Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is clear you don't understand Gospel and the need for Water Baptism because you say this
The Good thief was saved under the Old Covenant. Christ has yet to die and rise to establish the New.
Tradition preceded doctrine. Tradition gave us doctrine and scripture. Scripture is in fact tradition.
I am not sure I understand you here.
Wycliff was tried before the Pope on multiple occasions and rejected transsubstaniation. He so enraged the Catholics that they dug up his bones and burned them. One of Wycliff goal was to get the Word of God into the hands of the people.
John Wycliffe - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Jan Hus, who was a supporter of Wycliff, was threaten with excommunicate. Eventually Hus was thrown into prison and executed by the Roman Catholics.
Jan Hus - Wikipedia
At the place of execution, he knelt down, spread out his hands and prayed aloud. The executioner undressed Hus and tied his hands behind his back with ropes. His neck was bound with a chain to a stake around which wood and straw had been piled up so that it covered him to the neck. At the last moment, the imperial marshal, von Pappenheim, in the presence of the Count Palatine, asked Hus to recant and thus save his own life. Hus declined, stating:
Anecdotally, it has been said that the executioners had trouble intensifying the fire. An old woman then came to the stake and threw a relatively small amount of brushwood on it. Upon seeing her act, a suffering Hus then exclaimed, "O Sancta Simplicitas!" ("O holy simplicity!"). It is said that when he was about to expire, he cried out, "Christ, son of the Living God, have mercy on us!" (a variant of the Jesus Prayer). Hus's ashes were later thrown into the Rhine river as a means of preventing the veneration of his remains.
What did I say that is wrong?
Old Covenant believers were saved the same way the New Covenant believers. By grace.
Unless you are born of the Holy Spirit, you will not enter Heaven. We are spiritually dead, disconnected from God. We need to be spiritually transformed that comes from God above. Only those who are born of the Holy Spirit have a relationship with God.
Exactly. You have to believe. Which is the point I was making. If you do not believe, water baptism does nothing. How many people I know being water baptised, or having their babies baptized, even though they do not believe. In this case it makes zero difference whether they are water baptized or not. The only evidence that a person is saved is the Holy Spirit, and not whether they are baptized or not.
See, even this verse says we are baptized by the Holy Spirit, and not by us performing some act, in this case water baptism.
Interesting post.
I think you rephrase my points and show a real understanding of them. I appreciate that--often, others who perceive themselves as "anointed adversaries," misrepresent what I say to appear as "obviously wrong." You're a good man, it seems?
We must approach them with humility, however!The NT makes no denominational preference in the body of Christ (Gal 3:28-29), that's a heresy of man.
Not really. The just felt that it takes time to examine new teaching and Luther was in a hurry. If you go to a Catholic bookstore you will see a lot of Luther's teaching there.
Thanks for the interesting post. Yes, it is refreshing to read a post that gives some thought without screaming at me.I think you rephrase my points and show a real understanding of them. I appreciate that--often, others who perceive themselves as "anointed adversaries," misrepresent what I say to appear as "obviously wrong." You're a good man, it seems?
As far as how the Catholics officially view atonement, again, there have been centuries of consideration how to look at this. There is probably the "historic Catholic view" and "current popular ways Catholics describe this?" Regardless of how far from the tree Catholics may have fallen, I rely primarily on their "historic view," which is based on the Bible.
Yes, genuine Faith has built into it both repentance and good works. True Faith makes Christ its object and operates through Christ. It is actually a response to Christ's Word. That's why it can be said to do good works or repent, because it is a response of obedience to God's means of power--His Word.
Do Christians "repent?" Of course they do! It's just that it is already assumed that those who choose to live in Christ need not repent as long as they continue to live in Christ. That is, the sins are "small," and not a matter of turning away from the faith or acting inconsistently with the faith.
Of course, Christians can walk away from obedience, and in that case would need to repent. We are encouraged not to get to that place in the 1st place by pursuing Christ ahead of our going our own way.
Catholics may cite the 10 Commandments and claim to follow them consistently. But modern Catholicism may say that priests who molest little boys are deserving of grace and compassion, which is completely out of sorts with "the 10 Commandments."
We may then argue that Catholics have abandoned the 10 Commandments. But in reality, this may simply be abandonment of *their own position!* Yes, I will have to investigate further to know if Catholic leadership has officially left any biblical view of the atonement. I just doubt it, and will not rely on a few modern depictions of what "Catholics believe."
CLICK
In this link we read...
"The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption."
It is clear to me that the author believes Catholics continue to hold to the original orthodox formulations of the Atonement, the Deity of Christ and his blood, and views later Catholic works as enlargements on this same thing, engaging in attempts, humble though they be, of "explanations."
The link reads...
"Abelard, who might seem to make the Atonement consist in nothing more than the constraining example of Divine Love has spoken also of our salvation by the Sacrifice of the Cross, in passages to which his critics do not attach sufficient importance."
And so, it is acknowledged that Abelard seems to teach Salvation by our following Christ's example of "love." But in reality, this misrepresents the point Abelard had wished to make, by explaining *why* God chose the method that He did, instead of abandoning the necessity of all of Christ's sufferings.
You will read throughout this article that orthodox, biblical concepts guided the initial development of the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement, requiring the union of Deity with the flesh in Christ, and his satisfaction, not to the Devil, but to His own sense of justice. This had to be done by the God-man, in contrast to fallen human beings who could not redeem themselves.
It was not a "law" man could use to escape orthodox doctrine, by claiming Justification by principle alone, but rather, necessary doctrine requiring a continuous act of God in redeeming us from sin, even after having done so on the cross. The atonement was made, but the atonement has to continually be applied. Works of faith are just as necessary today as they were when Christ found human works wanting! This is not self-atonement, but rather, a proper positioning of faith upon the God-Man, Christ.
I must question, however, why the author denies that Protestants believe in Christ's "priesthood in heaven?" We all believe in "he continues to make intercession for us!" (Rom 8.34; Heb 7.25) Perhaps Catholics wish to align Christ's "heavenly priesthood" with liturgical acts, such as the Eucharist, that represent their definition of "Christian Faith?" But it remains unknown to me whether it is *doctrinal* that the Eucharist is a necessary expression of faith or only a common expression indicating the standard of Christian Faith, trusting in Christ's continuing intercession?
The final argument made in this article criticizes the Protestant view, which is as subject to mischaracterization and misunderstanding as the historic Catholic view. Stating that Christ had to pay off some debt he had, or pay off even the Devil himself, is overly humanizing the spiritual sense by which these things are described. It is God's inifinite nature that brings redemption to bear, and not simply human ways in which we describe this as satisfaction or payment.
The author therefore attacks the very mischaracterization that he admits happened with Catholic views in Catholic history! In reality, all of the various groups adhere to the sense of Christ's Deity, or Man's helplessnesss, and of the need for Christ to constantly intercede for us from heaven.
The atonement was made, but the intercession continues. This is not Salvation by Works. It only asserts that true Faith will continue to express Christ's involvement in our lives through our Works of Faith.
Thank you for drawing my attention to this difficult subject. Divine mysteries are always interesting but maddeningly a little "out of reach?"
That is the opposite of my interest here, which is to hear what others sincerely believe, without acrimony. Even those who believe things I strongly disagree with I want to hear spoken cleanly so that I can respond in kind, but argument, and not by emotion, by spiritual conviction and revelation, and not by intellect or pressure.Thanks for the interesting post. Yes, it is refreshing to read a post that gives some thought without screaming at me.
Yes, I think there is a linear curve indicating a move away from fundamental Christian beliefs from the time of the Reformation, both by Catholics and by Protestants. But neither am I sure that we can caricature either of these groups as necessarily following that curve?
Yes, the Fundamentalists at the turn of last century wished to combat the trend towards Liberal Theology. And many since have seen the rise of the World Council of Churches as a step in the direction of accomodating aberrant Christian views, which is, after all, the essence of Religioius Liberalism.
As I said, the idea of "Faith Alone" is more complex than this simple statement. To one is meant that Christ alone is our Atonement. To another, Faith, properly, will include Works--not to self-atone, but rather, to obtain it from Christ as a gift. We must choose Christ above ourselves and repent of our own ways in order to respond in Faith to Christ's Word.
If we want to talk about Luther, then there was far more to Luther than the Sacraments and what he believed about them. For one thing he believed in the Bondage of the Will (that you were dead in your sins and had to be saved by God). He believed in Sola Fida (faith alone), Sola Scriptura (scripture alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Christius (Christ alone), and Sola Deo Gloria (we live to the glory of God alone). If you're trying to point out Luther felt that you receive God's grace through the Sacraments, he might have said this. But this runs counter to his core beliefs of faith alone, grace alone.
At the time of the gathering of the NT there was plenty of diversity of thought and the Church, the Body of Christ here on Earth, had to make some decisions about the faith as well as nooks in the NT. Even then many disregarded apostolic leadership and succession.
Exactly. Satan continues his attacks/influence even after someone leaves His Church.
None of which trumped apostolic teaching.
Which would have been determined by apostolic teaching.
What are nooks?
A Christian decision. . .
