOR (not “by”) them.True. Nor can one be saved BY works, period.

Honestly Moon, you are preaching to the choir here.

Only saved and created anew in Christ Jesus FOR them.Actually, one cannot do the works “prepared beforehand” UNTIL he first “has been saved by grace through faith…not as a result of works” - period.

Right…this is Catholic.

And works are prepared beforehand FOR the SAVED, not (according to your gospel) for salvation .

This is the Catholic gospel, Moon. These verses were written by a Catholic. They reflect Catholic belief.

 

[guanophore]

What you are actually saying with out realizing it; is that Scripture contradicts itself.  With your current understanding you will need to reconcile the people that were saved prior to or without being baptized in water and there are several examples in the Bible.

This is not a problem for Catholics because we recognize baptism as a sacramental gift of God. He is not bound by the sacraments, and He can save anyone, any way He wants. He commanded that we be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, so we obey Him.

The correct steps are repent, believe, receive the Holy Spirit, then be baptized with water.

I guess you will have to take that up with the Apostles and their disciples, since they seem to have misunderstood Jesus, and Jesus was apparently to weak or disinterested to correct them on the matter.

Baptism with water does not give the true baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This is your opinion, to which of course you are entitled. It is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching.

Water baptism is an outward expression of the faith you proclaim in Christ.  Look at John the Baptist baptism of repentance.

We see it differently.
This is part of Reformed tradition. Catholics must reject it as part of a “different gospel” because it is significantly contrary from what we have received from the Apostles.

Keep in mind we have both be taught by different sources and apparently different gospels; so we may not ever agree; that’s is okay, because in the end God will do the sorting.

Which brings your reader to the question, why are you here on CAF? You appear to be content in your different gospel.

 

[paul_c]

**It is interesting how people that are suppose to represent God, are quick to put someone down because their belief’s do not measure up to their standard.

It is almost if some of you are more interested in arguing rather than dialoging; I have make every effort to respect the faith of others here and have been called a few names in a short period of time. If this population is reflective of the Catholic faith, who would want to be Catholic? However; I know from experience that a majority of Catholics I have met are nice people.**

Seeker, I am sorry for calling you delusional. That was wrong of me and it clearly detracted from what I was trying to tell you. I will continue to try to be charitable on all future posts. …

 

[guanophore]

Which specific belief are you speaking of?; the water baptism washing away original sin? That does not exist in Scripture.

Yes. It is part of the Apostolic Teaching. It appears in scripture because that is what they taught.

Have you ever considered that you misunderstood what is written?

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having **cleansed her by the washing of water **with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

This is a reference to water baptism:
Titus 3:5-8
…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.

Acts 22:15-16
16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

The Apostles never separated the baptism of the HS from the water, from the time that Jesus entered the baptismal waters, and joined them.

When I speak of two different gospels; it has nothing to do with the number of books, but rather the theology that you have come to take by faith in the Church and the theology I have learned.

Yes. I understand. It is no fault of your own you were taught by persons separated from the Apostolic faith.

Although adding more books to the Bible that never met the original canonization, but rather added later to help positins to assist in refuting the charges leveled against the Church by the reformers.  Would you agree that is a little suspicious?

You have been wrongly taught about the canon also, but that is outside the scope of this thread.

 

[ncgolf]

Catholicism does teach that one is saved “mostly” by works. Catholicism teaches a probationary “salvation”

Where do you come up with this stuff … you add to what has been said the same as you add to Paul.

resulting from a lifetime of works, in the hope of dying in a “state of grace.” In its soteriology it gives a nod to the words grace and faith but adds works to the formula as the solidifying factor and the final basis on which God will judge him worthy for “eternal life” (lot of contradictions here).

Works of the law … you would be correct … It would be incorrect for a Catholic to say … hey I went to 1454 Masses … good enough. I don’t think you know what “works” are as Paul speaks about them … it is evidenced by the way you use the term so loosely.

According to Catholicism faith and grace find their substance in works; without works faith and grace have no content, no essence, no meaning.

I think some of your Protestant bretheran would call that a “dead” faith.

But in Biblical reality “faith” and “grace” lose their meaning and significance when “works” are an added requirement FOR salvation (see my above post: # 669). Paul teaches the reality of this basic principle when he writes to your church concerning the Jewish remnant ushered into the church (not the RCC), during this church age, according to God’s gracious choice:Rom 11:6 “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

Another misconception on what works are … if you do not understand what Paul meant by works … I can see why you are so confused.

Ncgolf unsuccessfully tried to state that this verse is taken out of context when used to defend salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Why the use of this word ‘alone’ all the time in the explanation of this theology …faith alone … Christ alone … faith and Christ alone.

But here’s the context of Paul’s statement:Rom 9:30 - 10:4 "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at {that} law. Why? Because {they did} not {pursue it} by faith, but as though {it were} by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who BELIEVES IN HIM will not be disappointed. Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for {their} (national Israel’s) salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness (i.e., “the righteousness which is by FAITH”) and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves (i.e., through faith) to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of law (i.e., works) for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Verse 20 speaks specifically about the Gentiles being grafted onto the vine … the vine is Christ …they are in Christ by grace and faith only … not by works … but verse 21 says, “For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you.” Those Gentiles were not guaranteed to stay on the vine despite their grafting by faith and grace.

Verse 22 says, “but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off.” God’s kindness is his grace … you remain on the vine so long as you remain in grace … if not then you are liable to be cut off … that is not that hard to see this, moon.

Salvation IS a works vs. faith issue.

Paul does not put these at odds …you do … since again you do not understand what Paul speaks about when he talks about works.

It was from the beginning of the Apostolic age and continues to this very day; indeed this very message. But it was taught by the Apostles and passed down and preserved for us in Holy Writ that salvation is based on divine GRACE alone,

… there’s that word again … this time grace alone.

as Paul reasons:

"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
​

Works cannot change or buy grace … we never said this but grace can perfect work … can make it holy …no. You seem to condemn all work … as if Paul makes it seem impure … you misread Paul.​

 

[ncgolf]

continued …

Biblical soteriology doesn’t merely nod at the WORDS “grace” and “faith,” but explicitly teaches salvation “BY grace THROUGH faith…not as a result of works” - period. Another explanation confused by what Paul meant by works Works, according to Scripture, are reserved only for those who “have been saved by grace through faith…not as a result of works.”

Paul presents himself as the perfect example of this wondrous grace salvation wrought through the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ through faith:1 Tim 1:15-16 “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (not “saints,” via works), among whom I am foremost {of all.} Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life” (cf. Jn. 3:14-18).

Again a complete misunderstanding of what works Paul condemns … you look at this a 20th century man … look at where Paul came from, who he was … that will tell you what “works” Paul was condeming.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

Not so fast - you are back to making statements without the slightest effort at giving a reference from any dogmatic pronoucement from the Catholic Church. You really have to play this straight if you are going to play it at all.

Quote the source - just do not mouth accusations from the 16th Century from disaffected malcontents who abandoned the Church established by Jesus Christ.

Catholicism does teach that one is saved “mostly” by works. Catholicism teaches a probationary “salvation” resulting from a lifetime of works, in the hope of dying in a “state of grace.” In its soteriology it gives a nod to the words grace and faith but adds works to the formula as the solidifying factor and the final basis on which God will judge him worthy for “eternal life” (lot of contradictions here). ]

The ‘contradictins’ exist because of the Straw Man you have created.

So, once more with feeling … find a Pope or Eccuminical Council that made a specific declaration that Catholics are saved by works. Or, find a legitimate reference (sorry, other posters would be considered at best as secondary sources…) that supports your position.

The only other approach is to be honest with yourself, identify that you are not interested in verifying your own statements - that these are statements made by others and you are parroting them back. Simply announce, “I have no evidence excpet what I hsve been told…” and then just go ahead as you have been doing, making these wild and baseless charges against the Catholic Church.

God bless

 

[broski234]

Catholicism does teach that one is saved “mostly” by works.

Please cite your source. Please show me in the CCC where it says that “Catholicism does teach that one is saved mostly by works”. Take it one step further, where does Catholic teaching even support this statement?

 

[Matariel]

Which specific belief are you speaking of?; the water baptism washing away original sin? That does not exist in Scripture.

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.”

Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. loutron, the word used here for “washing”, generally refers to** a ritual washing with water**.

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them in reference to baptism.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ “for the forgiveness of sin”, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This suggests something more than a mere empty symbol is taking place.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic, he actually gives us a clean slate.

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by **the washing of regeneration **and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.”

Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ So this verse demonstrates that baptism is is not merely symbolic.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. The Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.

I don’t know, sounds like there’re plently of verses which support the Catholic view…

 

[qui_est_ce]

:extrahappy:

Acts 22:16 –
Titus 3:5-6 –
Isaiah 44:3 -

Acts 2:38 -
Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - i
Rom. 6:4 -
Gal. 3:27
Titus 3:5-7 ,
Mark 16:16 -
{snip}
I don’t know, sounds like there’re plently of verses which support the Catholic view…

:extrahappy:

Do you ever read the Bible and suddenly understand the connection of verses you have read many times before? Like the whole picture?