What do Catholics believe crucifixion accomplished?

[Church_Militant]

I do not know if there were any interpretations previous to the reformation but lets say there weren’t.

That would just be evidence that the Bible was in the hands of the catholic church - the catholic church told people what it meant. It was not until the movement to get the Bible in peoples’ hands that they read it themselves and perhaps deduced that it what it means.

This is completely inaccurate.

How do you suppose that the scriptures were supposed to get into the people’s hands? Do you think that perhaps the writers just popped into the Jerusalem Kinko’s and had dozens of copies made and then faxed them to the churches in far off towns?

Do you suppose that everyone could even read? That’s not true even today. So…in cultures where literacy is not as widespread as in ours today, just what good would a copy have been?

So…since copying the Bible was done by hand until about 1455 or so, are you trying to tell us that no one had the Gospel squared away for all those centuries? In spite of Our Lord’s own promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, and His command in Matthew 28:19-20? I don’t buy that…

Interesting enough when I first read that verse - before I was “born again” it made total sense to me - it was totally logical that it referred to the natural birth(womb). Yes I realize that is my fallible interpritation but it hit me like a ton of bricks.

So you believe that? In spite of all the ton of passages that tell us about the importsnce of baptism in being born again? Again Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, & 22:16, just to name a few? What does Proverbs 3:5 say?

When reading it after to see how someone can think it refers to baptism it is difficult for me to see - but I can see it. Yet the natural one to me appears to be the natural birth.

It couldn’t possibly be a conditioned response to having been taught that by people who were in error and never bothered to even offer you the meaning that the NT speaks of and that about 16 centuries of believers held before you? OOOOOOOKay…

Then IMHO I experienced exactly what it was referring to so that solidified it.

Even if what you supposedly experienced is now shown to be Biblically inaccurate? The rest of the scriptures that speak of salvation, new birth, and baptism have no bearing on your beliefs? That doesn’t make sense at all…

Just explain my experience with a reason why no interpritations of it that way before the reformation.

Sorry, but this is not really very clear. Are you asking that we prove your beliefs are wrong while asserting that yours was the only correct interpretation prior to the reformation? If so… can’t be done because there is no historical record of the early church sharing that belief based on the New Testament.

As I’ve said before…modern post reformation n-C beliefs have no counterpart in the verifiable early church teachings.

 

[Mike_Brick]

…That would just be evidence that the Bible was in the hands of the catholic church - the catholic church told people what it meant. It was not until the movement to get the Bible in peoples’ hands that they read it themselves and perhaps deduced that it what it means…

My brother in Christ, that is a load of bunk! Is that what they told you that caused you to consider leaving the Church; the Church prevented people from reading the Bible?

Are you aware that the Bible wasn’t in the hands of the common man until the printing press was invented, and the Church was first to print bibles in the vernacular languages? Hand copied Bibles were just too expensive for the average person, and oh, by the way, the average person couldn’t read, only the educated, who were the aristocrats and the clergy. The masses weren’t denied the Bible by the Church! The Church did quite well spreading the Gospel all those years and I’m sure you are aware there wasn’t even a collection of scriptures called the “Bible” for over the first 350 years of Catholic history.

We need to dialog more, but on a different thread. There are usually threads dealing with the history of the Bible, etc. Check them out.
Peace

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Where is the works declaration? The Word specifically says to him that worketh NOT.

Where exactly is “faith alone” in Sacred Scripture? You’re making the claim and you’re the one that’s gotta back it up. I work out my salvation with fear and trembling as Saint Paul did.

 

[Zooey]

Besides, it’s a bizarre interpretation. A man asks “how can I…” and Jesus answers him “first you have to be born”, as though the man might need to go off and take care of that before proceeding. Why would Jesus, a consummate speaker, ever waste words telling people useless information like that? Where else in the bible does he ever tell people something so self-evident? Where else does he leave himself open to the justifiable response “Well duh!”? The answer is, nowhere.

I think you are confusing “redemption” with “salvation”.
Salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. Christ has already redeemed us, unlocked the gates of haven, as it were. Redemption is not the same as salvation but is a necessary prelude. Christ did his part, and now we have to cooperate by doing ours.
The sacraments are a gift from God, and they impute sanctifying grace which is required to enter heaven. And they are a free gift, and they are by Faith.

I’m a Wesleyan theologically, not a Roman Catholic (though I’m a very Catholic-leaning Wesleyan). But I would say that sacraments and works are different because sacraments are means of grace–works flow out of the grace administered to us by means of the Word and Sacraments and received by faith. Works are not things we do to enter a relationship with God. But if our faith does not produce works, it withers and dies and we have no relationship with God.

Another Wesleyan here!!
"contarini:

I don’t know if I’m the one you have in mind, but I was asking you to explain how baptism (as a means of receiving regenerating grace) nullifies the Crucifixion while faith and repentance do not.
In other words, if you really think we have to do nothing, then faith and repentance can’t be necessary and everyone should be saved automatically by virtue of the Crucifixion (at least, everyone for whom Jesus died–we probably both believe that He died for all human beings). If faith and repentance are necessary, then obviously there are things that we “do” that are not “works” in the theological sense. To me baptism fits this even more easily than faith and repentance. All you have to do to be baptized is not resist–in fact someone could conceivably baptize you kicking and screaming, though such a baptism wouldn’t be valid (well, it’s valid in the case of infants, because the infant isn’t intending to resist baptism per se, but that’s another issue). The point is that baptism is done to you, though of course you have to consent. Faith and repentance are, to all appearances, quite active things that you do. I don’t mean to push this point, since it would suffice for my argument to show that baptism was no more a “work” than faith or repentance.

:yup:

Sacraments are not good deeds, nor are they done to “earn credit” or to “earn our way to heaven” or anything of the sort. They are gifts which we receive from God, and through which God conveys grace.

Yes, we believe in works, but not in the sense that we often are accused of. Nobody could ever do enough “good deeds” to “earn” their way to heaven, if that’s what you’re thinking. Grace is God’s free gift. Once we receive that gift, though, we must do good and not evil, because if we sin we can lose that grace through our own misconduct.

You might need to widen your circle of Christian acquaintances.
I would hold that even not all Protestants hold your view of John 3.
I would say that all Catholics don’t, and I think that the eastern orthodox also don’t.
Let’s break down of the Christian Population of the World.
Catholic - 1116 million - 57%
Protestant - 590 million - 30%
Eastern Orthodox - 225 million - 11%
Other - 2%
So though this is a widely accepted view in your circles, it is only partially believed by 30% of Total number of Christians in the World.

Considerably less than 30%, I should think. Contarini & I are far from the only non-Catholic Christians going http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif over this…

 

[SPH1]

It seems interesting to me that this interpretation has been called clever, ridiculous, obscure, a stre-e-e-tch and I’m sure I missed a few. But honestly, do you really believe that? It’s right there in black and white (and maybe red if you’re using King James…). Don’t allow your good judgment to be clouded. Jesus was so intent that Nicodemus didn’t misunderstand him again that he clarified for him instead of mystifying him. If what he said was not a clarification then was Jesus ignoring the fact that Nic didn’t get it?! That would be like a teacher answering a student’s question with yet another statement the student didn’t understand. Jesus was the most awesome teacher…he would not lead his student into more “confusion”. Instead he was saying “No, Nicodemus, I don’t mean you have to be born of your mother’s womb again I mean you have to be born of the Holy Spirit.” It really really does make sense no matter how badly you don’t it to.

No, it’s not obvious that the “water” refers to natural birth. That would be redundant, since every person is born of water at birth. All Christ would need refer to in that case is the birth of the spirit.

EDIT: Maybe Christ was looking to the future and “test tube babies” or cloning? That since they are not “born of water” they cannot be saved under any circumstances?

Guys, Jesus really wants this to be simple. That is why the temple curtain tore upon his death so we could throw out all the mumbo-jumbo, rituals, traditions, sacrifices, etc. His message was simply “come to me”–that’s it! He took care of all the hard stuff for us by sacrificing himself on the cross! This is awesome! And we don’t deserve it, but the Bible is clear…we don’t have to “earn” it either! To attempt to earn our way to salvation belittles what Christ did on that cross!

You still don’t get it. Christ is the real minister and high priest of the Sacraments, so to go to the sacrament is to go to Christ. One cannot have a perfect “relationship with Christ” while rejecting - or belittling - Christ’s sacraments.

I know this is hard for you to accept, since in your “sacraments” Christ is neither present nor administering. I think that the problem in your tradition is that Christ is seen as being basically “dead” in Heaven, not actively participating in his Church, at best merely an observer. By “it is finished” you take that literally, so that Christ literally is doing nothing further.

 

[savedsinner]

I do not know if there were any interpretations previous to the reformation but lets say there weren’t.

That would just be evidence that the Bible was in the hands of the catholic church - the catholic church told people what it meant. It was not until the movement to get the Bible in peoples’ hands that they read it themselves and perhaps deduced that it what it means.

Interesting enough when I first read that verse - before I was “born again” it made total sense to me - it was totally logical that it referred to the natural birth(womb). Yes I realize that is my fallible interpritation but it hit me like a ton of bricks.

When reading it after to see how someone can think it refers to baptism it is difficult for me to see - but I can see it. Yet the natural one to me appears to be the natural birth.

Then IMHO I experienced exactly what it was referring to so that solidified it.

Just explain my experience with a reason why no interpritations of it that way before the reformation.

The term “born again” can also mean “born from above”
The greek word is “anothen”
And if Jesus was saying that you need to be born from above, he would have been talking about the Holy Spirit, which we recieve in baptism.

anōthen

Part of Speech
adverb

Root Word (Etymology)

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) from above, from a higher place

a) of things which come from heaven or God

1. from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
2. anew, over again

 

[malachi_a_serva]

The term “born again” can also mean “born from above”
The greek word is “anothen”
And if Jesus was saying that you need to be born from above, he would have been talking about the Holy Spirit, which we recieve in baptism.

anōthen

Part of Speech
adverb

Root Word (Etymology)

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) from above, from a higher place

a) of things which come from heaven or God

1. from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
2. anew, over again

Would be the same.

First birth is earthly and of the flesh.
Second birth is Heavenly and spiritual.

 

[savedsinner]

Would be the same.

First birth is earthly and of the flesh.
Second birth is Heavenly and spiritual.

OK we agree that when Jesus was referring to being born from above, that is referring to the Holy Spirit. Then when Jesus is saying “that you must be born of water and of the Holy Spirit”, he would be referring to baptism, because the holy spirit was hovering above when Jesus was baptized in the waters of the Jordan river.

Jesus is saying the same thing in two different ways.

Nicodemus was believing in a human natural fleshly way because he had seen the signs that Jesus was preforming, and that is not enough, we need a supernatural belief for Jesus to trust himself to us. And this is the power that required to make us children of God, which we receive through baptism.

When you read John chapter three, you have to keep in context with what was written in John 1, 2, 3, 4 ect…

You might want to look closely at the verses: John 1:11-13, John 2:23-25, John 1:32-33, John 3:22-23
to see the context of John 3:1-5.

We both agree that one must be born again, but I don’t think that we agree on what exactly that means.
Because of the verses I mentioned, I take it to mean that we must be born again through baptism.

 

[savedsinner]

This always gave me thought of the exact opposite. Fewer = perhaps more accurate.

Matt. 7:14 "Because narrow is the gate…and there are few who find it" NKJV

That is funny.
If the protestant churches were more accurate, don’t you thing they would at least teach the same thing. I mean how can they be accurate when they all teach a different doctrine?
Or maybe I am missing something here, maybe all the different contradicting doctrines are all accurate, different, but accurate.

The passage of the narrow gate is telling us that we have to live the Christian life, not everyone who professes to be a Christian will enter heaven.
We have to be doers of the word, not just hearers, like St. Paul tells us.
And like Jesus also said, not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter heaven. As he shows us what he means by this in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew chapter 25.

 

[runandsew]

That would just be evidence that the Bible was in the hands of the catholic church - the catholic church told people what it meant. It was not until the movement to get the Bible in peoples’ hands that they read it themselves and perhaps deduced that it what it means.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that this line of reasoning holds much water.
Yes, the printing press was invented, and yes there was a push to get the bibles into the hands of the Christians.
But did the Christians then think, wow, the Catholic church was teaching us errors? And then become Protestant?

I believe that the reformers came up with their own interpretations, and doctrines, and then when whole countries became protestant, the people had to become protestant, they didn’t have much choice, and they had to adhere to what was being taught them by the new church state.