SALVATION

[AbbaLove]

Do you think it's possible that Paul was addressing "disciples," but after closer examination, Paul realized that these "disciples" were not disciples of Lord Jesus, because:
1) These disciples never heard about receiving the Holy Spirit by faith (Acts 19:2)?
2) They were not baptized in the name of Lord Jesus, showing their discipleship in Him (Acts 19:3)?

Your comment suggests that to be a true "disciple" one must be immerse baptized in both water and more significant immerse baptized by the Holy Spirit (John 3:5, Titus 3:5).

The fact is that believers in Lord Jesus receive the promised Holy Spirit by faith, even before they are baptized.

So you use the term "baptized" to refer only to a water immersion baptism? ... not to the Holy Spirit immersion baptism with His indwelling/abidding presence empowering His disciples?

Depends on how you qualify "disciples." Obviously these devout men were Followers of the WAY. The importance of a Biblically correct interpretation of "baptism" in the following verses suggests that a water baptism without the baptism of the Holy Spirit is less than a complete/total baptism as well as being qualified as complete/total empowered disciples ...

Acts 19:4-6 - (Paul corrected their doctrine) …

Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were *baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And as Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke in [foreign, unknown] tongues (languages) and prophesied. (There were in all about twelve men) AMPC

Titus 3:5 - He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, (NIV)​

​

He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (AMPC)​

Most all translations gives one the impression the translators placed new birth-born again (regeneration) as occuring during water immersion baptism. My understanding is that both both new birth and renewing

... "by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth and renewing = regeneration via the Holy Spirit"

IOW both the new birth and renewing (regeneration) are accomplished by the baptism of the Holy Spirit indwelling the 12 men that according to your understanding were now qualified "disciples". Do you believe the new birth is the result of a water immersion baptism; whereas the renewing/regeneration is due to the immersion baptism of the indwelling/abiding of the Holy Spirit?

 

[setst777]

Your comment suggests that to be a true "disciple" one must be immerse baptized in both water and more significant immerse baptized by the Holy Spirit (John 3:5, Titus 3:5).

So you use the term "baptized" to refer only to a water immersion baptism? ... not to the Holy Spirit immersion baptism with His indwelling/abidding presence empowering His disciples?

Depends on how you qualify "disciples." Obviously these devout men were Followers of the WAY. The importance of a Biblically correct interpretation of "baptism" in the following verses suggests that a water baptism without the baptism of the Holy Spirit is less than a complete/total baptism as well as being qualified as complete/total empowered disciples ...

Acts 19:4-6 - (Paul corrected their doctrine) …

Titus 3:5 - He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, (NIV)​

​

He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (AMPC)​

Most all translations gives one the impression the translators placed new birth-born again (regeneration) as occuring during water immersion baptism. My understanding is that both both new birth and renewing

... "by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth and renewing = regeneration via the Holy Spirit"

IOW both the new birth and renewing (regeneration) are accomplished by the baptism of the Holy Spirit indwelling the 12 men that according to your understanding were now qualified "disciples". Do you believe the new birth is the result of a water immersion baptism; whereas the renewing/regeneration is due to the immersion baptism of the indwelling/abiding of the Holy Spirit?

The terms: "new birth, regeneration, born again, born of God, light of life, made alive, eternal life" are all synonymous in their use illustrating receiving the Spirit by faith in Lord Jesus because of the Gospel. And this is all God's work by the Spirit who indwells those who turn from sin and repent toward God by faith in Lord Jesus, committed to follow him into a holy life.

The term "baptism of the Spirit" simply means that the Spirit indwells those who believe, and is God's work, and is a promise of God for the New Covenant in Christ.

Lord Jesus commanded that all believers (disciples) are to be baptized in water representing their dying to sin to become His disciples (Matthew 28:19-20; (Romans 6:1-5).

Therefore, Baptism is an essential requirement of Lord Jesus for his disciples to do, but not to be saved; rather, as disciples of Lord Jesus we are to obey His commands. If we claim to be disciples of Christ but refuse to be baptized, or think baptism in not important, then we are not in the Faith by which God elects to save us. The only "faith" by which we share in the Resurrection of Lord Jesus is a faith onto obedience to Jesus whom we confess is "Lord."

Romans 1:5 (NIV) Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.

Matthew 28:19-20 The Great Commission
Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them [disciples] to obey all things that I commanded you.

Romans 6:1-8 (WEB) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection

 

[fhansen]

Evidently one's Christian theology has as much or more influence as evident (Baptist position, RCC position) in the never-ending length of this SALVATION discussion thread. Maybe it's time for the OP to start a thread on the difference between the RCC, the ACC and CCR (Catholic Charasmitic Renewal)

If that’s of interest to you, you’re welcome to go for it, of course. But you do know, I hope, that your particular theological viewpoint or opinion is just one more among the many that exist along with those of the denominations you’ve mentioned. And that the Catholic Charismatic movement has no theological positions other than that of the RCC and that the ACC is just one more Protestant group that happens to use the name “catholic”.

But, again, this thread isn't about your pet peeves, but about soteriology- regardless of its source.

 

[AbbaLove]

I do forgive the OP's disparging remarks ... as when he becomes defensive; even though knowing that not all RCC dogma is inline with scripture (infant baptism = born again)... but still ordained by His Holiness (Vicar of Christ). The OP may not believe the nine [supernatural] Gifts of the Holy Spirit being available with the 'latter rain' as were these Gifts of the Holy Spirit abiding with some of the first Christians (1 Corinthians 12:1-11).

Catholicism is seeing the "latter rain" of the Father's Holy Spirit, but there will always be those that prefer the dogma and litergy of a Christian religion that doesn't believe these Gifts are available today for believers baptized by the Holy Spirit.

And that the Catholic Charismatic movement has no theological positions other than that of the RCC and that the ACC is just one more Protestant group that happens to use the name “catholic”.

ACC (American Catholic Church)

The OPs comment is typical of those Christians that resist the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (with evidence of a Spiritual Gift).

"Perceptions of the charismatic movement vary within the Catholic Church, although it has been favourably regarded by the last four Popes. Traditional Catholics, in particular, argue that charismatic practices shift the focus of worship away from reverent communion with Christ in the Eucharist and towards individual emotions and non-liturgical experiences as a substitute. Other Catholics say that their involvement with charismatic renewal has revitalised their faith and led them to a deeper devotion to Christ in the Eucharist and a fuller appreciation of the liturgy."

Acts 19:2-3 (New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)​

2 He said to them "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?" "They replied, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3 The he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They answered, “Into John’s baptism.”​

Paul recognized these disciples as believers in Yeshua as their Lord and Savior, but they had not yet been immersed in the baptism of the Father's Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:4-6 - NCB - New Catholic Bible
4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.​

More than a few Christians are more into the dogma of their Christian religion ... than they are into a personal relationship with their Lord and Savior. The only way a personal reltionship is possible is via the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with one or more special empowered Gifts of the [Father's] Holy Spirit.​

 

[fhansen]

I do forgive the OP's disparging remarks ... as when he becomes defensive; even though knowing that not all RCC dogma is inline with scripture (infant baptism = born again)... but still ordained by His Holiness (Vicar of Christ). The OP may not believe the nine [supernatural] Gifts of the Holy Spirit being available with the 'latter rain' as were these Gifts of the Holy Spirit abiding with some of the first Christians (1 Corinthians 12:1-11).

Catholicism is seeing the "latter rain" of the Father's Holy Spirit, but there will always be those that prefer the dogma and litergy of a Christian religion that doesn't believe these Gifts are available today for believers baptized by the Holy Spirit.

The OP will generally try to defend the truth as best he can when he sees it as important-and my remarks in my last post were far from disparaging- just true. Your remarks in any case in the quote above seem to reveal two things, your own "vicarhood" since by them you're claiming to have some exclusive knowledge of the truth, and also a lack of understanding of Catholic teachings. Where does the CC deny the gifts of the Spirit. BTW?

ACC (American Catholic Church)

Again, "the ACC is just one more Protestant group that happens to use the name “catholic”". They're protesting against certain Catholic doctrines! That's why they separated- to form their own group!

The OPs comment is typical of those Christians that resist the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (with evidence of a Spiritual Gift).

"Perceptions of the charismatic movement vary within the Catholic Church, although it has been favourably regarded by the last four Popes. Traditional Catholics, in particular, argue that charismatic practices shift the focus of worship away from reverent communion with Christ in the Eucharist and towards individual emotions and non-liturgical experiences as a substitute. Other Catholics say that their involvement with charismatic renewal has revitalised their faith and led them to a deeper devotion to Christ in the Eucharist and a fuller appreciation of the liturgy."

Where do you get this stuff? First of all individuals do not, by their individual preferences, define Catholic dogma or Catholicism- the church does that and you can find those teachings in many places but most concisely and directly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Secondly, no gifts of the Spirit are denied by the CC. But there is a lot of bogus stuff out there as well, and I witnessed much of it as a Pentecostal.

 

[Valletta]

I do forgive the OP's disparging remarks ... as when he becomes defensive; even though knowing that not all RCC dogma is inline with scripture (infant baptism = born again)... but still ordained by His Holiness (Vicar of Christ). The OP may not believe the nine [supernatural] Gifts of the Holy Spirit being available with the 'latter rain' as were these Gifts of the Holy Spirit abiding with some of the first Christians (1 Corinthians 12:1-11).

Catholicism is seeing the "latter rain" of the Father's Holy Spirit, but there will always be those that prefer the dogma and litergy of a Christian religion that doesn't believe these Gifts are available today for believers baptized by the Holy Spirit.

All of the dogma of the Catholic Church is fully "inline with Scripture." The 73 books of the Catholic Church were chosen by Catholics in a process that spanned centuries, any text that contradicted the Catholic faith passed down from Jesus through the Apostles was rejected. Catholics fully believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Catholics are born again through the sacrament of Baptism. Our encounter with Jesus continues through the sacraments, God forgives for our sins through the sacrament of Reconciliation and we come to the closest possible personal relationship with Jesus through the Holy Eucharist, which the Church recognizes as the "source and summit of Christian life:"

Catechism of the Catholic Church

www.usccb.org

 

[AbbaLove]

Where does the CC deny the gifts of the Spirit.

They don't deny that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in their Catholic Bible (1 Corinthians 12:1-11 ) and as evident by the Catholic Charasmatic Renewal ...

Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) is a spiritual movement within the Catholic Church that emphasises the availability of the power and the many gifts of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer, and the need for a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ in order to live life to the fullest.​

​

Pope Paul VI acknowledged the movement in 1971 and reaffirmed it in 1975. He went on to say that the movement brought vitality and joy to the Church but also mentioned for people to be discerning of the spirits. Pope John Paul II was also supportive of the Renewal and was in favor of its conservative politics.​

Secondly, no gifts of the Spirit are denied by the CC. But there is a lot of bogus stuff out there as well, and I witnessed much of it as a Pentecostal.

That is to be expected. Humans being humans like to let others near them know they have the gift of tongues (showoffs). That is to be expected; especially if you are "luke warm" and suspicious of the Gift of tongues and its abuse if no one has the Gift to interpret.​

​

Don't ever forget (always remember) that the Holy Spirit indwells Protestants with these Spiritual Gifts of e.g.,Wisdom and Discernment as well as the other Gifts as GOD wills and not only to just [RCC] Catholics. Remember (don't make excuses) that the Protestant Reformation was due in large measure to the Lord seeing the corruption and the need for someone like Martin Luther to be a "whistle blower" even though doing so can be painful ...​

​

One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death.​

​

Throughout this thread you come across as believing you have more Truth than Protestants when it comes to justifying RCC infant baptism as being justified before God. You believe that infants sprinkled with holy water by a Catholic Priest are spiritually saved with only purgatory determining how long before they are heavenbound. This to is RCC dogma.​

​

You believe this because some pope as Vicar of Christ decided it was ok to re-interpret scripture. And yet there is no evidence of infants being water baptized by John the Baptist or by Paul. Yet you accept infant baptism because a pope as Vicar of Christ decided to make it so ... as valid as if it were the very Word of Christ.​

​

Of course you being loyal to RCC dogma doesn't consider your comments to me as disparaging. It's your way of holding yourself above another as a faithful proponent of Catholicism; while talking down to a discerning Protestant that sees through the religiousity of the RCC. I still forgive you as you don't know better.​

 

[Valletta]

One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death.​

​

Unfortunately indulgences for acts of charity was exploited by some individual Catholics. To sell indulgences was and is a sin. While the Church did correct it, it gained great popularity in anti-Catholic material long after the Middle Ages. Let me clue you in--individual Protestants sinned as well.

 

[fhansen]

Don't ever forget (always remember) that the Holy Spirit indwells Protestants with these Spiritual Gifts of e.g.,Wisdom and Discernment as well as the other Gifts as GOD wills and not only to just [RCC] Catholics.

And I haven't said, or thought, otherwise.

Remember (don't make excuses) that the Protestant Reformation was due in large measure to the Lord seeing the corruption and the need for someone like Martin Luther to be a "whistle blower" even though doing so can be painful ...

No excuses, but the CC had attempted reform since the beginning for a variety of abuses, with more or less success, and I'll agree that the abuse or exploitation or ignoring of teachings caused scandal in any case. Martin Luther was correct in wanting reform there-and that's all he wanted at first. But he was very incorrect when he began to meddle with doctrine on the faith, the teachings themselves, which is the true treasure of the church-and something God would not have allowed His church to error on. Luther correctly understood that the crux of the Reformation, that which it stood or fell on, was the doctrine of justification, and he blew that one bigtime.

Throughout this thread you come across as believing you have more Truth than Protestants when it comes to justifying RCC infant baptism as being justified before God.

What are you talking about? Protestants don't agree with each other on infant baptism! But you, oh Vicar, act as if you have the full-blown truth on the matter.

Of course you being loyal to RCC dogma doesn't consider your comments to me as disparaging.

Nope, that's off point; you just don't like being called wrong and so take it as disparagement, which is something you've been tossing around quite a bit yourself lately anyway. It'd be much better if you were to objectively consider and respond to the positions put forth in the opening post rather than go down various rabbit trails unrelated to it.

 

[Valletta]

They don't deny that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in their Catholic Bible (1 Corinthians 12:1-11 ) and as evident by the Catholic Charasmatic Renewal ...

Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) is a spiritual movement within the Catholic Church that emphasises the availability of the power and the many gifts of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer, and the need for a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ in order to live life to the fullest.​

​

Pope Paul VI acknowledged the movement in 1971 and reaffirmed it in 1975. He went on to say that the movement brought vitality and joy to the Church but also mentioned for people to be discerning of the spirits. Pope John Paul II was also supportive of the Renewal and was in favor of its conservative politics.​

That is to be expected. Humans being humans like to let others near them know they have the gift of tongues (showoffs). That is to be expected; especially if you are "luke warm" and suspicious of the Gift of tongues and its abuse if no one has the Gift to interpret.​

​

Don't ever forget (always remember) that the Holy Spirit indwells Protestants with these Spiritual Gifts of e.g.,Wisdom and Discernment as well as the other Gifts as GOD wills and not only to just [RCC] Catholics. Remember (don't make excuses) that the Protestant Reformation was due in large measure to the Lord seeing the corruption and the need for someone like Martin Luther to be a "whistle blower" even though doing so can be painful ...​

​

One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death.​

​

Throughout this thread you come across as believing you have more Truth than Protestants when it comes to justifying RCC infant baptism as being justified before God. You believe that infants sprinkled with holy water by a Catholic Priest are spiritually saved with only purgatory determining how long before they are heavenbound. This to is RCC dogma.​

​

You believe this because some pope as Vicar of Christ decided it was ok to re-interpret scripture. And yet there is no evidence of infants being water baptized by John the Baptist or by Paul. Yet you accept infant baptism because a pope as Vicar of Christ decided to make it so ... as valid as if it were the very Word of Christ.​

​

Of course you being loyal to RCC dogma doesn't consider your comments to me as disparaging. It's your way of holding yourself above another as a faithful proponent of Catholicism; while talking down to a discerning Protestant that sees through the religiousity of the RCC. I still forgive you as you don't know better.​

Catholics believe Jesus is the head of our Church, and we try to stay as loyal to His teachings as possible.. Infants have been baptized now for almost 2000 years--the Bible makes it clear whole households were baptized. As the faith of the parents was enough for circumcision, it was and is enough for Baptism. Indeed, Baptism replaced circumcision. Water is the normal sign of the sacrament. No where does Jesus or did the Apostles teach that immersion is required. The personal speculation of your teachers, believing that infants should not be baptized, is extra-Biblical. Jesus wanted the children to come to him, and never said that the faith of the parents is no longer good enough for infants. Realize that your teachers are human and that their personal speculations or interpretations are subject to error.

 

[setst777]

Acts 19:2-3 (New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)​

2 He said to them "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?" "They replied, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3 The he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They answered, “Into John’s baptism.”​

Paul recognized these disciples as believers in Yeshua as their Lord and Savior, but they had not yet been immersed in the baptism of the Father's Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:4-6 - NCB - New Catholic Bible​

4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.​

More than a few Christians are more into the dogma of their Christian religion ... than they are into a personal relationship with their Lord and Savior. The only way a personal reltionship is possible is via the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with one or more special empowered Gifts of the [Father's] Holy Spirit.​

As I read the context of "Acts 19:1-5," I do not get the impression that Paul believed these "certain disciples" were disciples of Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:1-5
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus and found certain disciples.
2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They said to him, “No, we haven’t even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 He said, “Into what then were you baptized?”
They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Paul said, “John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Paul, when addressing these "certain disciples," he taught them that they "should believe in the one who would come after him," meaning: the one who came after John), who is Jesus. At that teaching, they were then baptized in the name of Lord Jesus.

What do you think?

 

[setst777]

Unfortunately indulgences for acts of charity was exploited by some individual Catholics. To sell indulgences was and is a sin. While the Church did correct it, it gained great popularity in anti-Catholic material long after the Middle Ages. Let me clue you in--individual Protestants sinned as well.

For clarity on the issue of indulgences, I quote as follows:

• The selling of indulgences was authorized by Pope Leo X in 1517.
• However, the Council of Trent in 1563 condemned base gain for securing indulgences and Pope Pius V abolished the sale of indulgences in 1567.
• Although the sale of indulgences was stopped, the validity of indulgences themselves was affirmed as long as no money was exchanged.
• The practice of selling indulgences was first practiced in the late thirteenth century and was changed after the Protestant Reformation

Indulgences even for those in Purgatory by declaration of Pope Sixtus IV in 1476:
Although these concerns were surfacing as early as the 13th century, it was only in 1476 that Pope Sixtus IV declared that one could indeed gain an indulgence for someone in purgatory. Sixtus, however, left unanswered the problem of the necessity of personal confession. This profound uncertainty surrounding penance threatened to sever completely the nexus between the confession of sin and the achievement of salvation. Indulgence | Definition, History & Types | Britannica

Apparently, the selling of indulgences was a common practice of the RCC, declared [Pope Sixtus IV in 1476] and authorized [Pope Leo X in 1517], for well over 200 years.

 

[Valletta]

For clarity on the issue of indulgences, I quote as follows:

• The selling of indulgences was authorized by Pope Leo X in 1517.
• However, the Council of Trent in 1563 condemned base gain for securing indulgences and Pope Pius V abolished the sale of indulgences in 1567.
• Although the sale of indulgences was stopped, the validity of indulgences themselves was affirmed as long as no money was exchanged.
• The practice of selling indulgences was first practiced in the late thirteenth century and was changed after the Protestant Reformation

Indulgences even for those in Purgatory by declaration of Pope Sixtus IV in 1476:
Although these concerns were surfacing as early as the 13th century, it was only in 1476 that Pope Sixtus IV declared that one could indeed gain an indulgence for someone in purgatory. Sixtus, however, left unanswered the problem of the necessity of personal confession. This profound uncertainty surrounding penance threatened to sever completely the nexus between the confession of sin and the achievement of salvation. Indulgence | Definition, History & Types | Britannica

Apparently, the selling of indulgences was a common practice of the RCC, declared [Pope Sixtus IV in 1476] and authorized [Pope Leo X in 1517], for well over 200 years.

False. There are many lies on the Internet--Satan never sleeps. The selling of indulgences is a sin. It was never authorized by any pope. You have fallen for an anti-Catholic fabrication, a twisting of the complaints about a real problem, notably from Luther. That beings said, providing money as a charitable act is pleasing to God, and was indeed encouraged. Pope Leo X did encourage such charitable acts for an indulgence for work on St. Peter's Church, along with true repentance for sins, but money was not a requirement. Individuals such as John Tetzel, who apparently was selling indulgences, were criticized by the Holy See. Martin Luther knew the difference between those individuals and the pope/Church, stating: " 50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep."

95 Theses of Martin Luther

 

[AbbaLove]

If possible the RCC would rewrite their history to absolve popes of their sins as Vicar of Christ. Christ never sinned being disappointed that the RCC (Vicar of Christ) thought God might overlook their selfish motives.

The OP as a former Pentecostal may have been disappointed that he never received a Spiritual Gift or a new Joy. Thus it's to be expected that he may not be an advocte of the Catholic Charasmatic Renewal.

Even Pope Francis as well as other popes were advocates ... as evident in this recent youtube as he talks about 50 years of Catholic Charasmatic Renewal ...

Catholic Charismatic Renewal of the Father's Love into one's heart: Joy, Peace, Love
SALVATION​

 

[Valletta]

If possible the RCC would rewrite their history to absolve popes of their sins as Vicar of Christ. Christ never sinned being disappointed that the RCC (Vicar of Christ) thought God might overlook their selfish motives.

The OP as a former Pentecostal may have been disappointed that he never received a Spiritual Gift or a new Joy. Thus it's to be expected that he may not be an advocte of the Catholic Charasmatic Renewal.

Even Pope Francis as well as other popes were advocates ... as evident in this recent youtube as he talks about 50 years of Catholic Charasmatic Renewal ...

Catholic Charismatic Renewal of the Father's Love into one's heart: Joy, Peace, Love
SALVATION​

Your statement is false. Christ's Church is not interested in re-writing history. Jesus is Truth. I am sure it is eye-opening for people to read what Luther actually said about who was responsible for indulgences. That being said, our first pope denied Jesus three times, and it is possible a number of popes will end up in hell. Jesus did not separate the wheat from the chaffe. But is is Satan's work to spread about Christ's Church.

 

[setst777]

False. There are many lies on the Internet--Satan never sleeps. The selling of indulgences is a sin. It was never authorized by any pope. You have fallen for an anti-Catholic fabrication, a twisting of the complaints about a real problem, notably from Luther. That beings said, providing money as a charitable act is pleasing to God, and was indeed encouraged. Pope Leo X did encourage such charitable acts for an indulgence for work on St. Peter's Church, along with true repentance for sins, but money was not a requirement. Individuals such as John Tetzel, who apparently was selling indulgences, were criticized by the Holy See. Martin Luther knew the difference between those individuals and the pope/Church, stating: " 50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep."

95 Theses of Martin Luther

You wrote:
"Pope Leo X did encourage such charitable acts for an indulgence for work on St. Peter's Church, along with true repentance for sins, but money was not a requirement."

Encouraging charitable acts, such as giving money, labor, or materials for work on St. Peter's Church as an indulgence is seen as a Papal authorization on the use of indulgences for sins, along with true repentance, for the purpose of help in the purchasing and building work of St. Peter's Church.

Otherwise, what is the purpose of Pope Leo X for encouraging such charitable acts if not to obtain what is needed to for the work on St. Peter's Church, and to raise funds for the RCC?

 

[Valletta]

You wrote:
"Pope Leo X did encourage such charitable acts for an indulgence for work on St. Peter's Church, along with true repentance for sins, but money was not a requirement."

Encouraging charitable acts, such as giving money, labor, or materials for work on St. Peter's Church to receive an indulgence is seen as a Papal authorization to receive indulgences, along with true repentance, for help in the purchasing and building work of St. Peter's Church.

Otherwise, what is the purpose of Pope Leo X for encouraging such charitable acts if not to obtain what is needed to for the work on St. Peter's Church, and to raise funds for the RCC?

The Pope stated that money was not necessary for the indulgence. Thus it's not selling indulgences. Unfortunately, of the many things that please God and would be grounds for indulgences, things like repentance, prayer, fasting, penances, pilgrimages, and giving alms, the giving of cash for a charitable and worthy cause could be taken advantage of for personal gain. To do so in any way, such as to sell an indulgence, is a sin. While giving money to the poor and other charitable causes is still encouraged, because of the negative unintended results it was decided to drop it for indulgences. It is amazing to me that given the facts, with all of the sin in the world today, including Catholics and Protestants, that such comes up so often. So much diverts our attention away from what God wants us to focus upon.

 

[setst777]

The Pope stated that money was not necessary for the indulgence. Thus it's not selling indulgences. Unfortunately, of the many things that please God and would be grounds for indulgences, things like repentance, prayer, fasting, penances, pilgrimages, and giving alms, the giving of cash for a charitable and worthy cause could be taken advantage of for personal gain. To do so in any way, such as to sell an indulgence, is a sin. While giving money to the poor and other charitable causes is still encouraged, because of the negative unintended results it was decided to drop it for indulgences. It is amazing to me that given the facts, with all of the sin in the world today, including Catholics and Protestants, that such comes up so often. So much diverts our attention away from what God wants us to focus upon.

Your point is well taken, in that, it is not a formal Papal Bull that indulgences are to be purchased. In practice, we see that, although not necessary, monetary contributions for an indulgence was considered a viable option that the Pope appears to have authorized, was practiced, and was encouraged, and is not actually forbidden that I can see. But I will not labor the point.

Would agree that

• The monetary contributions to a worthy cause for indulgences was one of various options authorized by Pope Leo X in 1517?
• The Council of Trent in 1563 condemned the practice of base gain for securing indulgences?
• Pope Pius V abolished the sale of indulgences in 1567?
• Although the sale of indulgences was stopped, the validity of indulgences themselves was affirmed as long as no money was exchanged?
• The practice of selling and buying indulgences (monetary contributions for indulgences) was first practiced in the late thirteenth century and was changed after the Protestant Reformation?
• Or is this all false information?

Whether you affirm this or not does not mean the official position of the RCC has ever been to force, or persuade, anyone that monetary contributions were ever the only way or the best way to obtain an indulgence.

 

[fhansen]

If possible the RCC would rewrite their history to absolve popes of their sins as Vicar of Christ.

Imaginative, there, but not at all in line with Catholic theology which teaches that no human, aside from the man Jesus, was/is perfectly sinless in this life. And we acknowledge a few scoundrels or weaklings in the papacy's past, among the hundreds of otherwise admirably holy men. The pope's "vicarhood" only pertains to official statements regarding faith and morals, same as you do.

 

[fhansen]

The OP as a former Pentecostal may have been disappointed that he never received a Spiritual Gift or a new Joy. Thus it's to be expected that he may not be an advocte of the Catholic Charasmatic Renewal.

I always appreciated the worship in both my Pentecostal and Charismatic backgrounds, but also witnessed a lot of flesh and wishful thinking. Anyone who has been justified has received the Holy Spirit. Anyway, to think that this makes one immune to error in matters of the faith, or that another person who holds a different position is necessarily not Spirt-led, is foolishness. And I'd pit my Spiritual experiences against almost anyone's, but that's for another time and place.