Posted on 06/29/2012 4:31:04 PM PDT by NYer
Interesting point.
Baptism for the Jews was not a one time affair. It was an outgrowth of ritual washing.
“According to non-Essene Jewish law there are three basic areas where immersion in the mikveh is required.
Immersion is required for both men and women when converting to Judaism. There were three prerequisites for a proselyte coming into Judaism: Circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). Essene Law also included conversion immersion, but not circumcision or animal sacrifice.
Immersion is required after a woman has her monthly period (Lev. 15:28). Essene Law also included immersion for some forms of sexual pollution, but not all sexuallity was considered defiling.
Immersion is required for pots and eating utensils manufactured by a non-Jew (Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion p-263). Essene Law also included utensil immersion.
It is customary to be immersed in the mikveh before Yom Kippur as a sign of purity and repentance and before the Sabbath in order to sensitize oneself to the holiness of the day.”
http://www.essene.com/B%27nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm
“From all of the foregoing, we see that the use of water to symbolize cleansing and consecration is very much a Jewish concept, and a very ancient one at that. Because of this, when the Jewish prophet John (Yochanon ben Zechariah) came upon the scene, the Jews of his day saw nothing pagan or wrong in his demands that people repent of sin and be symbolically cleansed in the Jordan River. John’s title, “Baptist” (literally baptizer), comes from the Greek verb baptidzo, which carries the same meaning as the Hebrew root taval: to wash by dipping or plunging in water. John’s message, though not a popular one, was in keeping with what all the other Jewish prophets proclaimed. He preached God’s impending judgment, warning that Israel must repent and be spiritually renewed because the coming of the Messiah was at hand. The self-righteous may have disagreed about their personal need for repentance, but they had no quarrel with John’s method of symbolic cleansing. Otherwise, surely the religious leaders would have had him stoned as a false prophet.”
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/2_10/baptism
Some apparently believed in baptism daily, and some as preparation for studying God’s word.
John’s baptism was specifically for repentance and cleansing in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.
Acts 19: “1-2 While Apollos was in Corinth Paul journeyed through the upper parts of the country and arrived at Ephesus. There he discovered some disciples, and he asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” “No”, they replied, “we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 “Well then, how were you baptised?” asked Paul. “We were baptised with John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 “John’s baptism was a baptism to show a change of heart,” Paul explained, “but he always told the people that they must believe in the one who should come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5-7 When these men heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, and then, when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they began to speak with tongues and the inspiration of prophets. (There were about twelve of them in all.)”
From what I’ve read, the Jews of the day (and I suspect many of the gentiles as well) understood baptism to be a sign of conversion, showing that you are ‘dead’ to your previous life and committed to a new life under God. It was a response to belief. There is no indication in scripture that it was considered an event that caused the Holy Spirit to enter your life. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit sometimes occurred spontaneously and often visibly took place with the laying on of hands - but I can’t think of a time where it happened simultaneously with water baptism.
The idea that water baptism causes regeneration is utterly heathen. It is tied to magic, not faith. It came about when heathens insisted on having ‘priests’ to stand between them and God, and to do rites for them. It is antithetical to Christianity. There is nothing in scripture that supports the idea that you can cause a baby to convert and live for God by sprinkling water on him. And there are hundreds of verses indicating the opposite - that it requires faith, and faith is what we have when we believe the promise of God.
Also, notice this phrase in Acts 19: “John’s baptism was a baptism to show a change of heart,” Paul explained...
“With the baptism of repentance (baptisma metanoiav).
Cognate accusative with ebaptisen and the genitive metanoiav describing the baptism as marked by (case of species or genus), not as conveying, repentance...”
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=019&verse=004
In a sense, it states what should be excruciatingly obvious: that people came to be baptized BECAUSE they wanted to repent, and were not baptized unwillingly SO THAT they WOULD repent.
Too much Catholic theology is rooted in the error of Simon:
“18-19 When Simon saw how the Spirit was given through the apostles’ laying their hands upon people he offered them money with the words, “Give me this power too, so that if I were to put my hands on anyone he could receive the Holy Spirit.”
20-23 But Peter said to him, “To hell with you and your money! How dare you think you could buy the gift of God!... All you can do now is to repent of this wickedness of yours and pray earnestly to God that the evil intention of your heart may be forgiven.”
Rites are not wrong, but rites that substitute for faith are. From first to last, scripture makes it clear that God wants a repentant heart, and that the rites demonstrate it - if they are to have any value at all:
12 “When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
13 Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.
18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
It says to repent and be baptized A baby is incapable of repenting.
To claim it includes babies HAS to be assumed.
You’re really confused if you think that an altar call makes one born again.
That is not what being born again is.
Again,it’s another example of how Catholics cannot conceive of how others really think.
We see being born again as the work of the Holy Spirit in response to faith being exercised, not a matter of forcing God’s hand in response to some physical action we performed.
It’s a heart and spirit thing, not a works on our part thing.
As expressed, the rite of water baptism can be different than the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as well as the same event, as it is the repentant faith that baptism requires and expresses that is what precisely appropriates justification.
As seen in the table in this post, in Scripture we see the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit occurring at the time of believers baptism, (Acts 2:38) and before baptism, (Acts 10:43-47; 11:1-18; 15:7-9) and even after baptism. (Acts 8:12, 14-17, 19:4-6).
And also that "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:10) While Eph. 1:13 states "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed [or also believing], ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, " (Ephesians 1:13)
The essence of this is that it is faith that saves, but the kind of faith that is salvific is one that confesses the Lord Jesus, opportunity being presumed, and that baptism is the commanded ordinance that normatively is the initial outward confession of faith in and identification with the Lord Jesus, in "body language" if you will.
Note however, that baptism is not simply confessing Christ, but it as said, is also a basic symbolic identification with Him in death and resurrection, (Rm. 6) though the significance may be little realized at the time. But what is implicit in faith conversion is a basic turning from darkness to light, otherwise a souls would not have come to the Lord Jesus. (Jn. 2:19-21)
Yet, while it is clear that the “coming upon” and the baptism of the Holy Spirit under the New Testament cannot be an event that leaves the subjects without the Holy Spirit in them, the record of souls receiving the Holy Spirit after having believed and being baptized (Acts 8:12, 14-17, 19:4-6) perhaps suggests that in certain cases receiving the “gift of” or being “baptized with” the Holy Spirit can be a separate post-regeneration and justification event. As it seems the latter two cannot be separated, and believing is essentially established as the instrumental means of justification (though this can take place when it is expressed), to hold that such believing and baptized souls were not yet forgiven and justified would seem untenable, while it is also affirmed that souls who would repent, believe and be baptized would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that this also occurred before baptism, their hearts being purified by faith. (Acts 15:8,9)
It is also true that “he that seeketh findeth, and that God gives the gift of the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him, (Lk. 11:13) and in addition to the aforementioned post-baptism believers “receiving” the Holy Spirit, evangelical history testifies to converted born again souls receiving a “second blessing,” or “baptism with the Holy Spirit,” such as Dwight L. Moody's profound and fruitful experience. But which, as with the miracles of Moses, the devil (and the flesh) seeks to corrupt or imitate.
In addition, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, (Lk. 1:15) while the Holy Spirit came upon the Lord Jesus just after baptism (at about age 30), in the context being baptized with the Holy Ghost. (Mt. 3:11,16; Lk. 3:21-23)
Thus while it is clear that those such as trust the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His blood as damned and destitute but repentant sinners, will be saved if they believe with the kind of faith that effects obedience towards its Object, given opportunity and ability, yet the baptism with the Holy Spirit (as well as the terms) defies a tight little formula, in case anyone wants to too precisely confine how God can act. Instead it requires more of the heart than the head, as "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 gives the Holy Spirit, to them that seek Him, with refills. Thus we are to remain utterly dependent upon His mercy, grace and power, but how soon and often do i strive in my own strength, and fail of His grace.
As for what would happen if Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch found no water (besides "desert" not necessarily meaning like the Sahara, but a deserted part of the country, though it would not exclude travelers), this is why we have more than one conversion account, as we see that God is not restricted to earthly elements, but God gave the same gift of the Holy Spirit that He gave unto the apostles to souls before baptism “who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Acts 11:17) And what Peter rhetorically asks, what was I, that I could withstand God?,” also applies to us.
And as said, even Rome allows that such could be saved without water (baptism of desire, or by blood ,both of which has a history of support: http://www.the-pope.com/bapodesr.html), and which, as said, entails souls being baptized into the body of Christ by faith before water baptism. (1Cor. 12:13)
However, we have been dealing with a soul who demands that “one” be restricted to an absolute sense, and thus cannot allow the Scriptural revelation that souls were forgiven and born again before baptism, which conversion is invoked by Catholic scholarship in support of baptism of desire, which he is required to affirm (and which itself means souls were baptized into the body of Christ before baptism: 1Cor. 12:13), and that there is more than one baptism (cf. Heb. 6:2), which they understand as being analogous to water baptism.
In addition to other Catholic quotes in the aforementioned post affirming the regeneration of Cornelius and company, no less than a RC authority than Thomas Aquinas dealt with such a superficial understanding that “one” can only mean one in any way (emp. mine),
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. — Summa Theologica, Question 66 Art. 11;
In contradicting the Rigorist sect that holds that water baptism is absolutely necessary for regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, John A. S. A. Hardon, S.J., deceased Jesuit priest, writer, and theologian, whose definitions often appear on FR, states, quoting Bellarmine, one of the few “Doctors” of the Church,
“Cornelius had unquestionably received the forgiveness of his sins before Baptism, at least after he heard the faith from Blessed Peter and had a desire for Baptism. For, as it is said in Acts 10, he also had the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. But Augustine in the passages quoted is speaking of the time when Cornelius had not yet heard of Christ and did not even have a desire for Baptism. For, speaking of the later time, Augustine himself says (quest. 35 in Numbers): ‘Cornelius, hearing and believing what Peter preached, was so cleansed that even before visible Baptism he, together with those who were with him, received the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” — http://www.alcazar.net/bellarmine&salvation.html
Though i do not concur with all he says (and he and Rome think h20 baptism does more than the BOS, though that is salvific), yet as said, if one allows for baptism by desire, then he must allow for sola fide (as appropriating justification, though not by a faith that would not effect works of faith), even if only as an exception, as well as for more than one baptism, as regenerated souls are baptized into the one body by faith in the one Lord, which the one formal ordinance of (water) baptism identifies one with.
Sorry if this is too long, but theology takes and time, and objectivity and analysis, and which can be subject to refinement — as is its writer.
And a baby can't....
"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
Cathlics believe their deceptive hierarchy/man and do things accordingly and Christians do things God's Way - the ONLY WAY.
Catholicism - the territory of deception!
“We see being born again as the work of the Holy Spirit in response to faith being exercised, not a matter of forcing God’s hand in response to some physical action we performed.
It’s a heart and spirit thing, not a WORKS on our part thing.”
~ ~ ~
Call it what you want, it has a couple of different names for accepting Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal
Lord and Savior, one time. This is NOT the meaning of “Born Again.” Protestants came up with a new definition for Jesus’ term.
The first Christians professed “Born Again” means water
Baptism, a Sacrament. Jesus describes the effects of being baptized, you are “Born Again.”
metmom’s word in CAPS, Martin Luther’s “faith alone” comes into the rejection of the Truth, once again, messes up the Truth.
“We see being born again as the work of the Holy Spirit in response to faith being exercised, not a matter of forcing God’s hand in response to some physical action we performed.
It’s a heart and spirit thing, not a WORKS on our part thing.”
~ ~ ~
Call it what you want, it has a couple of different names for accepting Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal
Lord and Savior, one time. This is NOT the meaning of “Born Again.” Protestants came up with a new definition for Jesus’ term.
The first Christians professed “Born Again” means water
Baptism, a Sacrament. Jesus describes the effects of being baptized, you are “Born Again.”
metmom’s word in CAPS, Martin Luther’s “faith alone” comes into the rejection of the Truth, once again, messes up the Truth.
NOT THE church but the catholic church is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!
it would be helpful to some to take off the 16th century tradition of men glasses and actually read what the Scriptures say.
And, thankfully, to LUTHER, who was one used by God to fulfill 'the gates of hell shall not come against MY Church' - WE CAN READ what Scripture says and NOT the deception of traditions of the cathechism/catholic bible.
So God knew some 'church' posing as a church but is instead the gates of hell would come against HIS CHURCH already established BY HIM!!
God SEES ALL, KNOWS ALL - HIS WORD is the FINAL AUTHORITY!
NO glasses needed for HE/Holy Spirit DIRECTS our path. For we walk BY FAITH and NOT by sight. And HIS WORD is HOLY SPIRIT inspired.
maybe, just maybe, one will see what Christians have taught and believed for 2,000 years.
What CHRISTIANS have taught is GOD's WORD ALONE for that is the ONLY TRUTH.
Catholics, however...
"The man WITHOUT the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14
“It says to repent and be baptized A baby is incapable of repenting.
And a baby can’t....
“That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9”
~ ~ ~
Acts 2:38
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The above is what the first Bible states...”Do penance” not the KJV’s CHANGE of word to “Repent.” Most likely changed it to fit the heresy of “faith alone.”
Peter was speaking to adults about Our Lord’s teachings, there is penance involved in “repentance” for all of us as adults. Peter then states “AND be baptized”, the adult people he was speaking to hadn’t been baptized yet.
Peter’s next words are “everyone of you” this means everyone, entire families. That is/was the practice of the faithful.
How inconsistent (no offense, trying to get you to see) non-Catholic Christians are, their heresy of “faith alone”...doesn’t fit. ?? They come up with requirements, a “work”, you have to be a certain age and the “accepting Jesus as you personal Lord and Savior” to be baptized.
“Does the baptism of the Holy Spirit take place at the same time as water baptism?”
i think you will find the answer to this question in Acts 2:38.
the simple fact is 1 Peter 3:21 says “ baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you.....”
it says nothing about santification, it is for salvation.
notice the verse only mentions “baptism”, no mention of “spirit baptism” and no mention of “water baptism”
this is consistent with Paul saying there is “one baptism”
the problem happens if one starts with thinking there are two baptisms, oce you start down that wrong road, you will never arrive at truth.
the Scriptures are clear, salvation is only found “in Christ”.....the only way the Scriptures say one becomes “in Christ” is thru baptism, we are baptized into Christ.
we are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.
you can read all 27 books in the NT, and you will never find anyone told to say a “sinners prayer” for salvation, nor will you find anyone ever being told to ask Jesus Christ into their heart as their personal savior.
you will find people being told be baptized for the remission of their sins and you will find Paul being told to rise, be baptized and wash away his sins.
“different types of baptism “
different TYPES OF BAPTISMS??
Let’s see what the Holy Spirit has to say about “different types of baptisms”
Ephesians 4:4-7 There is one body, and One Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
even a simple mind like myself undestands:
ONE BAPTISM
ONE BAPTISM
ONE BAPTISM
as far as Cornelius goes, i showed from Scripture that prior to Acts 10:47, he and the other Gentiles WERE NOT BAPTIZED. The Scriptures DO NOT say the Holy Spirit baptized them, if He did, there would be no reason for Peter to command they be baptized. Why?? Because there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM.
the baptism of John, as well as all baptisms prior to Matthew 28 were all types of Christian baptism ( the antitype ) what is the difference? THE HOLY SPIRIT.
the Church was given AUTHORITY TO BAPTIZE by Jesus, and was given THE POWER TO BAPTIZE by the Holy Spirit.
once the Apostles received this Power in Acts 2, they went forth and changed the world.
Christian baptism, as opposed to prior types, was the REALITY. It is for:
1. remission of sins
2. receiving the Holy Spirit
3. placing one into Christ
the problem the Baptist has, is they can’t explain why Jesus commanded baptism. to the Baptist, it is an empty, useless ceremony, another “type”. the other problem the Baptist has is they must ignore too many Scriptures which teach baptismal regeneration and they must ignore 2,000 years of historical, orthodox Christian belief that the UNIVERSAL CHURCH received from the Apostles.
so the Baptist is forced to accuse the Church of teaching “heathen doctrines” THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE.
1,500 YEARS OF HEATHEN DOCTRINE BEFORE THE BAPTISTS COME ALONG IN THE 16TH CENTURY!
when Paul received his sight in Acts 22, was that “magic” or the power of the Holy Spirit working thru Ananius?
when Paul was told to rise, be baptized washing away his sins calling on his name, was this “magic” or was this the power of the Holy Spirit working thru Ananius?
it should be no suprise at all that the devil would attack the Church by attacking baptismal regeneration.
” and thankfully, to LUTHER......”
you do realize that Luther believed in baptismal regeneration?
apparently Catholics don’t have the Holy Spirit, yet i would wager that you have the 27 book Catholic NT in your Bible, correct?
“the simple fact is 1 Peter 3:21 says “ baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you.....”
it says nothing about santification, it is for salvation.”
First, assume there is a flood. Do the flood waters save your life? Or do they threaten your life? If a flood is headed your way, do you say, “Goody, lots of water...it will save my life?”
I think not. The flood waters are the THREAT to your life.
It was Noah’s faith in building the Ark that saved his life.
So in what sense does the water save?
It saved Noah from the wicked world. It separated him from the evil men around him.
Now, what does Peter say in Acts 2?
“And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” - verse 40
Salvation can refer to justification (saving from sin) or sanctification (becoming separate from the evil world - a theme of Peter’s).
“18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
If water baptism corresponds to the flood, then the value of baptism lies in sanctification - being made separate from the evil world: “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
I know of no case where the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs with water baptism. Do you? One case?
I’m sorry heathens filled the church and wanted magic instead of grace. I’m sorry they wanted babies baptized as a magical rite giving life, instead of baptism in response to believing faith.
And I’m sorry that some still want to neglect the Word of God and cling to the traditions of men.
“...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
“...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
~ ~ ~
Your misinterpretation and the same mistake non-Catholic
Christians make in interpreting John 3:16. This is why “Private Judgment” is heresy. You have no authority to interpret Scripture.
Salvation, doesn’t come from only professing your belief in the person of Jesus Christ. You are saved by belief and obedience to Our Lord.
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that DOTH the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
God gave the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church, not
every person reading the Bible. A beginning, read
the English translation of the first Bible. The footnotes
will help you.
“You have no authority to interpret Scripture.”
I have no choice but to do so. Without interpretation, scripture is meaningless.
And it frankly is not that hard. Yes, real belief is invariably followed by a changed life. That is because of the indwelling Holy Spirit. But we are justified by faith - by believing the promise of God.
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
For God So Loved the World
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
It is the great shame of the Catholic Church that it spent centuries trying to hide scripture, and now insists on twisting the obvious to suit its magical rites performed by unscriptural ‘priests’.
“God gave the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church, not
every person reading the Bible.”
“11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
“16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. “
Especially good point! Thank you. Just like with baptism there are some who will also insist that partaking of the Lord's Supper/Eucharist is also necessary for salvation. Rather than see how these ordinances have been given to us as tangible object lessons for enhancing our faith, they have become the actual mode of transferring saving grace. I think there were people who pondered the sayings of Jesus, for example, when he said in John 6:53-54
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
They got stuck on Jesus saying they had to "eat" and "drink" him, and totally missing what he had said previously in verses 35-40:
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
They, like I said, get stuck on how anyone is supposed to physically eat and drink Jesus and miss that he just got done telling them that they must "come to" him, "believe in" him and "look to" him in order to be saved. The eating and drinking part is symbolic of faith just as water baptism is symbolic of receiving Christ and making a decision to follow him. When Jesus administered the Last Supper with his disciples and again used the bread to symbolize his body, which would be torn for them, and the cup, symbolizing his blood that would be shed for the remission of sins, they were a reminder and an ordinance of remembrance for us all to keep these truths of our faith always in the forefront of our minds - we ARE a forgetful lot. Those that were still stuck on the literal eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh and blood changed the service of remembrance and unity into a ritual whereby grace was appropriated by the communicant. And since the eternal security of the believer was dismissed as a "heresy", this along with other church observances became essential to remaining in a "state of grace". They saw the physical eating of the bread itself and the drinking of the wine itself as THE way of "receiving" Christ and it became the essential point of every gathering of the assembly - that the "sacrament" is itself a propitiatory sacrifice and all MUST partake of these elements in order to have "propitiation" for the sins they committed since the last time they received the sacrament and after formal confession has been made. By that same reasoning, the rite of water baptism also was seen as the mechanism of appropriating the forgiveness of sins instead of being symbolic of saving faith.
In the New Testament, we learn that eternal life is God's gift by His grace and we receive it through faith. This is a clearly expressed and essential tenet of the Christian faith that can be proved through hundreds of Scripture passages, but this pure Gospel of grace has been perverted and along with it, the ordinances that were once physical representations of spiritual realities, have also been perverted into the ordinances themselves being the vehicles for grace rather than the faith behind them. We should NOT be so easily fooled by the enemy of our faith whose sole purpose is to draw away souls from the Gospel into a false gospel that cannot save. And like you quoted from Isaiah, God desires the heart to be right before he will accept sacrifices.
The word in the original GREEK is μετανοέω (metanoeÅ), and is the word used by Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul. The word means "Repentance (metanoia, 'change of mind') involves a turning with contrition from sin to God; the repentant sinner is in the proper condition to accept the divine forgiveness." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 97.)" I'd like to know what you mean by "do penance". In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word translated "turn" is shuwb is also the word that gets translated as "do penance" in the Douay-Rheims. It's interesting that the DR translates the SAME Hebrew word two ways in the Old Testament, where the KJV is consistent and translates it as "repent". In the New Testament, the Greek word is metanoia and IS the word used in Acts 2:38, when Peter tells the people to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ..." which means "to change one's mind" and is used 36 times in the NT. Jesus, for example uses the word in Matt. 4:17 saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.". I'd like to know how you interpret the word "repent" and what is the difference between that and "do penance".
As for "faith alone" not fitting or being inconsistent, I don't see how believing in Jesus Christ as Savior, having faith in Him, is somehow a "work" but doing penance and having to be water baptized by a priest saying the correct formula in order to be saved is not a work. Not to mention, we all know good and well that Roman Catholicism does NOT teach "being saved" is an assurance anyone can have and that no one can know for sure until they die and face judgment weighing their good works against their sins. The only "requirement" we are told in order to be saved is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." (Acts 16:31) We also know that genuine faith DOES result in a changed life and good works become a natural outgrowth of the new spirit nature that indwells the believer. Faith is what saves us and good works are the evidence of faith, not the requirement for salvation.
I was having breakfast with a Catholic priest and my sister and brother in law. We got on the subject of "favorite Bible verses". I said mine was Ephesians 2:8&9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.". The priest looked at me and said, "Hmmm...that sounds Protestant to me." In the Catholic Douay-Rheims, it is translated as, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory.". I was shocked that he seemed unfamiliar with the verse.
I think this is likely why the Roman Catholic Church denied the "laity" to read the Bible for so many centuries and why even some priests were not all that familiar with it either. When I read John 10:27-30 for the first time and saw Jesus' own words saying that he GIVES TO ME ETERNAL LIFE AND I SHALL NEVER PERISH, it was enough to know right then and there that I was in the wrong church. God most certainly DOES expect us to study His word and he gives us His Spirit to lead us into all truth.
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.