Your view on Catholics

HP: I know what she said in one post lent itself to misunderstanding, but in another I felt she had it straight, so I for one would try to encourage her to lay fast to her remarks closer to what I see as the truth rather than to lamblast her or try to associate what she said in the one post to some ‘heretical’ viewpoint. :thumbsup:

 

HP: Aside from any 'possible' misunderstandings on her part concerning the teachings of Catholicism, what is really so wrong here with what she says? I personally believe the confession in Christ comes subsequent to repentance, but even then who am I to say in ones heart there was no real separation in time to their knowledge? In my personal case I certainly had to do some serious repenting before any confession of Christ, and I might even preach it as such, but is not the proof in the lifestyle subsequent to salvation as to whether or not genuine repentance took place?

If one repents and confesses that Jesus is Lord, believing in their heart He died for their sins and rose again for their resurrection, are they not candidates for baptism at that time? I would certainly believe so.

What was so wrong with that statement of hers?

 

The thief on the cross was never baptized...was he with Christ in paradise that day if baptism is necessary for salvation?

 

Yes, I will define 'Grace' for you. It is, as others on this board have said, and as I was taught as a Baptist, Anglican and now a Catholic as follows:

My Catholic definition as well as my non-Catholic definition:

Grace: un-merited favor. We can not earn God's grace, it is is a gift freely given. 'Grace is considered the fruit of redemption—the reason Jesus Christ became a man, why he suffered and died on a Roman cross.' It is only through the redemption brought by Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection that anyone is saved.

Some churches describe grace as 'God's reward at Christs expense'

 

Webdog: Many of the early church martyrs never had opportunity to be 'water baptized either. Not many bathubs or even much water at all in many of the jails they were house in. The Early Christian Church wrote about their martyrdom's as a 'baptism in blood'. What do you think?

 

Was the thief on the cross a martyr?

 

Good.
If that be true then why does the RCC teach that grace is merited.
It is merited through baptism.
It is merited through confirmation.
It is merited through each and every one of the sacraments.

For example, baptism is a means of grace. If it is a means of grace, then grace is worked for, for baptism is a work.

 

The Catholic view of grace:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#1997

This is not a Scriptural view of grace.

 

I personally think it extremely presumptive on the part of any person to know the heart of another and to think they can judge what is the preserve of Our Lord.:godisgood:

 

The thief recognised the Divinity of Jesus and in his humility was thus saved.

And Jesus said to him :Amen I say to thee,this day thou shalt be
with me in paradise. St. Luke. 23:43

 

How does that work when lori stated baptism is necessary for salvation?

 

I think they made up this thing called "baptism of desire" to cover those questions.


Baptism of desire (Latin Baptismus Flaminis) is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian ritual, because of death, nevertheless bring about the fruits of Baptism, if their grace of conversion included an internal act of perfect love and contrition which automatically cleanses the soul of all sin. Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church observes, "For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament" (CCC 1259).
http://www.search.com/reference/Baptism_of_desire




"The thief would have gotten baptized if he could" so that covers him. I've also heard some say that he COULD have gotten baptized earlier because John the Baptist was baptizing people and this thief could have gotten baptized by him.:laugh:


It kinda goes along with Mary's other children actually being Joseph's from a previous marriage.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I need to ask a question, and in this case I am not worried about hijacking a thread that was hijacked lonnnnnng ago. The question is-------

Shouldn't DHK be labeled an "attack moderator?

 

First, how many infants do you know of that have the ability to repent?
Second, how many infants do you know of that have the ability to confess that Jesus is Lord?
Third, how many infants do you know that are able to believe in their heart that He died for their sins and rose again...?

Are they then candidates for baptism? The answer is obvious.

Besides that why did you so craftily leave off the rest of her definition?

There is more heresy in this one statement than one can shake a stick at.
Baptism is not the new birth, and anyone that thinks so is badly deceived. See my previous post for an explanation of the New Birth. Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. His desire was to have eternal life. Jesus told him he needed to be born again, without which no man could enter the kingdom of God. Can an infant be born again? Can an infant do all of the above which I have just posted. The answer is obvious. The Bible does not teach baptismal regeneration. That is one of the first heresies that crept into the early churches.

 

This thread is about Catholicism. It is a place where I can debate also. I don't allow heresy to go undefended. Shame on you if you think it should be published and freely advertised on this board.

 

Grace is free unmerited favor.
The Lord says that he gives the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust.
He gives the sun to shine upon the just and the unjust alike.
We don't deserve the sun or the rain, but only the wrath of God. But God in his mercy and grace gives us what we don't deserve. That is grace. Both the saved and the unsaved receive the grace of God.

The grace of God in salvation is available to all. Christ died for all. But the effects of that grace can only be appropriated by faith. If someone does something for me, even though I don't deserve it, and I refuse to take advantage of what he has done, then I am a fool. All those who refuse to take advantage of the grace of God provided through the atoning work of Christ are fools and eternally damned. His sacrifice must be appropriated by faith and faith alone. There is no work that can ever appropriate the grace of God.
God's grace does not come through baptism. Baptism is a work. It does nothing special for you. It does not save you. It does not make you any holier. It only makes you wet. It is done by a believer after salvation in obedience to the command of Christ. That is all.

Grace cannot come through works like baptism. That changes the meaning of grace.

Again understand the meaning of grace through Scripture.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--It is either grace or works. It cannot be both. The RCC has chosen works. Salvation is through grace, not of works.

 

How many adults have the ability to repent unless the Holy Spirit first regenerate them?

How many of you good baptists take credit for being smart enough and humble enough to get yourselves saved BEFORE the Holy Spirit regenerated you? Speak up. Give us your testimony

 

That is not up for discussion here Biwald. Take your brand of Calvinism to the Baptist theology forum.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
If one repents and confesses that Jesus is Lord, believing in their heart He died for their sins and rose again for their resurrection, are they not candidates for baptism at that time? I would certainly believe so.

What was so wrong with that statement of hers?

HP: I agree with you concerning infants, but I did not see Lori addressing infant baptism in her post that I was commenting on. What I recall Lori speaking about was repenting including showing a contrite attitude towards past sins, and confession of a new life in Christ that all appeared to me prior to any water being poured over sins that are past. Again, if one repents and exercises faith in Christ, making a clear confession of faith, what would hinder one from being baptized? Do you really think she believes infants an repent and place their trust in Christ, making a clear confession of their faith? Again, I did not see her addressing that issue.

Quote:
Lori:We also thank God for sending His Holy Spirit upon this person as he/she has professed his/her new life in Christ and is born again by water and and Holy Spirit.


HP: I did nothing crafty, I was just giving her the benefit of the doubt due to her other statements mentioned above. I even said that I understood how the statement she made that you quote here could be possible understood or misunderstood, but again I was trying to give her benefit of the doubt. If by some chance she is mixed up into believing in baptismal generation, I would hope that others might be able to share with her the error of such a belief without first trying to label her as a heretic.


There is absolutely no reason whatsoever on this list to incense others in an open discussion by comments of heretics or them being called heretics, etc. If one desires to do that, do so in private or in the pulpit of a Church they are in charge of. Such personal attacks do absolutely nothing on this discussion board to gender goodwill, Christian charity, or enhance ones chances to inject truth into another’s thinking.

I agree completely with you that baptismal regeneration is not found in God’s Word, and as such should have no place in our practice or theology. Still, there is nothing forbidding God to save one during a baptismal service in spite of the false theology of baptismal regeneration, is there? God works wherever there is a willing heart and mind, not simply where sound theology is preached and practiced.

 

HP: DHK, why in the world would you make such a comment? Why cannot we discuss openly Bill Wald’s position just as we do the ideas of everyone else??? I would think that if you feel Bill Wald is in error, that this would be the absolute proper place for him to freely speak his mind as long as it is done in a courteous manner.