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.
Once you understand how liberating it is to interpret scripture literally as far as one can, taking context into account, its impossible to ever go back to spiritualizing them.
Does that mean one ought not bother to be baptised?-It does not matter if water baptism is a work or not, there is not a single verse (In The Bible) that states a person must be water baptized to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.
That was outstanding!All scripture is written FOR you, but not all scripture is written TO you, nor ABOUT you.
Why don't you build an ark now when God instructed Noah to build one in Genesis 6:14?
Even though you don't build one, you don't ignore the book of Genesis because you learn FROM it, would you agree?
That is the same attitude for all scripture.
I think it means that a person can be saved on the side of Mt Everest where dunking is not possible. I think it means that a person can be wholly saved in the middle of the desert where there is no water.Does that mean one ought not bother to be baptised?
Does that mean one ought not bother to be baptised?
You think baptism means dunking? And you think baptism is optional?I think it means that a person can be saved on the side of Mt Everest where dunking is not possible. I think it means that a person can be wholly saved in the middle of the desert where there is no water.
Are you asking if baptism only works when the one who administers it is godly or does it work simply because God promises it will work?Question:
What happens to a person who is about to be water baptized by their pastor but their pastor is a false teacher, and not actually a Christian at all? What happens to the person being baptized? Do they still get the same Effectual benefits as if they were to be baptized by a real Pastor?
Are you asking if baptism only works when the one who administers it is godly or does it work simply because God promises it will work?
When a sacrament is celebrated according to the norms of the Church and in faith, we believe that it confers the grace it signifies. While a human being is the minister of the sacrament, Christ Himself is the one who is at work: He baptizes, He confirms, He absolves, He changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, He unites a couple in marriage, He ordains and He anoints. Acting in His sacraments, Christ communicates the grace — that sharing in the divine life and love of God — offered through each sacrament. (Cf. Catechism, No. 1127-28.)I suppose, yes. I am asking if the baptism extends its Spiritual benefits based upon the heart of the one performing the task. For example, Adolf Hitler allegedly held a form of "christianity." Would baptism be Effectual if Adolf Hitler performed the task?
If you have the time, I'd also be interested in what water baptism gives that the Father, Son, and Spirit give themselves. A list would be great, but if not I understand.
When a sacrament is celebrated according to the norms of the Church and in faith, we believe that it confers the grace it signifies. While a human being is the minister of the sacrament, Christ Himself is the one who is at work: He baptizes, He confirms, He absolves, He changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, He unites a couple in marriage, He ordains and He anoints. Acting in His sacraments, Christ communicates the grace — that sharing in the divine life and love of God — offered through each sacrament. (Cf. Catechism, No. 1127-28.)
Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptises, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son's Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.
This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.
I have no idea; where are you going with this?I see, and thank you for the information.
Question: Would you say that baptism brings on the Circumcision of Christ?
Colossians 2:10-15 NLT - "So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. 11 When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature. 12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead. 13 You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. 14 He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. 15 In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross."
Jesus came to show us what God is like. He came to preach the Good News to the poor, proclaim freedom for prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, freedom for the oppressed and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour, Luke 4:18-19.That was not the gospel of the kingdom that Jesus and the 12 were preaching at his first coming.
We need to believe in, and accept, Jesus - end of.I'm sorry, but that isn't the Saving Plan of Jesus Christ. There are terms and conditions that a person must agree with and submit to.
There is no "Gospel of the Kingdom v Paul's Gospel". Paul preached Jesus as the only way to God; Jesus said that he is the only way to the Father.
Jesus didn't command even his disciples, never mind Gentiles, to obey the law of Moses.Well, for one thing, we no longer preach obedience to the Law of Moses, as Jesus did in Matthew, so no one today is obeying the Matthew's version completely to teach "them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you".
If it had been an instruction to the 12 only, how on earth would anyone else have come to hear the Gospel? The disciples did not live forever - who would have told others, and us, about Jesus after they died? And why would Matthew have included a private command - for 11 people only - in his Gospel, which he wrote so that future generations would know about Jesus?So no, it was an instruction to the 12 only.
Paul himself says that there is only ONE Gospel.Of course if you make it very general, saying that both gospels are about Jesus being the only way, you are absolutely correct.
So it all boils down to whether you want to be precise, or general.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?