More on Forgiveness
Here are 4 more things to think about on Forgiveness!
1. Forgiveness is Central to the Human Races existence.
A. Where would we be without Noah? Ummmm....dead?
B. Just read through the Old testament and how much God forgave Israel!
C. Also Read through the Gospels, Jesus did a lot of Forgiving.....Need I say more?
2. The Foundations of Forgiveness
A. It is in God's character Exodus 34:6-7 "The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, 'The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.'"
B. The Cross, God offers forgiveness to all who would Love Him and believe and follow His Son Jesus Christ.
3. Experiencing Forgiveness
A God forgives us and we inturn forgive others.
B. Faith in Christ and Repentance leads to Forgiveness Ephesians and Romans talk about this.
C. If our prayer for forgiveness is real, we will also forgive others and inturn change our actions and behavior.
4. Applying Forgiveness
A. We first pray the sinners prayer to obtain our pardon
B. Our lives should be an ongoing confession of our faults and sins to our Holy and Merciful God.
C. This should also remind us and help us to forgive others.
Just some food for thought!
God Bless!
1. Forgiveness is Central to the Human Races existence.
A. Where would we be without Noah? Ummmm....dead?
B. Just read through the Old testament and how much God forgave Israel!
C. Also Read through the Gospels, Jesus did a lot of Forgiving.....Need I say more?
2. The Foundations of Forgiveness
A. It is in God's character Exodus 34:6-7 "The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, 'The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.'"
B. The Cross, God offers forgiveness to all who would Love Him and believe and follow His Son Jesus Christ.
3. Experiencing Forgiveness
A God forgives us and we inturn forgive others.
B. Faith in Christ and Repentance leads to Forgiveness Ephesians and Romans talk about this.
C. If our prayer for forgiveness is real, we will also forgive others and inturn change our actions and behavior.
4. Applying Forgiveness
A. We first pray the sinners prayer to obtain our pardon
B. Our lives should be an ongoing confession of our faults and sins to our Holy and Merciful God.
C. This should also remind us and help us to forgive others.
Just some food for thought!
God Bless!
posted by Mark 1:17 at 1:05 PM
11 Comments:
I'm curious where praying the "sinner's prayer" is taught in the Bible?
Sorry, I'm stirring up trouble again...
Let's take a look at what is all in that prayer:
1. We confess that we are sinners. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." Romans 3:10 "None is righteous, no, not one"
2. We come to an understanding that we deserve death and eternal punishment because what we have done goes against God and grieves His Heart.
Romans 6:23a "For the wages of sin is death,"
3. Thankfully that verse doesn't end there! We ask God to forgive us. We repent (turn from our sin completely, turn away from sin and towards God) and ask for forgiveness from our sins.
Romans 6:23b "but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Yes this is a free gift, but a gift has to be received. i.e. If someone is drowning in the ocean and a life ring on a rope is tossed to them to pull them upon the ship to life, but they don't grab it, they have refused the gift. The gift must be taken hold of to be of any benefit. The death of Christ was for all, just as Moses lifted the snake in the dessert for all of Israel. But, just as Israel had to only look at the snake lifted by Moses, we also must accept the free gift that Christ offered upon the cross.
4. Here God does all the work, and offers us salvation. But as stated above, gifts have to be accepted.
Romans 5:8 "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
5. Next we call upon the name of the One who can save.
Romans 10:13 "For 'everyone who calls on the name of th Lord will be saved.'"
6. That name is Jesus Christ
Romans 10:9-10 "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."
7. This is because Jesus will not force his way into someones life.
Rev 3:20a "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him..."
So to answer you question, it is not written out for us to repeat, because it needs to come from our hearts, our souls, our deep need to be saved by the only one who can, Jesus Christ. But everything that is in the prayer is in the Bible.
I'm aware that the premises of the prayer are biblical (It's basically the "Act of Contrition" that Catholics pray after Confession.
My question was more, "where in the Bible does it say that saying a prayer gets us saved?"
I've read a lot in the Bible about baptism saving us (John 3:5; 1 Peter 3:20,21), our faith saving us (Eph 2:8,9), living out our faith in works saving us (Eph 2:10; Phil 2:12,13; Jas 2:14-26), eating the Body and Blood of Christ (the Eucharist, John 6:35, 51-54) saving us, which all ultimately boil down to the fact that God's grace alone saves us.
But I can't think of anything that says a prayer will save us, unless you're thinking of Romans 10:9. But in light of the above quotations, taking them as a whole, it's not just a prayer that saves us.
That's what I meant. Taking the Bible as a whole, that which is often called the "simple gospel" is often times the "incomplete gospel".
This is also were we disagree on baptism. Just so you are a little more informed on my background, I was brought up in a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod Church. They believe that through baptism, the Holy Spirit enters into a Childs heart and from that moment on the child is saved, untill the child rejects Christ.
The reason I do not believe that God works this way is, (and I am not limiting Him, He very easily could work this way)in Revelation 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door; I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." In reading this verse I ask, who is it that opens the door? Christ compells me to open the door by knocking. I hear His voice calling to me, and I have two option, open the door and let Him enter my life or not open the door and let Him stay right where He is. I cannot believe that God, who has given us free will, would cancel that free will by forcing His way into our lives. Have you seen the movie Bruce Almighty? I am not advocating this movie although the charater of God is asked a great question and His response is even better. Bruce: How can you get someone to love you without affecting their free will? God: When you get the answer to that one, let me know.
I believe that God does know the answer and it come through in His design of creation. Satan resents God, because he was created in one way only, that was to direct all praise to God. He chose not to do this and was cast down from heaven and out of the presence of God without a second chance. Humans on the other hand, were created in the same manor, but were given a second chance to Love God. I agree that Salvation comes to us as a free gift and it is not of any of our works so that we cannot boast, and if we do boast it must be in the Cross of Christ alone. But does not a gift have to be received? God doesn't force His gift of Salvation upon us. He offers it through a relationship with His Son, we must accept that relationship and the free gift of salvation.
There is only one Spirit that allows a person to say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He came to earth, setting aside His Outward Glory (because if He had not, no human could have looked at Him) and took on Human form. He took the sins of the world upon Himself, became the sacrifice to God for Humanity, died upon the cross and was burried in the ground. He desended into Hell and there deffeted the chains of Death and the Devil and was raised to live on the thrid day. He walked with men and talked with men for 40 days before being raised up into heaven in Glory. Now He is seated at the right hand of the Father and will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead.
Jesus Christ is the Lord of all creation and the only reason I can say that is because of the Spirit of God living within me.
Again we both can go back and forth on this issue, where will it lead? We both believe and have very strong convictions about what we believe that God has reveiled to us through our reading of His word and our relationships with Him.
The real issue that stares us down is the question of who is Jesus Christ. That is the only thing that matters. If we both agree that there is no other name that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, this is the mission. To exault His Holy name in our lives and to teach others about what He has done for them.
Our soul and sole agenda should be this and nothing else.
In Him
Amen! I totally agree with you that the sole mission is the soul mission of bringing people to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ (and totally affirm all that you have stated about Him!)--Clever pun, too, btw.
Thing is, though, is Jesus is looking for a Covenant People. Too many Evangelical Protestants, from my own background (I used to be a Pentecostal until I converted last year--after exploring a multitude of denominations while at Bible College) think of their relationship with Jesus as merely a personal thing. Of course it is personal, but it is also communal and social. Part of that communal aspect is the fulfilment of Jewish Covenental signs like circumcision--which St. Paul tells us is Baptism--and the Passover--which The NT repeatedly lets us know is the Eucharist. These covenantal signs establish and effect our participation in the New Covenant. And, with regard to Baptism, that entry into the Covenant comes through faith, but in the case of the infant, the faith is that of the parents standing in place for the child, until such a time as he himself makes the decision for or against Christ. If the communal aspect of faith never takes on personal significance, then it is no longer efficacious for salvation. In this I agree with your Lutheran background.
I don't know if it's a doctrine of your own evangelical church, or not, but the idea of "once saved always saved" is not in Scripture. Being baptised, saying a prayer, or whatever "condition" a group places on salvation is not the end of the story, because the person must learn to walk according to Christ's commands, living for Him. Even those who themselves preach the Gospel can forfeit their gift of salvation without due discipline in their lives, as St. Paul makes clear (1 Corinthians 9:27).
Too many people are under the mistaken notion that if they were baptised as babies, they're saved no matter what (or, under the mistaken belief that the church they used to belong to taught that, in the case of those who left it). I'm glad you at least have a grasp of what the Lutherans actually taught on the issue.
But if one verse made you change your mind on such a long-standing, universally held doctrine since the earliest Church until now (in the majority of Christian denominations, infant baptism is the practice), I think you're on shaky ground.
It's one thing to uphold the Lordship of Christ, and to desire all people be saved, but if He laid out the means of Salvation (and commanded it, Matthew 28:18-20), and you deny that it is essential, how do you get around the issue.
When it comes to The Great Commission, Jesus commanded us to baptise. He doesn't say, "Go into all the world, preaching the Gospel to all people, and when they believe, I will baptise them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is another way of saying Baptism in the Spirit, so teach them how to obey all that I have commanded you." Rather, He says, "Go...preach...baptise them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them..." He commands us to do the baptising, and if it was really "Spirit baptism" as you have maintained, then Jesus is giving us an impossible command, because it is God alone who can baptise us with His Spirit. The command here, as has been universally taught by virtually every Christian denomination I've ever heard of (except, I guess the Salvation Army, since they neither baptise nor celebrate Communion) holds that this command is referring to water baptism.
The problem with prooftexts as you have used Revelation 3:20, is that I could easily pick one, namely 1 Peter 3:21, which very explicitly states, "Baptism now saves you." Thing is, we need a unified understanding of the whole Scriptures, as well as an authoritative interpreter, otherwise disagreement upon disagreement abound. St. Peter tells us this, as well, when he says, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" 2 Peter 1:20. But one of the major tenets of Protestantism is the ability to understand and interpret Scripture for ourselves--which has led to the 1000's of contradictory denominations today!
So I guess it comes down to, what makes your interpretation of the plan of Salvation the correct one, especially when it contradicts the Christian belief of more than 1500 years up to the Reformation (and even then, only one branch of the Reformation, because both Luther and Calvin taught the necessity of baptism...)?
Galations 5:2-6
"Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."
Romans 4:13-25
"For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of Faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith in null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, 'I have made you the father of many nations' -- in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, 'So shall your offspring be.' He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was 'counted to him as righteousness.' But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 10:9-10
"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."
It is all about faith, no one can have faith to save another. I cannot transfer my faith to another person in any way, therefore I cannot transfer salvation to another person. You said, "the faith is that of the parents standing in place for the child", I cannot have my fathers faith, I must have my own faith in Christ.
The covenant of which you speak is a covenant of Faith that is credited to us as righteousness. Christ died for us and promises that if we believe in Him we will enjoy eternal life in Heaven with Him. It is left to us to believe or not. That is a choice. Eternal life is a free grace gift, but gifts must be received before they are of any value.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we shouldn't baptize anyone, I am saying that baptism is an outward expression of an inward commitment. I agree that we need to baptize and we are commanded to do so, but I believe that we dedicate our children to God, into His care, then when they understand what they are commiting to as Followers of Christ, then comes baptism.
Why do the churches who believe in infant baptism; baptize baby and then teach them, but when an adult comes to faith in Christ is taught first and then baptized? They are both spiritually dead to begin with so why not just baptize the adult like the child? That would make sense.
Just because I only use one verse to make a point doesn't mean that that is the only verse that has cause me to think in a certain way. You are saying that I have used this verse out of context, I would have to disagree, in this verse Christ is speaking to the Body of Believers in Laodicea. They are luke warm. They claim to be Christians, yet say that they need nothing, not realizing that they need Him most of all! He invites them into an intimate relationship, what is more intimate than a meal? (ex. The Last Supper) It is an invitation to a relationship with the Creator of the Universe.
As to your final comment, as you have stated before, we are all sinners. I admit that I may be totally wrong on this issue, BUT, I believe as well as many others that this has been revealed by God and is in accordance with His Word. This is an issue that cannot be decided untill we are caught up with Jesus and enter into eternity. On the flip side, I am not saying to not baptize, only baptize as adults! You and everyone else who hold to this tradition could also be wrong and again we will find out in Heaven. Going back and forth like this one one hand is good. It strengths our respective beliefs in Christ, on the other, it could very well hurt one who is searching and that is not good.
Surprisingly enough, I agree with all those Scriptures. But the issue is that we'd disagree on their specific interpretation. This is my point. On what authority do we interpret Scripture? There must be an authoritative interpretation beyond your own and my own, otherwise division upon division occur.
This is why St. Peter wrote:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. -2 Peter 1:20.
And:
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. -2 Peter 3:15, 16.
So if the teaching of the Church has maintained that Baptism has regenerative spiritual effects, washing away our sins (as St. Peter makes clear in his first letter, 3:20-21), as unanimously attested by the earliest Fathers of the Church and believed as unbroken tradition for all of Church history until well into the so-called "Reformation", then by what authority do you, 2000 years later, deny that?
The alternatives are clear: Either: the historical Church dating back to the time of the Apostles lost the "true gospel" as far back as even before the Apostles themselves died--making Jesus' promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail over the Church a lie--and the truth was only rediscovered by the Reformers (and mind you, fairly late reformers, since the earliest reformers themselves taught the efficacy of baptism for rebirth)--
Or: By denying this tradition, you and your own tradition is teaching something contrary to Christian witness for 2000 years straight back to the time of Christ (Who Himself taught that you must be born of water and the Spirit--John 3:5, which even the closest disciples of St. John, like St. Irenaeus, teach meant baptism).
St. Paul himself refers to baptism as "the bath of regeneration" in Titus 3:5, and in his own account of his conversion, he says that Ananias told him, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).
While infant baptism isn't explicitly taught in Scripture, it can be inferred by the phrases "and their household" like in Acts 16, with the Philippian jailer (vv 33, 34), or the household of Stephanus (1 Corinthians 1:16). While we cannot be certain, it is highly probably that these homes included children and infants. Besides this, we have Jesus telling His disciples not to forbid the children from being brought to Him for a blessing. In Luke's account, he specifically uses the Greek word for "infants" which literally means babies who can't yet talk. Therefore they were too young to verbalise their desire to be brought to Jesus, let alone understand what that meant. Yet, Jesus commanded them to be brought (Luke 18:15-16).
While this might seem a stretch to support infant baptism, early Church history demonstrates that the earliest controversy about baptism was not whether it forgave sins, or whether or not to baptise infants, but, since baptism fulfilled what circumcision merely symbolised, shoud Christians wait until the 8th day to baptise, like in Jewish law, or baptise right away? Because of the importance of the sacrament, they dispensed with the 8 day waiting period!
So again I ask, on what grounds do you deny the teaching of the Church? By what authority do you interpret Scripture differently than even those who were taught by the Apostles themselves?
I have never denied baptism!
You stated yourself, "as unanimously attested by the earliest Fathers of the Church and believed as unbroken tradition for all of Church history until well into the so-called "Reformation"," I agree that the Founding Fathers taught baptism, which again I have not denied! But as you put it is believed and is an unbroken tradition. Tradition, the tradition of baptizing babies, that is what I have disagreed with. Nothing more.
You also said, "Besides this, we have Jesus telling His disciples not to forbid the children from being brought to Him for a blessing."
Great, bring the children up for a blessing! That is wonderful!
But again I believe that Baptism is an outward expression of an inward commitment. Yes there is a very spiritual transformation that occurs at this point.
Also, what about the Thief on the Cross next to Jesus? He wasn't baptized but is enjoying eternity in Heaven. He was never baptized. Paul, I have never read anything about Him being baptized. I also don't ever remember reading an account of babies being baptized in the scriptures. Yes, you can speculate that because a family was baptized that there were babies also, but that is paper thin. Jesus does say "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" Matt 18:3 and but it is followed by "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." and "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." Matt 19:14 However it's all about having a Childlike Faith!
Baptism is being washed by water and the word. Well Jesus Himself is the embodyment of both! He is the living water that if you drink of Him you will never go thirsty again. He is also the living word or God. The word made flesh.
Your question about, “By what authority do you interpret Scripture differently than even those who were taught by the Apostles themselves?” You use 2 Peter 1:20 as support, “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someones’s own interpretation.” Yet you do not use the next verse also, “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” This whole passage concerns the inspiration of prophecy not the illumination of scripture (more on this in a bit). The OT Prophets and we can now also include the writers of the NT with them did not “bring about a release” (the literal translation of the Greek), Thus the prophecy did not issue out of the prophet, but was instead issued from God to men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit vis-à-vis inspiration. Verse 21 really clears it up because the Greek coordination conjunction translated as “for” is either causal or explanatory. This means that the phrase in vs. 21 “never had its origin” is equated with the “prophet’s own release” of vs. 20 as either its cause or an explanation of it. Either way we are talking about the Method of Giving (inspiration) of a prophecy NOT the Interpreting (illumination) of it.
As to Illumination: It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit that helps the believer understand the truth of scripture…i.e. the meaning of scripture is made clear to the believer. The Holy Spirit is the direct connection between the mind of God (as revealed in scriptures) and the mind of the believer seeking to understand scripture. John 14:25-26 “These things I have spoke to you while I am still with you, But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” But especially John 16:13-16 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. A little while, and you will see me no longer; and again a little while, and you will see me.” This reveals that Jesus promised his followers that when the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, he would lead them into truth and this would include the deep things of God as 1 Corinthians 2:9-13 says, “But, it is written, ‘What no eye has seen, notr ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him’ –these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.”
Illumination should not be confused with the means by which God reveals (discloses) himself to mankind…..meaning, he reveals himself through prophets (spoken word), creation, incarnation, scripture (written word), visions, etc. Ephesians 4:11-13, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” And Romans 12:6-11, “and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” We are commanded to use these gifts, our Spiritual Gifts granted to us proportionally as the Spirit wills.
Humbly in Christ
David
I'm going to respond to your last entry thought by thought, since its length and depth require a suitable response, and it would be too confusing to go back and forth otherwise. Your words are in italics. Most of your original post is here, but I omitted the Scripture references arguing for the illuminating presence of the Holy Spirit, since it was rather lengthly (and already appears once in your own post) and we both agree that that is His role.
I have never denied baptism!
No, but you consistently redefine it as something different from what the Church has always taught.
You stated yourself, "as unanimously attested by the earliest Fathers of the Church and believed as unbroken tradition for all of Church history until well into the so-called "Reformation"," I agree that the Founding Fathers taught baptism, which again I have not denied! But as you put it is believed and is an unbroken tradition. Tradition, the tradition of baptizing babies, that is what I have disagreed with. Nothing more.
But I again ask you why? This Tradition (Apostolic Tradition, handed down from the Apostles to their disciples, who became their successors, the bishops, this Tradition which St. Jude refers to as "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (v.3), and which St. Paul instructs us, to "hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word of mouth, or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15; cf. 2 Timothy 2:2).
Tradition is not a bad word, or a bad thing. Each Denomination of Christianity is itself a tradition, so the question remains, how do we determine the best Tradition? For me, it was a question of which Tradition had the deepest historical roots, was unchanged in essence from the Apostles onward, because Jesus said His Church would never be destroyed. Using that test on the Protestant churches, they teach things that the Church has not taught until that particular brand of Protestantism began (Like the very foundational teachings, justification by faith alone, and sola scriptura—The Bible alone. The second teaching is an odd conundrum since the Bible itself never teaches sola scriptura, but instead, as the above verses indicate, endorses Sacred Tradition!).
For a Catholic, the absence of explicitly laid out doctrine in Scripture is not a problem, because we don't hold to a Bible-Alone philosophy. (If we had, there could be no Bible, since the Bible doesn't tell itself which books belong in it! We also wouldn't have a consensus on things like the Trinity or the Nature of Christ, since even heretics like Arius (who denied Jesus true divinity) used Scripture to support his theology! Without authentic, authoritative interpretation, conflict and contradiction occur. Look at modern-day Protestantism! There are literally 1000s of denominations, with conflicting views on certain doctrinal issues. Where there is a contradiction, there is necessarily an error, on one side if not on both! The truth is always in harmony with itself. So for the Protestant Church to be so divided on a topic like "predestination" for example, either the Calvinists are wrong, or the Arminians—or both! But they can't both be right. So there is error. Is that the way God wanted His Church? Is He powerless to reveal the Truth to us? No! But that Truth must be maintained by an authentic teaching authority, which I submit is only found in the Catholic Church.
You also said, "Besides this, we have Jesus telling His disciples not to forbid the children from being brought to Him for a blessing."
Great, bring the children up for a blessing! That is wonderful!
The point is that the children (infants, in Luke's case) couldn't bring themselves. What is a blessing? In Scripture it is something that is powerfully efficacious—especially when it comes from Jesus' lips! Jesus wasn' merely a baby-kissing politician; His blessings transformed lives! But the point is, is that it is the parents' faith that had the child brought to Christ for the blessing, but Christ blessed the child, not the parents (though I'm sure He blessed them, too!). It is comparable to baptism, even though not 1:1. Infant baptism was a logical extraction from the fact of its relationship to Jewish circumcision. And it was a practice that appears exceedingly early in Church History. If it was in error, wouldn't someone have spoken up about it? Yet we have no record of protestation of the practice of infant baptism. The earliest controversy, as I stated, was whether or not to wait the full 8 days that Jewish Circumcision prescribed (and the unanimous answer was no, baptise them anytime).
But again I believe that Baptism is an outward expression of an inward commitment. Yes there is a very spiritual transformation that occurs at this point.
At which point, the baptism or the commitment? I agree with you that there must be a commitment, but that commitment is made by the parents until the child can make his or her own decision. In the sense that you seem to take it (that commitment brings the change that baptism merely signifies) I would say going to Church is the same thing: the signifying feature of the commitment to follow Christ. And yet, good parents know that they should bring their children to church when they're too young to understand, and even when they'd rather do other things. The child eventually reaches a point where he may refuse to go to church, but until that point the parents don't say, "Leave him at home. Going won't help him, anyway." When one believes that baptism itself, through the working of the Holy Spirit in response to the covenant faith of the family (Because it's all about that term, covenant), actually performs what it also signifies, then baptism is a right and good thing to administer to the child of believing parents! The child may choose to walk away later, and thus forfeit the gift of salvation, but until that time, before a child reaches the age of reason, the inherited, original sin of Adam has been washed away.
Also, what about the Thief on the Cross next to Jesus? He wasn't baptized but is enjoying eternity in Heaven. He was never baptized.
Had the thief had the opportunity, he would have been. This notion is taught by the Church, referred to as "The Baptism of Desire". If a person, through no fault of his own, is not baptised either because of impossibility or ignorance, then God judges them based on their heart at the time. But the normative means that God has given us to receive the grace of regeneration is baptism.
Paul, I have never read anything about Him being baptized.
Seriously?! His testimony is recorded three times in the book of Acts! The only time his baptism is not mentioned is the final time, chapter 26, because his account is very brief (He had to fight to even be heard at the trial!). Chapter 9, the original account, says this in verse 18: "Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized." Chapter 22, Paul's own firsthand account, says this in verse 16: "'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'" He connects baptism and the washing away of sins explicitly in this passage!
I also don't ever remember reading an account of babies being baptized in the scriptures. Yes, you can speculate that because a family was baptized that there were babies also, but that is paper thin.
Again, as Catholics, we don't need to see it explicitly in Scripture. We don't adhere to Scripture-Alone, since it itself is not taught in Scripture (therefore being itself a tradition, and contradictory to the whole stance!).
Jesus does say "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" Matt 18:3 and but it is followed by "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." and "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." Matt 19:14 However it's all about having a Childlike Faith!
Yeeeaaaaahhhh, and…?
Baptism is being washed by water and the word.
The Bible never refers to baptism as being washed by water and word. It is being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).
Well Jesus Himself is the embodyment of both! He is the living water that if you drink of Him you will never go thirsty again. He is also the living word or God. The word made flesh.
Indeed He is. So you would deny the power (and, following your argument here to its logical conclusion) the necessity of baptism (which Jesus commanded) simply because He Himself fulfils the symbolic elements of the sacrament? The sacrament uses those elements (water for baptism, bread and wine for Eucharist, oil for Confirmation, etc.) precisely because they are symbolic representations of God (in the above listed sacraments, Jesus and the Holy Spirit specifically). Being symbolic of Jesus doesn't mean that they aren't necessary or powerful, but they are necessary and powerful precisely because the Holy Spirit chooses to use them to bestow grace on us!
Your question about, "By what authority do you interpret Scripture differently than even those who were taught by the Apostles themselves?" You use 2 Peter 1:20 as support, "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someones's own interpretation." Yet you do not use the next verse also, "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." This whole passage concerns the inspiration of prophecy not the illumination of scripture (more on this in a bit). The OT Prophets and we can now also include the writers of the NT with them did not "bring about a release" (the literal translation of the Greek), Thus the prophecy did not issue out of the prophet, but was instead issued from God to men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit vis-à-vis inspiration. Verse 21 really clears it up because the Greek coordination conjunction translated as "for" is either causal or explanatory. This means that the phrase in vs. 21 "never had its origin" is equated with the "prophet's own release" of vs. 20 as either its cause or an explanation of it. Either way we are talking about the Method of Giving (inspiration) of a prophecy NOT the Interpreting (illumination) of it.
What translation are you looking at? The NKJV renders verse 20 as "interpretation" because the Greek word, epilusis, which means "loosing" literally, metaphorically means "interpretation" (According to Thayer's Lexicon). Of course it is related to the next verse (which I didn't see a need to quote simply for brevity's sake). No Scripture is subject to one's private interpretation because ("gar" means "for" in pretty much exactly the same way we do--in this context, it's a conclusory or explanatory conjunction) no Scripture was written just by men, but only as the Holy Spirit inspired them. You're arguing too far! The passage is saying that since the source wasn't men, the interpretation can't rest with men. This is why an authoritative interpreter is needed—one that was established by Jesus Christ, and is guided by the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth and keeps us from error. This is only to be found in one place, the Catholic Church.
As to Illumination: It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit that helps the believer understand the truth of scripture…i.e. the meaning of scripture is made clear to the believer. The Holy Spirit is the direct connection between the mind of God (as revealed in scriptures) and the mind of the believer seeking to understand scripture… We are commanded to use these gifts, our Spiritual Gifts granted to us proportionally as the Spirit wills.
The problem with asserting that the Holy Spirit guides each person into a sure certainty of what Scripture says is the glaring reality of the division this assumption has brought about in Christianity! There must be something more, something binding, because anyone can say that it was the Holy Spirit that led them to conclusion X, whereas another person says that same Holy Spirit led them to conclusion Y. Now, X does not equal Y. The two are in conflict (our conversation is a case in point). How is this conflict resolved? You appeal to the Holy Spirit guiding your reading. I appeal that He has guided mine. After all, I came to my conclusions about baptism (and the Eucharist, though that isn’t our discussion here) from reading Scripture as a die-hard Pentecostal. So which Holy Spirit is teaching whom? Truth does not contradict itself, nor is Christ divided. There must be a better authority than saying subjectively and un-provably, that "the Holy Spirit told me so."
God bless
Gregory
Gregory,
Respectfully, I am ending this. I cannot permit this to continue.
By saying that the bible is in itself a tradition, you deny it's Authority. IT IS THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. It is INFALLIBLE. The Church is the Body of Christ, the Saints, the "Called out ones", the World of Believers in Christ Jesus the Lord.
Salvation come for Christ and Christ alone!
By Grace one is saved through Faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. For it is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is a gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." So faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of Christ.
We hear the word of Christ and come to faith in Him. Then we call on His name in faith and are saved by the grace of God because of the faith we have place in Christ Jesus.
As I said at the top, this must stop now. If you disagree with something I have written, comment on your own site. I have been to your site, and I disagree with a lot of things that you say, but out of respect for you flock, I maintain silence.
I pray the the truth will be revieled, one way or the other.
I am willing to die for the major issues, that is Christ. But on the smaller things, no, we will find out when Christ returns, but the fact of the matter is, if we have Christ, we have eternal life. Christ is it, He is all that matters. Therefore these conversations are done.
I humbly ask you to respect my wishes.
In Christ,
David
Hey man.
I want to apologise. I've been a bit of a jerk. You're right. Let's end this.
Anyway, I mentioned it on my blog because you said you've been there. I posted a message about the Comments section and encouraging discussion and debate to happen there. So if ever you're in the mood to stop by and chat there, you're more than welcome.
I also linked to your blog in my post, because as much as sometimes we disagree on some stuff, there is a lot we agree on. I thought I should let you know, though.
God bless,
Your brother in Christ
Gregory
Post a Comment
<< Home