True believers vs partial believers. Can the "SAVED" be saved?

[Le_Cracquere]

zeland:

I’m now a Catholic, and I’ve come to be persuaded that Apostolic Succession is the truth … but calling it a “scriptural fact” might be overstating things a tad. If Holy Writ indicated it that explicitly, the Reformation would’ve had nothing to go on, and we 'd never have found ourselves in this mess to begin with.

I’ve come to disagree with the claims of Protestantism … but many intelligent, able, and God-fearing men have sincerely believed in & defended it. I think their defenses can be answered and refuted, but not without some intellectual heavy lifting. I’m afraid Scripture doesn’t contain a “killer app” that lets us assume the Apostolic Succession issue needs no further articulation, or assume that someone couldn’t take away a different interpretation in good faith.

 

[zeland]

Dear Cracquere,

Perhaps the following links will help.

What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession | Catholic Answers Tract

What is the biblical support for apostolic succession? | Catholic Answers Q&A

Zeland

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Zeland:

Thank you very much for the links! And it so happens that I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments they present. However, I repeat that a powerful and persuasive argument is not quite the same as an unanswerable argument, and one can find rejoinders to the arguments you cite–rejoinders that I disagree with, but that aren’t necessarily unreasonable. So, even though I think Acts and I Timothy give us excellent arguments in support of apostolic succession, I’m shy of throwing around phrases like “scriptural fact,” as if those sources have closed off any further debate.

 

[zeland]

rejoinders

I am not sure what you mean by “rejoinders”, Please clarify. Thanks

zeland

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Sorry; I mean responses, comebacks … intellectually respectable counterarguments.

 

[zeland]

OK, Thanks.

God bless.

 

[jlhargus]

Let’s look at Biblical teachings that the RCC does not follow in addition to invalid baptism.

Post one scripture example of baptism by immersion and one scripture teaching immersion was the only valid mode for baptism in the NT? I do not disagree that immersion was used but pouring was used also in the early Church. The Didache circa 150 to 200 something is evidence pouring was also used at that early age.

[Act1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.]

[Acts2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.]

On Pentecost when baptized with the Holy Ghost the tongues of fire sat or rested on their heads. They were not fully immersed in the tongues of fire.

Using scripture alone there is stronger evidence Paul was baptized by pouring than by immersion as he was baptized in a house and then ate after being baptized. We don’t know the actual mode as scripture is silent on the mode of baptism.

[Acts9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.]

 

[jlhargus]

The Bible teaches us to pray in the name of the Son only. Catholics pray in the name of the father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (John 14:13, John 16:23, and others)

I notice you didn’t post scripture telling us to pray only in the name of the Son? The Bible never teaches Bible only, Faith only, baptism symbol only and certainly doesn’t teach pray only in the name of the Son. All those only teachings actually contradict the Bible.

[Mt6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy

At Mass most if not all prayers end with we ask this through Christ our Lord. As far as Protestants only praying in the name of the Son that isn’t so. I know better as a former Protestant. Now your particular denomination may do so, I don’t know as I don’t know to which denomination you belong. There are thousands of Protestant denominations. It’s quite possible that such an absurd thing could have caused a split in a denomination forming yet another denomination.

 

[jlhargus]

1. infants inherit original sin (2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18:20)

JL: [Jn3:6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.]

If not born with original sin then by implication you are teaching everyone is immaculately conceived. Are infants naturally born of flesh or of the Spirit? If not naturally born of flesh then post scriptural evidence otherwise.

Every human being is born in old Adam=flesh and needs to be born again by water and of the Spirit into New Adam=Christ. Old Adam lost the indwelling Holy Spirit for all humanity. Original sin is a lack of the indwelling Holy Spirit which is restored by water and of the Spirit through water baptism.

1. confirmation performed with a single hand (Acts 19:6)

JL: When I was confirmed the bishop laid his hand on my head and my sponsor laid their hand on my shoulder, that’s more than one hand.

 

[steve-b]

In Mark 16:16, our Lord tells us: “whoever believes, and is baptized, will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”. However, in this statement there is a hidden question – “What exactly are we to believe”?

Believe is a huge word. Full of meaning.

When people claim “Jesus is Lord” yet when their life is examined, they don’t DO what Jesus says to do. So how is He Lord over their life?

When Jesus makes conditional statements, and people ignore those conditions, or do only what they want to do, how then is Jesus Lord?

zeland:

From the foregoing discussion we see that to be saved we must believe everything that Christ taught. Consider some things Protestants do not believe. They do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (John 6: 40-59; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29), they reject five of the seven sacraments that Christ instituted, including confession (forgiveness) of sins in the manner Christ prescribed (John 20: 19-23, and 2 Corinthians 5:18-12). They do not believe in Purgatory, even though Purgatory is well documented in both the Old and New Testament… etc. While they may claim to be believers, in reality they are only partial believers.

In general, Protestantism is based on numerous violations of scripture. For example, private interpretation of scripture is one of the principle tenets of Protestantism, but the Bible condemns such private interpretation. See: 2 Pet 1:20; 2 Peter 3:15-16. Also see: 2 Thessalonians 2:15; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Revelation 22:19, and Deuteronomy 4:2, and Proverbs 30:6; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

Objectively speaking, it appears that these non-believing “believers” will not be saved (Matthew 7:13-14). Notice I said objectively speaking. In the end, only God knows what a person understands.

One simple sentence made famous by John Henry Newman, a Protestant, while he was still a Protestant.

"to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant"

that’s a dangerous sentence

zeland:

Most Protestants believe what they believe, because this is what they have been told, or taught all their life, and they have never made an in-depth study of scripture to verify the correctness of what they have been taught. So they may not be totally responsible for the errors they believe.

The CCC puts ignorance and responsibility this way.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[gazelam]

JL: [Jn3:6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.]

I don’t think that the verse 6 phrase “born of the flesh” refers to a baby’s birth, but rather it’s saying that unrighteous acts lead us to become unholy/carnal, whereas becoming holy requires conversion and baptism.

If not born with original sin then by implication you are teaching everyone is immaculately conceived.

BINGO!! God does not charge children with the sins of their parents.

2 Kings 14:6
But their children he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD commanded: “Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for one’s own crimes shall a person be put to death.

Ezekiel 18:20 Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. Justice belongs to the just, and wickedness to the wicked.

 

[gazelam]

Are infants naturally born of flesh or of the Spirit? If not naturally born of flesh then post scriptural evidence otherwise.

Infants are clearly born from a mother of flesh and bones and are born with flesh and bone, but again, I believe the phrase “born of the flesh” refers to someone choosing sin over God.

There is no historical record of infant baptism occurring before 200AD.

Kurt Aland wrote…
It can be no accident… that all of our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between A.D. 200 and 250….For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before A.D. 200…. That our entire sources, at least when allowed their literal sense, have in view only the baptism of adults, or at best the baptism of older children, can as little be contested. (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, pp. 101, 102)

Everett Ferguson wrote…
There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it means that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations.
Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptisteries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it (Chrysostom and the Eastern churches vs. Augustine).
The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries.
In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became the reason for infant baptism in the western church. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pp. 856, 857)

1. confirmation performed with a single hand (Acts 19:6)

JL: When I was confirmed the bishop laid his hand on my head and my sponsor laid their hand on my shoulder, that’s more than one hand.

Acts 19:6 says Paul laid both his hands on the believers.

 

[gazelam]

[Acts9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.]

Nothing in this verse states that Paul stayed in Ananias’ house for the baptism. They easily could have traveled a very short distance to a body of water.

 

[jlhargus]

1. incorrect organization - Ephesians 4:11-13 says "_And he gave some as apostles,

JL: Can you name one of your apostels before the 1800? The bishops are apostles but the Church reserves the title apostle to the twelve. [Acts1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.]

[1Thes1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2:4 But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. 5 For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: 6 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.]

Silvanus and Timothy were not one of the twelve. Yet Paul calls Silvanus and Timothy apostles, along with himself, put in trust with the gospel. Scripture tells us Paul appointed Timothy and Titus as overseers=bishops=apostles.

[2Tm1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.]

Timothy was not an original apostle but given the grace gift authority of an apostle with laying on of hands of Paul. Both Timothy and Titus were appointed as overseers with the grace gift authority of an apostle, and could pass that grace gift authority on to others in an unbroken line. The authority of apostle has been passed on from apostles to bishops to bishops and will continue “until we all attain a unity of faith” .

[1Tm4:13 Till I come attend to reading to exhortation to doctrine. 14 Do not neglect the gift in you given you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery 16 take heed to yourself to the doctrine continue in them for in doing this you shalt both save yourself and those who hear you.]

[1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.]

[Titus2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.]

[Titus1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:]

 

[lilypadrees]

zeland:

Objectively speaking, it appears that these non-believing “believers” will not be saved (Matthew 7:13-14). Notice I said objectively speaking. In the end, only God knows what a person understands. Most Protestants believe what they believe, because this is what they have been told, or taught all their life, and they have never made an in-depth study of scripture to verify the correctness of what they have been taught. So they may not be totally responsible for the errors they believe.

The same goes for Catholics…

In any case, I would ask the following question. “Why take a chance on a man-made church, a man-made system of theology that for the last 500 years (from the time of Martin Luther) has produced one error upon another, an accumulation of hundreds of errors that has splintered into thousands of Protestant churches, teaching ideas that were never taught by the early church, or the apostles” (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Timothy 4:3-4)?

And why take a chance with the doctrinal errors in the Catholic Church?

If we are to be saved, we must accept all of Christ’s teachings, not just the ones we like. We cannot be cafeteria Christians – picking and choosing what we will believe or not believe. We cannot be Burger King Christians – having it our way. The last thing we should want to do, is leave this life singing “I Did It My Way”.

Agree.

Regarding all of the above, the same can be said for Mormons.

 

[zeland]

There are no doctrinal errors in the Catholic Church. If that were true, then Christ was not true to his word to keep his Church free from error (Matt 16-18-19). There is no conflict between what the church teaches and what the bible teaches. The Church wrote the New Testament, and assembled the entire bible, so it should know what the scriptures say. However, the doctrines of the Catholic Church will always disagree with your Protestant, private, incorrect interpretation of scripture. Do not follow the errors of the unwise (2 Peter 3:16-17)

 

[zeland]

Nothing in this verse states that Paul did not stay in Ananias’ house for the baptism

Your are making up stories out of thin air.

 

[zeland]

We are all born with original sin, See the following
Psalm 51:5 King James Version (KJV)

5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[jlhargus]

JL: When I was confirmed the bishop laid his hand on my head and my sponsor laid their hand on my shoulder, that’s more than one hand.

Every ordination I have seen the bishops lay both hands of also.

 

[gazelam]

Every ordination I have seen the bishops lay both hands of also.

CCC 1300 The essential rite of the sacrament follows. In the Latin rite, "the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: ‘Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti’ [Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.].