Split: Debate: Catholic Vs Non-Catholic Soteriology

[Mickey]

Nothing has changed since the fall in the Garden.]Much has changed since then, my friend. Christ Has Risen!
apophasis;1525823:
All sin is personal, the product of being carried away and enticed by one’s own lust] Of course it’s personal. Each person is tempted by Satan and his minions. It is your choice as to whether you will act upon your sinful passions

Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death

" (Ja. 1:13-15)]I find it rather interesting that you and sandusky continue to use this one verse to prove something that you don’t quite understand. It is unfortunate that this verse continues to be misinterpreted. Let me help you: James is saying that Lust is conceived when the demons energize our inward passions. This gives birth to sin. When the sin is accomplished it brings forth death. It’s really quite straight forward.

For the true believer, ALL

his sins are forever forgiven by God through the cross of Christ (Col. 2:13-14).]Yes. The true believer confesses his sins with a contrite heart and strives to sin no more.

Having been born again

through personal faith in Christ (not baptism)] You are sadly mistaken here. We are born again through faith and baptism.

Do not forget what St Paul says: “I fear lest, after preaching to others, I myself should be cast away” (1 Cor 9:27); " Let anyone who thinks he stands firm take care lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12); “You who are spiritual…look to yourself, in case you also are tempted” (Gal 6:1).
Remember how Solomon, after receiving so much grace, turned aside to wickedness (cf. 1Kgs. 11:1-8); remember how St Peter unexpectedly denied the Lord. If you allow yourself to forget all this, you will grow over-confident because of your spiritual knowledge; you will become boastful about your way of life and complacent…and so will give way to pride. Do not become puffed up, my brother, but continue in fear until your last breath, even though you should live as long as Moses. Pray in these words: “Lord cast me not off in the time of my old age; forsake me not when my strength fails; O God my Savior, my praise shall be continually of Thee” (cf. Ps. 71:6,9)
(St John of Karpathos)

 

[apophasis]

Are you and/or Sandusky suggesting that Adam and Eve would have fallen had Satan never been present?

No. Satan’s “deception” played its part in the fall, but the guilt of their sin was wholly theirs.

 

[Mickey]

Nothing has changed since the fall in the Garden

Much has changed since then, my friend. Christ Has Risen!

All sin is personal

, the product of being carried away and enticed by one’s own lust Of course it’s personal. Each person is tempted by Satan and his minions. It is your choice as to whether you will act upon your sinful passions

Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death

" (Ja. 1:13-15)I find it rather interesting that you and sandusky continue to use this one verse to prove something that you don’t quite understand. It is unfortunate that this verse continues to be misinterpreted. Let me help you: James is saying that Lust is conceived when the demons energize our inward passions. This gives birth to sin. When the sin is accomplished it brings forth death. It’s really quite straight forward.

For the true believer, ALL

his sins are forever forgiven by God through the cross of Christ (Col. 2:13-14)Yes. The true believer confesses his sins with a contrite heart and strives to sin no more.

Having been born again

through personal faith in Christ (not baptism) You are sadly mistaken here. We are born again through faith and baptism.

Do not forget what St Paul says: “I fear lest, after preaching to others, I myself should be cast away” (1 Cor 9:27); " Let anyone who thinks he stands firm take care lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12); “You who are spiritual…look to yourself, in case you also are tempted” (Gal 6:1).
Remember how Solomon, after receiving so much grace, turned aside to wickedness (cf. 1Kgs. 11:1-8); remember how St Peter unexpectedly denied the Lord. If you allow yourself to forget all this, you will grow over-confident because of your spiritual knowledge; you will become boastful about your way of life and complacent…and so will give way to pride. Do not become puffed up, my brother, but continue in fear until your last breath, even though you should live as long as Moses. Pray in these words: “Lord cast me not off in the time of my old age; forsake me not when my strength fails; O God my Savior, my praise shall be continually of Thee” (cf. Ps. 71:6,9)
(St John of Karpathos)

 

[Mickey]

An infant cannot express personal faith in Christ.

O ye of little faith!!! :crying:

Baptising infants before they know what is going on is an expression of God’s great love for us. It shows that God loves us and accepts us before we can ever know and love Him. It shows that we are wanted and loved by God from the very moment of our birth. Nothing shows the nature of God’s grace more than infant baptism.

 

[apophasis]

O ye of little faith!!! :crying:

Baptising infants before they know what is going on is an expression of God’s great love for us. It shows that God loves us and accepts us before we can ever know and love Him. It shows that we are wanted and loved by God from the very moment of our birth. Nothing shows the nature of God’s grace more than infant baptism.

Nice words, Mickey, but theologically flawed since none of it’s based on Scriptural revelaton.

Here’s what the reality of what GOD HIMSELF has said regarding the demonstration of His love toward us:Rom 5:8-10 “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Nope! No mention of baptism of infants here). Much more then, having now been justified (How? By baptising infants? NO!) by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} (How? Through baptism? NO!) through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God (How? Through infant baptism? NO!) through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved (How? By infant baptism. NO!) by His life.”

Nothing shows the nature of God’s grace more than infant baptism.

Nothing shows the nature of fallen humanity more than to construct his own religion through baptising infants. A salvation apart from personal faith, apart from actually knowing Christ. A salvation based on works.

 

[Mickey]

Here’s what the reality of what GOD HIMSELF has said regarding the demonstration of His love toward us:

LOL!!! You mean God and apophasis! You add your commentary throughout the Scriptures to validate your misinterpretation. Oh shame on the post reformers for leading so many astray into the traditions of men. I’m so glad that my Bible does not have “the apophasis commentary”.

Rom 5:8-10 “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Nope! No mention of baptism of infants here). Much more then, having now been justified (How? By baptising infants? NO!) by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} (How? Through baptism? NO!) through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God (How? Through infant baptism? NO!) through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved (How? By infant baptism. NO!) by His life.”

You and I both know the arguments. Nowhere in the Sacred Scriptures does it support your interpretation about the rejection of infant baptism–whereas there are numerous verses to support households being baptized and…well…you are familiar with the Catholic understanding (I’m aware you reject it).

Nothing shows the nature of fallen humanity more than to construct his own religion through baptising infants.

Nothing shows the nature of fallen humanity more than to construct one’s own religion through the rejection of the historic practice of Christians baptising their infants, and through the rejection of the Holy Sacraments, and through the denial of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and through the misinterpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, and through the rejection of Sacred Tradition, etc, etc, etc…:crying:

A salvation apart from personal faith, apart from actually knowing Christ. A salvation based on works.

Hmmmm? Ad hominem against the entire Catholic and Orthodox Church. Wonderful example of charity. Don’t let Satan energize the passions within you.

May your eyes be opened,
Mickey

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

You and I both know the arguments. Nowhere in the Sacred Scriptures does it support your interpretation about the rejection of infant baptism–whereas there are numerous verses to support households being baptized and…well…you are familiar with the Catholic understanding (I’m aware you reject it).

One may need to study philosophy to understand Catholic soteriology, however, to understand biblical soteriology, all that is needed is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, a Berean’s attitude, and common sense.

Baptism does not regenerate, neither is baptism essential to salvation.

Scrutinize the O.T. for the word baptism, and you will do so in vain.

That is because God is immutable; He doesn’t change, and that is especially true of HIS REQUIREMENT for salvation. God nowhere requires baptism for salvation.

Salvation has always and only been, salvation is now, and salvation will forever be by GRACE ALONE, THROUGH FAITH ALONE, IN GOD ALONE!!!

If baptism is an essential requirement for salvation, then all of those from Eden to Christ are lost.

Abel, Enoch (boy, what does the Catholic do with Enoch?), Noah, Shem, Ham, Japeth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel, David, Ruth, Boaz, Esther, Mordecai, Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, Nehemia, and on, and on, and on. And what about all of those who trust in Christ, and do not baptize?

That is absurd!

The answer to “what must I do to be saved?” has always been BELIEVE! :clapping:

Christ baptized no one; Paul baptized two, and Paul tells us why: he wasn’t sent to baptize; he was sent to preach THE GOSPEL.

The Gospel is the instrument used by God in regeneration. In every passage describing new birth, the word of God is always mentioned. Ps 119:50, “Your word has quickened me;” Paul says “I have begotten you, I have become your Father, through the Gospel” (1 Cor 4:15); James says “in the exercise of His will God brought us forth BY (what? Baptism? NO!) BY the WORD OF TRUTH,” the Gospel (1:18); Peter says we are "born again not of perishable seed, but imperishable—through the living, and enduring WORD OF GOD the Gospel.

The Gospel is the Spirit’s tool: Water and the Spirit.

Water in John 3 is an emblem for God’s word. This is seen also in drinking the waters of eternal life in John 4:14; in the living water of John 7:37-38; and other emblems used for God’s word: a Lamp, it illumines (Ps 119:105); a hammer, it breaks up the hardened heart (Jer 23:29); water, it cleanses (Ps 119:9; Jn 15:3; Eph 5:26).

Being born of water does not mean the laver of baptism, nor a baptism of desire; being born of water means being born of the illuminating, heart-breaking, purifying word of God.

Be careful

 

[Mickey]

Baptism does not regenerate, neither is baptism essential to salvation.

sandusky’s misunderstanding–a late revisionist interpretation.

Scrutinize the O.T. for the word baptism, and you will do so in vain.

Scrutinize the O.T. for “types” of baptisms, you will be astounded.

That is because God is immutable; He doesn’t change

Agreed.

God nowhere requires baptism for salvation.

sandusky theology.

If baptism is an essential requirement for salvation, then all of those from Eden to Christ are lost.

Christ was baptized in the Jordan. I will imitate Christ.

That is absurd!

There is nothing absurd about it. God’s mercy is boundless!

Christ baptized no one

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.(Jn 3:22)

The Gospel is the instrument used by God in regeneration. In every passage describing new birth, the word of God is always mentioned.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ (The Word made flesh).

Water and the Spirit

Baptism.

Water in John 3 is an emblem for God’s word.

Nope

This is seen also in drinking the waters of eternal life in John 4:14; in the living water of John 7:37-38;

These analogies are referring to the Holy Spirit.

Being born of water does not mean the laver of baptism, nor a baptism of desire; being born of water means being born of the illuminating, heart-breaking, purifying word of God.

Being born of water means receiving the Grace of God through baptism. Just as the Word (Logos) (Jesus) was baptized and the Trinity was revealed–the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove and the Father was well pleased. Father, Son and Holy Spirit were revealed here–one in substance and undivided. And so when we imitate Christ we are baptized into Christ by the holy Spirit, and the Father is well pleased.

All you, who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Alleluia!

Be careful

Be watchful!

 

[whosebob]

Baptism does not regenerate, neither is baptism essential to salvation …

JMJ + OBT​

More help from ScriptureCatholic.com:

Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

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

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

John 3:3,5 - unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

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?

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias’ phrase “wash away” comes from the Greek word “apolouo.” “Apolouo” means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

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.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.

There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit.

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

Heb. 10:22 - in baptism, our hearts are sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (again, dealing with the interior of the person) as our bodies are washed with pure water (the waters of baptism). Baptism regenerates us because it removes original sin, sanctifies our souls, and effects our adoption as sons and daughters in Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:21 - 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. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase “not as a removal of dirt from the body” is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior). Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature).

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, 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.

Luke 23:43 - the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, “I have a baptism to be baptized with” referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents).

Mark 10:38 - Jesus says “are you able…to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?,” referring to His death.

1 John 5:6 - Jesus came by water and blood. He was baptized by both water and blood. Martyrs are baptized by blood.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[whosebob]

Nothing shows the nature of fallen humanity more than to construct his own religion through baptising infants …

JMJ + OBT​

Some Biblical “food for thought” from ScriptureCatholic.com:

Infant Baptism

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[JPrejean]

You don’t understand, but you know that it’s wrong and blatantly erroneous?

No, I believe I do understand. My point was simply that if you think I don’t understand you, you now have the obligation of explaining why it is that I’ve misunderstood you. IOW, if you actually have a point that isn’t based on a straw man, then make it. Since you have yet to produce such a point, I assume you are simply venting your emotions with neither logic nor reason behind them.

The Pharisee verbally GIVES TO GOD ALL of the credit for his righteous behavior. IOW, he SAYS that God is the instrumental cause of his meritorious works; sound familiar?

You’re not clearly not thinking straight. He is saying “Thank you for letting my works deserve merit.” That is an assertion of the Pharisees own works as a meritorious (not instrumental) cause, in contradiction of what Trent says. You just don’t understand Catholic theology if you think we are saying “Thank you for letting our works deserve something from you.” The misunderstanding is yours, not ours.

Just use a little common sense. Every Christian after the first century had the Gospels in front of him. Why would then explicitly contradict what is plainly stated in Scriptures, when they have those Scriptures right in front of them and even wrote detailed commentaries on them? Doesn’t that suggest to you that you must have misunderstood what they are saying?

This poor guy can’t even look toward heaven; he offers NO THANKS, and NO GOOD DEEDS, but can only cry for MERCY!

And now you’re just being inconsistent. If you were going to be consistent, you would have to say that the cry for mercy was unnecessary for justification, and that the tax collector was justified before, and not because of, the cry for mercy. Again, you aren’t being logical; you’re just venting emotionally.

Christ did away with the O.T. theology of external works (sacrificial vs. sacramental) as a channel to God, and from God, because they cannot save; they were never intended to.

You obviously don’t understand that, but hey, you understand the philosophy of instrumental causes, and you now know what that understanding is worth before God.

External works aren’t a “channel to God” in Catholic theology either; that’s the Pharasaical error. The “and from God” is your logical error; you haven’t actually shown that grace excludes this, because presumably someone can graciously act through whatever instrumental means he chooses.

No thanks; I have read the Sixth of Trent documents and have no desire to discuss the philosophical underpinnings that you claim support them (Col 2:8).

You certainly haven’t read them thoughtfully, and given the injunction to love the Lord with all of your mind (Mark 12:30), that sort of thoughtlessness is no credit to a Christian. Col. 2:8 speaks against VAIN philosophy, but in the broad sense, philosophy is simply thinking rationally. If Col. 2:8 meant that we were not to practice philosophy in the sense of thinking logically, then it would contradict loving the Lord with our minds. Perhaps your strain of Christianity, whatever it is, is purely emotional and irrational, but that actually has more in common with the “vain philosophy” of pagans and Gnostics than with Jesus.

If you choose to squander your God-given gift of reason, then that is your decision, but at least have the decency not to pretend that God is telling you to do it. We might have the faith of a child (acknowledging our absolute dependence on God as a child to a parent), but that faith is not expressed with the intelligence of a child.

 

[Mickey]

And now you’re just being inconsistent. If you were going to be consistent, you would have to say that the cry for mercy was unnecessary for justification, and that the tax collector was justified before, and not because of, the cry for mercy. Again, you aren’t being logical; you’re just venting emotionally.

Right on JP!

BTW–That is where the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox get “The Jesus Prayer”.

Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

 

[JPrejean]

One may need to study philosophy to understand Catholic soteriology, however, to understand biblical soteriology, all that is needed is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, a Berean’s attitude, and common sense.

Philosophy ought to be common sense, since philosophy is simply logical thinking. You’re basically saying that you don’t have to think carefully in order to understand biblical soteriology, and I could certainly believe that is your position based on what I have seen thus far.

Scrutinize the O.T. for the word baptism, and you will do so in vain.

You appear to be suggesting that the Incarnation was unnecessary for salvation. If there was no reason for Christ to come to earth for our salvation, then why did He?

If baptism is an essential requirement for salvation, then all of those from Eden to Christ are lost.

Simply illogical. As I pointed out to you, desire suffices. Had they lived after the Incarnation, they certainly would have been baptized.

The Gospel is the instrument used by God in regeneration.

First, it’s faith. Then, it’s a cry for mercy. Now it’s the Gospel. Earlier, it was the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in the soul. You can’t keep anything straight. And it’s funny how you can talk about instrumental causes now, but when a Catholic does it, it’s vain philosophy? Your double standard is apparent. If the Gospel can be the Spirit’s instrument, then why not water? More to the point, why would figurative use of water to refer to the revelation of God logically exclude the literal use, particularly when Scripture itself puts them side by side (Mark 16:16, Titus 3:5)? Your critique is indefensible and inconsistent. The difficulties the Catholic must supposedly answer are simply a product of your own inability to think logically and your misunderstanding of Catholic belief.

Why anybody would take it in his head to attack something without bothering to think it through is beyond me, but that is clearly what you are doing. I urge you to put aside the emotion and think sensibly, because you certainly aren’t serving your cause with your current approach.

 

[JPrejean]

An infant cannot express personal faith in Christ.

So you’re saying that infants can’t be saved? If so, then on what basis and through what instrument?

 

[sandusky]

Thanks for the Scripture citations Michael

Some Biblical food for thought from me

Mt 3:1-8: John’s baptism is recorded in each of the gospels. John demanded repentance, and required proof of it, and required people to believe in the Messiah; if the failed to meet his requirements, they were not baptized; the Pharisees did not believe, and they were not baptized (cf Lk 7:29-30). There is no example of John baptizing infants; John’s baptism sets the pattern for the rest of N.T.; namely, repent, believe, be baptized.

Jn 3:22-23; 4:1-2: John’s pattern is continued; they made disciples and baptized them. In the Gospels, the Gospel was preached, those who repented by faith became disciples and followed Jesus; no infants baptized, only disciples.

Mt 28:19-20: The Great Commission. Jesus’ command? Make disciples and then baptize them. Not make disciples BY baptizing them. Make disciples, baptize them, teach them.

Mk 16:16:” He who believes and is baptized,” belief and then baptism in response to Gospel preaching (v 15). This verse shows as well, that baptism does not regenerate; a regenerate sinner is a saved sinner; according to this verse one who does not believe may be baptism, and that baptism cannot save him.

Acts 2:38, 41: Peter preached, people repented, accepted the word, and were baptized; no infants mentioned. ScriptureCatholic.com ignores the summation and order stated in v41.

Acts 8:12-13: Gospel is preached in Samaria, people believe and are baptized. Some with false faith are baptized (Simon Magus); men and women were baptized; no infants (v12).

Acts 8:35-38: Phillip preached, the Ethiopian believed and was baptized.

Acts 9:17-18: Paul encounters Jesus on the Damascus Road; three days later he believed the Gospel and was baptized (cf 22:16).

Acts 10:44-48: Peter preaches the Gospel to the Gentiles; Cornelius and his family believe and then are baptized; no infants are mentioned.

Acts 16:14-15: Lydia believes the Gospel and is baptized along with her household, and no infants are mentioned; it would be more in keeping with pattern so far that her children believed and then were baptized.

Acts 16:30-34: Paul and Silas preached the Gospel to the jailer; he believed. They then preached the Gospel to his family; they believed; then they were baptized; no infants are mentioned.

Acts 18:8: Crispus, his family, and others believed, and were baptized. His family consciously believed and became disciples (cf 1 Cor 1:13-17; Acts 18:8).

Acts 19:1-5): Paul meets some disciples of John the Baptist; they had not yet believed in Jesus nor received the Holy Spirit. Paul told them Jesus was the Messiah of whom John spoke; they believed and were baptized; Their previous baptism by John was insufficient because they had not believed in Christ; no infants were mentioned.

Those are patterns of baptism, here are teachings on baptism:

Rom 6:1-3: Baptism symbolizes our death to sin, and our life in Christ. That occurs when one believes in Christ; that is the consistent teaching of this epistles, and it supports the pattern of the Gospels and Acts.

Infants cannot believe, and they are not dead to sin, but dead in it.

Gal 3:27: Baptism symbolizes the believer’s “putting on” Christ. He is clothed in, united to, and covered by Christ’s righteousness. How? By faith, as stated in the context (v26); if infants are in view, then they are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (v 26).

Col 2:11-12: Salvation is called spiritual circumcision, putting off sin, being united with Christ, and given new life “through faith in the working of God” (v12). No infants mentioned.

1 Pet 3:21: Water is like the flood; eight people enter the ark—the believer enters Christ by faith. Then the water comes. Baptism is not removing dirt from the body, but is an answer of a good (believing) conscience. No infants mentioned.

 

[sandusky]

JPrejean:

Philosophy ought to be common sense, since philosophy is simply logical thinking. You’re basically saying that you don’t have to think carefully in order to understand biblical soteriology, and I could certainly believe that is your position based on what I have seen thus far.

Ouch! You are obviously much smarter than I am, and certainly much more skilled in debate; however, I do have common sense, and I understand the bible, and biblical soteriology; in fact, I think I understand Catholic soteriology; I know that doesn’t make any sense to you because logic tells you that if I did understand it I would be Catholic! That is certainly one possibility; but another possibility also exists: I am not Catholic because I do understand the soteriology.

JPrejean:

You appear to be suggesting that the Incarnation was unnecessary for salvation. If there was no reason for Christ to come to earth for our salvation, then why did He?

O.T. and N.T. saints alike are saved by the cross of Christ; that necessitates the incarnation, and I am certain you know that.

JPrejean:

Simply illogical. As I pointed out to you, desire suffices. Had they lived after the Incarnation, they certainly would have been baptized.

Forgive my thick-headedness, but I am not sure what you are saying; are you saying that those in the O.T. could desire baptism? If you are saying that, how could they desire something about which they knew nothing? Besides, I am talking about baptism as regenerative, and necessary for salvation; baptism neither regenerates; nor is the act of it an absolute necessity for salvation. Even your church understands that as evidenced by its provision for baptism of desire.

JPrejean:

First, it’s faith. Then, it’s a cry for mercy. Now it’s the Gospel. Earlier, it was the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in the soul. You can’t keep anything straight. And it’s funny how you can talk about instrumental causes now, but when a Catholic does it, it’s vain philosophy? Your double standard is apparent. If the Gospel can be the Spirit’s instrument, then why not water? More to the point, why would figurative use of water to refer to the revelation of God logically exclude the literal use, particularly when Scripture itself puts them side by side (Mark 16:16, Titus 3:5)? Your critique is indefensible and inconsistent. The difficulties the Catholic must supposedly answer are simply a product of your own inability to think logically and your misunderstanding of Catholic belief.

I see your point; my bad.

I understand the different causes: final, efficient, meritorious, formal, instrumental, and I understand their usefulness in describing the means God uses to accomplish His purpose. Our disagreement is with the means. I reject your sacramental/sacerdotal system. In the giving of the O.T. ritual law, God is meticulous in its explanation, unlike your sacraments, which are built upon verses that are extravagantly interpreted.

Ritualism was done away with because it was never the means to salvation; faith alone in Christ alone is that means. Now I may not explain that with finesse as great as yours; but I am certain that you understand what I am saying.

Furthermore, I believe that Lord’s Supper is an ordinance, as it is the fulfillment of the Passover, which God explicitly calls an ordinance (Ex 12:14); I view baptism as an ordinance as well; baptism should be done as Jesus commanded: make disciples; baptize them; teach them.

Also, I do not think that the figurative use of water to refer to God’s revelation logically excludes its literal use if God tells us that baptism regenerates (justification/regeneration/salvation are both separate, and synonymous), but God does not tell us that; and I would certainly expect Him to tell us that baptism is the means of regeneration, if it were.

 

[sandusky]

I said:

Baptism does not regenerate, neither is baptism essential to salvation.

Mickey replied:

sandusky’s misunderstanding–a late revisionist interpretation.

You are deliberately dodging my argument.

I said:

Scrutinize the O.T. for the word baptism, and you will do so in vain.

Mickey replied:

Scrutinize the O.T. for “types” of baptisms, you will be astounded.

I would, if I were discussing types, but I am not; you are dodging my argument.

I said:

That is because God is immutable; He doesn’t change, and that is especially true of HIS REQUIREMENT for salvation. God nowhere requires baptism for salvation.

Mickey replied:

Agreed [Mickey agrees *that God is immutable, and does not change

. I have added my full thought, which Mickey left out, for context]Then you must agree that salvation is not regenerative, and it is not essential to salvation; if not, then you are being inconsistent by believing both that God does not change in his method of salvation, but then did change the method of salvation from the O.T. to the N.T.; but God did not do that; God is consistent, and salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

I said:

If baptism is an essential requirement for salvation, then all of those from Eden to Christ are lost.

Mickey replied:

Christ was baptized in the Jordan. I will imitate Christ.

You continue to dodge.

I said:

Christ baptized no one

Mickey replied:

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.(Jn 3:22)

That is what 3:22 says; however, if you continue reading past the chapter division to Jn 4:3, which is still the immediate context of Jn 3:22, you find John telling us that Jesus and His disciples are leaving Judea; IOW, from Jn 3:22 to Jn 4:3, Jesus and His disciples were in Judea.

Read Jn 4:1 & 2 carefully. In v 2, John tells us parenthetically, “(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were).” Jesus did not baptize anyone in Judea; His disciples did the baptizing.

I said:

Water in John 3 is an emblem for God’s word.

Mickey replied:

Nope

I am willing to listen to your explanation of why you think that the water in John 3 is not emblematic.

“Nope” is not an explanation.

I said:

This is seen also in drinking the waters of eternal life in John 4:14; in the living water of John 7:37-38;

Mickey replied:

These analogies are referring to the Holy Spirit.

That is my point, Mickey; As in Jn 3:2, so here, the water IS NOT literal water; therefore, it is not referring to the laver of baptism.

I said:

Being born of water does not mean the laver of baptism, nor a baptism of desire; being born of water means being born of the illuminating, heart-breaking, purifying word of God.

Mickey replied:

Being born of water means receiving the Grace of God through baptism.

Explain how that is so, please.

 

[JPrejean]

in fact, I think I understand Catholic soteriology; I know that doesn’t make any sense to you because logic tells you that if I did understand it I would be Catholic! That is certainly one possibility; but another possibility also exists: I am not Catholic because I do understand the soteriology.

Actually, I just wanted you to articulate the point of disagreement with Catholicism, rather than your point of disagreement with a straw man. I thought that you probably did have something in mind, but that you weren’t articulating it well. Your last post was considerably better.

Forgive my thick-headedness, but I am not sure what you are saying; are you saying that those in the O.T. could desire baptism?

Not literally, no, but desiring what baptism means and what it spiritually accomplishes.

Besides, I am talking about baptism as regenerative, and necessary for salvation; baptism neither regenerates; nor is the act of it an absolute necessity for salvation. Even your church understands that as evidenced by its provision for baptism of desire.

It is regenerative (at least, Catholic believe that it is), but it is only normatively necessary for salvation, as the desire for the gift of baptism suffices in cases when it is unavailable.

Also, I do not think that the figurative use of water to refer to God’s revelation logically excludes its literal use if God tells us that baptism regenerates (justification/regeneration/salvation are both separate, and synonymous), but God does not tell us that; and I would certainly expect Him to tell us that baptism is the means of regeneration, if it were.

And thus, there is a reasonable basis for whether certain passages should be interpreted in a certain way. That is the only point I wanted to make with you. It isn’t logically demanded that God cannot choose baptism as an instrument of grace, so the question becomes whether Scripture tells us that He did or did not. Presumably, Catholics think that Scripture says this, which is why they are Catholic. If this is the case, then Trent is not inconsistent with that interpretation.

Let’s just remember that everyone has different ways of interpreting Scripture (that goes for Protestants and Catholics). It is generally more helpful to first explain those interpretations in as much detail and clarity as possible before actually trying to make arguments based on them.

Back to your regularly scheduled polemics.