I was more than slightly tongue-in-cheek.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
- Status
DHK, I do apologize for my misunderstanding to your answer to me on 'attending Mass in the past' but let it be noted, that at every Mass the Holy Bible is read. The Bible is absolutely necessary for the Mass. Thank You
2.DHK, you ask me for the following also: Jesus said: Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What does it mean to be born again?[Quote }
1 Peter 3:21
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Most Protestant churches teach that baptism is just symbolic and does not actually save us. Why, then, does Peter say that baptism does indeed save us? Because baptism, contrary to Protestant teaching, is salvific (effecting salvation). Through the merits of Christ's resurrection, baptism, the sacrament of Christian initiation instituted by Christ, washes us clean of original sin, makes us adopted sons and daughters of God, and brings us to salvation.
Unlike Protestant teaching, baptism is not just a symbolic act of pouring, sprinkling or immersing one in water (otherwise Peter would not have said that it saves us). It is not just an appeal to God through a symbolic gesture. This is why Peter says it is "not as a removal of dirt from the body." Most scholars say that Peter was referring to circumcision (the ritual of initiation in the Old Covenant) when he writes about the “removal of dirt from the body.” Circumcision was a symbolic gesture before God that could never save us. But, at a minimum, Peter is teaching that baptism does not deal with the exterior, but the interior life of the person.
Thus, Peter teaches that baptism saves us “for a clear conscience.” This deals with the interior life. Similarly, the author of Heb. 10:22, in regard to being washed with the pure water (of baptism), says we are sprinkled “clean from an evil conscience.” Baptism removes original sin which darkens our consciences. It purifies the interior life of the person. Baptism is not just an external, symbolic, ceremonial gesture (otherwise, the sacred writers would not write about the purification of the conscience, where sin is born).
Thus, through the resurrection of Christ, baptism now actually saves our spiritual lives, just as Noah's ark (which Peter says baptism "corresponds to") saved his family's natural lives. In baptism, we are washed clean of original sin and become adopted sons and daughters of the Father. This is why Paul writes to Titus, in reference to baptism, that “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7. Paul echoes Peter’s teaching that baptism saves us by regenerating our interior lives, namely, our souls, which are now endowed with God’s divine and sanctifying grace. We thus become children of God and heirs of the kingdom.
Only the Catholic Church teaches that baptism, by virtue of the merits of Christ and their application to us, is salvific. The Protestant churches, contrary to 1 Peter 3:21 (and Titus 3:5-7; John 3:5; and Heb. 10:22) teach that baptism is only symbolic. For more on the striking parallels of these Scripture verses, please visit my link on Baptism.
Copied from John Salza
-ScripturalCatholic.com
2.DHK, you ask me for the following also: Jesus said: Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What does it mean to be born again?[Quote }
1 Peter 3:21
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Most Protestant churches teach that baptism is just symbolic and does not actually save us. Why, then, does Peter say that baptism does indeed save us? Because baptism, contrary to Protestant teaching, is salvific (effecting salvation). Through the merits of Christ's resurrection, baptism, the sacrament of Christian initiation instituted by Christ, washes us clean of original sin, makes us adopted sons and daughters of God, and brings us to salvation.
Unlike Protestant teaching, baptism is not just a symbolic act of pouring, sprinkling or immersing one in water (otherwise Peter would not have said that it saves us). It is not just an appeal to God through a symbolic gesture. This is why Peter says it is "not as a removal of dirt from the body." Most scholars say that Peter was referring to circumcision (the ritual of initiation in the Old Covenant) when he writes about the “removal of dirt from the body.” Circumcision was a symbolic gesture before God that could never save us. But, at a minimum, Peter is teaching that baptism does not deal with the exterior, but the interior life of the person.
Thus, Peter teaches that baptism saves us “for a clear conscience.” This deals with the interior life. Similarly, the author of Heb. 10:22, in regard to being washed with the pure water (of baptism), says we are sprinkled “clean from an evil conscience.” Baptism removes original sin which darkens our consciences. It purifies the interior life of the person. Baptism is not just an external, symbolic, ceremonial gesture (otherwise, the sacred writers would not write about the purification of the conscience, where sin is born).
Thus, through the resurrection of Christ, baptism now actually saves our spiritual lives, just as Noah's ark (which Peter says baptism "corresponds to") saved his family's natural lives. In baptism, we are washed clean of original sin and become adopted sons and daughters of the Father. This is why Paul writes to Titus, in reference to baptism, that “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7. Paul echoes Peter’s teaching that baptism saves us by regenerating our interior lives, namely, our souls, which are now endowed with God’s divine and sanctifying grace. We thus become children of God and heirs of the kingdom.
Only the Catholic Church teaches that baptism, by virtue of the merits of Christ and their application to us, is salvific. The Protestant churches, contrary to 1 Peter 3:21 (and Titus 3:5-7; John 3:5; and Heb. 10:22) teach that baptism is only symbolic. For more on the striking parallels of these Scripture verses, please visit my link on Baptism.
Copied from John Salza
-ScripturalCatholic.com
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Sorry, sometimes its hard to tell. Especially when everything is up for grabs and as often is the case even well documented history on this site dosen't mean it is well accepted by people on this board. Sorry Matt should have guessed at cheeky - ness. Is that the right english spelling? don't know.
This thread seems to be a debate primarily between ex-Catholics and either Catholics or those with a pro-Catholic theology! Am I discerning this correctly?
Hi Matt, I noticed you're from Hampshire, England. I visited Bournemouth for a summer/ fall way back in 1969 after being discharged from the USMC.My grandparents settled there from Kerry, Ireland. Beautiful ,beaches and all. Isle of Wright not far off shore. Served part of my apprenticeship there , building decorative stone walls on beachfront and on the grounds of private clubs in that area.Great area , loved it.
WestminsterMan
New Member
'Cheekiness', I believe.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Most likely. The problem with most ex-Catholics and I was one for 27 years until just recently is that they attend mass and see things but have no idea the reasons they did what they do or were given miss information. Often times they had no idea what the Catholic church actually taught because some priest or nun gave them their personal perspective which may or may not be official Church teaching. Yet when they heard an evangelist (praise God for them) they heard the very simple and truthful Gospel that Jesus died for their sin and they can be free of that and restore their relationship with God and learn to be Godly from the scriptures. Having heard it this way in its simplistic form they somehow believe this is not what the Catholic Church teaches and become a "born again" believer. And being a modernistic man a simple acceptance of something means the total rejection of something else. In reality the catholic Church teaches this same truth using differing terms. However, a man who is in sin and is not enlighted by God then suddenly becomes so rejects everything they once were whether its true or not. Whether it was good or not and oft the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. But then what happens is once the baby gets thrown out and there is a cleared slate what often happens is they are brought up in a different set of traditions whether it be baptist, Methodist, Prebyterian, evangelical free,... and read their scriptures based on that set of traditions and lingo that fits in that set of traditions. Thus catholics teach you must be born again its the evangelicals that "coin" the term to mean conversion. So since this is the case most ex-catholics have developed the mentality that everything I was before I was "saved" is wrong or evil and lead me away from God. And If being Catholic Didn't lead me to this understanding then something is wrong with it. And thus I must believe everything Bottner teaches on the subject of Catholicism rather than going to the source itself and studing what it actually teaches. Since sinful self = Catholic in their mind
they are the most admimant against the Catholic Church. Much like an ex-smoker is the most vocal speaker against smoking. Though admittedly smoking is bad. But the loudest aren't the non smokers just the ex smokers.
Not entirely accurate: there are also those like me, who are both ex-Catholics and in parts pro-Catholic by virtue of being pro-Tradition although not actually Catholic.
Hi there! Bournemouth is about 40 minutes away from where I live; we've been there a few times this year when the weather's been good and spent time on the beach there. Nearest beach to us is about 10 minutes away by car (45 minutes on foot) and you can clearly see the Isle of Wight from there (it's about 4 miles away). My wife bought me a day's sailing round the Isle of Wight as as 40th birthday present a couple of summers back.
It appears that you were an ex-catholic for 27 years but now have returned to the Catholic tradition.
Your explanation patterns after what I have heard many times from those within many different denominations who attempt to reconcile what they believe in contrast to ex-converts who have left their denomination.
The only real distinction between your explanation and what I have heard from others defending their denomination against "ex-Mormons" or "ex-Jehovah's Witnesses" or "ex-Baptists" etc., etc., is that you have gone from one side to the other side and back again.
Well, I guess I was wrong about merely including ex-catholics as opposed to pro-catholics. I went back and looked at some who seemed not to be ex-Catholics at all. For example, such posters as "seeking the truth" "Jesusfan" "12strings" "Dr. Walter" "Alive in Christ" "Earth Wind and Fire" and possibly "David Lamb."
Well, for the record, I was sprinkled and given last rights when I was a child because of a near fatal accident that the Catholic Hospital were I was admitted thought I was not going to make it. However, praise the Lord I did make it. I have never been an ex-Catholic. The closest I have been to the Catholic Church is reading their "Catechism of the Catholic Church" Second Edition.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Very possibly. However, my perspective is from my personal experience. I was Catholic. My family were Catholic. They and I lived like the devil and had no thought of God. Treated mass like it was endued with "magical" properties that put a bandaid on salvation. Heard the Gospel at a missionary boarding school in a fashion I had never heard. Went up during the alter call said the sinners prayer and my life changed and internally no longer wanted to sin or displease God. I desired to read scriptures which I did and study them. Read Chick tracts and believed them to be true. Witnessed to my family for many years and was glad to point out how my life had changed and theirs were still the same old Godless ones. My father had a conversion experience but stayed in the Catholic Church and we argued for many years and even at my sister's wedding reception because I could show solid evidence of my conversion and I didn't want them to go to hell. My father challeged me on certain issues. I went to two protestant universities and minored in bible and theology one pentecostal the other american baptist. Though I had read the bible for many years as I got more in depth on its construction, application, history, relevance in its historical context, outgrowth from Judaism questions that were often put off by my Pastors as we learned something of that in seminary but I don't remember it, or better yet. I don't know. Lead me into further study. And as I came accross harder questions I joined this site to put forth my questions and thoughts so that I could be defeated and remain in my southern baptist church but never was fully convinced with the answers given and my studies lead me back to the Catholic Church because as I learned what the Catholic church actually teaches I was astounded that I didn't know that. Quick testimony here of course. But my answer is framed by my personal experience. And it is in that context my answer should be understood.
Well, I understand the necessity of context in properly evaluating and interpreting anyone and anything including the scriptures. I was saved at 13 years of age in little Baptist congregation where my dad attended. After getting out of the army I came back to the good old USA at the ripe old age of 22 and began an intense study of the scriptures due to a thirst I believe God gave me to know His Word.
I was fortunate at that early age to learn the value of context and especially interpeting the scriptures by its historical, grammatical, immediate and overall context.
Well, now I am a fossil in regard to my age but my theological foundations have not moved much in years although I am happy to report that God has been expanding those truths and giving me new insights that firmly fit upon those firm foundations laid in my heart and mind years ago as a young man.
I guess my essential theological is like the skeleton in my body and everything I have learned since is like the flesh, muscles, etc. that fit very nicely upon that skeleton, fleshing it out.
It is amazing to me how great of depth the Word of God has. For example, I have studied the book of Romans many times throughout the years and each time God shows me something that I did not see before. Not a new truth, but like the same light but growing brighter and I cannot tell you how that thrills my soul. Indeed, I know nothing more exciting and more joyous then to step further into the light of His Word and be able to see the same truths more and more clearly. I thank and praise God for that and my journey is not over but is in its most exciting days. Well, that is my experience and testimony. I thougth since testimonies were being given I would share mine. Hope you don't mind.
Thank you for your explanation!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Not at all. And I know what you mean!!!! It's always exciting when scriptures come alive again after you long thought you had them down for eveything they have to offer. They (scriptures) are indeed a bottomless wellspring of fresh water!!!!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Quick question for any interested. Hopefully you know what I'm speaking of. Sanctifying Grace?
1) Infused Grace; tied to justification
2) imputed; stands alone no real need be since "declaired"/or there is in justification not a true annihilation but a covering up
3) Doesn't really matter
1) Infused Grace; tied to justification
2) imputed; stands alone no real need be since "declaired"/or there is in justification not a true annihilation but a covering up
3) Doesn't really matter
Last edited by a moderator:
WestminsterMan
New Member
My friend, I am a country boy and I just stick with the language of the Scriptures. I do that, because the scriptures command me:
2Ti 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
I believe the scriptures provide those "sound words" (not sound thoughts but words as right thoughts must be expressed in right words).
I understand Romans 4:5-6 and the "ungodly" man as the proper candidate for imputed righteousness. Hence, imputed righteousness is a righteousness alien to me or else there is no need to impute it to me. I believe this is "the righteousness of God" that is received by the "ungodly" by faith "in" Christ. He is "ungodly" in regard to HIS OWN righteousness. This is the righteousness that belongs personally to Jesus Christ and is "imputed" to the "ungodly" providing him a right standing legally before the Law of God in heaven.
However, in contrast to "imputed" righteousness I find a "created" righteousness. This righteousness is "created" within the believer by new birth (Eph. 2:10) that preceds any works of righteousness performed by the beleiver. This is an act of God alone as no one else can "create" or HELP in creating anything. This is performed inside a man not by the will of the person being born again or by the will of man - external to that person nor is it by the will of parents in producing a child by natural generation (Jn. 1:13). It is from this created righteousness within that all our righteous works originate from (Eph. 2:10).
So, I believe in both but in their proper cause and effect order and relationship to each other. I might add that one cannot exist apart from the other. The first is righteousness imputed to the "ungodly" in heaven while the latter is the righteousness originating on earth from the regenerate nature worked out in the life of the believer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
This point more than others is the actual point of divide for the theological debate. It all falls down to this. Everything else builds from this point. As I see it.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I understand you entirely. However, I have found that once things are defined and understood they can be simplified to easy understanding. Also unfortunately, we live in a society were we cannot take for granted words as anyone will tell you when purchasing from a used car dealer. Just like the motto the buyer beware it is encumbant upon the purchaser to know something of what is being said or they are sold a bill of Goods.
I percieve you are a good guy who loves God and the word of God but just to let you in on a well known secret sometimes I say funny things when I read passages like this beause they are cliche from the churches I have attended. It is no reflection on you personally when I say that the language of scriptures are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and only well educated country boys that I know understand these things. And there are quite a few of them despite their association to their bretheren. So unless you want to shell out Koine all evening scriptures are a little more than just that since english doesn't always get the sense.
A good verse for Apostolic Tradition working hand in hand with scripture.
The only reason to be sure of your words is to be sure of your thoughts so, I'm not clear on what you are saying.
Btw imputed isn't the word used in this passage nor do I believe it to be the sense of the passage. Clearly, the ungodly that has faith in God is considered righteous. However, faith is to understood in the whole of scripture consistantly as James speak of faith when deeds are absent faith is dead. So I look at it this way: I can put my trust in God and trust him to consider me righteous as I obey him. My deeds without faith or trust in God cannot earn my righteousness I can do all things forever but not get one bit of merit out of it. However, I have confidence in trusting God and obeying him God will consider me righteous.
Again imputed is not used in this passage. Righteousness is alien to you. But ask yourself this does God want you to share in the divine life he has to offer or just say "you're ok by me"?
I believe that our faith in Jesus permits Jesus to infuse his righteousness onto us an actual transformation rather than a declaration.
So are you suggesting that Ephesian 2:10 Means that righteousness is created by the faith? Rather than righteousness is a gift resulting from the faith? I see this passage
is refering to the creation of humanity in general and specifically to our election.
Yes Jesus does this alone
We are also called to obedience. Yet participation is shown all through out scripture. God does not incarnate alone but Mary submits herself to his will "I am a handmaiden of the Lord" Joshua must march around Jericho 7 times and blow tumpets, Gideon must choose men to fight, etc... in all these things the victory alone is Gods but God's grace allows us to participate or share in the victory. Else our victory can be given to some one else like with Barak
This is actually irrelevant to the discussion. One step at a time imputed or infused is at issue. Later baptism can be spoken of which is always of water and the spirit.
based on your view of eph. this does not seem so.
- Status