For those who are interested, please go to the Catholic Answers website and listen to the discussion that takes place between Mr. Claveau and Tim Staples (not Jerry Usher). The story that takes place is with Protestant teachers and their pastor, and Mr. Claveau never claims to have converted them to Catholicism. Since Mr. Claveau helped organize a Catholic evangelization group, I am certain that if he converted some Protestant teachers and a pastor, he would have claimed this on the show.

Please relisten to the Catholic Answers program for that hour a bit more carefully and then discuss your counterpoints in a fair and logical way, not distorting what was discussed (and not discussed) within the context of the discussion.

We look forward to seeing your response…  R. Kato

Normally, I do not waste my time answering anti-Catholics such as Mr. Hardin, who deliberately try to misrepresent or obscure Catholic doctrine. Insecure people try to demean others in order to lift themselves out of the mire.

I would recommend that anyone interested in truth listen to the entire program broadcast rather than relying on the bits and pieces presented by Mr. Hardin. Click here to listen to show in Real audio format.

Mr. Hardin: “Victor Claveau began his apology by telling a story of a meeting with a group of Baptist leaders, and how he essentially singlehandedly convinced them of Catholic teaching.” Of course! Since Baptists are usually regarded as having a strong Biblical knowledge, for him to claim alone to single handedly convince them would be enough argument to convince many people that what he had to say must be the truth. But, I am here to tell everyone that is reading this… he is wrong, and the remainder of this article will prove it.

Answer: I did not make any such claim! What I did, at that time, was explain the doctrine of transubstantiation by using the Bible and the Bible alone and said, when I finished my explanation, “you could hear a pin drop.” They did not have a rebuttal.

Mr. Hardin: “I gave that explanation of Relativity to show that God has created time, space, and energy so that it is “impossible” to experience past events, and that God has ordained time to move in a linear fashion.”

Answer: Mr. Hardin confuses and equates the doctrine of transubstantion and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Transubstantion is the reality of bread and wine being changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit.The Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus on calvary. These are two different subjects although both take place during the Mass.

The Catholic Church also believes and teaches that the Mass is the continuation and re-presentation (notice, I did not say “representation),” or “making present” of the once and for all sacrifice of Calvary (Heb 7:25).

Anti-Catholics try to use Heb 7:27, 9:12, 9:25-28 and 10:10-14 to substantiate their erroneous beliefs that Catholics “blaspheme and re-crucify Christ literally, making him a mockery” every time the Mass is celebrated, in contradiction of the Scriptures. But Heb 6:6, which is also quoted (out of context) has nothing to do with the Mass. It deals with those who fall away from faith after baptism. Forgiveness cannot come through another baptism since Christ has established only one baptism. Do they want a new baptism to be given through a new crucifixion, is what the writer asks, not what anti-Catholics try to make it mean.

Our critics also use 1 Cor 11:27-28 where Paul uses the words “cup” and “bread” instead of “blood and body” (drunk unworthily) in order to be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. The fact that “cup” and “bread” are used, they say, proves that Paul did not believe in a literal meaning of the Eucharist.

However, to be “guilty of the body and blood” of someone, in eastern culture, means “to revile him” as well. One can hardly “revile” baked flour or fermented grape juice. The correct meaning can only be profanation of something serious (sacramental). Clearly the bread and wine become Christ himself.

Other critics accuse Catholics here of “cannibalism” as well. This actually backfires on these critics. The same heretical notion was brought up centuries ago by Tertullian and Minicius Felix. This proves in fact that these second century writers were attacking the belief in the True Presence clearly existing in the early Church, and not “dreamt up” later by the Catholic Church.

Critics also scoff at the “idea” that Christ could have held his own body in his hands at the Last Supper. However, that this is not impossible for God can be seen just before Christ’s Sermon on the Eucharist, when he fed the five thousand.

Catholics believe that the Mass is a real “unbloody” sacrifice, bringing into the present time and place the “once and for all” crucifixion of Jesus, and its effects. The work of Christ on the cross is finished and it never need be repeated. But its benefits can be applied to me in today’s time frame to enable me also to partake of (consume) the unblemished Lamb, Christ.

Mr. Hardin: The Lord’s Supper was an act of observance commanded by Christ for us to partake in… not to experience salvation, but to “remember” it. The bread and the wine are symbols that represent Christ’s body and blood. But, the bread and the wine do not take the place of Christ’s body “transubstantiate”, nor do they “consubstantiate” or take on the presence of the Body of Christ.

Answer: The remembrance is a sacrifice. The Greek word for “remembrance” or “memorial” is much deeper in meaning than the English equivalent. It is also a very rare word in Scripture. Outside of its use by Christ at the Last Supper, it is used only one other time in the New Testament. This is in Hebrews 10:3 where the word “remembrance” is “the act of carrying out a sacrifice”. “Those sacrifices are an annual reminder (remembrance) of sins”. In the Greek Old Testament, the word, meaning sacrifice, is used only twice. Both times the “remembrance” is a sacrifice (Hebrew: zikaron). We read: “put some pure incense as a memorial…. to be an offering” (Lev 24:7) and “Sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and they will be a memorial for you” (Nb 10:10). Also, in the headings of Psalms 37 and 69 the same word, meaning a “sacrifice” is used.

The Greek word meaning “remembrance” is much more than just “think about me by recalling this event to mind”. What a strange word for Jesus to use if he did not intend setting up the Eucharist (the Mass) as a sacrifice, “The Sacrifice”.

We must remember that Jesus was a Jew. The Jewish temple had a sacrificial liturgy, which the synagogue did not have. Besides the Passover sacrifice other temple sacrifices took place. One, the “zebah todah” (zebah = sacrifice; todah = communion) was a meal shared with God. Part of the zebah todah sacrifice was burnt up at the altar and part was consumed by the offerer and friends. This sacrifice was also a meal. Anyone who does not consider the Mass as both a sacrifice and a meal has lost touch with his Jewish roots.

It is amazing that evangelicals and others really miss the meaning of an important messianic prophecy where the continuing sacrifice of Christ’s death (even after his resurrection) is foretold in the Old Testament. Look at Psalm 110:4: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek’”. Melchizedek, the priest-king offering sacrifice, offered bread and wine (the elements of the Mass), which he brought out to Abraham as an offering (Gen 14:18). Unless one can point to another time other than the Last Supper, this text fulfils perfectly the function of the priesthood of Melchizedek by Jesus.

The sacrifice predicted by Malachi. The Mass, the “making present” for all time the New Covenant, is a fulfilment of the Old Testament sacrifices and covenants such as with Noah, Abraham and Moses, which were “signs” and “shadows” of the unblemished Sacrificial Lamb. These foreshadow the one eternal Sacrifice, perpetuated, but not repeated in the Mass.

See how the Mass was foreseen in Zech 14:20-21: “On that day … all those who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them” Commenting on this verse, former fundamentalist Christian, David B Currie, tells of a student who asked: “If Jesus’ sacrifice is final and complete, why will there be sacrifices needed in Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection?” The evangelicals simply have no plausible explanation of this passage. It refers, of course, to the Mass.

Nothing is impossible with God. He can and has suspended time. He can make the sacrifice of Christ present to us today if He so wills it. Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Catholics believe that that one same sacrifice is made present during the Mass through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Mr. Hardin. So long as we are alive in our mortal bodies, we cannot experience past events. That is not to say that God can’t experience past events… He can, and God could see the crucifiction, and the observance of the Lord’s Supper at the same time… but why would God see both of those events at the same time, and attribute the same saving power to both… when His only begotten Son has died on a cross, and we are eating bread and drinking wine? That makes no logical sense at all. For God to see the crucifiction, and witness our observance of the Lord’s Supper and the same time… and then to attribute the same saving power to a peice of bread and a glass of wine that the crucifiction was supposed to have… would be to say that God has essentially made the real saving act of no effect, by giving it’s effectiveness to a symbol.

Answer: While it is true that we cannot physically go back into the past, God can make the past present to us today.

Mr. Hardin. The crucifiction took place approx. 2,000 years ago, and as the central them of all time the sacrifice of Christ’s body and the shedding of His blood was sufficient to atone for all sin… it doesn’t need to happen again, and the crucifiction doesn’t need to be witnessed in real time to be effective. All one needs to do to be saved is to accept Christ’s payment for their sins… and be saved.

Answer: This statement proves that Mr. Hardin does not understand Catholic theology. As mentioned above, there was only one sacrifice and it is this same sacrifice that is made present in the Mass.

Anyone with enough intellectual integrity will examine the truths of Catholicism with an open mind. In recent years, hundreds of Protestant ministers have come into the Catholic Church. They did so because they were willing to follow Christ wherever He leads. The Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ and can oly be attack by misrepresentation of her doctrines.  Victor R. Claveau, MJ

Mr. Claveau,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this article. I realize that when you feel that you have been misrepresented, there is a desire to vindicate yourself. But, I assure you and the readers that I did not misrepresent you or the crux of your apology.

I would like to applaud you for your ability to present the major arguments that Protestants typically use to debate Transubstantiation and the Mass… But your exemplary job of totally ignoring my argument and your failure to even attempt to address my repudiation of your argument indicates to me that you have somewhat conceded.

In your response above you said… “Transubstantion is the reality of bread and wine being changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit.The Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus on calvary. These are two different subjects although both take place during the Mass.”

I’m sorry, but I did not confuse transubstantiation and the Mass. As you claimed on the live radio broadcast, by illuminating the fact that God lives in eternity, that fact alone brings together the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary as from an eternal perspective both events happened simultaneously. When Christ resurrected, and ascended to heaven His flesh and blood left this earth also…. the only way to associate a modern day observance of The Lord’s Supper with the actual body and blood of Christ, whether by transubstantiation or consubstantiation, is to justify that emobodiment by God’s eternal perspective. That is what you did on the show… and that is what I have repudiated.

That same apology for transubstantiation that you used (the eternality of God) is what you are using to justify the Mass. But, the same rebuttal applies, no past event, and no past energy can be brought to the present and no present energy can be sent to the past. It is irrelevant that God would see these events as simultaneous.

Also in your response your attempted to mis-represent me by stating that Anticatholics accuse Catholics of attempting to re-crucify Christ… I made no such claim. My rebuttal was focused on the radio show and your statements there. I also made no claims that Catholics practice “cannibalism”.

As for the writing of the Apostle Paul concerning the “cup” and the “bread” in 1 Cor. 11:27, 28… Let us look at the full context.

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

The person who is “unworthy” is the person who has not associated himself with the body and the blood through salvation, because he cannot properly discern the Lord’s body as an unsaved person. A saved person should partake of the bread and the wine, discerning the Lord’s body as they themselves are a member of it… and are therefore worthy to fulfil the command of verse 26 (which you conveniently ommitted), which is to “shew” (or present) the Lord’s death till he come. The act of participating in the Lord’s supper is an evangelical act according to verse 26, we are remembering our Lord’s death, while at the same time showing that to others.

You also stated in your rebuttal… “Critics also scoff at the “idea” that Christ could have held his own body in his hands at the Last Supper. However, that this is not impossible for God can be seen just before Christ’s Sermon on the Eucharist, when he fed the five thousand.”

Again, this statement relies solely on the same apology that my article was written to refute. God is “omnipresent” through all (4) dimensions (including time), but God respects the fluid linearity of time as far as we are concerned. It is irresponsible to say that the feeding of the five thousand was a simultaneous and co-identical event with our Lord’s sacrifice at Calvary…. These events were independent of each other, and physical science proves that these two events must remain linear, and not co-lateral.

In your above comment you stated… “Catholics believe that the Mass is a real “unbloody” sacrifice, bringing into the present time and place the “once and for all” crucifixion of Jesus, and its effects. The work of Christ on the cross is finished and it never need be repeated. But its benefits can be applied to me in today’s time frame to enable me also to partake of (consume) the unblemished Lamb, Christ.”

Once again, this is the very statement that my article was intended to disprove. To keep saying that the Mass brings into the present time and place the… crucifixion, does not make it so. If you would like to state a rebuttal to my article (which has disproven your claim) you may feel free to post it here… or at http://www.swordforums.net .

You also stated in your comment above: “The remembrance is a sacrifice. The Greek word for “remembrance” or “memorial” is much deeper in meaning than the English equivalent…. The Greek word meaning “remembrance” is much more than just “think about me by recalling this event to mind”. You also stated that Greek word translated “remembrance” is only used one other place in the New Testament, and that being Hebrews 10:3.

I disagree. In Luke 22:19 when Jesus said “this do in remembrance of me” the Greek word translated there is “anamnaysis” which means literally to “recollect”. The same Greek word was used in 1 Corinthians 11:24 and 25, and was also translated to “remembrance”. The same Greek word “anamnaysis” was translated to “remembrance again”… or, to recollect in Hebrews 10:3.

Your use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament may be correct, but it is a straw man designed to obscure the English translation of “memorial” for the Hebrew word “azkawraw” which means literally “a reminder”.

You also stated in your comment above: “Nothing is impossible with God. He can and has suspended time. He can make the sacrifice of Christ present to us today if He so wills it. Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Catholics believe that that one same sacrifice is made present during the Mass through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Answer: The sacrifice of Christ is not reverberated throughout time, but was a sacrifice that is recognized in eternity, and God recognizing that sacrifice from eternity has the authority to apply that sacrifice to sinful men as He sees fit. This in no way means that Christ’s sacrifice is re-presented to each sinner who is saved… it only means that our eternal God sees that sacrifice, and from His position in eternity has the ability and the authority to attribute that sacrifice to someone in the future or past.

You said in your closing statement: “The Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ and can oly be attack by misrepresentation of her doctrines.”

I have represented you statements concerning your apology of the Mass and Transubstantiation correctly. I have also proven your explanation to be faulty by comparing it with fundamental Biblical and Scientific truths.

John Hardin  John Hardin

R. Cato,

Thank you also for your comment. It seems that apparently I may have misconstrued Mr. Claveau’s reasoning for sharing that story. It is a logical conclusion that if that Protestant group did not have an answer to Mr. Claveau’s apology, they would then be “convinced”… it is not unfair to assume that the group in question was subsequently converted… or that Mr. Claveau intended it to seem that way.

But, be that as it may… the point of my article was not that Mr. Claveau singlehandedly converted a group of Baptists… but the point of my article was rather to prove that his apology concerning the Mass and Transubstantiation has no basis.

I have proven that, and since neither of you have given an argument of any substance to repudiate my claims… I can only assume that the point of your comments were to distract the reader from the real issue… Mr. Claveau is wrong and he failed miserably in his interview at Catholic Answers Live by embarrassing himself, Tim Staples, and anyone else that was duped into believing his explanation had any substance.

John Hardin  jhardin

Mr. Hardin,
“The person who is “unworthy” is the person who has not associated himself with the body and the blood through salvation, because he cannot properly discern the Lord’s body as an unsaved person. A saved person should partake of the bread and the wine, discerning the Lord’s body as they themselves are a member of it… and are therefore worthy to fulfil the command of verse 26 (which you conveniently ommitted), which is to “shew” (or present) the Lord’s death till he come. The act of participating in the Lord’s supper is an evangelical act according to verse 26, we are remembering our Lord’s death, while at the same time showing that to others.”

Where in the world did you get this novel dea? You have not repudiated anything, I wrote. All you gave is your opinion which is without substance.  Victor R. Claveau, MJ

Mr. Claveau,

Please show me where in midst of Paul dissertation in 1 Cor. 11, does he claim that discerning the Lord’s body while partaking in the Lords Supper causes a person to “eateth and drinketh” salvation?

The fact is… it doesn’t. But for some reason, that is what you are implying by your explanation of that passage in your comment above. You (as subservient to Catholic teaching) have perverted the gospel by inserting an implication to 1 Corinthians 11:29 that doesn’t exist.

I believe I repudiated your teaching on that passage by simply explicating the truth of that passage. The truth stands on it’s own.

BTW… Your e-mail to me refusing to engage in debate would normally be viewed as evasive… but since you posted your most recent reply at the same time… I think it rather displays cowardice.

John  jhardin

Just some Bible quotes that “us Catholics” use for the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:22-25

+++No symbolism, no parable – just the facts+++

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
“Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
John 6:25-59

+++It seems that Jesus was pretty straightforward with this passage about Himself being the “Bread of Life”. The non-believers kept on arguing, yet Jesus, instead of clarifying any points, reiterated that he was the Bread of Life and that “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life. Even when the followers argued among themselves about “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”, Jesus reiterated His points. He did not state that this was symbolic flesh.+++

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
John 6: 60-66

+++This is right after Jesus explained that He was the Bread of Life. Many of his disciples left him because it was a hard teaching to understand, but the twelve apostles stayed, believing in Him.+++

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1Corinthians11:23-29

+++I agree with you, Mr. Hardin, on a point. This passage does stand alone as truth – that Paul was point blank discussing the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist.+++
____________________________________________________________
For those who want to see a more definitive explanation of the Catholic Mass and Eucharist, please go to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm.
____________________________________________________________
Reading your statement that you have proven the explanation of Mr. Claveau faulty by Biblical and Scientific truths, I feel I need to address this.

Scientific truths are real and important – they define the physical world we live in. But scientific truths cannot explain the Resurrection of Jesus, the multiplication of the loaves and fish, the walking on water, bringing Lazarus to life, the many miracles of the Bible.

You and I have our faiths – most importantly, that Jesus Christ. Our Lord and God died on the Cross so that we may be saved.

My church is the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, throughout history, the Roman Catholic Church has had its bumps in the road – only God is perfect. But our doctrine has not changed since the early days after His Ascension into heaven (I know, my non-Catholic friends, all of the arguments that the Roman Catholic Church has changed many rules and ordinances throughout her history – but doctrine has never changed. Doctrine has been defined more and put into writing to address what was going on at the time. But doctrine has never changed).

I know you disdain the Catholic Church. There are many things that I am envious of regarding the non-Catholic churches out there such as the strong foundation in reading and embracing the sacred scriptures or the brotherhood that is shared in some of the non-Catholic churches. I pray that my Catholic brothers and sisters will learn lessons from other Christian faiths regarding areas like this.

But I love Jesus. I love being a member of the Catholic Church. It is who I am….

If your site is bringing more people to know and love Jesus, Amen.

If the discussion between Mr. Claveau and you is evangelizing those who do not know our Risen Lord, praise be to God! (I am not a career apologetic who debates the tenets of the Catholic faith as a full-time career. I am just a man who is trying to learn more about my Catholic faith).

I wish you and your family a Holy and Blessed Easter, Mr. Hardin.

God bless you…  R. Kato

R. Kato,

First of all I would like to thank you for the encouragement. That was very kind.

Now, on to the debate… You began your post by quoting a portion of Mark chapter 14 where the Last Supper is recorded. Then, you stated “No symbolism, no parable – just the facts”

You’re right, Jesus gave plain facts… they were eating the Passover feast. Jesus was explaining to them that the Passover feast was commanded for them to observe as an illustration of the coming Christ, and His crucifiction.

Then you quoted a very large portion of John chapter 6, then you said. “It seems that Jesus was pretty straightforward with this passage about Himself being the “Bread of Life”.”

Then, you quoted a portion of scripture from Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 and said…”I agree with you, Mr. Hardin, on a point. This passage does stand alone as truth – that Paul was point blank discussing the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist.”

***I could not disagree with you more on that last statement. Paul was exhorting the Corinthian Church to observe the Lord’s Supper in much the same way the passover was observed… not to gain eternal life, or to actually partake of Jesus’ Body… but rather to partake of the cup and the bread to remember what Christ had done… The same way the Passover was to be observed, as an “illustration” of the crucifiction that was to come.

As far as John chapter 6… I have published an article concerning Jesus’ teaching in that chapter.

_____________________________________________________________

You can learn the truth of Christ’s teaching in John chapter 6 by reading this article…
http://www.gideonsword.net/articles/BibleDoctrineandTheology/BDTarticles/thebreadoflife.htm

_____________________________________________________________

You also stated… “If the discussion between Mr. Claveau and you is evangelizing those who do not know our Risen Lord, praise be to God!”

It makes me sad that a man of such distain for non-Catholics would not agree to debate me for the simple fact that I am “anti-Catholic”.

Debate is a good thing if done the right way, and can only lead to a more clear understanding of the truth. I think I have lost some respect for Mr. Claveau and his numerous articles on Apologetics… as he is obviously not as confident in the area of Apologetics that he claims to be.

John  jhardin

Mr. Hardin,

Thank you for the friendly debate. I do this to learn more about my faith and strengthen it. I hope that I may challenge you in the same way.

I agree with you that Paul was exhorting the Corinthian Church to observe the Lord’s supper – in the way that Jesus asked us to – That this is His Body and this is His Blood. I do not see any symbolism here. If Paul were speaking symbolically, he would have stated this I am not sure that eternal damnation for eating too much or drinking too much at a symbolic Lord’s supper is what Paul meant, although I understand that the worship was similar to the Passover.

I have read your article that you reference. I apologize for not using the 1611 King James Version that you use. I shall reference that for further discussion.

6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
John 6:52-53

Jesus had a chance to clarify this statement. But He did not. I can see why many of his disciples left him – this is a difficult concept to understand. It is one that is even difficult to understand by some Catholics.
We believe that this in literal sense. To understand transubstantiation is a where faith comes in. It will never be explained scientifically. You and I have faith that the Bible was written by the “hand of God”. This faith is why I believe that Lord Jesus is in the Eucharist.

With your faith, when did the schism from the Catholic Church occur for your church? If you can tell by my writing and posts, I am not one who will use sarcasm in a healthy debate. I would like to know at what point did the separation from the Catholic Church forefathers occur? For example, did you believe what was addressed by certain Church councils? Did it happen with Luther? I am just curious as I take this faith journey.

May Christ be with you as we celebrate His death and Resurrection this glorius weekend.

Rich Kato  R. Kato

Mr. Kato

Thanks for the reply, and the gracious manner in which you have commented.

The key to understanding Paul’s exhortation is the word “unworthily” in verse 29. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29… “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

What need to be discerned is the Lord’s body… but we must also not neglect the first part of that verse… “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily”. Now, who of us is worthy to partake of Christ? The truth is, none of us are worthy to partake of Christ… that is what mercy is for. Every single person that has ever lived on Earth is only worthy of eternal damnation in hell for the sins they have committed.

So why would Paul say “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily”… if to “eat and drink” is to partake of Christ? What is meant here, is that when one eats or drinks during the observance of the Lord’s supper should be worthy to observe and “remember” such an illustrative event. And the only way to be worthy to illustrate the crucifiction is to be “in Christ”… or saved.

You must already have Christ to be worthy to partake of the Lord’s supper.

Thank you for reading the article that I referenced. And yes, as you said… Christ DID have the chance to clarify himself, but I don’t believe He intended to clarify Himself, or to be clear from the beginning. As I stated in that article, Christ was drawing those unbelieving Jews to the logical conclusion of thier position. They wanted to see a magnificent sign from Jesus to force them out of their unbelief. There was no way Jesus was going to convince them that He was that sign, without first convincing them that thier desire to see a sign was fruitless.

As for your question concerning what I believe to be the schism from the Catholic Church… I don’t believe there ever was a schism from the Catholic Church as far as the teachings and doctrine that I hold. Bible believers like me believe that God’s word was provided to transfer to all future generations the doctrine that Christ intended for His church to have… that church being the whole of all saved people who are “in Christ”.

John  jhardin

UPDATE…
Since the time this article was published and commented on by Mr. Claveau, I have had an e-mail dialog with Mr. Claveau concerning a moderated debate.
|
I kindly challenged Mr. Claveau to a moderated formal debate on this subject and he vehemently declined by telling me he doesn’t debate with unbelievers and swine.
|
I replied to him by explaining that if I were an unbeliever, and I were teaching others… to debate with me and win would be a tremendous victory for his version of the truth.
|
Mr. Claveau proceeded to ban my emails so that any further attempt to contact him concerning debate could be easily ignored. I guess Mr. Claveau isn’t quite the “evangelist” he claims to be.

John  jhardin

On 8/20/07, Brian Atwood wrote:
> No, John. You did miss Victor’s point. He may not have explained the
> eternal sacrifice very well for you, but you clearly got the wrong
> message if you’re spouting temporal theories and relativity.
>
> You may respond to me with, “You explain it to me then.” However,
> here’s the problem I run into. I also am an experienced apologist.
> I’ve run into your type of approach to debate countless times. It’s
> clear from the mannerism and tone of your blog that you have no
> interest in an answer, no matter how accurate or biblical. Your only
> agenda and goal is to attempt to discredit both the apologist and
> Catholic doctrine. It is very likely that Victor is now ignoring you
> because he sees this also.
>  Brian Atwood

Thank you for the comment Brian,
|

No, John. You did miss Victor’s point. He may not have explained the eternal sacrifice very well for you, but you clearly got the wrong message if you’re spouting temporal theories and relativity.

I can appreciate your defense for a fellow Catholic, but before you jump to conclusions, may I remind you that Mr. Claveau first brought up the contrast between temporality and eternality.
|
The temporal theories I “spouted” were in response to Mr. Claveau’s skewed view of eternity. And had you truly tried to understand what I was trying to say in the article you would have seen that I was contrasting time with eternity and validating that with Relativity. According to relativity, eternity is the only benchmark for measuring time.
|

You may respond to me with, “You explain it to me then.” However, here’s the problem I run into. I also am an experienced apologist.
I’ve run into your type of approach to debate countless times. It’s clear from the mannerism and tone of your blog that you have no interest in an answer, no matter how accurate or biblical. Your only agenda and goal is to attempt to discredit both the apologist and Catholic doctrine.

I must say that the more I speak with “experienced” Catholic apologists… I am more disappointed with your lack of desire to actually debate. Maybe you could explain this paradox for me instead of trying to explain the Mass.
|
As I told Mr. Claveau in our e-mails, if the Catholic position is so logical, why do you work so hard explaining why you won’t defend it?
|
John  jhardin

Re: Catholic Questions My wife is against me going to the RCC

Actually John, I have seen this blog and refutation of it, but I
cannot exactly remember where so I won’t throw out my guesses at this
moment.

What perhaps you are failing to realize is the Jewishness of the
Church’s heritage. Rememberance goes back to the Passover itself
whereby one would take the lamb and sacrifice it in memory that would
take them back to the actual event itself. In other words, the
Jewish perspective is that they are not only reliving the experience,
but they are living it out every Passover.

The same is true with the covenant of Christ’s body and blood.

Then you threw this tidbit in…

All one needs to do to be saved is to accept Christ’s payment for
their sins… and be saved.

Now you bring in the flawed Protestant view of Justification. Is
that really all? What happened to obedience? Because it is clear
that disobedience leads to death. So you have brought in this other
subject and totally ignoring repentance and baptism along with
walking in Christ.

Peace, Carla  Carla

Because, with experience, we can recognize someone who is honestly seeking answers compared to someone looking to simply discredit and disillusion. Take the title of the blog, for instance. “More flawed apologetics to justify phony doctrine.” Your goal is not to debate but instead to twist the debate and make it a show for those reading.

What the readers don’t get is that you’re choosing a topic that can’t be successfully debated between a Catholic and a Protestant and you’re using this misinformation as your tool. A Protestant is sola scriptura and the doctrine of transubstantiation, while its roots lie in scripture, falls into apostolic tradition. You claim it’s a phony doctrine, but it’s a doctrine that has been documented and taught since the first century.

If you want to debate transubstantiation, there’s a starting point. You would need to start by debating sola scriptura vs. apostolic tradition as well as the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. Perhaps you’d like to show us where in scripture it says that scripture is the sole authority to Christians. Or, perhaps you would like to try to disprove the canonicity of the deuterocanonical, or apocryphal as you would call them. I’ll gladly debate those topics. Perhaps, even, it would be easier for you to prove this statement: “All one needs to do to be saved is to accept Christ’s payment for their sins… and be saved.”  Brian Atwood

Carla, thank you for the comment.
|

Actually John, I have seen this blog and refutation of it, but I cannot exactly remember where so I won’t throw out my guesses at this moment.

I would really like to see it. If you don’t mind, send me a link if you ever run across it again.

What perhaps you are failing to realize is the Jewishness of the Church’s heritage. Rememberance goes back to the Passover itself whereby one would take the lamb and sacrifice it in memory that would take them back to the actual event itself. In other words, the Jewish perspective is that they are not only reliving the experience, but they are living it out every Passover.

But see, that is the point… the Jews were not reliving the passover every Passover… they were “remembering” it.
|
Exo 12:24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
Exo 12:25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
Exo 12:26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?
Exo 12:27 That ye shall say, It [is] the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
|
The passover was an “observance”, and an “ordinance”. They were not reliving anything.

The same is true with the covenant of Christ’s body and blood.

Yes it is. That’s why we call it an “ordinance”. We don’t relive the crucifixion, we “remember” it.

Now you bring in the flawed Protestant view of Justification. Is that really all? What happened to obedience? Because it is clear that disobedience leads to death. So you have brought in this other subject and totally ignoring repentance and baptism along with walking in Christ.

When the Jews experienced the passover in Exodus 12, they were saved by the blood on the doorposts. From that point on in their life, they were alive because of that blood. It was never rescinded for any reason, nor could it be rescinded for any reason… no Jew ever died as an afterthought by God after the passover. The salvation of the passover lasted forever… so there was no need to relive the event.  jhardin

Brian,
|

What the readers don’t get is that you’re choosing a topic that can’t be successfully debated between a Catholic and a Protestant and you’re using this misinformation as your tool.

I believe the topic CAN be debated between a Catholic and a Bible believing Christian… on the grounds of logic alone.
|
I believe the Catholic justification for practicing the Mass can be refuted by logic alone, and if it can be refuted, the Catholic teaching of Apostolic succession will be suspect.

A Protestant is sola scriptura and the doctrine of transubstantiation, while its roots lie in scripture, falls into apostolic tradition.

First of all, I was never Catholic… so I’m not a protestant. Secondly, I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura as Luther defined it.
|
I do disagree with you though on the statement that we cannot debate because of our differences concerning canonical scripture. We both believe in the inspired canon of the 66 books of the King James Version, right? The difference is you believe there are additional writings and teachings. If the other 6 books of scripture and Papal teachings are also inspired they will be congruent with the 66 books that I believe to be the whole of scripture.
|
If we were to debate transubstantiation, or the validity of the Mass based on the 66 books of the KJV, the validity of Apostolic succession and the additional 6 books would be proven simultaneously.

Perhaps, even, it would be easier for you to prove this statement: “All one needs to do to be saved is to accept Christ’s payment for their sins… and be saved.”

See my response to Carla above. The passover was an illustration of Christ’s death. The blood is what saved the Jews at the passover. Once a Jew was saved at the passover, there is no record of God changing His mind and sending the death angel back for anyone who had the blood of the passover lamb on their doorposts.
|
What did it take for a Jew to be saved from the Death angel at the passover? Did they have to obey? Or continue in obedience to the law? Or walk with God daily? NO, they simply had to have the blood on their doorposts.
|
Accepting Christ’s blood which is the payment for our sins is no different than a Jew placing the blood of the passover lamb on their doorposts.  jhardin

If one is born in Ireland, he’s Irish. If he’s born in America, he’s American. You were born into Protestantism and thus are Protestant. You’re a victim of the Reformation. You may have never been Catholic, but I’d venture to say your ancestors were.

If you’re not sola scriptura, then it would be helpful to know what your views on the authority of holy scripture is. How do you view non-canonical writings such as the Didache or the writings of the Church Fathers?

What did it take for a Jew to be saved from the Death angel at the passover? Did they have to obey? Or continue in obedience to the law? Or walk with God daily? NO, they simply had to have the blood on their doorposts.

You’re speaking here of what saved Moses’ group at a singular moment in time. It saved the earthly bodies of their firstborn from dying. However, they did still have to obey God’s Law throughout their lives. However, I think we’re to debate topics of Christianity, not Judaism. We’re children of the New Testament, not the Old.  Brian Atwood

Hi Brian.
|

If one is born in Ireland, he’s Irish. If he’s born in America, he’s American. You were born into Protestantism and thus are Protestant. You’re a victim of the Reformation. You may have never been Catholic, but I’d venture to say your ancestors were.

Kind of a trivial thing to debate I guess, but I don’t consider myself a Protestant. My beliefs don’t necessarily reflect those of my ancestors. I consider myself a “Bible believing Christian”. Which in my opinion is far removed from mainstream Protestantism.

If you’re not sola scriptura, then it would be helpful to know what your views on the authority of holy scripture is. How do you view non-canonical writings such as the Didache or the writings of the Church Fathers?

Luther defined Sola Scriptura as the Bible being the sole authority for the church in all matters of faith and practice.
|
I believe that Christ is rather the “sole authority” in all matters of faith and practice.
|
Luther also assumed in his definition that there is no further contact with man regarding this authority except the Bible itself. I disagree. I don’t believe there are new truths given above and beyond scripture… but I do believe that God speaks to His children in a specific manner either by revealing truths, or giving specific commandments… but these “personal revelations” will ALWAYS be perfectly congruent with the inspired Word of God.
|
So, you can presume me to be “Sola Scriptura” if you wish. You would approach me and my beliefs the same way you would a Lutheran.

You’re speaking here of what saved Moses’ group at a singular moment in time. It saved the earthly bodies of their firstborn from dying. However, they did still have to obey God’s Law throughout their lives.

You’re right, the passover Is what saved Moses’ group at a singular moment (or night) in time. And the passover was an illustration for the coming Christ. Christ’s death was an atonement for our sins, and like the passover Lamb was our propitiation.
|
You’re also right that they (Jews) still had to obey God’s law throughout their lives. But if at any time a Jew broke a commandment, God didn’t take them back to the Passover and remove the blood. The fact remains that when a Jew was saved on the Passover, they stayed saved from the Death Angel for the rest of their lives.
|
Likewise, we are expected to obey God as Christians… but if we disobey (as the Jews did) God doesn’t take away our salvation either

However, I think we’re to debate topics of Christianity, not Judaism. We’re children of the New Testament, not the Old.

That’s fine. I only explained the correlation between the Passover and salvation because Catholics (like Mr. Claveau) use the passover to justify the Mass.  jhardin

Please also go to the group page and post your response so I will know that you have commented…

Hi John,
(I would also add an off thread remark about Protestant. You are Protestant also because you are ‘protesting’ the views of the Church in existance for 2000 years. This is along with Brians exposition of heritage, to which I agree)

> I would really like to see it. If you don’t mind, send me a link if
> you ever run across it again.

Sure thing…

> But see, that is the point… the Jews were not reliving the passover
> every Passover… they were “remembering” it.
> |
> Exo 12:24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and
> to thy sons for ever.
> Exo 12:25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which
> the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall
> keep this service.
> Exo 12:26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto
> you, What mean ye by this service?
> Exo 12:27 That ye shall say, It [is] the sacrifice of the LORD’S
> passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in
> Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the
> people bowed the head and worshipped.
> |
> The passover was an “observance”, and an “ordinance”. They were not
> reliving anything.

It’s not a memorial or even an observance like most would understand. Pearl Harbor has a great “memorial” and one can even “observe” a moment of silence while there. One can walk away and say ‘that was cool’. However, the Passover and the other so-called memorials are different.

They had to live it out. They did this with all of their Feasts actually, but I will stick with the Passover. To which was death in the actual Passover as well as the so-called memorial/observance. That is much different then the ‘memorial/observance’ you seem to be implying.

So, what would have happened if they didn’t eat the lamb or “live“ it out with all of its precepts?… they were dead or cut off, which is death. They were given many precepts to avoid this death at the actual Passover as well as the so-called memorial.

> The same is true with the covenant of Christ’s body and blood.
>
> Yes it is. That’s why we call it an “ordinance”. We don’t relive the
> crucifixion, we “remember” it.

Oh, but we do. To take this propitiation for our sins and eat it in an unworthy manner is death 1Cor. 11. Whereas the actual Mosaic Passover propitiation passed over the Israelites by death of the flesh it so continued if they didn’t relive the event with all of its precepts would be cut off in the flesh from the people as well as spiritually with God. And so it is with the Eucharist

1 Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

But that body and blood was spilt in the past, how can it be profaned now? Jesus is in Heaven in a body the Apostles almost didn’t recognize?

29) For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

One of our main precepts for this sacrifice (not re-sacrifice) is to examine our hearts, our conscience so we aren’t cut off spiritually… So, yes, we are living it out in a very real sense.

> Now you bring in the flawed Protestant view of Justification. Is
> that really all? What happened to obedience? Because it is clear that
> disobedience leads to death. So you have brought in this other subject
> and totally ignoring repentance and baptism along with walking in Christ.
>
> When the Jews experienced the passover in Exodus 12, they were saved
> by the blood on the doorposts.

And I will heartily disagree with you. There were quite a few precepts to this event that had to be carried out or there would be death. Some of which are the preparation of the bread as well as you had to eat the lamb.

12:7 Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
see also continuing verses.

The blood on the door posts was like the marathon runner in the last stage of the race in which he crosses the finish line. Not just because of the last stage, but because he ran the full course.

> From that point on in their life, they
> were alive because of that blood. It was never rescinded for any
> reason, nor could it be rescinded for any reason… no Jew ever died
> as an afterthought by God after the passover. The salvation of the
> passover lasted forever… so there was no need to relive the event.

I don’t see how you can be so sure about this since the curse of the Mosaic Law is if you break one commandment you are cut off. That seems to be a pretty big afterthought.

Peace, Carla  Carla

Carla,

Oh, but we do. To take this propitiation for our sins and eat it in an unworthy manner is death 1Cor. 11. Whereas the actual Mosaic Passover propitiation passed over the Israelites by death of the flesh it so continued if they didn’t relive the event with all of its precepts would be cut off in the flesh from the people as well as spiritually with God. And so it is with the Eucharist

1 Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

But that body and blood was spilt in the past, how can it be profaned now? Jesus is in Heaven in a body the Apostles almost didn’t recognize?

29) For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

One of our main precepts for this sacrifice (not re-sacrifice) is to examine our hearts, our conscience so we aren’t cut off spiritually… So, yes, we are living it out in a very real sense.

As far as 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 goes, Paul was referring to those who aren’t saved, who can’t discern the body of Christ. This is a person who is eating and drinking in a religious manner only, without the discernment to understand that what they are doing is proclaiming the gospel with their actions.
|
A person who partakes of the Lord’s supper in such a manner is essentially preaching a false gospel by their actions… and thereby profaning the body and the blood of the Lord.
|
Now for the Passover. Being “cut off” from Israel was not equal to death. To be cut off from Israel was to lose your nationality, or your inclusion in the nation of Israel. To neglect to observe the passover, a Jew would only be cut off as a member of the nation of Israel, they would NOT be killed by the death angel… That salvation was secure, and eternal, which is why be believe Biblically in eternal security of salvation.

And I will heartily disagree with you. There were quite a few precepts to this event that had to be carried out or there would be death. Some of which are the preparation of the bread as well as you had to eat the lamb.

I disagree.
|
Exo 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye [are]: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy [you], when I smite the land of Egypt.
|
God did not say that He would pass over a Jew because they messed up any of the ceremonial acts. He only said He would pass over… when He saw THE BLOOD. And if that person had the blood of the lamb on their doorposts, they were saved from destruction.
|
If I were you I would stop worrying so much about the ceremonial acts, and the ritualistic religion… and just make sure you have the blood on your door posts (metaphorically), because the day of judgment is coming for you one day.
|
If the blood of Christ is applied to your life, you are saved… and nothing can take that away.  jhardin

Luther also assumed in his definition that there is no further contact with man regarding this authority except the Bible itself. I disagree. I don’t believe there are new truths given above and beyond scripture… but I do believe that God speaks to His children in a specific manner either by revealing truths, or giving specific commandments… but these “personal revelations” will ALWAYS be perfectly congruent with the inspired Word of God.

Ok. I think I’m getting a better idea of your position. I agree with you that the Bible is not our sole rule of faith and that doctrine should not contradict the bible. Would I be correct in assuming you feel the Bible is understandable by all because the Holy Spirit interprets it for us?

Likewise, we are expected to obey God as Christians… but if we disobey (as the Jews did) God doesn’t take away our salvation either

I’m glad you said earlier that truth does not contradict scripture because the statement that God does not take away salvation for disobedience DOES contradict scripture. How does the Holy Spirit interpret these verses for you?

(Romans 2:25) Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

(Romans 11:22) See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

(Hebrews 10:26-27) If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.  Brian Atwood

Would I be correct in assuming you feel the Bible is understandable by all because the Holy Spirit interprets it for us?

I feel the Bible is ABLE to be understood by saved individuals because the Holy Spirit “teaches us all things, comparing spiritual things with spiritual”.

How does the Holy Spirit interpret these verses for you?

Romans 2:25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
|
As was stated by the Apostle Paul in verse 23 of that same chapter, Paul is speaking to the person who makes “boast of the law”. Circumcision obliged a Jew to keep the whole law. So, if a person was circumcised and kept the law, his circumcision was not useless. But, if that person did NOT keep the law, his circumcision was completely useless, and he is as an uncircumcised person because he doesn’t keep the law.
|
The Apostle Paul is using this argument to make a parallel between Judaism and Christianity. Circumcision was an illustration of Repentance, and being a child of Abraham was an illustration of being “born again” of the Spirit of God. Therefore the Apostle Paul concludes with this comment…
|
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.
|

It’s important to remember that circumcision is not what made a Jew a Jew.  Being born of Abraham’s posterity is what made a person a Jew.  Circumcision was an act that signified a person as a child of Abraham.  Likewise, a Christian is one who is born of the Spirit of God (born again).  And repentance is what signifies that a person is born again.  Repentance was illustrated by circumcision as “cutting away the filth of the flesh” which is what we do when we repent… we turn away from filthy acts or sins.

|
Romans 11:21,22For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
|
By this is not meant that a person will lose his or her salvation if they sin. But Paul was explicating that just as a Jew would be “cut-off” from fellowship and as a member of the nation of Israel for failure to continue in God’s goodness; we as Christians should be wary to also continue in God’s goodness or else we could be in danger of being “cut-off”.
|
It is important to understand here what is meant by the term “cut-off”. This is not to be confused with losing one’s salvation, and Paul explains this situation clearly in 1 Corinthians 5:5, “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”. If the spirit is going to be saved, it doesn’t sound like that person has been “cut-off” to lose their salvation.
|
To “cut-off” means to excommunicate (a term Catholics are familiar with). And as you are aware Jesus taught this in Matthew 18:17 “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. It simply means to cease fellowship with a person, and to be congruent with Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 5:5, this should only be done to teach a person the error of their ways, and to persuade them to repent.
|
Hebrews 10:26,27For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, The key to understanding this verse is to understand that the writer of Hebrews did not say “after we have received salvation”. The person here that sins willfully has received the “knowledge” of the truth… but they have rejected it and continue to sin willfully. By doing so, they have trodden under foot the gospel as the writer explains in verse 29.
|
By rejecting the gospel (the knowledge of truth) and treating the gospel as an unholy thing (verse 29), this person will have lost his chance at receiving the sacrifice for sins, and the only prospect left for them is judgment and fiery indignation from God (verse 27).  jhardin

Hi John,

> I would really like to see it. If you don’t mind, send me a link if
> you ever run across it again.

Sure thing…

> But see, that is the point… the Jews were not reliving the
passover
> every Passover… they were “remembering” it.
> |
> Exo 12:24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee
and
> to thy sons for ever.
> Exo 12:25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land
which
> the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall
> keep this service.
> Exo 12:26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say
unto
> you, What mean ye by this service?
> Exo 12:27 That ye shall say, It [is] the sacrifice of the LORD’S
> passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in
> Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And
the
> people bowed the head and worshipped.
> |
> The passover was an “observance”, and an “ordinance”. They were not
> reliving anything.

It’s not a memorial or even an observance like most would
understand. Pearl Harbor has a great “memorial” and one can
even “observe” a moment of silence while there. One can walk away
and say `that was cool’. However, the Passover and the other so-
called memorials are different.

They had to live it out. They did this with all of their Feasts
actually, but I will stick with the Passover. To which was death in
the actual Passover as well as the so-called memorial/observance.
That is much different then the `memorial/observance’ you seem to be
implying.

So, what would have happened if they didn’t eat the lamb or “live” it
out with all of its precepts?… they were dead or cut off, which is
death. They were given many precepts to avoid this death at the
actual Passover as well as the so-called memorial.

> The same is true with the covenant of Christ’s body and blood.
>
> Yes it is. That’s why we call it an “ordinance”. We don’t relive the
> crucifixion, we “remember” it.

Oh, but we do. To take this propitiation for our sins and eat it in
an unworthy manner is death 1Cor. 11. Whereas the actual Mosaic
Passover propitiation passed over the Israelites by death of the
flesh it so continued if they didn’t relive the event with all of its
precepts would be cut off in the flesh from the people as well as
spiritually with God. And so it is spiritually with the Eucharist

1 Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of
the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body
and blood of the Lord.

But that body and blood was spilt in the past, how can it be profaned
now? Jesus is in Heaven in a body the Apostles almost didn’t
recognize?

29) For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats
and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak
and ill, and some have died.

One of our main precepts for this sacrifice (not re-sacrifice) is to
examine our hearts, our conscience so we aren’t cut off spiritually…
So, yes, we are living it out in a very real sense.

> Now you bring in the flawed Protestant view of Justification. Is
> that really all? What happened to obedience? Because it is clear
that
> disobedience leads to death. So you have brought in this other
subject
> and totally ignoring repentance and baptism along with walking in
Christ.
>
> When the Jews experienced the passover in Exodus 12, they were saved
> by the blood on the doorposts.

And I will heartily disagree with you. There were quite a few
precepts to this event that had to be carried out or there would be
death. Some of which are the preparation of the bread as well as
you had to eat the lamb.

12:7 Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two
doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
as well as vs. 8-10

The blood on the door posts was like the marathon runner in the last
stage of the race in which he crosses the finish line. Not just
because of the last stage, but because he ran the full course.

> From that point on in their life, they
> were alive because of that blood. It was never rescinded for any
> reason, nor could it be rescinded for any reason… no Jew ever died
> as an afterthought by God after the passover. The salvation of the
> passover lasted forever… so there was no need to relive the
event.

I don’t see how you can be so sure about this since the curse of the
Mosaic Law is if you break one commandment you are cut off. That
seems to be a pretty big afterthought.

Peace, Carla  Carla

Carla, please strip your comments before posting here when you are copying and pasting from yahoo groups.
|
It makes it hard to read when you don’t.
|
Thanks  jhardin

I think you’ve missed the context of Romans 2. He is not setting a parallel, but instead speaking of both Jews and gentiles as one body. He’s using words that are synonymous to both parties. The tone of the chapter is hypocrisy. In the early church, there was a separation and fighting between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. He states specifically that the Law makes no difference if we sin (12). Circumcision is synonymous with baptism. It’s baptism that gives us the sanctifying grace needed for salvation. Through our baptism we are indeed “born again” in Christ, but our salvation is not assured – we must “endure to the end” (Matt 24:13).

Your answer to Romans 11:21,22 is an enigma in itself. You’ve got the right answer there and even state it a couple of times, but you dance around it and are misguided.

You’re absolutely right that 1 Cor 5:5 is describing excommunication as punishment for the person’s actions. However, first you state that is spirit will still be saved and then next you recognize it as a method of persuasion for returning to God’s grace. You will agree, I’m sure that it is God’s grace that saves us. However, we must accept that gift and maintain that relationship. The “cut off” in Romans 11 is not excommunication. Excommunication is an action of the church, not God. Romans 11 clearly states that the cutting off will be done by God. It is the cutting off from his gift of saving grace. However, we can always return to God’s grace through reconciliation as shown in Romans 11:23.

we as Christians should be wary to also continue in God’s goodness or else we could be in danger of being “cut-off”.

Doesn’t this statement contradict what you’ve been trying to say about being saved? If one cannot lose their salvation, what fear do you have of God’s judgment? You said just there that there is still danger of being “cut-off”.

Now, after your answer to Hebrews, I guess what I really need is your definition of salvation. “The truth” and “enlightenment” are both metaphors for baptism. Through baptism we receive the sanctifying grace needed for salvation. That clearly is different from your view of salvation so lets discuss our differences there so that we can have a better understanding on which to build the rest of our discussion on.  Brian Atwood

Hi Brian,
|
Sorry, the anti-spam software caught your message for some reason. I saved it though
|

I think you’ve missed the context of Romans 2. He is not setting a parallel, but instead speaking of both Jews and gentiles as one body. He’s using words that are synonymous to both parties. The tone of the chapter is hypocrisy…

You’re right Brian. The tone of Romans chapter 2 is hypocrisy. That is the thought I tried to convey in my last comment. Circumcision (of the flesh) was a “type” of the circumcision of the heart (Jeremiah 4:4). A true Jew (or God’s people) is one that has circumcised their heart.
|
The hypocrite is one who is living as the Jews were, boasting of being God’s people by circumcision, but never being circumcised in their hearts.

Circumcision is synonymous with baptism. It’s baptism that gives us the sanctifying grace needed for salvation. Through our baptism we are indeed “born again” in Christ, but our salvation is not assured – we must “endure to the end” (Matt 24:13).

Circumcision was a removal of the unsanitary portion of flesh (I don’t need to be more specific). The parallel doctrine of the New Testament with circumcision is Repentance… which is the removal of the filth of the flesh in a metaphorical sense.
|
Repentance of sin is what signifies and designates a person as a Christian. The parallel is that Circumcision signified and designated a person as a Jew.
|
The important thing to realize here, is that Circumcision was NOT the act that made a person a Jew… What made a person a Jew was being born of Abraham’s seed. Genesis 17:7,8 shows us that the promise of the land of Canaan was to Abraham and his seed… not to those who were circumcised. But circumcision was a sign of that Covenant between God and Abraham and his seed.
|
Repentance is likewise a sign of salvation… for if a person is saved, they will undoubtedly begin to abhor sin and unrighteousness in their lives and begin a process of “circumcision” in their hearts.

However, first you state that is spirit will still be saved and then next you recognize it as a method of persuasion for returning to God’s grace. You will agree, I’m sure that it is God’s grace that saves us. However, we must accept that gift and maintain that relationship.

I agree with you that we must maintain that relationship. But, that in itself is proof of the position of eternal security.
|
After we have received salvation, God’s perception of us changes based on the unchanging blood of Christ. What does change though, is our relationship with God based on our actions. When we sin… we actually draw back from God.
|
God’s perception of us NEVER changes, if we are saved we are, and always be His dear children… but when we sin, we withdraw ourselves from God. This has nothing to do with losing our salvation. It has everything to do with maintaining an interpersonal relationship with God.

The “cut off” in Romans 11 is not excommunication. Excommunication is an action of the church, not God. Romans 11 clearly states that the cutting off will be done by God. It is the cutting off from his gift of saving grace. However, we can always return to God’s grace through reconciliation as shown in Romans 11:23.

Very good point. But I disagree with you. Revelation 2:5 indicates that God does remove certain people from the local Church (excommunication). In this instance God is speaking to the pastor of the Church at Ephesus, who would be removed if he did not repent.
|

If one cannot lose their salvation, what fear do you have of God’s judgment? You said just there that there is still danger of being “cut-off”.

Just because God has the ability to exact judgment on a person… doesn’t mean that fact negates salvation. It never ceases to amaze me, how so many people generalize Biblical terms like judgment, and mercy.
|
Romans 14:10 Paul states that “we” (implicating himself) will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:10 says the same thing.
|
In fact, authorities, and kings, and judges have been set up by God for the purpose of exacting judgment on those who have sinned and continue in it… and these authorities are used by God to lead wayward children to repentance.

I guess what I really need is your definition of salvation… so lets discuss our differences there so that we can have a better understanding on which to build the rest of our discussion on.

Salvation is the application of the blood of Christ on one’s life. By this application we receive justification by the attributing of Christ’s righteousness to us in the eyes of God.
|
Nothing by us can be done to earn salvation, otherwise the blood of Christ is relegated. And nothing by us can be done to lose salvation, otherwise the blood of Christ is not all sufficient.  jhardin

The hypocrite is one who is living as the Jews were, boasting of being God’s people by circumcision, but never being circumcised in their hearts.

I agree. But it was still God’s commandment that all Jews be circumcised just as it was His commandment that all Christians be baptized.

Circumcision was a removal of the unsanitary portion of flesh (I don’t need to be more specific). The parallel doctrine of the New Testament with circumcision is Repentance… which is the removal of the filth of the flesh in a metaphorical sense.
|
Repentance of sin is what signifies and designates a person as a Christian. The parallel is that Circumcision signified and designated a person as a Jew.

I must disagree here. Repentance doesn’t make us Christians. It’s our baptism and faith that makes us Christians. Repentance of sin is a big part of Jewish faith but that doesn’t make them Christians. Baptism removes the stain of original sin. Baptism is the spiritual replacement for circumcision. It’s through baptism that we are joined in the blood of Christ and at that moment in time all of our sins are forgiven and we are saved.

(Colossians 2:11) In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.

I agree with you that we must maintain that relationship. But, that in itself is proof of the position of eternal security.

The only eternal security is that we can always return to God if we choose to. We have the free will to turn away from God just as much as we can turn to God. At any time in our lives we can choose to turn away. The parable of the prodigal son shows us that we can always return. We will always be forgiven, but only if we wish to be. Being saved doesn’t take that choice away from us.

After we have received salvation, God’s perception of us changes based on the unchanging blood of Christ. What does change though, is our relationship with God based on our actions.

What you’re speaking of is not salvation, it’s sanctification. Salvation is the end goal. Once we’re in Heaven we’ve reached salvation. Christ’s blood gives us sanctification in the act of purifying us and granting justification.

When we sin… we actually draw back from God.
|
God’s perception of us NEVER changes, if we are saved we are, and always be His dear children… but when we sin, we withdraw ourselves from God. This has nothing to do with losing our salvation. It has everything to do with maintaining an interpersonal relationship with God.

Why then. If we don’t maintain the relationship with God, how can we expect to enter Heaven?

(Matthew 7:21-23) “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’”

Just because God has the ability to exact judgment on a person… doesn’t mean that fact negates salvation. It never ceases to amaze me, how so many people generalize Biblical terms like judgment, and mercy.

I don’t consider it generalization. The Bible is pretty specific on the harmful effects of sin and God’s judgment.

Salvation is the application of the blood of Christ on one’s life. By this application we receive justification by the attributing of Christ’s righteousness to us in the eyes of God.

Possibly part of the issue is terminology. What you speak of is sanctification acquired through baptism.

(Titus 3:4-7) But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

Nothing by us can be done to earn salvation, otherwise the blood of Christ is relegated. And nothing by us can be done to lose salvation, otherwise the blood of Christ is not all sufficient.

I agree that nothing can be done to earn sanctification. That is a gift of grace given to us by God. However, as the Bible has shown, we can lose that sanctification from sin. This is not because Christ’s blood is insufficient, it’s because we are imperfect.  Brian Atwood

I agree. But it was still God’s commandment that all Jews be circumcised just as it was His commandment that all Christians be baptized.

Yes, it is a commandment for “Christians” to be baptized… not those who have not received salvation.

I must disagree here. Repentance doesn’t make us Christians. It’s our baptism and faith that makes us Christians. Repentance of sin is a big part of Jewish faith but that doesn’t make them Christians.

Your above quote depicts the root of the problem (I believe) with Baptismal Regeneration.
|
Baptism IS an act of repentance. If baptism is a command by God, to submit to baptism is an act of repentance… or submission to God’s will while rejecting our will.
|
Baptism doesn’t make us Christians, any more than circumcision made a Jew. It only signifies that we are Christians as we submit to God’s will.

The only eternal security is that we can always return to God if we choose to. We have the free will to turn away from God just as much as we can turn to God. At any time in our lives we can choose to turn away. The parable of the prodigal son shows us that we can always return. We will always be forgiven, but only if we wish to be. Being saved doesn’t take that choice away from us.

First of all, if a person makes a decision that they don’t want to be a Christian any longer; I would have to doubt that person every was a Christian to begin with.
|
Secondly, the parable of the prodigal son actually does prove eternal security. Luke 15:10 is the statement by Jesus right before he gave the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus was talking about sinners repenting, or “salvation”.
|
The parable of the prodigal son was a parable illustrating salvation. The son made a conscious decision to sin, then realized the error of his ways and decided to turn away from his will (repentance). He admitted he was not worthy to be called his father’s son. And he was shown mercy and accepted, and adopted as a son.
|
I see no indication that the prodigal son would have any desire to go back to the famine and poverty that he was rescued from. Although he may not always be obedient, it isn’t recorded that the prodigal son ever went, or desired to go back into the world.

I agree that nothing can be done to earn sanctification. That is a gift of grace given to us by God. However, as the Bible has shown, we can lose that sanctification from sin. This is not because Christ’s blood is insufficient, it’s because we are imperfect.

If the blood of Christ is not sufficient to overcome our fallibility, then how sufficient can the blood of Christ be?  jhardin

Baptism doesn’t make us Christians, any more than circumcision made a Jew. It only signifies that we are Christians as we submit to God’s will.

The Bible disagrees with you. Baptism is the initiation to become Christian. It is not a repentance, it is a renewal. Repenting is always listed along with and separate from baptism. Any time someone listened to the word and wanted to become Christian, they asked what they must do and were told to be baptized. Through baptism we become a new creation. All our past sins are washed clean. We become justified in the eyes of the Lord.

(2 Corinthians 5:17) So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come.

(Titus 3:4-7) But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

First of all, if a person makes a decision that they don’t want to be a Christian any longer; I would have to doubt that person every was a Christian to begin with.

This is an answer that all “once saved, always saved” believers fall back on. But it doesn’t hold any weight. First, it’s not a decision to stop becoming a Christian, mortal sin does sever our relationship with God and sin is a choice. Renewal of that relationship is also a choice which is why Jesus gave us the sacrament of Reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-20)(John 20:21-23).

If the blood of Christ is not sufficient to overcome our fallibility, then how sufficient can the blood of Christ be?

Christ’s blood is perfectly sufficient in doing what it was meant to do. It washes away our sins and makes salvation obtainable. However, it doesn’t take away our free will. A protestant minister once said to me that Jesus was like a life preserver thrown out to us drowning in the ocean. Would I take it and be saved? I replied, yes. But what happens if I take it with the intent of being saved but I let go before reaching the boat? Am I still saved? The preserver is still there within reach and will be until I make it to the boat or I drown. I have to choose to retake it every time I let go.  Brian Atwood

The Bible disagrees with you. Baptism is the initiation to become Christian. It is not a repentance, it is a renewal. Repenting is always listed along with and separate from baptism. Any time someone listened to the word and wanted to become Christian, they asked what they must do and were told to be baptized.

Repentance means “to turn away”. If the word is used in the context of salvation, it simply means to turn away from prior conceived ideas concerning salvation. If the term is used after salvation, it is always used in the context of sin… to turn away from sin.
|
In this sense, baptism is an act of repentance in that it is a submission to the will of God, and that requires a mental repentance of our own will and subsequent concession to God’s will.
|
When someone asked to be saved.. they were told to either “believe” (Acts 8:37, Acts 13:39, Acts 15:7, Acts 15:11, Acts 16:31, Romans 3:22, Romans 4:11, Romans 4:24… etc.) Or they were told to repent (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19)
|
Acts 2:38 is the only place it seems that anyone was encouraged to baptized to be saved, and in this instance they were all encouraged to “repent” first… that is to entertain thoughts contrary to their former conceptions of Christ.

Through baptism we become a new creation. All our past sins are washed clean. We become justified in the eyes of the Lord.

I disagree. The Bible says: Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
|
Here is the point I think Catholics (and others) miss. Christ’s blood is the atonement for sin… we both know that. But why would that atonement only pertain to past sins?
|
When we sin, that offense never goes away… it is written in history forever, nothing can change that. Likewise, our future sins, though not predetermined are foreknown by God who lives in eternity and sees all.
|
When the blood of Christ is applied to a person to atone for sin… why would God ignore future sins if the blood of Christ is to be all sufficient? Of course I understand that from our perspective those “future sins” haven’t occurred yet. But God sees them, to God it’s as if they have already happened.
|
This is the reason we believe in eternal security. Past or present sin is irrelevant to God as He lives in eternity. As far as God is concerned, from His eternal viewpoint, the end of all time has already come. So when we receive salvation, it is a one-time event where the blood of Christ is applied for ALL sins.
|
Romans 5:18 and 19 says: Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
|
If the sin of “one man” (Adam) caused many (us) to be future sinners; why is it so hard to believe that by the obedience of One (Christ), many could be made future righteous people. The comparison Paul makes here is permanent change. From the time Cain was born, people were being “made sinners”. Cain was a sinner for the entirety of his life, just as everyone who has been born since.
|
But, those who are “born again” are righteous for the rest of their lives. If it were possible for us to lose our salvation, and regain it, and lose it again… etc. How would that make viable comparison for Paul to make with the sin of Adam? Sinners born under Adam were not counted righteous when they were being obedient, then condemned to hell when they sinned.
|
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
|
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
|
Notice the bold type: If those who did NOT sin after the similitude of Adams sin were still under death. Why would the LIFE that Christ gives be less likely to reign over those who have sinned?
|
John  jhardin

Repentance means “to turn away”. If the word is used in the context of salvation, it simply means to turn away from prior conceived ideas concerning salvation. If the term is used after salvation, it is always used in the context of sin… to turn away from sin.

Repentance means to turn away from sin or feel contrition. There are no other definitions. If there is a context where it means “turn away from prior conceived ideas concerning salvation” I’d like to see it.

Acts 2:38 is the only place it seems that anyone was encouraged to baptized to be saved, and in this instance they were all encouraged to “repent” first… that is to entertain thoughts contrary to their former conceptions of Christ.

It’s not encouraged, it’s commanded. And when he says to repent, he’s saying to turn away from sin. There’s no hidden twist here. And if you think because it’s only commanded in one place that it should be ignored? It’s also “encouraged” in Acts 22:16. Jesus is the one who commanded them to baptize. (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16) Was that just encouragement? The message of Acts 2:38 is clear. To become a Christian, you must turn away from sin and be baptized.

(Acts 10:47,48) “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?” He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

(John 13:8) Jesus answered him, “Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me.”

I disagree. The Bible says: Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Both those statements are true, but it is through baptism that we enter into Christ’s Blood. We join with him in his sacrifice. Our old selves die and we are figuratively resurrected as a new creation. Thus, it is through the act of baptism that we are saved.

(1 Peter 3:21) This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

(Mark 16:16) “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned”

Here is the point I think Catholics (and others) miss. Christ’s blood is the atonement for sin… we both know that. But why would that atonement only pertain to past sins?This is the reason we believe in eternal security. Past or present sin is irrelevant to God as He lives in eternity. As far as God is concerned, from His eternal viewpoint, the end of all time has already come. So when we receive salvation, it is a one-time event where the blood of Christ is applied for ALL sins.

That’s wishful thinking, but it’s taught by those who don’t want to have responsibility for their actions. The Bible tells us that we all will have to pay recompense for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:10). Catholics have missed nothing. I think it’s you that have missed the words of the Apostles.

(2 Peter 1:9) Anyone who lacks them is blind and shortsighted, forgetful of the cleansing of his past sins.

(Romans 3:25) whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed.

Romans 5:18 and 19 says: Therefore as by the offense of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

This is correct. Through Christ’s obedience to the Father, we were given the gift of baptism through which all may be justified.

But, those who are “born again” are righteous for the rest of their lives.

Prove it.

If it were possible for us to lose our salvation, and regain it, and lose it again… etc. How would that make viable comparison for Paul to make with the sin of Adam? Sinners born under Adam were not counted righteous when they were being obedient, then condemned to hell when they sinned.

Adam was in paradise, through his disobedience that paradise was taken away from him. Through Christ, God gave mankind a second chance. We are given paradise again, but like Adam was before, if we’re disobedient, it’s taken away. But Christ also gave us the sacrament of reconciliation to return to the state of grace (2 Corinthians 5:18-20). If all our future sins were already null an void, why would reconciliation be instituted?

Notice the bold type: If those who did NOT sin after the similitude of Adams sin were still under death. Why would the LIFE that Christ gives be less likely to reign over those who have sinned?

If does have power over sin, but still doesn’t take away our free will to be disobedient. Multiple times the Bible refers to sin as deadly. Several time the Apostles warn those who continue to sin telling them it will lead to eternal punishment. God loves us and will not take our choice away from us or give us an excuse to sin.  Brian Atwood

Repentance means to turn away from sin or feel contrition. There are no other definitions. If there is a context where it means “turn away from prior conceived ideas concerning salvation” I’d like to see it.

Exo 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
|
God does not sin, so the act of “repenting” for God is to “change His mind”.
|
Mat 21:28 But what think ye? A [certain] man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
|
This man “changed his mind”, and went to work. There was no offense here, and no sin, so nothing to feel contrition for… he simply changed his mind.
|
Rev 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
|
I realize that it would seem appropriate to feel sorry for blaspheming God after you have “changed your mind” to give Him glory. This verse does not indicate that they would have been of a contrite heart… only that God wanted them to “change their minds” and give glory to God.

To become a Christian, you must turn away from sin and be baptized.

(Acts 10:47,48) “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?” He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

(John 3:5) Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

(John 13:8) Jesus answered him, “Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me.”

Acts 10:47,48… Cornelius and the others with him had received the Holy Spirit because they believed (as Paul stated). Therefore because they were saved they were qualified to receive the ordinance of baptism.
|
John 3:5… Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, who had previously misunderstood being born again meant that he had to re-enter his mother’s womb. Jesus stated directly after that “born of water and spirit”. This means that yes… you have to be born of water first, but being born of water is being born of your mother’s womb, then you have to be born of the Spirit. You have to consider the context that Jesus made that statement. The subject was being born of Nicodemus’ mother’s womb.
|
John 13:8… again you have to consider the context. Jesus was washing the disciples’ feet. This was an act of humility and servitude. The teaching here is not baptismal regeneration, but that Jesus came to serve, and that by giving His blood and His spirit. If we won’t allow him to serve us in this way, we cannot be saved.

That’s wishful thinking, but it’s taught by those who don’t want to have responsibility for their actions. The Bible tells us that we all will have to pay recompense for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:10). Catholics have missed nothing. I think it’s you that have missed the words of the Apostles.

You keep speaking as though we are under the law after we are saved. Nothing could be further from the truth. When a person is justified, they are justified by faith… not by the works of the law (or the absence of sin which is keeping the law).
|
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
|
No-one but believers are capable of performing good works more, and they do them, and they ought to do them: besides, faith, as a grace, looks to Christ as the end of the law for righteousness, and therefore do not make it void but establish good works.

But Christ also gave us the sacrament of reconciliation to return to the state of grace (2 Corinthians 5:18-20). If all our future sins were already null an void, why would reconciliation be instituted?

Let me illustrate it this way: I have learned by watching my children, that when they have disobeyed me and they know they are guilty they become detached and even go so far as to isolate themselves from me. This is because they know they have put something else between our relationship. Obedience is a necessary thing for me to have a fruitful relationship with my children.
|
When the truth comes out, and they “confess” their disobedience to me, and agree with me that they have done wrong… our relationship can be restored.
|
The interesting thing about this interpersonal relationship though… is that, at NO TIME during their disobedience did they EVER cease to be my children. They were still legally entitled to an inheritance, and actually, I NEVER even considered them alienated from me. I only notice the strain on the relationship and that it is strained because of disobedience.
|
It’s the same way with God. When we disobey, we put something between us and God… but we NEVER cease to be His children. Of course, for this to apply we need to be “born again”.

If does have power over sin, but still doesn’t take away our free will to be disobedient. Multiple times the Bible refers to sin as deadly. Several time the Apostles warn those who continue to sin telling them it will lead to eternal punishment. God loves us and will not take our choice away from us or give us an excuse to sin.

I find that many people make the same mistake as you just have, and it’s because of a lack of Biblical study.
|
When the Bible talks about sin leading to eternal punishment, that’s right… but it’s wrong to assume that just because the word “sin” is used in a certain instance that it automatically means eternal punishment in hell.
|
By generalizing sin and eternal punishment as you have, you have also disregarded justification by the atonement.
|
Romans chapter 7 gives some good insight into the life of one (Paul) who struggled with sin after he was saved. But he made no mention of having any fear of eternal damnation because of it.
|
The truth is, the ONLY decision that leads to eternal damnation is the decision to reject Christ and His payment for your sins.
|
Mar 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
Mar 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
|
The reason blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven is because to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to reject Him… and subsequently reject the gospel.

John  John Hardin

Acts 10:47,48 is important because it was not the usual case to receive the Holy Spirit before baptism. Them receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism was a miracle meant for Peter and the other Jewish Christians to see that the gentiles were not to be excluded from God’s plan. If baptism was unnecessary, they would have skipped it, but instead still baptized them because they must be reborn of WATER and Spirit. The two are codependent.

I’ve heard the argument of the mother’s womb as the water Jesus was referring to. I disagree. It has no logic. If all living people were already born of water via our mother’s womb, why would a rebaptism of water be necessary? There’s no denying that Jesus commanded the apostles to go and baptize and the ritual of baptism the disciples performed used water.

It is through baptism that we are reborn. That only our past sins are cleansed. Peter clearly says that it is baptism that saves us.

(1 Peter 3:21) This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

It is through baptism that we are reborn. Recreated into a new life.

(Colossians 2:12-13) You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead [in] transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

Faith and baptism are both necessary to be saved.

(Mark 16:16) “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned”

You keep speaking as though we are under the law after we are saved. Nothing could be further from the truth. When a person is justified, they are justified by faith… not by the works of the law (or the absence of sin which is keeping the law).

We are not required to follow the Mosaic Law which is what Romans 3 is speaking of. Your usage of the passage from Romans 3:24-31 is taken out of context. Paul is speaking of the loftiness that the Jewish Christians were showing over the Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians maintained a greater importance because they still practiced the Mosaic Law. God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles and justification is equal whether circumcised (Jew) or uncircumcised (Gentile). The does not mean, however, that there is no law to be followed. We are still required to follow Christ’s commandments. They are now our law.

When the Bible talks about sin leading to eternal punishment, that’s right… but it’s wrong to assume that just because the word “sin” is used in a certain instance that it automatically means eternal punishment in hell.
|
By generalizing sin and eternal punishment as you have, you have also disregarded justification by the atonement.

It is not Catholics that generalize sin, but Protestants. Catholics believe in the gravity of sin as the Bible teaches. Protestants lump all sin into one word. In the Catholic doctrine, there is venial and mortal sin. Venial does not sever the sanctifying grace need for salvation. Mortal(deadly) sins, however, do. Venial sins may be forgiven with prayer. Mortal, however, requires absolution through the Church.

(1 John 5:16-17) “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”

Let’s then apply the gravity of sin to your story about your children.

The interesting thing about this interpersonal relationship though… is that, at NO TIME during their disobedience did they EVER cease to be my children. They were still legally entitled to an inheritance, and actually, I NEVER even considered them alienated from me. I only notice the strain on the relationship and that it is strained because of disobedience.

Let’s say then one of your children murders your family (excluding you of course) and shows no remorse for their deeds. Would you still allow them to remain in your house and share in their inheritance? What if they embezzled your money, stole your car, your house, ruined your credit and didn’t care for what they’ve done? Would they still be welcome to their inheritance then? What if they knowingly accused you of a crime they know you didn’t commit? You went to prison for this accusation. After you got out, they showed no remorse for their actions. Would they still be welcome to their inheritance then?

Jesus names the deadly sins:

(Mark 10:17,19) As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’”

So, it would seem that doing any of the sins that Jesus listed would cause one NOT to inherit eternal life.  Brian Atwood

Hi Brian,
|
I would like to say I appreciate the discussion. Thanks.

Acts 10:47,48 is important because it was not the usual case to receive the Holy Spirit before baptism.

Here is the problem I have with that interpretation. There are many, many places in scripture where we are commanded to “believe”, or have “faith” to be saved, and in those places we are never told that faith is to be in water baptism. (Acts 8:37, 13:39, 15:7, 16:31, Romans 3:22, 4:11) In fact, Romans 4:24 says that this faith should be in something else; “if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;” So to believe in Jesus, and to have faith in God is how we receive justification and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
|
Now, we also have many instances (as you will no doubt agree), where people believed, then were baptized. So, it is no complicated process to realize that baptism is not a prerequisite for justification (righteousness).
|
The references to the “Holy Ghost”, or the “Baptism of the Holy Ghost” was only in reference to the impartation of ministerial gifts to a select group of believers. This is readily seen in those verses (one of which you already quoted)… (Acts 1:8, 2:4, 2:33, 4:31, 6:3, 6:5, etc.)
|
Acts 10:44,45… “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
|
Let me ask you this. Why would the Jews (of the circumcision) be astonished that the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles? It was because the Jews, prior to the New Testament were charged with the preaching of God’s Word, and this required the Holy Ghost. This baptism of the Holy Ghost was not for Peter’s sake, but for the Jews which were present with them.

It is not Catholics that generalize sin, but Protestants. Catholics believe in the gravity of sin as the Bible teaches. Protestants lump all sin into one word. In the Catholic doctrine, there is venial and mortal sin. Venial does not sever the sanctifying grace need for salvation. Mortal(deadly) sins, however, do. Venial sins may be forgiven with prayer. Mortal, however, requires absolution through the Church.

(1 John 5:16-17) “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”

I understand the Catholic teaching of Mortal and Venial sins. However, you have only proven my point. When the Bible speaks of sin, there is an eternal punishment that goes along with that. But Christ has given Himself as the propitiation for those sins.
|
But, even as Christ being the propitiation for our sins… we still sin. So there is still consequences for our sin. There is always physical consequences for sin, and sin always draws us away from the Father. But, these consequences NEVER take away the fact that Jesus is still the propitiation for those sins in the eyes of the Father.
|
By attributing severity of sin by labeling them Mortal or Venial, you have essentially generalized all sins that we see as severe, and said they are “bad enough” to send us to hell. But NO SIN can send us to hell if Christ’s propitiation is sufficient to atone for ALL sin.

Let’s say then one of your children murders your family (excluding you of course) and shows no remorse for their deeds. Would you still allow them to remain in your house and share in their inheritance?

Truthfully, I don’t know if I am capable of the unconditional love it would require to do that. But I know God is. God is love, and He is forbearing. The very fact that He sent His Son to die for a world that hated Him ought to be proof enough of God’s love.

Jesus names the deadly sins:

(Mark 10:17,19) As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’”

So, it would seem that doing any of the sins that Jesus listed would cause one NOT to inherit eternal life.

I think you realize that Jesus wasn’t just singling out certain sins for that purpose. Jesus was showing the “rich young ruler” that he had a certain level of righteousness. If you read on, you will see that Jesus showed the young ruler that he WAS in fact a sinner, because he loved his riches.
|
In this sense, sins a venial as the love of money or things are just as damning as murder.
|
This rich young ruler wouldn’t accept Christ and follow him because he loved his riches too much. This story really has nothing to do with specific sins, but it has everything to do with accepting Christ and following Him.
|
The subject of this story was following Christ. This rich young ruler was unwilling to give up what he had to follow Christ… and that is the ultimate sin… or the one “deadly sin”.  John Hardin

Here is the problem I have with that interpretation. There are many, many places in scripture where we are commanded to “believe”, or have “faith” to be saved, and in those places we are never told that faith is to be in water baptism.

Context. The reason that you don’t see as much about baptism in the epistles is because they’re written to Christians that have already been baptized. Baptism in the epistles is almost always in the past tense. “The baptism which saved you” “You were buried in baptism” “You were washed” etc. In many places we see that you must believe to be saved, in many places we see you must be baptized to be saved, and yet in others we see that you must follow the commandments and perform works of charity to be saved. The New Testament does not contradict those things. They are all requirements of salvation. So, in the epistles, when writing to those who have already been baptized, the focus is going to be on faith, charity and following the commandments.

Now, we also have many instances (as you will no doubt agree), where people believed, then were baptized. So, it is no complicated process to realize that baptism is not a prerequisite for justification (righteousness).

Faith alone does not justify. Baptism alone does not justify. In the Catholic doctrine, the ritual of justification is two part: Baptism and Confirmation. Through baptism, our sins are washed away, we receive the sanctifying grace needed for salvation and we enter into the fellowship of the Church. Confirmation is the declaration of faith and instilment of the Holy Spirit.

Let me ask you this. Why would the Jews (of the circumcision) be astonished that the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles? It was because the Jews, prior to the New Testament were charged with the preaching of God’s Word, and this required the Holy Ghost. This baptism of the Holy Ghost was not for Peter’s sake, but for the Jews which were present with them.

No need to ask me, that’s pretty much what I said. However, it also was for Peter as much as the Jews. Peter was not fully convinced that the Gentiles should be included. He still considered them unclean. The whole chapter of Acts 10 shows God’s attempt to show Peter that He makes all clean and all are included in His plan.

By attributing severity of sin by labeling them Mortal or Venial, you have essentially generalized all sins that we see as severe, and said they are “bad enough” to send us to hell. But NO SIN can send us to hell if Christ’s propitiation is sufficient to atone for ALL sin.

You’re still stuck on the notion that all sin includes any sin we commit after baptism. I’ve already showed you multiple passages which clearly state that the blood of Christ only washes away sins previously committed. This is so that we can start on a clean slate when coming to Christ. We are reborn, a new creation purified by the blood of Christ. All sin after that must be confessed with a penitent heart to be forgiven. If Christ covers all future sins as well, there would be no need for judgment or recompense as the Bible tells us.

Truthfully, I don’t know if I am capable of the unconditional love it would require to do that. But I know God is. God is love, and He is forbearing. The very fact that He sent His Son to die for a world that hated Him ought to be proof enough of God’s love.

It’s true that God’s love is perfect. He doesn’t stop loving us even when we sin just as even if your children were to do those things to you, I’m confident you would still love them. However, it would still break your heart as it does to God when we sin against Him. However, God to have perfect love, one must also be perfectly fair in that love. Would it be fair to hold a parade for someone accused of murder? Should everyone welcome and applaud him for his remorseless deed? How fair would it be to someone who strived in life to keep God’s commandments only to receive the same salvation as someone who repeatedly and gravely sinned against God with no remorse?

I have not generalized all sins as severe. Venial sins are not severe and are not “bad enough” to send us to Hell. Only unrepented mortal sins can send us to Hell. The Catholic Church constitutes the following as mortal sin:

The object of the sin is grave matter.
The sin is committed with full knowledge meaning a person must know what they’re doing is a sin.
Deliberate consent.

I think you realize that Jesus wasn’t just singling out certain sins for that purpose. Jesus was showing the “rich young ruler” that he had a certain level of righteousness. If you read on, you will see that Jesus showed the young ruler that he WAS in fact a sinner, because he loved his riches.
|
In this sense, sins a venial as the love of money or things are just as damning as murder.
|
This rich young ruler wouldn’t accept Christ and follow him because he loved his riches too much. This story really has nothing to do with specific sins, but it has everything to do with accepting Christ and following Him.
|
The subject of this story was following Christ. This rich young ruler was unwilling to give up what he had to follow Christ… and that is the ultimate sin… or the one “deadly sin”.

Greed and hoarding treasures would not be a venial sin.

(James 5:1-3) Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.

(James 4:17) So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.

Mark 10:19 doesn’t list all the ways to lose our inheritance, only some. However, it was used to prove the point that the inheritance can be lost.

I showed before that those who have accepted the truth, i.e. faith and baptism, can stray from the flock.

(Hebrews 10:26-27) If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

This is repeated in James 5:19,20.

(James 5:19,20) My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

It clearly says that he will have saved their soul by bringing them back. What would be the point if it’s impossible to lose salvation?  Brian Atwood

Context. The reason that you don’t see as much about baptism in the epistles is because they’re written to Christians that have already been baptized. Baptism in the epistles is almost always in the past tense.

That is a weak rebuttal. You don’t have the knowledge required to make such a statement because you don’t know the minds of the authors… nor do you know the mind of God who inspired the scriptures.
|
I don’t think God, being the inspiration of scripture, would have inadvertently left out “baptism” when speaking of justification as these epistles were not specifically written to the churches they were addressed to. The scriptures were inspired for all of us… even those who are not saved.
|
So, God would have no reason to delude potential seekers of the truth who would be reading these epistles today. God does not lie, and it would ridiculous to think that God would be misleading when all scripture is given for “instruction in righteousness” (1Tim. 3:16)

Faith alone does not justify. Baptism alone does not justify. In the Catholic doctrine, the ritual of justification is two part: Baptism and Confirmation.

As I stated in my last paragraph, God would have no reason to delude potential seekers being instructed in righteousness through the New Testament Epistles.
|
God NEVER said that we are justified by baptism, and confirmation is never mentioned anywhere as being necessary for justification. In fact, the same scripture that is profitable for instruction in righteousness says this concerning justification…
|
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ…
|
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith
|
Rom 4:2,3 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
|
Romans chapter 5 being wholly devoted to reaffirming the salvific method to the Romans (and to us) begins with this statement: Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
Why would God neglect to mention baptism or confirmation in these verses… much less in Romans chapter 5?

However, God to have perfect love, one must also be perfectly fair in that love. Would it be fair to hold a parade for someone accused of murder? Should everyone welcome and applaud him for his remorseless deed? How fair would it be to someone who strived in life to keep God’s commandments only to receive the same salvation as someone who repeatedly and gravely sinned against God with no remorse?

It would be about as fair as a sinner who came to Christ and received salvation in the first place.
|
Consider the parable of the Prodigal Son. The elder son was angry because of all the celebration over the prodigal son. His father said: “It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.“.
|
What purpose would judging a sinner serve if that sinner was justified by the blood of Christ to begin with? Whether he is obedient or disobedient after salvation… he is no better a person than when he was a lost sinner, because his righteousness is not by his own works.

It clearly says that he will have saved their soul by bringing them back. What would be the point if it’s impossible to lose salvation?

James 5:18,19. The subject of this salvation is mentioned in verse 18: ” if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;”. This is not necessarily intended to particularly mean a “saved” person who errs from the truth. But this means a lost person who has erred from the truth… and remains lost as a result of their error.
|
John  John Hardin

That is a weak rebuttal. You don’t have the knowledge required to make such a statement because you don’t know the minds of the authors… nor do you know the mind of God who inspired the scriptures.

This response comes from lack your lack of knowledge, not mine. We do have the knowledge required to make such a statement because we do know the minds of the author. Their minds are written down for all to read. As I said in my last response, baptism is not excluded, but when it is mentioned, it is mentioned as having already been done. Even though you deny being sola scriptura, you still carry the same weaknesses of it. While it may have been God’s plan, the epistles were not written with the authors intending them to become scripture. According to the authors, scripture has already been written. They refer to the gospel as the written word of God. It was the Catholic Church that presented the epistles as scripture. You can thank them later. The epistles were written to regional churches meant for either the priests and bishops themselves or to be read to the congregation. This isn’t guessing the mind of the author. It’s all written in the epistles. So, you can either accept what the Apostles give you as scripture, which is only the books of the gospel, or you can accept what the Catholic Church gave you as scripture which is the New Testament you have now.

I don’t think God, being the inspiration of scripture, would have inadvertently left out “baptism” when speaking of justification. God NEVER said that we are justified by baptism, and confirmation is never mentioned anywhere as being necessary for justification.

I wonder if you’re actually reading my responses are just scanning through them for ways to rebuke them. You say that it is faith that justifies and I told you that Confirmation is the declaration of faith. Is it not the same for Protestants? Do you not have to make a declaration of faith in Jesus Christ to be saved? You also seem to have skipped over the verses I supplied the shows baptism as justifying.
|
(1 Corinthians 6:11) That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
|
(Titus 3:4-7) But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
|
(1 Peter 3:21) This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.
|
Corinthians is not written to the general populace, it’s specifically addressed to the church of Corinth. The same for Titus, Paul is speaking directly to Titus in his letter who was the bishop of the church in Crete. Each time, baptism is referred to in the past tense. As a matter of fact, he even addresses the church of Corinth as “those who have been sanctified” referring to their baptism. So, neither the authors nor God is leaving baptism out. They just focus on other things primarily the relationship with God and others; the things that must continue to be done in the life of a Christian who has already been justified. The letters were usually written to address a particular issue and or problem that was occurring in the region.

Why would God neglect to mention baptism or confirmation in these verses… much less in Romans chapter 5?

Because of the intent of the letters. The letters to the Galatians are written to the “churches of Galatia” i.e. Christians. Being Christians they would have already been baptized. But, if you read all of Galatians, Paul is writing in response to reports of false prophets and pagans who were trying to subvert the Christian teachings. So, the focus of the letter is to instruct the importance of maintaining faith in Christ and the relationship with God. It is through continued faith that our righteousness and justification are maintained. And Galatians does not leave out an allusion to baptism.
|
(Galatians 6:15) For neither does circumcision mean anything, nor does uncircumcision, but only a new creation.
|
We already know from Paul’s other letters (particularly to Corinth and Titus) that he refers to baptism as the means of the “new creation”.

It would be about as fair as a sinner who came to Christ and received salvation in the first place.
Consider the parable of the Prodigal Son. The elder son was angry because of all the celebration over the prodigal son. His father said: “It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.“.
What purpose would judging a sinner serve if that sinner was justified by the blood of Christ to begin with? Whether he is obedient or disobedient after salvation… he is no better a person than when he was a lost sinner, because his righteousness is not by his own works.

That is completely contradictory to what scripture says. For starters, the prodigal son RETURNS to the father. It’s an allusion to reconciliation. The son, who was already a child of the father, left the father and was “dead” and “lost”. By returning, he was alive again. So, your usage of the prodigal son actually works against you.

The second is going to start a whole other debate on faith vs works. You pit two things that are inclusive of each other against each other.

However, let’s leave that debate for another time and refocus on sin vs salvation. I’ve already given plenty of scriptural evidence that sin causes one to lose his salvation. Here’s more.
|
(Galations 5:19-21) Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
|
Paul is speaking to Christians who have already been saved. Why then must he warn them to refrain from works of the flesh if it doesn’t count against them? He clearly says that “those who do such things will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.” I can keep these coming and you can continue to overlook them. How much more do you want?  Brian Atwood

As I said in my last response, baptism is not excluded, but when it is mentioned, it is mentioned as having already been done.

I have given you ample proof that is not the case. We are justified “by faith” as the several quotes I gave you in my last post state.
|
We are also told that “belief” in Jesus Christ is how we obtain life. Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
|
We are also told that belief is all that is necessary here… Acts 8:37, Acts 15:11, Romans 3:22, Romans 4:11, Romans 4:24, 1Cor. 1:21, Gal. 3:22, Eph. 1:19, 1Tim. 1:16, Heb. 10:39, and here… Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Paul spoke this in the synagogue of Antioch in the presence of unbelievers.
|
Paul stated the same thing to the Philippian jailor… Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. AFTERWARD he was baptized.
|
Paul stated to the Romans…Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Paul wasn’t speaking to saved individuals here… he was exhorting them to be saved. And he never mentioned Baptism.
|
And John wrote this specifically to those who already had eternal life… 1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

It was the Catholic Church that presented the epistles as scripture. You can thank them later.

That’s a whole other debate. I would love to discuss that one with you, but I won’t right now.

You also seem to have skipped over the verses I supplied the shows baptism as justifying.

I didn’t intentionally skip over them, I merely approached the issue from a different angle. I assumed it would be understood that from a Biblcal hermaneutic these verses would be self-explanatory.
|
In the context of the Bible, while taking into consideration the above portions of scripture I have quoted that reference salvation upon belief, these verses are easily understood and are not contrary to the context in which they are used.
|
1 Corinthians 6:11 says nothing about Baptism, but only mentions that those who are saved are “washed”. This in no way means that they were saved by Baptism, but only that they were metaphorically “washed” of their sinfulness by belief in Christ.
|
Titus 3:4-7 mentions the “washing of regeneration (v. 5)”. Again, taken in the context of the entire Bible, at first glance you could misconstrue this verse to mean baptism. But a closer look reveals the ’subject’ of verse 5 is not the “washing”, or “bath”. The subject of verse 5 is “regeneration”. The word washing is a descriptive word being used to describe regeneration, or what regeneration does when a person experiences it.
|
1 Peter 3:21 says “The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us”
|
Baptism is an ‘antitype’ of the ark of Noah. Water Baptism is an illustration of the “baptism” in Christ; or the spiritual baptism of being immersed in Him. John Gill writes: ” The ark, and deliverance by it, as it was a type of Christ, and salvation by him, so it was a figure of baptism, and baptism was the antitype of that; or there is something in these which correspond, and answer to, and bear a resemblance to each other: as the ark was God’s ordinance, and not man’s invention, so is baptism, it is of heaven, and not of men; and as the ark, while it was preparing, was the scorn and derision of men, so is this ordinance of the Gospel; it was rejected with disdain by the Scribes and Pharisees, as it still is by many; and as the ark, when Noah and his family were shut up in it by God, represented a burial, and they seemed, as it were, to be buried in it, it was a lively emblem of baptism, which is expressed by a burial, Rom_6:4 and as they in the ark had the great deep broke up under them, and the windows of heaven opened over them, pouring out waters upon them, they were, as it were, immersed in, and were covered with water, this fitly figured baptism by immersion; nor were there any but adult persons that entered into the ark, nor should any be baptized but believers; to which may be added, that as the one saved by water, so does the other; for it is water baptism which is here designed, which John practised, Christ gave a commission for, and his disciples administered: it saves not as a cause, for it has no causal influence on, nor is it essential to salvation. Christ only is the cause and author of eternal salvation; and as those only that were in the ark were saved by water, so those only that are in Christ, and that are baptized into Christ, and into his death, are saved by baptism; not everyone that is baptized, but he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved (Mark 16:16)”

However, let’s leave that debate for another time and refocus on sin vs salvation.

Good idea. If we don’t drop some issues this debate will grow to too many topics to keep track of.  John Hardin

I have given you ample proof that is not the case. We are justified “by faith” as the several quotes I gave you in my last post state.

If we take your stance that faith is the sole requirement for salvation, then scripture contradicts itself. The truth is that faith, works and obedience are all required. No individual one.
|
(James 2:24) See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
|
(1 Jn 2:4) Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
|
(Rm 2:13) For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
|
(Mt 19:17) He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
|
(Rm 2:5-9) By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

We are also told that belief is all that is necessary here… Acts 8:37

I was wondering if and when we would run into this problem. It’s ironic that this is called “False Teachers EXPOSED” yet you still use the KJV bible. The authors of the Textus Receptus and the KJV are the real false teachers here.

(Acts 8:37 KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 8:37 is a complete addition in order to support “believers baptism”. This verse does not exist in ANY of the Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus is one of Satan’s great victories against Christianity.

Acts 15:11, Romans 3:22, Romans 4:11, Romans 4:24, 1Cor. 1:21, Gal. 3:22, Eph. 1:19, 1Tim. 1:16, Heb. 10:39, and here…

Act 15:11 does not say the belief if Christ is all that is needed. It says they believe the grace of Christ has saved them which is correct.

Paul stated to the Romans…Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Paul wasn’t speaking to saved individuals here… he was exhorting them to be saved.

Again you’re wrong about Romans and the other epistles. He was speaking to Christians who would have already been baptized. Therefore the message will be continued faith. Also, a problem with our debate comes up from your concept of what it means to be saved.

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Paul spoke this in the synagogue of Antioch in the presence of unbelievers.

Again, though, it is not belief alone that justifies. Of course in Acts he was speaking to unbelievers. Acts is the story of the formation of the Church and converts.

1 Corinthians 6:11 says nothing about Baptism, but only mentions that those who are saved are “washed”. This in no way means that they were saved by Baptism, but only that they were metaphorically “washed” of their sinfulness by belief in Christ.
|
Titus 3:4-7 mentions the “washing of regeneration (v. 5)”. Again, taken in the context of the entire Bible, at first glance you could misconstrue this verse to mean baptism. But a closer look reveals the ’subject’ of verse 5 is not the “washing”, or “bath”. The subject of verse 5 is “regeneration”. The word washing is a descriptive word being used to describe regeneration, or what regeneration does when a person experiences it.

Considering that all Christians are commanded to be baptized, it is well within the context of the bible to recognize that in both these verses Paul is referring to the grace they received at their baptism. The “bath of rebirth” was commonly used by the ancient church as a metaphor for baptism.

Baptism is an ‘antitype’ of the ark of Noah.

That sounds a lot like a hypothetical guess.

Water Baptism is an illustration of the “baptism” in Christ; or the spiritual baptism of being immersed in Him.

I’ll agree with that. It’s interesting that you would quote John Gill who was very much in favor of water baptism.  Brian Atwood

Good evening, Mr. Hardin,

It is very obvious that you and Mr. Atwood have done your “homework” to present what you both believe in. As you know from my March postings, I am a Catholic. Has Mr. Atwood swayed you at all based on his presentations? I am taking an educated guess that he has not. And Mr. Atwood sounds like a very rooted Catholic, so I am guessing that he has not been swayed.

So why is there continuous discussion? Are you both really trying to teach each other or are you both trying to win?

I am a huge fan of apologetics, do not get me wrong. But we are not the ones that will be converted and vice versa.

I would love to see both of you take your discussion to a more public forum in which you can help convert the non-believers to the sacred heart of Jesus, our loving God and Savior.

I pray that your faith and will to evangelize is as strong as your fervor for debate.

God bless,

R. Kato  R. Kato

Hello R. Kato, good to see you back!
|
I understand that very seldom at the conclusion of a debate will either of the participants concede to the other. From my perspective, that’s not the point of debate.
|
My philosophy of Christian debate is that the truth will become apparent to the audience during the course of the debate. If each participant is a capable apologist, and each have fully prepared, then the most probable outcome is that the truth will eventually be proven.
|
I would be willing to debate Mr. Atwood in a more public arena. We could even hold a moderated debate. Of course I don’t know that a moderated debate would be necessary, I think we are both civilized and tempered.
|
John  John Hardin

Mr. Atwood,

The truth is that faith, works and obedience are all required. No individual one.

The verses you quoted are not explicating a faith-works justification. The verses you quoted are describing that if a person fails to follow up his faith with works… he never had faith to begin with.
John reiterated this same thought when speaking of the “antichrists” who were among them… “1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

Acts 8:37 is a complete addition in order to support “believers baptism”. This verse does not exist in ANY of the Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus is one of Satan’s great victories against Christianity.

Acts 8:37 is missing in the Alexadrian, Ethiopic and Aramiac texts; but is present in the Latin Vulgate, Arabic, and the Majority Text.
|
Firstly, the fact that the Messiah and the Apostles spoke Aramaic doesn’t prove that the original texts were written in Aramaic. So the Peshitta isn’t necessarily the “original text”.
|
Secondly, even IF the Peshitta is a compilation of the original texts in their original language, the earliest copy we have is dated to the 5th century so there is no proof whatever that the Peshitta itself wasn’t corrupted during the previous 300+ years.
|
Thirdly, the Majority Text is the most reliable text as it is a comparison of the the early Greek texts… which (even if the original texts weren’t written in Greek) are translations which date earlier than the earliest known Aramaic text we know have now.
|
The American Standard Version (which the Catholics use) includes the text, which gives credence to it’s originality. And the NRSV (approved for liturgical use by the Catholic Church) also includes the text.

Again, though, it is not belief alone that justifies. Of course in Acts he was speaking to unbelievers. Acts is the story of the formation of the Church and converts.

That statement by you was in response to my quoting Acts 13:39. Paul was speaking to unbelievers… why would he have omitted the teaching of Baptism in the presence of unbelievers?

The “bath of rebirth” was commonly used by the ancient church as a metaphor for baptism.

The “bath of rebirth”, or “washing of regeneration (as the KJV translates it)”, is a descriptive of regeneration. Regeneration washes us of our sin. That is very simple. On the other hand, it is quite a stretch to say that “bath of rebirth” is a metaphor for baptism.

I’ll agree with that. It’s interesting that you would quote John Gill who was very much in favor of water baptism.

I am also very much in favor of baptism. As Gill,
I believe that water baptism by immersion is an ordinance that should be observed AFTER regeneration.
|
John  John Hardin

Acts 8:37 is missing in the Alexandrian, Ethiopic and Aramaic texts; but is present in the Latin Vulgate, Arabic, and the Majority Text.

You’re incorrect. The text does not exist in the Latin Vulgate. I suggest you double check. The Arabic text is merely an Arabic translation of the Majority Text thus it will suffer from the same corruption as the MT.

Firstly, the fact that the Messiah and the Apostles spoke Aramaic doesn’t prove that the original texts were written in Aramaic. So the Peshitta isn’t necessarily the “original text”.
|
Secondly, even IF the Peshitta is a compilation of the original texts in their original language, the earliest copy we have is dated to the 5th century so there is no proof whatever that the Peshitta itself wasn’t corrupted during the previous 300+ years.

I’m not concerned with Aramaic. I agree that the Syrian text did not come about until centuries later. Aside from Matthew, the original texts were written in koine Greek. The common Greek during that period was Alexandrian. It’s the Greek dialect that the gentiles spoke and in which the Septuagint was written.

Thirdly, the Majority Text is the most reliable text as it is a comparison of the the early Greek texts… which (even if the original texts weren’t written in Greek) are translations which date earlier than the earliest known Aramaic text we know have now.

What it comes down to is the authenticity of either the Byzantine or Alexandrian texts. The Byzantine text did not appear until the 4th century. The Alexandrian text is older and is what the Apostles spoke and the Septuagint was written. The Greek in the Majority Text only comes from 6 Byzantine manuscripts. Erasmus, the father of the Majority Text, admits that the translation was rushed and holes were filled by going back to the Latin Vulgate or even fabricating his own material. To quote Erasmus himself, he says the Majority Text was “precipitated rather than edited” and that it was “hurried out headlong”. The Byzantine text contains additions that were not in the older Alexandrian and the Majority Text contains additions that were not in the Byzantine which makes it a corruption of a corruption.

The American Standard Version (which the Catholics use) includes the text, which gives credence to its originality. And the NRSV (approved for liturgical use by the Catholic Church) also includes the text.

I’m not sure where you get your information because both of those statements are incorrect. The ASV is not a Catholic Bible. It is a Protestant Bible and yet another child of the Majority Text. However, I will note that the ASV includes the corrupted text with a footnote noting that it doesn’t exist in the early manuscripts. The official bible of American Catholics is the New American Bible. Before that it was the Jerusalem Bible. While there was a “Catholic Edition” of the NRSV Bible, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Catholic Church. However, the NRSV does not contain the corrupted text. If you choose to stay with a Protestant Bible (and miss out on the great teachings of the deuterocanonical books), I would recommend the English Standard Version. It’s taken from modern academic translations of the Greek manuscripts and is much more accurate than any Bible based on the Majority Text. http://www.esv.org/ I have a long list of corruptions and mistranslations in both the Byzantine and Majority texts if you’re interested.
|
In respects to our debate on baptism, I’m only seeing guesses and redirection. Any time a verse appears that shows baptism, you respond that it’s not what they really meant and give some drawn out hypothesis on what they really meant with no support to your story. Let’s try this approach. Can you provide any time before the Reformation that your version of theology on baptism and sin was taught? I have a list of quotes from Church fathers dating back as early as 80AD that support the apostolic doctrine on baptism.
|
In respects to our debate on sin and salvation, let’s get down to brass tacks.
|
(Mark 10:17,19) As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’”
|
If you’re saved and have already obtained your salvation, will you still go to Heaven if you commit any of the above sins? If you say yes, Jesus then has lied. If you say no, then you must accept that your salvation can been lost. If you dodge and say that anyone who commits those sins never had “true faith” to begin with, I then call you a liar because to have faith does not stop one from being a sinner.
|
(Galatians 5:19-21) Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
|
If you’re saved and have already obtained your salvation, will you still go to Heaven if you commit the above sins? If you say yes, Paul then has lied. If you say no, then you must accept that your salvation can been lost. If you dodge and say that anyone who commits those sins never had “true faith” to begin with, I then call you a liar because to have faith does not stop one from being a sinner.  Brian Atwood

You’re incorrect. The text does not exist in the Latin Vulgate. I suggest you double check. The Arabic text is merely an Arabic translation of the Majority Text thus it will suffer from the same corruption as the MT.

I double checked and you’re right, the text is missing from the Latin Vulgate (that’s what happens when you trust someone else’s data). Actually, ALL translations are going to be translations of A majority text of the Greek. That is unless it it’s poorly translated text by not considering all the available resources…. Like the Latin Vulgate.

I’m not concerned with Aramaic. I agree that the Syrian text did not come about until centuries later.

I’m not concerned with it either… the fact that the text of Acts 8:37 is omitted from the Peshitta is not completely irrelevant though. What it does prove is that corruption of the text is possible even as early as the 4th century.

What it comes down to is the authenticity of either the Byzantine or Alexandrian texts. The Byzantine text did not appear until the 4th century. The Alexandrian text is older and is what the Apostles spoke and the Septuagint was written.

The Apostles spoke, and the original texts were written in Koine Greek which simply means the “common” language.
|
The “Byzantine” texts did not appear until the 4th century because the Byzantine Empire did not appear until the 4th century. That is not to say that the translations in the Byzantine Greek were corrupt, as they were subject to the same thing the Latin Vulgate was subject to… previously translated texts.
|
The Alexandrian text-type was corrupt well before Eusebius (a student of Origen, who was a “Platonic Philosopher”) gave his compilations to Constantine. This is the reason we believe the Alexandrian texts to be corrupt, because the subsequent translations from those texts are not congruent with the overall context of the Bible.
|
The Syrian texts, were not corrupted by the school of Alexandria (in Egypt) which is where the Alexandrian texts were originally corrupted. And the Byzantine texts were translated from those Syrian texts. Clement, Origen, and Eusebius were heretics, and dangerous philosophers.
|
Catholics always seem to fall back on a historical foundation for their beliefs when confronted with their doctrinal in-congruency with scripture. Historicity is not a proof for accuracy because the study of history is always subject to the preconceptions of the Historian.

In respects to our debate on baptism, I’m only seeing guesses and redirection. Any time a verse appears that shows baptism, you respond that it’s not what they really meant and give some drawn out hypothesis on what they really meant with no support to your story. Let’s try this approach. Can you provide any time before the Reformation that your version of theology on baptism and sin was taught? I have a list of quotes from Church fathers dating back as early as 80AD that support the apostolic doctrine on baptism.

Again, more historical data. That is not the real proof. Contextual congruency is the real proof.
|
Nevertheless, yes, I can provide you with a group that practiced baptism upon faith… the Paulicians. In 1893 a discovery was made of a book in a Catholic Church called “The Key of Truth”. This book was written by the Paulicians before the 11th century which gives a detailed description of their belief system. This belief system included Baptism by immersion of believers only. They were subsequently persecuted by Catholics for their supposed “heresy”. Here is an excerpt from the book
|

If you’re saved and have already obtained your salvation, will you still go to Heaven if you commit any of the above sins? If you say yes, Jesus then has lied. If you say no, then you must accept that your salvation can been lost. If you dodge and say that anyone who commits those sins never had “true faith” to begin with, I then call you a liar because to have faith does not stop one from being a sinner.

I have already addressed that. Jesus is speaking to a man who was not saved. The man said “what must I do”. So Jesus told him… he must be perfect. The teaching here is not that we must gain eternal life by our own good merits… but that God requires perfect obedience. Jesus was teaching the man (and us) that can NEVER obtain eternal life on our own… we need the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us. The law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, and Jesus used the law to teach this man that he is hopelessly lost without Christ.

If you’re saved and have already obtained your salvation, will you still go to Heaven if you commit the above sins? If you say yes, Paul then has lied. If you say no, then you must accept that your salvation can been lost. If you dodge and say that anyone who commits those sins never had “true faith” to begin with, I then call you a liar because to have faith does not stop one from being a sinner.

In Galatians 5:21 Paul did not saying that anyone who is “saved” will lose eternal life by committing any of those sins. He explicitly stated that those who do such things will not inherit eternal life. This does not apply to someone who ALREADY HAS eternal life.
|
Again, this is the same type of teaching that Jesus used in your previous proof in Mark 10. Paul is using the law to teach that NO-ONE can inherit eternal life by their own merits. You have to realize that before you will ever come to Christ to have HIS righteousness imputed.
|  John Hardin

I double checked and you’re right, the text is missing from the Latin Vulgate (that’s what happens when you trust someone else’s data). Actually, ALL translations are going to be translations of A majority text of the Greek. That is unless it it’s poorly translated text by not considering all the available resources…. Like the Latin Vulgate.

I’m curious what other available resources you think were available for the Latin Vulgate?

I’m not concerned with it either… the fact that the text of Acts 8:37 is omitted from the Peshitta is not completely irrelevant though. What it does prove is that corruption of the text is possible even as early as the 4th century.

I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion since Acts 8:37 IS the corrupted text. The Peshitta comes from the Byzantine text which the Textus Receptus also claims. Omitting it would be non-corrupting. You’re trying to misdirect the argument away from the point. Acts 8:37 is an addition found only in the Textus Receptus and its offspring.

The Apostles spoke, and the original texts were written in Koine Greek which simply means the “common” language.

Correct. Here’s what you seem to be missing. Koine Greek and Alexandrian Greek were one and the same. The “common” tongue among Greeks during the time of the Apostles was Alexandrian. Therefore, the common dialect would be what the Apostles wrote in when preaching to the Gentiles. We also know the Apostles wrote the in Alexandrian Greek because they quote verbatim from the Septuagint which was also written in Alexandrian Greek.

The “Byzantine” texts did not appear until the 4th century because the Byzantine Empire did not appear until the 4th century. That is not to say that the translations in the Byzantine Greek were corrupt, as they were subject to the same thing the Latin Vulgate was subject to… previously translated texts.

What previously translated texts? The native dialect of the Gospels is Alexandrian. The Latin Vulgate was a translation of the Alexandrian Greek into Latin. The Byzantine Greek would also have come from Alexandrian Greek or a translation of. The point here is moot, though, because the additions in the Textus Receptus come from no Greek translations.

The Alexandrian text-type was corrupt well before Eusebius (a student of Origen, who was a “Platonic Philosopher”) gave his compilations to Constantine. This is the reason we believe the Alexandrian texts to be corrupt, because the subsequent translations from those texts are not congruent with the overall context of the Bible.

They are not congruent with your overall interpretation of the context of the Bible, which so far, has shown no congruency. There are only two ancient Greek texts to choose from. Which is the one not corrupt?

The Syrian texts, were not corrupted by the school of Alexandria (in Egypt) which is where the Alexandrian texts were originally corrupted. And the Byzantine texts were translated from those Syrian texts. Clement, Origen, and Eusebius were heretics, and dangerous philosophers.

It’s very possible that the Byzantine texts were translated from the Syrian texts. Lucian of Antioch, the author of the Byzantine text was educated at the School of Edessa in Syria and would probably have used the Syrian. However, the Syrian would have been a translation from Alexandrian.

What evidence do you have to show Clement, Origen and Eusebius as heretics? Are there any Church Fathers that you don’t consider to be heretics?

Catholics always seem to fall back on a historical foundation for their beliefs when confronted with their doctrinal in-congruency with scripture. Historicity is not a proof for accuracy because the study of history is always subject to the preconceptions of the Historian.

Again, you haven’t offered any contextual congruency. Your contextual interpretation is a minority within Christian beliefs, even among Protestants. You’ve offered nothing concrete, only circular arguments. You’ve repeatedly twisted scripture into an alternate and willfully deceitful context. History is viable proof because it shows that the early Christian Church as a whole did not follow your interpretations of scripture. Your interpretation can only go as far back a Calvin. You claim validity from the Holy Spirit in which I ask why did the Holy Spirit wait 1600 years? Why is your Holy Spirit inspired interpretation so different from other Protestants who claim inspiration?

Nevertheless, yes, I can provide you with a group that practiced baptism upon faith… the Paulicians. In 1893 a discovery was made of a book in a Catholic Church called “The Key of Truth”. This book was written by the Paulicians before the 11th century which gives a detailed description of their belief system. This belief system included Baptism by immersion of believers only. They were subsequently persecuted by Catholics for their supposed “heresy”.

Interesting. You may wish to research the Paulican sect. They were dualists, which I can only assume you disagree with. They completely reject the Old Testament and most of the New Testament canon that we use. They also considered reverence of the cross to be heretical. However, I do see now where Calvin got some of his ideas. But a small cult that appeared and quickly disappeared just before the Great Schism is hardly historical support for your doctrine.

I have already addressed that. Jesus is speaking to a man who was not saved. The man said “what must I do”. So Jesus told him… he must be perfect. The teaching here is not that we must gain eternal life by our own good merits… but that God requires perfect obedience. Jesus was teaching the man (and us) that can NEVER obtain eternal life on our own… we need the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us. The law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, and Jesus used the law to teach this man that he is hopelessly lost without Christ.

You didn’t now answer it correctly before and you have a different answer now. Neither one actually answers the question. This most recent answer is even more “incongruent” with this passage. My question was, however, will YOU still go to Heaven if you commit the above sins?

In Galatians 5:21 Paul did not saying that anyone who is “saved” will lose eternal life by committing any of those sins. He explicitly stated that those who do such things will not inherit eternal life. This does not apply to someone who ALREADY HAS eternal life.

Another incongruent answer that dodges the actual question. The Galatians were Christians who had already accepted Christ. Thus, they were saved. Yet they were still being warned that those who commit those sins would not inherit. “Those” is inclusive of all who commit those sins, saved or unsaved. So I ask the actual question again. Will YOU still go to Heaven if you commit the above sins?  Brian Atwood

I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion since Acts 8:37 IS the corrupted text. The Peshitta comes from the Byzantine text which the Textus Receptus also claims. Omitting it would be non-corrupting. You’re trying to misdirect the argument away from the point. Acts 8:37 is an addition found only in the Textus Receptus and its offspring.

Here is what you seem to be missing. There is a Byzantine line of texts, we both agree on that; and there is an Alexandrian line of texts. But you seem to be denying that there is a clear difference between the “Alexandrian” line of texts, and the “original texts”.
|
The Alexandrian texts are called Alexandrian because they come through Alexandria Egypt where the school of Alexandria was.
|
There is a marked difference between the Alexandrian texts which were scribed from the original texts… and the Byzantine texts which were scribed from the original texts. Neither line of text had the originals by the 4th century. And again, there were marked differences between the two lines of texts.

|

Speaking of the Majority text, there is a reason it is called the Majority text.  Most of the earliest texts we now have to observe (approx. 99%) are all nearly perfectly congruent with each other.  The remaining 1% of texts are vastly different from the Majority text.  These texts include such manuscripts as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Papyrus 75, and a small number of other texts.  The Majority text, on the other hand includes over 5,000 manuscripts; plus many other translations that were made in the second century.

|

We also have the scripture citations from many 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century writers such as, John Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Tertullain, and Justin Martyr witnessing to the original readings of the New Testament.  These readings are congruent to the Majority Text.  And it seems that the Alexandrian line of text is mostly confined to Alexandria Egypt, until it was presented for translation in the 4th century.  This information leaves the Alexandrian texts to be highly suspect for us 1800 years later as being a valid text.
|
So, the question is not which text is accurate based on it’s historical accuracy… but which text is congruent within it’s own body of text.
|
I say that the text you are defending is not congruent within it’s own body… and this argument itself will prove the invalidity of the Alexandrian texts. Likewise, the KJV and the Textus Receptus are completely congruent within themselves contextually.
|
The whole argument on the inclusion of Acts 8:37 is superfluous on the basis that it is completely congruent with the teachings on Baptism in the rest of the Bible. Your versions contend with themselves on the subject of Baptism. Let me ask you this… Does your Bible include the text of Luke 23:42,43. This passage is completely congruent with Acts 8:37… but denies your false teaching of Baptismal Regeneration.
|
Let me guess… there was given a special unction to the thief on the cross because he couldn’t get baptized. Can you show me that in the Bible?

Interesting. You may wish to research the Paulican sect. They were dualists, which I can only assume you disagree with. They completely reject the Old Testament and most of the New Testament canon that we use. They also considered reverence of the cross to be heretical. However, I do see now where Calvin got some of his ideas. But a small cult that appeared and quickly disappeared just before the Great Schism is hardly historical support for your doctrine.

I used the example of the Paulicians on purpose because I knew you would claim they were dualists.
|
I think you should research the book I cited “The Key of Truth”. The Catholic Church has been teaching for a long time that the Paulicians were dualists (among other things). But since the discovery of that book (in a Catholic Church no less) it has been proven that they were not dualists, nor were they infant Baptizers. The Catholic Church needs to clarify that for it’s members before they continue quoting what they have been taught.
|
The Paulicians were also not a “small cult” that quickly disappeared either. They existed from at least 660 AD, to the 11th century… and their persecution by the Catholic Church has been documented for that time period.

My question was, however, will YOU still go to Heaven if you commit the above sins?

As I stated… yes, if one is already saved. No, if one is not saved. Therefore it not the sin, or the lack of sin that merits a person to obtain eternal life, it is the merit of Jesus that we “inherit” eternal life.

The Galatians were Christians who had already accepted Christ. Thus, they were saved. Yet they were still being warned that those who commit those sins would not inherit.

Right, the Galatians were already saved. So Paul could not have been referring to them as those who “would not inherit eternal life”… They already had it, why would Paul say they wouldn’t have something they already had?

“Those” is inclusive of all who commit those sins, saved or unsaved.

I think Paul knew exactly what he was saying. If he meant to say all, I think he would have said it.
|
Like I said before, the whole premise of the letter to Galatia was to reprove them for teaching that adherence to the law was necessary for salvation. This passage is no different. Why would Paul switch gears in the middle of the letter to explain to the Galatians that they had to keep the law to be saved?
|
Galatians 3:1-3 “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?“
|
Paul is reproving the Galatians for believing and teaching that they had to keep the law to be saved…. “are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”. That question by Paul is a rhetorical question asked in a sarcastic manner.
|
Just a few verses later Paul says… “Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.”
|
Tell me how this is incongruent with the salvation experience of the thief on the cross, or the Eunuch on the chariot, or anyone else who was saved.
|  John Hardin

I say that the text you are defending is not congruent within it’s own body… and this argument itself will prove the invalidity of the Alexandrian texts. Likewise, the KJV and the Textus Receptus are completely congruent within themselves contextually.

And I say it is congruent within itself. I’ve seen the errors in not only the Byzantine text but also laden in the KJV and Received Text. Which is more likely to be accurate, a copy of the original text in its original dialect? Or a translation of a translation that is not even the original dialect?

The whole argument on the inclusion of Acts 8:37 is superfluous on the basis that it is completely congruent with the teachings on Baptism in the rest of the Bible. Your versions contend with themselves on the subject of Baptism.

Both Alexandrian and Byzantine are in agreement on Baptism. It’s the Textus Receptus that attempts to change the context with the personal opinions of the Church of England. Is it ok, then, to add to scripture, like Luther in his Bible, did as long as it’s “congruent with the context”?

“Let me ask you this… Does your Bible include the text of Luke 23:42,43. This passage is completely congruent with Acts 8:37… but denies your false teaching of Baptismal Regeneration.
|
Let me guess… there was given a special unction to the thief on the cross because he couldn’t get baptized. Can you show me that in the Bible?”

That is an attempt many have tried to use to deny baptism, but they’re not looking at the context of the Bible as a whole. Baptism wouldn’t apply to the thief because he was still under the Old Covenant. He would have been saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant. Baptism is a requirement of the New Covenant which didn’t start at Christ’s death. It began with His resurrection.

I think you should research the book I cited “The Key of Truth”. The Catholic Church has been teaching for a long time that the Paulicians were dualists (among other things). But since the discovery of that book (in a Catholic Church no less) it has been proven that they were not dualists, nor were they infant Baptizers. The Catholic Church needs to clarify that for its members before they continue quoting what they have been taught.

Very well, I researched the book and did more research on the Paulicans. Here’s what I found. While they believed in “believer’s baptism” (naked at the age of 30) it seems they also believed in regeneration at baptism. On page 100 of the Key of Truth, during the rite of baptism they pray to the Holy Spirit asking the Spirit to now (at baptism) “come down into these and fill their hearts, cleanse their spirits and minds, make them a temple and dwelling place of the Father” This rite is followed by the Lord’s Supper in which the speak, “Now our Lord Jesus Christ willed to distribute his holy flesh and blood unto disciples and believers… (He) earnestly besought the Almighty Father that he would change the bread into his true precious body…” So, they also clearly believed in Transubstantiation. On page 88 and 89 it would seem they didn’t follow your idea of secured salvation “it is necessary for him to struggle to free himself” and “he must work hard and struggle”. They have an odd idea of the Trinity. As we see on pages 80, 100, 108, & 114, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were both creations of God. Jesus was a man who “is faithful to his creator, as was Moses in his entire house” (p94) The Key implies that Jesus didn’t even enter the Trinity until His baptism. “It was in the season of his [Jesus'] maturity that he received baptism; then it was that he received authority, received the high-priesthood, and received the kingdom and the office of chief shepherd. Moreover, he was then chosen; then he won lordship… Then he became Savior of us sinners; then he was filled with the Godhead.” Do you still claim them not to be heretical? Is this group still the “heritage” of Calvinism?

I’m going to go ahead and conclude this debate with a few closing notes. It’s clear there’s no fruit coming from this. I would be very interested, however, in discussing the origin and canonicity of our Bible, including or excluding the deuterocanonical. I’ve registered on your forum and, if you wish, we can have an open discussion there. I’ll quickly review, in closing, my argument on the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Baptism is the visible act of faith that buries us with Christ and restores us as new creations in God as members of His Church. (Romans 6:3-10, Colossians 2:12)

The epistles were written to Christians. Therefore, baptism is not the focus of the letters. Maintaining a relationship with God is. However, in every detailed conversion in Acts we find baptism. Baptism was commanded by Christ and was always performed with water.

To be saved we must believe and be baptized (Mark 16:16), not merely believing (Mt. 7:21). After being saved through faith and baptism, the covenant we’ve made with God must be maintained (Rom 2:25, Rom. 11:22, Heb. 10:26-27)  Brian Atwood

And I say it is congruent within itself. I’ve seen the errors in not only the Byzantine text but also laden in the KJV and Received Text. Which is more likely to be accurate, a copy of the original text in its original dialect? Or a translation of a translation that is not even the original dialect?

It remains to be proven that the Alexandrian text is congruent within it’s own text. What is easily proven though is that the Alexandrian texts are NOT the original texts, but are adulterations of the original texts emerging in the 4th century.

Both Alexandrian and Byzantine are in agreement on Baptism. It’s the Textus Receptus that attempts to change the context with the personal opinions of the Church of England. Is it ok, then, to add to scripture, like Luther in his Bible, did as long as it’s “congruent with the context”?

The contextual definition of Baptism does not solely rely on Acts 8:37 or it’s exclusion from the minority texts.
|
The Byzantine line of texts are far different than the Alexandrian line of texts on the subject of regeneration. I would like to get into this subject a little more.

That is an attempt many have tried to use to deny baptism, but they’re not looking at the context of the Bible as a whole. Baptism wouldn’t apply to the thief because he was still under the Old Covenant. He would have been saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant. Baptism is a requirement of the New Covenant which didn’t start at Christ’s death. It began with His resurrection.

I was under the impression that Catholics believed circumcision was necessary in the Old Testament. Since Baptism is supposed to be the fulfillment of the rite of circumcision.
|
The truth is, Abraham was saved by faith. He is the father of us all, who have faith in God.
|
Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
|
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
|
The same gospel that was preached in the Old Testament is the same gospel that is preached today.
|
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
|
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
|
The Baptism of regeneration that Catholics misinterpret as being of “water” is actually the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit which places us “in Christ”. This is the universal church that Christ built.
|

As far as the Paulicians go…. Here is a quote from the Key of Truth on the subject of Baptism. (not copied from a Catholic site)

|

Therefore according to the Word of the Lord, we must first bring them into the faith, induce them to repent, and give it (Margin, Baptism) unto them (p. 77).

|  John Hardin

It’s very sad that someone such as yourself – John Hardin – is so swayed by your anti-Catholicism that you make yourself look very silly and uneducated. Get with “Life” and do as Jesus commanded. The Catholic Church IS the Church of Jesus. Sorry that you’re wrong and may suffer for it.
Leave Victor alone! He knows exactly what he is talking about…  R. Bourcier

R. Bourcier,

It’s very sad that someone such as yourself – John Hardin – is so swayed by your anti-Catholicism that you make yourself look very silly and uneducated.

Care to enlighten me as to what you believe is “silly” about what I have said?

Get with “Life” and do as Jesus commanded. The Catholic Church IS the Church of Jesus. Sorry that you’re wrong and may suffer for it.

Those who are “uneducated” typically make unsubstantiated statements like this. If the Catholic organization IS the Church of Jesus… then prove it to me and everyone else here. Otherwise take your lack of apology to a Catholic site where it will be appreciated.

Leave Victor alone! He knows exactly what he is talking about…

For someone who supposedly knows what he is talking about, he sure didn’t do a very good job of proving it to everyone here in our discussion. In fact, he ran away. Maybe you could pick up where he left off?
|
John  John Hardin