Featured Rome's Mary on the Cross and God's Throne

Not quite gone yet. almost though. Not true. Catholics teach you must be born again by which Jesus said was by water (baptism) and the Spirit (Holy Spirit). We differ in that you think Jesus said one is only born again by spirit. Though he clearly said by water and spirit. But we both believe born again must occur.

Sorry DHK it is both. And event and a continual process. I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved.

Your error is that you distinguish the works of faith apart from the faith that brings about works. The scriptures don't make that distinction. The distinction it makes is that works apart from faith is useless and faith apart the works it produces is likewise useless.

I believe what Jesus said is true and I believe what Peter said is true and I believe what Paul said is true and all referrence baptism in conjunction with our salvation.

yes it is. No argument from me

Yes it does and any critical look at the text would prove that point.

Not a heresy

Agan not a heresy as it is supported by scripture and logical flow of the New Covenant in Baptism.

Yes it does. You seed the word "Water" and think it means anything but baptism because as you know baptism doesn't incorporate water...wait it does!

Yes it follows faith of those who believe and want their families including infants to enter into a covenant relationship with God.

I do.

Nope my trust is in Christ who wanted to covenant with me by baptism.

.Baptism isn't a "work" ,in that being submurged of itself without faith does anything but get you wet, but a covenant with God.

It certainly is John 3.

Again its a trust in Jesus. And Jesus covenants with us in baptism.

I do, therefore I do what he prescibes which is to be baptised into a new covenant life.

by faith certianly by faith alone never. Faith must be effective in that it produces works.

I don't need to interpret James. James speaks clearly. Can't argue with "you see, you are justified by works and not by faith alone"

I am going now DHK. I wish you a joyful Easter. And you are in my prayers as I hope I'm in yours. God bless!

 

Officially they are not equal. But it is a two-edged sword. When you take a man-made doctrine that is from "tradition" you justify it by the Bible, where the KJV uses the word "tradition" even though it does not refer to RCC tradition at all. From the time of the cross to the time of Paul's writing how could there be any tradition according to the RCC definition of "tradition"? It is impossible. It was a time period of less than 35 years. To use the Bible to justify RCC "tradition" is almost the same as putting "tradition" on equal footing as the Bible. It is Biblical because the Bible says so. Not!

 

when the pope speaks on theological matters, when he pronounces catholic dogma, he is speaking as if an OT prophet/NT Apsotle, speaking forth divine truth!

So that would make those teachings on same par as the bivle, in fact MOSt of official RCC doctrines NOT from the bible, but those extra biblical pronouncemnts and teaching!

 

when is a catholic fully justified in the eyes of God then?

Its NOT progressive justification, so at what moment in time are you saved/justified by God?

 

Hope this helps you understand.

From the Catholic/Lutheran Joint Declaration On Justification:
4.3 Justification by Faith and through Grace
25.We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.
27.The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Persons are justified through baptism as hearers of the word and believers in it. The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him.[14] This new personal relation to God is grounded totally on God's graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this renewal in faith, hope, and love is always dependent on God's unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which one could boast before God (Rom 3:27). [See Sources for section 4.3].

The entire document is here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

Jesus did not say anything about baptism. That is just your spin on the verse. That is how you think the word "water" should be interpreted. It is the RCC interpretation--a wrong interpretation--but your interpretation. Water does mean something, but certainly not baptism. Baptism must be read into the text. The text does not bear the meaning of baptism in any shape or form. The last thing that Nicodemus would have thought of is baptism when Jesus said "water and of the spirit," is baptism.
He was near the Temple. It was customary for the Jews to have ceremonial washings at the temple, in fact many of them. What is water? Water is a cleansing agent. It was used for cleansing at the Temple. It has the same symbolism in the Bible.
Jesus said in John 17:3, "Now you are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you." Water represents the Word of God.
In the OT, where Nicodemus, being a teacher of the Jews, would have immediately thought, it says:
Psalm 119:9, "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way?
By taking heed thereto unto thy Word."
Again, the water represents the Word.

John 3:5 indicates that there are two agents by which one must be born again. One is the Holy Spirit, and the other is represented by water.
Water represents the Word of God. There is one more Scripture that makes this very decisive:

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
We differ in that you think Jesus said one is only born again by spirit.
--One is born again by the Word of God and by the Holy Spirit.
The water is represented by the Word of God.

Water is symbolic for the Word of God. The Scripture is clear; it does not contradict itself.

It is not both.
I can give you the year, month day, even the hour in which I was saved.
I can give you the approximate time.
At that time, I was: saved/born again/justified/adopted/made an heir of God/sanctified/redeemed/converted/washed by the blood/and so much more--all at one time, instantaneously. It happened the moment I put my faith, my faith and faith alone in Christ. He imputed righteousness unto me; forgave my sin and made me whole, cleansed my heart and saved my soul. Hallelujah!
There were no works involved.
I knew that day, that if I were to die that moment I would go to straight to heaven.
I still know the same to this day--that if I were to die this moment I would go straight to heaven.

The Scriptures do make that distinction. Your problem is that you don't understand, and in fact stubbornly refuse to understand James 2, and the context in which it is written. However, Romans chapter four is very plain, and the Bible does not contradict itself.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--There are no works involved here. He believed God and it counted unto him for righteousness. It was by faith and faith alone.

Here as well:
Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
--By faith and faith alone, God imputed righteousness without works to David. The Bible clearly states this. Your problem is unbelief.

Jesus never said anything about baptism in reference to baptism.
Neither did Peter, and neither did Paul. There is not a single scripture that relates baptism to salvation, only those that wrest the scriptures to their own destruction as Peter describes.

I have given you a critical look. I have harmonized Scripture for you. Nowhere in scripture is baptism linked to salvation or made as a requirement for salvation. Baptismal regeneration is a well known heresy.

Oh, come now! Show me one example, just one, of an infant being baptized. There is no such occurrence in the Bible. Faith always precedes baptism and an infant is incapable of faith or understanding the gospel. It is a heretical doctrine that wasn't introduced to Christianity til centuries later.
Trusting Christ as one Savior is not a covenant.

John 3:5 speaks nothing of baptism and you can't prove that it does.
You need to force that meaning into the context. It doesn't fit.

We don't live in the OT. People enter into a personal relationship--not vicariously through their parents--but rather through their own faith in Christ. In that respect there is no covenant.

He never promised to covenant anything with you. Salvation is all of God. You don't have a covenant with Him. That is arrogance on your part.

Baptism is a work; it is not a covenant. That is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

There is no baptism or covenant in John 3. It can't be demonstrated.

Prove it! chapter and verse please!

There is no covenant life. The only covenant life is the one that the RCC has you brainwashed into believing. I thought you said you had a personal relationship with Christ? Which is it? A personal relationship or a covenantal relationship? The latter is a man-made RCC invention.

That is the only way that God gives salvation.

You refuse to study the context of James.

 

It is so ridiculous it would be comical if not so tragic. The only comparison that comes to mind is studying Greek or Roman mythology with all the gods lined up on Mt Olympus.

 

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42 (113)

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10), in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

 

Walter,
Not trying to be slick, just saying what I believe to be true. This is based on what I was taught, I was raised a catholic, and went to catholic school K-12.

 

They will counter with some twist explaining that away as well. The catechism could say the sky is purple and they will write 5 paragraphs how the church means its blue.

 

I know, I have not been a member on this board very long, but long enough to see that to be true.

 

I agree. The RCC does not claim tradition is equal to scripture. No, they place tradition above scripture. That is the only way they can hold to idolatry such as: papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, and other such foolishness.

 

Nope. Here is what scripture says about condemning certain tradition. 'You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition''--Mark 7:8.
It is clear that the Lord was talking about traditions that are contrary to God's Divine will.
Here are some traditions (small 't') that are NOT contrary to God's Divine will:
-making the sign of the cross before/after we pray
-kneeling while praying
These are human and man-made, but not contrary to the Divine Will of God. So, Jesus does not condemn these Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc practices.
Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, in oral form, entrusted to the Apostles (even DHK says this existed for at least a time) and handed on through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. You do believe Apostolic Tradition, you just don't believe it survived after the last of the twelve died off. God gave us Scripture, and He also gave us Tradition. That is clear in His word.
From the Catechism:
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this Tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Your right, the scriptures do condemn 'traditions of men', but it DOES uphold the sacred Tradition of the Church which is the oral Tradition handed down by the Apostles.

 

And here is an excellent example of how the living Tradition and the written Scriptures, are in union and of this “authority”. Both of these together has determined that human cloning and embryonic stem cell research are an offence to God and to Life.

 

don't need ANY living tradition, as the bible itself can be used to prove that!

 

You can quote the Catechism all you want, and herein is your problem and the problem of the RCC: Tradition which is antithetical to scripture is NOT God's divine will or His word. Those beliefs and practices that I mentioned are not only unscriptural, they are anti-scriptural idolatry. You still want to say that these "traditions" were handed down by the apostles? The Eastern Church and Old Catholics disagree. And it sure took a very long time for the RCC to "discover" the apostolic tradition of papal infallibility, didn't it?

If you feel the need to be Catholic, why didn't you go with Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism, the Old Catholics, or the EOC? There is not the idolatry there that is embedded in the RCC.

 

:applause:

 

AMEN.
I am with you on that.