Why are the sacraments so important to Catholics?

[abonmarche']

I believe that these things you quote are doctrine clauses by the Roman Catholic church to explain to their weak humans in their gathering to explain the Latin words what a person must do to get to heaven. All this is changing Gods word in the bible. This Roman Catholic church declares itself the authority to change Gods Word. They are so wrong.
Let us look at the word "church", which I see only in Revelation 2 and Rev. 3. as to my understanding is in Ephesus and Laodicea --nothing I read said United States? I assume you are all from USA or some other part of the World that is not in Rev. 2 and 3 chapters. But look with me on this same note at Matthew chapter 16 and 17 says I wil build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. My understanding is that the gates of hell is the wrath of God. Is not this God talking about US? such as those true believers that He was talking to meant the gates of hell cannot prevail against us! Amen. Jesus is talking about his eternal church for Him to to be in glory in the church body of Christ. So, how changed this? By what authority did it get changed? The foundation is not the Roman Catholic Church nor the Baptist church and their changeing the venue for some folks that the seed of God was placed upon them on rocks and now Lucifer is blowing it away. How Sad indeed that we all get hung up on what these churches are doing to tie doen our new believers. All these tis and that about churches demands...Please folks...let us together turn to Act chapter 1 and read how the folks got saved. We are to copy cat these folks. I would like you folks to read Galatians chapter 3. Notice people were not in a building preaching, they were out side. See questions were also asked rather on a computer they were chatting amonst themselves to others. ques: Jewish laws never gave you spiritual life? in Gal 3:3. Note in 2006 we could say the Roaman Catholic Church sacriments or the Baptist Church doctrines give you spiritual life? I love the answeres in Gal 3:5 does God give you the Power of the Holy Spirit and works of miracles among you by obeying the Jewish laws? We could say the same for today with the Catholic or Baptist laws. Vs 5 says NO, of course not. TLB. May the Spirit shine to all of you and make you wise.

 

[BobRyan]

The RCC speaks of magic sacraments and priests with magic powers to "mark the soul" -- the RCC claims for them "powers" that are retained EVEN AFTER they are defrocked and excommunicated.

Interesting if you ask me.

 

[abonmarche']

Bob you mentioned "Powers". And defrocking! Wow. they just do not get it yet. Read Gal atians 3: vs 11, No one man (flesh) is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for , the just SHALL live by faith. Soooo-simple. So, why is these 11 pages all trying to jusify the Roamn Catholic or the Bapistist Laws? I do not get it?

 

[Snoopy]

Huh?????

in Now the sacraments go far beyond reason but they don't go against reason. They go beyond logic but they are not illogical; they are not contradictory. So there is still room for reason to explore and study, to grasp the intelligibility and the meaning of the sacraments. So I am not suggesting that Catholics act like zombies in some mindless, unquestioning way just simply accepting and grasping that which is absurd. No. Catholics should not be zombies. They should be faithful children who accept the testimony of their father in heaven through the Spirit but, at the same time, they ought to grow up and allow their reason to explore the intelligible meaning of the sacraments. That's what I am going to try to do.

How does a Southern Baptist know so much about, and speak so in favor of Catholic rituals?

 

[Snoopy]

Another One!

Oh, I got plenty of hits alright. The neutral ones (ie: not Catholic or Landmark), plus the Catholic and Orthodox sites which refer to it all acknowledge its existence, but as a second-century Latin translation of the LXX - ie: the Old Testament only; not a page from the NT still less the complete canon. No, only the lunatic fringe of Landmarkism makes that absurd claim. Oh, and I clicked on your link - it's yet another Landmark site!! Hardly neutral, now is it??!! This is in no way religious discrimination but just a desire for the honest unvarnished truth, so show me a link to an article by a reputed Bible scholar and academic, and I might take it a bit more seriously. Until then, I remain decidely unimpressed

This gentleman also lists his denomination as Baptist. How can we believe anything he says if he won't tell the truth about his affiliation?

 

[Snoopy]

Agnus Dei???

Actually DHK, you told me in your #69 post that: The canon was completed by the end of the first century…

My position was that what Epistles and books that make up our New Testament were written by the end of the first century, actually by the mid 90 A.D. and were scattered about the various parts of the world. Still, no definitive volume of collected works, with a table of contents, were gathered to form a volume and added to the NT until the fourth century.



I have to echo Matt Black, I’ve searched Yahoo the words “Itala Bible” and nothing by way of creditable authors who weren’t preachers claiming to be historians using the Itala Bible as a soapbox to bash the Catholic Church. When I included Catholic or Orthodoxy, again I also found a number of sites all acknowledging its existence, but still it wasn’t the completed canon as we have today.

I also ran across the Muratorian Canon the oldest known collection of NT Biblical books, written around 180-200 AD in Rome, but still, books / Epistles were lacking and some were still in dispute.

Hardly the post of a self-proclaimed Methodist.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Hardly the post of a self-proclaimed Methodist.

So certain folks post some objective historical facts about the formation of the canon and you think they are LYING about their denominational affiliation??? Unbelievable...:BangHead:

 

[Chemnitz]

I had to read your post twice to be sure you were saying what I thought you were saying. Suffice it to say that it represents a complete misunderstanding of how Baptists view the ordinances.

Implicit in his Great Commission that we baptize believers is the command for believers to be baptized. It's a picture of the gospel and a public testimony of one's conversion. That's it.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he did not specifically command his disciples to observe it. He took it for granted that they would. That's why he simply told them that whenever they observed it, do it to remember Him.

And the shot about Baptists changing to a religion of works, where did that come from? Besides, what's wrong with believers being obedient and doing good works? Is it a works religion because men and women are obedient to God's call to service, God's command to love each other, his instructions on proper worship?

In fact, aren't we Christians commanded to do good works, not to acquire righteousness, but that others may glorify God because of them?

Usually when I think somebody is wrong, I'll couch my disagreement in the gentler, kinder way "well, we just see it differently."

In this case, I'm junking gentler and kinder. You are just flat-out wrong, wrong, wrong.

Thank you for confirming my post.
Baptism is not commanded, a simple reading of the great commision will illustrate this because the only imperative is to make disciples, baptizing is a participle which is not a command. In fact, because it is participle it is a description of how disciples are made.
No where ever in Scripture is baptism called a confession.

 

[Tom Butler]

Thank you for confirming my post.
Baptism is not commanded, a simple reading of the great commision will illustrate this because the only imperative is to make disciples, baptizing is a participle which is not a command. In fact, because it is participle it is a description of how disciples are made.
No where ever in Scripture is baptism called a confession.

I'm sort of frustrated.:BangHead:

I don't know how to answer someone who turns the language upside down and twists my post's intended meaning beyond recognition.

But I'll give it one more try.

With regard to baptism and the Lord's Supper, Baptist have not changed God's grace into law, and every Baptist I know repudiates that statement, regardless of the definition you attach to "ordinance."

When Jesus commissioned members of his assembled church to baptize disciples (new believers), implicit in the instruction to baptize is the instruction to be baptized.

By contrast, those who hold to baptismal regeneration and attach sacramental value to baptism and to the Lord's Supper have changed God's grace into law. That leaves out Baptists.

The New Testament writers placed a great emphasis on works as a natural outgrowth of salvation. In no case does the Bible teach works to attain righteousness. Over and over Paul hits hard on the truth that any righteousness we have is imputed. We have Christ's righteousness. You are accusing Baptists of the same thing that Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and some other Protestant groups proudly assert as true.

The Biblical order is Repentance, Faith, Salvation, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. To follow the Biblical example is all that Baptists want.

Baptism is the door to the local church. Only baptized believers take the Lord's Supper. That's the Biblical example.

If being obedient to Christ, if following Scripture that means we get accused of works righteousness, of changing God's grace into law, then I suppose, so be it.

 

[Chemnitz]

Tom, I didn't have to twist anything. If you are frustrated then maybe it is time you gave an honest evaluation to the things that you believe.

Merriam-Webster defines ordinance as "an authoritative decree or direction : [SIZE=-1]ORDER[/SIZE] b : a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically : a municipal regulation
2 : something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity
3 : a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony"

The New Testament writers placed a great emphasis on works as a natural outgrowth of salvation. In no case does the Bible teach works to attain righteousness. Over and over Paul hits hard on the truth that any righteousness we have is imputed. We have Christ's righteousness. You are accusing Baptists of the same thing that Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and some other Protestant groups proudly assert as true.

Well at least you are starting to get the picture. Now, maybe you need to start looking as to why.

By contrast, those who hold to baptismal regeneration and attach sacramental value to baptism and to the Lord's Supper have changed God's grace into law. That leaves out Baptists.

Hardly, we have attached no more significance than what God already has done himself. He himself described it as a washing of sin on the level of the flood, a joining to the death and resurrection of Christ, one of the two means by which a disciple is made, and the circumcision of the heart. These are things that only God can do. Thus, we recognize and teach the truth of that matter that it is God at work. We are not doing anything. The sacraments are the very expression of God's grace, they are gifts given to us. We have done nothing to deserve recieving them. God has given them freely.

The Biblical order is Repentance, Faith, Salvation, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. To follow the Biblical example is all that Baptists want.

If faith is all that is required then why the need to stick to a so called order. An order that does not originate in God's word but in the imaginations of me. Once again by seeking to have things happen just so you have changed conversion in to a work. Scripture makes one thing clear only faith is necessary. Salvation comes with faith, not after. Why do you insist on seperating salvation from faith? Why do you insist on placing a fruit of faith before faith? An unbeliever could no more repent than remain alive in the presence of God. They have no reason to repent because they believe everything is okeydokey.

 

[Tom Butler]

Hardly, we have attached no more significance than what God already has done himself. He himself described it as a washing of sin on the level of the flood, a joining to the death and resurrection of Christ, one of the two means by which a disciple is made, and the circumcision of the heart. These are things that only God can do. Thus, we recognize and teach the truth of that matter that it is God at work. We are not doing anything. The sacraments are the very expression of God's grace, they are gifts given to us. We have done nothing to deserve recieving them. God has given them freely.

Tom replies: I see no need to deal with this comment, mainly because no minds will be changed here. You articulate your view well, though.

Quote:Tom
The Biblical order is Repentance, Faith, Salvation, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. To follow the Biblical example is all that Baptists want.

If faith is all that is required then why the need to stick to a so called order. An order that does not originate in God's word but in the imaginations of me. Once again by seeking to have things happen just so you have changed conversion in to a work. Scripture makes one thing clear only faith is necessary. Salvation comes with faith, not after. Why do you insist on seperating salvation from faith? Why do you insist on placing a fruit of faith before faith? An unbeliever could no more repent than remain alive in the presence of God. They have no reason to repent because they believe everything is okeydokey.

Actually, I can agree with some of this. When I listed the order, I should have been clearer. I should have described it as "logical order" rather than implying chronological order, because I do agree that repentance, faith and salvation go together. I say logical order because until there is repentance and faith, there is no salvation. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin, so there's no real chronological order there.

If I understand you correctly, you faith first, with repentance as a fruit. If that's the case, I will naturally disagree. I will agree that a sinner cannot repent, but I have a different reason. He can't repent until the Holy Spirit changes his heart, illuminates his mind, and convicts him of sin. God also provides repentance and faith as gifts. This is consistent with my view that salvation is all of grace or none of grace.

 

[DHK]

Thank you for confirming my post.
Baptism is not commanded, a simple reading of the great commision will illustrate this because the only imperative is to make disciples, baptizing is a participle which is not a command. In fact, because it is participle it is a description of how disciples are made.
No where ever in Scripture is baptism called a confession.

Matthew 28:19-20 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them--to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days--till the full end of the age.' (Young’s Literal Translation)

There is but one command here. The command is “Disciple.” However this command cannot take place without two other things first taking place: the first is “to go,” and the other is “to preach the gospel." Both of these are summarized in the command:

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

The commands are go and preach. One cannot be saved unless one first goes with the gospel, and then preaches it. That is germane to the Great Commission. Even if the primary command is
“disciple,” it does not make much difference if one does not first go, and if one is not first saved by the preaching of the gospel, as it is commanded in Mark 16:15. Thus the one imperative in Mat.28:19 has a series of subsidiary commands, but they are commands nevertheless. Because a statement begins with a participle does not necessary negate the fact that it may be a command. Participles may be used thusly, as they are in this verse.
Even the “command” ‘go’ is not a direct imperative, but is better rendered “having gone.” Are you suggesting by your logic that there is no command to go in the Great Commission, just as there is no command to baptize. Your suggestion is that absurd. If there is no command to baptize, then there is no command to go (at least not in this verse). Yet I doubt if there would be anyone that would deny the command to go is in the Great Commission.
The command is to disciple:
--Having gone.
--Baptizing them.
--Teaching them to observe all things.

Each one of these statements, though not written as a direct imperative is still a command in and of itself. It is presumptuous to say that the order to baptize is not contained here in the Great Commission as stated in Mat.28:19,20.

 

[Matt Black]

This gentleman also lists his denomination as Baptist. How can we believe anything he says if he won't tell the truth about his affiliation?

Last time I looked, ad hominem remarks of this sort were not permitted on this board. I attend and am a member of a Baptist church. I lead a Bible study group there. That doesn't mean I don't think that Landmarkism is a pile of garbage - most Baptists I know think that. So I'd be grateful if you'd retract your remark.

 

[BobRyan]

In the RCC the Priest has "powers" to mark the soul in Baptism and to turn bread into God. These "powers" do not leave the priest according to the RCC EVEN if that priest is excoummunicated for heresy.

It is a sticky wicket just "making up doctrines out of man-made-tradition" as it turns out.

The point here is that this made up idea - takes on a life of its own. If the magic of the priests really is the source of grace, marking the soul, "Christ In yoU" and "The New Covenant in My blood" -- then without those magic priests - there is no salvation. Hence "no salvation outside the church".

In the string of things "made up" they then "MAKE UP" that infants can not go to heaven if they are not baptized - because their little souls are not "marked". Well - intro the magic priests to mark the souls of the infants and PRESTO - Baptismal regeneration. All done WITHOUT "hearing the Word" on the part of the infant. No instruction no repentance no hearing with faith - just the magic powers of the priest.

Question - how do we get from this starting point in the 15th century to "Baptismal regeneration" for adults?? Simple - remove the concept of the sinful nature's depravity - so that the unregenerate heart not only repents but ALSO follows on in good works (Bible study, walking in faith, entering the waters of baptism) going TOWARDS the point of rebirth and the new creation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

Yeah, when I was a teenager and a Catholic, I'd got to Confession and come home and say my "Our Fathers" and my "Hail Marys" as fast as I could to get them overwith which supposedly got rid of my sins since the priest said so. There wasnt any such idea as repentance. My little ditty I made up for fun was "Bless me Father for I have sinned, let's hurry up and get this thing overwith so I can go out and do it again".

Religion just becomes a "form" ... "the form of godliness without the power thereof".

My Mother was a Catholic Nun till she got married, and she always did the Rosary thing, as if that somehow just did something magical for you.

And they use the Eucharist as a way to control people, as in, if you dont be a good Catholic then you cant receive it, and thus are "going to Hell".

 

[Chemnitz]

Matthew 28:19-20 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them--to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days--till the full end of the age.' (Young’s Literal Translation)

There is but one command here. The command is “Disciple.” However this command cannot take place without two other things first taking place: the first is “to go,” and the other is “to preach the gospel." Both of these are summarized in the command:

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

You are getting closer but you are still miles off. You do not need to go to other verses to understand how disciples are made, Matthew 28 is clear enough. Participle forms of baptizing and teaching indicate a means. Jesus makes it quite clear that disciples are made through baptism and teaching. Since this is the case there must be something more to baptism than a mere symbolic/confessional act because nobody becomes a disciple through their own confession but by the work of God.

You really should avoid prooftexting, it does you no favors. In this case you left out what follows.
Mark 16:15-16 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Baptism is implicit in the making of disciples in the passage of Mark. I would also say that this is not the best passage for your argument because Matthew is far clearer and actually sheds more light on Mark than Mark does on Matthew although the Mark passage does nicely tie in baptism with the act of salvation.

Because a statement begins with a participle does not necessary negate the fact that it may be a command. Participles may be used thusly, as they are in this verse.

Please cite your source. Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics clearly calls the participles in Matthew 28, datives of means or in english they are words which describe the means by which the command making disciples is carried out. They are by no means a command.

 

[DHK]

Please cite your source. Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics clearly calls the participles in Matthew 28, datives of means or in english they are words which describe the means by which the command making disciples is carried out. They are by no means a command.

I think you didn't read my post in its entirety. "Having gone." How do you disciple without "having gone," even though "go" is not written as a direct imperative.
My source is common sense.
Therefore Mr. Chem., Having gone to thy room, picking up thy Bible, and reading for two hours, then coming back to the BB, find the time to tell me why the above participles are not used as commands.