This has never sat right with me and it was drilled into my head when I was in catholic school. Why would God punish us all from what the first two people on earth did. Why does everyone come in to life with a sin. Just doesn't seem logical. To me that story of original sin is a scare tactic to get people to baptist a child and make them part of this religion. So what's the deal why are we all punished at birth from what the first two people on earth did.

I agree with you. It is a sad thing that many people fear God. God would like us to be friends with him. Instead, we are taught to cower before any and all Deity as if it were a punishing parent. A father figure who is angry and demands that all of us suffer because He has been angered. People can and do hold stupid grudges like that. But a God?

When Adam and Eve symbolically ate from the tree of knowledge, they discovered the duality of this world. They then understood that they were separate from God. They had not been aware of it before. Before they "disobeyed" they were "perfect." The question is why? Why were they told not to indulge? Why did they try it anyway? I believe that feeling the separation was necessary. Otherwise, God would not have put opportunity in their path.

Sadly people expect things to fit into the idea that they think is right. All though the bible, ( we can leave the old testement out of it, if you would like) Even in Pauls writing we are told that all people are sinners, and that none are saved without forgiveness of their sins.

We also see in the old testment that God's punishment is sometimes continued to several generations. We even see God's anger and punishment being applied to an entire town or nation because of the basic evil of the overall nation.

I may not like it, I may not think God should work that way, but it realllyis not up to me. God has given us warnings and has given us a way to get out of that punishment. To the early church before Christ, they were given a procedure to get forgiveness every year at a sacrifice
For man today, he has been given Christ to be their sacrifice.

So God has always either directly forgave man as he did in the very early part of the bible and mans history, or he always had a procedure that allowed man to decide if he wanted to return back to God.

God could have merely forced us all to do his will, but he wants those to follow him that want to, that is why there is free choice. Man has always paid the price for evil in others life, If a killer kills a husband, the widow and her children pay the price for his sin, Man in WWII paid the price for the evil and sin of Hilter, how many in the US suffered loss because of the evil of this one man.

So yes, we all suffer because of the evil of those that came before us.

You do not have to accept the teachings of original sin. You say that was drilled into you growing up Catholic. Well, surprise to you - it is also taught in Protestant religions too. However, it is not found in Jewish theology or in Islam teachings.

Original sin refers to the fallen state of humanity. Now you can choose to believe that or not. Maybe you want to read the writings of Augustine of Hippo, who believed original sin was the effect of the total of "world sin" brought via Adam and Eve's sin against God. Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Original_Sin)

You are an adult now and can decide these matters for yourself. If do not agree with your upbringing, that is only for you to decide. Attempt to make your life a growth experience with the Lord. If you do not agree with the Catholic Church's teachings, then search for a church who does teach according to the Bible - searching for a church that teaches what you want to hear is not going to get you very far.

There are Christian religions ( LDS) that do not believe that we are born into sin. From the LDS articles of faith " WE believe that man will be punished for their own sins and not for Adams transgressions." We do believe though, that we will all sin and thus need the gift of the Resurrected Savior in order for us to return to our Heavenly Father. WE have the gift of agency and will choose at times to live contrary to GOd's plan and so we will have consequences for those choices. I also believe that GOd loves all of his children and truly wants them all to return to him.

This has never sat right with me and it was drilled into my head when i was in catholic school. Why would God punish us all from what the first two people on earth did. Why does everyone come in to life with a sin. Just doesn't seem logical. To me that story of original sin is a scare tactic to get people to baptist a child and make them part of this religion. So whats the deal why are we all punished at birth from what the first two people on earth did.

I cannot speak to what you were taught in Catholic school, but what you have described is not the Biblical position on the doctrinal of the original sin. The Biblical position (and I will provide scripture references if you need them) is that when Adam and Eve sinned, our nature changed and we gained an orientation towards sin, a desire to sin. As we see in scripture, God said that the heart of man is evil continually (Gen 6:5). The heart represents the innermost desires of man, and our desire is to things which are sinful. Thus the doctrine of the original sin is that through the original sin of Adam, all men and indeed all nature changed from a holy nature to a sinful nature which gravitates towards sin. Creation fell.

That does not mean that we are born with sin or punished for sin that we did not commit. Absolutely not. What is does mean is that each of us has the desire to sin, and has made our own choice to sin, and has sinned (Rom 3:23). That is why today we find that porn on internet is more popular than Bible studies - the orientation of men is towards sin. We are held responsible for the sins that we have committed. That is why Jesus had to come as God in the flesh, the perfect man, to die on the cross to pay the price for our sins.

Paul describes it like this - in our sin nature, we are slaves to sin, and we can only be set free of that slavery to sin, but submitting ourselves to Jesus as Lord and Saviour, and then allowing ourselves to become slaves to His righteousness.

I don't believe in a lot of Catholic doctorine.
I look at it more like we were born into this world of sin so sort of by association
we are IN sin. Sort of like disease, if we are in a room that is contaminated we can not be totally free from the contamination. We have it within ourselves to grow up living a life of good or choosing bad because we have sin nature, but it doesn't mean we are sin punished at birth.
Hope this makes sense.

(American Standard Version)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Copyright © 1901 Public Domain

Yes original sin is in the bible, plus sin being based on to another generation is part of every Christian religions if they accept the 10 commandments and what the bible says

Exodus 20:4-7
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Ps 51:5 Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conveive me

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spriit is spirit

Eph4:22 Put off concerning the former converstation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts

Gen 8:21 The imagination of mans's heart is evil from his youth

Matt 27: 25 And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. *** In this the descendants of Ham ore the curse of their ancestors sin

Eccl 7:20 Thre is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not

Is 64:6 We are all as an unclen thing and all our righteousness are as filthy rags


But yes you can easily find a religion that will teach what you want, since man would prefer to go to churches that teath what they want to hear over all the truths in the bible

I don't believe in a lot of Catholic doctorine.
I look at it more like we were born into this world of sin so sort of by association
we are IN sin. Sort of like disease, if we are in a room that is contaminated we can not be totally free from the contamination. We have it within ourselfs to grow up living a life of good or choosing bad because we have sin nature, but it doesn't mean we are sin punished at birth.
Hope this makes sense.

Original sin is not a Catholic doctrine ( OK it is but not just theirs)
it is a Orthodox, a Anglican, a lutheran and I am sure a dozen more Christian churches, It is more accepted in all of Christianity, except for the newer churches of the last few 100 years that have developed their own teachings

And before one says Lutheran or other protestants don't, I am sitting with the small catechism of the lutheran church which I used for all of my documentation of bible verses. I can even give you page numbers it comes form where they teach original sin.

I know I am not saying I do not believe original sin but what I meant was I don't believe it quit ACCORDING TO the Catholics explanation.

Not sure what you call a Catholic explanation, thiers come from the bible

Yes original sin is in the bible, plus sin being based on to another generation is part of every Christian religions if they accept the 10 commandments and what the bible says


Let's have a look at these passages:


Exodus 20:4-7
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

This is not referring to the original sin. Note that it says that the children are punished for the up to the 4th generation of those who "hate me". Here are the problems with using this to support the belief that we are all held guilty for Adam's sin:

1) Using this, you would be saying that the sin nature is not passed on to children of Christians (since Christians don't hate God. That is contrary to scripture, and indeed contrary to every orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the Original Sin (sin nature).

2) This does NOT say that the sin is passed on, but rather that the children are punished, or in effect that the children suffer as a result of the sin up to the fourth generation. Look at the children and grandchildren of people involved in drug abuse for example for an example of how this plays out in practice.

So in context, this verse does not support your position regarding the passing on of the actual sin of Adam as opposed to the sin nature.



Ps 51:5 Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conveive me

Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned, so we know his mother sinned. This says nothing about the person being held responsible for Adam's sin.


John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spriit is spirit

John 3:4-8
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

In context this is speaking about what needs to be done to be saved. Again, nothing here about being held responsible for the sin of Adam.


Eph4:22 Put off concerning the former converstation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.

Gen 8:21 The imagination of mans's heart is evil from his youth


This is speaking about lusts, which is the sinful nature, the sin orientation, which agrees which what I said, but says nothing about us being held to pay for the sin of Adam.


Matt 27: 25 And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Matt 27:22-26
22 Pilate said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said to him, "Let Him be crucified!" 23 Then the governor said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they cried out all the more, saying, "Let Him be crucified!" 24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it." 25 And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children." 26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.
NKJV

In context, this is an angry, anti-Christian mob asking for Christ's blood to be put upon them, not a declaration of doctrine from God, nor does it speak of us being held responsible for the sin of Adam.


Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. *** In this the descendants of Ham ore the curse of their ancestors sin

Curses are often placed upon persons or nations for what has been done, but again, that goes back to the comments that I made above ion Exodus 20. Let's us also not forget that these curses are broken by receiving Christ as Saviour, but the passing on of the sin nature from generation to generation which is the topic at hand, will continue until the return of Christ because it is our flesh which is corrupt.


Eccl 7:20 Thre is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not

Is 64:6 We are all as an unclen thing and all our righteousness are as filthy rags


Again, this is the same as Romans 3:23, but says nothing about us being responsible to pay the price for Adam's sin.

The doctrine of the sins nature if true, but none of us will be called to pay the price for Adam's sin, however because of the corruption of the flesh that resulted from his sin, we all have sinned and will be held accountable for our own sin. That is why we must receive Christ as Saviour.

If it was only Adam's sin that we were paying the price for, then all that would be necessary would be for the blood of Christ to pay the price for Adam's sin and we would all be saved.

I do not dispute the Biblical doctrine of the original sin corrupting all nature and making us salves to sin, but scripture does not support the believe that all men are guilty of the sins of their ancestors. Indeed quite the opposite, for example:

Deut 24:16
16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.
NKJV

Paul's teaching on the doctrine of the original Sin:

Rom 5:12-21
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
NKJV

Note that through one man and one sin, sin entered the world, and through sin, death entered the world. Yet is is not sin which is is passed down, but the effect of sin, which is death, which comes through the corruption of nature. It is as a result of this, that even without sin, death is in our flesh, and death in this context speaks both of physical and spiritual death because as a result of the sin nature that we inherited, we are slaves to sin, as Paul goes on to explain in Romans 6:

Rom 6:16-23
16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
NKJV

When we are born, we have the sin nature and are slaves to sin, and thus we all sin (Romans 3:23). But we have the freedom to come to Christ, accept His free gift on the cross, and to become slaves to righteousness by submitting ourselves to His Lordship as our Saviour.

We therefore sin, and are held responsible for our own sin which results from us being slaves to sin, due to the sin nature inherited since the original sin of Adam. God is not unjust and does not hold us responsible for the sins of others (Deut 14:16), but we are fully responsible for our own sin. And because all have sinned, we are all on our way to hell and have all condemned ourselves if we have not received Christ as our Saviour.

John 3:17-19
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
NKJV

Christ's sacrifice on the cross breaks the curse of sin.

Yes, after they have accepted Christ and are baptised, they are forgiven, does not mean that the flesh is not still of the world and contains sin.

And since sin transfers though the father ( that is why Jesus was born of Mary as a virgin, thus the transfer of sin did not take place)

Yes, after they have accepted Christ and are baptised, they are forgiven, does not mean that the flesh is not still of the world and contains sin.

Baptism is not essential for salvation (but that is a different topic :) ).


And since sin transfers though the father ( that is why Jesus was born of Mary as a virgin, thus the transfer of sin did not take place)

I cannot agree to that since I see no scriptural validation that sin transmits from parent to child. The sin nature, on the other hand, I do agree is transmitted.

The Doctrine of *Original Sin* is closely associated with St. Augustine of Hippo who was an influential theologian in the fourth century. For a complete biography written in layman's terms of St. Augustine, check out Wikipedia from which this snippet is taken:

"Augustine taught that Original Sin was transmitted by concupiscence (roughly, lust), weakening the will[20] and making humanity a massa damnata[20] (mass of perdition, condemned crowd). In the struggle against Pelagianism, Augustine's teaching was confirmed by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange.[20] The identification of concupiscence and Original Sin, however, was challenged by Anselm and condemned in 1567 by Pope Pius V.[20]

Augustine's formulation of the doctrine of original sin has substantially influenced both Catholic and Reformed (that is, Calvinist) theology. His understanding of sin and grace was developed against that of Pelagius.[21] Expositions on the topics are found in his works On Original Sin, On the Predestination of the Saints, On the Gift of Perseverance and On Nature and Grace.

Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all human beings inherit. As sinners, human beings are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[21] Augustine's idea of predestination rests on the assertion that God has foreordained, from eternity, those who will be saved. The number of the elect is fixed.[21] God has chosen the elect certainly and gratuitously, without any previous merit (ante merita) on their part.

The Roman Catholic Church considers Augustine's teaching to be consistent with free will.[22] He often said that any can be saved if they wish.[22] While God knows who will be saved and who won't, with no possibility that one destined to be lost will be saved, this knowledge represents God's perfect knowledge of how humans will freely choose their destinies.[22]... "

Best wishes,

We inherited their sin as a result and it was imputed to the rest of us. It may not seem "fair" by mortal human standards but we have to remember that we are dealing with God's standards here, not our own. And because we are sinners it is impossible for us to fully understand or think like God, which is precisely why so much of what God does seems "unfair" or "illogical."

This has never sat right with me and it was drilled into my head when i was in catholic school. Why would God punish us all from what the first two people on earth did. Why does everyone come in to life with a sin. Just doesn't seem logical. To me that story of original sin is a scare tactic to get people to baptist a child and make them part of this religion. So whats the deal why are we all punished at birth from what the first two people on earth did.

"GOD" doesn't punish anyone, that is something created long ago by people who didn't understand the nature of reality and the politics of the time that wanted to control the masses by eradicating free thought and having control over the populace at large.

Ive been alive for quite a while and I have thought of these religious things. The reason so many things in the bible sound "illogical" is that so much of the bible was stricken away or not added, because of the political emperors of the past.

Ive thought about it and as I am a hypnotist and past life regressionist and I have seen anyone go back into their past lives, whether they are religious, believing in nothing, or believe in something between the two, they've all had past lives. I think that the phrase that "Noone is born without sin" is a reference to reincarnation of course.

How else would it make sense that a baby be considered sinful when its not had time to sin? Lol Obviously it's a reference to the lives before, and that this child while innocent in its OWN body, has a soul that contains all the memories of all its journeys its been on in the past.. or possibly in parallel realities.

BTW mathematicians have just proven that parallel worlds exist, did you hear about that? This is the first time they have been able to prove what was a theory by scientists, using math.

Of course people aren't being punished at birth from what "two people" who were supposedly the only two people on the Earth did. No one even knows if it happened on this planet. They weren't the only two people anyway. Remember Adam had a GF/wife before.. lilith, and there was an entire city near Eden. Why is it that Adam can have sex with someone beforehand? Well Eve might have as well, these were male dominated times you know.

Anyway Im not sure if you are serious w/ your questions or if you are simply writing to see what you get. If something DOES NOT MAKE SENSE... do not make it a belief, that is a good way to go through life. Consider what you know and use that to piece together this very fragmented set of ideas from days gone.. but do not use some edited references and take them to heart because it will only sully your own life.

Yes we've had past lives before, I should know that Ive seen it every time and I have regressed and helped enough people, and its hard to believe in 2007 anyone is having these issues with understanding but I think it's that people are passing on their beliefs to their children and never allowing them the freedom of thought and to explore their own minds themselves. Some say "They can make up their own minds when they grow up" but by that time they are so conditioned to not question that they don't bother questioning at all.

It's a good thing that you are questioning because that is a mind that is truly GOD LIKE..

The God concept would never have a mind that only accepts beliefs from others without question because the "God concept" is MULTIFACETED so how is that possible? A multifaceted mind explores.

God would want proof in various different ways. She/He/It would be exploring and creating and comparing. That's what it means to be so strong and fearless.

For someone to think they "know it all" without any research whatsoever and compelling debates.. that is something left to those that just are too fear based to evolve and have been relegated to what was left behind. That's why they are fighting in the mid east so much.. its male dominated,and everyone wants to kill each other based on their religious beliefs, THIS IS LAUGHABLE as nothing that is spiritual would ever involve any kind of VIOLENCE to animal or humankind!!

I've known many people who become atheists because religionists turn them off so much, and that's just the opposite of being religious, they really haven't made any strides in their thinking.. they have gone from believing what they are told, to believing in nothing and not venturing to find out anything either.

Minds are like parachutes they only function when they are open.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to answer your question, spitvenom.

Catholicism/Christianity is faith/belief... it is not fact or knowledge. I gave up Catholicism when I was 18, and I am leaving life as a happy atheist!

Not sure what you call a Catholic explanation, thiers come from the bible
Basically I mean what Tj3 said. Catholics make original sin sound more like you are doomed IN sin. I believe it is more that we have a sin nature and we are not born with a spiritual connection with God. I don't believe original sin means it is like you are born punished and hopeless.

This has never sat right with me and it was drilled into my head when i was in catholic school. Why would God punish us all from what the first two people on earth did. Why does everyone come in to life with a sin. Just doesn't seem logical. To me that story of original sin is a scare tactic to get people to baptist a child and make them part of this religion. So whats the deal why are we all punished at birth from what the first two people on earth did.

What I had wondered at one time that is sort of along the lines of what you are asking is why weren't we all given the opportunity that they were? If we all had that opportunity then surely not everyone would have chosen sin.

But then I thought about this, and my thoughts may help you as well... If everyone of us had the same opportunity they did then we could not have been born by man. God would have to create us all as He did Adam and Eve. Not only that, He would have had to separate us from those who chose to sin. The reason being is because we could not know sin at all like Adam and Eve did at first. If we are born to sinners then we see and know sin. Therefore we would have to be completely away from sinners, not knowing sin, then we could be provided the opportunity to listen to God or not. When I thought about it, I realized how ridiculous that would be. And also, it is not necessary for Him to do that since He sent Jesus to die so that we may have eternal life again. I also thought that God could have simply done away with His creation altogether if He wanted to. So rather than wondering why I didn't get the opportunity Adam and Eve did, I am grateful that God provided a way that we can go back to the perfection He intended from the beginning, because He could have very well done away with His creation on the spot when Adam and Eve sinned. There is nothing better, that greater shows His love for us, than keeping us around after what we did and still do, and providing a way that we can have eternal life again.

You are punished at birth because you are a sinner at birth. Have you ever known anyone, besides Jesus, who was sinless? More so than that, have you ever known a child who was sinless? I'm not talking about accountablility here. I am just talking about sin.

From Mark 10

13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Is he referring to their innocent, "pre fallen like" state? :confused:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Like all prior posts mention we are sinners and have that weakness regardless of what Adam and Eve did.

You don't even have to believe in the Bible or religion to know that this world is not perfect and never will be. Look at all the suffering and misery.

God is Holy, perfect, good. He cannot be with those that are not - just His nature.
Some may see this just judgement as punishment, but consider...

As Moonlight mentions...



He sends the solution - His love, His Son, Jesus Christ. :D


A truly evil God would let us get what we deserve. :(

Well of course we can each exchange verses that the other will not accept as proof. The bible is one faith, you can not merely dismiss verses you don't agree are clear on Gods ability to hold all mankind as unclean,

This verse obviously is talking about the faith of the child to believe, not any innocent state. It is just a matter that man is sinful, if you don't believe at birth, well shortly as soon as they are aware, since sinful nature of man There is nothing man can do, to clean that sin without Christ,

This differnece is why a portion of the protestant churches do not do infant baptism, and the remainder of the protestant, catholic and orthodox do infant baptism. You will never convince me, and sadly I will not convince you, if that was possible then entire denominations would change.

Fr-

I was not trying to be contrary.

I do appreciate that other Christians have differing views on certain topics or versus and I try to learn from all of this, because not to infrequently I'm not quite sure what the meaning is. Thanks.



Grace and Peace

I agree with Inthebox.
My point is that if we are born in a doomed state of sin punishment then 'innocense of a child' and faith of a child would be a contradictry thing.

You can say The bible is one faith, you can not merely dismiss verses you don't agree are clear on Gods ability to hold all mankind as unclean,
if it is that simple there wouldn't be so many different doctrinal beliefs.

I agree with Inthebox.
My point is that if we are born in a doomed state of sin punishment then 'innocense of a child' and faith of a child would be a contradictry thing.

You can say The bible is one faith, you can not merley dismiss verses you don't agree are clear on Gods ability to hold all mankind as unclean,
if it is that simple there wouldn't be so many different doctrinal beliefs.

I have to agree with Chuck on this one. We are to come to God as a young child comes to their Father, believing what he says without questioning whether it is true, and without questioning His authority. There is nothing in the passage that says that children are innocent, nor are we told that we have to be innocent - we cannot be. But taking this passage to means the faith of the child is in concert with what scripture says about faith of the OT saints in Hebrews, and I am reminded specifically of the faith of Abraham:

James 2:23
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
NKJV

Too many people come to God saying that they do not believe the Bible because they cannot understand so much - but God asks us to come to Him as a child. You do not have to understand everything, just as you can ride in an aircraft and believe that it can do what the airline claims without understanding everything about how it happens.

The second topic which is not explicitly mentioned, but which is inherently part of your comment is whether children are saved - and that is a different topic all on it's own.

I don't have a big problem with sin, original or otherwise. I understand it as a sense of profound alienation and separation from the source of our truest and highest Self. Living on the material plane makes it hard to avoid such an illusion.

What sticks in my throat is the idea that a loving Father would require the death of an innocent being as a condition of being reconciled to his children. As I see it, the doctrine of sacrificial atonement by the death of an innocent is fundamentally at odds with the doctrine of a loving, forgiving, and merciful Father.

I don't have a big problem with sin, original or otherwise. I understand it as a sense of profound alienation and separation from the source of our truest and highest Self. Living on the material plane makes it hard to avoid such an illusion.

What sticks in my throat is the idea that a loving Father would require the death of an innocent being as a condition of being reconciled to his children. As I see it, the doctrine of sacrificial atonement by the death of an innocent is fundamentally at odds with the doctrine of a loving, forgiving, and merciful Father.

First, keep in mind that God did not require the death of another innocent being. He, and Almighty being, the creator of the universe Himself, He came to earth to take the penalty upon Himself (yes, God Himself was that innocent being who took the penalty) that was required as a result of our disobedience. And He did so while man was in sin and in rebellion against Him. He made the first move, and did so to provide a way that may could be reconciled, when man was ready to do so.

Keep in mind that God is a Holy God and cannot abide sin in His presence. So what does He do about our sin? When we receive Him as Saviour, He covers our sin by imputing His own righteous into us.

Can you imagine a situation where you had committed a serious crime, a murder or robbery, and the person responsible for putting the law and penalty in place, be it President, Prime Minister or Queen came themselves and said - "release him, and I will take the penalty myself in his place"?

There is so much more that I could add, but I cannot imagine a human with so much love - how could anyone say that this is not the act of a loving God?

I'm sorry, Tj, no amount of contortion can make this palatable. Believe me, I tried for years. Where could a required death penalty come from, that God would be powerless to commute it and to forgive whomever He will?

I'm sorry, Tj, no amount of contortion can make this palatable. Believe me, I tried for years. Where could a required death penalty come from, that God would be powerless to commute it and to forgive whomever He will?

I note that you did not even address the points that I raised. Rather than address the points, you just reject them outright for no stated reason as "contortion". Interesting.

Can God forgive sin? Absolutely. But God also said upfront what the price was and to be just, the price must be paid. Then He said that He was prepared to pay that price Himself and would forgive whosoever would receive it. And you accuse Him of not being forgiving? What else is forgiveness than accepting and absorbing the price for a wrong committed against you and then choosing to forget that sin. So He did pay the price for sin, but if I read you right, you don't agree with HOW He chose to forgive the sin. Since He took the full penalty, what does it matter to you?

TJ3 So according to what you are saying that we are born punished in original sin as though we did the sin ourself?
I believe that we are born with the sin of human nature within us but other than that this is how I see 'original sin'

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

TJ3 So according to what you are saying that we are born punished in original sin as though we did the sin ourself?


No absolutely not. I cannot imagine for a moment how you could think that I was saying that after what I have posted in previous messages on here.

We are born with the DESIRE to sin because of the sinful orientation that came due to the corruption of all nature resulting from the Original sin. But we are held responsible for the sins that we commit and only the sins that we commit.

The doctrine of the original sin in scripture DOES NOT say that we are held to account for Adam's sin, but rather that the Original sin corrupted all nature giving us a sin nature (sinful orientation)

I hope that my position on this is now clear!

okay that is a word we agree on but that isn't what I take the Catholics definition of original sin to mean. And that was my point. May not have worded it very well.

okay that is a word we agree on but that isn't what I take the Catholics definition of original sin to mean. And that was my point. May not have worded it very well.

Okay. I agree. I believe that the difference between what I read in scripture and the Catholic position is that they do not believe that it is possible to separate out the sin nature from sin. I believe that I am correct in saying that they believe that the sin nature is sin inherited from Adam, in which case your description of what they believe would be correct.

I will still argue that it is not merely a "Catholic" position, while they do also teach it, it is a Chrsitian position, since Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran,
Episcopal and several other churches teaching also.

Why must one call it a "catholic" teaching of original sin, not merely the Christian teaching of original sin. Or the Lutheran teaching of original sin.

I will still argue that it is not merely a "Catholic" position, while they do also teach it, it is a Chrsitian position, since Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran,
Episcopal and several other churches teaching also.

Why must one call it a "catholic" teaching of orginal sin, not merley the Christian teaching of orginal sin. or the Lutheran teaching of orginal sin.

I, for one, do not agree that it is the Christian position. There may indeed be some denominations who choose to hold to this position - that is not in dispute, but I do not see it in scripture and have shown verses that explicitly teach against it. That is why I would disagree that it is the Christian position - that and the fact that it is far from being universally accepted by professing Christians. One could certainly call it a position held by certain, or even a number of professing Christian denominations, but that is as far as I believe that we could go on labeling it.

If you ask Christians if they believe in the Doctrine of the Original Sin, I believe that all professing Christians will agree - but as we see here when we get into what we mean by that term, we see that we are far from being in agreement.

I note that you did not even address the points that I raised. Rather than address the points, you just reject them outright for no stated reason as "contortion". Interesting.
Well you didn't answer my question either, so I guess we're even.

And you accuse Him of not being forgiving?
Not at all. I'm quite sure He forgives whomever He deems worthy, and does it fully, freely and willingly, without any necessity for a gruesome death by anybody.

So He did pay the price for sin, but if I read you right, you don't agree with HOW He chose to forgive the sin. Since He took the full penalty, what does it matter to you?
No, I agree completely with how He does it. What I disagree with is the Christian explanation of how He does it. I don't think the "criminal justice" analogy fits the actual situation. Estrangement and separation are consequences of sin, not punishments or penalties for it. Forgiveness is reunion and reconciliation, not some kind of judicial determination. The reason it matters to me is that I think the "atonement" doctrine misrepresents His character and attitude toward human beings.

Well if the majority of all Christians accept it as their teachings, it would make it Christian, I doubt if you talk to the local Lutheran seminary they would view it as a non christian belief.

It is merely not your denominations teachings, but as for as pure numbers, it is accepted by the largest number of chirsitains as their teachings

Well if the majority of all Christians accept it as thier teachings, it would make it Christian, I doubt if you talk to the local Lutheran seminary they would view it as a non christian beleif.

It is merely not your denominations teachings, but as for as pure numbers, it is accepted by the largest number of chirsitains as thier teachings

I do not have a denomination, nor do I believe that numbers or indeed even denominational teachings establish orthodox Christian beliefs, but rather that is why God gave us the Holy Scriptures (Assuming that anyone could validate that the majority of Christians actually personally hold to this belief).

If a denominational belief does not align with the Bible, which do you believe should be considered the standard?

Rom 11:4-5
4 But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."
NKJV

When it is millions against the 7000, will it be numbers, or God's word who will decide which side we are on? That day will come:

Luke 18:8
8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?"
NKJV

Well you didn't answer my question either, so I guess we're even.


Actually, I did. Maybe you did not read far enough down.


Not at all. I'm quite sure He forgives whomever He deems worthy, and does it fully, freely and willingly, without any necessity for a gruesome death by anybody.


Let's see what He says:

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

Do you believe that you are in a position to judge whether God is right?


No, I agree completely with how He does it. What I disagree with is the Christian explanation of how He does it.

Why don't we go to God's word and go by what He says?

Actually, I did. maybe you did not read far enough down.
No, I read your post quite carefully, and just now went back and read it again, and there is nothing in it that's responsive to my question, "Where could a required death penalty come from, that God would be powerless to commute it and to forgive whomever He will?"

Let's see what He says:

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV
That's what the author of the book of Hebrews said. Different person altogether.

Do you believe that you are in a position to judge whether God is right?
No, but based on my understanding and experience of God's forgiving nature, I'm able to judge whether Christian doctrine is right on this point.

Why don't we go to God's word and go by what He says?
I don't believe that the Bible is God's word. I know that the idea of sacrifice as a requirement for forgiveness is central in both the old and new testaments, I just think it's wrong. It's a holdover from primitive religions that interpreted both natural and personal catastrophe as evidence of God's wrath that must be appeased. It's rooted in fear and a mistaken concept of God's attitude and relationship to us. Based on the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, it seems to me that a big part of his mission was to correct this misconception by emphasizing the image of God as our loving and merciful Father, not our severe and exacting Judge.

No, I read your post quite carefully, and just now went back and read it again, and there is nothing in it that's responsive to my question, "Where could a required death penalty come from, that God would be powerless to commute it and to forgive whomever He will?"


Then you did not read carefully enough, because I quoted you and addressed the point.


That's what the author of the book of Hebrews said. Different person altogether.

Different person than who? Do you deny that all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself?


No, but based on my understanding and experience of God's forgiving nature, I'm able to judge whether Christian doctrine is right on this point.

The Bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. And again, if I understand correct, you are placing your experience and understanding above the word of God.



I don't believe that the Bible is God's word.

This explains why you don't believe what scripture says.



I know that the idea of sacrifice as a requirement for forgiveness is central in both the old and new testaments, I just think it's wrong. It's a holdover from primitive religions that interpreted both natural and personal catastrophe as evidence of God's wrath that must be appeased. It's rooted in fear and a mistaken concept of God's attitude and relationship to us. Based on the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, it seems to me that a big part of his mission was to correct this misconception by emphasizing the image of God as our loving and merciful Father, not our severe and exacting Judge.

If you believe that the OT speaks of a severe and exacting Judge, then you do not know the OT. Throughout the OT, we have a consistent message of God coming as our redeemer. Bujt if you deny the Bible itself, then we would get nowhere going through what scripture says.

How rude of me I posted this question and then wasn't around for three days to look at everyone's answers. But everyone is making a lot of sense and it cleared up a lot for me. Thanks Fr_Chuck you came though as always.

Do you deny that all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit?
I believe that inspiration is what allows a reader to discern the spiritual value in whatever they read. I don't believe it's an attribute or quality inherent in the words of the Bible, or any other book.

if you deny the Bible itself, then we would get nowhere going through what scripture says.
I don't "deny the Bible", I just don't believe it's the inerrant Word of God. If you think that's the same thing, then I agree that we'll get nowhere by quoting it.

I believe that inspiration is what allows a reader to discern the spiritual value in whatever they read. I don't believe it's an attribute or quality inherent in the words of the Bible, or any other book.


Read 2 Tim 3:16.

My son is in the NICU right now, and faces long odds of survival. Just today (7-January-2008), my wife, priest, and I baptized him. Jesus said, "Amen, amen. I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5) Whether he has committed a sin or not, Jesus tells us that baptism is required for my son to go to heaven should he die.

Baptism, In my opinion, is the most important of the sacraments. Our son has got a long road ahead of him. No matter where that road takes him (I pray for recovery), I now know that he'll be in the grace of God.

My son is in the NICU right now, and faces long odds of survival. Just today (7-January-2008), my wife, priest, and I baptized him. Jesus said, "Amen, amen. I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5) Whether he has committed a sin or not, Jesus tells us that baptism is required for my son to go to heaven should he die.

Baptism, IMHO, is the most important of the sacraments. Our son has got a long road ahead of him. No matter where that road takes him (I pray for recovery), I now know that he'll be in the grace of God.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born
again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

If baptism is essential for salvation, then how did these people receive the Holy Spirit which is only given to those who are saved if they had not yet been baptized?

Acts 10:47-48
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV

This has never sat right with me and it was drilled into my head when i was in catholic school.

I felt the same way until I understood.


Why would God punish us all from what the first two people on earth did.

He didn't.


Why does everyone come in to life with a sin.

We don't.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.


Just doesn't seem logical. To me that story of original sin is a scare tactic to get people to baptist a child and make them part of this religion. So what's the deal why are we all punished at birth from what the first two people on earth did.

As explained above, we aren't punished by God. The way I understood it was when someone compared it to an inheritiance.

Lets say that certain parents had a million dollars. They went to the Casino and lost all their money. Then they had children. When they died, they could pass on what they had but not what they didn't have. So they couldn't pass on the million dollars they had lost.

Adam and Eve were created in a state of original justice united to God. In that state, they would have physically lived forever. But they gave that up when they decided to listen to the Serpent. They literally exchanged a condition of original justice united to God for a new condition of original sin united to the Serpent. In this state, they could no longer live forever and their children would be prone to commit the same mistakes that they had made.

This is, in my opinion, the most logical explanation for the condition of the world today.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God.

Scripture tells us that this is the result of receiving Jesus as Saviour and believing in Him (John 3:16 and many others), not water baptism. Water baptism is symbolic. To have the grace of God imparted to us, as John 3:16 and other verses tell us, we must first turn to God, receive Him as saviour, and when we do so, it is by the grace of God that our sins are washed.

Scripture tells us that this is the result of receiving Jesus as Saviour and believing in Him (John 3:16 and many others), not water baptism.

John 3:3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: 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.


We must be born of Water and Spirit. That is Baptism.


Water baptism is symbolic.

It is also efficacious. The water washing over the body symbolizes the Spirit of God cleansing the soul.


To have the grace of God imparted to us, as John 3:16 and other verses tell us, we must first turn to God, receive Him as saviour, and when we do so, it is by the grace of God that our sins are washed.

AND BE BAPTIZED:
Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

It is also efficacious. The water washing over the body symbolizes the Spirit of God cleansing the soul.

So are you saying that the reality (the Spirit of God cleansing the soul) CANNOT come until AFTER the symbolic ritual (water washing over the body) has been carried out?

I tend to think that the symbolic enactment is an outward expression of something that has ALREADY happened inwardly, in reality.

John 3:3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: 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.


We must be born of Water and Spirit. That is Baptism.

That passage is explained by Jesus himself and it is NOT speaking of water baptism.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.


It is also efficacious. The water washing over the body symbolizes the Spirit of God cleansing the soul.

Really? Where does scripture say that water baptism is efficacious?


AND BE BAPTIZED:
Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

The argument is this. If you take the first half of the verse, it says “He who believes and is baptized is saved”, therefore believing and baptism are the essential requirements for baptism. For the believers in this doctrine, that is a slam-dunk argument. But is it? Let's look at this passage in context and let's see if it really says what they claim.

First, it inappropriate to take a verse out of context, let alone cutting a verse in half and only looking at the first half of the verse. I could come up with a lot of very strange doctrines using that approach. Let me give an example:

Gen 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may
freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the
day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
NKJV

God says in this passage:
“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good
And evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. If I did the same thing to this passage as is done in this argument in Mark 16:16 shown above, I would stop at the semi-colon and would read:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat“

Of course I have now change the meaning of the passage entirely and negated fully the message that God was giving to Adam and Eve. This is therefore a very dangerous approach and can significantly alter the meanings of many passages throughout scripture.

If we look now at Mark 16:16 in its entirety, we read:

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be
Condemned.
NKJV

What do we know just from this verse alone:

1) If we believe and are baptized that we are saved.
2) If we do not believe, we are condemned (unsaved)

The interesting this is that this does NOT say that if we are not baptized that we are condemned. But it does say that is we do not believe that we are condemned. Why would that be omitted in the second half of the verse?

The truth of this conclusion just from a logical perspective can be seen by using the same logic syllogism as Mark 16:16 uses, only in a different context:

If I have a full time job and red hair, I get a paycheque. If do not have a job, I receive no paycheque.

Note that it is the paycheque which is critical. The red hair is incidental and yet this sentence is still logically valid. One may ask why baptism was even inserted in the first half of the verse if it adds nothing to the requirements for salvation. I believe that it was to emphasize the importance of witnessing your faith and showing your desire to following Christ by being obedient and showing love for Him who dies on the cross for our salvation.

So are you saying that the reality (the Spirit of God cleansing the soul) CANNOT come until AFTER the symbolic ritual (water washing over the body) has been carried out?

I tend to think that the symbolic enactment is an outward expression of something that has ALREADY happened inwardly, in reality.

As I understand, it is the result of Baptism. So if it isn't simultaneous, it is immediately after.

1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

The baptized have "put on Christ." Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

Sincerely,

That passage is explained by Jesus himself and it is NOT speaking of water baptism.

It is very telling that Jesus was baptizing in the Ennon near Salim when He said this:

John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Ennon near Salim; because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized.


John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

Except that Nicodemus came to Jesus while Jesus' disciples were baptizing the populace. That explains why Jesus gave a lesson on Baptism without even mentioning the word.

Note however, that Jesus does not equate the flesh and the water. This is a connection which you have made because you want to justify this belief.

Jesus distinguishes between the flesh and the Spirit. All men are born of water and flesh. But in order to be born again, one must be born of water and Spirit. The Water symbolizes the New Birth efficaciously. It is the sign which God has established to reveal the inward reality.


Really? Where does scripture say that water baptism is efficacious?

Many places but especially in these words we are reviewing. Here is another:

Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:...

1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:...

Romans 6 4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.


The argument is this. If you take the first half of the verse, it says “He who believes and is baptized is saved”, therefore believing and baptism are the essential requirements for baptism.

For salvation you mean. And I wouldn't use the word "the" in front of "essential" as there are other essential requirements, such as "perseverance to the end".


For the believers in this doctrine, that is a slam-dunk argument. But is it? Let's look at this passage in context and let's see if it really says what they claim.

Ok


First, it inappropriate to take a verse out of context,

I didn't.


let alone cutting a verse in half

Just as I cut your phrases in half in order to get to the meat of the issue, it is correct to abbreviate a verse to highlight the point in question. You do understand that frequently, sentences carry more than one idea and assumption?


and only looking at the first half of the verse. I could come up with a lot of very strange doctrines using that approach.

I'm sure you could. But I haven't. My interpretation is according to the interpretation of the ancient Church which goes back to the first century Fathers.


Let me give an example:

Gen 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may
freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the
day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
NKJV

God says in this passage:
“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. If I did the same thing to this passage as is done in this argument in Mark 16:16 shown above, I would stop at the semi-colon and would read:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat“

Of course I have now change the meaning of the passage entirely and negated fully the message that God was giving to Adam and Eve. This is therefore a very dangerous approach and can significantly alter the meanings of many passages throughout scripture.

If done the way you did it, yes. But I haven't done so.


If we look now at Mark 16:16 in its entirety, we read:

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

What do we know just from this verse alone:

1) If we believe and are baptized that we are saved.
2) If we do not believe, we are condemned (unsaved)

The interesting this is that this does NOT say that if we are not baptized that we are condemned.

Because without faith one can't please God. So if one is baptized although he doesn't believe, that will be a fruitless exercise. Lets break it down again.

1. If we believe and are baptized we are saved.
2. If we do not believe and yet are baptized, we are not saved.
3. If we do not believe and are not baptized and we are not saved.
4. If we believe and are not baptized, we won't be saved.

Our works are an expression of our faith. If a person claims to believe yet does not accept baptism then he actually does not believe.

James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.

If a person is baptized although he does not believe, well we know that without faith it is impossible to please God so that would be a useless exercise.


But it does say that is we do not believe that we are condemned. Why would that be omitted in the second half of the verse?

Because if one does not believe, one does not have faith and it is impossible to please God without faith. So it wouldn't matter if one were baptized.


The truth of this conclusion just from a logical perspective can be seen by using the same logic syllogism as Mark 16:16 uses, only in a different context:

If I have a full time job and red hair, I get a paycheque. If do not have a job, I receive no paycheque.

Note that it is the paycheque which is critical. The red hair is incidental and yet this sentence is still logically valid. One may ask why baptism was even inserted in the first half of the verse if it adds nothing to the requirements for salvation.

It was inserted because it is critical. YOU don't want it to be there but it is. You are inserting your presuppositions into Scripture.


I believe that it was to emphasize the importance of witnessing your faith and showing your desire to following Christ by being obedient and showing love for Him who dies on the cross for our salvation.

Then obey and you will be blessed. If Christ says "believe and be baptized" I will obey, won't you?

John 14 23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.

Sincerely,

De Maria

As I understand, it is the result of Baptism. So if it isn't simultaneous, it is immediately after.
That's what I thought you meant--the symbol causes the reality. That's not how I understand the relationship between symbol and reality, but if it works for you, OK.

That's what I thought you meant--the symbol causes the reality.

It is God's grace first of all which causes the reality. It is God who connected baptism and salvation.
The Catechism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.... God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Following that, Baptism must be accompanied by faith. If one is baptized without faith, it is not efficacious.

The Catechism
1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

THEN because God said that Baptism is efficacious and because the man is baptized from faith in God, at that point the washing of the water of Baptism shows the reality of the washing of the soul.

The Catechism:
537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. The Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father's beloved son in the Son and "walk in newness of life":

Let us be buried with Christ by Baptism to rise with him; let us go down with him to be raised with him; and let us rise with him to be glorified with him.

Everything that happened to Christ lets us know that, after the bath of water, the Holy Spirit swoops down upon us from high heaven and that, adopted by the Father's voice, we become sons of God.


That's not how I understand the relationship between symbol and reality, but if it works for you, OK.

You are not a member of the Body of Christ before Baptism. You are not cleansed of your sin before Baptism. This is not a result of the washing of the water but of God's Will. It is God's will that by the washing of the water of Baptism we are cleansed of sin.

I hope the clarifies my position, which I believe is the Catholic Teaching on the matter:

Sincerely,

I hope the clarifies my position, which I believe is the Catholic Teaching on the matter
Your position is nothing, if not clear. Lack of clarity is not one of its shortcomings. Thank you for that.

I think it's ridiculous to call darling babies sinners.

I think it's ridiculous to call darling babies sinners.

Who did that?

Everyone that agrees that we are born in sin and require baptism to make us better in the eyes of the Almighty so that we don't burn in hell.

Everyone that agrees that we are born in sin and require baptism to make us better in the eyes of the Almighty so that we don't burn in hell.

Could you give a specific quote and a specific name?

Exodus 20:4-7
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

There are others but naming all of them is silly. My point is that the religion is archaic and depicts God as a mean unforgiving dictator.

It is very telling that Jesus was baptizing in the Ennon near Salim when He said this:

John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Ennon near Salim; because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized.


Did you notice that was AFTER John 3:5? Again, John 3:5 was not in the context of baptism.

John 3:22-23
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.
NKJV


Note however, that Jesus does not equate the flesh and the water. This is a connection which you have made because you want to justify this belief.

Read the passage again.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NKJV


Many places but especially in these words we are reviewing. Here is another:

Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:...

This was previously refuted - again it is wrong to cut a verse in half and take one half out of context.


1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:...

Another one taken out of context. Let's look at the passage in context

1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV

We see three things discussed here:

1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
2) Water baptism
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.


This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.

Now with that in mind, let's look at the verse which is most often quoted by proponents of
baptismal regeneration:

1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,
NKJV

The contrasting types, the ark, which saved Noah and family through the water, and baptism which saves us in the water - as a type. A "type" simply means symbolic, and thus is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ through we we are in fact saved.

Now, let's look at the wider context:

1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us toGod, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
NKJV

Salvation came by Christ suffering on the cross for our sins and then we are made alive by the Spirit. Scripture says that there is one baptism, and it is not a baptism that replaces the blood with water, or replaces the spirit with water, but it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Note that by stating that it is water baptism that is essential, what we are in effect being told is that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not essential, and that they choose water to replace the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Consider the implications.

1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV

Note that it is water that removes the filth of the flesh, but the water is symbolic of the salvation on the cross. Also note that the substances which cleanses, is the answer of a good conscience towards God. We see a similar reference in Hebrews 9

This passage is very clear regarding the symbolic nature of the various rituals. The reference here to ritual washings is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament where it is translated as “baptism”.

Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood
of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of
a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this
reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
NKJV

We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.


Romans 6 4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

I dealt with this one in the same rebuttal above.


John 14 23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.

Are you trying to say that unless obedient to baptism, we cannot be saved?

As I understand, it is the result of Baptism. So if it isn't simultaneous, it is immediately after.

1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

The baptized have "put on Christ." Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

Sincerely,

Perhaps you would answer the question that I asked earlier.

Acts 10:47-48
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
NKJV

How were these people saved and filled with the Holy Spirit before being baptized?

Perhaps you would answer the question that I asked earlier.

Acts 10:47-48
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
NKJV

How were these people saved and filled with the Holy Spirit before being baptized?

Where does it say that they were saved before they received Baptism?

There are others but naming all of them is silly.

Why? The only way to respond to anything is if the complaint is specific. Otherwise we are just talking past each other.


My point is that the religion is archaic and depicts God as a mean unforgiving dictator.

Which religion is archaic?

As for Catholicism. It depicts God as a loving yet strict Father.

Exodus 20:4-7
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


This verse acknowledges that fathers teach their children to sin against God. And if the children do not convert from their father's teaching, God will punish them. But f they convert, they will break the curse.

punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

This does not say what you originally alleged, that innocent children were called sinners.

Sincerely,

Do unborn babies that die in traffic accidents go to hell?

The exact fate of babies is not know, we all hope and pray because God is also a loving God. And this is why in the largest part of Christianity, babies who are born are soon baptised, and in those that do not baptise the majority of them dedicate the baby to Christ.

At least by mans logic, we can't believe that God would hold their judgement on them, since they only carry original sin, which of course Jesus also died for. And of course can not ask for his forgiveness yet.

It is when they reach an age that they can make that choice that one has to worry the most.

But then we can't change what happens to them one way or the other, what we can do, is to be sure that the parents are saved, and are beleivers, and that all we can understand that Jesus loves them enough to die for them, in their place. And they need to ask forgiveness of their sins and accept him as their savior.

This does not dimiss the original sin, since we know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so anyone can not be saved without Christ, but if they can not call on him thierself, I am sure he is still there for them.

Where does it say that they were saved before they received Baptism?

In Acts 10:47, we are told that they received the Holy Spirit as the Apostles had - and scripture is abundantly clear that only those who are saved can receive the Holy Spirit.

Did you notice that was AFTER John 3:5? Again, John 3:5 was not in the context of baptism.

Then it was immediately after. The proximity of this verse to the act of Baptizing is the context.


Read the passage again.

Why? It is clear.


JThis was previously refuted

Nope.


- again it is wrong to cut a verse in half and take one half out of context.


Another one taken out of context. Let's look at the passage in context

Nope.


1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV

We see three things discussed here:

1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
2) Water baptism
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.


This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.

Again, you are reading your own presuppositions into Scripture. It is obvious in both cases that Baptism is depicted as efficacious and necessary for salvation. Yes, the Flood is a foreshadowing of Baptism because just as Noah and humankind were saved through the waters of the flood, so are we now saved by the Waters of Baptism.

And yes, Jesus death on the Cross is like our death to sin in the waters of Baptism but that doesn't mean that Baptism is not efficacious. It confirms the efficacy of Baptism.


Now with that in mind, let's look at the verse which is most often quoted by proponents of
baptismal regeneration:

1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,
NKJV

The contrasting types, the ark, which saved Noah and family through the water, and baptism which saves us in the water - as a type. A "type" simply means symbolic, and thus is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ through we we are in fact saved.

False. It does not mean symbolic. He doesn't say, it is as though baptism saves us, but says, baptism now saves us.


Now, let's look at the wider context:

1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us toGod, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
NKJV

Salvation came by Christ suffering on the cross for our sins and then we are made alive by the Spirit. Scripture says that there is one baptism, and it is not a baptism that replaces the blood with water, or replaces the spirit with water, but it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Note that by stating that it is water baptism that is essential, what we are in effect being told is that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not essential, and that they choose water to replace the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Consider the implications.

1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV

Note that it is water that removes the filth of the flesh, but the water is symbolic of the salvation on the cross. Also note that the substances which cleanses, is the answer of a good conscience towards God. We see a similar reference in Hebrews 9

I see your problem. You think I am denying the symbolic aspect of Baptism. No, I'm not. Baptism is an efficacious symbol. It is both/and. Not either/or.

1217 In the liturgy of the Easter Vigil, during the blessing of the baptismal water, the Church solemnly commemorates the great events in salvation history that already prefigured the mystery of Baptism:

Father, you give us grace through sacramental signs,
which tell us of the wonders of your unseen power.

In Baptism we use your gift of water,
which you have made a rich symbol
of the grace you give us in this sacrament.


This passage is very clear regarding the symbolic nature of the various rituals. The reference here to ritual washings is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament where it is translated as “baptism”.

Please reread my messages. The water symbolizes what is actually happening.

And yes, it is Jesus death on the Cross which empowers this Sacrament:

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized. The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death. There is the whole mystery: he died for you. In him you are redeemed, in him you are saved.




Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood
of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of
a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this
reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
NKJV

We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.

Which in no way contradicts the efficacy of Baptism.


I dealt with this one in the same rebuttal above.

And I explained how you're rebuttal is based on false assumptions.


Are you trying to say that unless obedient to baptism, we cannot be saved?

Unless obedient to Jesus Christ who requires Baptism.

Sincerely,

Then it was immediately after. The proximity of this verse to the act of Baptizing is the context.


It does not matter how soon after, it was not the same event. That is the point.


Why? It is clear.

Yes it is clear, but you appear to have missed what it says about the flesh and water.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NKJV


Nope.

Simply saying "nope" is not convincing when scripture says otherwise.


Nope.


ditto.


Again, you are reading your own presuppositions into Scripture. It is obvious in both cases that Baptism is depicted as efficacious and necessary for salvation. Yes, the Flood is a foreshadowing of Baptism because just as Noah and humankind were saved through the waters of the flood, so are we now saved by the Waters of Baptism.

Nowhere does scipture say that it is efficacious and necessary for salvation. Indeed if you read about why we bapgtize in scripture, and it source from the OT, you will see that it has always been symbolic, and scripture always speaks of it as symbolic.

If it was essential for salvation, then surely you could show us where, and surely you could expl;ain how people could be saved in scripture before water baptism - a point that I have raised a few times and is yet to be addressed.


And yes, Jesus death on the Cross is like our death to sin in the waters of Baptism but that doesn't mean that Baptism is not efficacious. It confirms the efficacy of Baptism.

Claiming it does not make it so. Show us the scripture!


False. It does not mean symbolic. He doesn't say, it is as though baptism saves us, but says, baptism now saves us.

This is going to be useless to discuss this with you if you deny the definitions of English words.


I see your problem. You think I am denying the symbolic aspect of Baptism. No, I'm not. Baptism is an efficacious symbol. It is both/and. Not either/or.

An "efficacious symbol" is a non-scriptural oxymoron.


1217 In the liturgy of the Easter Vigil, during the blessing of the baptismal water, the Church solemnly commemorates the great events in salvation history that already prefigured the mystery of Baptism:

Since I reject the CCC, as do most denominations, and since it is not scripture, quoting it will not move this discussion forward.


Please reread my messages. The water symbolizes what is actually happening.

And yes, it is Jesus death on the Cross which empowers this Sacrament:

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized. The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

I'll stick with what God's word says.


Which in no way contradicts the efficacy of Baptism.

But is does indeed because scripture ONLY says that baptism is symbolic and says in any places (and I'd be glad to quote several if you wish) that we are saved if we simply believe in Jesus as our Saviour.


And I explained how you're rebuttal is based on false assumptions.

Not yet - you repeated the same half verse again - taken out of context of the second half.


Unless obedient to Jesus Christ who requires Baptism.

I am still waiting for any verse where Jesus says baptism is required, and if obedience is required, then Rom 3:23 says that we are all without hope.

Again, the OP asked why is God a jealous God and how can he love and hate us at the same time? Condemning us all to hell if we don't get baptized and all. That is just ridiculous. I couldn't serve any dictator, heavenly or otherwise. It goes against my American spirit.

Again, the OP asked why is God a jealous God and how can he love and hate us at the same time? Condemning us all to hell if we don't get baptized and all. That is just rediculous. I couldn't serve any dictator, heavenly or otherwise. It goes against my American spirit.

Forget the baptism part because that position is widely rejected within Christianity.

However, onto your main point - God did not condemn us. We condemned ourselves.

Look at it this way, if you go out speeding and cause a major accident, and the court finds you guilty - who is at fault? Is it the court for finding you guilty of something that you did, and punishing you accordingly, or you for disobeying the law in the first place? Is it unjust to disallow dangerous driving? Or is it showing concern for the majority of people and for the stability and well-being of all to have laws in place which are for the benefit of all?

Consider.

According to the bible there is but one way to enter the kingdom of heaven and that is through Jesus Christ. You know, we must believe the stories of bread to the masses and the healing of lepers as well as the walking on water. I'm sorry but that sounds unreal. I have to see it to believe it.

This country has been known to have ridiculous laws. (http://www.dumblaws.com/) I wouldn't exactly put all my trust in the courts because they are not perfect.

Religion is out of control. Christians are killing Muslims, Muslims are killing Jews, and the Jews are plotting everyone's destruction.

Why? It is clear.

Nope.

Nope.

Again, you are reading your own presuppositions into Scripture.


False.

And I explained how you're rebuttal is based on false assumptions.



Simply saying "nope" is not convincing when scripture says otherwise.

ditto.


Claiming it does not make it so. Show us the scripture!


This is going to be useless to discuss this with you if you deny the definitions of English words.


An "efficacious symbol" is a non-scriptural oxymoron.

I'll stick with what God's word says.

Not yet - you repeated the same half verse again - taken out of context of the second half.
You guys are great. I love it. I can't figure out which of you is the pot and which one is the kettle, but you're both really good at pointing out each other's blackness.


Please reread my messages. The water symbolizes what is actually happening.


As I understand, it [the Spirit of God cleansing the soul] is the result of Baptism.

It looks to me like you've executed a perfect 180. To say that one thing is the result of another means that the former caused the latter. That's different from saying that it symbolizes or represents it.

According to the bible there is but one way to enter the kingdom of heaven and that is through Jesus Christ. You know, we must believe the stories of bread to the masses and the healing of lepers as well as the walking on water. I'm sorry but that sounds unreal. I have to see it to believe it.


Look around you - tell us how this all came to be, tell us how creation came to be. Tell us why we have life. It is all just too incredible to believe, but yet it is here. Do you see electricity? Do you see heat? Do you see air? No, and yet you believe that it is all true and it is there because you see the outcome of it existence. The same is true for God.



This country has been known to have ridiculous laws. (http://www.dumblaws.com/) I wouldn't exactly put all my trust in the courts because they are not perfect.

Imperfect laws put in by imperfect people do not in any way take away from the point that I made in my previous post.


Religion is out of control. Christians are killing Muslims, Muslims are killing Jews, and the Jews are plotting everyone's destruction.

The fact that people mis-use and manipulate people in such fashion does not take away from the truth of Christianity. Again, just because there are people who do bad things does not mean that all people are bad - that is a logic fallacy.

This thread is about Biblical Christianity. Many things are done in the name of Christ which are not consistent with His word. Let's not focus on that, but rather let's go and see what His word says. If someone went around doing bad things and said that they were doing it in your name, would that make you wrong? No, so let's not say that Christianity is wrong because of what some folk do in the name of Christ.

BTW, I object and vehemently disagree with the anti-semitism implied in your last remark.

Look around you - tell us how this all came to be, tell us how creation came to be. Tell us why we have life. It is all just too incredible to believe, but yet it is here. Do you see electricity? Do you see heat? Do you see air? That's exactly what the Greeks and Romans did when they did not understand something - they created gods to explain it.

That's exactly what the Greeks and Romans did when they did not understand something - they created gods to explain it.

Yes, their gods are of their own creation, I agree.

Uh, yeah... well the Greeks and the Romans created religion to control their subjects.

Tj3, you ask me questions you really don't want the answers to.

Uh, yeah...well the Greeks and the Romans created religion to control their subjects.

Tj3, you ask me questions you really don't want the answers to.

Yes, they did. I agree.

Which questions are you referring to?

The one about how we came to exist, and why we are here. I tend take the scientific approach to those type of questions.

Do unborn babies that die in traffic accidents go to hell?

We do not have any passages that specifically tell us that anyone who does not understand salvation will go to heaven, but on the flip side, I have yet to see a passage that says they will go to hell. But there are a few things that are indications to most Christians, including me, that anyone who does not have the ability to understand what they must do to receive salvation will indeed go to heaven, like children and metally handicapped.

Perhaps the best indication of babies going to heaven is in 2 Samuel 12:21-23. David committed adultry and it resulted in a child. God sent the prophet Nathan to tell David that because of his sin God was going to take the child in death. This grieved David and so he began to fast and pray to God to spare his child. God took the child anyway and when the child died David stopped his grieving and fasting. This is where the scripture I am going to quote comes in at...

(21)"Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? Thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. (22) And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? (23) But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

The bolded words seem to indicate that David knew his child was in heaven as he said he would see the child again. David also seemed comforted by this as he stopped his fasting and mourning.

The other thing is that God loves us. He is also just, and so I have much faith that people who do not have the ability to understand salvation will be admitted to heaven because God is loving and just.

It does not matter how soon after, it was not the same event. That is the point.

Yes, it does. It is essentially an introduction to Baptism. An explanation to the reason for Baptism.


Yes it is clear, but you appear to have missed what it says about the flesh and water.

No. I disagree with your interpretation. He does not equate flesh and water but contrasts, flesh and Spirit.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NKJV

Anyone who knows anything about birth knows that we are born through water. After the water breaks, the child is born.

That is why water is such a rich symbol for birth. And that is why Jesus says one must be born of WATER and Spirit. Because the water is a given and the difference between being a man of flesh and a man of God is that one must be born again of Spirit through the waters which Jesus sanctified in His own Baptism.


Simply saying "nope" is not convincing when scripture says otherwise.

ditto.

I said, "nope" because I had previously addressed and rebutted your statements. I don't see a need for me to repeat it. See message #54.


Nowhere does scipture say that it is efficacious and necessary for salvation.

Jesus said, if they believe and are baptized they will be saved. If they don't believe they are condemned. I have already explained how that expresses a requirement.


Indeed if you read about why we bapgtize in scripture, and it source from the OT, you will see that it has always been symbolic, and scripture always speaks of it as symbolic.

And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, Baptism symbolizes a reality. Therefore it is efficacious and necessary.


If it was essential for salvation, then surely you could show us where, and surely you could expl;ain how people could be saved in scripture before water baptism - a point that I have raised a few times and is yet to be addressed.

Jesus made it a requirement for Christians. It was not a requirement for Jews.


Claiming it does not make it so. Show us the scripture!

It's the same Scripture we are discussing.

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Note, we are baptized into Christ Jesus because we are baptized into His death. No denial here of a reality.

4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Again, no denial of the efficacy of Baptism but a confirmation that we are buried with Him in Baptism so that we might walk with Him in glory.

5 For if we have been united together i

Notice, we are united together. No denial of efficacy.

n the likeness of His death,

Here one aspect of the symbolic nature of Baptism is explained. It is the symbol of His death. But the symbol unites us as previously explained.

certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

And here the symbolic nature of Baptism as new birth is explained. We are born to new life as Jesus was born to New Life in His Resurrection.

6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Here again, the efficacy of Baptism is confirmed and the symbolism as Crucifixion with Him is reiterated. Note that after Baptism we should no longer be slaves to sin.


his is going to be useless to discuss this with you if you deny the definitions of English words.

Please explain how the words "Baptism now saves us" denies the efficacy of Baptism?


An "efficacious symbol" is a non-scriptural oxymoron.

Huh? Any symbol worth its salt is efficacious. As I'm driving down the highway I see a sign which says, "Memphis 50 miles.". If Memphis is not 50 miles away then the symbol is worthless. But if it is, then it is efficiently and effectively describing a reality.

In the same way, the water poured over our flesh is a symbol of the new birth in our soul. It is efficacious.


Since I reject the CCC, as do most denominations, and since it is not scripture, quoting it will not move this discussion forward.

Scriptures says,
1 Peter 3 15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.

It doesn't say, quote Scripture. These explanations are as much for those who are reading them yet not participating as they are for you.

If you wish to disregard the Catechism, so be it. I reserve the right to quote any authority I consider relevant.


I'll stick with what God's word says.

So will I. God's word says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.


But is does indeed because scripture ONLY says that baptism is symbolic and says in any places (and I'd be glad to quote several if you wish) that we are saved if we simply believe in Jesus as our Saviour.

Please do so. I will here quote what Jesus said about those who believe in Him yet refuse to do the Father's will:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It is not as though those verses were written in a vacuum. Belief in Christ entails obedience to His Word.


Not yet - you repeated the same half verse again - taken out of context of the second half.

Please explain because I'm certain I rebutted your statement effectively.


I am still waiting for any verse where Jesus says baptism is required, and if obedience is required, then Rom 3:23 says that we are all without hope.

No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention obedience. However,
Romans 1 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;

Romans 6
16 Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.

Romans 15 18 For I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed,

Sincerely,

You guys are great. I love it. I can't figure out which of you is the pot and which one is the kettle, but you're both really good at pointing out each other's blackness.

It's a simple discussion. I have learned a great deal about my faith in these types of discussions. Don't you ever have disagreements with anyone?

I don't know what you mean by "pointing out each other's blackness". I haven't felt as though TJ3 has insulted me. I hope I haven't insulted him.

In fact, this is a much different discussion than I had with the atheists on this thread.


It looks to me like you've executed a perfect 180. To say that one thing is the result of another means that the former caused the latter.

Not so. A result is not always caused by the previous action. It is the final consequence of a series. God's grace, belief in God, obedience of faith, baptism, washing away sin, justification, perseverance in faith, salvation..

It is God who is the cause.


That's different from saying that it symbolizes or represents it.

The water washing the body represents the Spirit washing the soul.
The water washing the body - the symbolic aspect of Baptism.
The Spirit washing the soul - the reality aspect of Baptism.

Sincerely,

De Maria

That's exactly what the Greeks and Romans did when they did not understand something - they created gods to explain it.

Isn't that what you have done as well. Piece together some understanding of life by your experience.

However, we have a revelation from God. Why should we ignore it?

Due to length, my response to your last message was broken up into two posts. This is #1 of 2


Yes, it does. It is essentially an introduction to Baptism. An explanation to the reason for Baptism.


That does not make sense. An event which happens after the first event does not necessary have anything whatsoever which what was said during the first incident. To say otherwise, you would have demonstrate that is the case by the context of scripture, not just "I said so".


He does not equate flesh and water but contrasts, flesh and Spirit.

I accept what Jesus said in his word. You can disagree if you wish.


John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NKJV

Anyone who knows anything about birth knows that we are born through water. After the water breaks, the child is born.

Precisely why water and flesh are used in conjunction with each other in scripture, and that is why Jesus equated them in John 3:5. That is exactly right. The other reason is because flesh itself is about 75% water.


I said, "nope" because I had previously addressed and rebutted your statements. I don't see a need for me to repeat it. See message #54.

#54 is not from you, but perhaps you mean #53 which I refuted in #62.


Jesus said, if they believe and are baptized they will be saved. If they don't believe they are condemned. I have already explained how that expresses a requirement.

Grammatically and logically it does not make baptism a requirement. That only works if you take the first half out of context. If the second half has said that he is who is not baptized is condemned (and indeed if you can find that anywhere in scripture), I would agree. But since scripture does not say that, but rather tells us throughout that to believe in Jesus alone will save us, then I must submit to the word of God, not traditions of men.


And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, Baptism symbolizes a reality. Therefore it is efficacious and necessary.

That is not logical. You were okay up to the point where you said that baptism symbolizes a reality. But by being symbolic, that means that it is NOT that reality, and to be efficacious and necessary, it must be that reality, not symbolic of it - by definition.


Jesus made it a requirement for Christians. It was not a requirement for Jews.

First, I find your differentiation between Jews and Christians offensive. The first Christians were Jews.

Second, you are telling us that there are two ways to be saved, contrary to scripture which says that there is only one way.

And BTW, you are wrong. Baptism was a symbolic ritual for the Jews also and it is described as such in the NT. Perhaps you were unaware of that. Baptism was not something new that started in the NT. If you are not familiar with the scripture that speaks of the symbolic nature of Baptism from the OT through NT, let me know and I'd be happy to guide you to it.




Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Note, we are baptized into Christ Jesus because we are baptized into His death. No denial here of a reality.

4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Again, no denial of the efficacy of Baptism but a confirmation that we are buried with Him in Baptism so that we might walk with Him in glory.

5 For if we have been united together i

Notice, we are united together. No denial of efficacy.

n the likeness of His death,

Here one aspect of the symbolic nature of Baptism is explained. It is the symbol of His death. But the symbol unites us as previously explained.

certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

And here the symbolic nature of Baptism as new birth is explained. We are born to new life as Jesus was born to New Life in His Resurrection.

6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Here again, the efficacy of Baptism is confirmed and the symbolism as Crucifixion with Him is reiterated. Note that after Baptism we should no longer be slaves to sin.


Read carefully. This passage argues against your position.

Rom 6:4-6
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
NKJV

Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.

The going into the water and coming back up is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ, and we are told that specifically in this passage. The word used in Greek here for "likeness" means the same thing in Greek as it does in English and it refers to the symbolism. There is nothing either stated or implied which goes beyond symbolism for baptism.


Please explain how the words "Baptism now saves us" denies the efficacy of Baptism?

It would be easier if you would simply read the posts when I put them up the first time. I dobn't intend to post it a third time, though:

1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV

We see three things discussed here:

1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
2) Water baptism
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.


This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.

Huh? Any symbol worth its salt is efficacious. As I'm driving down the highway I see a sign which says, "Memphis 50 miles.". If Memphis is not 50 miles away then the symbol is worthless. But if it is, then it is efficiently and effectively describing a reality.

But the sign is efficacious at informing you of the reality, it is NOT efficacious at making Memphis 50 miles away.

Similarly, baptism is symbolic of what has already happened and can be used to show you how it already happened, but it cannot make it happen.


If you wish to disregard the Catechism, so be it. I reserve the right to quote any authority I consider relevant.

You can indeed. But I want to make you aware that my belief and my doctrine is established upon the word of God, not the word of man.


Please do so.

Okay, let's examine what scripture says about the requirements for our sins to be remitted.

Matt 26:27-29
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.
NKJV

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding
of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

Luke 24:46-47
46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to
suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
NKJV

Acts 10:43
43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will
receive remission of sins."
NKJV

Matt 26:28
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.
NKJV

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Nowhere in scripture will you find any statement which says the same about water. It is only through the blood of Jesus shed on the cross that we are saved.


I will here quote what Jesus said about those who believe in Him yet refuse to do the Father's will:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It is not as though those verses were written in a vacuum. Belief in Christ entails obedience to His Word.

Good, now I hope that you are aware that when you cross a line and you make obedience a requirement for salvation, you have put yourself under the law and if you must obey any part of the law perfectly to be save, you must obey it all:

James 2:10-11
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
NKJV

If it were true that we had to be ffirst obedient to any part of the law to be saved we would all be going to hell because none of us have perfectly obeyed His commandments. That is the essence of the gospel. Because through sin, we all condemned ourselves to hell and had no means by which to pay the penalty for sin, Jesus came to earth as a man to die on the cross and paid the price for us.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

Gal 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the
Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV

God understands that we as humans will sin - that's why He offers us grace. Of course none of us have perfectly obeyed his commands and God knows this and he tells us through Paul. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. If it were possible for us to live perfect lives there would be no need for Him to offer us grace. We are saved by grace, but grace is not the only thing that saves us as you seem to believe.

It does not mean that we are to take advantage of grace, not at all, because if we love God, we will seek to be obedient, but we will fail. Scripture shows that man fails through trying to obey the law. That is legalism. That is why Christ came to write the law on our hearts and why the Holy Spirit indwells us, so that we would not be tied to legalistic obedience to the law, but rather we would abide by the spirit of the law.

Does this mean we will do it perfectly? No! Does this mean we should strive to do it perfectly? Yes! If we cannot do it perfectly, then our salvation is dependent upon His grace, not our obedience, or we would lose our salvation every time that we slipped.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness.
NKJV

It is also important to note that prior to salvation, we are subject to the sin nature (desire to sin) and the one thing that we obey prior to that is to receive Jesus as Saviour.

Rom 6:17-18
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart
that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
NKJV

Prior that that, we do not have the helper, the Holy Spirit, who guides us and helps us to grow to be obedient to God by changing our desires to be consistent with the things of God.


Please explain because I'm certain I rebutted your statement effectively.

And I yours (#62)


No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention obedience.

Let's read it together:

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

You don't think that sin has anything to do with failing to be obedient?

I am still waiting for you to explain how those saved in Acts 10:47 were saved before being water baptized.

It's a simple discussion. I have learned a great deal about my faith in these types of discussions. Don't you ever have disagreements with anyone?

I don't know what you mean by "pointing out each other's blackness". I haven't felt as though TJ3 has insulted me. I hope I haven't insulted him.


Let me add that I have not felt insulted by De Maria either. Our beliefs are dramatically different, but we can disagree respectfully.


In fact, this is a much different discussion than I had with the atheists on this thread.

Agreed.

Due to length, my response to your last message was broken up into two posts. This is #1 of 2

Ok


That does not make sense. An event which happens after the first event does not necessary have anything whatsoever which what was said during the first incident. To say otherwise, you would have demonstrate that is the case by the context of scripture, not just "I said so".

They are speaking of water and spirit. Baptism is the combination of Water and Spirit as shown when Jesus Himself was baptized. The next thing Jesus does after speaking to Nicodemus is to take the Disciples to baptize in in an area where water is plentiful.


I accept what Jesus said in his word. You can disagree if you wish.

OK. Agree to disagree.


Precisely why water and flesh are used in conjunction with each other in scripture, and that is why Jesus equated them in John 3:5. That is exactly right. The other reason is because flesh itself is about 75% water.

Agree to disagree.


#54 is not from you, but perhaps you mean #53 which I refuted in #62.

Lol! Getting dizzy.


Grammatically and logically it does not make baptism a requirement. That only works if you take the first half out of context. If the second half has said that he is who is not baptized is condemned (and indeed if you can find that anywhere in scripture), I would agree. But since scripture does not say that, but rather tells us throughout that to believe in Jesus alone will save us, then I must submit to the word of God, not traditions of men.

The inference is strong. Jesus says, "believe AND be baptized" not "believe or be baptized".


That is not logical. You were okay up to the point where you said that baptism symbolizes a reality. But by being symbolic, that means that it is NOT that reality, and to be efficacious and necessary, it must be that reality, not symbolic of it - by definition.

It is God who causes the reality. He has assigned water as the sign of that reality. In fact, the word Baptise insinuates water since it means to "wash in water" This was a common practice since before the Baptism of John.


First, I find your differentiation between Jews and Christians offensive. The first Christians were Jews.

I don't know why? Were Jews required to be baptized? They were required to circumcize. If I said, Jews are required to circumcize but Christians are not, would that also offend you?

Yes, the first Christians came of Jewish stock, but they did not remain Jewish. St. John frequently speaks of "the Jews" to differentiate them from the Apostles and Disciples.

John 3 1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

John 5 16 Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.


Second, you are telling us that there are two ways to be saved, contrary to scripture which says that there is only one way.

There is only one way. Through Jesus Christ. Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains.

The Jews did not even believe in Jesus Christ did they? Yet it is only by one name we are saved and if they never even heard that name, how were they saved? If they did, they learned of him in their spiritual abode after they died, didn't they? Or do you believe that the just Jews have not entered heaven?

I believe the Just Jews were saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Even though they never knew him in their earthly lives.


and BTW, you are wrong. Baptism was a symbolic ritual for the Jews also and it is described as such in the NT. Perhaps you were unaware of that. Baptism was not something new that started in the NT. If you are not familiar with the scripture that speaks of the symbolic nature of Baptism from the OT through NT, let me know and I'd be happy to guide you to it.

I'm quite familiar. It is the Baptism of Jesus which sanctified the waters and it is His Sacrifice which released the grace to make it an efficacious symbol. Thereafter, the symbolic ritual revealed the reality of what happened in the soul.


Read carefully. This passage argues against your position.

Rom 6:4-6
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
NKJV

Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.
But do I walk with Christ? Yes.
Am I united with Christ? Yes.
Do I walk in the newness of life? Yes.
Do I believe I died to sin? Yes.

Therefore Baptism is an efficacious sign, revealing in symbol the interior reality which we can't see with our eyes of flesh.

[quote]The going into the water and coming back up is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ, and we are told that specifically in this passage.

Did I deny this?


the word used in Greek here for "likeness" means the same thing in Greek as it does in English and it refers to the symbolism. There is nothing either stated or implied which goes beyond symbolism for baptism.

Yes, but the words "united together" express a fact. He does not say, "as though we were united together". He says "united together". In other words, by this ritual and sign of washing with water which is the likeness of his death, we are "united together" in the Body of Christ. And if we are united together in His death, CERTAINLY we are united together in the same symbol of the likeness of His Resurrection.


It would be easier if you would simply read the posts when I put them up the first time. I dobn't intend to post it a third time, though:

I did. As I said, I already refuted that statement.


1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV

We see three things discussed here:

1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood

Correct.


2) Water baptism

Which he unequivocally states, "now saves us".


3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Correct.


This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin

Good. Notice the definition. The antitype is foreshadowed by an earlier figure. The flood as I explained is the foreshadow of Baptism because we are saved through water. The flood destroyed the sinful as the water of Baptism washes away our sin.

That is why he goes on to say, "Baptism now saves us".


This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:

That is correct. The symbol points to the interior reality.


Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.

And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, the symbol points to a reality.

Sincerely,

De Maria

But the sign is efficacious at informing you of the reality, it is NOT efficacious at making Memphis 50 miles away.

Correct. I did not say that the water washed our sin. The water is the sign of God, the Holy Spirit, washing sin from our soul.

And I also said it is God who has now tied this symbol to the reality. As you mentioned earlier, Baptism has happened long before even John baptized. Yet it was not efficacious then. It is efficacious now because Jesus said we must be born of water AND Spirit. And we must be baptized to be saved because Jesus said if we believe AND are baptized we will be saved.


Similarly, baptism is symbolic of what has already happened and can be used to show you how it already happened, but it cannot make it happen.

God does that. But God tied the ritual of Baptism to birth into new life.


You can indeed. But I want to make you aware that my belief and my doctrine is established upon the word of God, not the word of man.

I believe mine is also. Jesus Christ did not establish the Church so that we could thumb our nose at Her did He?

Indeed it is the Word of God in Scripture which enjoins us to be obedient to the Church and which extolls the Church as the pillar of truth. Therefore, if I believe the Church it is because I am instructed so by Scripture.


Okay, let's examine what scripture says about the requirements for our sins to be remitted.

Ok.


Matt 26:27-29
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
NKJV

Matt 26:28
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
NKJV

I believe these literally. The Cup of Communion is truly the Blood of Christ in the guise of wine.


Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

Luke 24:46-47
46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
NKJV

Acts 10:43
43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
NKJV

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

No question. It is because of Jesus sacrifice that the rite of Baptism is efficacious.


Nowhere in scripture will you find any statement which says the same about water. It is only through the blood of Jesus shed on the cross that we are saved.

Acts Of Apostles 22 16 And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.


Good, now I hope that you are aware that when you cross a line and you make obedience a requirement for salvation, you have put yourself under the law and if you must obey any part of the law perfectly to be save, you must obey it all:

James 2:10-11
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
NKJV

I don't make obedience a requirement. God does.

And that is correct. If we disobey we are under the law. But if we obey we are not under the law but are free of the law. Let us take the context of St. James teaching:

8 If then you fulfill the royal law, according to the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; you do well.

This is reference to Christs second great commandment. If we obey this law, we won't break any of the others.

9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors.

By respect of persons St. James means if we discriminate between the poor and the rich. Giving the rich more respect than the poor because of their status. If we do that we sin against the second great commandment. Doing so we sin against all the Commandments.

10 And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.

There he says it.

1 For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as being to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy. And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. 14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

Here he explains that faith is not faith if it is not accompanied by works of love.


If it were true that we had to be ffirst obedient to any part of the law to be saved we would all be going to hell because none of us have perfectly obeyed His commandments.

In His wisdom, God provided the Sacrament sof Baptism and Reconciliation.


That is the essence of the gospel. Because through sin, we all condemned ourselves to hell and had no means by which to pay the penalty for sin, Jesus came to earth as a man to die on the cross and paid the price for us.

That is correct. But it begs the question, do you believe that all the Jews who died without knowing Christ were condemned to hell?

And what of those who do not accept Christ even now?


Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

Have we drifted into a discussion of faith and works? I don't mind, but perhaps we should start another thread.


Gal 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV

That is all true, but have we nullified or destroyed the law?

Matthew 5 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Romans 3 31 Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.

What does that mean then? It means that as long as we have faith in Christ and live according to our faith we will do away with sin. If we do not sin we have not destroyed the law but confirmed it.

Romans 6
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?


God understands that we as humans will sin - that's why He offers us grace.

Correct.


Of course none of us have perfectly obeyed his commands and God knows this and he tells us through Paul. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. If it were possible for us to live perfect lives there would be no need for Him to offer us grace. We are saved by grace, but grace is not the only thing that saves us as you seem to believe.

That is a false assumption. The Church teaches we are saved by the grace of God alone.

Here is where we Catholics differ with the various nonCatholics with whom I've discussed the subject.

They claim that faith alone, that is, a simple declarative statement of faith, is all that is required to save them. I'm assuming this is what you believe.

Whereas, the Catholic Church teaches that it is a complete conversion of life and persevernce in this conversion until the end.


It does not mean that we are to take advantage of grace, not at all, because if we love God, we will seek to be obedient, but we will fail. Scripture shows that man fails through trying to obey the law. That is legalism. That is why Christ came to write the law on our hearts and why the Holy Spirit indwells us, so that we would not be tied to legalistic obedience to the law, but rather we would abide by the spirit of the law.

That is correct.


Does this mean we will do it perfectly? No! Does this mean we should strive to do it perfectly? Yes!

Amen!


If we cannot do it perfectly, then our salvation is dependent upon His grace, not our obedience, or we would lose our salvation every time that we slipped.

And by His Grace He has established Sacraments of reconciliation.


1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
NKJV

Correct. We believe confession is a Sacrament, a fountain of grace which Jesus established for our reconciliation with His Body.


It is also important to note that prior to salvation, we are subject to the sin nature (desire to sin) and the one thing that we obey prior to that is to receive Jesus as Saviour.

Rom 6:17-18
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
NKJV

Correct.


Prior that that, we do not have the helper, the Holy Spirit, who guides us and helps us to grow to be obedient to God by changing our desires to be consistent with the things of God.

Then who guides us to faith?


Let's read it together:

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

You don't think that sin has anything to do with failing to be obedient?

Sin has everything to do with failing to be obedient. It all began with the first act of disobedience by Adam and Eve.


I am still waiting for you to explain how those saved in Acts 10:47 were saved before being water baptized.

I'm still waiting for you to show that they were saved before Baptism.

Here's the verse:
46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

If they were washed of sin, why does St. Peter recommend Baptism? Are St. Peter's words not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

In addition, this verse does show that the Holy Spirit moves amongst those who are seeking God and have not accepted Jesus Christ in their lives.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't know what you mean by "pointing out each other's blackness". I haven't felt as though TJ3 has insulted me. I hope I haven't insulted him.

Let me add that I have not felt insulted by De Maria either. Our beliefs are dramatically different, but we can disagree respectfully.
When I say "pointing out each other's blackness", all I mean is that you both do what you accuse each other of doing, i.e. interpreting scripture according to "your own presuppositions". If neither of you feel insulted by this, good for you.


Not so. A result is not always caused by the previous action.

It is God who is the cause.
Yes, but your central point of disagreement with Tj3 is that you think baptism is required, while he thinks it it's optional, isn't that right? To argue that it's required, means that the result can't happen unless the requirement is met. Saying that God is the cause of the requirement doesn't change the basic argument.


The water washing the body represents the Spirit washing the soul.
The water washing the body - the symbolic aspect of Baptism.
The Spirit washing the soul - the reality aspect of Baptism.
So can the Spirit wash the soul even if the water doesn't wash the body?

They are speaking of water and spirit. Baptism is the combination of Water and Spirit as shown when Jesus Himself was baptized. The next thing Jesus does after speaking to Nicodemus is to take the Disciples to baptize in in an area where water is plentiful.


Yes, they are speaking of water and spirit and Jesus explains the water to be representation of the flesh. You have shown nothing else in that passage nor can you because it isn't there. What he does afterward it not in the same context. I would hate to think of what strange doctrines one could come up with if they interpreted what Jesus or an Apostle did throughout the NT on the basis of the context of what they did afterward.


The inference is strong. Jesus says, "believe AND be baptized" not "believe or be baptized".


There may be an inference in the first half of the verse, but when taken in context, we can see clearly what is meant. Doctrine cannot be properly based on inference of partial verses.


It is God who causes the reality. He has assigned water as the sign of that reality. In fact, the word Baptise insinuates water since it means to "wash in water" This was a common practice since before the Baptism of John.

Actually, baptism does not just mean wash in water. It CAN mean that, but it also means much more. When it means to wash, it refers more specifically to a ceremonial or ritual washing which, we are told in Hebrews is purely symbolic. Other things that the word used in Greek can mean include:

- Identification with someone or something else (i.e. pure symbolism)
- To become the property of
- dye articles
- to be overwhelmed


I don't know why? Were Jews required to be baptized? They were required to circumcize. If I said, Jews are required to circumcize but Christians are not, would that also offend you?


The offence would be the same if you differentiated between Indians and Christians, and told how Christians differ from Indians. The implication is that you cannot be both.

What is baptism in Judaism? Check out this article which addresses that specific point, from scripture:

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/baptism/OT-baptism.pdf


Yes, the first Christians came of Jewish stock, but they did not remain Jewish. St. John frequently speaks of "the Jews" to differentiate them from the Apostles and Disciples.

They did indeed remain Jewish. I am shocked that anyone would say such a thing. They no more changed their racial extract than a Chinese person or a Caucasian person would upon being saved.

What about Paul?

Acts 22:1-4
22:1 "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now." 2 And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent. Then he said: 3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
NKJV

He remained a Jew. He learned who the Jewish Messiah was an received Him as His Saviour, but He remained a Jew. What about Peter:

Gal 2:14-15
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
NKJV

Note that Peter did not change racially. He remained a Jew.


There is only one way. Through Jesus Christ. Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains.

The Jews did not even believe in Jesus Christ did they? Yet it is only by one name we are saved and if they never even heard that name, how were they saved? If they did, they learned of him in their spiritual abode after they died, didn't they? Or do you believe that the just Jews have not entered heaven?

I believe the Just Jews were saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Even though they never knew him in their earthly lives.

Gal 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

If you say that baptism is required for salvation, then you have added to the gospel and said that they is one gospel (means of salvation) for one group of people and a different means for another.

I might add that you comment about the differentiation does not make sense. Let me explain. You said:

"Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains."

No one is a Christian until they have received Christ as Saviour. Everyone after receiving Christ as Saviour is a Christian. So how can you say that God requires something more for Christians to be saved than Jews? It makes no sense. I think that you are getting confused on terminology.


No one is saved by a different means.

So if baptism was not required for the Jews in the OT, it is not required for anyone.

That is the point. Accept that logical outcome of the reality that no one is saved by a different means and this discussion ends.


I'm quite familiar. It is the Baptism of Jesus which sanctified the waters and it is His Sacrifice which released the grace to make it an efficacious symbol. Thereafter, the symbolic ritual revealed the reality of what happened in the soul.

It does not sound like you are familiar at all with the mikveh. You really need to check out the link that I gave earlier in this post.


Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.
But do I walk with Christ? Yes.
Am I united with Christ? Yes.
Do I walk in the newness of life? Yes.
Do I believe I died to sin? Yes.

Therefore Baptism is an efficacious sign, revealing in symbol the interior reality which we can't see with our eyes of flesh.

Not at all. You already agreed that the OT Jew did not need to be baptized to be saved, and you agreed that no one is saved by a different means, so if you have truly come to the point where you can honestly say YES to all those items above, then it was solely the sacrifice on the cross which was efficacious is making it happen, and baptism is something that we do afterward in obedience to symbolize what Christ has ALREADY done in our lives.


Yes, but the words "united together" express a fact. He does not say, "as though we were united together". He says "united together". In other words, by this ritual and sign of washing with water which is the likeness of his death, we are "united together" in the Body of Christ. And if we are united together in His death, CERTAINLY we are united together in the same symbol of the likeness of His Resurrection.

Now read the rest of that sentence and see what did it:

Rom 6:6
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

It happened on the cross, and baptism is the symbol of what ALREADY happened on the cross.


I did. As I said, I already refuted that statement.

You tried, but I saw nothing that refuted what I said. You appeared to deny what the word "anti-type" means, and appeared to read the passage as though that word was not there. That word changes everything. We cannot alter scripture without consequences!


Good. Notice the definition. The antitype is foreshadowed by an earlier figure. The flood as I explained is the foreshadow of Baptism because we are saved through water. The flood destroyed the sinful as the water of Baptism washes away our sin.

Perhaps you missed the part about contrasting types. You appear to be interpreting it as though the word was type, which does not mean the same thing. The flood and baptism are contrasting types. Go back and read what I said again with that in mind.


And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, the symbol points to a reality.

Right and if it points to the reality - then baptism is not that reality.

Correct. I did not say that the water washed our sin. The water is the sign of God, the Holy Spirit, washing sin from our soul.

Then the water baptism is not efficacious in salvation.


And I also said it is God who has now tied this symbol to the reality.

Please don't lengthen these messages by repeating this over and over. If we agree that it is symbolic, then you need to focus attention on your claim that it is necessary for salvation. And to be honest, you appear in many cases in our discussion to have argued against your own position.


As you mentioned earlier, Baptism has happened long before even John baptized. Yet it was not efficacious then. It is efficacious now because Jesus said we must be born of water AND Spirit. And we must be baptized to be saved because Jesus said if we believe AND are baptized we will be saved.

Don't tell us - show us where in scripture this change took place. Rather than long messages, I would like to get focused on that singular specific point.


God does that. But God tied the ritual of Baptism to birth into new life.

As symbolic only!!


I believe mine is also. Jesus Christ did not establish the Church so that we could thumb our nose at Her did He?

You and I may be using th term church differently to refer to your denomination, which I think you know that I can and would refute readily. However, this post is already long enough for let's not add to the scope of the discussion. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.

My point was that when a specific denominational doctrine disagrees with scripture, the standard must always be the word of God. Now you will likely say that you see no disagreement, but that is what we need to focus on - where does scripture say that baptism is essential for salvation?


I believe these literally. The Cup of Communion is truly the Blood of Christ in the guise of wine.

Again, let's keep focused. Open another thread and I will gladly show you where Jesus himself said that those who believe that they need to drink His blood betrayed Him.

But regardless, if you think that it is the communion cup that causes remission of sins, you have already turned away from the cross of Christ where the Bible says that the remission takes place.


No question. It is because of Jesus sacrifice that the rite of Baptism is efficacious.

These verses do not say that. They do not even touch on baptism. You are adding to scripture.


Acts Of Apostles 22 16 And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.

Acts 22:16
Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV

There are three things mentioned in this passage:

1) We are to arise and be baptized
2) We are to call upon the name of the Lord
3) We are to have our sins washed away.

Scripture speaks strongly regarding the fact that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord. Here are some examples: Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11

Let's also look at Hebrews 9 which speaks of the that which cleanses us from sin:

Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood
of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of
a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this
reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of theof the eternal inheritance.
NKJV

We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross. Why should we assume that the sins are washed away by baptism when we see throughout the NT that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord and nowhere are we told that we are saved through baptism. Why ignore the second half of that verse when what it says is consistent with the rest of scripture?


I don't make obedience a requirement. God does.

Really? Then why did Jesus come to die on the cross? If obedience is essential for salvation, then the cross is a waste of time, because Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. If, on the other hand, Christ came because we are NOT obedient, then we have the gospel that we find in scripture today.


And that is correct. If we disobey we are under the law. But if we obey we are not under the law but are free of the law.

Can you honestly say that you have obeyed all of the law perfectly and thus never sinned?

BTW, it makes no sense to say that we are under the law if we disobey, but not under it if we obey it. That makes no sense whatsoever and is completely contrary to scripture. Go back and read Gal 3 again. What scripture tells us is that if we are in Christ, we are not under the law, but if we are not, then we are under the law, and the reason is because the law is there to point us to Christ.


Let us take the context of St. James teaching:

8 If then you fulfill the royal law, according to the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; you do well.

This is reference to Christs second great commandment. If we obey this law, we won't break any of the others.

9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors.

By respect of persons St. James means if we discriminate between the poor and the rich. Giving the rich more respect than the poor because of their status. If we do that we sin against the second great commandment. Doing so we sin against all the Commandments.

10 And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.

Yep, and that is what I said. So if you fail on any point of the law, you have failed on them all. So it is useless to be baptized if you ever lusted, stole a penny, lied, because these are all sins and if you did any of them, then you are going to hell - if what you claim is true, and that is that obedience is required.



[QUOTE]That is correct. But it begs the question, do you believe that all the Jews who died without knowing Christ were condemned to hell?

And what of those who do not accept Christ even now?

As for the OT saints who died before Christ, I believe that we find that answer in scripture:

James 2:23
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
NKJV

In the OT times, those who were faithful to God looked forward to the coming Messiah and now we have the full revelation and look back to the cross. No one was ever saved except by Christ. There are many other passages, but again, I would prefer not to extend the scope of this thread - the posts are far too long now.


Have we drifted into a discussion of faith and works? I don't mind, but perhaps we should start another thread.

You brought up work by suggesting that it was not finished by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but we have to do something in order to be saved.


That is all true, but have we nullified or destroyed the law?

If you make a law requiring baptism in order to be saved, then you have placed yourself back under a law of works.


That is a false assumption. The Church teaches we are saved by the grace of God alone.

Here is where we Catholics differ with the various nonCatholics with whom I've discussed the subject.

They claim that faith alone, that is, a simple declarative statement of faith, is all that is required to save them. I'm assuming this is what you believe.

Whereas, the Catholic Church teaches that it is a complete conversion of life and persevernce in this conversion until the end.

I do not follow the dictates of any specific denomination - I follow what scripture says which is to believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.


And by His Grace He has established Sacraments of reconciliation.

Correct. We believe confession is a Sacrament, a fountain of grace which Jesus established for our reconciliation with His Body.


Let's stick to the Bible, okay, rather than pushing doctrinal stances of a specific denominations.


Then who guides us to faith?

Holy Spirit.


Sin has everything to do with failing to be obedient. It all began with the first act of disobedience by Adam and Eve.


Good - it was not clear to me why you were disagreeing with me when I said that previously.



I'm still waiting for you to show that they were saved before Baptism.

I answered that a couple of times. They received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which scripture says only comes to those who are saved.

Now, please answer my question (which I think I have asked 4 or 5 times now)


If they were washed of sin, why does St. Peter recommend Baptism? Are St. Peter's words not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I never said anything against being baptized. It is an act of obedience following salvation. This discussion is not about whether we should be baptized, it is trying to find any scripture which would validate or claim that it is required to be saved.


In addition, this verse does show that the Holy Spirit moves amongst those who are seeking God and have not accepted Jesus Christ in their lives.

"moving amongst" is not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.

De Maria,

For future messages, I see that for so much of this discussion, we are going around and around and getting nowhere and now you are trying to broaden the scope yet further. This does not do anything but distract away from the key point which is - where is your scripture that says that if we are not saved, we go to hell?

Either you can shorten it in your response by focusing on what you believe to be your one or two strongest points, or if you do not, then I will review your response, and I will decide what are your strongest points and will ignore the rest of the post.

When I say "pointing out each other's blackness", all I mean is that you both do what you accuse each other of doing, i.e. interpreting scripture according to "your own presuppositions". If neither of you feel insulted by this, good for you.

Ok.


Yes, but your central point of disagreement with Tj3 is that you think baptism is required, while he thinks it it's optional, isn't that right? To argue that it's required, means that the result can't happen unless the requirement is met. Saying that God is the cause of the requirement doesn't change the basic argument.

Ok. However, I wanted to clarify that the water does nothing unless God willed it so. Baptism existed before Christ. But since Christ God has tied Baptism to salvation.


So can the Spirit wash the soul even if the water doesn't wash the body?

I believe I posted this before:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

In other words, the Sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation which God has revealed to us. But God is not bound by these Sacraments.

Sincerely,

Ok. However, I wanted to clarify that the water does nothing unless God willed it so. Baptism existed before Christ. But since Christ God has tied Baptism to salvation.

Only in a symbolic sense!

De Maria,

For future messages, I see that for so much of this discussion, we are going around and around and getting nowhere and now you are trying to broaden the scope yet further.

Actually, I thought it was you who was broadening the scope.


This does not do anything but distract away from the key point which is - where is your scripture that says that if we are not saved, we go to hell?

I agree. Let us start over.


Either you can shorten it in your response by focusing on what you believe to be your one or two strongest points, or if you do not, then I will review your response, and I will decide what are your strongest points and will ignore the rest of the post.

What I see as the main difference in our arguments is that you don't see Baptism as required by Jesus Christ.

So, it seems to me, that if Jesus says,

If they believe AND are baptized, they will be saved. If they believe not, they will be condemned. Note the AND. Jesus did not say, believe OR are baptized. He tied the two together and required them.

Without faith you can't please God. Without faith and baptism you won't be saved. Simple as that.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Actually, I thought it was you who was broadening the scope.


I cannot comprehend how you came to that conclusion.


I agree. Let us start over.

Okay, so why not answer my question about Acts 10:47. How did those people get saved before they were water baptized?


What I see as the main difference in our arguments is that you don't see Baptism as required by Jesus Christ.

Then you have not been listening to me. I see baptism as an important matter of obedience. The difference is that you believe that a person cannot be saved unless they are baptized.

So, it seems to me, that if Jesus says,


If they believe AND are baptized, they will be saved. If they believe not, they will be condemned. Note the AND. Jesus did not say, believe OR are baptized. He tied the two together and required them.

He tied the know insofar as pointing out that it is important (though I think that there are probably stronger argumenst for that also), but this actually demonstrates that bapgtism is not necessary for salvation, as has been pointed out many times.


Without faith you can't please God.

This is scriptural


Without faith and baptism you won't be saved.

This is not

Can I suggest that to avoid getting off track once again that if you make a claim such as that last one, that the scripture to validate you claim be provided.

Without faith you can't please God. Without faith and baptism you won't be saved. Simple as that.

I would not want to rule out baptism of desire. If a person has the desire to be baptized, but is unable, I believe this person could still be saved. Perhaps the phrase "may not be saved" is something I could agree with.

Yes, they are speaking of water and spirit and Jesus explains the water to be representation of the flesh.

No He doesn't. He contrasts the flesh and the Spirit. Do we really need to go over this again?


You have shown nothing else in that passage nor can you because it isn't there.

I don't need to show anything beyond what I've already shown. It is all there.


What he does afterward it not in the same context.

Yes. It follows perfectly. He instructs Nicodemus on the efficacy of Baptism in Water and Spirit and then proceeds to baptize.


I would hate to think of what strange doctrines one could come up with if they interpreted what Jesus or an Apostle did throughout the NT on the basis of the context of what they did afterward.

Very good doctrines actually. Jesus said He would die for our sins and then what happened. He died for our sins. Wow! He said it then He did it afterward.


There may be an inference in the first half of the verse, but when taken in context, we can see clearly what is meant. Doctrine cannot be properly based on inference of partial verses.

The word AND makes it very clear. You can't change the English grammar simply because you disagree with the Scripture: There are two conditions for salvation expressed by Jesus in this sentence, belief AND Baptism.


Actually, baptism does not just mean wash in water. It CAN mean that,

And it does in this context. They are speaking of water.


but it also means much more. When it means to wash, it refers more specifically to a ceremonial or ritual washing which, we are told in Hebrews is purely symbolic.

Provide the Scripture.


Other things that the word used in Greek can mean include:

- Identification with someone or something else (i.e. pure symbolism)
- To become the property of
- dye articles
- to be overwhelmed

Therefore the context is very important.


The offence would be the same if you differentiated between Indians and Christians, and told how Christians differ from Indians. The implication is that you cannot be both.

No. You are mixing apples and oranges. I was not distinguishing between races but between covenants. The Judaic covenant does not require baptism. The Christian covenant does.


What is baptism in Judaism? Check out this article which addresses that specific point, from scripture:

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/baptism/OT-baptism.pdf

As I said, I am quite familiar. No need to broaden the scope to the Old Testament practice. We are discussing whether Jesus requires Baptism for Chrisitans and whether it is an efficacious symbol which effects what it symbolizes or whether it is an empty symbol which does nothing for the soul.


They did indeed remain Jewish. I am shocked that anyone would say such a thing. They no more changed their racial extract than a Chinese person or a Caucasian person would upon being saved.

But we are not speaking of the race. We are speaking of their faith. Did they acquire faith in Jesus Christ and become Christian? Or did they remain faithful to Moses and eschew Jesus Christ?


What about Paul?

What about Paul?


Acts 22:1-4
22:1 "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now." 2 And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent. Then he said: 3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
NKJV

Paul is a Christian of Semitic descent. He is a Jew by race but a Christian by faith.
What are we discussing, race or faith? Have I been asking or detailing physical features, language or culture? No, I have been discussing Baptism. So why have you suddenly changed to a discussion of race?


He remained a Jew.

No one can change their origins. Certainly, I would not dispute that he is a Jew born of Jews. He says so himself. But does he believe in Jesus or does he continue to believe in Mosaic covenant and ignore Jesus?: If so, why don't we refer to him any longer as Saul?


He learned who the Jewish Messiah was an received Him as His Saviour, but He remained a Jew

He remained a Jew by race but not by faith. By faith he became a Christian.


. What about Peter:

What about Peter?


Gal 2:14-15
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
NKJV

Note that Peter did not change racially. He remained a Jew.

Did I ever say that Peter changed racially? No? Then why bring it up?


Gal 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Correct.


If you say that baptism is required for salvation, then you have added to the gospel and said that they is one gospel (means of salvation) for one group of people and a different means for another.

No. Jesus said it was required as I have shown. And Baptism is required of any Jew or Gentile who become Christian. But Moses did not require Baptism of any Jew. Nor did the Gentile gods require Baptism of any Gentile.

But have you answered the question? Since Moses did not require Baptism in the Old Covenant, how did the Jews who died before Christ come to salvation?

And what about those who did not accept Christ in His earthly life?


I might add that you comment about the differentiation does not make sense. Let me explain. You said:

"Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains."

No one is a Christian until they have received Christ as Saviour. Everyone after receiving Christ as Saviour is a Christian. So how can you say that God requires something more for Christians to be saved than Jews? It makes no sense. I think that you are getting confused on terminology.

I believe you have misunderstood the question. How were Jews of the Old Covenant saved? Did they all go to hell? Obviously not, since Abraham is depicted in heaven and God says He is the God of the Living. So, how were they saved without knowing Christ?


So if baptism was not required for the Jews in the OT, it is not required for anyone.

Jesus says without belief AND Baptism you will not be saved. There is no getting around the conjunction.


That is the point. Accept that logical outcome of the reality that no one is saved by a different means and this discussion ends.

There is only one means and that is God's grace. But God has established His Sacraments in the New Covenant that we may avail ourselves of His grace. The Old Covenant did not afford these vehicles of Grace. But in the New Covenant Jesus provided these fountains of Grace because we are under the New Law of Grace. It is by Grace we are saved.


It does not sound like you are familiar at all with the mikveh. You really need to check out the link that I gave earlier in this post.

I am quite. But again, why do you want to broaden the scope of this discussion? Let us continue reviewing the Scriptures about Baptism in the New Covenant. We can begin another thread on whatever you want in the future. Agreed?


Not at all. You already agreed that the OT Jew did not need to be baptized to be saved,

Correct.


and you agreed that no one is saved by a different means

Correct. The only means is God's grace.


, so if you have truly come to the point where you can honestly say YES to all those items above, then it was solely the sacrifice on the cross which was efficacious is making it happen, and baptism is something that we do afterward in obedience to symbolize what Christ has ALREADY done in our lives.

No. Here is where you are gone wrong. If that were true, then even nonbelievers would be saved. But they are not. Or are you saying that even belief is optional?

Jesus tied belief AND baptism to salvation. Neither is optional.


Now read the rest of that sentence and see what did it:

Rom 6:6
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

It happened on the cross, and baptism is the symbol of what ALREADY happened on the cross.

The grace was released on the Cross. But we need to apply that grace to our lives. Otherwise all would be cleansed including nonbelievers. There would be no necessity of faith, no necessity of morals, nor of Bible Teaching.

Yes, Jesus Christ died that the body of sin might be done away with, but we must cooperate with His death in order to apply those graces. We do so by dying with Him in Baptism and raising with Him in newness of Life.

Acts Of Apostles 2

38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


You tried, but I saw nothing that refuted what I said. You appeared to deny what the word "anti-type" means, and appeared to read the passage as though that word was not there. That word changes everything. We cannot alter scripture without consequences!

No. I used the definition you provided and substituted it for the word. The anti-type as you showed is foreshadowed by the type. The type being the flood and the anti-type being Baptism. Just as the flood cleansed the world of sin, Baptism now saves us by cleansing us of sin.


Perhaps you missed the part about contrasting types. You appear to be interpreting it as though the word was type, which does not mean the same thing. The flood and baptism are contrasting types. Go back and read what I said again with that in mind.

I understand typology. It is a very important part of Catholicism. Adam foreshadows Christ. Therefore Adam is a type of Christ. Christ is the antitype of Adam. Eve foreshadows Mary. Joseph of many colors foreshadows Joseph the spouse of Mary. The Manna of heaven foreshadows the Holy Eucharist. And there are many other types and anti-types.


Right and if it points to the reality - then baptism is not that reality.

Correct. It is the efficacious sign of the reality within. Now if you agree that Baptism is the efficacious sign which points to the reality within, we can focus on the necessity of Baptism. Can we not?

Sincerely,

De Maria

All right well... something a lot of people don't understand is that babies don't go to Hell... The wages of sin is death, not the sin nature.
Catholics do a lot of things that have more to do with the condemnation factor than the conviction, God never leaves you with no way out.
Anyway, as far as the fact that we aren't perfect in nature, even if we were, I mean think about it Adam and Eve had daily communion with God one on one, and all they had was a tree to mess up on, and did so.
We also have years and years of generational curses, which is biblical, the sins of our forefathers will be passed through the generations.
~Ash

Then the water baptism is not efficacious in salvation.

If we are not baptized by water washing our skin, then the Holy Spirit has not washed our soul. If the sign is not present, neither is the reality.


Please don't lengthen these messages by repeating this over and over.. .

Agreed. So, if you have now accepted that I am not disputing the symbolic aspect of Baptism, we can proceed to focus on its necessity.


Don't tell us - show us where in scripture this change took place. Rather than long messages, I would like to get focused on that singular specific point.

This took place when Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit sanctified the waters:

536 The baptism of Jesus is on his part the acceptance and inauguration of his mission as God's suffering Servant... At his baptism "the heavens were opened" - the heavens that Adam's sin had closed - and the waters were sanctified by the descent of Jesus and the Spirit, a prelude to the new creation.


Matthew 3
16 And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17 And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


As symbolic only!!

Lol!! No need to scream.:)

God tied Baptism to New Life as an efficacious sign which points to the reality. Without the sign of new life, there is no new life.


You and I may be using th term church differently to refer to your denomination, which i think you know that I can and would refute readily

If you would like to discuss the meaning of Church please begin another thread.


. However, this post is already long enough for let's not add to the scope of the discussion. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.

My thoughts exactly.


My point was that when a specific denominational doctrine disagrees with scripture, the standard must always be the word of God.

I believe you and I are using the term "word of God" differently also. No need to start another thread. We've already threatened to start a whole slew and I doubt I would have the time to participate in all of them if we were to actually do so.

Let me just explain that to Catholics the Word of God is passed on in Tradition as well as in Scripture. This is confirmed in Scripture which says,

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.


Now you will likely say that you see no disagreement, but that is what we need to focus on - where does scripture say that baptism is essential for salvation?

Jesus said, "if they believe and are baptized they shall be saved."


Again, let's keep focused. Open another thread and I will gladly show you where Jesus himself said that those who believe that they need to drink His blood betrayed Him.

Correct. Those who understood that He spoke literally left Him. And He didn't call them back and say, "Hey come back, I was just speaking metaphorically." No, in fact, He even challenged the Apostles, "Are you also leaving?" To which St. Paul answered, "To whom would we run?"


But regardless, if you think that it is the communion cup that causes remission of sins, you have already turned away from the cross of Christ where the Bible says that the remission takes place.

Nope. I have accepted the Cross where the Church says that remission begins. The Church wrote the New Testament by the way.


These verses do not say that. They do not even touch on baptism. You are adding to scripture.

We, Catholics, are not people of the Book. We are people of the Word of God. And Tradition of the Church teaches us that it is the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross that God availed us of grace for all the Sacraments. Not just Baptism.

1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized. The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death. There is the whole mystery: he died for you. In him you are redeemed, in him you are saved.



A
cts 22:16
Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV

There are three things mentioned in this passage:

1) We are to arise and be baptized
2) We are to call upon the name of the Lord
3) We are to have our sins washed away.


Ok.


Scripture speaks strongly regarding the fact that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord. Here are some examples: Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11

True. Neither of which deny the necessity of Baptism. Or does Scripture contradict Itself?


Let's also look at Hebrews 9 which speaks of the that which cleanses us from sin:

Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this
reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of theof the eternal inheritance.
NKJV

All you are doing is pitting one Scripture against another. None of this contradicts the previous Scriptures which declare the necessity and efficacy of Baptism.


We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.

But Jesus has tied the water to the cleansing of sin as an efficacious sign without which we are not saved. Scripture does not contradict.

1. If they believe and are baptized they shall be saved...
2. Arise and be baptized for the remission of sin...


Why should we assume that the sins are washed away by baptism when we see throughout the NT that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord and nowhere are we told that we are saved through baptism. Why ignore the second half of that verse when what it says is consistent with the rest of scripture?

Does the second half of the verse say that baptism is not necessary? The first half says that belief and baptism are necessary. The second half simply says, if one does not believe he is condemned. It follows logically that if one does not believe one will refuse to be baptized.


Really? Then why did Jesus come to die on the cross? If obedience is essential for salvation, then the cross is a waste of time, because Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. If, on the other hand, Christ came because we are NOT obedient, then we have the gospel that we find in scripture today.

Have you not read in Scripture that Jesus is our model and our example. We must be obedient as He is obedient:

1 Peter 2 21 For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.

Jesus didn't suffer so that we wouldn't suffer. He suffered so we would learn the efficacy of suffering in union with Him:

Romans 8 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.


Can you honestly say that you have obeyed all of the law perfectly and thus never sinned?

Have you forgotten that we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Jesus has provided a fountain of grace for me to avail when I commit sin.


BTW, it makes no sense to say that we are under the law if we disobey, but not under it if we obey it. That makes no sense whatsoever and is completely contrary to scripture.

It is precisely according to Scripture:
Galatians 5 18 But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, 20 Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, 21 Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, 23 Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.



Go back and read Gal 3 again. What scripture tells us is that if we are in Christ, we are not under the law, but if we are not, then we are under the law, and the reason is because the law is there to point us to Christ.

Same thing. If we live according to the Spirit we will not break any law. And if we do not break any law, we are not under the law.

But if we sin, we break the law and are therefore under the law. For if we break one commandment, we break them all.


Yep, and that is what I said. So if you fail on any point of the law, you have failed on them all. So it is useless to be baptized if you ever lusted, stole a penny, lied, because these are all sins and if you did any of them, then you are going to hell - if what you claim is true, and that is that obedience is required.
[QUOTE]

That is not the Catholic Teaching. To us, salvation is a process. It is not a one time, once saved always saved deal. We must persevere in faith until the end:

Matthew 24 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

[quote]As for the OT saints who died before Christ, I believe that we find that answer in scripture:

James 2:23
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
NKJV

In the OT times, those who were faithful to God looked forward to the coming Messiah and now we have the full revelation and look back to the cross. No one was ever saved except by Christ. There are many other passages, but again, I would prefer not to extend the scope of this thread - the posts are far too long now.

Agreed.


You brought up work by suggesting that it was not finished by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but we have to do something in order to be saved.

Are you agreeing we have to do something in order to be saved? Or are you saying that is what I said?


If you make a law requiring baptism in order to be saved, then you have placed yourself back under a law of works.

I didn't make that requirement. Jesus did.


I do not follow the dictates of any specific denomination - I follow what scripture says which is to believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

In other words, you follow your own interpretation of Scripture.


Let's stick to the Bible, okay, rather than pushing doctrinal stances of a specific denominations.

Your presuppositions are your doctrinal stances. My presuppositions are the Church doctrines which I believe are true. Just because you have eschewed the Church, why should I? I believe Jesus built the Church that we might avail ourselves of Her wisdom.


Holy Spirit.

I claim the Holy Spirit also. Now are we pitting the Holy Spirit against Himself? Or are you holier than I and claim the Holy Spirit all to yourself.

This is why the Scriptures say, "if you dispute with your brother take him to the Church." There has to be an arbiter to say who is really guided by the Holy Spirit. Who better than the entity which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth.


Good - it was not clear to me why you were disagreeing with me when I said that previously.

I must have misunderstood.


I answered that a couple of times. They received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which scripture says only comes to those who are saved.

Where?


Now, please answer my question (which I think I have asked 4 or 5 times now)

Which is?


I never said anything against being baptized. It is an act of obedience following salvation. This discussion is not about whether we should be baptized, it is trying to find any scripture which would validate or claim that it is required to be saved.

Ok, let me understand.

1. You do believe in being baptized.
2. As an act of obedience.
3. And it is not required.

If I have divided your words correctly, don't #2 and #3 contradict? Otherwise why are you performing an empty ritual which is not required? And if it is not required, why do you consider it obedience? Obedience means you are acquiesing to a command.


"moving amongst" is not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.

Yet St. Peter seems to say it is:
Acts 10:47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

Thanks for the courteous discussion. Tomorrow is a busy day in our household and I may not be able to respond until late or the next day.

May God bless you and your family,

Sincerely,

De Maria,

I said that if you did not chose to focus on your keys points and shorten this, I would choose them for you, so here si what I see as the key points:

1) You are not taking your doctrine from the Bible (God's word), but rather from your denominational dictates.

That is our first point of contention because unless we have agreement on the standard that we use, we have no hope of ever bringing this to a conclusion, and I do not intend to deviate from using God's word as my standard.

You also use a un-scriptural oxymoron of the "efficacious symbol", which again is not found in scripture but appears to come from your denominational teachings.

2) You claim that baptism is efficacious, but to date have failed to demonstrate that to be the case from scripture. Indeed, you have failed to show how the people in Acts 10:47 were saved before water baptism. This point alone is fatal to your argument.

In addition, though you claim you have not, you have in fact come forward with two ways to be saved. One for Jews (not requiring baptism), and one for Gentiles (requiring baptism).

Scripture says that there is one way to be saved.

Now, unless you can come up with something better than the same old arguments which have been addressed over and over again, I suggest that we are pretty much at the end of the trail on this one.

De Maria,

I said that if you did not chose to focus on your keys points and shorten this, I would choose them for you, so here si what I see as the key points:

Great!


1) You are not taking your doctrine from the Bible (God's word), but rather from your denominational dictates.

I think I mentioned before, that you and I interpret the term "God's word" differently.

For you, God's word is entirely contained in the Bible. Am I right?

But for Catholics, God's word is contained in the traditions by Word and Scripture.

So I agree this would be a wonderful place to start.


That is our first point of contention because unless we have agreement on the standard that we use, we have no hope of ever bringing this to a conclusion, and I do not intend to deviate from using God's word as my standard.

You are correct. So if you don't mind, lets postpone this discussion and focus on this.

As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?

In the meantime, the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture:

First we are instructed to listen to the Church:

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Again, if you don't mind, in order not to derail this thread any further, I'll post this separately and we can continue there.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Great!
I think I mentioned before, that you and I interpret the term "God's word" differently.


That is the first issue. We are to allow God's word to interpret itself - we are not to interpret it.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV


For you, God's word is entirely contained in the Bible. Am I right?

God is not contained within His word, but God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible and anything else which claims to be from God must be tested by using God's word, because God will never contradict Himself.

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV


But for Catholics, God's word is contained in the traditions by Word and Scripture.

Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV


As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?

I just did.


In the meantime, the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture:

First we are instructed to listen to the Church:

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


First, define what you mean by the word "Church". I think that is something else where we may be at odds.


Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Where does it say to pass it on "orally"?


As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Yep.


Again, if you don't mind, in order not to derail this thread any further, I'll post this separately and we can continue there.

Okay.

The Bible says that we are saved by the Gospel of Christ, which is the death burial and resurrection or Him, and in Romans 6:1 is the following through of that gospel, that we have died to our old selves, and a buried with Christ, as such we should walk in newness of life.
In acts 2:38, I looked up in the greek, someone had told me that "for" and the "for the remission of sins" meant "because of". Bogus. For is from the word eis, which is a preposition, and the translation for "for" is, -In direct or immediate necessity of-
I also looked at the word "name" in Matthew 28:19... its proper name.
Acts 2:38
And Peter said unto them, Repent (romans 6:1-6, death to the old and new birth to the new), and be baptised (baptiso, full submersion in water) in the name of Jesus Christ ( Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.") For (in direct necessity of) the remission of sins.
And you WILL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
If that's not spelled out well enough for you... I don't know what else can be done.

~Ash

In acts 2:38, I looked up in the greek, someone had told me that "for" and the "for the remission of sins" meant "because of". Bogus. For is from the word eis, which is a preposition, and the translation for "for" is, -In direct or immediate necessity of-


You did not say what source you used, but if I were you, I would get rid of it. Let's see what scripture itself has to say about the meaning of "eis". We have many passages in scripture where “eis” carries the intent or concept of “because of”, for example:

Matt 12:41
41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it,
Because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is
Here.
NKJV

The word "at" is eis. Now did they repent so that they would have the preaching of Jonah? Or is it the other way around?

Rom 6:3-4
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptizedinto (eis) His death? NKJV

Were we baptized to cause His death?

Matt 3:11
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance, but He who is coming after me is
Mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy
Spirit and fire. NKJV

Were they baptized with water to get repentance or because they repented?

The point is that the intent of “because of” is commonly used both in English and in Koine Greek, and that is the only sense in which the word “eis” can be understood in the context of scripture for it to be consistent with the rest of scripture. With that in mind, let's have another look at Acts 2:38:

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

So now understanding that the intent of “eis” in context is “because of”, we could read this to say:

“Repent, and then be baptized because you have received remission of sins and the Holy Spirit.”

I don't see your response on that thread so I guess you want to continue here?


That is the first issue. We are to allow God's word to interpret itself - we are not to interpret it.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Correct.


God is not contained within His word, but God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible and anything else which claims to be from God must be tested by using God's word, because God will never contradict Himself.

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV

The Bible seems to say that the Church is the ultimate test:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.


Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

Note how Jesus, the Head of the Church is judging between a certain tradition and the Word of God.

This is precisely the authority which the Church now accepts. If we look at Church history, we see and individual named Arius who claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and who interpreted Scripture to mean that Jesus is not God.

The Church compared his teachings to Tradition and Scripture. The Church declared Arius a heretic.


I just did.

Do you mean that there is no explicit statement which says that Scripture is the only standard of faith?


First, define what you mean by the word "Church". I think that is something else where we may be at odds.

The universal Church which Jesus established and whose head He is.


Where does it say to pass it on "orally"?

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The word of God ye HEARD of us means that they spoke these words.


Yep.

Glad you agree.


Okay.

Ok, good talking to you.

I'll be gone for the next 8 days. God willing we'll take up where we left off when I return.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't see your response on that thread so I guess you want to continue here?


Some of us have lives off internet also, and work during the day.


Correct.

Good, so if you know this how could you say this...


The Bible seems to say that the Church is the ultimate test:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination, and an interpretation of their denomination is made by men is in violation of 2 Peter 1:20. As for the verse that you quoted, no doubt you know that this has to with dispute resolution and has nothing to do with doctrinal interpretation.

Note how Jesus, the Head of the Church is judging between a certain tradition and the Word of God.

This is precisely the authority which the Church now accepts. If we look at Church history, we see and individual named Arius who claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and who interpreted Scripture to mean that Jesus is not God.


The Church compared his teachings to Tradition and Scripture. The Church declared Arius a heretic.

The Roman Catholic Church also declared one of the "infallible popes" a heretic.


Do you mean that there is no explicit statement which says that Scripture is the only standard of faith?

Why do you keep asking after being answered?


The universal Church which Jesus established and whose head He is.

So you do not mean the Roman Catholic Church which was founded but Constantine in 325AD but are referring to the body of all believers. Good, we agree.


1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

They heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.

εἰς (eis 1519)
1. into
into (to the interior), to, unto.
2. to
unto (implying motion to the interior); into, towards, with a view to; implying immediate purpose.
2. εἰς τὸ (eis 1519 to) with the infinitive, to the end that, with a view to doing, being, or steering whatever the verb may mean.
3. unto
unto; implying purpose, to the end that; when referring to time it marks either the interval during; or the point itself as an object of the aim or purpose, up to, for (marking the immediate purpose?).
4. in
into, unto, to, implying motion to the interior, governing the Accusative. *Act 2:27,31 (with Genitive) εἰς ᾅδου (eis 1519 haidou) = unto (the habitation or power of) Hades.

5. for
into, to, unto, with a view to; hence, with respect to a certain event, in order to, for.

6. on
into (motion to the interior) to, unto.
7. toward -s
unto, to, towards.
8. against
(motion to the interior) into, to; unto; towards, sometimes implying mere reference in regard to, sometimes hostility, against.
9. upon
unto, into, implying motion to an object; unto, implying object, and purpose; into, union and communion with.
10. At
(motion to the interior) into, to, unto, with a view to (opposite of ἔμπροσθεν (emprosthen 1715)).
11. Among, amongst
(motion to the interior), into, to, unto, with a view to.
12. Of
into, to, unto, with a view to; with respect to a certain result, in order to for, towards.
13. Concerning
into, to, unto, with a view to, marking the direction of thought or speech.
14. Throughout
unto, into.
15. A or an
preposition, into, with a view to; also, denoting equivalence, as.
16. Before
(motion to the interior) into, to, unto.
17. By
into, implying motion to the interior; to, unto, with a view to; (opposite of ἐκ (ek 1537)).
18. As
(motion to the interior) into, to, with a view to.
19. One
(feminine μία (mia), neuter ἕν (hen)) one, the first cardinal numeral; emphatic, one, even one, one single.
20. That... might be
unto, for. (Here, εἰς σωτηρίαν (eis 1519 sōtērian) for salvation).
21. Till
unto, when referring to time, denoting either the interval up to a certain point, during; or the point itself as the object or aim of some purpose, up to, for.
22. Until
unto; implying purpose, to the end that; when referring to time, marking either the interval, during; or the point itself as the object of the aim or purpose, up to, for.
23. With
into, implying either motion to a place, or arrival at a place by motion; up to, as the object of some aim or purpose.
24. Condemned (to be)
into, to, unto, with a view to (denoting object); in order to (denoting purpose).




Sorry I must have read the wrong line, however this is better. Greekbiblestudy.org

Not only have I shown you how the word has been used in scripture, but the word "for" is used the same way in English. For example:

"I took medicine for a cold".

Does a person take it to get a cold, or because they have a cold?

Simple grammar.

Some of us have lives off internet also, and work during the day.

Understandable.


Good, so if you know this how could you say this...

It is a Catholic doctrine that the Word of God is not interpreted individually. Whereas, nonCatholics have reserved the right to interpret the Word of God in the Bible apart from Church Tradition from the inception of the Protestant movement.

What I meant when I said that you and I interpret the term "Word of God" differently is that you consider the Word of God to be exclusively in the Bible.

Whereas we consider it is also in the Traditions of God passed on by the Church.


The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination, and an interpretation of their denomination is made by men is in violation of 2 Peter 1:20.

First, provide the proof that "The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination...". After which you can try to prove how the Churches interpretation of "the Church" is in violation with any Scripture. Also, please provide your interpretation of "the Church". I guarantee, the interpretation in violation of Scripture is yours.


As for the verse that you quoted, no doubt you know that this has to with dispute resolution and has nothing to do with doctrinal interpretation.

Do you mean that there exist no disputes over doctrinal interpretation?


Note how Jesus, the Head of the Church is judging between a certain tradition and the Word of God.

Exactly. And Jesus the Head of the Church passed on His authority to the Church:

Matt 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

And as Matt 18:17 has shown before, the Church has the authority to settle disputes in any matter and to excommunicate those who do not "hear the Church". Therefore the Church now has the authority given Her by Jesus Christ to judge between man made traditions and the Word of God.


The Roman Catholic Church also declared one of the "infallible popes" a heretic.

You love to jump around don't you? Are you trying for the scatter gun effect? But hey, I have time. Provide the data and lets examine it in detail. Lets see exactly who declared whom a heretic and find out if it were a valid declaration. And lets see if you even know what the term "infallible" means to a Catholic.


Why do you keep asking after being answered?

Because you haven't answered. Or if you have, point to it. I don't see a statement from you saying, Sola Scriptura means this or that and you can find it in this verse in the Bible.


So you do not mean the Roman Catholic Church which was founded but Constantine in 325AD

St. Constantine did not found a Church. He protected the Church from Roman persecution when he came into power as the Roman Caesar because his own mother, St. Helena, whom he loved was a faithful Christian.


but are referring to the body of all believers. Good, we agree.

I am referring to the Church founded by Jesus Christ.


They heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.

The Word of God is passed on by hearing. It is strongly implied in this verse.

Are you implying that your doctrines may be implied in Scrpture but Catholic doctrines must be explicit? I don't think so. As they say, what is good for the gander is good for the goose. So, if that is the case, please provide the explicit statement of Sola Scriptura in Scripture?

Sincerely,

It is a Catholic doctrine that the Word of God is not interpreted individually. Whereas, nonCatholics have reserved the right to interpret the Word of God in the Bible apart from Church Tradition from the inception of the Protestant movement.


Again, please deal with what I do say, and do not use strawman arguments. As I pointed out, scripture is of no private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

That means no one, not you, not me, not the pope, not Martin Luther, not your priest. No one.

And Yes, non-Catholics are not subject to your church doctrines and private interpretations, but rather my position is that we should submit ourselves to God's teachings given in the Bible.


What I meant when I said that you and I interpret the term "Word of God" differently is that you consider the Word of God to be exclusively in the Bible.

Again, please allow me to speak for myself, and you speak for yourself. That will work much better. I stated my position about this before, and no you did not properly represent my position. Please deal with what I did say, not what you want me to say.



Whereas we consider it is also in the Traditions of God passed on by the Church.

Now the question is - what is the "church". Is it your denomination or is it what the Bible says that it is, the body of all believers? I chose the latter. This is the key point of our disagreement - you choose to submit yourself to your denomination. I do not submit myself to any denomination.


First, provide the proof that "The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination...". After which you can try to prove how the Churches interpretation of "the Church" is in violation with any Scripture.

See above.


Also, please provide your interpretation of "the Church". I guarantee, the interpretation in violation of Scripture is yours.

See above.


Exactly. And Jesus the Head of the Church passed on His authority to the Church:

That once again is the doctruine of your denomination, not given in scripture. Indeed your denomination did not exist at the time that Jesus walked the earth in the flesh, nor did any denomination. Matthew 28 And 18 therefore have absolutrely nothing to do with your denomination or any denomination. If you claim otherwise, show me where we find any denomination in the Bible.


You love to jump around don't you? Are you trying for the scatter gun effect? But hey, I have time. Provide the data and lets examine it in detail. Lets see exactly who declared whom a heretic and find out if it were a valid declaration. And lets see if you even know what the term "infallible" means to a Catholic.

Heh heh - it is you using the scattergun effect. The facts are acknowledged by even Catholic sources - are you denying this to be true?


Because you haven't answered. Or if you have, point to it. I don't see a statement from you saying, Sola Scriptura means this or that and you can find it in this verse in the Bible.

It is useless to discuss anything with you if your approach is going to be to deny if you don't like the answer.


St. Constantine did not found a Church. He protected the Church from Roman persecution when he came into power as the Roman Caesar because his own mother, St. Helena, whom he loved was a faithful Christian.

Even your Cardinal John Henry Newman disagreed with you on that point.


I am referring to the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Are you denying that this is the body of all believers?


The Word of God is passed on by hearing. It is strongly implied in this verse.

Implied in your opinion. Again, they heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.

Again, please deal with what I do say, and do not use strawman arguments.

A strawman argument is another argument which is substituted for the actual argument in order to pretend to win the debate.. Where have I substituted another argument for your actual argument.


As I pointed out, scripture is of no private interpretation.

As I said, that is Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church does not permit private interpretation.


2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

That means no one, not you, not me, not the pope, not Martin Luther, not your priest. No one.

Correct.


And Yes, non-Catholics are not subject to your church doctrines and private interpretations,

How do you define "private interpretation"?


but rather my position is that we should submit ourselves to God's teachings given in the Bible.

How do you do that without interpreting the Bible?


Again, please allow me to speak for myself, and you speak for yourself. That will work much better. I stated my position about this before, and no you did not properly represent my position. Please deal with what I did say, not what you want me to say.

Then you don't believe in Sola Scriptura? Please clarify your position.


Now the question is - what is the "church". Is it your denomination or is it what the Bible says that it is, the body of all believers? I chose the latter.

Oh, I see. OK.

Let me correct a misconception. The Magisterium defines Church as any institution whose Bishops were anointed by Bishops which can be traced to the Apostles. Examples would be, the Orthodox and the Coptic. Non-Catholic confessions, such as the Lutherans and Baptists can only trace their beliefs as far back as Luther. But they are still considered members of the Body of Christ due to their Baptism.

So, although those institutions which stem from the Protestant revolution are not considered Churches. Ttheir members, if Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are considered members of the Catholic Church. Even if they themselves don't acknowledge the Catholic Church.

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324


This is the key point of our disagreement -

I agree.


you choose to submit yourself to your denomination. I do not submit myself to any denomination.

I understand. Please consider the ramifications of what you just said. In order to understand what I believe, you can study what the Catholic Church teaches.

However, in order to understand what you believe, YOU must divulge it. I can't read your mind.


See above.

The challenge stands.
First, provide the proof that "The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination...". After which you can try to prove how the Churches interpretation of "the Church" is in violation with any Scripture.


See above.

I have proven that the Catholic Church recognizes that the term Church refers to the Body of all Believers.

However, the Catholic Church also recognizes that the term Church refers to the Institution which Jesus established. And since the Bible says, "take him to the Church" (Matt 18:17) when one brother is disputing with another, that proves that the Bible recognizes the Church as an Institution with authority.

The Catholic Church also recognizes that the term Church refers to the gathing place of believers for the sake of worship. And since the Bible says "that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church" (1 Tim 3:15) This proves that the Bible recognizes that the Church is the place where believers gather to worship.

So, what I see above is that you don't understand the way the Catholic Church defines the word "Church". And that by reducing your definition of Church to strictly being the "body of all believers", you contradict Scripture.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


That once again is the doctruine of your denomination, not given in scripture.

I provided the Scripture. You haven't provided any verse to contradict the matter.


Indeed your denomination did not exist at the time that Jesus walked the earth in the flesh, nor did any denomination.

That is like saying that the Holy Trinity does not exist because you don't see the word Trinity in Scripture. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church. This can be proven Scripturally and Historically. The fact that the words, Catholic and Church are not found in Scripture together does not prove that the Catholic Church is not the same Apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ.


Matthew 28 And 18 therefore have absolutrely nothing to do with your denomination or any denomination. If you claim otherwise, show me where we find any denomination in the Bible.

You keep chaniging the subject, but sure:

The Catholic Church believes in the Body of Christ in the Eucharist:
Matthew 26 26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

The Catholic Church breaks bread daily:
Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

The Catholic Church keeps one doctrine:
Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

The Catholic Church keeps the Traditions by Word and Scripture:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

The Catholic Church teaches that faith is expressed in one's works as well as one's words:
James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith.

The Catholic Church is universal:
Matt 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

There are many other signs of the Church which are in Scripture.


Heh heh - it is you using the scattergun effect. The facts are acknowledged by even Catholic sources - are you denying this to be true?

I didn't deny anything. But simply asked for details. Your statement is like the question, "when did you stop beating your wife." Its loaded. No matter how I address it, I'll sound like I'm justifying Church error.

So by asking you for details, I will demonstrate that you have been duped.

So, provide the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility. That will show that the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible only when speaking from the Chair of Peter.

Then provide the Catholic doctrine of Church Infallibility. That will show that the Church teaches that the Magisterium is infallible when gathered ecumenically in union with the Bishops and the Pope.

Then when you provide the data of the incident, I will provide the data from a Catholic source and prove that neither is the case. Although some Popes have erred, they have not done so when teaching the Church from the Chair of Peter.

And although some councils have made erroneous statements, no ecumenical council teaching in union with the Bishops of the entire Church and with the Pope has ever done so.

So, I repeat, provide the details. Now if you don't have any details, that is a different matter.


It is useless to discuss anything with you if your approach is going to be to deny if you don't like the answer.

Huh? I asked you to point to your answer. I don't see it.


Even your Cardinal John Henry Newman disagreed with you on that point.

Really? Could you provide the details. Cardinal John Henry Newman is a convert to the Catholic Church who is credited with saying, "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."


Are you denying that this is the body of all believers?

No. Are you denying that the Church which Jesus built is also an Institution vested with His authority and given the mission to make disciples in all nations? Are you denying that the Church is also the place where believers gather to worship?


Implied in your opinion.

No. That's just one verse. Scripture is clear that the Word of God is passed on orally as welll as in Scripture:

Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.

John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.


Again, they heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.

As I said, it is strongly implied.

That still leaves you without any verse teaching Sola Scriptura.

Sincerely,

De Maria

A strawman argument is another argument which is substituted for the actual argument in order to pretend to win the debate.. Where have I substituted another argument for your actual argument.

You created a position which I did not take and argued against it rather than what I said.


As I said, that is Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church does not permit private interpretation.

It uses private interpretation. Indeed it insists that the interpretation of the leaders of the denomination be followed by it's members.


How do you define "private interpretation"?

The scriptural definition.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Interpretation of men rather than interpretation of the Holy Spirit which is found in scripture.



How do you do that without interpreting the Bible?

You allow it to interpret itself and submit yourself and your beliefs to what it says.


Then you don't believe in Sola Scriptura? Please clarify your position.

My position has been stated many times. I am tired of repeating it.

Oh, I see. OK.


Let me correct a misconception. The Magisterium defines Church as any institution whose Bishops were anointed by Bishops which can be traced to the Apostles...

I do not care what your denomination teaches. I care about what scripture says. You will note that I did not comment on many of your responses simply because all they were were c/p of your denominational teachings.


And that by reducing your definition of Church to strictly being the "body of all believers", you contradict Scripture.

Really?

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Now show me where your denomination existed (or any denomination) existed at the time of Christ and I will show you where one of your cardinals said Constantine created your denomination.


Then when you provide the data of the incident, I will provide the data from a Catholic source and prove that neither is the case. Although some Popes have erred, they have not done so when teaching the Church from the Chair of Peter.

Heh heh heh, I prefer historical accuracy to denominational defences of their own actions. Regardless, you too easily try to distract the discussion onto side issues. If you honestly have been kept in the drak by your denomination, send me a PM or start a new thread. We don't need this one to be taken any further off track.


Really? Could you provide the details. Cardinal John Henry Newman is a convert to the Catholic Church who is credited with saying, "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."

J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.


No. Are you denying that the Church which Jesus built is also an Institution vested with His authority and given the mission to make disciples in all nations? Are you denying that the Church is also the place where believers gather to worship?

An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members, but the institution itself is not the body of Christ, nor does being a member of any institution save you. Lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh.


No. That's just one verse. Scripture is clear that the Word of God is passed on orally as welll as in Scripture:

Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.

This does not prove your point. I can read the Bible and people hear it - that does not mean that your denominational tradition is mandated by scripture.


John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;

This refers to the unsaved (read John 10:26 and Psalm 82 which Jesus referred to in this passage).


Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.

So people preach from the Bible - that says nothing about your denominational traditions.

You created a position which I did not take and argued against it rather than what I said.

You said that already. My question is "Where have I substituted another argument for your actual argument." In other words, "what did you say which you feel I changed or ignored or replaced? And what did I replace it with?"

I trace your objection back to these words:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It is a Catholic doctrine that the Word of God is not interpreted individually. Whereas, nonCatholics have reserved the right to interpret the Word of God in the Bible apart from Church Tradition from the inception of the Protestant movement.


To which you answered:
Again, please deal with what I do say, and do not use strawman arguments. As I pointed out, scripture is of no private interpretation.

Read my statement again. Did I say that YOU said anything? I simply reiterated that the Catholic Church teaches against private interpretation. And I mentioned that it is nonCatholics who teach private interpretation. Did I say that you teach private interpretation?


It uses private interpretation. Indeed it insists that the interpretation of the leaders of the denomination be followed by it's members.

As we understand "private interpretation", it is the translation of Scripture without regard to Church history or Tradition. In other words, when we go to interpret Scripture, we take into account what Christians taught from the beginning regarding the Scripture we are reading.

The scriptural definition.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Interpretation of men rather than interpretation of the Holy Spirit which is found in scripture.

You allow it to interpret itself and submit yourself and your beliefs to what it says.


How does that work in practice? Lets take for example, Arius vs. Athanasius. Both Catholic, both reading Scripture and claiming to allow Scripture to interpret itself. But Arius claimed that Scripture taught that the Father alone is God. While Athansius said that Scripture taught that God is a Trinity, three Divine Persons in one God..

How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture:

Matt 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

The Church resolved in favor of Athanasius and against Arius. Unfortunately, Arius did not accept the Church's judgement and the Church was forced to excommunicate Arius for teaching heresy. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. .


My position has been stated many times. I am tired of repeating it.

I thought you had said you believe in Sola Scriptura. But now you seem to be qualifiying that statement.

Now, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, please say so categorically and just for kicks, point to the definition in Scripture.


I do not care what your denomination teaches.

But you brought it up. You said, ""The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination..." Now that I've proved that assumption of yours wrong, suddenly you don't care what the Church teaches? So, why did you bring it up then?


I care about what scripture says. You will note that I did not comment on many of your responses simply because all they were were c/p of your denominational teachings.

I assumed you wouldn't simply because you have yet to provide any Scripture for the doctrines which you believe in opposition to the Church. Sola Scriptura for instance.


Really?

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

But the Scriptures also depict the Church as an identifiable institution to which one can be brought for dispute resolution. That would be impossible if one must bring anyone to all believers.


Now show me where your denomination existed

I did. You said:
You will note that I did not comment on many of your responses simply because all they were were c/p of your denominational teachings.


(or any denomination) existed at the time of Christ and I will show you where one of your cardinals said Constantine created your denomination.

I already provided my evidence. You ignored it. Now you claim I never provided it. All I know is, if Cardinal Newman ever made such a statement, he must have recanted. Why would anyone join a Church which they did not believe was established by Jesus Christ? I know I wouldn't.


heh heh heh, I prefer historical accuracy to denominational defences of their own actions.

Actually, you've shown a propensity to ignore history. Your claim that Constantine formed the Church is a case in point. Your ignoring the case of Arius and Athanasius is another.


Regardless, you too easily try to distract the discussion onto side issues. If you honestly have been kept in the drak by your denomination, send me a PM or start a new thread. We don't need this one to be taken any further off track.

Its you who have been changing the subject as often as you can. I've answered every question you've thrown at me. You've yet to provide evidence in Scripture for Sola Scriptura.


J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.

Ok. I found it on the internet, here:
Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine - Chapter 8 (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html)

Lets go back to where Constantine was first mentioned:

You said:


So you do not mean the Roman Catholic Church which was founded but Constantine in 325AD

To which I replied:

:
St. Constantine did not found a Church. He protected the Church from Roman persecution when he came into power as the Roman Caesar because his own mother, St. Helena, whom he loved was a faithful Christian.

In turn you said:

Even your Cardinal John Henry Newman disagreed with you on that point.

So, read the chapter again and show me where Cardinal Newman said that Constantine founded the Church. I don't see it.


An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members, but the institution itself is not the body of Christ, nor does being a member of any institution save you. Lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh.

Then why did Jesus institute the Church? And why did He give the Church the power to bind and loose? And why is the Church called the Body of Christ?


This does not prove your point. I can read the Bible and people hear it - that does not mean that your denominational tradition is mandated by scripture.

Yes, I think it does. Reading the Bible outloud is an example of oral transmission of the Word of God. But the Bible does not say it is the only way. Preaching is another.

And our "denominational tradition" is mandated by Scripture since Scripture instructs us to keep the traditions and to obey our prelates.

Nowhere does Scripture tell us to disregard the Church.

In fact, even when Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees, who happen to be the Religious leaders before the Church, He instructs the people to obey them.

Matthew 23 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.


This refers to the unsaved (read John 10:26 and Psalm 82 which Jesus referred to in this passage).

It doesn't say it refers to the unsaved. Show me.


So people preach from the Bible - that says nothing about your denominational traditions.

I believe it does. And I've provided other evidence of Catholic Traditions which are mentioned in the Bible but you said you preferred to ignore them.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You said that already. My question is "Where have I substituted another argument for your actual argument." In other words, "what did you say which you feel I changed or ignored or replaced? And what did I replace it with?"


You gave what you claimed is my position (which is not) and did not go back and quote what I actually said. Maybe it is easier to make up a position for me and then to attack it, but for the sake of accuracy, if you are going to claim something is my position - quiote me. Simple.


As we understand "private interpretation", it is the translation of Scripture without regard to Church history or Tradition.

Or to re-phrase - translation of scripture without your denomination's (private) interpretation. You want everyone to follow what your denomination teaches. That is the core of the argument. Indeed every discussion that we have comes down to that one point - you believe that we should all follow the private interpretations of your denomination.


In other words, when we go to interpret Scripture, we take into account what Christians taught from the beginning regarding the Scripture we are reading.

No, you don't actually. You selectively take comments from various writers, all of whom come from your denomination after it was formed in 325AD.


How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture:

Bingo - they used scripture as their standard of doctrine, just as Jesus and the Apostles did, as we should.


I thought you had said you believe in Sola Scriptura. But now you seem to be qualifiying that statement.

I believe in Sola scriptura, but it is not up to you to re-define it.


I assumed you wouldn't simply because you have yet to provide any Scripture for the doctrines which you believe in opposition to the Church. Sola Scriptura for instance.

I cannot believe that you actually made that statement. I'll bet that you if you were in the same room with me, you couldn't say it with a straight face. Now look, again I'll say it, if you are going to ignore everything that I say and not deal with what I have said, then what is your purpose in discussing this?


But the Scriptures also depict the Church as an identifiable institution to which one can be brought for dispute resolution. That would be impossible if one must bring anyone to all believers.

But again, this has nothing to do with your denomination.



I already provided my evidence. You ignored it. Now you claim I never provided it.

No m'am, you didn't. You provided your denominational teachings, but no evidence of any denomination, not yours or any others in scripture.


All I know is, if Cardinal Newman ever made such a statement, he must have recanted. Why would anyone join a Church which they did not believe was established by Jesus Christ? I know I wouldn't.

Heh heh heh, I love it - when your own church leaders disagree with your position, you cannot deal with it, and hope that they recanted. You don't want to deal with the evidence, you can only believe what you want to believe.


So, read the chapter again and show me where Cardinal Newman said that Constantine founded the Church. I don't see it.
Rose coloured glasses?

""We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, proces­sions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."

Notice that he even calls your denomination a "new religion".


Then why did Jesus institute the Church? And why did He give the Church the power to bind and loose? And why is the Church called the Body of Christ?

Key point which can never be resolved between us as long as I rely upon scripture for the definition of church and you rely upon your denominational teaching.


Yes, I think it does.

This is the essence of private interpretation. You take verses out of context and say what you think that they mean and say that that establishes your doctrine. This is why we are spinning wheels on here. As long your thoughts (private interpretation) and your denominations teaching (private interpretation) are the basis for your position, and mine is the context of scripture as it interprets itself, we have no hope of resolving our disagreements because we do not have a common basis of understanding.


Reading the Bible outloud is an example of oral transmission of the Word of God. But the Bible does not say it is the only way. Preaching is another.

Still not an endorsement of your denomination's traditions.


And our "denominational tradition" is mandated by Scripture since Scripture instructs us to keep the traditions and to obey our prelates.

I keep asking for the references... still waiting.


It doesn't say it refers to the unsaved. Show me.

Sigh. Must I read it to you?

John 10:26-27
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
NKJV

Does this sound like they were saved? Now read Psalm 82 on your own.


I've provided other evidence of Catholic Traditions which are mentioned in the Bible but you said you preferred to ignore them.

Right. I accept what the Bible teaches, not your denomination's private interpretations.

You gave what you claimed is my position (which is not) and did not go back and quote what I actually said.

Where and when?


Maybe it is easier to make up a position for me and then to attack it, but for the sake of accuracy, if you are going to claim something is my position - quiote me. Simple.

You still haven't shown where I said anything and attributed it to you.


Or to re-phrase - translation of scripture without your denomination's (private) interpretation.

The Church is not private. It is very public.


You want everyone to follow what your denomination teaches.

Because I believe the Church teaches the truth.


That is the core of the argument. Indeed every discussion that we have comes down to that one point - you believe that we should all follow the private interpretations of your denomination.

Here's the difference between you and I. I am passing on the teaching of the Church which was established by Jesus Christ. This is in accordance with Scripture:

Matthew 10 40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

But you want to teach your own teachings. You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination.


No, you don't actually. You selectively take comments from various writers, all of whom come from your denomination after it was formed in 325AD.

Well here's one from 100 to 150 ad, St. Iraneaus speaking about Tradition:

"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition... It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1).

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3,4:1).


Bingo - they used scripture as their standard of doctrine, just as Jesus and the Apostles did, as we should.

You've quoted me out of context. Here's what I actually said:

How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture:

Matt 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

The Church resolved in favor of Athanasius and against Arius. Unfortunately, Arius did not accept the Church's judgement and the Church was forced to excommunicate Arius for teaching heresy. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. .


It is clear the Scripture to which I refer tells us that the Church is the authority we turn to in order to resolve disputes.


I believe in Sola scriptura, but it is not up to you to re-define it.

I haven't. I've continually asked for you to define it and point to it in Scripture.


I cannot believe that you actually made that statement. I'll bet that you if you were in the same room with me, you couldn't say it with a straight face. Now look, again I'll say it, if you are going to ignore everything that I say and not deal with what I have said, then what is your purpose in discussing this?

You've spent about four posts now claiming that you have provided the support for that doctrine. Wouldn't it be simpler to either repeat it or identify it in the post where you claim you posted it? I sincerely do not see your explanation.


But again, this has nothing to do with your denomination.

1. You just admitted that the Church does not necessarily mean the body of all believers.
2. You have just admitted that the Church is an institution.
3. But it proves that my denomination exegetes Scripture correctly.


No m'am, you didn't. You provided your denominational teachings, but no evidence of any denomination, not yours or any others in scripture.

Its "man". And yes I did.

I don't have to show evidence of any denomination. Suffice to prove that my denomination's teachings are confirmed in Scripture.


heh heh heh, I love it - when your own church leaders disagree with your position, you cannot deal with it, and hope that they recanted. You don't want to deal with the evidence, you can only believe what you want to believe.

The challenge stands. Where does Cardinal Newman state that St. Constantine formed the Catholic Church?


Rose coloured glasses?

No glasses at all. 20/20 on this side.


""We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, proces­sions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."

Notice that he even calls your denomination a "new religion".

As opposed to the Old religion of Judaism. Notice in the very same chapter, Cardinal Newman mentions Tertullian who lived between the year 160 and 200:
[I]
....yet it is plain from Tertullian that Christians had altars of their own, and sacrifices and priests. And that they had churches is again and again proved by Eusebius who had seen "the houses of prayer levelled" in the Dioclesian persecution; from the history too of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, nay from Clement [Note 10]. ...

So, if Cardinal Newman recognizes the Church existed in the time of Tertullian. How can he claim that St. Constantine formed the Church?


Key point which can never be resolved between us as long as I rely upon scripture for the definition of church and you rely upon your denominational teaching.


As I have shown, Scripture recognizes that the Church is a temple, a gathering place and an authoritative Institution built by Christ as well as the body of believers. The Catholic Church accepts all those definitions. You deny all except the latter.


This is the essence of private interpretation. You take verses out of context and say what you think that they mean and say that that establishes your doctrine. This is why we are spinning wheels on here. As long your thoughts (private interpretation) and your denominations teaching (private interpretation) are the basis for your position, and mine is the context of scripture as it interprets itself, we have no hope of resolving our disagreements because we do not have a common basis of understanding.

I disagree with how you characterize my interpretation of Scripture. In fact, it is the reverse.

I interpret Scripture according to the teaching of the Church. That means my interpretation is not private but shared by many.

The Church explains Scripture and teaches that we should interpret Scripture in the Tradition of the Church. The Church condemns private interpretation of Scripture which contradicts the Teaching of the Church through the centuries.

You, on the other hand, only believe what you interpret from Scripture yourself. Saying that you allow Scripture to interpret itself is illogical. What you read still has to be examined and understood in your brain. Since you don't care what anyone else says on the matter, your interpretation of Scripture is the very definition of private.


Still not an endorsement of your denomination's traditions.

But it is a confirmation that the Church's teachings are in line with Scripture.


I keep asking for the references... still waiting.

Unlike you I can go back to messages and prove I have made them there, I can quote myself, or I can provide them anew. I've done so frequently:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.


Sigh. Must I read it to you?

Yeah. And make the connection.



John 10:26-27
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
NKJV

Does this sound like they were saved?

This is the verse which I posted:
John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;

To which you responded:
This refers to the unsaved (read John 10:26 and Psalm 82 which Jesus referred to in this passage).

Obviously, John 10:26 is referring to unbelievers which Jesus is addressing. And John 10:35 is referring to believers which the Scriptures refer to as gods to whom the Word of God was orally presented, spoken, in the past.

Two different ideas all together. Try again.


Now read Psalm 82 on your own.

The point is that the Word of God is spoken. That is not addressed in Psalm 82. It is unrelated to the issue.


Right. I accept what the Bible teaches, not your denomination's private interpretations.

The Church does not permit "private interpretation" which conflicts with Catholic Teaching.

However, it is obvious that your method of interpretation is essentially "private" since you eschew anyone's input.

Sincerely,

Where and when?

If you had taken the time to read what I said when I said it so many times, you would not need to ask after posting strawman arguments. I am tired of repeating it only to be mis-represented - now you put a little effort into it.


The Church is not private. It is very public.
Heh heh heh nice try - read the context of the scripture - private refers to human interpretation rather than that of the Holy Spirit.


Because I believe the Church teaches the truth.

You are quite welcome to follow your denomination and I likewise have the right to choose to follow the Bible.


Here's the difference between you and I. I am passing on the teaching of the Church which was established by Jesus Christ.

I can test to see if this is true by going to scripture - God does not contradict himself - yet your denominational teaching contradicts God's word.



But you want to teach your own teachings.

Sigh - here we go with the strawman mis-representations again.


You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination.

Right. Just like Jesus was not a member of any denomination, nor were the Apostles.


You've quoted me out of context. Here's what I actually said:

It is clear the Scripture to which I refer tells us that the Church is the authority we turn to in order to resolve disputes.

The quote from scripture that you gave showed that they followed scripture, and went to scripture to determine doctrinal truth. Precisely.


I haven't. I've continually asked for you to define it and point to it in Scripture.

As I have, but you constantly ignore it, and refine it, and mis-quote me.


You've spent about four posts now claiming that you have provided the support for that doctrine. Wouldn't it be simpler to either repeat it or identify it in the post where you claim you posted it? I sincerely do not see your explanation.

And you ignore it and mis-quoted me when I have posted the information - so how many times do I need to keep telling you?


1. You just admitted that the Church does not necessarily mean the body of all believers.
2. You have just admitted that the Church is an institution.
3. But it proves that my denomination exegetes Scripture correctly.

Sigh - once again you mis-represent me. I did not say "The Church" - as you use that, it means your denomination. No such usage exists in scripture, because there are no denominations in scripture.

Once again (and this is the same cycle as with other things - I repeat myself and you mis-represent and ignore what I say and then tell me repeat it again)

"An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members, but the institution itself is not the body of Christ, nor does being a member of any institution save you. lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh."


I don't have to show evidence of any denomination. Suffice to prove that my denomination's teachings are confirmed in Scripture.

A statement does not make it so.


The challenge stands. Where does Cardinal Newman state that St. Constantine formed the Catholic Church?

Take off the dark glasses and maybe you can read it.


As opposed to the Old religion of Judaism.

Read again. You know when Constantine lived, and it was Constantine who brough the pagan things into the church to create a new religion.


As I have shown, Scripture recognizes that the Church is a temple, a gathering place and an authoritative Institution built by Christ as well as the body of believers. The Catholic Church accepts all those definitions. You deny all except the latter.

Sigh - isn't it good enough to deal honestly with what I said? Does it give you some empty satisfaction to shot down strawman arguments based upon things that I never said?


The Church condemns private interpretation of Scripture which contradicts the Teaching of the Church through the centuries.

Again, I do not care what your denomination teaches - I go by what scripture teaches.


You, on the other hand, only believe what you interpret from Scripture yourself.

Strawman argument again - show me where I said that.


But it is a confirmation that the Church's teachings are in line with Scripture.

Not in the slightest.


Unlike you I can go back to messages and prove I have made them there, I can quote myself, or I can provide them anew.

I can, I have, I have repeated myself and you constantly ignore what I say and post strawmen. As a result, I am finding myself much less motivated to waste my time on you. I prefer to spend time with folk who are seeking truth, who will read what I said and respond to it and who will deal honestly with what I said.


I've done so frequently:

And your claims have been refuted in context frequently.


Obviously, John 10:26 is referring to unbelievers which Jesus is addressing. And John 10:35 is referring to believers which the Scriptures refer to as gods to whom the Word of God was orally presented, spoken, in the past.

Two different ideas all together. Try again.

Now read the whole passage - and read Psalm 82 which Jesus refers to. It's not hard - it is only a few verses. Give it a shot on your own.

If you had taken the time to read what I said when I said it so many times, you would not need to ask after posting strawman arguments. I am tired of repeating it only to be mis-represented - now you put a little effort into it.

You made an accusation which you never substantiated.


heh heh heh nice try - read the context of the scripture - private refers to human interpretation rather than that of the Holy Spirit.

Sure. But if you read it in context, St. Peter is saying, we were inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore listen to us.

Lets go back to verse 16:

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness.

We didn't make this up. We were eyewitnesses of the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.

17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

We heard the word of God from on high proclaiming His beloved Son.

19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend,

We advise that you hear what we say, because we have the word of God.

as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

We are your light until the light of Christ returns again like the day star in your hearts.

20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

For Scripture was not inspired by man, but men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak and to write.


ou are quite welcome to follow your denomination and I likewise have the right to choose to follow the Bible.

Correct.


I can test to see if this is true by going to scripture - God does not contradict himself - yet your denominational teaching contradicts God's word.

Show me.

For instance. Sola Scriptura is no where mentioned in Scripture. But Scripture says that the Church is authoritative and the Pillar of Truth and that we should keep the Traditions in word and Scripture. So it seems that Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. While Catholic doctrine follows Scripture to the letter.


sigh - here we go with the strawman mis-representations again.

You yourself have said you don't follow any denomination. Therefore you follow your own teaching based on your understanding of the Bible.


Right. Just like Jesus was not a member of any denomination, nor were the Apostles.

Not really. There were divisions or denominations amongst the Jews. Jesus was not a Samaritan Jew, but an Israeli Jew. Then after Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law and established Christianity, He automatically became the very first Christian Jew.

Remember, the first Christians were considered a Jewish sect or denomination.


The quote from scripture that you gave showed that they followed scripture, and went to scripture to determine doctrinal truth. Precisely.

Yes. Catholics still follow Scripture. But we follow all Scripture. Whereas you pick. Such as this one. Obviously, this verse, Matt 18:17 says that the Church resolves disputes between Christians. But you won't accept that verse since it contradicts your belief .

But that isn't the only place where Scripture says that the Church is our authority:

Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

1 Cor 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world? 4 If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge, who are the most despised in the church.


As I have,

Where?


but you constantly ignore it, and refine it, and mis-quote me.

Where?


And you ignore it and mis-quoted me when I have posted the information - so how many times do I need to keep telling you?

You keep saying that I misquote you but you don't show me where I've done so.


sigh - once again you mis-represent me. I did not say "The Church" - as you use that, it means your denomination. No such usage exists in scripture,

I use the word "Church" in all its senses. I accept that the Church is an institution built by Christ. That is one of the ways in which Scripture uses the term and one of the ways in which the Church which wrote the Scriptures uses the term as well.


because there are no denominations in scripture.

But the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church are expounded by Scripture.


Once again (and this is the same cycle as with other things - I repeat myself and you mis-represent and ignore what I say and then tell me repeat it again)

Where did I misrepresent this statement of yours?


"An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers

True. Jesus said believers and unbelievers would be in His Church.

That is why, the existence of non-believers in the Church does not invalidate the fact of whether it is the Body of Christ.


and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ.

In message #113, you said:
Now the question is - what is the "church". Is it your denomination or is it what the Bible says that it is, the body of all believers?

Are you reversing yourself now? I quote:
no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ.


At the same time any institution can "claim" to be the Body of Christ. Whether they can prove it is another story.

As I have shown, but which you have continually ignored, the Catholic Church considers Her members to be members of the Body of Christ. But the Catholic Church considers all the Baptized to be members of the Body of Christ, whether they, themselves consider themselves Catholic or not.

So, in fact, it is you who keep misrepresenting what I have said.


Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members,

Correct. Because their members are baptized.


but the institution itself is not the body of Christ,

But its members are members of the Body of Christ.


nor does being a member of any institution save you.

True. But being an obedient and practicing member of the Catholic Church does save you. Because in obeying the teachings of the Catholic Church, one is obeying the Teachings of Jesus Christ.


lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh."

Because there was as yet no Schism. However, the beliefs which were taught by the Apostles are still taught by the Catholic Church. And the belief in Sola Scriptura is no where represented in Scripture nor in the early Church.

So, the question remains:
Then why did Jesus institute the Church? So that anyone could ignore it?

And why did He give the Church the power to bind and loose? So that they could bind and loose nothing?

And why is the Church called the Body of Christ in Scripture? Is it just a cool nickname?


A statement does not make it so.

Exactly. That's why I've shown verse after verse proving it and you've just made unsupported statements.


Take off the dark glasses and maybe you can read it.

I don't wear glasses.


Read again. You know when Constantine lived, and it was Constantine who brough the pagan things into the church to create a new religion.

I don't see the words, "Constantine formed the Catholic Church":. And I do see where the Cardinal Newman says that the Church existed during the time of Tertullian who pre-existed Constantine by 150 years.


sigh - isn't it good enough to deal honestly with what I said? Does it give you some empty satisfaction to shot down strawman arguments based upon things that I never said?

Man, this is like pulling teeth. Are you now saying that you accept that the term Church is:

1. The institution built by Christ with authority to bind and loose.
2. The gathing place for Christian worship.
3. As well as the body of Christ.


Again, I do not care what your denomination teaches - I go by what scripture teaches.

Again, the Catholic Church's teachings are consistent with Scripture.

The only one of your teachings which you have divulged is Sola Scriptura and you have provided no Scripture verse to support it. While I have provided many verses which seem to contradict it.


Strawman argument again - show me where I said that.

Message #119

:
You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination.

Right. Just like Jesus was not a member of any denomination, nor were the Apostles.

Message #113

This is the key point of our disagreement - you choose to submit yourself to your denomination. I do not submit myself to any denomination.


Not in the slightest.

Again, I provide the evidence. You make statements with no support.


I can, I have, I have repeated myself and you constantly ignore what I say and post strawmen. As a result, I am finding myself much less motivated to waste my time on you.

Sure. I understand. Believe me, I feel the same way.


I prefer to spend time with folk who are seeking truth, who will read what I said and respond to it and who will deal honestly with what I said.

Ok.


And your claims have been refuted in context frequently.

I don't think so.


Now read the whole passage - and read Psalm 82 which Jesus refers to. It's not hard - it is only a few verses. Give it a shot on your own.

I have. The point I made is that the Bible says the word of God is SPOKEN. You seem to be caught up on whom the word of God was spoken TO. But the whole point of this part of our discussion is that I am claiming that the Word of God is passed on by word. In the same message I mentioned other verses which depict the Word of God spoken to Jews and to Christians.

Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.

Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.

You made an accusation which you never substantiated.

I pointed them out when you did it over and over. Again, an indication that you are not reading what I said.


Sure. But if you read it in context, St. Peter is saying, we were inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore listen to us.

Who are you referring to as "we". That refers to those who penned scripture.


Show me.

I have.


For instance. Sola Scriptura is no where mentioned in Scripture.

Keep saying it - maybe eventually you'll believe that it is true.


But Scripture says that the Church is authoritative and the Pillar of Truth and that we should keep the Traditions in word and Scripture. So it seems that Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. While Catholic doctrine follows Scripture to the letter.

Again, "church" refers to the body of all believers as I showed you previously, not your denomination. Thus this has nothing to do with your claims of "tradition".


You yourself have said you don't follow any denomination. Therefore you follow your own teaching based on your understanding of the Bible.

There is no co-relation. Jesus and the Apostles, and indeed all early Christians followed no denomination because they did not exist. Were they wrong?


Yes. Catholics still follow Scripture. But we follow all Scripture.

Good, then that ends the discussion. We can all follow scripture as the standard of truth rather than denominational teachings!


I use the word "Church" in all its senses. I accept that the Church is an institution built by Christ. That is one of the ways in which Scripture uses the term and one of the ways in which the Church which wrote the Scriptures uses the term as well.

"Church" does not have the same meaning in every context, and yet you try to make every place where the word appears to mean your denomination, the one thing that it could not possibly mean because your denomination did not exist then.


True. Jesus said believers and unbelievers would be in His Church.

No, He said that they would be his church.


At the same time any institution can "claim" to be the Body of Christ. Whether they can prove it is another story.

Any institution which claims to be the body of Christ is wrong according to scripture.



As I have shown, but which you have continually ignored, the Catholic Church considers Her members to be members of the Body of Christ.

Anyone can believe what they want - that does not make it true.


Correct. Because their members are baptized.

Receiving Christ as Saviour saves, not baptism.


But its members are members of the Body of Christ.

Some maybe, but membership does not confer salvation.


True. But being an obedient and practicing member of the Catholic Church does save you.

Ah, so you are saying that the cross of Christ was not necessary - you are saying that there is another way to be saved.


And why is the Church called the Body of Christ in Scripture?

Good question. The church that Christ founded is the body of Christ, not a denomination. This is what I have been trying to tell you dozens of times.


I don't wear glasses.

Maybe that is the problem. Maybe you should!


I don't see the words, "Constantine formed the Catholic Church"

When you get those glasses, read it again.


Man, this is like pulling teeth. Are you now saying that you accept that the term Church is:

1. The institution built by Christ with authority to bind and loose.
2. The gathing place for Christian worship.
3. As well as the body of Christ.

It is like pulling teeth - why not make it easy by reading what I said about the church and respond to that.


Sure. I understand. Believe me, I feel the same way.

Then why don't you start dealing honestly and seriously with the points that I have raised.


I have. The point I made is that the Bible says the word of God is SPOKEN. You seem to be caught up on whom the word of God was spoken TO.

That is the point. No one argues that the word of God cannot be read out loud. Again don't waste your time and mine with these strawman arguments.

I pointed them out when you did it over and over. Again, an indication that you are not reading what I said.

No, you didn't point them out. You simply said, "you are making a straw man".

To point something out, I would expect you to say, "You said that I said, such and such. But I didn't, I said such and so."

Now, unless you point out and explain exactly where you perceive that I made an error, I can't know what you are talking about. I'm not a mind reader.


Who are you referring to as "we". That refers to those who penned scripture.

Himself and the other Holy men of God who spoke the prophecy of Scripture.


I have.

Show me again or point to where you showed me before.


Keep saying it - maybe eventually you'll believe that it is true.

I know that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture. I've searched for it over and over. No one can show it to me. I've asked so many times that I've lost count.

The first time I searched for it in earnest for my own edification. But after months of searching and of asking others to show me where it was, I was finally convinced that it isn't there.

But I kept searching. Then one day I realized. Not only is it not in Scripture, but it contradicts that which is in Scripture. And there is an old saying, "Two statements which contradict each other can't both be true at the same time."

That means that if Sola Scriptura is true, the Bible is false. And if the Bible is true, Sola Scriptura is false. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false, because the Bible is truth.

Today, for me, searching for Sola Scriptura in the Bible is an exercise which I recommend to nonCatholics because I believe, if they search the Scriptures themselves for this doctrine, perhaps they will also be convinced that it isn't there.

It has been almost 20 years since that first time. And in those twenty years, not one person has been able to show me where it is.


Again, "church" refers to the body of all believers as I showed you previously, not your denomination. Thus this has nothing to do with your claims of "tradition".

As I showed you, Church refers too much more than just body of believers. It also refers to the Istitution of the Church and to the Worship Space. And since the Church carries and teaches the traditions of God by word and Epistle, it has a great deal to do with tradition.


There is no co-relation. Jesus and the Apostles, and indeed all early Christians followed no denomination because they did not exist. Were they wrong?

Jesus taught the traditions which the Catholic Church now teaches. The Apostles followed and taught the same traditions which the Catholic Church now passes on and teaches.


Good, then that ends the discussion. We can all follow scripture as the standard of truth rather than denominational teachings!

Well, our denominational teaching is Scripture. Why do you ignore the Scripture teaching that the Church is the Pillar of Truth?


"Church" does not have the same meaning in every context, and yet you try to make every place where the word appears to mean your denomination, the one thing that it could not possibly mean because your denomination did not exist then.

Not so. It is you who try to make the Church the "body of all believers" in every context. But it is clear, in Matt 18:17, Jesus is speaking of the Church as an identifiable institution with the authority to reslved disputes and assess discipline.

If Jesus, when He said, "take him to the Church", meant that one had to take him to the body of all believers, one could never assemble all believers in one place in order to do so. However, once can easily take someone to the local Church or even to the Vatican.


No, He said that they would be his church.

Show me.


Any institution which claims to be the body of Christ is wrong according to scripture.

Show me.


Anyone can believe what they want - that does not make it true.

I agree. But it doesn't make it false either.


Receiving Christ as Saviour saves, not baptism.

We receive Christ as Saviour in Baptism. How do you receive Christ as Saviour?


Some maybe, but membership does not confer salvation.

That is true.


Ah, so you are saying that the cross of Christ was not necessary - you are saying that there is another way to be saved.

Aren't you putting words in my mouth? When did I say, "that the cross of Christ was not necessary" or that "there is another way to be saved."? Please quote me.


Good question. The church that Christ founded is the body of Christ, not a denomination. This is what I have been trying to tell you dozens of times.

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. I asked:
And why is the Church called the Body of Christ in Scripture?

In order to answer that question you need to begin a response with the word "because". Now I believe the Church is called the Body of Christ because She is Christ on earth. Her members are Christ's hands and feet doing Christ's work in the world. Her leaders are Christ's mouthpiece, speaking the Word of God to the world.

Why do you think that the Church is called the Body of Christ?


Maybe that is the problem. Maybe you should!

Nah. I see real well.


When you get those glasses, read it again.

Funny! Lol!


It is like pulling teeth - why not make it easy by reading what I said about the church and respond to that.

I'm trying but you keep dodging the issue.


Then why don't you start dealing honestly and seriously with the points that I have raised.

I think I'm dealing quite honestly with you.


That is the point. No one argues that the word of God cannot be read out loud. Again don't waste your time and mine with these strawman arguments.

Can the Word of God be explained?
Can the Word of God be put into practice? If the Word of God is put into practice and someone sees that practice and learns from it, is that Tradition?

See, the Catholic Church has it all together. Just because She wrote the Word of God in the Bible doesn't mean She will stop teaching the Word of God.

Math teachers didn't stop teaching algebra when they wrote the book, did they?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Well, since you are not dealing honestly with me and since you refuse to actually discuss anything from scripture but rather simply promote the private interpretation of your denomination, and refuse to consider the responses, but rather just repeat the same old same old, I see no value in continuing.

I will stand on what God's word says, not the private interpretation of your denomination or any other denomination.

If yopu decide at some future point that you wish to discuss this openly and honestly with me, let me know.

Well, since you are not dealing honestly with me and since you refuse to actually discuss anything from scripture but rather simply promote the private interpretation of your denomination, and refuse to consider the responses, but rather just repeat the same old same old, I see no value in continuing.

I will stand on what God's word says, not the private interpretation of your denomination or any other denomination.

If yopu decide at some future point that you wish to discuss this openly and honestly with me, let me know.

Thanks for the discussion. I'll see on the forum.

Sincerely,

De Maria