Faith working through love is the Gospel

Rick asks:
The Gospel as Faith Working Through Love ??? 

Correct. The Gospel is God’s (covenantal) love for his people; That is only part of the truth. The Gospel is also Jesus’ example to His people that they should follow in His steps:

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: The Gospel is also God calling to His people:

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. And the Gospel also shows the example of many who responded to God’s call:

Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. And this is not all that the Gospel is, but only a short summary.

it is not man’s love for his neighbor

Yes, it is:
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Love of God and love of neighbor is the complete Gospel. There is nothing else.

though that should flow on and follow as indeed should man’s love for God We should surely not confuse cause and effect

We haven’t.

If we do, the outside world might well have a very big picture of the church but a very small picture of God – which I take it is not what we want

God is love and love makes the world go round. If the world has a small picture of God, it is the world which will suffer for it. But we are not of the world:

John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Bob asks:

De Maria,
Is your understanding of the Magisterium infallible?

There’s a difference between Catholic and Protestant in this respect.

I don’t interpret the Magisterium. I obey. Therefore, I need not be infallible.

Whereas, Protestants interpret the Scriptures. Create their own doctrines which may or may not agree with Scripture. And essentially live according to their own designs

I’ll give you an example. When I first came back to the Church, there were several doctrines with which I disagreed. But I sucked it up and accepted them anyway.

Protestants are never in that situation because they essentially make up their own religion. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Jesus gave St. Peter the Keys

SS April 25, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Not so.
Isaiah 22:
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
Rev 3:7 says:
“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens , says this” 

Isaiah 22 and Eliakim point to Christ, not Peter.

Please explain why Isaiah 2 and Eliakim can not point to both Christ and St. Peter.

There’s only one key involved here (key not ‘keys’), the key to the House of David. And the one who holds that key is Christ, as the above in Revelation states clearly.

The metaphor is not about the number of keys in possession, but about the ability to bind and loose in the Kingdom of Heaven which is the same thing as the House of David because Christ rules there.

1.  These are the things which you neglect.  Christ is the King of Kings.  Therefore, He always has the Key.  Just because He gave a set to St. Peter doesn't mean that He would therefore be unable to open the doors of His own household.

2.  But St. Peter is the Prime minister, just as Eliakim, and he possesses the keys not by right of birth, but by the grace of God, just like Eliakim.

3.  As for the number of keys, it is the same metaphor.  The keys or key symbolize the power to bind and loose in the Kingdom of Heaven.  If anything, the fact that Jesus gave St. Peter a set of keys means that he has more power than did Eliakim of old.  Not less.  And it certainly doesn't mean that Jesus gave away His own set of keys.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Marian Doctrine in Scripture

Anonymous said...
You said that all Catholic Traditions are in Scripture.  What about Roman Catholic traditions such as the Marian dogmas,

Mary, Mother of God:

Luke 1:43

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Mary's Assumption and Queen of Heaven:

Revelation 12:1

King James Version (KJV)

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Mary, Mother of all believers:

Revelation 12:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Those are the explicit doctrines. The others are implied and can be derived by implied statements in Scripture.

purgatory,

1 Cor 3:15

1 Corinthians 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

the rosary 

The Rosary is a prayer and meditation on the life of Christ.

and the Sabbatine Privilege?

It is invoked by the authority granted the Church by Christ to bind and loose:

Matthew 16:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Am I to believe these traditions are also part of the Scriptures when the apostles never taught such things?

The Apostles taught all Catholic Doctrine either explicitly or implied. That is true whether you believe it or not.

Sincerely,

De Maria

All Catholic Traditions are recorded in the New Testament

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Which traditions not recorded in the Scripture did the apostles consider inspired-inerrant?

Give a couple of specific examples that I can check.

All Catholic Traditions are recorded in the New Testament because Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament.

Do you not know that Jesus did not write anything down? Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Sacred Traditions. The Church then wrote down those Traditions in the book you now refer to as the New Testament.

The New Testament is the first official catechism of the Catholic Church. All Catholic Traditions are there, either implied or explicit.

But Sola Scriptura is absent and Sola Scriptura contradicts the New Testament. That is plain for all to see. Even you. Yet you continue to embrace that manmade tradition.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God

Anonymous said...

So it appears you don't know of any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures. Would that be correct?

If I'm wrong, please show me an example of a tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant.

Confession. The Tradition that the Church ministers to and absolves repentant sinners:

John 20:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Now you. Show us why we should believe in and practice Sola Scriptura, when you have admitted it is not in Scripture and you stated that anything which is not in Scripture is not binding.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Simon, tu eres Pedron

MT says:
In other words, why use "petra" at all, unless something or someone other than Peter is in view?

Hello MT. Since you claim to understand Spanish, I wonder why you are having trouble with this subject.

The same situation occurs in Spanish. There are masculine ways of signifying rock. For instance:

Significado de la palabra pedrón
pedrón.
1. m. aum. de piedra.

But the more common usage is "piedra".

Therefore, because of the gender issue, it is more polite and exact to say:

Simon, tu eres Pedron, y en esta piedra edificare mi iglesia.

That is why St. Matthew did the same thing. For the gender to be correct. Otherwise, he would be calling Simon by a name more fitting for a girl.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The doctrine of Scripture alone invalidates itself

Anonymous said...
Scripture does not need to say "there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority."

Anonymous also said:
Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding. 

Therefore, since Scripture does not say, "there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority", this doctrine is not binding. It is a false doctrine of men.

This does not in the least change the idea that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant Word of God.

Again, produce the teaching from Scripture or by your own rule, it is invalid.

It follows from the necessity of the case that something that is inspired-inerrant by definition is the highest authority in the church. This is based on the nature of the Scripture itself. 

Scripture says that the highest authority is God. And Scripture says that God established the Church as authority over men in this life.

Did the apostles consider anything else to be inspired-inerrant Word of God?

God, the Church and His Traditions.

Sola Scriptura is not mentioned in Scripture

Anonymous said...

I would agree there is no definition of Sola Scriptura in Scripture.

Nor is Sola Scriptura mentioned in Scripture. And the fact that Sola Scriptura is absent from Scripture tells us that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of men. In fact, Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture which tells us to keep Tradition (2 Thess 2:15).

What we do know about Scripture is that it alone is inspired-inerrant. It alone is the Word of God. 

Chapter and verse please.

What I see is Scripture says that Scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16). But it is the Church which tells you which books are Scripture and teaches that Scripture is without error.

Scripture also teaches that men are inspired of the Holy Spirit to speak and then to write the Scripture (2 Pet 19-21).

I also see that Scripture tells me that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. I suppose that the Wisdom of God is also inspired-inerrant, wouldn't you agree?

I see no verse saying that Scripture ALONE is inspired-inerrant. So, please produce the chapter and verse.

What follows from this is that there is no higher or equal authority to the Scripture.

God is the highest authority in all matters. Scripture has no authority except as a rule upon which men can meditate to learn the Will of God. But the Church has been authorized to teach the Wisdom of God and to rule over men (Matt 28:19-20). And even to forgive their sins (John 20:22-23).

That is why its teachings are binding. Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding. 

You admitted in your first sentence that Scripture does not address the doctrine of Scripture alone. Therefore, by your own admission, Scripture alone is a false doctrine.

Eating meat on Friday during lent is an example of a teaching-practice that is not apostolic and thereby not binding. 

Abstinence from meat on Fridays is a Church discipline. And, as I have shown, Jesus Christ gave the Church authority over His disciples. Anyone who does not obey the Church is treated as a heathen (Matt 18:17).

Other doctrines of your church such as the Marian dogmas would be not binding nor apostolic.

Marian doctrines are in Scripture either explicit or implied. Sola Scriptura is totally absent from Scripture and contradicts the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Do you think the Apostles are 12 stones?

Anonymous asked...

What should I make of Eph 2:20---" having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,.."?
If "Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built" why doesn't Eph 2:20 say this?

Because Eph 2:20 is using a different metaphor.

Scripture says that God is our Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Do you really believe that God is an actual rock? No. Its a metaphor.

Why does Eph 2:20 say that the apostles (not just Peter) but all apostles with the prophets are the foundation? 

Because they were the first people whom Christ selected to be in His Church.

You also have the problem with Peter who never claims to be sole foundation of the church and that no apostle attributes such a thing to him. 

All Apostles call him "Peter". His birth name is "Simon". Even you call him, Peter. In so doing, you and they acknowledge the great honor which Jesus Christ gave St. Peter when He named him after Himself. Because, you see, Jesus was the Rock before Simon. When Jesus named Simon, "Rock", He did it to show the world that Simon would become His Representative upon this earth.

Again, in calling him, Peter, they acknowledged everything which Jesus Christ promised to the man, because in that same instance, Christ changed his name from Simon to Peter.

If they wanted to deny this, they would also deny his name change. But just as God changed Abram's name to Abraham, Jesus' changed Simon's name to Peter to designate the mission to which he was now appointed. To become the Father of the Church. The Prince of the Apostles. The Vicar of Christ. As it also says in Scripture elsewhere:

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Not sure what Rev 214 has to do with this. Its not even about foundations.

It is a different metaphor. Or did you think the Apostles are 12 stones?

Sincerely,

De Maria

They are different metaphors

Anonymous said...
What should I make of Eph 2:20---" having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,.."?

If "Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built" why doesn't Eph 2:20 say this?

Because Eph 2:20 is using a different metaphor.

Scripture says that God is our Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Do you really believe that God is an actual rock? No. Its a metaphor.

Why does Eph 2:20 say that the apostles (not just Peter) but all apostles with the prophets are the foundation? 

Because they were the first people whom Christ selected to be in His Church.

You also have the problem with Peter who never claims to be sole foundation of the church and that no apostle attributes such a thing to him. 

All Apostles call him "Peter". His birth name is "Simon". Even you call him, Peter. In so doing, you and they acknowledge the great honor which Jesus Christ gave St. Peter when He named him after Himself. Because, you see, Jesus was the Rock before Simon. When Jesus named Simon, "Rock", He did it to show the world that Simon would become His Representative upon this earth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

There is a difference though, between what the Catholic Fathers understood on justification by faith alone and what Luther understood.

 Anonymous said...
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.” 

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him. 

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130). John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]). Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19 . Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28 : We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

 De Maria said...

Hi,

It is true that many Catholic Fathers have used the terminology faith alone in reference to justification. Specifically in reference to what St. Paul said in Rom 3:28.

There is a difference though, between what the Catholic Fathers understood on justification by faith alone and what Luther understood.

Here's the question I'll pose to you concerning those Church Fathers. Did they believe in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church? Did they believe in faith and works?

Everyone of them did. They were all priests and some were Bishops.

So was Luther, but here's the difference. Luther opposed faith and works. Whereas Catholic Doctrine does not oppose justification by faith. This is what happens in the Sacraments. Especially in Baptism. Where we appear before God without any works but believing that He will justify the ungodly.

Titus 3:5
King James Version (KJV)
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

And the Church also teaches that we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, on the Last Day and there, our works will be examined and those who have done the will of the Father will be saved. Those who didn't, won't.

Revelation 22:12-15
King James Version (KJV)
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

sincerely,

De Maria

The New Testament is the first Catechism written by the Catholic Church

Originally Posted by Tim 

Officially interpreted? I have always been told it is 7.

What is the big deal about that? The New Testament is the interpretation of Catholic Tradition. Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament. Here is what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter:


83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

In other words, Jesus did not write any Scripture. Not one word. He established the Catholic Church. Commanded her to pass down His Traditions. And the Church, by virtue of the authority vested in her by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18; bind and loose) wrote down those Traditions in the New Testament.

The New Testament is the first official interpretation of God's Word written by the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Who was harsh?

De Maria August 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM

you said:
Steve, you are a convert to Catholicism from the Evangelical church. I am a convert from Islam into Christianity at large. Converts have a tendency to react harshly against their past, thus be fanatic.

Perhaps you are projecting. I have found that converts to Catholicism from Evangelicalism or Protestantism tend to be very charitable towards their former peers.

I love Catholic books; in fact, they are mostly what I read in Arabic Christian books. But if you convert to Catholicism, you don’t have to swallow every phrase of their own. It is okay to be a Catholic convert par excellent and still have reservations on their excesses. To have excesses is human. We as humans like to give big, huge titles such as the Holy Father, the Holy of Holies, the Best in the best or the best of the West, and it even gets more interesting when you deal with a Semitic person like me, we like to exaggerate; we thrive on exaggeration. Unless an Arab like me exaggerates, he hasn’t expressed himself. So, the phrase “Holy Father” while I see it as a title of respect and it is okay, but it is still an excess in expression, and it lends to man more than what he can afford.

Respectfully, I disagree. Perhaps you didn’t read the entire explanation which Steve gave. But I thought it was excellent. The title does not imply that the Pope will never sin. It means that he has been set apart, as have all of us who are Baptized. We are set apart and in that sense “holy”. The Holy Father is set apart in a more exclusive sense, since Jesus set him apart to shepherd His people (John 21:17).

He is indeed a man like you and me, same thing like our Lord Jesus Christ in His full divinity, a man like you and me.

I’m not quite following that one. Are you saying that Jesus Christ was a man like you and I? You have not left Islam behind completely, it seems. In Christianity, we believe that Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria August 9, 2012 at 5:45 PM

There were comments made concerning that Steve may have been “harsh” in his response.

It seems to me, when someone yells out “The Pope is a sinner….” in the middle of a Catholic conference, that person is not being especially caring about Catholic sensitivities. Therefore, Steve’s response seemed perfectly attuned to the nature of the communication. That was not a question of inquiry. It was a question wrapped in an insult.

Just my two cents.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Christian initiation began in the Gospels

De Maria October 24, 2012 at 11:54 PM

No it is not a mistake.

The problem, is that you have not divulged your definition of the term “Christian initiation”. I asked you above. But that is thequestion you ignored.

Once you reveal that, we can come to an understanding as to why you are coming to all these erroneous conclusions.

Because God’s plan of salvation came to the Jews first John 4:22,

True. But it is besides the point. Christian initiation began in the Gospels when Jesus Christ began to teach His doctrines to the Apostles. They were the first Christians. He initiated them into His faith.

Matthew 10:5-7 and than the pattern of the plan of Salvation moved towards the Gentiles, subsequently.

True. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Christ Himself initiated the Jews and a few Gentiles into Christianity.

Christian Initiation starts only in the Book of Acts,

NO. It starts in the Gospels. And Christ brings the Apostles to a sufficient knowledge of His faith that He can command them to pass His doctrines to the entire world:
Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

the Holy Spirit being manifested to empower the Church to proclaim and spread the Gospel far and wide.

To culminate not to initiate the disciple into the Body of Christ.

Christian initiation never began in the period covering the four Gospels simply because the four Gospels cover the jewish period John 4:22, Matthew 10:5-7 and not the Christian period.

The Christian era begins with Christ. In fact, it can be said that Christian initiation begins with the herald. St. John the Baptist.

Luke 3:16
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

And also the four gospels cover a transitional period. Nothing was defintely settled as yet as Christ was not yet risen and glorified. The Comforter could come only after Christ ascension. If Catholic teaching is still stuck in the Gospels, its because it is not a Christian Church. its teachings are identical to that of Judaism.

If your group has set the Gospels aside, it is your group which is not Christian. The Gospels contain the foundational knowledge of the Christian faith.

No He went to John’s Baptism even when John restrained Him.

John 3:5 depicts Jesus explaining the Baptism which He instituted.

John 3:1-10
King James Version (KJV)
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

The Catholic Church wrongly interprets John 3:5 means baptism is the only ordinance required to enter the Kingdom of God.

I’ve never seen that teaching in Catholic literature. If you claim it is true, show it to me from official Catholic sources. Otherwise it simply amounts to you arguing against something you made up yourself.

That would contradict other scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles taught on Repentance from sin, Believing on Jesus, and Receiving the Holy Spirit – the same four-fold pattern I have mentioned that was articulated throughout the New Testament. Because Jesus when he said “Ye must be born again..” He is saying.. that what happens to begin your spirtual life has some kind of parallel with what happens when you began your physical life.

That is true. And the sign of that spiritual birth is the water.

In John 3:5 Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in accordance to the Pharisee’s teaching- to be born of water meant to be born physically. 
That is a secular teaching as well. It is called the “breaking of the water” when a child is born.

This is proved by Nicodemus remark who thought to be born again meant a physical birth “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?

That is true. Nicodemus was confused.

In verse 5, Jesus proceeds to say, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Again true. This is a typical double entendre of Jesus Christ.

1. The first birth is by water.
2. The second birth is by water and spirit. Water signifying the birth by the Spirit.

Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee, believed like the other Jews that because he was born a Jew and kept God’s ordinances that he should automatically enter into the kingdom of God. However, Jesus explains this is not enough. In verse 6, Jesus Himself interprets the water as flesh (a physical birth) “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

You have misunderstood. The verse prior has associated water with birth. Not with birth of the flesh only. Jesus, in verse 6, simply says that one must also be born of the spirit, that is “justified” by God in order to be received into eternal life.

Jesus says of being born of water is to be born of the flesh.

No, He doesn’t. You are reading that into the Scripture. Jesus uses water to signify birth and spirit. The child emerges from water in physical birth. The spirit is “living water” and the soul emerges from the living water in spiritual birth. That living water is signified by the physical water. That is why the Apostles insisted on “water” Baptism. Because that is what Jesus taught in the Gospel.

Jesus explains the difference, telling Nicodemus you have already had a physical birth, you are in need of a another birth “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ Literally from the Spirit above to enter the kingdom.

Absolutely. But Jesus said by “water and spirit”. And in the next Chapter, Jesus and the Apostles went to Baptize where water was abundant:
John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

You must be born again “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The new birth from above is a second birth which gives us eternal life.

That is true. That new birth occurs in the Sacrament of Baptism.

V.5 The new birth is invisible, he likens it to the wind.

True.

It is not from the water beneath (the flesh)

The water signifies birth and spirit. It does not signify flesh.

but of the Spirit (literally, in the Greek, from above).

It is a double entendre. It means “again” and it means “from above” as well.

Jesus is saying, you have been born of water. Now you will born of the Spirit when you submit to the water of Baptism.

He is contrasting the natural (flesh) to the spiritual (Spirit).

He is contrasting the flesh to spiritualized flesh. Christ did not teach Gnosticism. There is such a thing as a spiritual body:
1 Corinthians 15:44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

There is always a distinction between water and Spirit baptism.

Not in the Baptism of Jesus Christ. In the Baptism of Jesus Christ there is a connection between the two. The Baptism of water signifies the Baptism of the Spirit which the soul undergoes when he arises from the water.

Scripture tells us that John came baptizing in water but that, “There is one who will come after me. . . He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark. 1:7-8; Matthew 3:11; John 1:33).

Absolutely. Baptism means to wash. One can not wash without water.

The flesh and the spirit are two different properties, two different things.

That is true. But what is your point? You have drifted from claiming that Gospels did not initiate anyone into Christianity all the while using verses which point to Chrisitianity in the Gospels. Note that YOU posted that St. John the Baptist prophesied that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Note that YOU brought up John 3:5, wherein Jesus was teaching a Jew, Nicodemus, about His Baptism.

That is initiation into the Christian faith.

So there are two births- one of the flesh and the other of the spirit that comes from God. John 3:6-7 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

Absolutely! And one is born of the Spirit when one is Baptized in the Sacrament of enlightenment. The washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. The washing of water and the Word. Amen!

You see.. what I have discovered is that streams of church life have just got hold of a portion of the truth and NOT the whole truth.

The Catholic Church has the entire Truth. That is why Scripture says of the Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The Catholic Church is that Church which teaches the Wisdom of God. If your church is not, that is a sign it is not of God.

And that portion breeds heresies. For example the Liberal stream of Church life emphasises on REPENTANCE, The Catholic sacramental stream of Church life emphasises on BAPTISM, The Evangelical stream stresses on FAITH, and the PENTECOSTAL stream emphasies on baptism twice of the HOLY SPIRIT. So if we stress say, only on, BAPTISM or REPENTANCE that saves, at the expense of cutting out the other two, becomes a text for pretext that eventually breeds heresies. All that four-fold pattern (REPENT, BELIEVE, BAPTIZE and RECEIVE the Holy Spirit) i have mentioned is necessary and it is the basis of the complete Christian Initiation as articulated. Note BELIEVE by Faith in the Lord Jesus is the most important of all the other three, but it (FAITH) also rests behind the other said Three.

You are confused and confusing yourself. The four fold pattern you claim to have discovered has been known for centuries. And you stress that pattern to your own demise. Because there is much, much more to the faith of Jesus Christ than that which you teach. You have bred your own heresy by “stressing” your “personal stream” of understanding.

Here is another tenet of the Christian faith:
Hebrews 13:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

So, tell me, who taught you the faith which you follow? Sounds to me as though you think you discovered the Christian faith 2000 years after Jesus appeared in the flesh.

How about this tenet which no Protestant can stomach? Do you accept it?

Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

So tell me, to which ruler of the Church do you submit and obey and admit that he must account for your soul? Oh, I see, you follow no man. Yet Scripture is clear that you must follow the men who taught you the faith and who follow Christ. And submit to them as they give account for your soul.

Jesus the Son of God was empowered by the Holy Spirit after he came out ouf the water of John’s Baptism.

The Holy Spirit appeared as a sign for the people to see that He is the Son of God. It was for their benefit. Christ is God from all eternity. Christ was empowered by the Father.

No one denies baptism because simply its an ordinance commanded by the Lord.

You haven’t talked to many Protestants. You probably have a small circle of like minded people with whom you discuss religion. But there are thousands if not millions of Protestants who deny the necessity of Baptism.

The only pertinent thing to note about baptism in the New Testament that it is:

1. A Believers only baptism in Christ Jesus only.

They who don’t understand the Scripture come to that conclusion based upon one verse. Mark 16:16. But it is a false conclusion.
a. Baptism is the circumcision without hands:
Colossians 2:11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

b. Jesus said:
Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

c. Jesus pours His grace unto children by the faith of the parents:
Matthew 15:28
Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

2. Christian Baptism began from the Book of ACTS; not to be confused with John’s Baptism.

On the contrary, Christian Baptism was introduced by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of St. John chapter 3 and commanded in the Gospel of St. Mark verse 16:16 and in the Gospel of St. Matthew 28:19-20.

3. It is so called Christian baptism because one identifies himslef as a disciple of Christ ALONE by indentifying with his death/burial and resurrection.

a. I have yet to see the words “Christ ALONE” in the Scriptures.
b. Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

and:
Hebrews 13:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

4. Its an outward testimony of what God has done to our regenerate our inner-self by grace through faith in the finished redemption work of Christ on the Cross HIM being a substituinary atonement for us.

Sacramental Baptism is an outward sign which causes an inner reality. Jesus Christ has associated the Baptism of water with the washing of the Holy Spirit.

5. It is also outward testimony that we de-link from the dark past and begin a new clean life in Christ living in us through his in-dwelling Spirit.

That is true. But it is also a culmination of a process of learning to show oneself approved (2 Timothy 2:15) and of seeking God in faith (Hebrews 11:6).

I see you simply don’t understand and it is simply not my opionion.

It is simply your opinion. It is not the teaching of Christ nor of the Church. Nor even of Scripture.

One can see clearly that the Epistles and the Book of Revelation where meant for those who already became followers of Jesus Christ.

They were addressed to believers, true. But why? Why did St. Paul and the Apostles edify the Church? Here is the answer in a nutshell:
2 Timothy 2:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Apparently you have forgotten the Great Commission of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

But, if you are committed to this strangest of ideas, please show me a verse in the Epistles or in the book of Revelations or in the Gospels, which should not be taught to non-Christians and explain why. Perhaps you can show the Scripture which says, “Thou shalt not teach these things to non-Christians”.

In the Epistles were writings the Apostles of Jesus wrote to those early Christian churches dealing with warning of false teachings and ravening wolves in sheep clothng inflirtating thir ranks, spreading a false gospel. Offcourse the contents of other epistles were exhortations on how a Christian must have to endure suffering, persecution and living the Christian life – these things cannot be taught to persons who were not already Christians.

Why? The only reason I can see is your own opinion. There is nothing in the Scriptures which forbids teaching any of the Epistles to non-Christians.

They had to become Christians

Where is it written?

and that is only documented in the book of Acts how Jesus Apostles who lead potential non-Christians to become Christians. This is not my imaginations as you claim. Its proveb from contextual reading of New Testament scripture itself.

You have simply adopted your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures. But Scripture is clear:
2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God didn’t inspire the Apostles so that you could re-interpret their teachings in your own personal way. God established a Church, the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3;15) to teach His wisdom even in the Heavens (Eph 3:10). And He also warned that those who did not obey the Church, would be treated as the heathen (Matt 18:17).

God Bless you abundantly.

And you also,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Christianity relies upon the knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ.

De Maria October 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM

You said:
Hi De Maria,A few more things to add … :)

No problem.

The Gospels are too early to rely on for a study on Christian initiation – the reasons i’ve already outlined in my earlier post above.

I hope I’ve disproven that idea in my previous message. But it is also illogical for another reason. Christianity relies upon the knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ. And that knowledge exists mainly in the Gospels.

We cannot also introduce a person to the Christian faith relying on the Epistles and the Book of Revelation either, because they were exhortations to those who were already Christians. So you can now see the Catholic teaching has lost its moorings. :)

All I can see is that those statements of yours make no sense. They are simply opinions of yours which are disproven by the fact that throughout history, the Church has used all those writings to teach the doctrines of Jesus Christ to all who seek righteousness and eternal life.

God Bless you,

And you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus saves children because of the faith of their parents.

De Maria October 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

You said,
Hi De Maria,Thanks very much for your response. I see at least you have the acumen of responding. Which is good indeed.

Thank you.

In taking verses out of context, I stated John 3:5 because that’s one of the footnotes at the bottom of the CCC,

Correct.

the Catholic Church relies for scriptural support in respect to baptism. John’s baptism of repentance is found in Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24, and more specifically Acts 19:4.

Correct.

So i am simply pointing that John 3:5 is out of context because you cannot lead a person to become a Christian because John’s Baptism of Repentance was during the period covering the Gospels.

That would be a misunderstanding of John 3:5, Jesus is describing that which occurs in His Baptism:

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

St. John’s Baptism did not bring the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Baptism in the name of Jesus, does.

Why?? Simply because during the period covering the Gospels, the Lord had not risen and glorified as yet.

That is true. But Jesus was not explaining St. John’s Baptism, but His own.

Therefore the Holy Ghost was promised only after his Ascension.

Also true.

Christian initiation actually starts in the the Book of Acts and not the Gospels.

That is a mistake. Christian initiation began when Jesus started teaching His disciples. In fact, we can also say that Christian initiation began when St. John began preparing the way for Christ.

That is why St.Paul stated it in Acts 19:4.

Acts 19:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

He mentions that St. John was preparing people to believe in Christ. Which can be understood as a type of Christian initiation. Unless you have a specific and personal understanding of the term “Christian initiation”. For Catholics, it means an introduction to the doctrines and the faith of Jesus Christ.

In fact there has always been a four-fold pattern Jesus and his Apostles always consistently preached a pattern in the entire New Testament. i.e REPENT for you sins, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus, Be BAPTIZED, and RECEIVE the Holy Ghost.

That is the same pattern which the Catholic Church preaches today.

This is the correct pattern we can see on location how the Apostles led inquirers to the Christian faith (Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41). In fact Jesus and John the Baptist always pointed to that four-fold pattern but scattered throughout the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles. But in the Book of Hebrews Chapter 6 they surprisingly appear in that order.

Why surprisingly? It is the pattern which has always been taught. It is Protestants who have deviated from that pattern with their so-called “altar calls” and denials of Baptism as the culmination of Christian initiation.

OK so you talk about the RCIA. Does this means those baptized as babies have also have to compulsory undergo RCIA?

Infants follow a different pattern. Throughout the New Testament, we see that Jesus saves children because of the faith of their parents. Example:

Matthew 15:28
Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Jesus saves infants because of the faith of their parents.

Does the RCIA follow the Biblical pattern I’ve covered above?

Yes.

Also please note that during John’s baptism in Gospel required one to first become a disciple of Christ and then be baptized, by first showing “fruit meets for repentance” – Matthew 3:7-9. Does the RCIA cover this?

Yes.

Thanks and God Bless you,

May God bless you as well,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Rite of Christian Iniatiation

First and foremost Titus is an epistle letter, and unlike other epistles, were written to people who were already Christians (believers).

All the Epistles were written to individual Christians or Church communities. True.

And so we cannot lead un-believers into Christian initiation thru any of the the Epsitles.

That doesn’t follow.
1st. CCC1215 simply describes Baptism. It doesn’t say that one must study the Epistle of Titus in order to become Christian.
2nd. Titus 3:5 is a description of the physical and spiritual actions which take place in Baptism. The water washes our skin as the Spirit washes the sins off our soul. It does not address Christian initiation. That is addressed in other Scriptures. And Christian initiation is not synonymous with Baptism. Baptism is the climax of Christian initiation.
3rd. In the Epistle to Titus, St. Paul instructs St. Titus to instruct a Christian community. All Christian communities follow the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, to make disciples of the world.

By Christian initiation, I mean “How to become a Christian”, “How to enter the Kingdom of heaven on earth, “How to begin the Christian life”, “How to be born Again”.

To understand the process of conversion which leads one to Christian initiation and concludes in Baptism, please read the documents of the Council of Trent.

Now we are left with John 3:5 – the Gospel.

One verse of the Gospel of John.

We see that John the Baptist preached the “Baptism of Repentance”.

True. But John 3:5 doesn’t even mention John the Baptist. So, what are you talking about, the Baptism of Christ or the Baptism of John?

During the period covering the Gospels, people were baptized with John’s Baptism after producing “fruits of repentance” – Mathew 3:7-9. In other words, people who came to John’s Baptism after believing, were made disciples, xxxxx John 4:1 (showing fruits of repentance), and then they were baptized subsequently. Unlike in the Roman Catholic Church its totally topsy-turvy and therefore not compatible with New Testament Baptism.

Really? That’s what you think? Most Protestants castigate the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church requires everyone who converts to go through the Rite of Christian Iniation for adults (RCIA).

The best way to prove you wrong is to have you go to any Catholic Church and request Baptism. See if what you claim is true.

Also those people baptized during the period covering Gospels, had to be re-baptized again. I can elaborate more, but i’ll keep it for next time should the need arise

Only those Baptized by St. John. There is no indication that the Apostles, whom we assume were baptized by Christ, were ever re-baptized by water unless they were first disciples of St. John.

Sincerely,

De Maria

let me see what you understand about baptism

De Maria October 22, 2012 at 6:46 PM

You said:
Yes I can elaborate, But first let me see what you understand about baptism as taught in the Catechism and its relation to the baptism in the New Testament.

Mark 16:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Is baptism, the only Christian Initiation requirement?

 It begins with God’s free gift of grace. That gift is faith. Which if exercised by the individual, results in his turning to and seeking God.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

After which the seeker begins to study the faith of Christ in order to be approved:
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Then he learns to do God’s will and keep the Commandments:
John 14:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Having learned God’s will, he asks the Church for Baptism and has his sins washed away calling on the name of the Lord.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Afterwards, he continues to learn about his faith and adds to his faith knowledge and virtue:
2 Peter 1:4-10
King James Version (KJV)
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Is that what you were asking?

Sincerely,

De Maria