Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[bluelake]

Louemma, thanks for the smiley face. (Or was that a sneer?) Anyway, “RELIGEON” (spelled that way twice) is what exactly? Is it your particular brand of “religion”?

Could be a typo. get over it!

 

[Abu]

bluelake
We are not to judge one another, Mt.7;1-5

Correct, re personal guilt before God. We are commanded to judge everything – writings, speech, actions, against Christ’s truth through His Church. Do you?

 

[Beth_Martin]

Hi Beth!

I think we will save discussion about the Immutable God interacting with His mutable creation for another day.

I also think that once you come to appreciate the role of baptism in the economy of salvation, you’ll see baptism being pictured by Paul’s language even when the word “baptism” is not mentioned.

We believe that Paul was saved when he was baptized and received the Holy Spirit, having been “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5).

In Acts 9 we have:

Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus Who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized… (vv. 17-18)

In Acts 22 we have:

Ananias… came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know His will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from His mouth; for you will be a witness for Him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His Name.’ (vv. 12-16)

What happens when we put these two passages together is that we see that Ananias laid hands on Paul, Paul received his physical sight back, and he “saw him.” But even after Paul had hands laid on him and he had regained his sight, his sins were not forgiven (see the account of chapter 22), and hence he had not yet received the Holy Spirit unto salvation. Therefore, when Ananias says that he was sent to Paul so that he may regain his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit, we believe that the laying on of hands, in this case, was for a physical healing (cf. Acts 9:12), and that his baptism following after this coincided with his reception of the Holy Spirit, bringing the forgiveness of sins.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

If everything that the Roman Catholic Church taught were true…

That is great and great impositionon the text to fit your belief, but I disagree with your interpretation because I know the nature of God, including how one is saved, and I know He does not change and I have already shown that Paul was converted prior to water baptism as all Christians are as the Scripture teaches; otherwise God is the God of change and He says He does not change; only people do.

Let us assume for a second you are correct, then we now have contradictions in Scripture and either one believes the Scripture contradicts itself or we do not. If we do not believe contradictions exist, then we must examine our own understanding as to what God has said and what He meant.

For example on water baptism;
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. - if water baptism is necessary to wash away sins, then why would Paul deemphasize water baptism? He wouldn’t because Paul knew water baptism was not a part of salvation.

These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. 13 "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14 and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 **"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”** -Acts 11

What are the words that save “water baptism” or perhaps “the gospel”? What do you think God meant? What is the “gift” in this passage? Salvation!! praise the Lord! This is but one of several examples which directly contradict your belief that water baptism removes sins unless you also believe the Bible contradicts itself and also believe that God is the God of change.

That is your choice; I have already made mine and I am so certain of my own salvation; it is as though I am already in heaven and from God’s eyes; I am. It is based on obedience and knowing God deeply and intimately through His Word, which is truth and His truth sanctifies the Christian as Jesus said. If more Christians spent more time in Scripture; they would know God more deeply for it is the Book He gave to us to know Him. It is an extraordinary or supernatural book because it is the “living Word”

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

 

[inkaneer]

You gave a great example in John 6:54 and how one takes and lobs without looking at the entire context because verse 63; Jesus Himself gives the disciples the explanation as to what He meant. The people that took it as literal all walked away in unbelief; the ones that took the “spirit and truth” are the ones who stayed. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

You, of course, make the same mistake every protestant makes. You equate Jesus saying, “My words are spirit” as meaning He was speaking figuratively, not literally. But that is not the case for two reasons. First the Jews and His own disciples did take him literally and they were correct in doing so. BUT [and this is important] they took Him to be speaking materially. And why not? The manna was indeed material food. It was food for the body and it sustained the Jews in the wilderness. But Jesus wasn’t speaking of MATERIAL food. He was speaking of SPIRITUAL food. That’s why He said His words were spirit. Secondly, His own disciples walked away from Him. Now everytime Jesus spoke a parable He always explained it to His disciples. But here Jesus knows that His disciples understood Him to be speaking literally about material food but Jesus does not say to them its a parable or I was speaking figuratively. No, He does not correct their understanding of Him literally He only corrects their understanding of Him materially. If Jesus was only speaking figuratively as you claim then Jesus as a Rabbi, a teacher, allowed his students to walk away knowing they misunderstood Him and that would be a sin. NOW did Jesus commit that sin? According to you, He did.

 

[inkaneer]

The scripture records the disciples saying that what Jesus just told them was harsh. I’m sure they did not understand it. Peter seems to have some hint as he equates Jesus words with eternal life. Even at the Last Supper when Jesus takes the bread and says the blessing and tells them to do it in rememberance of Him the Apostles probably did not fully understand it. Even on the day of His resurrection the two disciples on the road to Emaus did not understand it completely. But on the day of Pentecost when they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, then they understood. The early church understood too. In fact they understood a lot better than protestants do today. As early as 110 AD we find Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of Antioch and a disciple of the Apostle John writing to the Smyrnaeans and saying this:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Now this is a man who was a student of John the Apostle. Did he get it wrong? Did Jesus’ church go astray in just 10 years after the last Apostle died? That of course is something Jesus said would never happen so I guess the real question here is, why are you calling Jesus a liar?

Let’s move on, shall we? Justin Martyr in the year 151 AD wrote:

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Did Justin Martyr take Jesus words figuratively? Doesn’t look like it does it? Let’s go on.

Irenaeus

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

See a pattern here? There’s a lot more but I’ll just post one more, Cyprian of Carthage in 2521 AD wrote:

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Even the renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, acknowledges that the early church did not believe anything like the protestants do. He writes:

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).*

 

[Abu]

Great post inkaneer. By ignoring the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, our separated brethren are ignoring Christ’s teaching.

**Long Spiritual Journey Home
The story of the conversion of a philosopher **(cont.)
By William Doino
insidethevatican.com:80/newsflash/2008/newsflash-jan07-08.htm

Francis Beckworth’s experience at Fordham was entirely positive, having a profound impact on his intellectual development. Among Beckwith’s teachers were some of the finest philosophic minds in American Catholicism: W. Norris Clarke, Gerald McCool and Quentin Lauer, Jesuit priests all. They gave him a deep appreciation of the underpinnings of Catholic theology, helping formulate his views on God, the human person, and the natural moral law. Francis never clashed with any of his Catholic professors, as most everything he learned was consistent with Evangelical Christianity. More, his teachers welcomed Evangelicals into their class, precisely because they knew they took their faith seriously.

The first real sign that Beckwith’s views were shifting was an article he wrote for Touchstone magazine in 2005, entitled “Vatican Bible School: What John Paul II Can Teach Evangelicals,” a celebration of John Paul’s encyclical, Fides et Ratio: On the Relationship between Faith and Reason. In it, Beckwith urged Evangelicals to embrace “the Pope’s insights on how certain philosophies will, because of their own internal logic, undermine confidence in the truth of the Gospel message.” Treating John Paul as a brother in Christ, indeed one of the world’s eminent Christian leaders, Beckwith continued: “The Pope is interested in saving souls, and he understands that bad philosophy, if not challenged by good philosophy, will make the Church’s soul-saving more difficult.”

Early the following year, Beckwith attended a conference on “John Paul II and Philosophy” at Boston College, delivering a paper which incorporated many of his Touchstone article’s insights. He argued that Protestants who questioned Christianity’s early creeds, as defined in the major Church Councils, held “to an incoherent point of view on faith, reason, and the nature of the Christian university.” At the end of his address, Laura Garcia, a BC philosophy professor, and herself a Catholic convert from Evangelicalism, asked Beckwith a simple question: “Frank, why aren’t you a Catholic yourself?”

A short time later, he purchased a copy of *Truth and Tolerance *by Joseph Ratzinger, who just recently had been elected Pope Benedict XVI. Studying the text, he became more and more impressed with its wisdom, and found the Pope’s Christian teachings compatible with his own.

Beckwith’s study of early Church Fathers, as well as his readings of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI, not only brought him to the doorstep of the Church, but convinced him that "the Reformation doctrine on forensic justification was really a novelty, historically.

The Reformation was a religious tragedy and shocked the Catholic Church to its very core; but to the extent the Reformers helped bring about the Council of Trent – “a marvelous document,” insists Beckwith – one might see it as a welcome challenge, ushering in the Catholic Reformation.

“I would never have predicted,” says Professor Beckwith, gratefully, “that it would take a professorship at the world’s largest Baptist University in the heart of Texas to bring us in contact with a godly priest who would help guide us into the Catholic Church.”

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

I am wondering about all those Christians who died before there was a Bible available to read…out of luck were they?

It sure looks like the baptist would be totally lost without the bible.

Matthew

 

[Beth_Martin]

Hi Susan!

The Bible says that baptism saves us: “Baptism… now saves you… through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 3:21). Baptism is the sacrament of faith. When we talk about initial salvation, we do not see it as being faith over here and baptism over there. We see it as the two uniting as one to receive the grace of God to become His children. It is at baptism where our Father says, “today I have begotten you” (Luke 3:22). This is where we “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:15).

In Acts 16, Paul tells the jailor to “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (vs. 31). In response to this, Luke tells us that “he was baptized at once” (vs. 33). And in summary of what had happened, Luke comes back around to tell us that “he had believed in God” (vs. 34). What we see happening here is the sacrament of baptism being freely interchanged with believing in the Lord Jesus. This is why believing in Jesus is not mentioned in Acts 2:38 and in the great commission of Matthew 28:19. Baptism is being used in such places to sacramentally represent faith and to lead us to understand that faith is received and made effectual in baptism. This is why baptism is not mentioned in Romans 10 and Ephesians 2. To mention faith alone suffices, understanding the relationship between the two. Augustine wrote that “As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith” (Letter 98).

This is why Vatican II can say that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio). When the Catholic Church refers to being “justified by faith in baptism,” it is talking about the fact that baptism bestows upon us the Catholic faith. This is the meaning of Trent when it says that faith is infused in us in baptism. This is what Pope Clement VI meant when he spoke of those “who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith” (Enchiridion Symbolorum, 570a).

If your baptism was valid, then we believe that you were saved at that point and that you received the Catholic faith. Until you become a heretic, schismatic, or are excommunicated, we believe that you are Catholic, and we hope that you will remain Catholic until you die. We hope that you will follow the grace of God leading you to fellowship and worship with us!

But we also believe that Christians can lose their salvation by committing a mortal sin. However, only the mortal sins of heresy, schism, and apostasy place us outside the Church. All other mortal sins cause us to lose our salvation, it is true; but in these cases, we are still considered to be “in the Church.”

I may not have time to reply to you and Beth any more if either of you respond. I’d like to find the time to first reply to XBaptist’s concerns. And posting on here can be time consuming! I have a family to love! But I wish you both the mercy of God in your lives! You can also email me if you have any questions that you’d really like answered (as best as I can by the grace of God) at pholter@amrl.net.

As with everything I post, “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

With love in Christ,
Pete

You left out the important part "not the removal of dirt from the flesh"-Peter is telling readers that he is not refering to “water baptism”.

John answered and said to them all, ***"As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit ***and fire. -----Luke 3 This is what Peter has in mind; the HS immersion which comes to those who come to God with a true heart of repentance, which is the “appeal to God for a good conscience” in 1 Peter 3 and it is based on , as Peter continues on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If there was any passage that should dimiss any notion of saving grace and water baptism, you picked a very good one.

The message of salvation is not difficult; you realize after hearing the gospel that there is nothing in you worthy of God’s holy standard, you see yourself as a wretched sinner who needs saving, you cry out to God for help in good conscience or pure heart, you are mournful over your sin against God and upon belieivng you immediately receive the Holy Spirit who seals the believer till the day of one’s full redemption. You are pernmanently loosed from your sins because God imputes the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner which the sinner could never achieve on their own. The result will be a regenerate life because it is now Christ living through you, not the “old man”. The Bible says the Christian is no longer his/her own; he/she has been bought with a price.

You may think you can run, turn your back on Him and hide, but God will do to the disobedient Christian like He did to Jonah which was to chasten him back into His will or the narrow path.

 

[Beth_Martin]

I am wondering about all those Christians who died before there was a Bible available to read…out of luck were they?

You sound jealous of SavedLady because she has the assurance you desire. I will bet that Saved Lady knows that she fully understands the road she is on; that wide path is for the religious, the narrow path is for the Christian.

But you do make a point that it would be the greatest of tragedies to believe one is a Christian only to find out after it is too late that one was not. Assurance of ones salvation comes from the Holy Spirit and is outwardly shown by a regenerate life stemming from obedience to God and a deep understanding and relationship with Jesus.

Beth

 

[Beth_Martin]

I would like to make one comment with all this talk about Bibles. You only need to explore when and where the bible came into being to see who the Holy Spirit was guiding in the early life of the Church. It is documented who the church was. Please just investigate this and you will start to find the whole truth.

Good advice, wish people would. They might see the finger of God.

Beth

 

[Beth_Martin]

It sounds like you are saying that the order of Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 mirrors the order of the words in Acts 10? Actually, I’m not really sure what you are saying. But the order of events expected by Peter in 2:38 is for the people to repent and be baptized first, so that upon this happening they would receive the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins; but the opposite of this expectation happened in Acts 10. This is one reason why we understand the episode in Acts 10 to be exceptional.

In Chapter 11 of Acts in Codex Bezae, Peter’s rhetorical question to the circumcision party indicates that he thinks that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is given in baptism: “If then [God] gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God that I should not give them the Holy Spirit when they believed on Him?” (v. 17) Augustine’s text of Acts had a similar reading:

And when Peter afterwards was giving an account to the brethren that were at Jerusalem of this act of his, that he had baptized those who were not circumcised, because the Holy Spirit, to cut the knot of the question, had come upon them before they were baptized, and the brethren at Jerusalem were moved when they heard it, he says, after the rest of his words, “And when I began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us in the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, that John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, He gave a like gift to them, as also to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could hinder God from giving to them the Holy Spirit?” (On the Trinity, Bk. 15).

In these versions, Peter sees baptism as the means of giving the Holy Spirit in a way different from the preceding falling of the Spirit upon them. Had he withheld baptism, he would have been withholding the Holy Spirit and “withstanding” or “hindering” God. If the meaning laid bare by these elaborations is the true meaning implicit in the shorter reading of 11:17, then the falling of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles that happened prior to their baptism, and which caused them to speak in tongues and praise God (cf. Acts 10:46), was a work of the Spirit apart from the regenerating effect of His indwelling presence. The initial falling of the Spirit on the Gentiles, if taken in this sense, would be akin to the Spirit of God coming upon certain Old Testament figures (cf. Judges 15:14, 1 Sam 19:23; 2 Chron 20:14, etc.). Therefore, Peter, upon seeing this Gentile-affirming work of the Spirit, baptized them so that they could receive the indwelling Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, and become children of God.

The other solution is to say that God baptized in this instance apart from human agency because the Church was unclear as to her mission. So that once this initial outpouring occurred, and it was known that God was sending Christians to both Jews and Gentiles, then the normative means of baptism would be employed. This transition from the extraordinary, unmediated form to the ordinary, sacramental form would then be signified by Peter completing the rite of baptism even though the grace of baptism had already been received. Following this understanding, Peter’s meaning when he says, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” is that the people should be baptized using water because they miraculously received the grace of baptism in anticipation of a baptism that would not have been offered had it not been anticipated.

We believe that the Holy Spirit commingles Himself with the waters of baptism in accordance with the word of blessing, “I baptize you…”, and that He washes away our sin in accordance with the symbolic washing effect of the physical water used. When Jesus commanded His apostles to baptize, He was commanding them to baptize with water using the Trinitarian formula. When we invoke God’s Name and apply water to the body, then Jesus, being faithful to His word of promise, baptizes us inwardly at the same time with “rivers of living water” (John 7:38), His sanctifying Spirit; we believe that this is how we are “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5), which is “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). We apply the water and Jesus applies His Spirit, and this is how we understand Jesus to be the one who baptizes “with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 3:16). And this is why we say, Come to the water!

Thank you for your blessing, Beth. In terms of your general hermeneutic, I think that it is a safer progression to start with the explanatory teaching of the apostles, and move from there to understand the individual episodes in light of that. It seems like you might be taking an opposite approach, which will be a very difficult path to safely navigate.

With love in Christ,
Pete

Pete,

No disrespect, but we are polar opposites when it comes to doctrine and biblical understanding of such. Thanks for the sentiments and the Catholic teaching as stated above…Beth

 

[Des]

Wasn’t St. Augustine one of the prominent proponents of predestination? Or are you disowning him now?

St. Augustine was a wise fellow that gave alot of deep thought and insight into certain truths professed by the Church. However, you’ll be hard pressed to find any Catholic or the Church for that matter to ever have proclaimed any of the ‘Doctor’s of the Church’ to always be without error. But I’m sure you already know this and to be honest, it makes your post above quite silly to make in the first place.

For example on water baptism;
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. - if water baptism is necessary to wash away sins, then why would Paul deemphasize water baptism? He wouldn’t because Paul knew water baptism was not a part of salvation.

Merely your stating that Paul deemphasized water Baptism doesn’t make it so. On the contrary, nothing in that verse implies that Baptism wasn’t important if you understand the roles of certain individuals. Few had the gift to preach the Gospel where on the other hand, Baptizing someone could be done by many Presbyters or Deacons of the Church. Paul had a gift to get people willfully ready for entrance into the Church through Baptism. Your problem Beth is you ignore Tradition and interpret snippets from the Bible without the grand picture. This has obviously lead you into error and will continue to do so.

These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. 13 "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14 and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” -Acts 11

What are the words that save “water baptism” or perhaps “the gospel”? What do you think God meant? What is the “gift” in this passage? Salvation!! praise the Lord! This is but one of several examples which directly contradict your belief that water baptism removes sins unless you also believe the Bible contradicts itself and also believe that God is the God of change.

The verse you used in red means that John did indeed only Baptise with water as a preparation for the real thing. You see, after the Resurrection, even though water will still be used (Scriptural), it will now be the Holy Spirit working through this property. It’s the physical means which God chose to do this. Very simple and easy to understand actually.

You left out the important part “not the removal of dirt from the flesh”-Peter is telling readers that he is not referring to “water baptism”.

Read the entire verse in context. He’s telling us that the one being Baptised has to have a good conscience towards his love for God and His Will first and foremost. Without this, the water would be like washing away dirt from the body only so He’s making sure he’s placing the emphasis on their conscience and their wanting to be a Christian. When an adult gets Baptised, unlike an infant, he must be a willing participant. This is nitty gritty so to speak, of that verse.

John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. -----Luke 3 This is what Peter has in mind; the HS immersion which comes to those who come to God with a true heart of repentance, which is the “appeal to God for a good conscience” in 1 Peter 3 and it is based on , as Peter continues on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If there was any passage that should dismiss any notion of saving grace and water baptism, you picked a very good one.

Not at all. Because again, John was preparing for the real thing. You see, the element of water was still to be used or John’s preparation would have been useless. The missing ingredient was Christ who through His own death and Resurrection, would Baptise us with the Holy Spirit but again, with water as the physical property which this Grace of God was to be conferred.

You sound jealous of SavedLady because she has the assurance you desire. I will bet that Saved Lady knows that she fully understands the road she is on; that wide path is for the religious, the narrow path is for the Christian.

Someone feeling secure about their Salvation doesn’t make it truth Beth. No Catholic here is jealous of Savedlady but I will be the first to admit that I feel sorry for her for rejecting the necessary Sacraments of Christ that WILL save her, if she should ever accept them.

 

[Beth_Martin]

St. Augustine was a wise fellow that gave alot of deep thought and insight into certain truths professed by the Church. However, you’ll be hard pressed to find any Catholic or the Church for that matter to ever have proclaimed any of the ‘Doctor’s of the Church’ to always be without error. But I’m sure you already know this and to be honest, it makes your post above quite silly to make in the first place.

In a previous post of mine I posted that unless you were actually speaking with those; that leaves one to pick and choose what to believe (I like this so I’ll keep it and I did not like what one said here so I will reject it) and form opinions as to what they meant - we see this revisionist history with our own countries founding fathers) Scripture is different in that it will validate itself for many reasons one is because it is the Living Word, God breathed. In my opinion once you leave the Bible to interpret the Bible, then you have given up the task of the Holy Spirit to that of men and you open the pandora’s box and anything can and does go. That is just my own opinion, which means nothing.

Merely your stating that Paul deemphasized water Baptism doesn’t make it so. On the contrary, nothing in that verse implies that Baptism wasn’t important if you understand the roles of certain individuals. Few had the gift to preach the Gospel where on the other hand, Baptizing someone could be done by many Presbyters or Deacons of the Church. Paul had a gift to get people willfully ready for entrance into the Church through Baptism. Your problem Beth is you ignore Tradition and interpret snippets from the Bible without the grand picture. This has obviously lead you into error and will continue to do so.

So impose on the text because something isn’t there rather than focusing on what is there and there is no way Paul would deemphasize salvation and its requirements, but he did deemphasize water baptism.

The verse you used in red means that John did indeed only Baptise with water as a preparation for the real thing. You see, after the Resurrection, even though water will still be used (Scriptural), it will now be the Holy Spirit working through this property. It’s the physical means which God chose to do this. Very simple and easy to understand actually.

No where in the Bible does it state this why must you impose on the text and not read John the Baptist’s point, which is what I do is prepare what Jesus does is the real thing, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon hearing and and believing the gospel, the very thing Paul emphasized above.

Read the entire verse in context. He’s telling us that the one being Baptised has to have a good conscience towards his love for God and His Will first and foremost. Without this, the water would be like washing away dirt from the body only so He’s making sure he’s placing the emphasis on their conscience and their wanting to be a Christian. When an adult gets Baptised, unlike an infant, he must be a willing participant. This is nitty gritty so to speak, of that verse.

I have read the context in light of the whole NT and if you cannot see clearly that Peter is explicitly telling the reader he is not speaking of water baptism, then what can Peter & the HS say to open your eyes to the passage? It would also mean that God is the God of change.

Not at all. Because again, John was preparing for the real thing. You see, the element of water was still to be used or John’s preparation would have been useless. The missing ingredient was Christ who through His own death and Resurrection, would Baptise us with the Holy Spirit but again, with water as the physical property which this Grace of God was to be conferred.

No where in Scripture to be found as mentioned above.

Someone feeling secure about their Salvation doesn’t make it truth Beth. No Catholic here is jealous of Savedlady but I will be the first to admit that I feel sorry for her for rejecting the necessary Sacraments of Christ that WILL save her, if she should ever accept them.

Read the conversation between the two and it is obvious. If you are correct about the neccessity of the sacraments for salvation as a teaching of Catholicism, then it makes sense of your interpretations of the Bible. What I do not get it I came across recently something to the effect that Muslims can be saved apart from the sacraments because the “worship” the god of Abraham; seems to me a perfect example of the pandoras box of anything can and does goes and is applied to and fro.

Good dialogue and God bless!!

Beth

 

[Des]

In a previous post of mine I posted that unless you were actually speaking with those; that leaves one to pick and choose what to believe (I like this so I’ll keep it and I did not like what one said here so I will reject it) and form opinions as to what they meant - we see this revisionist history with our own countries founding fathers) Scripture is different in that it will validate itself for many reasons one is because it is the Living Word, God breathed.

I disagree. Scripture are words that need to be interpreted. One has to go back to the original language many times to attempt at the proper context of the meaning the writer is trying to convey to the faithful. Sounds like you make yourself out to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture or your own little Pope Beth. And if this is not the case, then you really have no authority to preach or to interpret with assurance.

In my opinion once you leave the Bible to interpret the Bible, then you have given up the task of the Holy Spirit to that of men and you open the pandora’s box and anything can and does go. That is just my own opinion, which means nothing.

This is quite the statement since you feel the Holy Spirit cannot lead a group of men into certain truths making everything they say ‘the teachings of men’. However, if you and other individuals (so long as you’re bible only believers) attempt to interpret, then that’s another matter. It no longer becomes the teaching of men, rather the Holy Spirit talking through you. It’s extremely thick with irony.

So impose on the text because something isn’t there rather than focusing on what is there and there is no way Paul would deemphasize salvation and its requirements, but he did deemphasize water baptism.

Actually, since you seemed to think that this verse is ‘proof’ for your claim, you really have to show us where Paul says Baptism is not important. It’s just not there. It’s a fallacious argument where your premise is not very well constructed but is based on an already pre-disposed position taught to you by someone other than yourself. Basically, you go into the text with your own idea what it doesn’t say, therefore Paul ‘must’ be deemphasizing it.

No where in the Bible does it state this why must you impose on the text and not read John the Baptist’s point, which is what I do is prepare what Jesus does is the real thing, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon hearing and and believing the gospel, the very thing Paul emphasized above.

The only imposing is being done by yourself Beth. You made the claim that because John said ‘He will baptise with the Holy Spirit’ that it removes the connection with water. So prove it. You’ve already been shown that there was a direct correlation between the water saving the 8 from Noah’s time and Baptism. As I said before,the verse goes nicely with Catholic teaching regarding Baptism.

I have read the context in light of the whole NT and if you cannot see clearly that Peter is explicitly telling the reader he is not speaking of water baptism, then what can Peter & the HS say to open your eyes to the passage?

You are a fallible human being. Because you say the text is saying something doesn’t mean it’s saying it. This is precisely the reason there are so many protestant faiths in this world. Perhaps you believe the Holy Spirit is a teacher of contradiction? Now, we both disagree and both feel the Holy Spirit has lead us to different conclusions. How is this to be solved since the Bible alone clearly isn’t going to help here.

Read the conversation between the two and it is obvious.

I’m sorry but are you saying he’s seriously jealous with her?

If you are correct about the neccessity of the sacraments for salvation as a teaching of Catholicism, then it makes sense of your interpretations of the Bible. What I do not get it I came across recently something to the effect that Muslims can be saved apart from the sacraments because the “worship” the god of Abraham; seems to me a perfect example of the pandoras box of anything can and does goes and is applied to and fro.

It’s sort of like the little paradox regarding Jesus when it says:

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.”

Unless of course you condemn every old Testament figure to Hell because they had not heard of Jesus. Or even condem every person post Christianity to Hell simply because the Gospel hadn’t yet reached their ears.

 

[Beth_Martin]

I disagree. Scripture are words that need to be interpreted. One has to go back to the original language many times to attempt at the proper context of the meaning the writer is trying to convey to the faithful. Sounds like you make yourself out to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture or your own little Pope Beth. And if this is not the case, then you really have no authority to preach or to interpret with assurance.

What does the Scripture say; that interpretation is not of mans will, but of the Holy Spirit working through men. I doubt the Pope has much time to study the Scripture given his schedule and focus on all the other doctrines of the church much less expositing the word of God to his flock. So who is the true interpreter; not a man or men, but the Holy Spirit working through the person. Why does the Bible declare that the natural man (sigular) cannot understand the things of God they are foolishness to him? But he (singular) who is spiritual appraises all things. Who is spiritual but the one who has received the Holy Spirit, the Christian, which are few in number compared to the many according to Matthew 7.

This is quite the statement since you feel the Holy Spirit cannot lead a group of men into certain truths making everything they say ‘the teachings of men’. However, if you and other individuals (so long as you’re bible only believers) attempt to interpret, then that’s another matter. It no longer becomes the teaching of men, rather the Holy Spirit talking through you. It’s extremely thick with irony.

See above; notice how it is foolishness to you personally; there is some irony!!

Actually, since you seemed to think that this verse is ‘proof’ for your claim, you really have to show us where Paul says Baptism is not important. It’s just not there. It’s a fallacious argument where your premise is not very well constructed but is based on an already pre-disposed position taught to you by someone other than yourself. Basically, you go into the text with your own idea what it doesn’t say, therefore Paul ‘must’ be deemphasizing it.

What I said was that Paul never deemphasized the salvation aspect, but he did deemphasize water baptism; you cannot argue with the facts. You can turn peoples words into what you want. Paul never said it was not important because it is a command from the Lord. He never associted it and said it was a work one must perform to be saved because Paul knew the message of the gospel it what brings men to salvation.

The only imposing is being done by yourself Beth. You made the claim that because John said ‘He will baptise with the Holy Spirit’ that it removes the connection with water. So prove it. You’ve already been shown that there was a direct correlation between the water saving the 8 from Noah’s time and Baptism. As I said before,the verse goes nicely with Catholic teaching regarding Baptism.

There you go again Des, twisting words to fit your misguided thoughts. Your fallacy asking Jesus to prove something He did not say in relation to salvation is on your head. Did water save the 8 or did the ark, which represents the sealing of the saved by the Spirit of God? Wasn’t the water the part that killed every living thing on earth? Sounds like the water, you make to be saving, more of a judgment. I believe it is said that those who are saved and sealed by the Holy Spirtit escape the wrath to come. Some similarity wouldn’t you say. "and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, {that is} Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come. Just as the ark saved the eight from the wrath of the WATER. Get the picture yet?

You are a fallible human being. Because you say the text is saying something doesn’t mean it’s saying it. This is precisely the reason there are so many protestant faiths in this world. Perhaps you believe the Holy Spirit is a teacher of contradiction? Now, we both disagree and both feel the Holy Spirit has lead us to different conclusions. How is this to be solved since the Bible alone clearly isn’t going to help here.

First, you cannot be lead by the Holy Spirit because the interpretation cannot be done by individuals and as far as I know, you are an individual. Of course the Bible has shown you differently, but you said that was irony, but the Bible showed you your irony. So the only contradiction left is your own.

It’s sort of like the little paradox regarding Jesus when it says:

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.”

Unless of course you condemn every old Testament figure to Hell because they had not heard of Jesus. Or even condem every person post Christianity to Hell simply because the Gospel hadn’t yet reached their ears.

So you admit the pandora’s box is open; you just could not say it directly, but of course those who have heard of Jesus, such as the Muslims, but do not believe He is deity can be saved apart from Jesus; talk about contradicting God. See how the pandora’s box is spreading through our dialogue already once you leave the Word of God? As for those who truly have not heard or know anything about Jesus, doesn’t the Bible make it clear as to how God determines His mercy or justice upon those?

Des, don’t take things personally but you will always be arguing against the truth of God which no one, including myself, could ever win and it is not about winning but of understanding and loving the Lord who gave Himself for all. I know, I use to think I knew better than He.

God bless you dear!!

Beth

 

[Tomb54]

I believe all of this from the Bible, but It still does not say that Baptism saves you. Again Romans 10:13 says, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. period.
If Baptism saves you, why was it posted that not one non-catholic will go to Heaven?
I was saved, and then baptised so why will I not go to Heaven? I am not Catholic. I am going to Heaven because I believe what the Bible says.
Your Sister in Christ,
Susan

The devil also believes what the bible says which is why he tries to lead us away from it. Does this mean he is going to heaven because he believes what it says? By the logic above you have to reach this conclusion.

One thing the Church teaches on Baptism and believing in the Bible if you are Baptize in the name of the Trinity with water you are being baptized into the Catholic Church – whether you believe this or not this is the Body of Christ here on earth. Also if you believe in the bible you are believing in the book that the Holy Spirit gave to the Catholic Church through the work of the Catholic Church in compiling this book. So you might be in heresy to the beliefs of the catholic church but you do to some degree believe in part of the truth of the CC.

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. Didache (teachings of the Apostles written 50 to 100AD)
This was written as instructions for the early church see if it agrees with your beliefs of what Baptism is. I think it is clear water is needed.

 

[Tomb54]

What does the Scripture say; that interpretation is not of mans will, but of the Holy Spirit working through men. I doubt the Pope has much time to study the Scripture given his schedule and focus on all the other doctrines of the church much less expositing the word of God to his flock. So who is the true interpreter; not a man or men, but the Holy Spirit working through the person. Why does the Bible declare that the natural man (sigular) cannot understand the things of God they are foolishness to him? But he (singular) who is spiritual appraises all things. Who is spiritual but the one who has received the Holy Spirit, the Christian, which are few in number compared to the many according to Matthew 7.

First, you cannot be lead by the Holy Spirit because the interpretation cannot be done by individuals and as far as I know, you are an individual. Of course the Bible has shown you differently, but you said that was irony, but the Bible showed you your irony. So the only contradiction left is your own.

So you admit the pandora’s box is open; you just could not say it directly, but of course those who have heard of Jesus, such as the Muslims, but do not believe He is deity can be saved apart from Jesus; talk about contradicting God. See how the pandora’s box is spreading through our dialogue already once you leave the Word of God? As for those who truly have not heard or know anything about Jesus, doesn’t the Bible make it clear as to how God determines His mercy or justice upon those?

Des, don’t take things personally but you will always be arguing against the truth of God which no one, including myself, could ever win and it is not about winning but of understanding and loving the Lord who gave Himself for all. I know, I use to think I knew better than He.

God bless you dear!!

Beth

I see no pandora’s box here if you take the whole picture of both old and new testament as the CC teaches and the church of Christ it is stated that the Word of God (both written and oral as the bible states) was give to the leaders of the church so they might guide their flock and protect them from the wolves to come after. Jesus also states that His church will survive even against the powers of hell. So this says that the Holy Spirit will guide His Church so it will not need people to interpret individually and it will help them understand the bible because they can be confused if they read it individually with no guidance. There are a few other verse that support this leadership role of the Church and is often stated also in the early Church writings if you care to research it.

For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God[c] which He purchased with His own blood.

 

[Des]

What does the Scripture say; that interpretation is not of mans will, but of the Holy Spirit working through men. I doubt the Pope has much time to study the Scripture given his schedule and focus on all the other doctrines of the church much less expositing the word of God to his flock.

You don’t get to be Pope without knowing your Scriptures well. There is 2000 years of rich wisdom from the Church Councils, Doctors, Saints, Bishops etc, who has passed on their knowledge through the ages. It’s not like He just picks up the Scriptures one day and tries to figure it all out by himself. That would be absurd.

So who is the true interpreter; not a man or men, but the Holy Spirit working through the person.

Of course the true interpreter is the Holy Spirit. But only within the confines of the Magisterium of the Church that gets the final say since it’s the Holy Spirit leading Her into all truths. For you and other sS to sit back and preach the Gospel according to how you ‘feel’ a certain verse is saying is what has caused your many divisions. And when you do come to a road block where two of you disagree, who’s going to settle the argument. My 3 non denominational friends disagree with your once saved always saved doctrine. How are you going to resolve the truth of this matter so that you may spread the true Gospel according to Christ? More study and more disagreements? I don’t think so. You’ll be flip flopping to each others POV like a fish out of water.

What I said was that Paul never deemphasized the salvation aspect, but he did deemphasize water baptism; you cannot argue with the facts.

Yes I know what you said and I’m rejecting it because you have no facts to back it up with. It sounds to me if you read just above that passage that Paul was in fact doing many Baptisms. If this was not important and His preaching was, then He’d never have done them to begin with now would He. But he was making a point that He was not a baptismal minister only but had a very special and unique role as a Servant of Christ which of course was preaching the Gospel. Baptism was still a must and He never once suggested that it wasn’t as much as you claim there are facts there to back this up. Again, there are zero facts.

You can turn peoples words into what you want. Paul never said it was not important because it is a command from the Lord. He never associted it and said it was a work one must perform to be saved because Paul knew the message of the gospel it what brings men to salvation.

This doesn’t make sense to me. You just said prior to this that Paul deemphasized Baptism yet now you’re saying He wasn’t saying this since it was a commandment of Jesus.

Did water save the 8 or did the ark, which represents the sealing of the saved by the Spirit of God? Wasn’t the water the part that killed every living thing on earth? Sounds like the water, you make to be saving, more of a judgment.

What does the Bible say as plain as day Beth. Amazingly when something is spelled out so clearly in Scripture that refutes your argument, you still won’t see it. Notice it doesn’t say they were saved by the Ark. I wouldn’t think it would be too hard for the writer to replace the word Water with Ark now would it. But He didn’t and didn’t on purpose.

20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.

Noah and His family now represented a new and righteous humanity. Water had done away with the old corrupt one and started the world anew with a righteous one. Just as the Holy Spirit regenerates us through the waters of Baptism.

I believe it is said that those who are saved and sealed by the Holy Spirtit escape the wrath to come. Some similarity wouldn’t you say. "and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, {that is} Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come. Just as the ark saved the eight from the wrath of the WATER. Get the picture yet?

I can’t get your picture simply because you paint a wrong one. The verse speaks of water being the element doing the saving both in Noah’s case as with Baptism. It never mentioned any Ark but you seem to be struggling with this verse to the point where you’re dying to make the water miraculously mean the Ark and Christ. It said saved by water and connected it to Baptism which also includes water when it’s performed on an individual.

First, you cannot be lead by the Holy Spirit because the interpretation cannot be done by individuals and as far as I know, you are an individual. Of course the Bible has shown you differently, but you said that was irony, but the Bible showed you your irony. So the only contradiction left is your own.

This doesn’t even make sense.

 

[Des]

So you admit the pandora’s box is open; you just could not say it directly, but of course those who have heard of Jesus, such as the Muslims, but do not believe He is deity can be saved apart from Jesus;

Merely hearing doesn’t mean Jesus is ready to open the truth to them. That is between Christ and them. It’s the same position God holds you to. You hear the message about the Church yet reject her. Are you totally ignorant of this fact. Has God lead you to Her yet your pride rejects the Bride of Christ. Only He knows that answer. But I will not judge you, the way you do with over one billion Muslims and other non Christian faiths of the world.

talk about contradicting God. See how the pandora’s box is spreading through our dialogue already once you leave the Word of God? As for those who truly have not heard or know anything about Jesus, doesn’t the Bible make it clear as to how God determines His mercy or justice upon those?

The point of the paradox is that it says one thing about Christ where it seems to leave no option. “Believe and be saved”. However there is still an option when all is said and done. This doesn’t mean to stop proclaiming the truth of God. That is always a must and as a Catholic, there is a certainty with the Sacraments where there is none without them.

Des, don’t take things personally but you will always be arguing against the truth of God which no one, including myself, could ever win and it is not about winning but of understanding and loving the Lord who gave Himself for all. I know, I use to think I knew better than He.

Beth, God’s truth is preserved through the Church. I will never argue against that.

 

[Beth_Martin]

I see no pandora’s box here if you take the whole picture of both old and new testament as the CC teaches and the church of Christ it is stated that the Word of God (both written and oral as the bible states) was give to the leaders of the church so they might guide their flock and protect them from the wolves to come after. Jesus also states that His church will survive even against the powers of hell. So this says that the Holy Spirit will guide His Church so it will not need people to interpret individually and it will help them understand the bible because they can be confused if they read it individually with no guidance. There are a few other verse that support this leadership role of the Church and is often stated also in the early Church writings if you care to research it.

For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God[c] which He purchased with His own blood.

Except the written and the oral are one in the same which is the Word of God. If you look closely at the verse you refer to all Paul is saying is the manner in which he delivered the gospel, either in written form or by mouth (oral).

God said the Holy Spirit He gives the Christian leads them into all truth; otherwise how would an individual be able to tell the difference between a true teacher and a false one - common sense and is exactly what God taught.