The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[BRB]

How does our separation change God’s love for us? Did the prodigal son’s father love him less because he left to squander his inheritance?

Mortal sin causes grief of H.S. God pulls his protective hand back from us. We are separated from the Trinity. We will shortly realize we have lost something precious, & must quickly confess to repair the breach and allow God to forgive and FORGET our sin(s).

Only then can the synergism be fully re-established, and law of love flow to/from us.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

This is somewhat disingenuous. Yes, there is an aspect of salvation that is finished work. But Jesus is not finished with us. Just as was referenced in the above scripture, He is making us into His image and likeness daily.

And this is the crux of Catholic salvation, the ability of Christ to finish you in order to complete salvation. It begins with Christ and ends with you.

Scripture is clear that the transformation we undergo (being saved) comes from God, not from our selves. It is our part to behold Him with unveiled face.

So then we must conclude that if any Catholic, in the end, is not saved, it is Christ who failed. If you say, “but we have free will,” then we’re right back to the same conclusion which you try to avoid: Your salvation, ultimately, depends on you. It’s how you play the game. Hence, you have no assurance of salvation.

But the gospel message is that God sent His best Players, the game’s been played, and won. But men, absorbed in their own egos, in unbelief of that message, start up their own franchise and play their own game - by their own rules.

But the truth remains, the game’s been played, “it is finished,” and the game they’re playing counts for naught.

The saved are those who believe and rejoice in the fact that the game was played and won, and they enter into His joy.

Where does all this negativity come from moon?

Salvation based on works is negative, guanophore: “Do or else…”

No, we are not omniscient, only God is. But, we entrust our souls to a faithful creator.

Actually you entrust your soul to a sacramental system.

When we have done all that is commanded of us, we say “we are unworthy servants”. We place our faith in the One who justifies the ungodly.

No you don’t! You believe when “you have done all that is commanded of you” (the “being saved” aspect of Catholic salvation)) then, and only then, will God save you (the “will be saved” aspect of Catholic salvation). But you must do ALL that He commanded you first: The equivalent to salvation based on the principle of law.

You believe that God, in obedience to His command, justified Abraham for offering up Isaac. Hence, you believe that God will justify the godly, not the ungoldly. You believe God “will justify” only those whom Christ finishes; those who, in the end, allow Him to conform them into His image. Those that do not lose what they gained in baptism and are cast off.

But if they’re wilfully conformed to His image, guanophore, they’re not “ungodly,” but “godly.” You believe, then, in a God who justifies the “godly,” not the “ungodly.” And that “godliness,” as you demonstrate in your theology, is derived from the will of the one who allows himself to be conformed to the image of Christ, which is the basis for his “will be” salvation.

Why should Catholics not be party to the same assurance that you have? How can you disqualify another Christian from the very great and precious promises of our Lord.

Because the promise is based on what Christ DID, and it is gifted at the time of one’s belief in Him. Catholicism does not believe this, hence, they can enjoy no true assurance. It is a “hope so” salvation.

How did you get so angry toward Catholicism?

From what in my posts do you interpret as anger? Is it your contention that any who challenge Catholic soteriology do so out of anger? Is that how I should interpret your posts?

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Baptism is the means God has chosen to apply the redmeption won by Christ to our souls. The fact that the Bible talks about salvation through faith does not necessarily preclude means through which God applies the work of the Cross to our soul. Take the following, for example:

Mark 6:56

56Wherever He entered villages, or cities, or countryside, they were laying the sick in the market places, and imploring Him that they might just touch the fringe of His cloak; and as many as touched it were being cured.

Mark 10:28-34

28For she thought, “If I just touch His garments, I will get well.”
29Immediately the flow of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her affliction.
30Immediately Jesus, perceiving in Himself that the power proceeding from Him had gone forth, turned around in the crowd and said, “Who touched My garments?”
31And His disciples said to Him, “You see the crowd pressing in on You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’”
32And He looked around to see the woman who had done this.
33But the woman fearing and trembling, aware of what had happened to her, came and fell down before Him and told Him the whole truth.
34And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your affliction.”

The woman and many others believed that if they touched the fringe of Jesus’s garment, they would be healed. Was it the act in and of itself - the touching - that healed them? No. But through that act, Jesus healed them - which is described as “power proceeding from Him.” The act was the means used to heal the person. But what did Jesus say to the woman? He said your faith has made you will. But when Jesus said this, does he mean he accomplished the healing through faith alone, since he makes no mention of anything else. Indeed, her faith made her well, but did God accomplsh the healing through faith alone? No. He accomplished the healing through faith expressed in an act (touching of the fringe).

The means of salvation is grace, and the instrument of salvation is faith, as the scriptures you cite illustrate: the person’s faith results in their healing, (the cause of their faith is the grace of God).

If what you say were true, then Eph 2 is Paul’s moment to make that clear:**Eph 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith…**I believe this is what the CC teaches; isn’t it?

Note well that Paul does not say:By baptism you have been saved… (etc., etc.)

mikeledes:

The basis of forgiveness of sins is not our works or baptism per se, but the Cross of Christ. But what meansdoes God use to apply this forgiveness?

The basis of forgiveness of sins is not by works, or by baptism at all, but it is solely on the basis of God’s Grace.

(continued below)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #779)

.

mikeledes:

Acts 2:38

**38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. **

Does Peter say "Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and then be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? No! He said repent, and each of you be baptized FOR the forgiveness of your sins.

This is a verse where the English is not enough, one needs to parse the Greek.

Once I’ve done that, the first thing I always do is grab the appropriate volume of Robertson off the bookshelf and see what he says:Repent ye (metanohsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekastoß –mwn). Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (eiß to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eiß to onoma and **en twi onomati **with **baptizw **since **eiß **and **en **are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 **en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou **occurs, but **eiß **to **onoma **in Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5. The use of **onoma **means in the name or with the authority of one as **eis onoma prophtou **(Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on “Mt 28:19” for discussion of this point. “Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord” (Page). Unto the remission of your sins (eiß apesin twn amartiwn –mwn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of **eißdoes exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 eiß doxan hmwn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eiß for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples eiß onoma prophtou, dikaiou, maqhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eiß to khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin‚ generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. The gift of the Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoß). The gift consists (Acts 8:17) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

Word Pictures in the New Testament,** A.T. Robertson; Vol III, pp 34-36.Robertson’s conclusion is that one’s understanding of baptism—whether they believe it remits sins or not—will determine their interpretation of the passage.

I agree with him.

I find that the clear pattern in the entire book of Acts regarding baptism is illustrated in Acts 2:38.

The pattern is Repent, Believe in the name of Jesus, be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus (and all that name entails).

This is seen most clearly in the conversion of Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:44ff), and in Paul’s conversion (Acts 9).

mikeledes:

Baptismal regeneration was the consistent teaching of the early Church and for 1, 500 years of Christian history

Yes they did, and, IMO, that is the most unified, unanimous, and least contested teaching of the Church up to the reformation.

I think that teaching is the result of the post-apostolic Church’s wrong belief that she replaced Israel, and inherited all of the promises God made exclusively to Israel, and in error, she modeled herself, her liturgy etc. after the OT covenant rather than the NT covenant.

 

[BRB]

The basis of forgiveness of sins is not by works, or by baptism at all, but it is solely on the basis of God’s Grace.

QUOTE]

enabled by our ‘contrition’ for sins, and our Actions to obtain healing of Christ.

You Protestants admit as much. What’s the Altar Call all about, and why is it essential ?

How many Protestants sit in the pews hearing the pastor’s invitation to come forward, to make Profession of Faith … yet won’t get up out of seats and TAKE PUBLIC ACTION.

Does the Pastor next say to the congregation "All you who agreed with my call and have a sincere belief in Christ, but sat on your hands … are now SAVED, — go in peace " ?

God gives the Grace … whenever our ACTIONS [enabled by our Faith in Christ, as inspired by H.S.] are both visible and sincere.

 

[mikeledes]

And this is the crux of Catholic salvation, the ability of Christ to finish you in order to complete salvation. It begins with Christ and ends with you.

That is categorically false. The Catholic Church teaches that God complete’s salvation when He grants the gift of final perseverance. And His granting of this gift is not based on who worked the hardest. Let me refresh your memory of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding predestination to glory:

**(1) Predestination to the first grace is not because God foresaw our naturally good works, nor is the beginning of salutary acts due to natural causes; (2) predestination to glory is not because God foresaw we would continue in the performance of supernaturally meritorious acts apart from the special gift of final perseverance; (3) complete predestination, in so far as it comprises the whole series of graces from the first up to glorification, is gratuitous or previous to foreseen merits. **

Salvation is far less dependant on the will of man in Catholicism then in any system that teaches that God simply rubberstamps the choices that we make.

You believe when “you have done all that is commanded of you” (the “being saved” aspect of Catholic salvation)) then, and only then, will God save you (the “will be saved” aspect of Catholic salvation). But you must do ALL that He commanded you first: The equivalent to salvation based on the principle of law.

The “being saved” is a tense found in the Bible and is what you would call “experiential” sanctification and that is accomplished by the Holy Spirit through faith working through love and without this sanctification we will not see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14) and that translates into conforming our life to His will:

Romans 6:19

**19I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. **

Because the promise is based on what Christ DID, and it is gifted at the time of one’s belief in Him. Catholicism does not belief this, hence, they can enjoy no true assurance. It is a “hope so” salvation.

The promise is certainly based on what Christ did. And to whom is the promise made?

Matthew 7:21, 24

21"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Luke 6:46-47

46"Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
47"Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like:

John 8:51

51"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

John 14:23

23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word…

2 John 6

6And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

Galatians 6:7-9

**7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. **

James 2:5

5Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

Keeping the commandments and doing those things pleasing to under the Law of Christ is not based on the principle of law, but on the principles of faith and love. And to these principles of faith and love God has attached the promise of His kingdom.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Odell]

they can enjoy no true assurance. It is a “hope so” salvation.

Tell me how someone can enjoy true assurance after an alter call

How do you know you want return to the vomit your true nature?

I just don’t see a preacher talking about the consequences of returning to vomit on the day of your alter call or any other day for that matter

 

[sandusky]

And this is the crux of Catholic salvation, the ability of Christ to finish you in order to complete salvation. It begins with Christ and ends with you. So then we must conclude that if any Catholic, in the end, is not saved, it is Christ who failed. If you say, “but we have free will,” then we’re right back to the same conclusion which you try to avoid: Your salvation, ultimately, depends on you. It’s how you play the game. Hence, you have no assurance of salvation.

But the gospel message is that God sent His best Players, the game’s been played, and won. But men, absorbed in their own egos, in unbelief of that message, start up their own franchise and play their own game - by their own rules.

But the truth remains, the game’s been played, “it is finished,” and the game they’re playing counts for naught.

The saved are those who believe and rejoice in the fact that the game was played and won, and they enter into His joy.Salvation based on works is negative, guanophore: "Do or else…"Actually you entrust your soul to a sacramental system.No you don’t! You believe when “you have done all that is commanded of you” (the “being saved” aspect of Catholic salvation)) then, and only then, will God save you (the “will be saved” aspect of Catholic salvation). But you must do ALL that He commanded you first: The equivalent to salvation based on the principle of law.

You believe that God, in obedience to His command, justified Abraham for offering up Isaac. Hence, you believe that God will justify the godly, not the ungoldly. You believe God “will justify” only those whom Christ finishes; those who, in the end, allow Him to conform them into His image. Those that do not lose what they gained in baptism and are cast off.

But if they’re wilfully conformed to His image, guanophore, they’re not “ungodly,” but “godly.” You believe, then, in a God who justifies the “godly,” not the “ungodly.” And that “godliness,” as you demonstrate in your theology, is derived from the will of the one who allows himself to be conformed to the image of Christ, which is the basis for his “will be” salvation.Because the promise is based on what Christ DID, and it is gifted at the time of one’s belief in Him. Catholicism does not believe this, hence, they can enjoy no true assurance. It is a “hope so” salvation.From what in my posts do you interpret as anger? Is it your contention that any who challenge Catholic soteriology do so out of anger? Is that how I should interpret your posts?

Amen.

 

[BRB]

The “being saved” is a tense found in the Bible and is what you would call “experiential” sanctification and that is accomplished by the Holy Spirit through faith working through love and without this sanctification we will not see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14) and that translates into conforming our life to His will:

Romans 6:19

19I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

The promise is certainly based on what Christ did. And to whom is the promise made?

Matthew 7:21, 24

21"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Luke 6:46-47

46"Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
47"Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like:

John 8:51

51"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

John 14:23

23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word…

2 John 6

6And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

Galatians 6:7-9

7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

James 2:5

5Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

Keeping the commandments and doing those things pleasing to under the Law of Christ is not based on the principle of law, but on the principles of faith and love. And to these principles of faith and love God has attached the promise of His kingdom.

God bless,
Michael

Awesome !! Nothing makes the case as well as quoting sacred scripture [taken in context] to a Protestant … who lives or dies by the ‘rule’ Book.

Mike is on one hot hitting streak. Another ball over the fence

 

[sandusky]

I said:

The basis of forgiveness of sins is not by works, or by baptism at all, but it is solely on the basis of God’s Grace.

To which BRB responded:

BRB:

enabled by our ‘contrition’ for sins, and our Actions to obtain healing of Christ.

That echoes moondweller’s post #778 to guanophore.

God’s giving of His grace is predicated upon what you do. Quoting guanophore again: that’s very Catholic of you!

However, If it’s grace, it’s no longer on the basis of what you do, otherwise, grace is no longer grace (cf Rom 11:6).

BRB:

You Protestants admit as much.

You’re identity is shifting ISTM.

BRB:

What’s the Altar Call all about, and why is it essential?

I don’t believe in Altar Calls, and neither does my Church.

However, in an evangelistic encounter, I always urge the one to whom I’m speaking, that they must repent, and believe in the name of Christ to obtain the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

BRB:

How many Protestants sit in the pews hearing the pastor’s invitation to come forward, to make Profession of Faith … yet won’t get up out of seats and TAKE PUBLIC ACTION.

Does the Pastor next say to the congregation "All you who agreed with my call and have a sincere belief in Christ, but sat on your hands … are now SAVED, — go in peace " ?

I have no idea.

BRB:

God gives the Grace … whenever our ACTIONS [enabled by our Faith in Christ, as inspired by H.S.] are both visible and sincere.

There it is again: the giving of God’s grace is predicated on **your actions. **

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I believe that they are (Eph 2:10), even our vocations. In fact, I believe that everything is a gift from God (Jas 1:17, 18). My life even to each individual breath (Acts 17:25, 28) is taken because He wills that I take it. When He stops willing my breath, I will cease to breath, and physically die. He is a Great God.

There is nothing I have (good or bad) that I haven’t ***received from Him—***Nothing (Jn 3:27; 1 Cor 4:7; Jas 1:2ff).

And, I don’t believe that my works save me, or anyone else, and I’m thankful for that, because I know that my “good works” are so imperfect.

Then why the caricature that Catholics believe “faith and works” while you believe “faith alone”?
Technically you believe salvation is “faith and works” but that it is all a gift.*

*Catholics believe the same.

 

[BRB]

And this is the crux of Catholic salvation, the ability of Christ to finish you in order to complete salvation. It begins with Christ and ends with you. So then we must conclude that if any Catholic, in the end, is not saved, it is Christ who failed. If you say, “but we have free will,” then we’re right back to the same conclusion which you try to avoid: Your salvation, ultimately, depends on you. It’s how you play the game. Hence, you have no assurance of salvation.

?

Well it certainly begins with Christ … but man is the Object of his love. So, to that degree … yes, we are the ultimate creation of God and the object of his love.

You know its absurd to suggest Christ failed. He told us in scripture “IT is FINISHED”. What was finished ? His perfect sacrifice for us … his VICTORY over death for those who put their faith in him and follow him til the end.

To the degree we must seek out God and ACT on our faith in Christ, as revealed to us by H.S. … yes, we are an active participant in the Symbiosis miracle event, that FREE GIFT’ of God’s love to us.

Is our salvation a game ? … Its a spiritual battle, its ultimate spiritual warfare. So its a deadly serious game of life for us. But, in Christ we are MORE THAN CONQUERS over the evil satanic vader.

 

[mikeledes]

The means of salvation is grace, and the instrument of salvation is faith, as the scriptures you cite illustrate: the person’s faith results in their healing, (the cause of their faith is the grace of God).

If what you say were true, then Eph 2 is Paul’s moment to make that clear:Eph 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith…I believe this is what the CC teaches; isn’t it?

Note well that Paul does not say:By baptism you have been saved… (etc., etc.)

And no one said that one is saved by baptism apart from the grace of God. By grace we believe and through baptism we receive the grace of regeneration and forgiveness of sins. I reaffirm what the Council of Orange stated:

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism…

**According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. **

The woman believed, but it was through the touching of the fringe that she received the blessing (healing), which was described as power coming forth from Jesus.

The basis of forgiveness of sins is not by works, or by baptism at all, but it is solely on the basis of God’s Grace

No one said that it was based on works or baptism.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The means of salvation is grace, and the instrument of salvation is faith, as the scriptures you cite illustrate: the person’s faith results in their healing, (the cause of their faith is the grace of God).

If what you say were true, then Eph 2 is Paul’s moment to make that clear:Eph 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith…I believe this is what the CC teaches; isn’t it?

Note well that Paul does not say:By baptism you have been saved… (etc., etc.)The basis of forgiveness of sins is not by works, or by baptism at all, but it is solely on the basis of God’s Grace.

This should clear up any confusion:
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/eph2

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

Then why the caricature that Catholics believe “faith and works” while you believe “faith alone”?

Technically you believe salvation is “faith and works” but that it is all a gift.*

*Catholics believe the same.

From the CCC:**1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: EFFORT at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity “which covers a multitude of sins.”**I’m not caricaturing anything, CD.

And we don’t believe the same thing—I believe the means for obtaining the forgiveness of sins is faith, and not those efforts listed in the CCC above.

 

[sandusky]

And no one said that one is saved by baptism apart from the grace of God. By grace we believe and through baptism we receive the grace of regeneration and forgiveness of sins. I reaffirm what the Council of Orange stated:

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism…

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

The woman believed, but it was through the touching of the fringe that she received the blessing (healing), which was described as power coming forth from Jesus.

No one said that it was based on works or baptism.

And I reaffirm the point of my post to which this post responds: One’s presuppositions are determinative in one’s interpretation of Acts 2:38.

 

[ryanoneil]

But the gospel message is that God sent His best Players, the game’s been played, and won. But men, absorbed in their own egos, in unbelief of that message, start up their own franchise and play their own game - by their own rules.

But the truth remains, the game’s been played, “it is finished,” and the game they’re playing counts for naught.

Including St. Paul?

Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. (1 Cor 9:24-27)

"‘I have fought,’ says he, “the good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.’ Now, in the first place, these good works were nothing, unless they had been preceded by good thoughts. Observe, therefore, what he says concerning these very thoughts. His words, when writing to the Corinthians, are: ‘Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God.’” Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 7:16
(A.D. 427).

 

[BRB]

Including St. Paul?

Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. (1 Cor 9:24-27)

"‘I have fought,’ says he, “the good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.’ Now, in the first place, these good works were nothing, unless they had been preceded by good thoughts. Observe, therefore, what he says concerning these very thoughts. His words, when writing to the Corinthians, are: ‘Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God.’” Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 7:16
(A.D. 427).

Paul, plus a ECF … = a solid double.

 

[mikeledes]

(continued from post #779)

.
This is a verse where the English is not enough, one needs to parse the Greek.

Once I’ve done that, the first thing I always do is grab the appropriate volume of Robertson off the bookshelf and see what he says:Repent ye (metanohsate).

First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekastoß –mwn). Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (eiß to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eiß to onoma and **en twi onomati **with **baptizw **since **eiß **and **en **are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 **en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou **occurs, but **eiß **to **onoma **in Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5. The use of **onoma **means in the name or with the authority of one as **eis onoma prophtou **(Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on “Mt 28:19” for discussion of this point. “Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord” (Page). Unto the remission of your sins (eiß apesin twn amartiwn –mwn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of **eißdoes exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 eiß doxan hmwn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eiß for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples eiß onoma prophtou, dikaiou, maqhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eiß to khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin‚ generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. The gift of the Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoß). The gift consists (Acts 8:17) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

Word Pictures in the New Testament,** A.T. Robertson; Vol III, pp 34-36.Robertson’s conclusion is that one’s understanding of baptism—whether they believe it remits sins or not—will determine their interpretation of the passage.

I agree with him.

I find that the clear pattern in the entire book of Acts regarding baptism is illustrated in Acts 2:38.

The pattern is Repent, Believe in the name of Jesus, be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus (and all that name entails).

This is seen most clearly in the conversion of Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:44ff), and in Paul’s conversion (Acts 9).

Yes they did, and, IMO, that is the most unified, unanimous, and least contested teaching of the Church up to the reformation.

I think that teaching is the result of the post-apostolic Church’s wrong belief that she replaced Israel, and inherited all of the promises God made exclusively to Israel, and in error, she modeled herself, her liturgy etc. after the OT covenant rather than the NT covenant.

I find it very interesting that many of the early Church fathers, who spoke Greek as their first language (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) and whose Greek was practically the same as the Greek of the New Testament, and who lived less the a century after the New Testament was completed somehow did not get this and unanimously believed in baptismal regeneration. I also find it interesting that there is not a single respectable translation of the Bible - which involves scholars in Biblical languages - that reflects this interpretation.

There are also covenentl Protestant theologians who have rejected baptismal regeneration - before dispensationalism began in the mid-nineteenth century. I wonder why there were no dissenters among the early Church Fathers. Nor do I see how baptismal regeneration has anything with believing that the Church replaced Israel. When discussing baptism, the early Church father cited New Testament passages to support their claim.

God bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

I find it very interesting that many of the early Church fathers, who spoke Greek as their first language (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) and whose Greek was practically the same as the Greek of the New Testament, and who lived less the a century after the New Testament was completed somehow did not get this and unanimously believed in baptismal regeneration. I also find it interesting that there is not a single respectable translation of the Bible - which involves scholars in Biblical languages - that reflects this interpretation.

There are also covenentl Protestant theologians who have rejected baptismal regeneration - before dispensationalism began in the mid-nineteenth century. I wonder why there were no dissenters among the early Church Fathers. Nor do I see how baptismal regeneration has anything with believing that the Church replaced Israel. When discussing baptism, the early Church father cited New Testament passages to support their claim.

I’ve affirmed that in the post you cite, Mike, and again reaffirm the point of my post to which this post responds: One’s presuppositions are determinative in one’s interpretation of Acts 2:38.

Everyone has presuppositions, even you. Move on.