Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
A notoriously 'gay-friendly' parish in San Francisco has invited an openly homosexual Episcopalian cleric to lead an Advent Vespers service.
Most Holy Redeemer parish asked Bishop Otis Charles, a retired Episcopalian prelate, to lead the November 30 service. After serving as the Bishop of Utah from 1971 to 1993, he publicly announced that he is homosexual. Divorced from the mother of his 5 children, he solemnized a same-sex union in 2004.
And then it is packed full with untruths in its references to scripture...
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution
So it's Vatican II a little early...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth
Fortunately that absolves us since we know that your religion was not established by Christ...HaHaHa
" Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
Sorry, this was a fail...This doc says that if one willingly rejects your religion, there will be no salvation for that person...
'Great swelling words' in this document...There is no salvation in your religion...
Ask Jesus to save you and study His word with His guidance and this entire sham will be debunked for you...
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Learn of Jesus...
Of course they can...That doesn't make the Holy Spirit wrong...That means the person following didn't listen and read very well...
Another salient verse...They couldn't find the light they wanted in scripture so they invented Tradition for their light...
That was certainly a lot of keystrokes wasted as far as I’m concerned. All that talking about Luther and Calvin and all kinds of other extra Biblical information. Where did you get the impression that I care one wit about what they think? The fixation with Calvin and Luther surely doesn’t affect me but I would suggest that projecting any assumption doesn’t add to the discussion at all.
Enjoy: Passages Arminians Must Harmonize from Soteriology: Calvinism & Arminianism also posted on FR as A comparrision of Calvinism and Arminianism by CCWoody
If you're interested in other interpretations that yield major disagreements among sola scriptura adherents they're not that difficult to find.
LOL, i will ignore the attacks on the Church to concentrate on what you didn’t repsond to, namely the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Rather than i ignoring this, your response shows that you ignored where i did respond, or failed to consider the ramifications of regeneration being before baptism in Scripture.
Christians have believed baptism is for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit ever since Peter preached the first Pentecost.
The issue is what appropriates forgiveness and regeneration, and how people understand how this works is not determinative of Truth, but what Scriptures teaches is.
now, i understand a 16th century tradition of men is still followed to this day that says baptism is a “work”, it is done as a first act of obedience and it is an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already.
Forgiveness and regeneration preceding baptism is not a 16th century tradition but a 1st century reality as Scripture does show baptism occurring as an act after forgiveness and regeneration. But as regards works, what happens as a result of faith must be differentiated from what appropriates it, and thus even if the act of baptism itself effected justification and regeneration, it would still be a work, but not necessarily one that “merits” one the effect. And any work of faith is a work, even prayer, (Col. 4:12) which are recompensed, but such do not make one morally deserving of eternal life.
that all sounds good, except as hard i try, i can’t find Scripture to support it ( i am not alone, no one else believed this before the 16th century)
And car thieves cannot find police stations (just an analogy)
daniel, you seem to think you know the Bible pretty well, so i think you are just the man to help me out.
Glad to be of help if you are willing to objectively reason and search the Scriptures for where the truth leads, which you are discouraged from doing, In contrast is claiming that as hard as you try you could not find Scripture that supports baptism being the first act of obedience and an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already. Let me first post what was already given you in post #2297:
“...the requirements are repentance (Acts 2:38) and wholehearted personal faith, (Acts 8:36,37) and which baptism usually occurred on the same hour as they heard the gospel, (Acts 2:41; 8:12; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15; 18:8; 22:16) and could take place after regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; cf. 15:7-9)...
Peter and Paul...showed that it is the faith behind baptism and good works that appropriates justification, and thus Peter also preached forgiveness by faith, and affirmed regeneration as taking place before baptism (Acts 10:43-47; cf. 15:7-9: although the latter is normally part of the conversion event, and can be the actual occasion of coming to faith), and Paul converted many by faith in the gospel he refers to in Gal. 1:6-9, but personally baptized few, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17)
can you show where the Bible teaches the following:
|
1. that baptism is not for the remission of sins |
It is “for,” as in calling souls to make a faith decision for salvation, to confess the Lord Jesus (Rm. 10:9,10) in body language. See also below section. |
|
2. that baptism is not for receiving the Holy Spirit |
Besides the above, baptism is clearly shown (see below) to have preceded baptism. |
|
3. that baptism does not save us |
Peter preached the words whereby the lost Gentiles in Acts 10 may be saved, and the words he preached was forgiveness through faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, the judge of all. |
|
4. that baptism does not place one “into Christ” |
As shown, the if regeneration preceded baptism then those subjects were in the body of Christ before baptism. |
|
5. that baptism is done out of obedience |
It is even under your soteriology, but again the Holy Spirit provided a clear example of baptism being an act of obedience after forgiveness and regeneration by faith. |
|
6. that baptism is a “work” |
It is a commanded “work of faith” as is obedience to all God commands, (cf. 1Thes. 1:3) and God rewards such, but does making one morally worthy of regeneration, forgiveness or justification, as God justifies the unGodly by faith, but whose consequent works and Godliness justifies them as having faith. |
|
7. that baptism is an outward “sign” of the salvation that has occurred already. |
Again, washing and regeneration are clearly described as occurring prior to baptism (below). |
|
8. that baptism is called “water baptism” anywhere in the NT |
In the section below you will see (Acts 11:16) that a distinction is made between baptism by water, even if it is by John, and that of the Gentiles, which manifestly occurred before water baptism. Of course, if you rely on the polemical tactic of always requiring an explicit statement as proof when often in Scripture a truth is manifest without such due to the weight of conflating indirect evidence, then you must forsake trying to defend core truth by Scripture. |
|
9. that baptism is called “spirit baptism” anywhere in the NT |
As with the above, baptism with the Holy Ghost preceded baptism by water. And 1Cor. 12:13 states that “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,” which occurred in Acts 10 before baptism. |
|
10. that the NT teaches anywhere there are “two” baptisms for Christians and not one. |
You need to search more. "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. " (Hebrews 6:1-2) |
I will now expand on this below.
|
Regeneration and forgiveness preceding baptism The Holy Spirit provides for regeneration and forgiveness occurring before baptism through repentant faith. In a classic sermon, Peter preaches forgiveness by believing: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) The hearers did believe, and expressed faith, and then were baptized: "While Peter yet [“eti,” which also can mean more/further] spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." (Acts 10:44-48) That forgiveness and regeneration were by repentant faith preceding baptism is confirmed in Peter's explanations: “...Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying..."And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:4,13-17) "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:7-9) Note that what these hearers were promised and received was the very same thing (forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit) that was promised to the great multitude in Acts 2:38” “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration, and if it cannot be an act following this, as you contend, then we have a contradiction in Scripture. You may argue that this was an exception, yet it uniquely describes when and under what condition believing souls were regenerated. But what of Acts 2:28? This is used to teach that act of baptism ex opere operatos (by the act itself) conveys the grace of regeneration. However, rather than the command to be baptized “for” the forgiveness of sins having to mean that the act of baptism appropriates the effect, commanding convicted souls to be baptized is essentially a call to believe by calling them to do an act which requires faith, which baptism requires and express, and this it would be a “sinner's prayer” — a confession that Jesus is Lord (cf. Rm. 10:9,10) — in body language. We such in Matthew 9:5: "For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?," and telling souls to be baptized is essentially no different than telling them that , "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved," "for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," (Romans 10:9,10,13) [Also of note that is the Greek word (eis) translated “for” in Acts 2:38 is not the word normally translated “for” (gar) but is one which is often translated other ways (such as “at” or “concerning” and even “off” in Acts 2:39) and thus it can be argued (as some do) that this is be better understood as meaning be baptized as a concomitant testimony of having received such grace, rather than baptism being the efficient cause of regeneration.] For again, what Paul's gospel teaches is that faith justifies the unGodly, (Rm. 4:1-13) not by morally earning eternal life (and the exclusion of works is not restricted to the Law, which system came after Abraham, but extends to any system of morally earning eternal life), as what even relatively good men earn in strict justice is death, not life (Rm. 6:23) Yet the faith that is counted for righteousness is a Abrahamic kind of faith, which effects obedience toward its Object, as all true faith must, and thus believers are judged in the light of what faith manifests, that of characteristically being a doer of the law (Rm. 2:13) by fulfilling its righteous intent by yielding to the Spirit, (Rm. 8:4) because he is accepted in the Beloved. In this sense, that saving faith is justified as being such by what it effects, versus a faith without works, then it can be said that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone, (Jn. 2:24) that is, by a faith that is alone, which is the context of James comparison between an inert faith or one that is effectual. |
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: " (Romans 4:1-11) "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. " (Psalms 34:18) "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. " (Luke 18:13-14) |
|
Supplemental Both sides should agree that the drawing of God, (Jn. 12:32) the opening of the heart (Acts 16:14) and conviction (Jn. 16:9) precedes conversion, but do not merit justification, but that God grants repentance and faith. (Acts 11:18; Eph. 2:8,9) At issue here is 1. that justifying faith out of a poor and contrite heart is what appropriates justification (some also hold regeneration precedes faith), his God-given faith being counted for righteousness (imputed righteousness) and incorporating him into the general body of Christ. (1Cor. 12:13) but that this must be a kind of faith which effects obedience toward its Object, which is what Reformers required, and thus is expressed in baptism, so and washing, regeneration and justification thus precede baptism, the latter being the confession of the justifying faith in the heart. (Acts 10:43-46; 15:7:9; cf. Rm. 10:9,10) or whether 2. penitence must be performed before baptism, while baptism is the instrumental cause [of justification] and works “ex opere operatos,” by the act itself effecting washing, regeneration and justification, being made actually righteous (infused righteousness) by a change of heart, not being brought about by reason of the subjective activity (faith) of the recipient, but being caused by the validly operated sacramental sign, so that it is even effectual even for infants. And then more grace is channeled via other sacraments to further the work of conversion and forgiveness which was obtained through baptism, and that the good works of one that is justified truly merit eternal life. Yet Rome also allow for baptism by desire, by faith out of a perfectly contrite heart of faith (contritio caritate perfecta), , though this is debated among Catholics (as is was Paul meant by “not by works,” etc.) and on the issue of attrition (imperfect contrition) and perfect contrition (which justifies the sinner even without the Sacrament of Penance). Pre-Scholastic and early Scholastic authors treat of only one sorrow for sin in connection with sacramental or ecclesiastical penance, and that is contrition, contritio cordis, the sorrow that is perfect enough to wipe out the sins before God even prior to confession to a priest." (Two concepts of attrition and contrition, P. DE LETTER, S. J. St. Mary's College, Kurseong, India, http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/11/11.1/11.1.1.pdf) I have already commented on the soteriology behind this issue more than i would have liked to, but not more than it is worthy of, and will not say more here suffice to say that one did not need need to know much to be saved in the Book of Acts, but that there was a true God, and just almighty holy judge, and that man was guilty and under damnation for his sins, and destitute of hope of salvation except by repentant faith in the sinless Son sent by the Father, to save them by His shed blood, and which was expressed in baptism. All of which usually occurred in the same hours as they heard the gospel, though preparation did not. And that being washed, justified and sanctified, (1Cor. 6:11) made a new creature in Christ, (2Cor. 5:17) accepted in the Beloved, seated in heavenly places, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) they were exhorted to live our practically what they were positionally, as the faith that saves is not one that draws back into perdition but one that perseveres. (Heb. 10:39; Jn. 10:27,28) |
|
hehehehe chuckle....
The difference between free will and election is only one of order of salvation.. ...this is no MAJOR divergence .
LOL.... no answer huh?
I did not ask a question. I made a series of statements. If you wish to comment on them, please feel free.
John Oldenbarneveld would likely disagree, if he still had his head connected to his body.
only one of order of salvation.
That "order" being before being born versus after being born?
Kinda makes the distinction between infant and adult baptism seem very small in comparison.
I feel it safe to say that most would see different answers to the question: "Do humans have free will to believe or reject the gospel?" as major soteriological divergence.
Catholics do not get the difference between being 'protestant " and being saved ...
Nice try.
Your post sounds too legalistic to me.
still denying the plain meaning of Scripture? the Jehovah Witnesses would be proud of the way Acts 2:38 was changed.
Protestant soteriology is monergistic and it confuses Christ’s work on the cross with our co-operation with God’s grace.
The Greek text of the New Testament clearly shows that God works with us and isn’t just a puppetmaster.
learn the definition of “repent”, it is not the forgiveness of sins. unless one is “in Christ” and has been regenerated, repentance means nothing. a Muslim can “repent”, does that mean their sins are forgiven?
Fortunately that absolves us since we know that your religion was not established by Christ...HaHaHa
>>I’ll let you have that delusion. For one thing, your interpretation of the Bible would have just as novel to St. Paul.
Maybe you ought to write the Gospel According to the Iscool.
Your religion was founded by Jesus as much as the Gnostic religion was.
What’s wrong with damning willful heretics for eternity? Maybe you ought to invest in BBQ sauce. LOL.
I think Jesus was warning about people like yourself:
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
Matthew 7:15
That doesn’t make the Holy Spirit wrong...That means the person following didn’t listen and read very well...
>>Are you talking about yourself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.