A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
Im actually getting off now but I have to say.
WHAT!!! I dont get that line of reasoning. Take your time to explain because Ive had it and I think Ive got to get off the computer
- Status
Im actually getting off now but I have to say.
WHAT!!! I dont get that line of reasoning. Take your time to explain because Ive had it and I think Ive got to get off the computer
G
guanophore
Guest
Only God knows that, believers, so you will have to ask Him when you see Him! Baptism will save every soul that remains in the state of grace created by it. It will also save those who, after having fallen from that state of grace, are restored to it through the sacrament of reconciliation. I sure don’t think that every body in the pew that is a baptized Catholic is in a state of grace, if that is what you are asking. But, Catholics believe that only God can judge the heart, and will be the ulitimate judge of the state of our souls. In the meantime, it is up to each believer to maintain the state of grace into which he was baptized. Does that make sense?
N
Nazianzen
Guest
This is the problem with arguing any point with a Protestant (from a Catholic perspective). We have other authority than the Bible. Sometimes I wonder why any of us bother trying to understand each other. You will only believe something if it can be explicitly proved from scripture. That’s fine. But you can’t expect someone who does not believe in sola scriptura to be impressed with YOU CAN’T PROVE THAT FROM SCRIPTURE. So what? You can’t prove that the Athanasian concept of the Trinity (which most Protestants believe, as I understand it) from scripture either.
As for the post where you jumped on me for believing that someone can be saved without baptism, I mistook your for a Catholic (since you were quoting the CCC) who was indignant because you thought I disagreed with the catechism about a point. I hope you aren’t too insulted. Also, I wasn’t saying whether the thief on the cross was saved by a “baptism of desire” or not. I was citing him as an example of someone who was saved by Christ without water baptism.
Somebody needs to start a discussion about the validity of sola scriptura (which is really a theological example of begging the question). This gets really silly when we don’t even agree on what is authoritative and what is not. After all, if we could all agree on authority, then we’d have a lot less to argue about.
Cheers!
N
Nazianzen
Guest
Hi,
I went through all of the scripture you presented here and Im not sure what point you are trying to makeIt all still boils down to faith you either have it or you dont and if you do then you will obey Christ out of love not out of obligation.
N
Nazianzen
Guest
I can’t remember who said it to you now, but someone made the point that a person can be baptized and saved and then lose their salvation by not obeying Christ. You shot this down with the statement that they were advocating salvation by works. But the passages I cited to you demonstrate exactly what they were talking about.Hi,
I went through all of the scripture you presented here and Im not sure what point you are trying to make
Matthew 6:14-15: Jesus says that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven. What he doesn’t say is that if we are forgiven, then we will forgive. Nor does he say that if we do not forgive, we do not have faith (which would be a much clearer way of making the point, if that was indeed what he was saying).
Matthew 18:23-35: The king forgives the servant his debt, and then when the servant does not forgive his fellow servant, the king requires the debt from the him and throws him in prison, where he can never hope to repay it. This occurs AFTER his debt is forgiven. He doesn’t magically become a good and forgiving servant because his own debt is forgiven. Besides, if you say, “he never had faith to begin with,” why was his debt forgiven in the first place? Is God fooled by a sinner’s feigned contriteness?
Luke 14:26 - Actually, this must have been a hiccup. I’m not sure why I cited this one
Matthew 25: Jesus never once says “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for you had no faith in me.” He casts them into eternal fire because they never fed him or visited him or clothed him. If you say, “They would have done those things if they had faith,” meaning that the works are a happy side-effect of the faith, then here we have our Lord basing a person’s salvation or damnation on the side-effects, not the cause. Works of charity are not proofs before God of our faith, since he knows whether we have faith or not without the outward evidence.
Romans 8:17: We are heirs with Christ PROVIDED we SUFFER with Him. If Luther had written this sentence, he would have said “provided we have faith in Him.”
Another verse of relevance is Phillippians 2:12: C.S. Lewis remarked on this “remarkable” sentence - how it encapsulated the fact that both faith and works are required (how they are two blades of the same pair of scissors, to use Lewis’ metaphor). It also demonstrates how even Catholics believe that salvation is gratuitous, since both faith and works of agape are gifts from God in themselves (Phillippians 1:29). Therefore we can’t even boast in our good works, which are really “God working in us.”
And of course, there is James 2:24 - the only place in the Bible where “faith” and “alone” occur together. James IS talking about the same kind of justfication as Paul (after all, he’s talking about Abraham’s justification). Since Jesus expressly told us not to be concerned with our justification before men, why would one of his apostles devote half a chapter of Scripture to the importance of it?
You (very wisely) said that we must interpret Scripture in light of other Sciripture. Just as you must interpret the above verses in light of the ones that describe our inability to save ourselves, you must also interpret the latter in light of the former. The Catholic Church has always done this. That is the basis of the Council of Trent’s statements on justificaiton (Session VI, Chapter VIII, which you can find here)
N
Nazianzen
Guest
I can’t remember who said it to you now, but someone made the point that a person can be baptized and saved and then lose their salvation by not obeying Christ. You shot this down with the statement that they were advocating salvation by works. But the passages I cited to you demonstrate exactly what they were talking about.
Matthew 6:14-15: Jesus says that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven. What he doesn’t say that if we are forgiven, then we will forgive. Nor does he say that if we do not forgive, we do not have faith (which would be a much clearer way of making the point, if that was indeed what he was saying).
Matthew 18:23-35: The king forgives the servant his debt, and then when the servant does not forgive his fellow servant, the king requires the debt from the him and throws him in prison, where he can never hope to repay it. This occurs AFTER his debt is forgiven. He doesn’t magically become a good and forgiving servant because his own debt is forgiven. Besides, if you say, “then he never had any faith to begin with,” then why was his own debt forgiven in the first place?
Luke 14:26 - Actually, this must have been a hiccup. I’m not sure why I cited this one
Matthew 25: Jesus never once says “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for you had no faith in me.” He casts them into eternal fire because they never fed him or visited him or clothed him. If you say, “They would have done those things if they had faith,” meaning that the works are a happy side-effect of the faith, then here we have our Lord basing a person’s salvation or damnation on the side-effects, not the cause. Works of charity are not proofs before God of our faith, since he knows whether we have faith or not without the outward evidence.
Romans 8:17: We are heirs with Christ PROVIDED we SUFFER with Him. If Luther had written this sentence, he would have said “provided we have faith in Him.”
Another verse of relevance is Phillippians 2:12: C.S. Lewis remarked on this “remarkable” sentence - how it encapsulated the fact that both faith and works are required (how they are two blades of the same pair of scissors, to use Lewis’ metaphor). It also demonstrates how even Catholics believe that salvation is gratuitous, since both faith and works of agape are gifts from God in themselves (Phillippians 1:29). Therefore we can’t even boast in our good works, which are really “God working in us.”
And of course, there is James 2:24 - the only place in the Bible where “faith” and “alone” occur together. James IS talking about the same kind of justfication as Paul (after all, he’s talking about Abraham’s justification). Since Jesus expressly told us not to be concerned with out justification before men, why would one of his apostles devote half a chapter of Scripture to the importance of it?
G
guanophore
Guest
What do you mean when you say this, believers? Why can’t people just stay home and take a shower? How does having someone say over you “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” take filth away from the flesh?
Do you think that the baptism that Jesus gave was different than that of John? Why would the disciples continue to use John’s baptism after Jesus came, and why would Jesus command a different baptism from the one that John used?
Yes, and be baptized!
You can’t have this verse work for you both ways, believers. Either it puts filth away from the flesh, or it doesn’t. Belief in Christ is evidenced by baptism.
N
Nazianzen
Guest
N
Nazianzen
Guest
First, do you know that there is no documentation for the sacred Tradition? (I don’t know the answer, myself. Just wondering if you can back up what you’re saying here).You know how the CC talks about oral Tradition and that it is passed on orally right down to today----well then wouldnt there be some sort of documentation that says that this Apostle says this or Jesus said this? Why would the CC not write that down? I mean look at all the problems it is causingYou really cant trace oral tradition back to the apostles unless you can trace them back to who said what. Do you see what I mean. Sorry if Im not clear it really just popped into my head as I was writing.
Second, the problem here is that you can say the same thing about the Bible. Many (if not most) secular scholars say that most of the NT was not written by who we believe wrote it. John’s gospel is a prime example. Many deny the Pauline authorship of many of the epistles. Some people date the gospels as late as the second century. How do you know that they aren’t right? The entity that has maintained the authenticity of the NT for 20 centuries is the Church. This is a part of sacred Tradition.
N
Nazianzen
Guest
Actually Peter says that it IS more.
G
Gamera
Guest
N
Nazianzen
Guest
G
Gamera
Guest
It’s not your fault — for some reason it doesn’t seem possible to put a quotation-within-a-quotation on this board, without attributing one posters words to another poster. I’m still trying to figure it out myself.
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course, but Peter received the baptism of John, and also of Jesus. After he was water baptized, he was then baptized in the HS. Jesus directed Peter to bapize with water, and he was obedient to that command, as should we be.
I realize that it is sometimes difficult to recognize the Chruch that Jesus founded in modern day Catholicism. However, you can trace back the teaching of Jesus 2000 years in the practices that currently exist. If you look at what is required of converts coming for baptism, you will find there that they must publicly confess Jesus in order to be baptized.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Yes, and you will see that those who believed, and confessed, were then BAPTIZED as Jesus commanded.
B
believers
Guest
2Ti 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof SHALL DIE.
B
believers
Guest
Yes, he said it was the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Notice he did not say it was infant water baptism.
G
Gamera
Guest
Yes, it’s “profitable” for those purposes. Agreed. Nowhere does it say “Use ONLY Scripture.”
And I don’t “hate reproof.” You haven’t given any “reproof,” and you cannot give any reproof, because nowhere does Scripture say, “Use only Scripture.” In contrast, I can easily give reproof to debunk that false notion:
“We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers,” 1 Thes. 2:13.
“Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle,” 2 Thes. 2:15.
G
Gamera
Guest
Notice he does not say “Baptism only for adults and don’t use water.”
B
believers
Guest
Yes, and you will see that those who believed, and confessed, were then BAPTIZED as Jesus commanded.
Here’s what Paul said, the masterbuilder of the Christian faith,…
1Cr 1:17** For Christ sent me not to baptize**, but to preach the gospel
B
believers
Guest
“Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word OR by our epistle,” 2 Thes.
Please see 1 Thessalonians Chapters 4 and 5 for the real Christian traditions.
- Status