Do sacraments save?

[concretecamper]

no the books we have are infallible, what I'm saying is there may have been more inspired texts that didn't make the cut in the Old Testament because they just took the list of what the Jews considered Inspired and used that. The Jews may have missed things.

Because they were left out, over time I think that those books may have had error come into them.

IE say that the book of Enoch that existed at the time of Christ, which Jesus and the apostles referenced (and Jude directly quoted) was Inspired, it contains a lot of new testament language and doctrine, and a ton of references to "the Elect One" referring to Messiah, referring to Jesus, and treating Him as God. Because of the doctrines of the Messiah actually being explicitly divine, the Jewish councils who decided which books were part of their old testament bible excluded the book of Enoch because obviously they don't believe that Messiah will be divine. The Catholic Church just took what the Jews considered to be Inspired for the Old Testament, and then selected texts from the apostolic age writings to be considered the New Testament, as a result a book from the Old Testament era that contains a lot of new testament doctrine and a lot about Jesus doesn't make the cut. It's not faithfully preserved, so what copies exist deteriorate and when it is copied it's not copied as scripture so error starts finding its way in.

So over 1000 years later, the book we can find for Enoch, is now corrupted by over 1000 years of error.

Does that make sense? That because it wasn't selected to be in the bible it wasn't preserved properly and now something called by that name is loaded with error?

Not sure if you intentionally ignoring the New Testament or not, so I'll ask you directly.

Do you accept the infallible decision of fallible men that the 27 books of the NT are infallible?

 

[concretecamper]

I don't know, TBQH. If there would not have been a cannon, then we would still have the writings of the Apostles today. Whether we classify things in strict terms known as the "canon" (which is different depending on what tradition of Christianity you are) doesn't matter a whole lot all things considered. I will say that now that we have the canon, that it is authoritative. But we would probably just have more authoritative books without the council.

So having a canon 8snt really important, but as long as we have one, it's ok?

How about you? Do you accept the infallible decision of fallible men with regards to what books are inspired and are in the New Testament?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

This is a bit of an aside, but while I am not completely against the language of being a child of Christ, I feel that this language can be confusing because it is unusual rather than standard. When it comes to regeneration we have become children of the Father and siblings to Jesus Christ by grace. Remembering that Jesus is the only-begotten of the Father; the Father only has one monogenes, and that's Jesus, who alone is begotten of the Father, being God of God, the Eternal Son of the Father. We, by grace, are God's children, thus we have sonship with Christ by grace because we are in Christ and Christ is in us by the Spirit.

In the sense that we could be said to be children of Christ it is in a different sense, for obviously Jesus is not the Father, He is the Son of the Father. And so Christ our God and Lord is not our Father. And that is important to maintain for the sake of proper triadology--a proper understanding of the Holy Trinity.

And so to say that Christ lives in our hearts and we are therefore His child is not language I want to outright reject, but think needs a much more robust clarification; because Christ in us and we in Christ makes His Father our Father. And we are children of the Father. So it can be triadologically confusing; but insofar as Christ is our King, our Lord, our Shepherd, he is symbolically paternal toward us, in the same way that He says He, symbolically, is like a mother hen who wishes to protect Jerusalem under the wing.

-CryptoLutheran

I didn't mean to imply we are Jesus' children. It is obvious we are God the Father's children, since He is the one who gave birth to us by Him, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit coming to live in our hearts. Is that all you were objecting to, or was there something mor substantive in your comments?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Jesus is infallible, and so are his teachings passed down through the Apostles and popes. Inside and outside of the Church on earth the wheat will not be separated from the tare until Judgment Day. But we have God's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

This is not a Catholic Church bashing thread, but on the other hand its is not a Catholic Church Supremacy thread either.

 

[All Becomes New]

So having a canon 8snt really important, but as long as we have one, it's ok?

Yup.

How about you? Do you accept the infallible decision of fallible men with regards to what books are inspired and are in the New Testament?

You are basically asking the same exact question and expecting a different result.

To answer you bluntly, I do not think it was an infallible decision, no. If it was, then all our Bibles would be the exact same.

 

[concretecamper]

To answer you bluntly, I do not think it was an infallible decision, no. If it was, then all our Bibles would be the exact same

So when you quote the Bible, or follow what the Bible teaches, you are not sure what you are quoting or following is correct?

 

[All Becomes New]

So when you quote the Bible, or follow what the Bible teaches, you are not sure what you are quoting or following is correct?

The words of the Apostles are God's words to us. They are inspired by the Holy Spirit. But you don't necessarily NEED a council for that. There is still some debate about what books are authoritative and which are not. Authoritative ≠inspired by the Holy Spirit. But we have a pretty good layout that what is written in the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Let me put it this way: Not everyone believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But it does not matter because even with the most skeptical Bible you can come up with (by scholars) you can still get the deity, death, and resurrection of Christ, which matches up with what is necessary to be saved as per Romans 10:9.

You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but are you considering what I am saying at all? I feel like I am playing whack-o-mole.

 

[concretecamper]

You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but are you considering what I am saying at all? I feel like I am playing whack-o-mole.

I'm just trying to get you to be consistent. You say the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then you say you are not sure, and then you say it doesn't matter.

If it seems if you are playing whack a mole, it's because you are saying conflicting things without any consistency.

I'm done, you can have the last word.

 

[All Becomes New]

I'm just trying to get you to be consistent. You say the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then you say you are not sure, and then you say it doesn't matter.

If it seems if you are playing whack a mole, it's because you are saying conflicting things without any consistency.

I'm done, you can have the last word.

Right. I guess my point (which is pretty dang consistent, BTW) is that I do not need to rely on the Catholic Church for what I believe. Moreover, I have not conceded the point that there is an invisible (though with no certain "revelation") infallible rule of the church. The Church can err and does err.

 

[Jamdoc]

Too funny, change the subject

the subject is whether the sacraments are salvific. I gave that Paul said only faith was required, and gave the example of the thief, we went on a tangent regarding the thief but the subject was always whether sacraments were required. I gave 2 options. I don't need the thief because Paul already clarifies it's by faith and in 2 examples at least, has faith alone. Because you steered the subject back to Paul regarding the new covenant, I went back to Paul regarding sola fide.

In both cases, salvation is not by sacraments, but by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Jamdoc]

Not sure if you intentionally ignoring the New Testament or not, so I'll ask you directly.

Do you accept the infallible decision of fallible men that the 27 books of the NT are infallible?

I said all 66 books of the bible old and new are infallible.

what I'm saying that was fallible, is that they accepted the Jewish list of books for the old testament, and the Jews may have missed old testament books that maybe we should have as well.

I trust the selection of New Testament books. What I think we might be missing is some of the old testament perhaps.

 

[concretecamper]

I trust the selection of New Testament books.

Are they infallible text? If so, why do you believe it?

 

[Valletta]

the subject is whether the sacraments are salvific. I gave that Paul said only faith was required, and gave the example of the thief, we went on a tangent regarding the thief but the subject was always whether sacraments were required. I gave 2 options. I don't need the thief because Paul already clarifies it's by faith and in 2 examples at least, has faith alone. Because you steered the subject back to Paul regarding the new covenant, I went back to Paul regarding sola fide.

In both cases, salvation is not by sacraments, but by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible is very clear:
1 Pet 3:20-21 God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.

 

[Jamdoc]

The Bible is very clear:
1 Pet 3:20-21 God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.

yeah, Peter was giving an illustration, a figure.

and the bible is also very clear

Acts 16

27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

That is the only thing attached to salvation, belief. Not belief and then do all these other things and then you'll be saved, but believe and you'll be saved.

Now to be fair..

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

The first thing he did after believing and being saved, was get baptized.

It's the order of operations, but it has a profound difference in what saves, is it the baptism, or believing on Christ.
I'd say it's the belief in Jesus Christ as God and Savior.
You'd say it's the physical act of baptism, which I say physical act and not a combination of belief + baptism, because you believe that sprinkling water on infants that can't believe counts for salvation.
Perhaps if the RCC did believer's baptism instead of just sprinkling water on infants, we'd at least be able to agree that most people baptized in a Catholic church are saved. But because belief isn't even required to get baptized.. just getting wet.. well, yeah, that "sacrament" does not save.

Point blank. Sprinkling water on an infant does nothing but get them wet. It doesn't even count as a baptism because
Acts 8

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Yes, something can hinder you from being baptized, something can make it not count and be totally useless, something can make it just getting wet and have 0 significance.

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Faith is required for it to even be called a baptism. That is from a disciple of Jesus who firsthand saw Him resurrected.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

So the eunuch confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and believed in his heart that God raised Him from the dead, he was saved, then he got baptized.

Speaking on that last line, the bible is very clear on that too
Romans 10

9 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.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

without any sacraments, salvation is already done.
You do the sacraments afterward, because Jesus said to do them. If you believe Jesus is Lord, then you obey Him. It is acting out your faith.

 

[Jamdoc]

Are they infallible text? If so, why do you believe it?

Because Christians who actually believed that Jesus is the Christ made the selections.

The old testament was put together by Jews who do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, and therefore, I do not trust them.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Because Christians who actually believed that Jesus is the Christ made the selections.

The old testament was put together by Jews who do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, and therefore, I do not trust them.

I am not sure that is true, for many OT people beilieved in the Savior who was to come. Besides, these verses are true:

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. (Ro 9:1–5)​

and,

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!​

13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?​

16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.​

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?​

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:​

​

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,​

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;​

27 For this is My covenant with them,​

When I take away their sins.”​

​

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Ro 11:11–32)​

 

[Jamdoc]

I am not sure that is true, for many OT people beilieved in the Savior who was to come. Besides, these verses are true:

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. (Ro 9:1–5)​

and,

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!​

13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?​

16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.​

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?​

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:​

​

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,​

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;​

27 For this is My covenant with them,​

When I take away their sins.”​

​

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Ro 11:11–32)​

if they believed that Jesus was the Messiah they'd have been Christians, not Jews.

I mean yes, God will save a remnant out of them, there will be a miracle where the blindness is removed and they'll cry out Hosanna, Matthew 23:39 is a prophecy, I whole heartedly believe that.
But at the time the Old Testament was formalized and then adopted into the Christian bible as selected by the Jews, they were enemies of the Gospel, they did not believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

so I don't trust their selection.

As I brought forth before, Jesus and the Apostles refer to parts of I Enoch, however, what we can currently find of I Enoch undoubtedly has been infiltrated with error, because it was rejected by the Jews, because it is a book that emphatically states that the Messiah is divine, something that supports Jesus as the Messiah which they cannot accept. Other parts of scripture that are less emphatic in supporting Jesus as the Messiah were allowed to remain scripture, but like Isaiah 53, most Rabbis will not teach it, or they will interpret it to be about Israel not Messiah. Because if it is about Messiah, well then Messiah suffers and dies for their sins, which even modern day Jews could say "Oh... that's Yeshua..."
Or the book of Daniel, they don't regularly read it because it's sealed. Well Daniel 9 indicates that Messiah will die but not for Himself, Daniel also has the Son of Man riding on the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days.. equating the Son of Man with God, another thing that supports Jesus as Messiah, in fact that portion of Daniel 7 was quoted by Jesus and the Pharises tore their clothes because of the significance of who Jesus was claiming to be.
So.. as a result I don't believe we have a perfectly preserved book of Enoch, even if it at one time was Inspired.
The other books Ezra wrote as well there are parts that Jesus and the Apostles refer to, those books may also have been Inspired, we know the first book of Ezra was.
But it was rejected by the Jews, not preserved properly, and so what we have now as the books of Ezra are not scripture.

Does that make sense?

There are other books that the Catholics added into their bible later after the Reformation , after having not been considered scripture for centuries. Centuries during which their preservation is questionable I believe. They are not in the Protestant bible. Because they went centuries without being considered canon scripture.. how well preserved do you think they have been? Do you think they're still the same as what was read in the first century?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

if they believed that Jesus was the Messiah they'd have been Christians, not Jews.

I mean yes, God will save a remnant out of them, there will be a miracle where the blindness is removed and they'll cry out Hosanna, Matthew 23:39 is a prophecy, I whole heartedly believe that.
But at the time the Old Testament was formalized and then adopted into the Christian bible as selected by the Jews, they were enemies of the Gospel, they did not believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

so I don't trust their selection.

So, for example, when Jesus was handed the scroll of Isaiah, opened it to a prophesy about Himself, read it, and declared that it was fulfilled in the presence of those in attendance, that’s not enough for you to accept Isaiah is really Scripture?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

if they believed that Jesus was the Messiah they'd have been Christians, not Jews.

I mean yes, God will save a remnant out of them, there will be a miracle where the blindness is removed and they'll cry out Hosanna, Matthew 23:39 is a prophecy, I whole heartedly believe that.
But at the time the Old Testament was formalized and then adopted into the Christian bible as selected by the Jews, they were enemies of the Gospel, they did not believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

so I don't trust their selection.

As I brought forth before, Jesus and the Apostles refer to parts of I Enoch, however, what we can currently find of I Enoch undoubtedly has been infiltrated with error, because it was rejected by the Jews, because it is a book that emphatically states that the Messiah is divine, something that supports Jesus as the Messiah which they cannot accept. Other parts of scripture that are less emphatic in supporting Jesus as the Messiah were allowed to remain scripture, but like Isaiah 53, most Rabbis will not teach it, or they will interpret it to be about Israel not Messiah. Because if it is about Messiah, well then Messiah suffers and dies for their sins, which even modern day Jews could say "Oh... that's Yeshua..."
Or the book of Daniel, they don't regularly read it because it's sealed. Well Daniel 9 indicates that Messiah will die but not for Himself, Daniel also has the Son of Man riding on the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days.. equating the Son of Man with God, another thing that supports Jesus as Messiah, in fact that portion of Daniel 7 was quoted by Jesus and the Pharises tore their clothes because of the significance of who Jesus was claiming to be.
So.. as a result I don't believe we have a perfectly preserved book of Enoch, even if it at one time was Inspired.
The other books Ezra wrote as well there are parts that Jesus and the Apostles refer to, those books may also have been Inspired, we know the first book of Ezra was.
But it was rejected by the Jews, not preserved properly, and so what we have now as the books of Ezra are not scripture.

Does that make sense?

There are other books that the Catholics added into their bible later after the Reformation , after having not been considered scripture for centuries. Centuries during which their preservation is questionable I believe. They are not in the Protestant bible. Because they went centuries without being considered canon scripture.. how well preserved do you think they have been? Do you think they're still the same as what was read in the first century?

I have read every book of the NT more times than I can count, and I can assure you there are a very tiny number of quotes that are not easily found in the Septuagint (koine Greek version of the OT) which pre-dates Jesus' birth by a couple hundred years.

 

[Valletta]

There are other books that the Catholics added into their bible later after the Reformation , after having not been considered scripture for centuries. Centuries during which their preservation is questionable I believe. They are not in the Protestant bible. Because they went centuries without being considered canon scripture.. how well preserved do you think they have been? Do you think they're still the same as what was read in the first century?

Incorrect. The Catholic Church did not add books to the Bible after the reformation. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. The canon was settled by the Catholic Church in the late 300s. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. You will find those same 73 books in all western Bibles for over a thousand years until Protestants dropped some during reformation times. Note that although the rejected books were moved within the KJV and not considered Holy Scripture by Protestants, physically all 73 books of the bible remained in editions of the King James Bible up through the 1800s. Protestants, as part of their tradition, still use the same order decided upon by the Catholic Church. You can see in the below link just how long ago all 73 books of the Bible have been part of the Bible:

"The Bible is written in Greek and was transcribed by four scribes according to AP writer, Nardine Saad. It contains the entire New Testament but is missing parts of the Old Testament. The Deuterocanonical books are also, not surprisingly, contained within the pages of this Bible."

The world’s oldest Bible now available online

As of today, the earliest copy of the Bible is now online.

www.catholiceducation.org