Posted on 01/03/2012 3:30:48 PM PST by Gamecock
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned -- Christ says repent, believe and be baptised -- Christ was baptised through water and spirit -- isn't that good enough?
Just as the Eucharist of bread and wine is the continuation of Melchizedek offering bread and wine, so too we see the parallels between the Old and New Covenants.
The Spirit who had hovered over the waters of the first creation descended then on the Christ as a prelude of the new creation, and the Father revealed Jesus as his "beloved Son." Mt 3:16-17 16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Water and spirit are symbolized in John 19:34 34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. -- each word has a context. This is linked to 1 John 5: 6-8 6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
...7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Christ Himself tells us that Repentence (Luk 13:3), belief (faith), baptism (Mk 16:16), eating of his flesh and drinking His blood (Jn 6:54) and enduring to the end (Matt 24:13) is needed --> do read scripture
To restrict it to ONLY repentance and faith without baptism or eucharist or endurance to the end negates Christ's words -- why do that?
Scripture is inerrant but individual interpretors are not...
Count me among the ignorant. I am not aware of any original Greek Testaments in existence. Please enlighten me.
I’m sorry, but YOUR words negate the Gospel as outlined in Scripture (see, for example, Hebrews 10:10-14, 9:22, 13:12; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 4:2-5; Romans 9:30; Ephesians 2:13, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:8-9;Galatians 2:16 - just for starters.) It makes QUITE clear over and over throughout Scripture that saving faith is what is needed - PERIOD. Christ’s baptism with water was to show humanity that He was God’s son, and also to show submission to God the Father. It was NOT because HE needed to be “saved” Himself (which would be the implication of what you are saying.) The Scriptures above make it plain that Christ’s blood (on the cross, not in a cup!) is what saves through repentance and faith. The thief on the cross was saved. Ditto for Abraham whose “faith was counted as righteousness.” There is no indication that OT patriarchs who were surely Godly men were not “saved” — but no evidence they partook in the symbolic acts of which you speak. I have heard Catholics try to explain this by saying they were under “special grace” or some such, but there is no Scriptural evidence for that either. If one continues to make exception after exception, the OT is full of them and where does it end? Either one believes the Gospel as explained throughout Scripture or one adds to it based on a few verses taken out of context. I choose the former. It’s not my interpretation, but what Scripture says.
You are welcome to reply, but I’ve been down this road a lot with Catholics here and frankly it’s never profitable because we do not agree on the complete authority of Scripture. Where one does not rely on the same TRUTH, there can be no agreement. I thank the Lord His sacrifice was sufficient and He doesn’t need my help to save me! Thank God I do not worship a puny feeble Savior.
were treating it as a drunken orgy where many went away hungry
errr... where do you get that?
1 Corinthians 11:17-22
Adding to the Gospel = Changing the Gospel = Preaching another Gospel. I see no difference, sorry.
Christ has indeed made the Gospel plain - as have others throughout Scripture. Why, then, do Catholics insist that it is Christ + works which save? It is NOT, as Scripture elucidates time after time. I do wonder, then, why change Christ’s words? Why indeed?!
Reading Skills indeed. You might want to re-read posts #16, 21, 24, 29, 44. It is QUITE CLEAR that ONLY Protestants were included in the slander. (Nice sleight of hand to try to say I was claiming ALL Protestants were attacked here, but that’s not what I said.) Please follow your own advice and practice the reading skills you are advising me to practice!!
I saw WAY more despicable insults hurled at both the author of the piece and other Protestants than at Catholics on the thread. If this is your idea of sweetness and light, well...enough said, I think.
The demons shudder because they KNOW - not because they have saving faith/”faith unto salvation” (which is more than an intellectual exercise and many here have repeatedly attempted to get some to understand here.)
Basic Bible lesson indeed!
Also post #217. But, hey, who’s counting? It’s all “sweetness and light” - right??/s
“You might want to re-read posts #16, 21, 24, 29, 44. It is QUITE CLEAR that ONLY Protestants were included in the slander.”
16. No slander or insult there.
21. He clearly speaks of Catholics who lack the intellectual capabilities to ever become a Catholic priest.
24. There is absolutely not one iota of slander against anyone in that note. The poster wrote, “Calvinism selectively cherrypicks verses to fit its theory while ignoring those that object to it.” I can’t believe that you really think you could find a jury of objective individuals of any faith to call that slander.
29. No slander there either. Not by the wildest stretch of imagination.
44. No slander or insult there either.
“Nice sleight of hand to try to say I was claiming ALL Protestants were attacked here, but that’s not what I said.”
Well, golly, it never occurred to me to think that any remark about any protestant at all was strictly forbidden. I assumed that you were being far more reasonable than that.
“I saw WAY more despicable insults hurled at both the author of the piece and other Protestants than at Catholics on the thread.”
Then you are biased beyond any hope of rationality. Good bye. I regret ever having posted to you, and won’t make that mistake again, memory permitting.
This is a basic Bible lesson -- to read the Bible in context and in entirety
Christ alone saves you -- Paul says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". What this is, is clear -- Christ said "repent, believe, be baptised, eat of His flesh and blood and endure to the end"
Oh,really?
My grandparents are Lutheran and they have plenty of brains.
Or is being a Lutheran a bad thing?
You couldn’t answer my question,could you? Hmm? Do you have a good answer to it,since you are so smart?
There aren’t any stupid Catholics,right? It’s just the Protestants who are dumb?
My grandfather is Lutheran and he is a very intelligent man.
He worked as an engineer at Corning Class and at General Electric. I have a technical math book that used to belong to him. The math would blow your mind.
Oh,that’s right. as a Catholic you are SO much smarter.....
My great-grandfather was a Lutheran minister and he was not dumb or intellectually deficient. His books are now at Northwestern University.
I’m glad not all Catholics think like you.
My great-grandfather was a Lutheran minister and he was not dumb or intellectually deficient.
I’m glad not all Catholics think like you.
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.