water baptism or just belief?
-
-
First Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
Does water baptism saves?Does believing and faith alone saved?
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Jesus gave me the sacraments. To reject them outright is to insult the giver and make a mockery of His teachings.
You need to asked all those ex-Catholic priests who did thier research , home work and many years of Catholic experience about the error of sacraments and works and self righteousness, which would include getting wet!
Let me ask you this , do you believe water baptism is an old testament covenant or new testament covenant??
Before you answer remember that John the baptist baptized before Jesus came and I would admit John the baptist made water baptism a requirement of sacrament.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Easy. What John the Baptist did before was part of the Old Covenant, but was not a sacrament. Jews to this day still have baptism as a ritual cleansing practice.
But Jesus took that existing practice and made it into something more. Those who were baptized by John the Baptist did not receive the Holy Ghost, but those same people, once baptised into Christ by Paul and others received the Holy Ghost.
The Bible makes it very clear that to be baptized in Christ's name, that is in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (as commanded by Christ to His Apostles), is very different in effect to what the OT practice was.
Just as circumcision of the males was the rite of entrance into the Old Covenant, and those males who were not circumcised were cut off from God and His people for violating the Old Covenant; water baptism is the rite of entrance into the New Covenant and those who refuse baptism have violated the New Covenant and will be cut off from God and His people unless they have the excuse of invincible ignorance.
Baptism is HOW we enter into Christ and therefore INTO His Covenant. How do you expect anyone to be saved if they do not enter into the New Covenant with Christ. Those who are not in the Covenant are outside of it and Jesus does not have any convenant with them. IF they truly ignorant, we leave them in Christ's hands, but for those who dismiss baptism have put off Christ. That is a dangerous position to be in.
As for those others whose examples you gave - I find that you gave a collection of examples of men so firmly rooted in the carnal world that they were unable to see the spiritual. Faith does not come from "more education", nor does the Holy Spirit. Education is useful and I try to learn all that I can. But for those who walk after the flesh, more education just becomes a stumbling block.
Many a Catholic priest has left the Church because their lusts got in the way. Others left because they became priests for all the wrong reasons and never truly let the Holy Spirit guide them. For every priest that walked away from their vocation, many more left worldly lives to become priests. I have often read the stories of men who spent much of their lives avoiding God's call, becoming engineers, lawyers or doctors and living lives of wealth and luxury only to pack it all in because they realized that the only thing that could fill the void in their hearts was to listen to the calling that has been ever present in their lives and enter the priesthood, giving up everything they had previously worked for.
It is very easy, for the carnally minded, to walk away from the Catholic priesthood and enter another church - they toss aside all their vows for chastity, poverty and obedience. But for the Protestant ministers entering into the Catholic Church, the decision is much harder. Some are able to become Catholic priests, but many believe that they have to give up their life's work as they knew it - they often find other outlets, but the process can be very intimidating from the outside.
Evangelist, I have participated in five of the seven sacraments and from personal experience I can tell you that they have been extraordinary. The Holy Spirit was very active in them, and one would have to have a heart of stone to feel nothing at all.
The Bible says that if God is working in us, we will have fear and trembling. It is a positive sign when we feel the need to repent of a sin and do so. The weight of the world is lifted from our shoulders. It would be nice if we did not put ourselves in that position in the first place, but Jesus knew that occassionally this would happen and that is why He established a Church with men who would have the authority to really minister to us in Christ's name = truly forgive sins in the Person of Christ, truly feed Christ's flock with His own flesh and blood in that perfect offering.
It is an honour to serve God in any capacity, and in my Church there are many capacities, but to serve as a priest/presbyter is a privilege that only a few are called to, and it is an honour to serve.
It is a shame that some just couldn't hack it. It is unfortunate that they got as far as they did without being sent home. They should never have reached the point where they could make their final vows because now the men you have mentioned have violated God's trust in so many ways. I trust in God's mercy and perhaps the Holy Spirit will guide them home again.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
I think those priest had a wake up calling and are free indeed now and that is why thier testimony is awesome against the churchy they were devoted and loyal too until thier eye were open to the truth.
All I can say Praise the Lord!
Water baptism should be done just like we should go to church , read the bible, pray and etc but never these things is a requirement or legalism to be saved!
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
i had a wake up calling too... and returned to the true church. hopefully those priests will sort through all the confusion and find their way back as i did. my testimony, as one who left the church and returned obviously will put to rest anything they have to say, after all i've been there and done that too.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
i had a wake up calling too... and returned to the true church. hopefully those priests will sort through all the confusion and find their way back as i did. my testimony, as one who left the church and returned obviously will put to rest anything they have to say, after all i've been there and done that too.
I don't think you was also an ordained priest when you left Mike true or false?
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
We are all priests of a type in the Catholic Church. And one does not need to be a priest to know what a priest knows - we aren't the Masons.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
We are all priests of a type in the Catholic Church. And one does not need to be a priest to know what a priest knows - we aren't the Masons.
So every RC get ordained as scholar and teachers in Roman Catholic philosophy and theology in knowing everything about the church and beliefs??
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
I don't think you was also an ordained priest when you left Mike true or false?
one love
why would that matter? are you suggesting that because he is a priest that he cannot be deceived? again you take things too far evan... illogical conclusions. anyway there are plenty of "ordained" pastors who become catholics... does that affect your reasoning? judas was a disciple of Jesus yet he fell away... was that a wake up calling too? according to you it very well could have been. personal testimonies don't mean much evan.. catholics got them, evangelicals got them, mormons got them, new agers have them... it's all subjective... but that is what you place your faith in... and while i too like testimonies,, i still have to balance that out with doctrine. even my own testimony must be subject to truth. if a priest became a new ager, then where does your argument go? if the priest that became an evangelical later becomes a catholic again then where does your argument go?
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
quote:
I don't think you was also an ordained priest when you left Mike true or false?
one love
why would that matter? are you suggesting that because he is a priest that he cannot be deceived? again you take things too far evan... illogical conclusions. anyway there are plenty of "ordained" pastors who become catholics... does that affect your reasoning? judas was a disciple of Jesus yet he fell away... was that a wake up calling too? according to you it very well could have been. personal testimonies don't mean much evan.. catholics got them, evangelicals got them, mormons got them, new agers have them... it's all subjective... but that is what you place your faith in... and while i too like testimonies,, i still have to balance that out with doctrine. even my own testimony must be subject to truth. if a priest became a new ager, then where does your argument go? if the priest that became an evangelical later becomes a catholic again then where does your argument go?
It was also a wake up call for your tag team from a pope with Peter who denied Jesus three times also so what is new when many make mistakes?
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
So Peter was a sinner. What does that have to do with anything?
Peter repented directly to Jesus and Jesus response was to make him shepherd over the flock (feed my sheep, feed my lambs, shepherd my sheep). Jesus still made him the rock upon which He would build His church, gave him the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. Peter eventually became a martyr for Christ.
So what is your point in pointing out that Peter sinned? Are you looking for a sinless man to lead the church? Is that your criteria?
Good luck in your search.
Do you think any Catholic thinks the Pope can't sin? Why do they go to confession on a regular basis?
Thank the Lord we aren't looking for Alice in Wonderland.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
So Peter was a sinner. What does that have to do with anything?
Peter repented directly to Jesus and Jesus response was to make him shepherd over the flock (feed my sheep, feed my lambs, shepherd my sheep). Jesus still made him the rock upon which He would build His church, gave him the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. Peter eventually became a martyr for Christ.
So what is your point in pointing out that Peter sinned? Are you looking for a sinless man to lead the church? Is that your criteria?
Good luck in your search.
Do you think any Catholic thinks the Pope can't sin? Why do they go to confession on a regular basis?
Thank the Lord we aren't looking for Alice in Wonderland.
My point is that a pope is not infallible with the scriptures and with himself being perfect!
He is a pebble not Jesus Christ who is thee rock!
You can't make peter another Jesus Christ, which is a little Christ which suppose to be peter and a big bolder rock Jesus.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
You have confused infallibility with impeccability. The two are not the same thing. Peter did not teach anything that was incorrect theologically. He did deny that he knew Christ while waiting at the trial, but he was the only Apostle that even showed up, the rest ran away like chickens as if they had never known Christ. That is why Jesus chose Peter, He even told Peter that HE would strengthen Peter so that Peter could gather up the rest of the flock after they had been scattered.
Paul did rebuke Peter for setting a poor example, and rightly so, many a Pope has been set straight by men and women who would become great saints and doctors of the Church.
Peter/Cephas is not a pebble either. Jesus called him a rock. Peter's very name means "rock". That does not mean that Peter is equal to Jesus, far from it. Jesus is the Rock of our Salvation and the Foundation of our Faith, but Jesus told Simon that he was Rock and upon this rock (same rock) Jesus the Master Builder would build His Church.
It is a tragedy that we anglicized Cephas/Petros into Peter in the Bible instead of translating it as Rock (as in Rock Hudson).
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
We are all priests of a type in the Catholic Church. And one does not need to be a priest to know what a priest knows - we aren't the Masons.
So every RC get ordained as scholar and teachers in Roman Catholic philosophy and theology in knowing everything about the church and beliefs??
one love
No. But do you honestly think that "ordination" is required before one can study the teachings of the Catholic Church?
In an emergency, any Christian can perform a Baptism, including me - so it is my responsibility to know what is involved with baptism and how to perform it according to the Bible.
In marriage, an ordained priest does preside over the wedding, but it is the couple that confer the sacrament upon each other.
Even with the other sacraments, we as the laity do participate and as such ought to know what we are participating in and why.
Ordained priests in the Catholic Church are part of the Ministerial Priesthood, where-as we are part of the common priesthood that all beleivers share. It is only to simplify things that we identify only the ordained priests as "priests" rather than as "members of the ministerial priesthood" or as "ordained priests".
As an outsider, you do not fully grasp the fullness of what is within the Catholic Church. In other churches, there is a disconnect between the clergy and the laity and bit of a chasm between them. Even when they reject the label of clergy and the titles of priest or minister, they still have those that teach and those who are taught.
Inside the Catholic Church, we truly are all One Body in Christ. We understand that we have different roles, but all of those roles work together. The ordained minister has a job, just as a father does in his own household, one is not more important than the other, just a little different. I serve in my parish, as do many other wives and mothers.
It is true that the Bible calls us to obey those that have rule over us, for they have watch over our souls, but that does not remove our own personal responsibility to help them and each other. There are even instructions provided for when it becomes necessary for a lay person to address a problem that has arisen with a clergyman. And today, the laity are frequently asked to pray for their priests and bishops - indeed, we should not have to be asked.
Outside the Catholic Church, each local church rises or falls on the charisma and character of the hired minister. And if he or she is smart, they will give their flock what their flock is looking for, even some Catholic priests are guilty of this too, but what about giving the flock what it needs? Preaching the Word of God does not always bring comfort. No one liked Jesus very much when He barged in and told them what they were doing wrong. The leaders of the Jewish community sought to have Him killed and eventually succeeded with the aid of ordinary Jewish citizens as well.
Do you think that the Church at Corinth was happy to receive Paul's letter to them? Of course back then, they understood that Paul was trying to help them. Today, a modern Christian church would have sent Paul away for causing too much strife.
There are rules in Christ's Church and sometimes our human nature bristles at the idea, but the rules are there for a reason. Christ has not placed a heavy burden on us, He has provided a safe haven in His Sheep Fold, but too many want to leave the Sheep Fold and wander the grasslands, forgetting about the lions and wolves that prowl around out there.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
You have confused infallibility with impeccability. The two are not the same thing. Peter did not teach anything that was incorrect theologically. He did deny that he knew Christ while waiting at the trial, but he was the only Apostle that even showed up, the rest ran away like chickens as if they had never known Christ. That is why Jesus chose Peter, He even told Peter that HE would strengthen Peter so that Peter could gather up the rest of the flock after they had been scattered.
Paul did rebuke Peter for setting a poor example, and rightly so, many a Pope has been set straight by men and women who would become great saints and doctors of the Church.
Peter/Cephas is not a pebble either. Jesus called him a rock. Peter's very name means "rock". That does not mean that Peter is equal to Jesus, far from it. Jesus is the Rock of our Salvation and the Foundation of our Faith, but Jesus told Simon that he was Rock and upon this rock (same rock) Jesus the Master Builder would build His Church.
It is a tragedy that we anglicized Cephas/Petros into Peter in the Bible instead of translating it as Rock (as in Rock Hudson).
Who is Jesus mentioning upon (THIS) rock?
A Play On Words: Petros and Petra
Matthew 16:18 is a pun (a play on words). Two very similar words are used. Jesus said, "thou art PETER (the Greek word is PETROS), and upon this ROCK (the Greek word is PETRA) I will build My Church." In other words, He said this: "Thou art PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church."
Let’s think about what these Greek words mean:
1) PETROS
If you wanted to define this word by using just one word you would use the word STONE. See John 1:42 (Peter=Cephas=stone). A stone is a piece of a rock. Thus this word often refers to a loose stone or a movable stone, such as one man could throw to another (a detached stone or boulder). It could refer to a very large stone, but often this word refers to a small, movable stone. It is used of small stones including flints and pebbles for slings. It is used of a little rock or a little chip off a big rock, a stone, a pebble. This word was also used as a proper name (PETER). Did Peter consider himself to be a stone (1 Peter 2:5)? ________ Would it be wise to build a church on a loose stone? Should a building be erected on a pebble? Would this make a good foundation?
2) PETRA
If you wanted to define this word by using just one word you would use the word ROCK (Matthew l6:18--"upon this ROCK"). Which is bigger (usually), a ROCK or a STONE? ______________________ The word PETRA means a large stone or a massive rock. It often is used to describe a fixed and permanent rock or an immovable rock. This word is often used to describe a cliff by the sea (rock, ledge, cliff). The church is built upon a large, solid, immovable and permanent ROCK! This foundation is so solid and so secure that "the gates of hell (hades) shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
Peter had just made a clear confession. He had clearly pointed to Jesus Christ and WHO HE WAS (Matthew 16:16). The truth that Peter just confessed was the rock foundation upon which the church of Christ would be built. Christ was the BUILDER, Christ was the OWNER (it was His church) and Christ was the ROCK FOUNDATION (1 Cor. 3:11).
Are you thankful that the church is built upon someone more solid that Peter? Are you thankful that Christ is the Head of the church and not some visible, fallible, sinful man? Are you thankful that the church is built by God and upon God and not by man and upon man?
There are great dangers whenever people look to human leaders and human heads. Can men let us down? Can men disappoint us? Can men make mistakes? Can men make poor decisions (Jer. 17:5)? If the Pastor were the Head of the church, what problems might we have? If our leader and head is just a mere man, we are in great trouble.
If your church led by a man or by God? Is your church headed up by a man (or by men) or by God? Whose church is it (compare Matthew 16:18)? Whom should the church obey, God or man (compare Acts 4:19 and 5:29)? Whom should the church follow, men or God? We should only follow men if they are following ___________________ (1 Corinthians 11:1).
My source:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/churchhi/church1.htm
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Evangelist, I have covered this before and so have others. There is a Greek word for stone, it is lithos. There seem to be many Greek words for pebble, not one is petros.
Petros is the masculine form of the feminine noun "petra". When applied to a man, the name Petra becomes Petros. My aunt is named Petra, but if she were a man, her name would be Petros or Peter.
And even if you cannot wrap your head around the Greek, remember that Jesus did not use Greek when He said those words. Jesus called Simon "Cephas" which means rock. Paul uses Simon's new name on a number of occassions, calling him Cephas which is Aramaic, the Hebrew form is Keph [H3710].
Keph is not a small stone, but rock or hollow rock. In the OT, these were large enough to climb upon and take refuge.
There is also another Greek word for foundation, themelios. There are many words for God, words that are also applied to men, but that does not mean that men are God. The Apostles also laid foundations. And the Apostles and many others were liked to pillars and other parts of Christ's temple. In Christ's Temple, Christ is the corner stone. Who are you to twist Christ's words and remove Him from the corner and place Him underfoot?
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus was using an analogy in which He was the Master Builder and Peter was building material. It is wrong and unBiblical to change Christ's analogy to suit your own theology.
Christ is the head of the Catholic Church and the Pope is the Prime Minister in Christ the King's Royal Cabinet. With a better understanding of the OT and early Christianity, it would make more sence to you.
Now consider also what Jesus said to Peter in John 21. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, yes? Does Jesus not describe Himself that way? Yes. And yet when Jesus is ready to return to Heaven and assume His Throne as King, He tells Peter three times to feed His flock. Peter is the servant in the service of the King. Peter has not replaced Jesus as the Good Shepherd, but did serve Him here on earth, taking care of Christ's flock.
Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom, the other Apostles were not. Peter was first to be given the authority to bind and loose, the other Apostles were also granted this authority. Peter was taken aside by Jesus and asked to feed His lambs, no others.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS