- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
How is it uncharitable to tell the truth - that the unbaptised cannot inherit eternal life ? The Church was formerly very charitable is being unambiguous about this. By holding out false & baseless hopes, it is acting in a way full of uncharity. So let’s have charity, by all means - the very great charity of telling people that they are by nature damnable & deservedly so, & will infallibly be damned if they do not in some manner receive baptism. The reasons for the change that the ITC document gives are pathetically weak - they would equally justify abandoning belief that there is a Hell for accursed.
Besides, if the Church can turn around like that & deny there is a limbo infantum, after having taught there is, & acted on its belief too, what possible reason can there be to believe anything the Church says ? I’m sick of being manipulated & exploited by the CC, & so are a lot of others
S
SyCarl
Guest
First let me say that I do believe in infant baptism as the sign of the New Covenant, just as circumcision, the sign of the Old Covenant was performed on infants. However I do not believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation except in the sense that Scripture tells us to be baptized and we should follow God’s word.Hi Dyluck! Welcome to the forum!
I was wondering how you deal with John 3:5 if you don’t believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation?
“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
I have difficulty in seeing John 3:5 as referring to water baptism. In His statement Jesus unequivocally says being born again of water and Spirit is necessary. Even the Catholic Church does not accept this is absolutely true, otherwise there would be no such thing as baptism of desire and baptism of blood. While I understand the argument that water baptism is the normative way of salvation and that God can make exceptions, such exceptions would mean mean that Jesus’ statement is not completely true because the word “unless” does not allow for exceptions. I believe everything Jesus said is completely true, so I cannot interpret John 3:5 as meaning water baptism.
Another question is how Jesus’ statement could be applied to Old Testament saints. These people did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism yet can we deny that those under the Old Testament were saved. To say that they received circumcision does not solve the problem because it only applies to Jewish males. Are we to assume that no Gentiles or females were saved under the Old Testament? We are told that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith. If they were saved by faith without water baptism, then if water baptism is required now, God as added a new requirement for us that He did not require of them. Yet we know that God does not change and that it should not take more to be saved now than it did under the Old Testament.
I believe that Jesus is referring to Ezekiel 36:25-27.
This is a reference to circumcision of the heart referred to in Deuteronomy 10:16, and other places in the Old Testament.
This is directed to those under the Old Covenant and so cannot correspond to water baptism under the New Covenant which was not available to them.
Paul also refers to it in Romans 2:28-29.
Outward circumcision would correspond to water baptism and baptism of the heart would correspond to baptism by the spirit. Just as physical circumcision did not mean that spiritual circumcision had taken place, water baptism does not mean one has been baptized by the Spirit.
Looking at the passage in Ezekiel 36, and realizing that it correlates with Deuteronomy 10:16, the sprinkling with clean water would not correspond to the Sacrament of Baptism since it was not available under the Old Covenant.
Ezekiel 36 recognizes the two aspects of the spiritual regeneration that saves us. The sprinkling with clean water represents the Spirit cleansing us of our sins. This is what Jesus refers to as being reborn of water. Water is often used as a means of referring to the Holy Spirit. Being reborn of the Spirit is the new nature that we receive through regeneration and corresponds to the second part of the passage of Ezekiel.
(to be continued)
S
SyCarl
Guest
(continued)
This baptism of the spirit through faith was recognized by Thomas Aquinas in what he refers to as the baptism of repentance.
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q66_A11.html
While Aquinas viewed this as an exception to the norm of water baptism I believe it is the true baptism.
Not only John 3:5 should be considered. John goes on:
Note also that Jesus expects that Nicodemus, in his capacity as teacher of the Jews, should understand what Jesus was talking about. As a teacher of the Jews, Nicodemus would not have been familiar with the Sacrament of Baptism which had not been instituted yet. However, as a teacher of the Jews, Nicodemus would be expected to understand Ezekiel 36 and circumcision of the heart.
I think that it should be noted that in the Bible faith and water baptism were not temporally separated. As soon as there was belief, the sacrament was performed. However this did not remain the case in post-Apostolic times when it was necessary for new converts to be catechized for a significant time. The necessity of water baptism could not deal with what happened to a catechumen who died before the sacrament, an occurrence that could be all to frequent during the persecutions of the early church. The idea of baptism of desire and baptism of blood were developed to deal with this rather than recognizing that baptism actually took place once the catechumen believed. What could be the basis for baptism of desire if not the presacramental faith of the catechumen? And if this was the case why should all catechumens not be considered baptized when they first believe. Note also that when an adult is baptized he is not saved unless he he believes. The sacrament is not repeated but actual regeneration or rebirth doesn’t take place until the person believes. Is it not clear then that it is the faith that actually saves and not the sacrament itself?
This baptism of the spirit through faith was recognized by Thomas Aquinas in what he refers to as the baptism of repentance.
Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 66. Article 11
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q66_A11.html
While Aquinas viewed this as an exception to the norm of water baptism I believe it is the true baptism.
Not only John 3:5 should be considered. John goes on:
Jesus says that the Spirit is like the wind; we do not know where it comes from and where it is going. If the Spirit is given in water baptism then we would know exactly where the Spirit was going because we would be conferring it in the sacrament.
Note also that Jesus expects that Nicodemus, in his capacity as teacher of the Jews, should understand what Jesus was talking about. As a teacher of the Jews, Nicodemus would not have been familiar with the Sacrament of Baptism which had not been instituted yet. However, as a teacher of the Jews, Nicodemus would be expected to understand Ezekiel 36 and circumcision of the heart.
I think that it should be noted that in the Bible faith and water baptism were not temporally separated. As soon as there was belief, the sacrament was performed. However this did not remain the case in post-Apostolic times when it was necessary for new converts to be catechized for a significant time. The necessity of water baptism could not deal with what happened to a catechumen who died before the sacrament, an occurrence that could be all to frequent during the persecutions of the early church. The idea of baptism of desire and baptism of blood were developed to deal with this rather than recognizing that baptism actually took place once the catechumen believed. What could be the basis for baptism of desire if not the presacramental faith of the catechumen? And if this was the case why should all catechumens not be considered baptized when they first believe. Note also that when an adult is baptized he is not saved unless he he believes. The sacrament is not repeated but actual regeneration or rebirth doesn’t take place until the person believes. Is it not clear then that it is the faith that actually saves and not the sacrament itself?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Many Protestants view being ‘saved’ in the same way you do…but in all fairness to them, most understand that the idea of being ‘born again’ includes being truly born again; those who are saved, truly ‘saved’ BEHAVE as if they are. They will go to church. They will obey the commandments. They will do their best–not in order to BE saved, but BECAUSE they are 'saved."Hi Dyluck! Welcome to the forum!
I was wondering how you deal with John 3:5 if you don’t believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation?
“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
It’s a verse that bothered me when I was eight years old going to a Southern Baptist church every Sunday and I’m always interested to see how people who believe that baptism is strictly symbolic reconcile that verse with their personal interpretation of the Bible.
This was something that confused me when I first met my husband, before I converted, and I asked him if he was “saved.” His view on salvation was more in line with Phillippians.
Philippians 2
12 “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.”
In fact I’m not sure he knew what I was talking about when I said “saved.” It’s not really a Catholic concept because being “saved” once and always doesn’t really work with “mortal sins.” If you are truly a practicing Catholic you don’t just take your kid, get them baptized and then show up in time for first communion. You go to Mass every Sunday. You go to regular confession. And yes, you believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
I would worry that a belief in being “saved” would be more likely to lead to the sort of complacent attitude and confidence that would lead to a person going to church, professing their belief in Jesus Christ as the Lord of their Life and Personal Savior, getting baptized and then deciding that they’re saved and since their relationship with God is so personal, they really don’t have a reason to cross the threshold of the church again. And from there it would be very easy to slip back into ones old ways.
One of the first things I noticed when I converted was that there’s a huge difference in Protestant and Catholic semantics. Sometimes it kind of feels like a different language.
“works,” in other words, not being the cause of salvation, but the result of salvation.
I don’t agree with either position, either the ‘name it and claim it’ crowd or the 'works as the result" group. However, I do agree that a truly changed heart will be pretty obvious in the ‘fruits’ produced.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12;
Stouts989; you have tapped into an interesting topic that supports the sacraments of both baptism and Confirmation; of which Paul received both sacraments. To support your analysis here, some disciples of John the baptist come on the scene later in Acts unaware of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, for these were baptized into John the baptist baptism, but never heard of a baptism by the Holy Spirit, yet they were baptized and received the Holy Spirit. The sacrament of baptism is entry into the kingdom of God, along with both the sacraments of Holy communion in the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, and sacrament of “Confirmation” completes a Christians initiation into the body of Jesus Christ which is the (Catholic) Church.
Having an understanding of the sacrament of “Confirmation” Helps to understand these difficult scriptures. Without this full deposit of Apostolic faith, leaves scriptures like the one you revealed unanswered or in the dark.
There is a difference between the baptism of John (by water), and the baptism of Jesus (by fire). The Apostles walked with Jesus before his passion, yet Jesus breathed on the apostles with the command to baptize all nations etc, and they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. We have not touched on the laying on of hands yet. You see there is much to scripture that is hidden but supports the Oral teachings handed down to the Catholic church which is called Sacred Tradition from Jesus and the Apostles.
D
dyluck
Guest
Awesome ! (Although I am Protestant, not many Catholics or Protestants alike understand doctrine of regeneration).
It’s interesting how people end up doing all these things in order to be saved when Christ himself said: “Repent and believe the Gospel”
I do believe that baptizm is important (to those that can choose to be baptized i.e not infants)
My Translation fits Greek context here check www.biblos.com, the Greek does not say “born again of water and the Holy Spirit” it says “born of water and the Holy Spirit”.
It is a tough question honestly because if this verse specificlly means being baptized by water then we have left the devices of man to play a part in salvation. Where then, is the soverenty of God? I do not think Jesus was meaning 2 baptizms, I think he was meaning Repentance and Born from above.
Check this verse out:
John baptized with water onto repentance. Repentance being the act of turning away from sin. You do not need water to repent. Water does represent a cleansing and plays a part in representing a new birth, as described by another write above in the new covenant, but does water bring on the new birth? No… Here is biblical proof:
Acts 19:1-7
1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
{interesting… Holy Spirit didn’t necissarily come in even after they believed}
3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
{Notice how paul askes them “well what baptism did you get then?” Seemling to have expected them to have had the Holy Spirit Baptsim or something…}
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. {umm did they get the water baptizm again??? no no no, after hearing THE GOSPEL, they were supernaturally baptized. The bible points to the fact that we are to share the Gospel that the Lord will work in them}
6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
We have to hold to the fact that Salvation is by faith alone through Grace, the redemptive and finished work of Christ. Eph 2:8-9
If we are justified by faith through Christ, how does water baptizm play a part in this?
I know the baptizm that Jesus talks about, in importance, is what was being described in Romans 6 - supernatural baptizm of the holy spirit. If you were to be baptizing them in water, think of romans 6… a representation of the death to sin and a risen new man. When you are dunked in water, does your regeneration (born again) happen then?? Nope as we see from the passage I put up before in Acts.
Anyway, this is kinda my fault, but I think we have gone astry, because this isn’t about proving baptism a saving act, but more about if it makes any bit of difference if you baptize an infant.
Lets take Acts 19 back for example. Can a baby go through that?
Then check out 1 Corinth 1:13-17. Would paul have left a baby baptizless? This proves he would. We are to share the Gospel. Baptizm of the Holy Spirit comes from God through the Gospel.
My final point. Baptizm by water is never associated with “in the name of Jesus”. It seems to be in conjuction with baptism of the holy spirit. Can a baby be regenerated?
Im sure if God willed it.
If baptism by water is in the name of Jesus, can a baby chose to do it in the name of Jesus?
Cheers guys!
God bless!!!
Perhaps read some arguments put forward in this site:
carm.org/christianity/baptism/debate-topic-water-baptism-necessary-salvation
A
AlegreFe
Guest
I don’t know why the Church waits to give the Eucharist to children until they are at least 7 years old. But I’m sure some of it has to do with the Sacrament of Reconciliation. When a child is 7 years old or older, they better understand what sin is. They can go to the Sacrament of Confession and confess their sins to the priest. Before that age, I don’t see children fully understand their confessing of sins. Perhaps very few 5 & 6 year olds might but it would be hard to differentiate such children; who can and who cannot comprehend sin and the confessing of those sins if they are younger than 7. Perhaps in a few years from now, they can lower the age to 6 or even 5, but I don’t see it any younger than that. Don’t forget, the age many years ago was 12 before you can receive first holy communion. But the Church lowered the age to 7. I think the age of reason at 7 years old is a good one. They have to understand the ramifications of sin and then understand confessing those sins in order to receive Jesus in Communion.
I remember my First Holy Communion, I was in 3rd grade. But I do not remember my Confirmation because I was confirmed as a baby in Mexico. I was born here in the U.S. but my mother took me to Mexico to have my baptized then a couple of weeks later, I was confirmed.
S
ServantofChrist
Guest
AlegreFe…I am a little confused about a couple of things and I was hoping you could clear them up for me. As far as what you believe, who has the final word? The bible or the church?
D
dyluck
Guest
That was a loaded question lol
D
dianaiad
Guest
That’s one of those pesky “Have you stopped beating your wife?” sort of questions…
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
We agree in part here. My question then becomes, that if you believe the Bible to be the word of God, how can you not take the next statement, verbatim, to be true? How do you determine what part of God’s word you’re going to accept?
As God has said, to whom much is given, much is expected, this applies to the faithful continuing our conversion towards God. In our conversion towards God the knowledge of the truth of God and the inerrancy of the Bible would cause those who know God and who have received his word to continue their conversion towards God. In this, then the believer who has the Bible is compelled to be baptized in the trinitarian formula. This has then become an absolute necessity to those whom God has given knowledge of His existence via the Bible. Those who have no knowledge of God or the latest revelation of God in Jesus Christ are not required to have a baptism of water and spirit because God does not expect that of them. In this sense, God had not given them much. Once a person has that gift of knowledge from God he is then obligated by God and the Bible to be baptized.
In essence, I agree with you that it is not absolute to be baptized. It is only absolute for those who have been given knowledge. It is then up to us who believes, with the Holy Spirit, to make believers out of those who do not know as Jesus commanded us to.
The baptisms of desire and blood are given to those who at some point learn and accept God, usually right before they die. Those baptisms are not accepted for those who have the time and ability to receive the traditional baptism of water and spirit. In the end those baptisms are valid in that they choose God and Christ in Faith, without having the ability to have a traditional baptism, in which, God would not punish them for having baptisms of desire or blood. Jesus’s statements are true, yet that truth is held to the extent of the knowledge of the individual whom this is impacting. Jesus is indeed merciful.
Jesus descends into Hell (the Hell of the Dead not the Hell of the Damned) and opened the Gates of Heaven for those in the Hell of the Dead (as confessed in the Nicene Creed). Therefore we see that people who had no faith in Christ were saved, not in their lifetime, by Christ. In this we can see that faith in Christ is not essential to being “saved.” The Old Testament Saints lived moral lives and followed the Law, as God had written into their hearts (as in Paul’s letters).
When studying the Old Testament I don’t come to the conclusion that the Old Testament Saints are “saved” by faith. They were saved by obedience to God, of which faith plays a part. Look at Cain. He had total faith in God and an intimate close personal relationship. Yet, when I read the Bible it does not sound like to me that he is “saved”. I hope to God that he is, but it is clear in the OT that they were saved by obedience to God.
You are correct that God does not change. Yet, He does change in his way in which he chooses to reveal himself in the revelation of Jesus Christ. None of the OT figures are save by their faith in Christ. That is because they were not gifted with that revelation. They are not required in their lifetime to have had faith in Christ as in our linear time Christ had not yet been revealed by God. The same in OT circumcision instances. Females were not required to be circumcised as they were not males with the ability to be circumcised. Women in the OT time period, as far as I know, were not required nor expected to have female circumcision.
Over time, you see, the requirements of faith have changed. It went originally from being obedience in God. To being Faith and obedience in the newest and last revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Those in the past are not punished by their ignorance of Christ the same way as an gentile in China or ancient Rome was not punished. They were judged by thier life according to the Law that was placed into their heart by the Holy Spirit.
From whom much is given much is expected rings true.
To Be Continued… I have to run off to Mass with the family.
S
SyCarl
Guest
We are told that Abraham was justified by faith and Hebrews 11 goes through many Old Testament saints who were saved by faith. To not derail the thread, I will not go into whether works are required as well. The point is that God does not change and those who were under the Old Testament are saved in the same we are. This view was confirmed by a number of the early church fathers.
Augustine (On the Grace of Christ, and On Original Sin, Book 2, Chapter 28)
newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm
Bede (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Francis Martin ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament V Acts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 49.)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 11.1-2 Erik M. Heen & Philip D. W. Krey ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 173.)
They were saved without water baptism.
D
dyluck
Guest
I’m going to ask the same question as ServantofChrist. What do you believe has more berring on your life? The Bible or Creeds made of men.
Im asking because where in the bible does it talk about baptism of desire and blood?
Not knowing much about Baptism of Desire, decided to wiki it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire
In no way does the act of man hinder the salvation or bring about the salvation of an elect child of God. Regeneration and repentance itself cannot be done without the holy spirit, the revalation of Christ through the Gospel and the supernatural free FREE FREE Gift of Salvation. The bible specificly says that we are justified by faith in Christ alone through Grace. The sacrifice of Christ enduring the wrath of God for us was the act of justification before a Holy God not baptizm of blood or desire. Without Christ, no-one would have hope… even the saints of old (not sinless) before the time of Christ. Where does man have this inherrant decision of the fate of a person’s soul?
Also the Nicene Creed… Where in the Greek do they distinguish the type of Hell Jesus Decended into? Death (a curse, not a hell), Hades (holding place of sinners (hell)), both eventually get thrown in the Lake of Fire (the eternal punishment).
When Christ died on that tree, He became sin… God turnd his back on His Only Son because God hates sin. God pours his Wrath on His own son (and it pleased him to do so the bible says). Jesus was under the full measure of the eternal Wrath of God. Now you tell me which hell that was? Because if he suffered the wrath of God for more then 1 person’s sins… then I would have to say the worst suffering anyone in existance would have to suffer. (on a side note. Imagine the power Christ had to come out of it.)
God bless. Please don’t take anything I say as being harsh. We are all brothers and sisters and the bible says to reprove, rebuke all longsuffering and doctrine. I just want to bring up important points.
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
Hello SyCarl,
Ok lets begin by repeating what my earlier comment said. I always agreed that God does not change. That wasn’t something I argued against. What I said was that God doesn’t change, but the way in which he wishes to be perceived by mankind does. Initially it was just by being God the Father. Later followed the Son and the Holy Spirit. To God’s initial people, the Jews, God commanded faith and obedience. The requirements of the faithful have indeed changed with the revelation of Christ. Belief in God was required prior, now too belief in Christ as God; something that the pre-Christ revelation never had been revealed to the Jews. Therefore, while God does not change, what God requires of his followers does change over time. History, and the biblical record, is a testament to this. To those who knew of the revelation they are compelled to baptism based on their knowledge of God’s will as the Bible instructs. Those who do not are not held to the same requirement as those who know.
I am fond of Augustine, and this reading too. The problem is that it isn’t in conflict with what I am saying. Those in the OT who had faith and kept the commandments of God in obedience to his word will be in heaven. To those the commandments of God were never vocalized they were required to live by the moral law God had put into their hearts. Therefore as, Augustine says, those who are not of the Tribe of Israel can find salvation too. They have the faith to follow the moral law and the beliefs that God had instilled in them, even if they never knew or vocalized that it was the God as the Jews knew him to be.
I also find it odd that you used Augustine of all people here. Augustine was a fierce advocate of infant baptism and viewed it as a necessity. The concept of Limbo arose from Augustine concepts of Original Sin and infant baptism. That is something that I think both of us disagree with. Though not to be too hard on Augustine, I do agree with is contention that grace is participatory.
I really like this quote. I also don’t see this being in conflict with my earlier post. In the Nicene creed it is said that Jesus descended into hell. That hell is the hell of the dead, not the hell of the damned. The OT saints prior to the passion of Christ would have been in this hell of the dead. They would have then been liberated by Christ. Bede’s quote is not in tension with my earlier statements. All saints OT and NT will be saved by Christ and no Catholic would ever say otherwise.
This last quote I have never come across before. It is interesting, to be sure, yet when added to my earlier summation that those who are faithful to the Law in the hearts are in the best way possible showing their incomplete faith in God by adherence in the law. That is the only faith they can possibly show God until he reveals himself to them.
In conclusion, of course OT saints were saved without water baptism! That wasn’t required of them. Their baptism would have been a baptism of desire to be one with Christ when he preached to them in the hell of the dead.
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
Hello Dyluck,I’m going to ask the same question as ServantofChrist. What do you believe has more berring on your life? The Bible or Creeds made of men.
Im asking because where in the bible does it talk about baptism of desire and blood?
Not knowing much about Baptism of Desire, decided to wiki it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire
In no way does the act of man hinder the salvation or bring about the salvation of an elect child of God. Regeneration and repentance itself cannot be done without the holy spirit, the revalation of Christ through the Gospel and the supernatural free FREE FREE Gift of Salvation. The bible specificly says that we are justified by faith in Christ alone through Grace. The sacrifice of Christ enduring the wrath of God for us was the act of justification before a Holy God not baptizm of blood or desire. Without Christ, no-one would have hope… even the saints of old (not sinless) before the time of Christ. Where does man have this inherrant decision of the fate of a person’s soul?
Also the Nicene Creed… Where in the Greek do they distinguish the type of Hell Jesus Decended into? Death (a curse, not a hell), Hades (holding place of sinners (hell)), both eventually get thrown in the Lake of Fire (the eternal punishment).
When Christ died on that tree, He became sin… God turnd his back on His Only Son because God hates sin. God pours his Wrath on His own son (and it pleased him to do so the bible says). Jesus was under the full measure of the eternal Wrath of God. Now you tell me which hell that was? Because if he suffered the wrath of God for more then 1 person’s sins… then I would have to say the worst suffering anyone in existance would have to suffer. (on a side note. Imagine the power Christ had to come out of it.)
God bless. Please don’t take anything I say as being harsh. We are all brothers and sisters and the bible says to reprove, rebuke all longsuffering and doctrine. I just want to bring up important points.
The Bible has as much validity as the creeds of the Church which had been inspired by God. After all it was men inspired by God who indeed wrote the Bible. Though you are trying to make them sound mutually exclusive which they are not. They come together in a perfect harmony and never contradict each other. Remember Dyluck, that without Church Councils there is not Doctrine of the Trinity.
The baptism of desire or blood is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, but then again that should not surprise any Bible scholar. The Trinity among other concepts are not mentioned in the Bible though they may be referred to. IE the “good thief” by his desire to be with God and his longing to be with Jesus has given him either a baptism of desire, or being a martyr a baptism of blood. As Christ says to him, he will one day be with Christ in paradise.
Moving to your next issue. The stressing of the “FREE FREE FREE” gift of salvation. Catholics universally agree that grace is God’s free gift for mankind. All they have to do is accept God’s gift. As for the Bible ever advocating, with out exception, Sola Fide please reference this, because that comment is unbiblical. Though with selected reading of the bible and totally ignoring the Catholic letters in the bible its easy enough to see where misunderstanding could arise. Christ did not endure that wrath of God. He endured the wrath of man. In doing so he conquered sin so that we may be forgiven. And indeed we may. Granted we accept His grace and follow him in true conversion. The individual only has control of his own soul, either he chooses to follow God as a Caritas filled Christian or he chooses Death. God doesn’t force us with predestination. He lets us choose for ourselves.
Lets not confuse the hell of the damned with the hell of the dead. Read my last response to SyCarl for info on the hell of the dead prior to the passion of Christ.
“When Christ died on that tree, He became sin… God turnd his back on His Only Son because God hates sin. God pours his Wrath on His own son (and it pleased him to do so the bible says). Jesus was under the full measure of the eternal Wrath of God. Now you tell me which hell that was? Because if he suffered the wrath of God for more then 1 person’s sins… then I would have to say the worst suffering anyone in existance would have to suffer. (on a side note. Imagine the power Christ had to come out of it.)”
Ok to put this nicely… this is entirely wrong. You’re french kissing heresy here. Jesus never became sin nor did the Father ever turn his back on the Son. I understand what you are trying to say, I think, but you are coming up with the wrong conclusions. The Father’s wrath was do to the death of the Son. Not because the Son had become sin. Sin can never permeate the divine Jesus’ flesh what so ever. To suggest such a thing is to take the greatest purity and throw it in the mud by an outhouse. I dare say you do not understand what you are saying by your implications. Christ died an innocent death and free from sin. Only in this way could sin have been destroyed and salvation possible to those who follow Christ.
Thanks for bringing this up though Brother in Christ. We have a lot to work on!
In Christ,
RedSoxWife.
O
OnlyJesus
Guest
excellent point dyluck,this:
S
SyCarl
Guest
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
You took my statement out of context. I was arguing against someone who had said that infant baptism made people think that they never had to go to church or do anything because it was an automatic in into heaven. My point was that the idea of being “saved” could be just as much a cause that would result in that point of view (the idea of “i don’t have to do anything because I’m set”) as infant baptism, if not more.
I know plenty of faithful Protestants (many of them live in the same household) and did spend over twenty years in a Southern Baptist church. I know that there are faithful Protestants, just as there are faithful Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons. Many people believe wholeheartedly in the path that they are on and are completely devoted to it (but sadly lack the Fullness of Truth found in the Church).
To reiterate, my point was that when compared to infant baptism, the concept of being saved (particularly with churches that believe in “once saved always saved”) was just as likely, if not more so, to result in laziness and complaceny.
B
Bookworm88
Guest
I’m not so sure that he is french kissing heresy if he is simply restating what the Bible itself states. II Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” How do you Catholics re-interpret this passage, since it says that Christ, who knew no sin himself, was made sin for us? He then took the full penalty for that sin, which was dead, or in other words, separation from God. Christ himself cried out, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Christ really did know why he had been forsaken by God the Father. He had been forsaken because he was bearing our sins, and he had willingly put Himself in that position of sin-bearer. I Peter 2:24 says, “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.” So if there is any purity being thrown in the mud by the outhouse, it is Christ himself putting his own purity there so that He would be punished instead of us. At the moment Christ died, sin actually had won, since it was the resurrection of Christ that showed Christ’s victory over sin. I Corinthians 15:17 says, “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!”
- Status