What's wrong with post 149?
Catholics also believe we are saved by the grace of God.
IOW, I don't think we're so different as it would seem.
I think some ideas and language have a lot to do with our seeming differences.
SALVATION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Catholics also believe we are saved by the grace of God.
IOW, I don't think we're so different as it would seem.
I think some ideas and language have a lot to do with our seeming differences.
Mungo is saying grace is works. I am quoting Eph 2:8-9 which says "grace is a gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." That is very plain and clear.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8-9)
Mungo says:
Believing is a work.
Repenting is a work.
I do not believe accepting God's gift of salvation is a work. Neither do I believe we can earn our salvation, it is a free gift.
Can you reconcile this, please? Thank you.
.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean.
The Catholic Church does baptise adults.
Do you mean only baptise adults, i.e. not babies?
Perhaps I didn't phrase it very well.
I was trying to contrast CC beliefs that belief comes first and then baptism (in which they are saved) with some Protestants who think baptism is some afterthought after a person is saved when they believe.
When I said good deeds come after baptism, I was thinking of this:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10)
and
And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. (Col 1:9-10)
Do you really expect me to take your personal criticism seriously? Unlike yourself, I believe in Scripture, not the teachings of fallible men who lust for power.
P.S. Taking a single verse out of context to prove your predetermined doctrine is absurd.
I believe scripture.
I believe Jesus when he said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"
And I believe Peter when he wrote "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
You mean like you do (when you do give a quote rather than just your opinion)?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here. Are you saying that denying self is fasting? While I realize that fasting is one way to deny self, I don't necessarily think this is what Jesus was talking about in this passage. I have understood Him to mean denying our own desires.
Mungo was speaking tongue in cheek in reply to another poster.
Believing is not a work.
Repenting is not a work.
Catholics also believe Ephesians 2:8 ---
We are saved by God's grace,
through our faith in Him.
Every Christian believes this.
Yes. It would be good to make that change.
(baptize only adults that are believers).
But there's too much involved.
It would harken back to the idea of the New Evangelization.
But the churches are becoming empty... so no change in sight.
You know Mungo, I know some that think they can go to confession and go to church, have absolutely no change in their life, but they believe they're Christian believers. Now, I leave that up to God -- but when someone is a disciple of Jesus, I can see that the person is different in some way.
And I'm sorry about it too. One woman I know is kind of bitter because of some situations. If she truly knew God, she'd be less bitter, or not at all. I think they fail to understand the power of the Holy Spirit...or maybe they never put Him into action, as that one priest explained it some years ago.
Do you think a person could be saved and not baptized and still go to heaven?
What YOU think, not what the CCC says...
Amen to that!
You know how many times I've quoted those verses?
Agreed 100%
Why should the Catholic Church abandon a 2,000 year old practice that is justifiable?
That's very sad.
Why should I believe something different from what the CC teaches?
Yes, it is possible for someone who is not baptised to go to heaven.
God is sovereign. He has given us a normal pathway but the rest is up to him.
We're talking about baptizing adults that are saved.
Which 2,000 year old practice are you speaking of?
In the beginning adults were baptized AFTER they came to believe...
children in the family were baptized because the Christian community knew they would be raised Christian
and that was a way of including them in the community and a way of blessing them with the Holy Spirit...
that their parents would explain to them and help them to live it.
This is not done anymore.
I think, right now, some kids know more catechism than their parents do.
It was good ole' Augustine that changed to the doctrine that infants had to be baptized or they'd end up in hell.
This was in the 400's. Over 300 years after Jesus ascended.
This was not believed in the early church.
So, yes, I think it would be nice to go back to what the early church taught.
If you believe everything the CCC teaches, then you are a perfect Catholic.
I'm not sure how you come to terms with everything, but I respect you for it.
As to being able to go to heaven even if someone born again does not get baptized,
yes, of course it's possible.
The CCC even states so.
Augustine seems to get blamed for a lot.
Here are some quotes from the Early Fathers from This Rock magazine Sep 1991 - all before Augustine.
Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God--infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]).
Hippolytus
"Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 244]).
Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries [sacraments], knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).
Cyprian
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth.
In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letter to Fidus 64:2 [A.D. 251]).
Cyprian
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid. 64:5).
Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 381]).
"'Well enough,' some will say, 'for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?' Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid. 40:28).
Ambrose
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant." (On Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387]).
I did say that infants and children were baptized.
I agree with all of the above except for Ambrose.
He had a different idea about baptism and knew Augustine...I forget who taught who, so I won't go into that.
What Augustine changes is the REASON children got baptized.
He changed the idea of Original Sin.
He taught, and the church at the time accepted, that original sin had to be removed if one was to go to heaven.
If a baby died without baptism, he taught that that child went to hell.
So it became absolutely necessary for infants to be baptized as soon as possible.
As you must surely know, many of the early Christians did not get baptized until they were on their death bed.
This shows that Augustine made the change concerning original sin and baptism.
Maybe he gets blamed because he made the changes?
To say noting of predestination...
Are not works the EVIDENCE of our salvation already granted?
.
Of course. If we don't change there's definitely something wrong with our Christianity.
Works are evidence of our salvation.
No one is saved by works but by faith.
But you must know those posters that practically state that works are not necessary, that we should not add anything to our salvation, etc.
So, I've come to be very careful about wording.
I'd say that they're not only the evidence, but Jesus' teachings make them necessary.
Do you think a person could be called Christian if they do nothing at all of what Jesus taught?
If they say that obeying Jesus is ADDING to His sacrifice?
I don't believe that Mungo was speaking tongue in cheek -- ever.