Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

[The Biblicist]

could you answer Binlicists question then?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition says:


1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant.

527 Jesus circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham's descendents, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the law and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition says:


1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant.

527 Jesus circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham's descendents, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the law and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism.

Romans 4:11 denies that divine external rites are sacramental. They are a "sign and seal" of things already accomplished rather than things accomplished during the application of the external rite.

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Now simply place baptism in the place of circumcision in this context:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was baptized, or unbaptized? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Abraham is THE EXAMPLE or PATTERN that Paul chooses to set forth for justification by faith in order to remove all boasting (Rom. 3:27; 4:1-2).

the Justification is defined in Romans 4:6-8 to include the "blessedness" of both remission of sins and imputed righteousness.

Abraham received this "blessedness" while still in uncircumcision not in circumcision. Hence, circumcision was not sacramental in character or nature as justification was not imparted, imputed, received during circumcision and the same is true with baptism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition says:


1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant.

527 Jesus circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham's descendents, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the law and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism.

OK, Ive honestly not studied RC Doctrine in 15 years but am not surprised by anything they do. Didn't they delve into a semi charismatic stage in an effort at church expansion?

 

[The Biblicist]

OK, Ive honestly not studied RC Doctrine in 15 years but am not surprised by anything they do. Didn't they delve into a semi charismatic stage in an effort at church expansion?

The very term "charismatic" was coined by Roman Catholics to distinguish a large movement within Roman Catholicism from Protestant "Pentecostalism" in regard to ecstatic utterances and other supernatural phenomena they shared in common with each other.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The very term "charismatic" was coined by Roman Catholics to distinguish a large movement within Roman Catholicism from Protestant "Pentecostalism" in regard to ecstatic utterances and other supernatural phenomena they shared in common with each other.

I just ask that the people who are contemplating the RCC as a viable alternative to their own faith, really take another look at the RCC & what they have now & maybe some revisions as to what they have now......God is merciful & patient so when it is searched out & measured, I'm certain the correct faith will reveal itself.

In my own case it was the pressure to conform to Roman Catholicism (not for its faith value) but because my mothers family have deep roots in the movement & it was a requirement for the cohesiveness of the family that I conform. Yes they played that card, they used guilt, shame, they even tried to convince me of the richness of history & the freedoms in society that I would have in remaining a Catholic. In the end, I was able to break free to the richness & freedoms assigned that Christ alone brings. Two years ago I finally was regenerated into this "new man" unrecognizable to the man (sinner) of the past. I wish all could experience this precious gift.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Romans 4:11 denies that divine external rites are sacramental. They are a "sign and seal" of things already accomplished rather than things accomplished during the application of the external rite.

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Now simply place baptism in the place of circumcision in this context:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was baptized, or unbaptized? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Abraham is THE EXAMPLE or PATTERN that Paul chooses to set forth for justification by faith in order to remove all boasting (Rom. 3:27; 4:1-2).

the Justification is defined in Romans 4:6-8 to include the "blessedness" of both remission of sins and imputed righteousness.

Abraham received this "blessedness" while still in uncircumcision not in circumcision. Hence, circumcision was not sacramental in character or nature as justification was not imparted, imputed, received during circumcision and the same is true with baptism.

I'm sure it will be pointed out that the text in question involves circumcision and not baptism, and that by substituting Baptism for circumcision here (something Paul doesn't do) you are demonstrating a classical example of reading something INTO the text which isn't there.

(Just giving you a heads up)

 

[JarJo]

Romans 4:11 denies that divine external rites are sacramental. They are a "sign and seal" of things already accomplished rather than things accomplished during the application of the external rite.

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Now simply place baptism in the place of circumcision in this context:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was baptized, or unbaptized? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Abraham is THE EXAMPLE or PATTERN that Paul chooses to set forth for justification by faith in order to remove all boasting (Rom. 3:27; 4:1-2).

the Justification is defined in Romans 4:6-8 to include the "blessedness" of both remission of sins and imputed righteousness.

Abraham received this "blessedness" while still in uncircumcision not in circumcision. Hence, circumcision was not sacramental in character or nature as justification was not imparted, imputed, received during circumcision and the same is true with baptism.

Hi Biblicist,

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, because apparently I don't understand very well what Baptists believe. I assumed from the name 'baptist' that you would put a strong emphasis on the need and importance of baptism like we do. I guess not.

Anyway, I think you bring up an important point here about baptism. I think it's clear that God's grace can be seen working in people before they're baptized. Also Catholics believe that if a person dies while preparing for baptism he can be saved. So even though we believe that baptism is the sign of becoming a Christian, there is some mystery here because we know that there have been at least some exceptions where people were saved without baptism.

Also many Catholics have experienced outpourings of grace in their lives that happened either before their baptism or after it, and the moment of their baptism might not have had such a noticeable outflow of grace. But our theology says that our soul is marked at baptism and something changes. On the other hand it also says that God is not limited by His sacraments and He could claim a soul as his own or give the graces of baptism to someone who isn't yet baptized. Consider this church teaching for example:

CCC 1249: Catechumens "are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity." "With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own."

But do these things mean that baptism therefore is not an event where something real happens? Or could it be that it's different for each person, and one person might receive more grace at baptism than another? Perhaps some people have already received the full graces of baptism before their baptism so the sacrament doesn't really do anything new. That's possible in Catholic theology (I think).

 

[JarJo]

Hi Ruiz,
I will read Bondage of the Will, but before that I just want to comment on this part of your post:

According to both of these statements, it is not merely faith in Jesus, but good works that can save a person even without Jesus at all. The Catholic Church believes in a Christless salvation; Protestants have traditionally denied a Christless salvation believing on only Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. We cannot be saved by all the good works encompassed in the world ever by man, but only by the active and passive obedience of the one, Jesus Christ, by faith and through grace.

While you're correct that the church has said that a person who lacks an explicit faith in Christ might be saved, we believe that this salvation would still have to be due to justification merited by Christ's righteousness. The person's good works may in this case be a result of the person being forgiven and given the grace to do good works without ever explicitly knowing about Christ. They may, for example, be disposed in such a way that they desire Christ, but without having heard the Gospel.

 

[JarJo]

I just ask that the people who are contemplating the RCC as a viable alternative to their own faith, really take another look at the RCC & what they have now & maybe some revisions as to what they have now......God is merciful & patient so when it is searched out & measured, I'm certain the correct faith will reveal itself.

In my own case it was the pressure to conform to Roman Catholicism (not for its faith value) but because my mothers family have deep roots in the movement & it was a requirement for the cohesiveness of the family that I conform. Yes they played that card, they used guilt, shame, they even tried to convince me of the richness of history & the freedoms in society that I would have in remaining a Catholic. In the end, I was able to break free to the richness & freedoms assigned that Christ alone brings. Two years ago I finally was regenerated into this "new man" unrecognizable to the man (sinner) of the past. I wish all could experience this precious gift.

Hi Earth,Wind and Fire,
I'm glad that you were able to find Christ even if it meant having to leave the Catholic Church. It definitely seems like there are a lot of people warming pews in the Church who don't really seem to have encountered Christ in a meaningful way. I suspect it's got more to do with culture than doctrine, though.
I would love to hear more about your experience. Have you posted your story on here?

 

[JarJo]

OK, Ive honestly not studied RC Doctrine in 15 years but am not surprised by anything they do. Didn't they delve into a semi charismatic stage in an effort at church expansion?

The charismatic movement is grass-roots rather than being something started by the hierarchy. It emphasizes having an experiential encounter with God rather than 'just' receiving sacraments. Tongues, healing and other charisms are part of it but that's not all that it is. It emphasizes having a 'personal relationship with Jesus'. Also in my experience with it, it seems to emphasize the role of grace in transforming our lives rather than 'hard work' which is why I felt this different emphasis was 'more protestant'. However I see from this thread that the charismatic emphasis on grace that results in works rather than effort resulting in works still isn't quite the same as 'faith alone'.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm sure it will be pointed out that the text in question involves circumcision and not baptism, and that by substituting Baptism for circumcision here (something Paul doesn't do) you are demonstrating a classical example of reading something INTO the text which isn't there.

(Just giving you a heads up)

Thanks for the heads up but your missing my point. Rome specifically compares circumcision (see quotations from CCC) with baptism as a "sign" and "seal" of the New Covenant.

Granting their comparison, I simply demonstrate that circumcison never actually conveyed what it was a "sign" and "seal" of - regeneration/justification and that is the point Paul makes in Romans 4:5-12.

However, since Rome makes that comparison then all one has to do is substitute the term baptism with circumcision in this text to demonstrate that divine rites are not sacramental - conveyors of grace or what they signify but are only declaratives of what a person already has received.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi Biblicist,

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, because apparently I don't understand very well what Baptists believe. I assumed from the name 'baptist' that you would put a strong emphasis on the need and importance of baptism like we do. I guess not.

Anyway, I think you bring up an important point here about baptism. I think it's clear that God's grace can be seen working in people before they're baptized. Also Catholics believe that if a person dies while preparing for baptism he can be saved. So even though we believe that baptism is the sign of becoming a Christian, there is some mystery here because we know that there have been at least some exceptions where people were saved without baptism.

Also many Catholics have experienced outpourings of grace in their lives that happened either before their baptism or after it, and the moment of their baptism might not have had such a noticeable outflow of grace. But our theology says that our soul is marked at baptism and something changes. On the other hand it also says that God is not limited by His sacraments and He could claim a soul as his own or give the graces of baptism to someone who isn't yet baptized. Consider this church teaching for example:

CCC 1249: Catechumens "are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity." "With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own."

But do these things mean that baptism therefore is not an event where something real happens? Or could it be that it's different for each person, and one person might receive more grace at baptism than another? Perhaps some people have already received the full graces of baptism before their baptism so the sacrament doesn't really do anything new. That's possible in Catholic theology (I think).

Your missing Paul's point! Circumcision did not convey any grace at all and therefore if baptism is comparable to circumcision then baptism does not convey any grace at all.

Jesus makes the same point in Luke 5:12-15. Divine rites do not convey any literal grace. They do not convey justification at all. They are only DECLARATIVE of what has already been conveyed.

You can't have you cake and eat it to, but that is exactly what you have attempted to do by your fence straddling explanation. Either baptism conveys justification/regeneration etc. or it does not. There are not two ways of salvation in scripture but only "ONE" way. There are not TWO gospels but only ONE gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).

Romans 3:24-5:2 is a doctrinal exposition of justification before God and Paul clearly and explicity condemns the Roman Catholic view of justificaiton before God as heresy.

 

[Moriah]

The charismatic movement is grass-roots rather than being something started by the hierarchy. It emphasizes having an experiential encounter with God rather than 'just' receiving sacraments. Tongues, healing and other charisms are part of it but that's not all that it is. It emphasizes having a 'personal relationship with Jesus'. Also in my experience with it, it seems to emphasize the role of grace in transforming our lives rather than 'hard work' which is why I felt this different emphasis was 'more protestant'. However I see from this thread that the charismatic emphasis on grace that results in works rather than effort resulting in works still isn't quite the same as 'faith alone'.

You really are in a mess all the way, faith in the Catholic Church and false tongue speaking.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hi Earth,Wind and Fire,
I'm glad that you were able to find Christ even if it meant having to leave the Catholic Church. It definitely seems like there are a lot of people warming pews in the Church who don't really seem to have encountered Christ in a meaningful way. I suspect it's got more to do with culture than doctrine, though.
I would love to hear more about your experience. Have you posted your story on here?

No I havent... I prefer to keep some experiences to myself..... however if you wish to speak privately & confidentially, I can possibly accommodate you.

 

[Walter]

Hi Ruiz,
I will read Bondage of the Will, but before that I just want to comment on this part of your post:

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "Bondage of the Will." His sarcasm and mockery of Erasmus is juvenile and dull. And the whole denial of free will is a dead end.

 

[Walter]

You really are in a mess all the way, faith in the Catholic Church and false tongue speaking.

I would disagree. From everything I have read up to this point, I would say JoJo's faith is in Jesus.

 

[DHK]

I would disagree. From everything I have read up to this point, I would say JoJo's faith is in Jesus.

One must make a choice: Put your faith in Christ, or put your faith in the RCC. You can't do both. If you put your faith in Christ, you will be obedient to the commands of Christ and leave the RCC. You will be baptized as an adult, after salvation, and become a member of a Bible-believing church that does actively preach the gospel. There is no turning back.

The RCC is not a Christian church and never has been.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hi Ruiz,
I will read Bondage of the Will, but before that I just want to comment on this part of your post:

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "Bondage of the Will." His sarcasm and mockery of Erasmus is juvenile and dull. And the whole denial of free will is a dead end.

Would that also be Augustine's opinion....after all wasn't Luther a student of Augustine? Have you bothered to read anything on Augustine? Then perhaps you would understand Luther's stance.

 

[Walter]

Would that also be Augustine's opinion....after all wasn't Luther a student of Augustine? Have you bothered to read anything on Augustine? Then perhaps you would understand Luther's stance.

I haven't read much on Augustine, yet. Good advice.

 

[Walter]

One must make a choice: Put your faith in Christ, or put your faith in the RCC. You can't do both. If you put your faith in Christ, you will be obedient to the commands of Christ and leave the RCC. You will be baptized as an adult, after salvation, and become a member of a Bible-believing church that does actively preach the gospel. There is no turning back.

The RCC is not a Christian church and never has been.

This brings up the question that, so far, everyone in this forum has dodged. I keep hearing how any real Christian would be truly miserable as a member of the Catholic Church and would 'come out of her'. I have read many of 'Thinkingstuffs' past posts, including many while he was still a Baptist. I have no doubt he has a better understanding of Catholic theology than anyone posting on this board. He says he returned to the Catholic Church after extensive study and now not only is happy to be back but that he has seen much fruit as a result.

Are you saying that IF he does not leave the Catholic Church he must not ever have been truly born again to begin with?

Not trying to be contentious or pick a fight. The answer to this question is important to me.