Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[Scott1]

I can SEE that Scot is able to recognize that what I offer are NOT just 'idle words'. ALL I have attempted to offer is that Baptism IN ITSELF is unable to SAVE or do ANYTHING but 'get one WET'. There must FIRST be TRUE belief and a sense of DEVOTION. And even then, it took MANY years after becoming Baptized by water for ME to be Baptized in Spirit.

Wow now... don't read too much into it! I don't believe there FIRST must be belief.... I trust in the power of the Sacrament.... but I ALSO know that when that baby grows up, he/she must come to have a mature faith in Christ and not abandon the faith or else their baptism WAS in vain.

It's not an either/or scenario for me... it's a BOTH/AND = Infant baptism AND true discipleship as the person matures.

To be perfectly clear... I was baptised as an adult... and I believe an adult conversion is essential to our "running the race".... but I certainly believe it is still possible to foster TRUE DEVOTION with a person being baptised as an infant.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rick W]

I see infant baptism as also confirming the parents responsibilities to raise the child to know God, to reaffirm their relationship as man and wife in the eyes of the Lord and publicly announce the family's beliefs.

 

[Scott1]

I see infant baptism as also confirming the parents responsibilities to raise the child to know God, to reaffirm their relationship as man and wife in the eyes of the Lord and publicly announce the family's beliefs.

Amen... and with the renunciation of Satan on the part of parents and godparents and their profession of faith, to which is added the assent of the celebrant and the community; the entire congregation becomes part of the infants life....

 

[MarkT]

Your understanding isn't quite there Imagican. If these little ones believe in their heart that baptism is sufficient because Jesus said so, then it will be done for them as they believe. If their spirit is willing to follow, their knowledge might be imperfect, God weighs the spirit.

Strangely enough, things happen. I didn't choose to be baptized. But according to God's purpose I was. So it is with everyone who is baptized. It follows, therefore, that your theoretical senarios serve no purpose. God's will is done. So it is that the sons of God are baptized; not according to some unplanned circumstance, but according to his will. And it turns out that the church baptises just as Jesus said it would.

We can gather from Peter's letter that the water in baptism represents death, or, should I say, death followed by life; that is, death came first by water when the flood came and every creature that was made of flesh was destroyed. But it was by water that new life began. Because Noah listened to God, 8 people were saved and they repopulated the world. So life followed death. We see Noah's faith was rewarded. Similarily life in the Spirit follows when the flesh and the desire of the flesh is put to death. I hope that the church knows that they are purified by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. And of course we forgive those who trespass against us.

 

[turnorburn]

Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH? That is the all important question, does the bible teach that
is all that's needed. Then somebody anybody show us where it says this in bold letters, because
something of such great importance must be backed by scripture, agreed :smt045

Thanks,
turnorburn

 

[Imagican]

MarkT,

Once again, turn has offered valid argument AGAINST your supposition. While the words that you offer are obviously well 'thought out' and DO 'seem' to have a 'ring of 'truth' to them, what they offer is more of a 'philosophical' tinge than what is actually offered up in scripture. Yes, Noah existed and the flood existed, but I have YET to SEE or READ where the WORD offers that 'water Baptism' IS enough. Couple THIS with what I have physically observed over the years, along with study and prayer, and it is CLEAR that being exposed to water is NOT enough.

I have already offered the possibility of it HAVING significance. But as a 'blanket statement' that IT alone is ABLE to SAVE, that has certainly NOT been revealed to ME. And that we HAVE the EVIDENCE that one CAN be 'saved' WITHOUT IT, then we ARE able to come to a pretty clear perspective of it's IMPORTANCE.

So, i would chose to WARN those that are TAUGHT such NOT to place their FAITH in the words of MEN that would TEACH them that ALL they MAY NEED DO is BE Baptized. For the scriptures speak for themselves.

I'll offer this in closing. There will come a time upon judgement that MANY will come to Christ and offer these words: "Look at all the wonderous THINGS that we have done in YOUR name". And Christ's answer to THESE: 'Go away from me for I know NOT who thou are'. Now, Mark, is it NOT apparent that these would BE those that CLAIM to BE 'Christians? That these would HAVE BEEN Baptized? For WHO else would CLAIM to DO things in the NAME of Christ OTHER THAN those that proclaim to BE Christians? And what Christians in todays or tomorrows society WOULDN'T be Baptized?

So, while what you offer sounds GOOD, it doesn't wash in the manner in which you have offered it compared to scripture. and THAT, my friend, is WHAT scripture is FOR. For us to BE ABLE to discern that which is TRUTH. Truth BEARS OUT truth. And IF that which is OFFERED as truth cannot 'stand up' to scripture, then it is OBVIOUSLY only at BEST a 'partial truth'. But as we saw in the garden, that is EXACTLY how Satan was able to bring about his 'temptation' of Adam and Eve. ALMOST everything that he stated to her WAS TRUTH. For even the words of God HIMSELF offer that what Satan SAID was ALMOST completely true. Never forget, he IS the 'father of lies'. And our feeble attempts to lie to ourselves and other pale in comparison to HIS ability to deceive those that are ABLE and willing to BE deceived.

ARE WE to PLACE our FAITH in WATER? Or ARE WE to place our faith in Jesus Christ? I would choose the later. And once again, His commission stated that THEM THAT BELIEVE and are Baptized. This would offer that the IMPORTANT thing is to BELIEVE. The Baptism is secondary to the belief. And the NEXT step would be to discern if even BELIEF and Baptism ARE ENOUGH.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Scot,

Not to dispute your words but let me offer this:

If infant Baptism were ABLE to save, then couldn't we simply START Baptizing infants in the hospitals as they are BORN and simply SAVE all that we were ABLE? And if it 'works' for infants, wouldn't it also work for 'children'? And IF so, adolescents and adults as well?

If one is able to Baptize and infant and bring about it's devotion, then couldn't I simply 'hold down' my friends, sprinkle water on their face, say some words, and have THESE 'saved as well'?

I know this sound silly, but the principle is there ISN'T it? That IF I were able to bring about the Salvation of my infant, that I could bring the 'same thing' about in ANYONE?

And HOW many atheists WERE Baptized as infants. How many HAVE been sprinkled or dunked that are NOW, right this minute, serving SATAN instead of God?

A blanket statement that would offer that Baptism IS able to DO what many contend that it IS ABLE is little different than ANY other statements that may or may NOT offer THE truth. For we have already discerned that EACH walk is DIFFERENT for each individual. What may be true for ME is not necessarily TRUE for ALL. Could it NOT BE that we are dealing with a topic with MANY variables? That for 'some' Baptism may well BE the catalyst that is able to bring about a 'relationship'. But for others it is NOTHING other than mere ritual that offers NOTHING so far as belief or devotion? I wonder............

For as I previously stated, my Baptism in water was a fleeting and temporary event that lasted but a few short days. Was it the FIRST step and it simply 'took time' for it to HAVE it's effect? I don't THINK so. Was it a sybolic promise to ONE day come to Christ? I don't THINK so. Was it a submission to The Spirit that TOOK years to 'take effect'? I don't THINK so. I DO have an open mind and an open heart, but from MY understanding it TAKES a 'desire' to KNOW Christ in order TO know Christ. Either that or divine intervention that goes BEYOND mere Baptism. CAN it be that one IS introduced to Christ THROUGH Baptism alone? I assume that practically ANYTHING is possible. But form observance, one would quickly be led to the conclusion that it is NO ALWAYS so.

These words are not offered in 'argument' so much as in 'seeking' truth. For I AM able to offer WHAT I have SEEN or what has been revealed to ME. Yet I am WELL aware that I am NOT the ONLY one that is ABLE to see or BE inspired. I KNOW what many churches teach. i also know that many churches do NOT desire TRUTH so much as 'tradition' created by men. and the ONLY way that I know HOW to discern the difference is to READ, PRAY and SUBMIT to The Spirit. For IF I simply floated through life and accepted what ANYONE had to offer as truth, boy, would I be full of inaccurate understanding. For the world IS there to offer us IT'S understanding. OURS is to LEARN to discern the TRUTH regardless of that which pertains to THIS world.

Blessings, my brother

Mike

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I see infant baptism as also confirming the parents responsibilities to raise the child to know God, to reaffirm their relationship as man and wife in the eyes of the Lord and publicly announce the family's beliefs.

Remember the story of the Roman Centurian who asks Jesus to heal his servant? The servant was healed based on the faith of the Centirian. The servant never even met Jesus. Thats a great example of how infant baptism is based on the faith of the parents and not neccessarily the baby.

Of course, I also believe sacraments work “ex opera operatoâ€Â, literally "from the work having been worked" and with the specific meaning "by the very fact of the action's being performed." It refers to the idea that the sacraments work from the mere fact of having been administered, rather than from the status of the minister of the Sacrament, that is, they actually confer grace when the sacramental sign is validly confected, not as the result of the holiness of the minister or the recipient, but by the power and promise of God.

 

[MarkT]

Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH? That is the all important question, does the bible teach that
is all that's needed. Then somebody anybody show us where it says this in bold letters, because
something of such great importance must be backed by scripture, agreed

You look for it in bold letters but you don't see it in spirit. The question is, 'is it enough?' What does 'enough' mean? The question is, 'is it sufficient?' Sufficient for whom? Remember, the question is being put to the church. You're preaching to the choir. Is it sufficient for the church/believers? It depends on what you mean. How you take it. Do you take it as being from God? It's not sufficient for/to the godless. They are condemned already. But is it sufficient? If it is from God, then how is it not sufficient? It's enough for the purpose it serves. Let's take a look at the purpose. How did the Apostles approach it? With fear and trembling. If we approach it with a humble heart and a contrite spirit, confessing our sins, then God will forgive us our sins. But what is meant by sufficient? I do not say we can be relaxed. No. We must not relax. We must be ever vigilant. We must keep our lamp lit.

Who is saying it? Who is making the assertion that it is enough or not enough? We know that the Apostles did baptize with water. Obviously without Christ, it's not enough. Is it his teaching? I think so. I think as long as we approach it with a contrite spirit and a humble heart, confessing our sins, then we will be bearing the fruit of repentance. I think that aspect of baptism is in the church. I mean there is water and confession, and the knowledge of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected, and together it's one baptism.

1Jo 5:6
This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.

1Jo 5:8
There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Baptism is what it is, no more, and no less. For us, baptism is the washing away of sin, the means by which one is “born againâ€Â, and the entrance into the covenant family of God. It does NOT cover sins committed afterwards, and therefore does not guarantee your salvation. It also does not guarantee that you will always be a good Christian, just as your formula of asking Jesus to be your “personal Lord and Savoir†does not guarantee that a person who does so will always be a good Christian either.

Where we disagree is that Baptism is merely symbolic. Baptism is a sacrament: It might help to understand the sacramental principle in general.

God's creation is good, and since we are creatures with 5 senses, God works through "things" in order to allow us to see His actions, such as the mud Jesus rubbed in the blind man's eye, or Aaron's rod, or hands being laid upon another. God performs miraculous actions, but allows us to see them symbolically through our 5 senses. For example, Moses raised his staff over the Red Sea and parted the waters, but who actually parted them, Moses, or God? God, of course. That is an excellent example of the sacramental principle.

CCC 1127 - Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son's Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power

So, in baptism, our eyes see water being poured over the person, and what we don't see is the grace of God washing away that persons sin: "the sacraments confer the grace that they signify". Thats what Baptism is.

 

[Imagican]

I see infant baptism as also confirming the parents responsibilities to raise the child to know God, to reaffirm their relationship as man and wife in the eyes of the Lord and publicly announce the family's beliefs.

Remember the story of the Roman Centurian who asks Jesus to heal his servant? The servant was healed based on the faith of the Centirian. The servant never even met Jesus. Thats a great example of how infant baptism is based on the faith of the parents and not neccessarily the baby.

Of course, I also believe sacraments work “ex opera operatoâ€Â, literally "from the work having been worked" and with the specific meaning "by the very fact of the action's being performed." It refers to the idea that the sacraments work from the mere fact of having been administered, rather than from the status of the minister of the Sacrament, that is, they actually confer grace when the sacramental sign is validly confected, not as the result of the holiness of the minister or the recipient, but by the power and promise of God.

By THIS reasoning, CC, WHAT happens to the little starving Ethyopian child that dies when he is two years old? Or, what if the infant dies BEFORE it's Baptism?

I don't WHAT the 'difference' is if they are BOTH unable to be HELD responsible.

While faith indeed is able to MOVE mountains, (spiritully and physically),we CANNOT simply WILL ourselves into heaven. That is NOT OUR choice but that of Our Father. For we HAVE the words offfered by His Son that STATE that NO one is able to come to HIM unless the Father WILLS it. Upon these words MANY that followed Christ at the time FOLLOWED HIM NO MORE. For in their hearts they KNEW that they were simply hearing WORDS that did NOT pertain to THEM. They were just there 'for the free ride'. But upon hearing these words, they REALIZED that they were NOT chosen.

Now, do you reacon it would have been ANY different if these had simply allowed themselves to BE Baptized for the purpoe OF the FREE ride? That THESE would have RECEIVED anything through an UN-righteous Baptism.

And guys, WHO is HE that is ABLE to 'righteously' Baptise. Does it HAVE to be a 'member of the CC'? Or an ORDAINED minister? Or could MY Baptism of another serve the EXACT same purpose? And IF I am ABLE to Baptise MYSELF, then IS IT possible to Baptise one 'against their will'? Could I simply hold a 'struggling sinner' under water, say some words and 'bingo', his sins are forgiven?

These questions, while they may indeed 'sound silly' to some, ARE pertinent questions who's answers DO shed light on the question at hand. For IF the answer to these quesitons bears out that I CANNOT Baptise another AGAINST their will, then it is OBVIOUS that there CAN be those that 'step up to the pool' that have NO 'true' intentions of living for Christ when they ASK to BE Baptized. In this case, are THEY 'saved ANYWAY'?

So, answer these questions FIRST before you decide to 'attack my statements'. For IF you simply choose to 'run around in circles' over my STATEMENTS, that OBVIOUSLY shows that you HAVE NO desire to ANSWER the questions that I have posed for these THEMSELVES, (the answers), will CLEARLY show that statements AGAINST what I offer are utterly invalid. Just word wrangling for 'what sake' I do NOT know, but most likely simply an adherance to BELIEF that is based on NOTHING other than what one 'has been TAUGHT' by MEN.

I don't have much faith in men. NONE actually. For we are to PLACE our faith in GOD, NOT men. And the ONLY way that ANYTHING that a MAN has to offer is to BE accepted is IF it is ABLE to be discerned through Word or Spirit. If it CONTRADICTS either, then it IS personal interpretation that has NO bearing on the TRUTH, (or maybe even WORSE. Perhaps designed with a specific purpose to leading others in the WRONG direction).

And CC, I am well aware that your 'religion' TEACHES that there is MUCH that can be done OUTSIDE of what is offered in scripture, (purgatory and the praying for those 'trapped there, confession, etc.), but a belief in something 'extra Biblical' is SHAKY at best when we have little or NO actual evidence to 'back it up'. I COULD teach that our Prayers are ABLE to 'save others'. And through the sincere hearts of those that I taught such would they 'begin to BELIEVE' for the sake of their loved ones. But we HAVE the story of Lazrus who BEGGED that one be sent to TESTIFY to his brothers and family. And the offering is pretty clear. That EACH has their CHANCE to 'come to the TRUTH' through Spirit. And that IF they 'so choose' to ignore, each is responsible for the outcome. NOT me, NOT you, but the INDIVIDUAL who CHOSE to ignore the 'tuggings' of their 'heart strings'.

There ARE 'things' that no matter HOW MUCH we pray for, will NOT be granted. For it is NOT 'our will be done' but "Thy Will Be Done". Our prayers towards OTHERS 'are' often answered, but the answer is NO. The answer CAN be a 'learning' to ACCEPT in OURSELVES rather than the manifestation of the 'thing' that we ask for. Patience, humility, acceptance of God's will. Oftentimes THESE are the ANSWERS to our prayers.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Remember the story of the Roman Centurian who asks Jesus to heal his servant? The servant was healed based on the faith of the Centirian. The servant never even met Jesus. Thats a great example of how infant baptism is based on the faith of the parents and not neccessarily the baby.

Of course, I also believe sacraments work “ex opera operatoâ€Â, literally "from the work having been worked" and with the specific meaning "by the very fact of the action's being performed." It refers to the idea that the sacraments work from the mere fact of having been administered, rather than from the status of the minister of the Sacrament, that is, they actually confer grace when the sacramental sign is validly confected, not as the result of the holiness of the minister or the recipient, but by the power and promise of God.

By THIS reasoning, CC, WHAT happens to the little starving Ethyopian child that dies when he is two years old? Or, what if the infant dies BEFORE it's Baptism?

I don't WHAT the 'difference' is if they are BOTH unable to be HELD responsible........

Apples ans Oranges. I was speaking about the faith of parents baptising their babies. What you are speaking of goes more to the mercy of God. I KNOW that you have seen this post of mine before:

...if a little 5-year-old Muslim boy dies in a village AND NEVER GOT TO HEAR ABOUT JESUS, this being no fault of his own, he too can be saved if he lived according to whatever light God showed him. (Of course, his salvation is still because of the sacrafice of Christ.)....

You are trying to fit every possibility into one neat box, and it doesnt work that way

 

[Vic C.]

Actually, not a bad post MEC. But I think CC answered you question:

if a little 5-year-old Muslim boy dies in a village AND NEVER GOT TO HEAR ABOUT JESUS, this being no fault of his own, he too can be saved if he lived according to whatever light God showed him. (Of course, his salvation is still because of the sacrifice of Christ.)....

CC, I believe that is the basis of Romans 2:14-16. 8-) With the emphesis in bold, of course. All the good one can do, though it does come from God means nothing without the Cross. It's not just who He was, but even more, WHAT He did. Jesus' baptism, death, resurrection and Faith are the key factors here. Cause and effect.


Added: The Biblical example for infants are "dedications", not baptisms.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...The Biblical example for infants are "dedications", not baptisms.

Well, the indications are clear that in the New Testament babies are baptised. We read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

Now, this may not be specific, but neither does the Bible "specifically" say not to baptise babies. And when we see that one aspect of Baptism is a sign of entrance into the covenant family of God, it makes sense to baptise babies, just as babies we entered into the previous covenant, using circumcision.

 

[Vic C.]

Not to pick a fight, but what were the ages of those in the families you mentioned?

Well now 8-) circumcision was nullified at the Jerusalem Counsel

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

but baptism wasn't discussed. Anyway...

Two questions:

What happens to those who were baptized as infants, but never entered into the Faith (agnostics, atheists, etc.)?

Do you think Jesus' baptism may be sufficient for those who died before they believed or died believing and were never baptized? (non baptized babies and the thief on the Cross come to mind)?

 

[Imagican]

JUST the opposite CC, For I have simply offered that it does NOT all fit into a 'nicely defined BOX' of ANYONE'S design.

There is MUCH that we are able to discern, but there is ALSO much that is OUTSIDE of the bounds of OUR understanding. I have contended OVER AND OVER on this thread that there may well be MAJOR significance in the act of Baptism. But I have also offered that this is OBVIOUSLY not ALWAYS the case.

In your own admission, the little 'godless boy' CAN be 'clear of sin' WITHOUT the NEED for 'infant Baptism'. Whether it MAKES a difference or NOT I cannot SAY for certain. But IF the TWO, the Baptized infant and the ONE that is NOT are BOTH able to RECEIVE the SAME condtions upon their death SIGNIFIES that the ONE that is Baptized has NO advantage over the one that is NOT. Perhaps in the minds and hearts of those that perform this ritual, but to the INFANTS, there is NO understanding and therefore LITTLE if ANY obvious benefit other than the SENSE of 'bringing them INTO the fold' that it offers to those that DO understand.

Now, CAN God DO as GOD sees FIT? Absolutely. If He SO chose to BRING about some MAJOR change in the life one that is Baptized, whether infant or adult, that IS of HIS doing. But from what we have been offered scriturally, Baptism ALONE doesn't even COME CLOSE to DOING what we have been COMMANDED that we MUST in order to receive the GIFT that has been offered. The SIN has been DIED for. The DEATH has been DONE. But simply being Baptized does NOT mean that one has COME to the possession of EITHER principle. Can it? Maybe. But DOES it. Hardly.

For we HAVE been told that we ARE to 'run the race as IF we MEAN to WIN it'. This in itself shows PLAINLY that simply HEARING the Word, (becoming Baptized), is NOT enough. We have been offered that there are MANY that SAY they are Christians that Christ DOESN"T even KNOW. And CAN there be ANY doubt that these in reference WERE Baptized?

So, the question still remains, (and I did NOTICE that you STILL refuse to ANSWER MY questions. Why is THAT CC. Why would simply choose to IGNORE the significance of MY questions but continually REFUTE what I have to offer in statement?

One simple one and it will suffice. DOES 'water Baptism' INSURE one the GIFT that has been offered? Or better yet, IS Baptism ALONE able to SAVE one in the offering of ETERNAL LIFE?

We have already 'talked around' the FACT that there are MANY variable in MUCH of what has been offered in scripture. But to make it short and sweet: ARE all that are Baptized in water SAVED? Simple question, is there a 'simple answer'?


And to ANSWER this IS to answer the question: Is Water Baptism ENOUGH?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[MarkT]

I'll offer this in closing. There will come a time upon judgement that MANY will come to Christ and offer these words: "Look at all the wonderous THINGS that we have done in YOUR name". And Christ's answer to THESE: 'Go away from me for I know NOT who thou are'. Now, Mark, is it NOT apparent that these would BE those that CLAIM to BE 'Christians? That these would HAVE BEEN Baptized? For WHO else would CLAIM to DO things in the NAME of Christ OTHER THAN those that proclaim to BE Christians? And what Christians in todays or tomorrows society WOULDN'T be Baptized?

I agree. Alot of people fall into the category of 'goat'; they're stubborn about what their church teaches, and they are unwilling even to admit that the Bible might say something different from what their church teaches. They say they believe in Jesus but they don't understand his teachings and they can not believe the Bible. Through Isaiah the LORD said the book would open their eyes. I think the prophecy was for this generation because this generation has the book. Again the LORD said, even the ones who can read will say they 'can not read' But God knows how to save his people, even from the doctrines of men. This is why I said he weighs the spirit.

But I think your point is that the church baptizes 'believers' with water. I think it goes without saying that those who don't believe can not be saved by water. They don't understand it and they don't believe it. In the Acts we had those who received the Spirit, and who came to the apostles to be baptized with water; that is, they believed what they heard and then they went to Jerusalem to be baptized. These men were born again by hearing the gospel. They drank the living water of the gospel. The gospel is the water that brings the soul to life. Now having drunk the living water, they were led by the Spirit to Jerusalem to be baptized with water.

So indeed they were baptized by the Holy Spirit, and then they went to Jerusalem to be baptized with water. Again they were believers. Believers believe in Jesus. The Spirit led them to be baptized with water. Why? Because it's what Jesus taught.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I'll offer this in closing. There will come a time upon judgement that MANY will come to Christ and offer these words: "Look at all the wonderous THINGS that we have done in YOUR name". And Christ's answer to THESE: 'Go away from me for I know NOT who thou are'.....

Hmmm. Odd. When you read the Bible, it is those who FAIL to do good works that are damned:

Matt 25 41-46: "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

[MarkT]

The question to the CC is, do they do it because they are led by the Spirit or because it is a sacrament of the church. I think the traditionalists do it because it is a sacrament and they love tradition. Nevertheless it is the will of God, and his will is done. Eventually his people do read the book, and they do gain a living understanding.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The question to the CC is, do they do it because they are led by the Spirit or because it is a sacrament of the church. I think the traditionalists do it because it is a sacrament and they love tradition. Nevertheless it is the will of God, and his will is done. Eventually his people do read the book, and they do gain a living understanding.

Well, we shall assume that we are speaking of people moved by grace. If God gives someone the grace, and they fail to do good, that is what I'm talking about. God will reward those who do good with his promise of eternal life

Paul tells us: "For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

In the second century, the technical Latin term for "merit" was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for "reward." Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.

Many misunderstand our teaching on merit, thinking that we believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: "[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

The Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict senseâ€â€mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condignâ€â€when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).

Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic positionâ€â€although, contrary to Paul’s command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology.