Catholic Question

[themuzicman]

How does the Catholic church arrive at the conclusion that salvation must come through the RCC?

Michael

[Paul]

Baptism is necessary for salvation per Jesus' word that one must be born of water and spirit. Baptism is the door by which one enters the Church. Therefore the Church is necessary for salvation.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 11:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323126#post323126)
Paul:

Baptism is necessary for salvation per Jesus' word that one must be born of water and spirit. Baptism is the door by which one enters the Church. Therefore the Church is necessary for salvation.

so no old testament saints will get saved??

[Xavier]

Paul:

{Edited to reflect argument form...}

1) Baptism is necessary for salvation per Jesus' word that one must be born of water and spirit.
2) Baptism is the door by which one enters the Church.

QED, the Church is necessary for salvation.

Do all view Baptism as nessesary for salvation?
Do all agree that Baptism is used for that purpose?
What makes Catholic baptism the ONLY baptism?

Xavier

[Paul]

Today @ 08:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323129#post323129)
Xavier:



Do all view Baptism as nessesary for salvation?
Do all agree that Baptism is used for that purpose?
What makes Catholic baptism the ONLY baptism?

Xavier

There is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The scriptures speak of their being one baptism and one faith just as there is one Lord.

The Church recognizes as valid the baptisms of other Christian ecclesial communities such as in the Eastern Orthodox Churches or in the Prebsyterian communities or the Lutheran communities. As long as water is used and the trinitarian formula is used and the intentions are all there, the baptism is considered valid. So if a Lutheran who was baptized converts to Catholicism, he doesn't get rebaptized. This baptism is sometimes called Christian baptism; it is never called "Catholic" baptism. Certain other rituals which may look like baptism -- Christian baptism -- are not valid. For example those Pentecostals who baptized "in the name of Jesus" as opposed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as Christ commanded do not minister valid baptisms. Mormon baptisms are also considered invalid for a whole host of reasons. The god they invoke when they baptize is not the God of the Christian religion. They do not invoke the Trinity even though they may use similar words.

[Xavier]

Then, the question remains. If the Catholic Church recognizes other baptism, how is the RCC nessesary for salvation?

Xavier

PS: Sorry if I'm coming off a bit terse, that isn't the intention just trying to clarify the Catholic position.

[Paul]

Today @ 08:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323128#post323128)
Bill the Cat:



so no old testament saints will get saved??

they were saved through the harrowing of Hell which is sometimes depicted in famous Christian art. The scriptures speak of Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison -- these were the souls of the Old Testament just. They did not need to be incorporated into the Church via baptism as neither baptism nor the Church had been instituted by Jesus Christ in the age in which they lived.

But now they are part of the Church. The Church is not just we who are here on earth, but the whole Church: the Church in Heaven, the Church in purgatory, and the Church on earth. The Church in Heaven is known as the Church Triumphant; the Church in purgatory as the Church Suffering; and the Church on earth as the Church Militant.

The Church Triumphant reign with Christ. The Church Suffering are purged of any imperfect attitudes they may have died with. The Church Militant is on a pilgrimage to our true home which is in Heaven. This earth is just the gymn where we work out.

AFAIK this is not an official teaching of the Church, but I think the just of the Old Testament can be considered as a kind of primordial Church or the womb from which the Church sprang or was conceived in.

[bar Jonah]

Paul:
The Church recognizes as valid the baptisms of other Christian ecclesial communities such as in the Eastern Orthodox Churches or in the Prebsyterian communities or the Lutheran communities. As long as water is used and the trinitarian formula is used and the intentions are all there, the baptism is considered valid. So if a Lutheran who was baptized converts to Catholicism, he doesn't get rebaptized.
Not according to several people I've known who converted to Catholicism, including a former best friend who converted when he got married to a Catholic. He used to be a Lutheran, and didn't understand why he had to get baptized again, but did it because they insisted it was necessary. This was about 3 or 4 years ago.

It seems strange to me that Catholic apologists (formal or informal) accuse the Baptists and Protestants of being so fractious, when the RCC itself can't even get basic doctrines straight and consistent from one church to another. Going door to door confiscating Bibles from their own congregants, telling people if they miss church and die before next Sunday they will go to Hell, and the widespread worship of Mary in Latin America and Asia... very perplexing, making anti-Baptist and anti-Protestant accusations of balkanization seem fairly hypocritical.

[Paul]

Today @ 09:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323155#post323155)
Xavier:

Then, the question remains. If the Catholic Church recognizes other baptism, how is the RCC nessesary for salvation?

Xavier

PS: Sorry if I'm coming off a bit terse, that isn't the intention just trying to clarify the Catholic position.

Just to be clear there is no other baptism. There is one baptism, one faith, and one Lord as the scriptures say.

I think I already explained how the Church is necessary for salvation... since baptism is the door by which one enters the Church, the Church is necessary for salvation just as baptism is necessary for salvation.

The Church -- the mystical Body of Christ -- is identified with the Catholic Church. The mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same thing -- they are numerically identical. One cannot be baptized without being in someway incorporated into or at least associated with the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

[bar Jonah]

Having never been baptized in water (nor will I ever be), I guess that leaves me out of the RCC membership.

[Paul]

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323164#post323164)
RightIdea:


Not according to several people I've known who converted to Catholicism, including a former best friend who converted when he got married to a Catholic. He used to be a Lutheran, and didn't understand why he had to get baptized again, but did it because they insisted it was necessary. This was about 3 or 4 years ago.


These persons whom you know are mistaken. I don't know what else to tell you. Unless there were something funny going on like if they were baptized "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier" or something like that, the Catholic Church would consider their baptisms valid. In fact to attempt to repeat a valid baptism is considered to be a grave sacrilege. If they could not *prove* that they were baptized then they may be given a *conditional* baptism. So if they don't have their baptism certificates or have some other means to prove that they were baptized they may be conditionally baptized. Regardless, the Church accepts the validity of baptisms ministered by non-Catholics -- it says so in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which you can pick up for just 7 dollars and which you can read for free online.

The persons you know probably don't know the difference between a conditional baptism and a simple one -- given that, it would not be wise to form a prejudice against the Catholic Church based on their testimony. Iny my case it would be doubly unwise since I am hearing this through triple heresay.


It seems strange to me that Catholic apologists (formal or informal) accuse the Baptists and Protestants of being so fractious, when the RCC itself can't even get basic doctrines straight and consistent from one church to another.

No it's not strange because this is not first of all a case of where one local Church or parish is not getting the basic doctrine about baptism straight. I have no reason to believe that there is a parish anywhere in the world much less a diocese which does not recognize the validity of baptisms ministered by Lutherans. If there is such a rumor going around, it is a myth perhaps based on some kind of misunderstanding.

The doctrines are "gotten straight" by hearing the word of God and by being docile to the magisterium. Any Catholic can learn the official teachings of the Church by picking a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for 7 dollars.


Going door to door confiscating Bibles from their own congregants, telling people if they miss church and die before next Sunday they will go to Hell, and the widespread worship of Mary in Latin America and Asia... very perplexing, making anti-Baptist and anti-Protestant accusations of balkanization seem fairly hypocritical.

What you have written here includes falsehoods. There is no widespread worship of Mary in Latin America and Asia. I am from Asia. I've visited Asia on a couple occasions. I did not see any Catholics there give Mary the worship that is proper only to her Son. What you *perceive* as improper worship is not necessarily so.

I have no reason to believe that there is a significant number of Catholics who go door to door confiscating Bibles. I do have a reason to believe that you are prejudiced against Catholics and against the Catholic Church.

You have brought up a whole host of issues here. I think if you want Catholics to address them it would be better to bring them each up in separate threads.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 12:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323158#post323158)
Paul:



they were saved through the harrowing of Hell which is sometimes depicted in famous Christian art. The scriptures speak of Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison -- these were the souls of the Old Testament just. They did not need to be incorporated into the Church via baptism as neither baptism nor the Church had been instituted by Jesus Christ in the age in which they lived.

But now they are part of the Church. The Church is not just we who are here on earth, but the whole Church: the Church in Heaven, the Church in purgatory, and the Church on earth. The Church in Heaven is known as the Church Triumphant; the Church in purgatory as the Church Suffering; and the Church on earth as the Church Militant.

The Church Triumphant reign with Christ. The Church Suffering are purged of any imperfect attitudes they may have died with. The Church Militant is on a pilgrimage to our true home which is in Heaven. This earth is just the gymn where we work out.

AFAIK this is not an official teaching of the Church, but I think the just of the Old Testament can be considered as a kind of primordial Church or the womb from which the Church sprang or was conceived in.

But this still does not answer the question. Were they baptized in water to gain entrance into the Church?

[bar Jonah]

Paul, I didn't say those things are the official position of the RCC. I said that the RCC around the world is every bit as fractious as the Baptists and Protestants. (And if you think Mary worship isn't common in Latin America, you need to travel around there for a while, to see for yourself. Or just talk to the almost entirely Mexican kitchen staff at my restaurant -- they will freely tell you I'm going to Hell for not believing that Mary is "Queen of Heaven and Earth" and that my sins will not be forgiven without praying to Mary for forgiveness. I tried talking to them about Jesus, and they didn't express any interest in anything concerning Him. For them, it's all about Mary. Some countries in S. America are the worst, in this regard.

I should have said some parts of Asia, not Asia as a whole. The Phillipines and other predominantly Catholic island nations in S.E. Asia are terribly bad in this regard. While stationed on the critically important U.S. military base on the island of Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean -- Bill the Cat has been there too and may be able to attest to this), many jobs on the island are contracted out to civilian contract workers from the Phillipines, Mauritius and Mali, among other places. The Filipino workers there have literal public altars to Mary where they make sacrifices to gain her favor. There are no such altars to Jesus. This was the overwhelming rule among them, not the exception.

Note: there are no "local" people on Diego Garcia; it is an atoll with zero native people there. The Filipino workers come directly from the Phillipines; they are not some separate sect living in isolation.

[Ryokan]

The reason for this is that, to the Chruch leadership, as long as they are, by faith, hook, or crook, Catholic, and obeying vaguely Christian principles, it is all good. The leadership remains powerful and the people are still going to heaven, because the Church leadership is slowly and quietly moving to a universal salvation position. And Catholics are gonna say "uh uh", but I trust my judgement, given I have 12 years of Catholic education, and went to a Jesuit high school.

[Paul]

Today @ 10:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323214#post323214)
Bill the Cat:



But this still does not answer the question. Were they baptized in water to gain entrance into the Church?

No it does answer the question. Let me repeat for you:

Baptism is necessary only for those persons who lived after the institution of baptism and the institution of the Church by Jesus Christ and the Gospel was promulgated. It is not necessary for those persons who lived before the inauguration and promulgation of the New Covenant.

[Paul]

Today @ 11:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323305#post323305)
RightIdea:

And if you think Mary worship isn't common in Latin America, you need to travel around there for a while, to see for yourself.

I am of the opinion that to say as St Maximilian Kolbe did that Mary while being a "finite creature" is "almost above God" as a mother is above her sons does not constitute "Mary worship." I am also of the opinion that to say as St Maximilian Kolbe did that while the Holy Spirit never took flesh as did the Word, that he is nevertheless in a certain manner incarnate in Mary does not constitute "Mary worship." Given that, I don't think I would find anything in Latin America that I would consider to be an undue worship of Mary. I don't think there is a single Catholic in the whole world who considers Mary to be God, a divine person, an infinite being. Everyone knows that Mary is a creature, dependant like everyone else on her Creator.


Or just talk to the almost entirely Mexican kitchen staff at my restaurant -- they will freely tell you I'm going to Hell for not believing that Mary is "Queen of Heaven and Earth" and that my sins will not be forgiven without praying to Mary for forgiveness.

It is my belief, though this has not yet been solemnly defined by the Church that your sins will not be forgiven without the mediation of Mary in Christ Jesus. You don't need to ask Mary to obtain forgiveness for your sins from her divine Son and you don't even need to realize that Mary's mediation is involved, but according to St Maximilian Kolbe any grace we obtain from God is mediated to us through Mary in Christ. From the moment of her Immaculate Conception, no grace was given man apart from her mediation. I think refusing to acknowledge Mary's reign of love would put your salvation in jeopardy since according to St Maximilian Kolbe that is what Satan and the fallen angels refused to do. In any case Mary is the Queen of Heaven. And asking her to obtain forgiveness from her divine Son is proper. St Francis of Assisi did just that; he confessed his sins to the holy Virgin, asking her to obtain forgiveness from her divine Son.


I tried talking to them about Jesus, and they didn't express any interest in anything concerning Him. For them, it's all about Mary. Some countries in S. America are the worst, in this regard.

I think that's just your misperception or misinterpretation. They probably just werent interested in what *you* had to say about Jesus. It's all being about Mary does not mean that it is not also all about Christ. Jesus is the center, but that doesn't mean that God the Father is not also a center or that the Holy Spirit is not also a center. Mary is a center too. Mary, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are not on the same level or plane as though each were competing for your devotion. It's not like that at all. They would be more like links in a single chain. I would be happy to explain this more in another thread or maybe in this thread if that's what is customary on this board. To put it simply we don't love Mary apart from God, but rather in God and in loving Mary in God, we love God and God loves Mary through our mediation or instrumentality.


I should have said some parts of Asia, not Asia as a whole. The Phillipines and other predominantly Catholic island nations in S.E. Asia are terribly bad in this regard. While stationed on the critically important U.S. military base on the island of Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean -- Bill the Cat has been there too and may be able to attest to this), many jobs on the island are contracted out to civilian contract workers from the Phillipines, Mauritius and Mali, among other places. The Filipino workers there have literal public altars to Mary where they make sacrifices to gain her favor. There are no such altars to Jesus. This was the overwhelming rule among them, not the exception.

What were these "sacrifices"? Can you be more specific? Were animals slain on these altars? There does exist in the Catholic Church altars dedicated to Mary -- there are altars dedicated to Mary in Rome. But in every Church there is an altar on which the Sacrifice is offered to God. These altars are public. But even if they weren't public, your objection would not make much sense. It would be like objecting to Rosaries because there are no similar prayer beads which involve prayers more directly addressed to Jesus. Actually there is the Chaplet of Divine Mercy now ... but even if there wasn't, that objection wouldn't make any sense. If one is married and has children, he loves his wife and children in different ways. He may give his wife a rose and not do so with regard to his children. Does that mean that he loves his wife more than his children? Not at all.

But again I think your problem ironically is that you see Jesus and Mary as being on the same level or plane as opposed to links on a single chain.

PS I don't have time now to zap all my typos. If there are too many, let me know and I'll polish up my post for you.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323388#post323388)
Paul:



No it does answer the question. Let me repeat for you:

Baptism is necessary only for those persons who lived after the institution of baptism and the institution of the Church by Jesus Christ and the Gospel was promulgated. It is not necessary for those persons who lived before the inauguration and promulgation of the New Covenant.

So did the thief on the cross need to be baptized? He died after Jesus died, so the new covenant was in place at the moment of sacrifice (Jesus' death) The Church was purchased with Jesus' shed blood at the minute of His death. Was the thief a member of the Church?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 07:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323094#post323094)
themuzicman:

How does the Catholic church arrive at the conclusion that salvation must come through the RCC?

Michael

The Church is the Body of Christ, that is why.

With regards to the rebaptism, it is possible that they were baptized conditionally.





So did the thief on the cross need to be baptized? He died after Jesus died, so the new covenant was in place at the moment of sacrifice (Jesus' death) The Church was purchased with Jesus' shed blood at the minute of His death. Was the thief a member of the Church?


Baptism of desire, in this case, an implicit desire.

[bar Jonah]

Paul:
I am of the opinion that to say as St Maximilian Kolbe did that Mary while being a "finite creature" is "almost above God" as a mother is above her sons does not constitute "Mary worship." I am also of the opinion that to say as St Maximilian Kolbe did that while the Holy Spirit never took flesh as did the Word, that he is nevertheless in a certain manner incarnate in Mary does not constitute "Mary worship." Given that, I don't think I would find anything in Latin America that I would consider to be an undue worship of Mary. I don't think there is a single Catholic in the whole world who considers Mary to be God, a divine person, an infinite being. Everyone knows that Mary is a creature, dependant like everyone else on her Creator.

It is my belief, though this has not yet been solemnly defined by the Church that your sins will not be forgiven without the mediation of Mary in Christ Jesus. You don't need to ask Mary to obtain forgiveness for your sins from her divine Son and you don't even need to realize that Mary's mediation is involved, but according to St Maximilian Kolbe any grace we obtain from God is mediated to us through Mary in Christ. From the moment of her Immaculate Conception, no grace was given man apart from her mediation. I think refusing to acknowledge Mary's reign of love would put your salvation in jeopardy since according to St Maximilian Kolbe that is what Satan and the fallen angels refused to do. In any case Mary is the Queen of Heaven. And asking her to obtain forgiveness from her divine Son is proper. St Francis of Assisi did just that; he confessed his sins to the holy Virgin, asking her to obtain forgiveness from her divine Son.
But St. Jim categorically denies any role of Mary in the mediation between us and God the Father. Scripture is explicit on this issue -- there is only one mediator between us and God, and this is Jesus Christ. I hereby excommunicate Kolbe for flat-out soteriological heresy and idol worship.

My dad can beat up your dad? Or my sainthood can beat up his "sainthood."


What were these "sacrifices"? Can you be more specific? Were animals slain on these altars? There does exist in the Catholic Church altars dedicated to Mary -- there are altars dedicated to Mary in Rome. But in every Church there is an altar on which the Sacrifice is offered to God. These altars are public. But even if they weren't public, your objection would not make much sense. It would be like objecting to Rosaries because there are no similar prayer beads which involve prayers more directly addressed to Jesus. Actually there is the Chaplet of Divine Mercy now ... but even if there wasn't, that objection wouldn't make any sense. If one is married and has children, he loves his wife and children in different ways. He may give his wife a rose and not do so with regard to his children. Does that mean that he loves his wife more than his children? Not at all.
Primarily the sacrifices were meats, breads and wine, although a couple of animal sacrifices occurred as well -- chickens. This was done very anonymously, as the chickens (descendents of those raised on the old coconut oil plantation that was closed in WWII) are considered local wildlife and are protected by the British government, which owns the island. I wonder if this happened while Bill was there, also.


But again I think your problem ironically is that you see Jesus and Mary as being on the same level or plane as opposed to links on a single chain.
I'm not the one guilty of granting Christ's perfectly unique mediatorship to a mere sinful human being.

I openly reject any role of Mary as any form of mediator whatsoever, and I reject water baptism. I guess that leaves me out of your body, doesn't it? For that, I thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[spl_cadet]

But St. Jim categorically denies any role of Mary in the mediation between us and God the Father. Scripture is explicit on this issue -- there is only one mediator between us and God, and this is Jesus Christ. I hereby excommunicate Kolbe for flat-out soteriological heresy and idol worship.

Tell me, do you pray for others? Guess what, you are mediating for them with God.




Primarily the sacrifices were meats, breads and wine, although a couple of animal sacrifices occurred as well -- chickens. This was done very anonymously, as the chickens (descendents of those raised on the old coconut oil plantation that was closed in WWII) are considered local wildlife and are protected by the British government, which owns the island. I wonder if this happened while Bill was there, also.


That is strictly verboten by the Church. Not sure of the sin being commited off-hand though.




I openly reject any role of Mary as any form of mediator whatsoever, and I reject water baptism. I guess that leaves me out of your body, doesn't it? For that, I thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

And do you think that the Early Church had the same attitude as you? :lol:

[bar Jonah]

spl_cadet:
Tell me, do you pray for others? Guess what, you are mediating for them with God.
If that is mediating between them and God, then the Bible tells a lie. So, you tell me.


That is strictly verboten by the Church. Not sure of the sin being commited off-hand though.]
I know it's forbidden. My point exactly. Thank you.


And do you think that the Early Church had the same attitude as you? :lol:
The early RCC church? I'm sure they didn't. :smile:

[spl_cadet]

If that is mediating between them and God, then the Bible tells a lie. So, you tell me.

Or, you are misinterpreting the Bible. Which is rather more likely.



The early RCC church? I'm sure they didn't.


Yes, but also such noted individuals as Polycarp, Iraenaeus, Ignatius, etc.

[bar Jonah]

spl_cadet:
Or, you are misinterpreting the Bible. Which is rather more likely.
Or you're misinterpreting the Bible and putting faith in mere men rather than God's infallible word... which is rather more likely.


Yes, but also such noted individuals as Polycarp, Iraenaeus, Ignatius, etc.
I don't give a rotting fig what mere men spout when it comes to discerning the absolute truth of God's word to us. If I agree with them 99% or 1% makes no difference to me.


There's not a shred of evidence in the Bible that Mary is any kind of mediator between us and God. Only one such mediator is described in the NT, and you know His name:

Galatians 3:19-20
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

Hebrews 8:6
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Hebrews 9:15-16
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 12:24
to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Paul is even more specific in his epistle to Timothy.

1 Timothy 2:3-7
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle -- I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying -- a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

[spl_cadet]

Or you're misinterpreting the Bible and putting faith in mere men rather than God's infallible word... which is rather more likely.

Oh, and you've interpreted the Bible all on your own have you? :rofl:




I don't give a rotting fig what mere men spout when it comes to discerning the absolute truth of God's word to us. If I agree with them 99% or 1% makes no difference to me.

People who were taught by the apostles themselves are rather more likely to know what the apostles taught than you are imho.




There's not a shred of evidence in the Bible that Mary is any kind of mediator between us and God. Only one such mediator is described in the NT, and you know His name:

Tell me: What is it when you intercede with God on another's behalf? Or do you simply pray for yourself and that's it? :ahem:

[Paul]

Today @ 01:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323570#post323570)
Bill the Cat:



So did the thief on the cross need to be baptized? He died after Jesus died, so the new covenant was in place at the moment of sacrifice (Jesus' death) The Church was purchased with Jesus' shed blood at the minute of His death. Was the thief a member of the Church?

No, he did not. He died before the inauguration AND promulgation of the New Covenant occurred. Christ had not yet commanded his disciples to teach all nations everything he had taught them and everything that the Holy Spirit would teach them, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit -- Christ issued this command sometimes known as the Great Commisssion only after his Resurrection. Those who died before that time would not have been required to have been baptized.

Remember that the good thief said, "Remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom." So, 1) he may have been possibly baptized although I don't think he was and 2) the thief's understanding was that the kingdom had not yet arrived although it was at hand or near since Jesus responded by saying: "I assure you, this day, you will be with me in paradise."

And as Paul pointed out even after baptism is necessary, one can receive the grace of baptism without receiving the actual sacrament of baptism if one desires to be baptized into Christ's death. So for example catechumens who die before they are baptized would go to Heaven. In the cases in which they die due to martyrdom, it is called baptism by blood.

For some reason I highly doubt that the good thief was there present in the Gospel story so that you might argue against the Catholic doctrine concerning baptism. At Calvary, blood and water flowed from Jesus' side. The blood is a symbol of the Eucharist and the water is a symbol of Baptism.

[bar Jonah]

That's good to hear, Paul. Because one thing's for sure -- I'll die before I get baptized in water.

[spl_cadet]

Tell me RightIdea: Are you even willing to entertain the possibility that the Church is right?

[Paul]

Today @ 02:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323612#post323612)
RightIdea:


But St. Jim categorically denies any role of Mary in the mediation between us and God the Father. Scripture is explicit on this issue -- there is only one mediator between us and God, and this is Jesus Christ. I hereby excommunicate Kolbe for flat-out soteriological heresy and idol worship.

My dad can beat up your dad? Or my sainthood can beat up his "sainthood."

There is one Mediator between man and God, and he is the God-man Jesus Christ. His mediation is unique because he alone is the God-man. Mary's mediation is not parallel to Christ's but is rather in Christ. God's graces and love are mediated to us in Christ through other persons. The word of God is a gift we receive from Him. But God may choose to mediate that gift through a human being in Christ Jesus. For example, you might hear the word of God being proclaimed at your Catholic parish. Should you hear God's word and respond to it, you would have received a gift from God mediated through the priest who preached that day. To deny this is to throw common sense and the scriptures out the window.

Mary is not a mediator in the exact same sense or way in which Christ is the mediator. And there is no parallel mediation. That's where I see your problem again. You are putting Mary and Jesus and everyone else on the same level or plane when they are links in a single chain.

If you have a problem with the word mediator or mediation just replace them with instrument or instrumentality. We speak of the human authors of sacred scripture as being instruments through which God wrote the bible. The word of God came to us mediated through them. Does that contradict what the bible says about Jesus being the one Mediator? Not at all. No more than what the bible says about Jesus being the one Lord contradicts the fact that the Father is also Lord and that the Holy Spirit is also Lord. We are dealing with spiritual realities here, not some kind of bizarre arithmetic.

wrt to your excommunicating St Maximilian Kolbe for heresy, I would not want you to be in charge of an Inquisition! That you would condemn him for heresy without even having as much taken a look at his writings speaks volumes unless you were just joking. I can suggest some books for you to read about his thought. One of them is Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit available through consecration.com and another is The Kolbe Reader also available through the same. The Kolbe Reader is a compilation of his writings and so you would get more direct access to them. Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit has an appendix with some of his writings but most of the book is the priest's own explication of the thought of this knight of the Immaculata. I can also recommend that you listen to all the audio files present in the audio library at marymediatrix.com I have not listened to them all, but the ones which include talks by Fr McCurry are excelllent. I can recommend a specific one if you are interested. Kolbe's writings were all examined before he was canonized as the writings of any candidate for canonization are.


Primarily the sacrifices were meats, breads and wine, although a couple of animal sacrifices occurred as well -- chickens. This was done very anonymously, as the chickens (descendents of those raised on the old coconut oil plantation that was closed in WWII) are considered local wildlife and are protected by the British government, which owns the island. I wonder if this happened while Bill was there, also.

OK, but what was actually done? Did they say anything while doing this? Did they actually say, "We kill these chickens for your glory O Maria" I would highly doubt that. Are you even fluent in their language if they were not speaking English? Did you ask them what they were doing?

Just consecration or dedicating one's possessions along with one's whole life to Mary wouldn't be wrong at all. There is a spiritual tradition in the Church involving total consecration to Mary. The Holy Father's own motto is "Totus Tuus" -- Totally Yours, [O, Mary]. But I don't know about placing stuff on altars or killing chickens.

There is some veneration of ancestors that takes place in parts of Asia. In the rituals I am familiar with food is placed on something that looks like an altar or table. I'm not sure what the Church's official position on this is. But I think there are Catholics who think this kind of veneration is OK and those that think it is not consistent with our religion. But before one jumps to conclusions, he should actually study the culture.


I openly reject any role of Mary as any form of mediator whatsoever, and I reject water baptism. I guess that leaves me out of your body, doesn't it? For that, I thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

If you stubbornly refuse Mary's mediation or stubbornly refuse to be baptized, I think the chances of your dying in God's friendship become very low. But perhaps Mary who is the mercy of God personified will look upon you with a special compassion and God will hear the pleas of her heart since she is the queen as St Maximilian Kolbe says even of God's heart as a spouse ought to be the queen of her husband's heart.

[bar Jonah]

Paul:
There is one Mediator between man and God, and he is the God-man Jesus Christ. His mediation is unique because he alone is the God-man. Mary's mediation is not parallel to Christ's but is rather in Christ. God's graces and love are mediated to us in Christ through other persons. The word of God is a gift we receive from Him. But God may choose to mediate that gift through a human being in Christ Jesus. For example, you might hear the word of God being proclaimed at your Catholic parish. Should you hear God's word and respond to it, you would have received a gift from God mediated through the priest who preached that day. To deny this is to throw common sense and the scriptures out the window.

Mary is not a mediator in the exact same sense or way in which Christ is the mediator. And there is no parallel mediation. That's where I see your problem again. You are putting Mary and Jesus and everyone else on the same level or plane when they are links in a single chain.

If you have a problem with the word mediator or mediation just replace them with instrument or instrumentality. We speak of the human authors of sacred scripture as being instruments through which God wrote the bible. The word of God came to us mediated through them. Does that contradict what the bible says about Jesus being the one Mediator? Not at all. No more than what the bible says about Jesus being the one Lord contradicts the fact that the Father is also Lord and that the Holy Spirit is also Lord. We are dealing with spiritual realities here, not some kind of bizarre arithmetic.
Except that the Bible says nothing about Mary being any kind of mediator on behalf of us saints.


wrt to your excommunicating St Maximilian Kolbe for heresy, I would not want you to be in charge of an Inquisition! That you would condemn him for heresy without even having as much taken a look at his writings speaks volumes unless you were just joking. I can suggest some books for you to read about his thought. One of them is Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit available through consecration.com and another is The Kolbe Reader also available through the same. The Kolbe Reader is a compilation of his writings and so you would get more direct access to them. Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit has an appendix with some of his writings but most of the book is the priest's own explication of the thought of this knight of the Immaculata. I can also recommend that you listen to all the audio files present in the audio library at marymediatrix.com I have not listened to them all, but the ones which include talks by Fr McCurry are excelllent. I can recommend a specific one if you are interested. Kolbe's writings were all examined before he was canonized as the writings of any candidate for canonization are.
I already know he taught things that are not only in the Bible, but contradict the Bible. Why would I invest dozens or hundreds of hours (or five minutes) considering the teachings of such a heretic?

Are you willing to seriously consider the possibility that Ellen G. White was right, and the RCC is apostate? I'm sure I can find huge quantities of her culting teachings for you to read. You ready to read all that?

Are you ready to read the Book of Mormon... the Pearl of Great Price... Doctrine & Covenants? Invest a hundred hours in that?

Actually, I highly recommend the teachings of C.R. Stam. Say the word and I'll direct you to mountains of literature he authored.


OK, but what was actually done? Did they say anything while doing this? Did they actually say, "We kill these chickens for your glory O Maria" I would highly doubt that. Are you even fluent in their language if they were not speaking English? Did you ask them what they were doing?

Just consecration or dedicating one's possessions along with one's whole life to Mary wouldn't be wrong at all. There is a spiritual tradition in the Church involving total consecration to Mary. The Holy Father's own motto is "Totus Tuus" -- Totally Yours, [O, Mary]. But I don't know about placing stuff on altars or killing chickens.

There is some veneration of ancestors that takes place in parts of Asia. In the rituals I am familiar with food is placed on something that looks like an altar or table. I'm not sure what the Church's official position on this is. But I think there are Catholics who think this kind of veneration is OK and those that think it is not consistent with our religion. But before one jumps to conclusions, he should actually study the culture.
They gave food and booze to Mary and sacrificed chickens on an outdoor and public altar to her. What more do you need to know? What could they have said during this pagan ritual that would have made a difference?


If you stubbornly refuse Mary's mediation or stubbornly refuse to be baptized, I think the chances of your dying in God's friendship become very low. But perhaps Mary who is the mercy of God personified will look upon you with a special compassion and God will hear the pleas of her heart since she is the queen as St Maximilian Kolbe says even of God's heart as a spouse ought to be the queen of her husband's heart.
That's odd, because Paul says if I confess with my mouth and believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord (God) and that God rose Him from the dead, I will be saved.

I do, and I do, and I will be saved. I am a citizen of Heaven right this minute, and I will have eternal life with my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. No doubt, no question. And I refuse to cheapen it by trying to make it "more sure" by doing some ancient, Jewish, Levitical ritual of water purification out of the Torah, that was given specifically to the Israelites in the Wilderness as part of their unique covenant with God, as His chosen people, set apart from the Gentiles (us).

[Paul]

Today @ 08:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323856#post323856)
RightIdea:


Except that the Bible says nothing about Mary being any kind of mediator on behalf of us saints.

I'm glad that we could come to some kind of agreement here about Mary's mediation not being contrary to the scriptures. You're not the brick wall I had mistakenly assumed you to be ;)

I disagree though that the Bible says nothing about Mary being any kind of mediator. One of these days I'll probably purchase a book which sheds a Marian light on the scriptures -- shows how Mary is prophecied in the scriptures and how Marian doctrines are reflected in them. Once I purchase that book and read it I'll get back to you.


I already know he taught things that are not only in the Bible, but contradict the Bible. Why would I invest dozens or hundreds of hours (or five minutes) considering the teachings of such a heretic?

You know that from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 words that I quoted and one paraphrase I made. Right. You should invest time into this because his teachings are very beautiful and they are not inconsistent with the Bible at all. I would be happy to post a small excerpt to give you more of a feel for his thought. His thoughts were not just dry intellectual ones. He claimed that the only knowledge that was of any value was that which proceeds from love. He was in love with the Immaculata and in love with God who was magnified in her. Mary is like a magnifying glass or a window to God. In or through her we can see God better.


Are you willing to seriously consider the possibility that Ellen G. White was right, and the RCC is apostate? I'm sure I can find huge quantities of her culting teachings for you to read. You ready to read all that?

I would never seriously consider that possibility because I already know that the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ founded. I know that just as I know that Christ has been raised from the dead.


Actually, I highly recommend the teachings of C.R. Stam. Say the word and I'll direct you to mountains of literature he authored.

One Protestant I have heard which I like is John Piper. He's not Catholic, but he does say some good stuff.


They gave food and booze to Mary and sacrificed chickens on an outdoor and public altar to her. What more do you need to know? What could they have said during this pagan ritual that would have made a difference?

Sacrificing chickens on an altar to her is your perception or interpretation of what happened. I don't even know that this was an altar. It may have just been a kind of table. I think for something to be an altar it has to be dedicated or consecrated by the bishop anyway so it wouldn't be an altar.

Bartenders give food and booze to people all the time; that doesn't mean that they are worshipping them in an improper way. Killing chickens does strike me as strange. Where these chickens actually killed on these "altars"?

In some Asian cultures they place food on a table in honor of their ancestors. I don't see anything necessarily wrong with that.


That's odd, because Paul says if I confess with my mouth and believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord (God) and that God rose Him from the dead, I will be saved.

I do, and I do, and I will be saved.

You will be saved if you do; not if you did at one time, but if you do. Those who commit apostasy like those mentioned in Hebrews 6 will not be saved.

Also Paul here isn't speaking of something merely verbal or intellectual, but of a disposition of one's very heart a heart into which the scriptures say God's own love is poured. If you confess with your mouth arising out of a conviction in your heart which you are true to with not only your mouth but your whole being that Jesus is Lord, then you will be saved. I think Jesus' own teaching is probably clearer when he says:

Blessed are the pure in heart -- for they shall see God!

So the question is: are you pure in heart? That is our guarantee of salvation, of being able to see God when we die. If you do not have a pure heart, then according to Jesus, you won't see God. If you have a pure heart you will want to do God's will. That means that should you discover that it is God's will for you to be baptized, you would want to be baptized rather than saying that I would rather die than be baptized. It also means that should God send you a prophetess to help you in your Christian walk, that you ought not to refuse her just because she is Our Lady Help of Christians. If Jesus is not truly Lord of your heart, then no matter what you believe, no matter what you might say verbally, the secret of your heart will be laid bare according to the prophecy of Simeon.

[Ben Franklin]

People from some other denominations may actually convert to the RCC, just by publicly affirming their belief in Christ ! The RCC standard is that anyone who has been baptised is truly Christian.

[themuzicman]

When you pray for another person, you aren't mediating for them. You're asking God what YOU can do to help THEIR situation.

Nothing more.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 09:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323792#post323792)
Paul:



No, he did not. He died before the inauguration AND promulgation of the New Covenant occurred. Christ had not yet commanded his disciples to teach all nations everything he had taught them and everything that the Holy Spirit would teach them, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit -- Christ issued this command sometimes known as the Great Commisssion only after his Resurrection. Those who died before that time would not have been required to have been baptized.

So, even thoug the body of Christ was purchased by Christ's blood, it still wasn't His?? Sorry, but it just don't mesh.
Acts 20
28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.


Entrance into the Church was secured by Jesus' death. Church entrance has always been by faith meeting the Grace of God.


Remember that the good thief said, "Remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom." So, 1) he may have been possibly baptized although I don't think he was and 2) the thief's understanding was that the kingdom had not yet arrived although it was at hand or near since Jesus responded by saying: "I assure you, this day, you will be with me in paradise."

Ok, #1 the Bible is silent on, so I can't really say one way or another. and #2 is my point. That very day, the day of His death 2 days before the resurrection, the thief would be in Heaven with Jesus. His salvation was guaranteed by the Lord Himself with no requirement that he be baptized. Just the confession of faith by the thief. It placed the thief into the church, which, at the moment of Jesus' death, became His body.


And as Paul pointed out even after baptism is necessary, one can receive the grace of baptism without receiving the actual sacrament of baptism if one desires to be baptized into Christ's death. So for example catechumens who die before they are baptized would go to Heaven. In the cases in which they die due to martyrdom, it is called baptism by blood.

So water baptism is actually just symbolic of being baptized into the Body. Therefore, it is unnecessary for acceptance into the church and into salvation. If one can be "symbolically" baptized by something other than water, then the water is in effect, unnecessary.


For some reason I highly doubt that the good thief was there present in the Gospel story so that you might argue against the Catholic doctrine concerning baptism. At Calvary, blood and water flowed from Jesus' side. The blood is a symbol of the Eucharist and the water is a symbol of Baptism.

Exactly, they are symbols. And this did not happen until after Jesus had died and purchased the Church. I also think you have it backwards. The Eucharist is a symbol of His blood and body and baptism is a symbol of the water that flowed from His side. The symbols are not necessary, but remind us of Him and what He did for us. That's why Jesus said
Luke 22
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

[spl_cadet]

So water baptism is actually just symbolic of being baptized into the Body. Therefore, it is unnecessary for acceptance into the church and into salvation. If one can be "symbolically" baptized by something other than water, then the water is in effect, unnecessary.

Not at all. Baptism by blood or baptism by desire grants the fruits of baptism (salvation and a washing away of sins), but it does not confer the grace of baptism.

That said, I think that Paul is taking a wrong tack with this, and baptism of desire is the more correct answer.



When you pray for another person, you aren't mediating for them. You're asking God what YOU can do to help THEIR situation.

Nothing more.

Everytime I've prayed for someone, and every time they've prayed for me, it has been a request for God to help the person in question. I think you're the odd one out here.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 09:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324509#post324509)
spl_cadet:



Not at all. Baptism by blood or baptism by desire grants the fruits of baptism (salvation and a washing away of sins), but it does not confer the grace of baptism.

That said, I think that Paul is taking a wrong tack with this, and baptism of desire is the more correct answer.

What is "grace of baptism"? My 31 bibles do not have that phrase.

[Rubia Warren]

Yesterday @ 11:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323149#post323149)
Paul:



There is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The scriptures speak of their being one baptism and one faith just as there is one Lord.

The Church recognizes as valid the baptisms of other Christian ecclesial communities such as in the Eastern Orthodox Churches or in the Prebsyterian communities or the Lutheran communities. As long as water is used and the trinitarian formula is used and the intentions are all there, the baptism is considered valid. So if a Lutheran who was baptized converts to Catholicism, he doesn't get rebaptized. This baptism is sometimes called Christian baptism; it is never called "Catholic" baptism. Certain other rituals which may look like baptism -- Christian baptism -- are not valid. For example those Pentecostals who baptized "in the name of Jesus" as opposed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as Christ commanded do not minister valid baptisms. Mormon baptisms are also considered invalid for a whole host of reasons. The god they invoke when they baptize is not the God of the Christian religion. They do not invoke the Trinity even though they may use similar words.
:huh: What in the world are you on about, man? That is the silliest thing I have heard in a long time. I guess Peter (whom catholics claim the church started with, btw) gave out invalid instructions on baptism when he preached in Acts 2:38 when he said to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 09:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324509#post324509)
spl_cadet:

Everytime I've prayed for someone, and every time they've prayed for me, it has been a request for God to help the person in question. I think you're the odd one out here.

Think about it for a minute. Do you honestly think that God says, "You know, I was going to just let spl's friend suffer, because it would bring perserverence in his life, but now that spl_cadet has prayed for him, I think I'll change my mind..."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Prayer is between you and God. You praying for someone else can only affect you.

Michael

[Rubia Warren]

Today @ 08:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324509#post324509)
spl_cadet:



Not at all. Baptism by blood or baptism by desire grants the fruits of baptism (salvation and a washing away of sins), but it does not confer the grace of baptism.

That said, I think that Paul is taking a wrong tack with this, and baptism of desire is the more correct answer.



Everytime I've prayed for someone, and every time they've prayed for me, it has been a request for God to help the person in question. I think you're the odd one out here.
Can you enlighten me on how a young child or an infant can have a baptism by desire.... or have his sins washed away?

[Xavier]

Ben Franklin:

People from some other denominations may actually convert to the RCC, just by publicly affirming their belief in Christ ! The RCC standard is that anyone who has been baptised is truly Christian.

That's the way I'd like to understand, but many have attempted to explain it otherwise... :smile:

Maybe Paul or Cadet could respond either positive or negative to this statement.

Xavier

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 06:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324523#post324523)
Bill the Cat:



What is "grace of baptism"?

The grace that comes through the sacrament of baptism.



My 31 bibles do not have that phrase.

They also don't have the phrase "the Trinity"



What in the world are you on about, man? That is the silliest thing I have heard in a long time. I guess Peter (whom catholics claim the church started with, btw) gave out invalid instructions on baptism when he preached in Acts 2:38 when he said to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.

He wasn't naming the formula for baptism however. Christ did, and He said to do it "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."




Think about it for a minute. Do you honestly think that God says, "You know, I was going to just let spl's friend suffer, because it would bring perserverence in his life, but now that spl_cadet has prayed for him, I think I'll change my mind..."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Prayer is between you and God. You praying for someone else can only affect you.

Michael


James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

And you call us unscriptural! :rofl:



Can you enlighten me on how a young child or an infant can have a baptism by desire.... or have his sins washed away?

Young kids and infants can't have baptism by desire, as they aren't old enough to desire it. Should one die without baptism and under the age of reason (which means that have no personal sin), they would go to Infant Limbo, an outskirt of Hell. While denied the Beatific Vision, they do not suffer any.

They can be washed away by baptism, through the faith of their parents (as opposed to their own, which would be if they were baptized later). Cf. Luke 18:15-17 and the faith of the parents being beneficial towards the children.

As regards conversion to the Catholic Church:

All converts must go through RCIA, where they are (hopefully, not all are orthodox) taught the teachings of the Church. Those who are not yet baptized are then baptised and confirmed at once, while those already baptized are simply given the sacrament of confirmation.

The only time that might not be the case is in the event of an Orthodox converting, as they do have valid sacraments.

[themuzicman]

James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.



And you call us unscriptural!

At least you haven't lost the ability to proof-text out of context. :doh:

"Accomplish", which is energoumenh in greek, means "work,show forth (one's) self,wrought,be effectual,effectually work,effectual fervent,work effectually in,be might in,to do", however, it is a present MIDDLE, which means it is reflexive. And, in an odd twist of theology, the fervent prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much for HIMSELF.

Nice try, tho.

Michael

[spl_cadet]

The section that I considered most relevant was this:
"pray for one another so that you may be healed."

Now then, since the letter is addressing a group of people, the "you" used here isn't referring to the person praying, but rather to the congregation. It's a plural sense of the word.

[nomad]

so, if I pray for someone to be healed, and God heals him, then what i've really done is pray to see what i could do? words fail me.

and i thought you were OV or something? i mean, you're starting to sound like a calvinist ;)

[spl_cadet]

Who are you addressing nomad? :huh:

[Xavier]

I think Muz... :eh:

[nomad]

yeah, sorry :) quick posting... i mean, muz's objection (it's wrong to think that we could change God's mind) sounds very calvinist, and i didn't think he was. no offense meant, it just surprised me.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 04:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325084#post325084)
spl_cadet:



The grace that comes through the sacrament of baptism.

which is exactly...what?


They also don't have the phrase "the Trinity"

true, but I see no idea of any type grace being poured out on anyone at baptism. Perhap you can quote a few verses to support a separate act of grace that happened at a baptism in the bible and exactly how that grace differs from the grace bestowed upon everyone who believes.

[Paul]

God's mind cannot be changed technically speaking. But intercessory prayer can still have a causal role in God's blessing his people -- the person who prays himself and also others whom he and God loves. This is all works out philosophically. There are no logically inconsistencies. It has to do with a certain counterfactual account of causation and how the decrees of God are logically arranged.

Words fail me all the time on these forums ;) I've found.

The scriptures are replete with God's blessing people on account of the prayers of intercessors. God speaks of if we repent or fast how he will truly heal our land. God displays his willingness to save a city on account of even 10 men in that city who are righteous -- except such 10 men did not exist. In the Gospels, Mary asks Jesus to give the people wine and Jesus indicates that he personally wouldn't have wanted to do that saying that his hour had not yet come, but he proceeds to do it anyway because of her mother's intercession. Jesus sees the faith of some and because of it heals others -- even others he has not even met at the time the healing occured.

Being a Calvinist ought not to prevent you from believing in the power and causal efficacy of intercessory prayer. Our prayers are secondary causes by which God ministers his providence -- just as for example a shovel might be a secondary cause by which a man digs a hole.

[Paul]

Today @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325150#post325150)
Bill the Cat:



which is exactly...what?



true, but I see no idea of any type grace being poured out on anyone at baptism. Perhap you can quote a few verses to support a separate act of grace that happened at a baptism in the bible and exactly how that grace differs from the grace bestowed upon everyone who believes.

If you believe with a faith that is formed by charity -- by the love of God for his own sake -- you will already be in the state of grace -- sanctifying grace. But if you believe motivated not by the love of God for his own sake, but out of fear of his just punishment or disgust at the ugliness of sin, then assuming you still will to be baptized into Christ's death, to live according to the Gospel, when you are baptized God in his mercy will elevate you to the supernatural life and give you the gift of a faith that is formed by charity --- so at that and from that moment you will be truly loving God with a pure heart for His own sake and loving your neighbor for God's sake.

The same kind of thing is true with respect to the sacrament of confession.

In addition we are commanded to be baptized and everyone, in addition to sanctifying grace which if it already exists in the person would increase upon baptism, also receives a sacramental character or mark.


So [] baptism is actually just symbolic of being baptized into the Body.

No.

There is only one baptism and one faith and one Lord. Baptism is the instrumental cause God has ordained by which we are justified, by which we receive sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent lists these causes of our justification:

efficient cause: God
formal cause: sanctifying grace
final cause: the glory of God
meritorious cause: the merits of Jesus Christ
instrumental cause: baptism

As an instrumental cause, baptism participates in the causal power of the efficient cause according to Thomas Aquinas in the way that an axe as an instrumental cause might participate in the causal power of a wood chopper who would be the efficient cause.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 05:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325141#post325141)
nomad:

so, if I pray for someone to be healed, and God heals him, then what i've really done is pray to see what i could do? words fail me.

and i thought you were OV or something? i mean, you're starting to sound like a calvinist ;)

Not at all. God's power is the only thing that heals. OV or Calvinist, we all agree that God is the worker of miricles.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Today @ 05:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325139#post325139)
spl_cadet:

The section that I considered most relevant was this:
"pray for one another so that you may be healed."

Now then, since the letter is addressing a group of people, the "you" used here isn't referring to the person praying, but rather to the congregation. It's a plural sense of the word.

Well, you still have to take the verse within its own context. We all pray for each other, but the one needing healing is the one who ultimately accomplishes for himself.

Michael

[Paul]

Today @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325311#post325311)
themuzicman:



Not at all. God's power is the only thing that heals. OV or Calvinist, we all agree that God is the worker of miricles.

Michael


No that's not true. I don't think Calvinists understand it in that way --- certainly Thomas Aquinas didn't and I know he is admired by some Calvinists.

First of all doctors have the power to heal. Now as with all power, it is a power which has its source in God. But it is a true power and in this case it is an inherent power -- inherent doesn't mean it isn't a gift from God, it's just a philosophical term meaning here that it inheres in the person -- in this case actually the power of a doctor to heal is something that inheres in him and is extended by the instruments he uses.

In the case of *supernatural* healings it may be in some cases a power that is inherent in a person -- not to say again that it is not a gift and in this case it would be a supernatural gift -- or it may be that in no cases such a power is inherent in a person. But either way it is a true power or more precisely something that has causal power or which participates in the causal power of God.

Again as St Thomas understood it an instrumental cause participates in the causal power of the efficient cause. So if you use an axe to chop down a tree, the axe itself participates as an instrumental cause in what you the efficient cause is effecting. And actually you yourself are an instrumental cause here since God according to Thomas -- and I believe according to the Calvinists also -- is the prime mover and the mover of all things -- including the supernatural and free acts of human souls and angels.

So we never have or exercise any power apart from God. But God does use instrumental causes or secondary causes to accomplish his purposes.

[Rubia Warren]

Today @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325084#post325084)
spl_cadet:
He wasn't naming the formula for baptism however. Christ did, and He said to do it "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

1. If Peter was not naming the formula for baptism, then WHAT WAS he doing?
2.How do you view Acts 8:16?
"For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

3. What about Acts 10:48? How many Lords do we have? Isn't there just one who is named Jesus?
"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord......."
4. And Acts 19:5?
"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus".
5 examples of people using the name of Jesus... and Paul (the poster) says that this baptism is invalid. :noid:

[Paul]

what do you think Jesus was doing?

[Rubia Warren]

Today @ 09:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325339#post325339)
Paul:

what do you think Jesus was doing?
When?
In Matthew 28:19? Commanding them to baptize in His name.

[nomad]

themuzicman:
Not at all. God's power is the only thing that heals. OV or Calvinist, we all agree that God is the worker of miricles.


of course i can agree on that. but: would they have still gotten healed if i hadn't prayed? why does God permit the apparent causal relationship between the prayer of a saint, and the actual healing?

the calvinist would say that my prayer was part of God's plan for the healing.

the arminian would probably say that God was waiting for me to act to effect their healing, for His glory.

i'm not familiar with many views that remove the prayer from the equation entirely. would you care to expand? really, i am curious, i've heard of such views before but rejected them, and i can't remember why.

[Bill the Cat]

Man, I lost this thread and needed to post. Good...


Yesterday @ 09:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325301#post325301)
Paul:



If you believe with a faith that is formed by charity -- by the love of God for his own sake -- you will already be in the state of grace -- sanctifying grace.

There is only one kind of true faith, and that is the faith in Jesus that brings salvation.


But if you believe motivated not by the love of God for his own sake, but out of fear of his just punishment or disgust at the ugliness of sin,

Then you believe as the demons do and are thus not in faith. It is a belief based on fear, not love so is not genuine saving faith.


then assuming you still will to be baptized into Christ's death, to live according to the Gospel, when you are baptized God in his mercy will elevate you to the supernatural life and give you the gift of a faith that is formed by charity --- so at that and from that moment you will be truly loving God with a pure heart for His own sake and loving your neighbor for God's sake.

If you are baptized by the same fear, that is no different than believing because of fear. It is not genuine.



The same kind of thing is true with respect to the sacrament of confession.

Once again, if confession is not made in order to seek reconciliation, it is in vain and not genuine.


In addition we are commanded to be baptized and everyone, in addition to sanctifying grace which if it already exists in the person would increase upon baptism, also receives a sacramental character or mark.

And this is where in scripture?



There is only one baptism and one faith and one Lord. Baptism is the instrumental cause God has ordained by which we are justified, by which we receive sanctifying grace.

Actually the Scripture lists 2 baptisms. One is John's (water) and the other is Jesus' (Holy Spirit). We are justified by our faith in Christ

Romans 5:1
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Titus 3:7
7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made (11) heirs according to the hope of eternal life.


We are justified by our faith in His grace, not anything we physically do like get dunked. Our salvation will not be aided by nor denied because of lack of another man to baptize us, or are you suggesting that our salvation is based on the presence of a priest to baptize us?



The Council of Trent lists these causes of our justification:

efficient cause: God
formal cause: sanctifying grace
final cause: the glory of God
meritorious cause: the merits of Jesus Christ
instrumental cause: baptism

a-d are ok, but e is incorrect. the instrumental cause is faith. (Romans 5:1) Nothing more, nothing less.


As an instrumental cause, baptism participates in the causal power of the efficient cause according to Thomas Aquinas in the way that an axe as an instrumental cause might participate in the causal power of a wood chopper who would be the efficient cause.

sorry, but our faith is the axe, not baptism.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 11:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326229#post326229)
nomad:
of course i can agree on that. but: would they have still gotten healed if i hadn't prayed? why does God permit the apparent causal relationship between the prayer of a saint, and the actual healing?

the calvinist would say that my prayer was part of God's plan for the healing.

the arminian would probably say that God was waiting for me to act to effect their healing, for His glory.

i'm not familiar with many views that remove the prayer from the equation entirely. would you care to expand? really, i am curious, i've heard of such views before but rejected them, and i can't remember why.

I would say that if the person was healed, that it was God's decision that it would be best for all affected.

Michael

[Paul]

Today @ 08:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326229#post326229)
nomad:



of course i can agree on that. but: would they have still gotten healed if i hadn't prayed? why does God permit the apparent causal relationship between the prayer of a saint, and the actual healing?

the calvinist would say that my prayer was part of God's plan for the healing.

the arminian would probably say that God was waiting for me to act to effect their healing, for His glory.

i'm not familiar with many views that remove the prayer from the equation entirely. would you care to expand? really, i am curious, i've heard of such views before but rejected them, and i can't remember why.

One can subscribe to a Thomistic understanding of predestination -- predestination in the broadest sense of the word covering all of God's decrees and the administration of his providence -- and still believe that had not a certain saint prayed for a healing that God would not have effected that healing. And I think one can be a Calvinist and believe that too since there are no significant or relevant differences here between the Thomistic and Calvinist understanding.

The reason for this is in how the decrees of God can be logically arranged. God's decrees can include simple decrees, i.e.: Let there be x. or conditional decrees: If there is y, let there be z.

All the conditional decrees though would effectively be simple ones due to God's omniscience and in the Thomistic understanding due to God's predestining everything by being the prime mover and the mover of all things.

All the decrees can have different logical relationships with each other. While none precede another temporally, there can be a logical precedence or priority. And given a certain logical arrangement, it is logically consistent with Thomism -- and I believe Calvinism -- for it to be true in some cases that if a certain saint hadn't prayed for a certain healing, that God would not have effected the healing. I don't have time to lay out all the technical philosphy here. But basically the reason why it is compatible can be seen intuitively by considering that when one evaluates a counterfactual --- by means of an account similar to Lewis' or Stalnaker's -- you are considering what is true in a possible world other than the actual one. That should intuitively tell you that there is no contradiction, but if you aren't convinced, I could probably find a somewhat technical paper which lays it all out.

[nomad]

Actually the Scripture lists 2 baptisms. One is John's (water) and the other is Jesus' (Holy Spirit).


just as a side note on this, i looked through the dictionary of ECF last night. nearly all the ECF quote john 3:5 (Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.) as their defense of the grace given in baptism, and being 'born of water' being baptized. i know a more modern view is that 'born of water' simply talks about regular physical birth and not baptism, and the text does seem to read that way, but it's not the way any ECF that i saw read this verse. it's not proof, but i think we should consider the way they read scripture, being closer to the source and reading for the most part in the original language.





One can subscribe to a Thomistic understanding of predestination -- predestination in the broadest sense of the word covering all of God's decrees and the administration of his providence
...
That should intuitively tell you that there is no contradiction, but if you aren't convinced, I could probably find a somewhat technical paper which lays it all out.

so Paul, you are a neo-thomist? interesting, i first heard about thomism in a book CSPR (mortimer adler/jacques maritain/etc. were neo-thomists). i've been meaning to look into it, but haven't gotten a chance yet (summa theological is pretty intimidating... do you know of a shorter introduction? i saw acquinas' own 'shorter summa', but haven't gotten to it yet).

the view you mentioned sounds a bit like the molinism espoused by several on this board. they might be the same thing; from what i've heard, molinism (or similar, maybe the thomist version?) is sort of an 'official' view of either the catholic or eastern orthodox church...

[Fideist345]

Today @ 03:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326530#post326530)
nomad:



so Paul, you are a neo-thomist? interesting, i first heard about thomism in a book CSPR (mortimer adler/jacques maritain/etc. were neo-thomists). i've been meaning to look into it, but haven't gotten a chance yet (summa theological is pretty intimidating... do you know of a shorter introduction? i saw acquinas' own 'shorter summa', but haven't gotten to it yet).



PMFJI, Summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft; or shorter yet is St. Thomas Aquinas by C. K. Chesterton.

[Paul]

Today @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326530#post326530)
nomad:



just as a side note on this, i looked through the dictionary of ECF last night. nearly all the ECF quote john 3:5 (Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.) as their defense of the grace given in baptism, and being 'born of water' being baptized. i know a more modern view is that 'born of water' simply talks about regular physical birth and not baptism, and the text does seem to read that way, but it's not the way any ECF that i saw read this verse. it's not proof, but i think we should consider the way they read scripture, being closer to the source and reading for the most part in the original language.

That's very reasonable nomad. To me though the text doesn't read that way at first glance. I know some people say that it is referring to the water present in a mother's womb -- but that really just sounds like a stretch and even a little bizarre to me ... and if it were referring to regular physical birth that would mean that those who die before being born are excluded from the kingdom of Heaven which was surely not Jesus' intention there since he himself sanctified John the Baptist when he was yet in the womb of Elizabeth.


so Paul, you are a neo-thomist? interesting, i first heard about thomism in a book CSPR (mortimer adler/jacques maritain/etc. were neo-thomists). i've been meaning to look into it, but haven't gotten a chance yet (summa theological is pretty intimidating... do you know of a shorter introduction? i saw acquinas' own 'shorter summa', but haven't gotten to it yet).

No I'm not a neo-thomist .. I wouldn't describe myself that way at least ;) I'm just a man :)

Thomism is something broader than just how one understands grace and predestination. The saint and theologian who would have been thus far most influential not just in my own thought but in my prayer -- in how I relate to God on a personal level -- would be a Franciscan one St Maximilian Kolbe.

With respect to Thomas, I would recommend the Companion to the Summa which is available on the website of the Order of Preachers -- for free.


the view you mentioned sounds a bit like the molinism espoused by several on this board. they might be the same thing; from what i've heard, molinism (or similar, maybe the thomist version?) is sort of an 'official' view of either the catholic or eastern orthodox church...

No the view I mentioned is consistent with both molinism and thomism -- it only sounds like molinism because molinism involves the use of middle knowledge by God logically prior to his decrees concerning predestination to glory. The difference between molinism and thomism is really with respect to the actual world, not with respect to other possible worlds -- other possible worlds are only relevant in sofar as God uses his knowledge about them to determine what he does in the actual world. Whereas here the causal power of prayer is established by what God does not solely in this actual world but in certain possible worlds related to it.

There is no "official" position of the Catholic Church on exactly how predestination works. There was a time when the debate was fierce and each side called the other side heretical. The Pope stepped in allowed both schools of thought to exist. I don't know anything about the eastern orthodox churches. Probably they don't think about it too much ;)

You may be remembering perhaps the notion that St Thomas Aquinas is the official theologian or philospher of the Catholic Church ... that's not quite true. He is a Doctor of the Church and holds a special place, but it's not required that we all agree with him. I don't agree with him that there is no such thing as a best possible world -- and that's fine.

[nomad]

That's very reasonable nomad. To me though the text doesn't read that way at first glance. I know some people say that it is referring to the water present in a mother's womb...


i agree with your end belief, but can see where some would assert that - the first verse says 'born of water and of Spirit', then the next verse has two clauses, one for 'born of flesh' and the other 'born of spirit'. without any other background, it would be easy to say 'born of spirit' = 'born of spirit', and therefore 'born of water' = 'born of flesh'.



Thomism is something broader than just how one understands grace and predestination. The saint and theologian who would have been thus far most influential not just in my own thought but in my prayer -- in how I relate to God on a personal level -- would be a Franciscan one St Maximilian Kolbe.


ok, sounds interesting. my understanding of Thomism (and why they were so present in CSPR) is apparently he was one of the first efforts to make peace between science (or reason) and religion. apparently the orthodox don't like him much, they think he's too logical and not mystical enough :)

thanks to both of you... i'll take a look out for those books, and see which one pops up first (i hate reading books on a computer screen... ironic since my day job is validating computer processors :)