Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?

[DHK]

Acts 8 doesn’t say anything about doubting Jews. And even if we infer that Peter and John went to Samaria to assuage their own doubts or the doubts of the other Jerusalem Christians, the Bible flatly sates that the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on these people. When Peter and John laid on hands, the Holy Spirit came upon them. We see the same thing in Acts 19:6.

Who said anything about doubting Jews?
Here is the quote that you are replying to:

Yep, that was confirmation all right--confirmation to the other Jews that the gospel had been received by the Gentiles. Do you have first generation Jews in your church that need confirmation that the gospel is now being accepted by the Gentiles? Then you are practicing a fruitless ceremony.

I said nothing of doubting Jews.
Here is what the Bible says in that passage:
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (Acts 8:14)
--This was the first time that the gospel was going out to the Gentiles. It had only gone to the Jews previous to this time. Philip was an evangelist. It was the apostles who needed to verify this incident for all involved. They heard what happened and sent out Peter and John (Apostles).
--Then the record says:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (Acts 8:15)
--This is a one-time act in history. It was symbolic that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as the Jews had on the Day of Pentecost.

You say they are symbolic. Where does the Bible say they are symbolic?

Where does the Bible say "I am the door" is symbolic? Do you have to enter a wooden door every time you go to Jesus. It is a metaphor, just as His flesh and blood are. Common sense tells us that these are common metaphors that Jesus was using as he had been using throughout the passage. Why would he change mid-stream just to fit Catholic theology??

So Christ has the power to forgive sins but he is too weak to confer this authority on others? Is that what you mean? Immediately before this, Jesus had said, “As the father has sent me, I also send you.” He did not say, “As the father has sent me, I also send you—except you won’t have the authority to forgive sins like I have had during my sojourn here.”

Your question is: So Christ has the power to be God, but is he too weak to make others gods as well? Ridiculous and blasphemous!!
Only God has the power to forgive sins.
In the OT the Jews had a high priest, who once a year made an atonement for the sins of the people. Remember he was a high priest.
What does the Bible say about Christ in comparison:

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. (Hebrews 4:14)
--He is our Great High Priest, passed into heaven, and always (not just one day out of the year), but always is there making intercession for his children--believers in Christ. He alone can forgive sins. No man can forgive sins. No man has the authority to forgive sins. Christ did not share that authority with any other.
In Mat.28:18-20 he gives the Great Commission which is both a command and commission for us to go and give the gospel to the world. He gives us the authority to do so.

And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: (Matthew 28:18-19) ASV

Yes they do and the RCC recognizes all marriages between two Christians performed in the assembly of their faith as sacramental. The Church recognizes two sacraments that do not require a priest to perform—matrimony and baptism.

The difference is: the Bible does not teach that marriage is sacramental. There is no special grace that comes through the sacrament. However, marriage is God's institution. It has been since Adam and Eve. It certainly isn't an invention of the RCC.

I didn’t say it is a spiritual gift. Those are the words of Paul, who told Timothy he got this spiritual gift by the laying on of hands. Are you saying he got it wrong?

Paul didn't say that celibacy of a "priest" was a spiritual gift. He said the exact opposite, as I have given you scripture. He said it is a doctrine of demons. Furthermore, he made it more of a requirement of the ministry:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (1 Timothy 3:2)
--It does not say celibate but rather the husband of one wife, a requirement to obey.

Another requirement"
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (1 Timothy 3:4)
--He must rule his own house, and that includes his own children. That pretty well does away with celibacy doesn't it.

And the sexual abuse problem has nothing to do with their orders. I expect you and I agree on this, that the problem is due to the canon law requirement of celibacy. We could do a thread on this and you and I would not be far apart here. For what it’s worth, I think the reason they keep the celibacy requirement is mostly economic.

I disagree. I do believe that celibacy has led to immoral sins and plenty of them.

They can pay their priests next to nothing, whereas a man with a family would require a substantial salary.

Never thought of it before. It's the first time I have heard of this argument.

However, there are a few married Roman Catholic priests in this country, mostly former Episcopal priests who have converted and have been granted a dispensation to enter the RC priesthood. So celibacy is not required to have a valid ordination.

But that is not the norm, and I think you know that.

Over the last 3 or 4 years there have been several threads on this subject and I have observed that the discussion always focuses on the purpose of the oil, who should anoint and when to anoint. But I have never seen any discussion here on the last clause, “if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.” I think this is the real substance of the sacrament and I’m pretty sure this is its purpose in the Catholic Church.

The oil is purely symbolic. Only God can forgive sins. So what the Catholic church does is blasphemous. It tries and takes the place of God.

I have just been over them twice and still you deny them. I just don’t understand. It’s as puzzling as your looking at the sky at noon on a clear day and saying you can’t see the sun. Can you only see those things in scripture that you think ought to be there?
__________________

You are like the Hindu who keeps describing to me how baptism in the waters of the Ganges River washes away his sin. He can go over it with me as many times as he like, but every time he does "I am just not going to get it." I am never going to get it, because it is not Biblical. It is "anti-Biblical," it runs contrary to what the Bible teaches. So what is there for me to get??

 

[Dr. Walter]

I refer you to the answer I gave DHK concerning John 3:5.

I certainly agree that John's baptism was Christian baptism (Lk. 7:29-30; Jn. 4:1; Mt. 28:19-20).

However, John 3:5 must be interpreted by its context. Jesus is talking to a "Master" of Israel who was very familiar with the ceremonial use of water in the temple ordinances.

For example, there is the ceremonial cleansing of the leper. Would you agree that lepersy in the Old Testament is a TYPE of sin just as the elements used in the cleansing of the leper are types (two birds, hysop, water, etc) or do you believe that the ceremonial act of cleansing and its elements are to be understood completely literal? If so, let me challenge your thinking with Christ's healing of lepers.

Luke 5:12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Now, answer me this. Was this man literally and actually cleansed in verse 13 BEFORE he went to shew himself to the priests or only AFTER he submitted to the cleansing ritual commanded by Moses through the priests?

If he was actually and literally cleansed in verse 13 then what kind of cleansing took place after he went and submitted to the Mosaic ceremonial cleansing by the priests? LITERAL or SYMBOLIC?

Le 14:2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
Le 14:3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;
Le 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
Le 14:5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water[
Le 14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:
Le 14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.:

Now was the "water" used in this ceremonial rite more than a mere sign or symbol and did the language "shall pronounce him clean" literally cleanse him or did it only ceremonially/symbolically make "him clean"???

Furthermore, note the language of Christ AFTER he was LITERALLY cleansed of leporsy. He told the person who no longer had any leporsy but was literally and actualy cleansed to go offer "for thy cleansing" and then defines that process to be "for a testimony unto them."

This is precisely how Baptists perceive water in baptism to be "for thy cleansing" which literally has already occurred previous to the administration and therefore the design of submitting to baptism is not for the LITERAL removal of sin (Acts 2:28; 22:16; Titus 2:5) but rather "for a testimony" that ceremonially depicts that the literal inward washing and renewing of the Holy Ghost that previously took place in connection with faith in the Word of the Gospel is now ceremonially displayed in connection with the use of water in baptism.

Nicodemus, as well as this Jewish leper were very familiar with the use of water in the ceremonial laws of cleansing.

The Holy Spirit is a sign gift? Surely you don’t mean that.

In the text the definite article is omitted in the Greek text and it is found in the anarthous construction. This signifies what CHARACTERIZES the Holy Spirit in regard to actions or His gifts rather than His own Person is in veiw. In Acts 8:14-17 it is clear that what was transferred to these baptized believers was not the Person of the Holy Spirit because if He does not already indwell them, then they are "none of his" (Rom. 8:8-9). They are conferring spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of apostolic hands. When Timothy was ordained by a presbytery and hands were laid upon him, only Paul claimed that spiritual gifts were bestowed through his hands alone among those that laid hands upon him. The laying on of hand for ordination simply conveyed authorized approval for setting him apart unto the ministry. However, when either an apostle took part of such a presbytery actual spiritual gifts were bestowed in order to equip the ordainee for that ministry. The apostles had by virtue of their office the supernatural ability to convey spiritual gifts through the laying on of their hands (Acts 6:6; 8:15-17; 19:6; Rom. 1:11; etc.).

I don’t recall reading the word “symbol” or “metaphor” or any similar language in this chapter.

You are simply being coy! You fully understand the proper use and meaning of a metaphor. The metaphor speaks directly as in "I am the door" and conveys the idea of representation so that the word "represent" could correctly be added to convey the true idea in the use of a metaphor and thus "I represent a door" is the meaning. Likewise the language used in John 6 and in the accounts of the Lord's Supper is metaphorical and thus direct. Hence, "This is my body" as a metaphor would mean "This represents my body."

The fact that such language is to be understood metaphorically is clearly seen in the cleansing of the leper above when Jesus said "go SHEW thyself" and make an offering "for thy cleansing" when indeed, the LITERAL cleansing had already been accomplished and the ceremonial cleansing was "for a testimonty." Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul says "ye do SHEW the Lord's death till he come."

John 6:35 and 47 and 63-65 make this clear that Christ is using metaphorical languague. Eating and drinking are metaphors of partaking Christ through coming to Christ by faith in the gospel as the gospel is the "WORDS of life."

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Bible still teaches that the Eucharist is a sacrifice.

All sacrifices were CEREMONIAL in nature just as the cleansing of the leper. They were TYPES of Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:29). They used the language of redemption "for thy cleansing" and "for sins" because the animal being sacrificed was a TYPE of Jesus Christ. However, Paul makes it clear that such sacrifices could "NEVER" take away sins literally (Heb. 10:4) but were merely a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1) rather than what LITERALLY cast that shadow which was Christ (Col. 2:17). A shadow LOOKS like what LITERALLY casts it but it is not - it is only a FORM empty of substance as the substance is found in what CASTS the shadow. This is the case with all Old Testament ceremonial ordinances and New Testament ceremonial ordinances - they are mere "shadows" empty of any real literal substance but have their whole value in properly conveying the truth they are designed to portray just as a shadow has its value in conveying a proper outline on the ground that gives recognition to what casts it. For example, if the shadow on the ground looks like a horse but is supposed to look like a dog then the shadow misrepresents what it was designed to portray. That is the value of a type. If the type is abused so that it cannot properly convey the truth it was designed to portray then it perverts the intended truth it was designed to portray.

That is the case with Baptistm and the Lord's Supper. Sprinkling and pouring pervert the intended design that baptism is to shadow - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:4-5) thus perverting the truth intended, the gospel of Jesus Christ into "another gospel." Likewise, when baptism is transformed from a "shadow" to the actual image casting that shadow then it perverts the design of baptism and perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ into "another gospel." Likewise, with the Lord's Supper.

And in 1 Corinthians 3:16 Paul says, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God. . . .” Here he was speaking to the whole church (plural), not to an individual.

Yes, each congregation is a "temple" because the Holy Spirit indwells each congretational body of Christ as God indwelt the temple in the Old Testament. And each congregation offers up "SPIRITUAL" sacrifices in keeping with their design and intent so that they are "acceptable" unto God:

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. - 1 Pet. 2:5

Heb. 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

Every act of worship in the congregational body is regarded a "sacrifice" regardless if it is signing songs, giving tithes and offerings, doing good, fruits of our lips, preaching and teaching the Word of God, the ordinances. Indeed, the very way we conduct our life OUTSIDE the congregation are charaterized as "sacrifices" as well:

Ro 12:1 ¶ I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

When we preach the gospel whether people are saved or reject it the preaching is regarded as "sweet savor" sacrifices unto God (2 Cor. 2:14-17).

Every single member of a congregational body is a spiritual "preist" and every act of worship they engage in are regarded as spiritual "sacrifices" when they are performed in keeping with God's Word:

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. - 1 Pet. 2:5

He is addressing the plural "YE" who make up the spiritual temple are acting in the capacity of "preisthood" in offering up every act of worship.

I think anyone reading this can easily see that your concept of "sacraments" and "sacrifices" and "temple" and "preisthood" are clearly anti-Biblical.

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

Only God can forgive sins. So what the Catholic church does is blasphemous. It tries and takes the place of God.

That's a false premise and is NOT the Catholic position.

Only God can forgive sins; yet scripture clearly shows that Jesus gave that authority to men.

"The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).

Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents.

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).

There you have it - straight from scripture.

You are like the Hindu who keeps describing to me how baptism in the waters of the Ganges River washes away his sin. He can go over it with me as many times as he like, but every time he does "I am just not going to get it." I am never going to get it, because it is not Biblical. It is "anti-Biblical," it runs contrary to what the Bible teaches. So what is there for me to get??

Anti-Biblical? Hardly!

Ezekiel: 36 25-27: 25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

What do we have here? We have someone sprinkled with water and through that action, they are made clean from their filthiness, and they receive God’s spirit. This passage from the Old Testament shows us that God, by his own design and not that of men, uses an outward sign to bring about an inward change in his people – a foreshadowing of baptism in the New Testament. Notice how God in the old covenant was preparing use for what he gives us in the new covenant.

And now, let’s move on to the New Testament to see the correlation.

Acts 2:38 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Scripture plainly tells us that Baptism washes away sin; and through Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit. Is it through baptism that we become Christians and members of the Body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:13 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body [the body of Christ], whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Clearly, baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ and thus is the entrance into the new covenant with God, just as circumcision was the entrance into the old covenant with God. Scripture makes this connection for us in the following:

Colossians 2:11-12 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant as explicitly stated in the scripture above. So, is baptism salvific? Once again, let’s go to scripture.

1 Peter 3: 20-21 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Just as Noah and his family were saved by water, water baptism now saves us. There it is; explicitly stated in the Bible. Further, let's look at Jesus’ own words in John’s gospel…

John 3:5 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Further, let’s read on in context as follows a few verses later, after he finished his talk with Nicodemus…

John 3:22 22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

What did Jesus do immediately after telling Nicodemus how he can be saved? He sent the apostles went out baptizing with water. See the context? Baptism is the context in which one must be born of water and the spirit. Further, look at all of the accounts in the gospels about Jesus’ own baptism.

Jesus is baptized with water and look what happens to him when he comes up out of the water (or is sprinkled)... the spirit descends upon him – water and the spirit.

In Matthew 28:19 what did Jesus say in his final instructions to the apostles? Go therefore and make disciples of all nations getting them to accept me into their hearts as their personal lord and savior? No. It says:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Why is baptism given such paramount importance in Jesus’ final instructions to the apostles if it is only symbolic? Because it is much more than symbolic! Scripture simply does not support a symbolic view of baptism.

Anti-Biblical indeed!

WM

 

[seekingthetruth]

That's a false premise and is NOT the Catholic position.

Only God can forgive sins; yet scripture clearly shows that Jesus gave that authority to men.

"The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).

Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents.

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).

There you have it - straight from scripture.



Anti-Biblical? Hardly!

Ezekiel: 36 25-27: 25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

What do we have here? We have someone sprinkled with water and through that action, they are made clean from their filthiness, and they receive God’s spirit. This passage from the Old Testament shows us that God, by his own design and not that of men, uses an outward sign to bring about an inward change in his people – a foreshadowing of baptism in the New Testament. Notice how God in the old covenant was preparing use for what he gives us in the new covenant.

And now, let’s move on to the New Testament to see the correlation.

Acts 2:38 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Scripture plainly tells us that Baptism washes away sin; and through Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit. Is it through baptism that we become Christians and members of the Body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:13 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body [the body of Christ], whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Clearly, baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ and thus is the entrance into the new covenant with God, just as circumcision was the entrance into the old covenant with God. Scripture makes this connection for us in the following:

Colossians 2:11-12 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant as explicitly stated in the scripture above. So, is baptism salvific? Once again, let’s go to scripture.

1 Peter 3: 20-21 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Just as Noah and his family were saved by water, water baptism now saves us. There it is; explicitly stated in the Bible. Further, let's look at Jesus’ own words in John’s gospel…

John 3:5 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Further, let’s read on in context as follows a few verses later, after he finished his talk with Nicodemus…

John 3:22 22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

What did Jesus do immediately after telling Nicodemus how he can be saved? He sent the apostles went out baptizing with water. See the context? Baptism is the context in which one must be born of water and the spirit. Further, look at all of the accounts in the gospels about Jesus’ own baptism.

Jesus is baptized with water and look what happens to him when he comes up out of the water (or is sprinkled)... the spirit descends upon him – water and the spirit.

In Matthew 28:19 what did Jesus say in his final instructions to the apostles? Go therefore and make disciples of all nations getting them to accept me into their hearts as their personal lord and savior? No. It says:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Why is baptism given such paramount importance in Jesus’ final instructions to the apostles if it is only symbolic? Because it is much more than symbolic! Scripture simply does not support a symbolic view of baptism.

Anti-Biblical indeed!

WM

The convict that was crucified with Jesus didn't jump down off of the cross and run and get baptised, yet Jesus told him He would see him in Paradise.

How do you explain his salvation by Grace without being baptised?

John

 

[lakeside]

The convict that was crucified with Jesus didn't jump down off of the cross and run and get baptised, yet Jesus told him He would see him in Paradise.

How do you explain his salvation by Grace without being baptised?

John

First, it isn’t clear that baptism had yet been mandated by Jesus before he met the thief. If it had been, we do not know for certain that the thief hadn’t already been baptized. In any case, the thief clearly underwent a conversion at some point during his crucifixion, and it seems evident that he would have desired baptism before his death had he known of its necessity. That would have been sufficient, because the Church recognizes that, in such a case, the desire for baptism brings about the fruits of baptism

 

[WestminsterMan]

The convict that was crucified with Jesus didn't jump down off of the cross and run and get baptised, yet Jesus told him He would see him in Paradise.

How do you explain his salvation by Grace without being baptised?

John

And how do you know that he wasn't baptisted? Anyway, Jesus' sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins wasn't yet complete - that's how I explain it. Why not address the BIBLICAL points in the post?

WM

 

[DHK]

And how do you know that he wasn't baptisted? Anyway, Jesus' sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins wasn't yet complete - that's how I explain it. Why not address the BIBLICAL points in the post?

WM

1. If he was a Jew, Jews don't get baptized.
2. If he was a Gentile, Gentiles don't just get randomly baptized.
3. He would not have been baptized by John for he showed no fruit of repentance.
4. This man had no reason to be baptized; to be religious whatsoever. He was a common thief. Or do you think he was the average RC of the time. Be a common thief six days out of the week, go to confession, and church on Sunday, and go back to his sinful life the rest of the week. What interest did he have? He was a criminal--being crucified for his crimes.

He had not been baptized.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And how do you know that he wasn't baptisted? Anyway, Jesus' sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins wasn't yet complete - that's how I explain it. Why not address the BIBLICAL points in the post?

WM

I have addressed the basis of the scriptures you have used in my response to Zenas

 

[WestminsterMan]

1. If he was a Jew, Jews don't get baptized.

Jesus was a Jew and he got Baptised. Hmmm...

2. If he was a Gentile, Gentiles don't just get randomly baptized.
3. He would not have been baptized by John for he showed no fruit of repentance.

We don't know if he was Jew or Gentile. Most think he was a Jew, but there doesn't appear to be anyway to know for sure.

4. This man had no reason to be baptized; to be religious whatsoever. He was a common thief.

He could have back-sliden...

Or do you think he was the average RC of the time. Be a common thief six days out of the week, go to confession, and church on Sunday, and go back to his sinful life the rest of the week. What interest did he have? He was a criminal--being crucified for his crimes.

You are an insulting hate filled person whom I pity and pray for.

He had not been baptized.

Well, DHK you don't know that now do you - because you weren't there and scripture (your only source of authority) doesn't say.


WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Their "Gospel" denies though the truth of saved by grace alone faith alone, they are based upon part Grace, part sacramental part good works...

NOT the "true" Gospel of Christ!

It is encumbant upon you to show where scriptures teach Faith alone. In fact the only place in scriptures that even mentions faith alone is in James saying you're not saved by faith alone.

Also you must disprove sacramentalism. Jesus says that you must be saved by water and the spirit. Thus Baptism brings about the Grace of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as Peter suggest in Acts 2. However, Don't try to decieve me and suggest that any time you do an act grace appears. No. In Catholic Faith only faith while performing the act such as baptism brings about the grace. So if you are baptized and there is no faith in it grace is not present. However, throughout Christ workds we see Grace dispenced when obedience to Jesus' demands are obeyed such as in Baptism. Healing like the lepers. Jesus said wash they did and were healed. We see here a sacrament. Througout the Gospel Jesus works in this manner. "show me the fish and loafs" and he multiplied them. I could go on forever.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In fact the only place in scriptures that even mentions faith alone is in James saying you're not saved by faith alone.

James says no such thing! He says "justified" not "saved" by faith alone. The term "save" is much broader theologically than the term "justify." They are not synonyms. Furthermore, James is talking about evidential justification by works before the court of human observation while Paul is talking about justification by faith "WITHOUT WORKS" before God (Rom. 4:1,5-6).

Furthermore, Romans 3:27-28 is definitive of works as a principle that cannot be included in "faith" in regard to justification just as Paul clearly states in Galatians 3:12 where he says the law is not "of faith."

Also you must disprove sacramentalism.

Already done that! I refer you to my response to Zenas in regard to sacramentalism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

James says no such thing! He says "justified" not "saved" by faith alone. The term "save" is much broader theologically than the term "justify." They are not synonyms. Furthermore, James is talking about evidential justification by works before the court of human observation while Paul is talking about justification by faith "WITHOUT WORKS" before God (Rom. 4:1,5-6).[Quote/] He says specifically

24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

A non righteous person is one who is not saved. Cannot we not agree that if someone is not justified they are not saved? Therefore salvation just like justification just like righteousness is not by faith alone as James indicates. Further James did not write Romans. And the principle of Romans is not as you indicated. Paul never ever ever says you are saved by faith alone.

What Paul indicates is that you cannot merit salvation by works specifically works of the Law. Salvation is offered free by faith you assertain it and by action you fulfill faith. The Gospel has always been laid for thus.

In order to discuss sacraments you must define what they are. I will not work with your definition. You must use an accurate definition.

 

[Dr. Walter]

James says no such thing! He says "justified" not "saved" by faith alone. The term "save" is much broader theologically than the term "justify." They are not synonyms. Furthermore, James is talking about evidential justification by works before the court of human observation while Paul is talking about justification by faith "WITHOUT WORKS" before God (Rom. 4:1,5-6).[Quote/] He says specifically A non righteous person is one who is not saved. Cannot we not agree that if someone is not justified they are not saved? Therefore salvation just like justification just like righteousness is not by faith alone as James indicates. Further James did not write Romans. And the principle of Romans is not as you indicated. Paul never ever ever says you are saved by faith alone.

What Paul indicates is that you cannot merit salvation by works specifically works of the Law. Salvation is offered free by faith you assertain it and by action you fulfill faith. The Gospel has always been laid for thus.

In order to discuss sacraments you must define what they are. I will not work with your definition. You must use an accurate definition.

No! I will not for one second concede that the term "save" equals the term "justify" in scripture. Justification is ONE ASPECT included in salvation but it is not synonomous with salvation as salvation includes, election, predestination, foreknowledge, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification.

I will concede that a person is not "saved" if they are not justified but I will not concede that they are even close to being synonyms in scripture.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Billwald...
Multitudes of them.

__________________
I play the Banjo...and you should, too.
Nothing cooler then the Banjo!

Why do they call it dueling banjos when there is only one banjo on the Deliverance track and it's dueling against an acoustic guitar?

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No! I will not for one second concede that the term "save" equals the term "justify" in scripture. Justification is ONE ASPECT included in salvation but it is not synonomous with salvation as salvation includes, election, predestination, foreknowledge, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification.

I will concede that a person is not "saved" if they are not justified but I will not concede that they are even close to being synonyms in scripture.

1) So your assertion is that a person does not need to be justified to be saved? There is no other way to take your statement. You and Christianity are at odds. Even in your list you mention that each is a part of Salvation and I agree however absent one item a person cannot be saved. So salvation is made up of parts but minus one part salvation has not occured.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Briona Gloriana...

Utter bubbish

Of course, you are free to your opinion.

But you are associated with a religious organisation that does not hold to the true gosple of Jesus Christ.

Just like the Mormons and Jehovah's Wittneses, the Romish "church" hold to a "Jesus Christ", and they hold him in high regard.

But that "Jesus" is not the true Jesus. It is a counterfiet "Jesus"

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all[a]these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows

The Catholic religious organisation is not the only one who are decieving people people with a false gosple. There are others.

I encourage you to be wise, and seek the truth.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Briona Gloriana...

Of course, you are free to your opinion.

But you are associated with a religious organisation that does not hold to the true gosple of Jesus Christ.

Just like the Mormons and Jehovah's Wittneses, the Romish "church" hold to a "Jesus Christ", and they hold him in high regard.

But that "Jesus" is not the true Jesus. It is a counterfiet "Jesus"

The Catholic religious organisation is not the only one who are decieving people people with a false gosple. There are others.

I encourage you to be wise, and seek the truth.

Oh please....

Look at their statement of faith (I can only see a few things that you might disagree with) and tell me that you honestly hold them in the same light as JW's and Mormons!

First Council of Constantinople (381)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

They recite this at every Mass proper.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

1) So your assertion is that a person does not need to be justified to be saved? There is no other way to take your statement. You and Christianity are at odds. Even in your list you mention that each is a part of Salvation and I agree however absent one item a person cannot be saved. So salvation is made up of parts but minus one part salvation has not occured.

Better go back and reread my post in its entirety if you really are trying to represent what I actually said.

I will concede that a person is not "saved" if they are not justified but I will not concede that they are even close to being synonyms in scripture. - DW

 

[Alive in Christ]

WestminsterMan...

Oh please....

Look at their statement of faith (I can only see a few things that you might disagree with) and tell me that you honestly hold them in the same light as JW's and Mormons!

What the catholics recite mindlessly in their pews is no different than the carefully orchestrated "image" that other cults like the JW's and mormons present in their liturature and witnwessing encounters.

A little bit of truth...but if you get too close, its laced..generously..with poison.

Regarding the catholic "church", the errors, blasphemies, legalisms, idolatries and wickedness become fully infused through the process of time.

And of course, the victims have no choice but to submit to all of these errors...since they are commanded that "Holy Mother Church" is always without error. Exactly like all the other cults.