I was reading the FAQs from Dan Brown’s Official Website and found that Brown considers himself a Christian.
ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious–that is, that we are all trying to decipher life’s big mysteries, and we’re each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.
He lists three different answers for what people consider being a Christian is:
- being baptized
- accepting the Bible as absolute historical fact
- believing and accepting Christ as personal savior
Christianity is not a continuum as Brown suggests, rather it is a specific set of beliefs. Many Christians around the world hold to a set of common beliefs outlined in the Nicean Creed:
We believe in one God
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
and the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in the one holy catholic
(universal Christian) and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
What about you? Do you hold to the Nicean Creed? Is there a part of it that you disagree with or do you disagree with it all? What beliefs do you hold?
119 Comments
Feed for this entry
Trackback Address
June 7th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Personally, I go to a Lutheran church and I was baptized and confirmed in that religion. The Lutheran church is rich with doctrine and one of their fundmental building blocks in the Nicean creed. For my confirmation class we had to learn the Nicean Creed and throughly go through each line and what it meant. I believe in all of it. If I didn’t I wouldn’t have taken the step of publicly announcing my faith.
June 7th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
BTW, this was the creed that came out of Constatine’s Council of Nicea that Dan Brown said was the point where Jesus became devine. In fact, this was the time that the church leaders decided to put on paper just what they believed.
June 7th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
This topic was touched on a bit in another area where the issue was the nature of the Church: invisible body of believers or hierarchical structure. As a Catholic I accept the Nicaean Creed. It is read at every Mass. I also believe that one enters the Church through baptism, whether that be baptism in water or baptism by desire. In fact, I believe that baptism is necessary to enter Heaven. However, that does _not_ mean that all of the baptized will go to Heaven. Baptism saves us but once saved, always saved is not scriptural.
I’m curious how the Evangelicals here feel about the line from the creed which reads: “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” When I was an Evangelical I was taught that water baptism played no role whatsoever in the forgiveness of sins. One of the major factors in my return to Catholicism was the passages of Scripture which teach the salvific role of baptism.
June 8th, 2006 at 4:33 am
First things first. Gary, could you point to us where in the Bible there is mentioned anything about baptism by desire. Second, baptism is not the means by which we are saved. Romans 10:9-10 states the following:
“9 That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ?10? For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.”
Notice it does not say that if you get baptized you will be saved.
The statement “bapitsm for the forgiveness of sins” is much like Acts 2:38 which states; “Peter replied, ?Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
“For the forgiveness of sins” is more accurately translated “because of the forgiveness of sins.” The expression in the Greek is parallel to John’s baptism “of repentance” which means “because of repentance.” In other words, because we have been forgiven of our sins, we should follow that forgiveness with an outward decalaration of our salvation.
I am a Pentecostal and believe that while baptism in water is not required for salvation, it declares our identification with Christ in His death and resurrection and every Christian should participate in baptism by immersion, just as Jesus did, as He is our example.
June 9th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Hi Doug,
re: baptism of desire in Scripture
If you want my to tell you where the phrase “baptism of desire” appears in Scripture, I can’t because it doesn’t. Neither does ‘Trinity’ or ‘Incarnation’ but if you don’t believe in them you’re denying important biblical truths. The belief in the baptism of desire comes from the fact that, under normal circumstances, baptism is required for salvation - more on that later - and the fact that circumstances aren’t always normal yet God is merciful and still wants to save as many as possible.
Just to clarify for those who have no idea what the baptism of desire is, it means that if the person wants to be baptized but is somehow prevented from being baptized by circumstances over which he has no control, his desire to be baptized counts as if he actually had been. Consider the repentant thief who was crucified at Jesus’s side. (I don’t want to call him the good thief because, if he had been, he wouldn’t have gotten caught.) He repented and committed himself to Jesus. Despite the fact that he wasn’t going to be baptized in water, Jesus said he would be in Paradise that night with Him. His desire to be obedient was enough.
Now, for the evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation:
Mark 16:16 [Jesus speaking] “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Jesus said quite clearly that belief and baptism is necessary for salvation. Opponents of this belief point to the second half where baptism is not mentioned but might it be worded that way to allow for baptism by desire?
John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Prior to the Reformation, no Christian author we know of denied that Jesus was talking about water baptism here. And what does Jesus do when the conversation with Nicodemus is finished? He takes His disciples out to baptize people underscoring His words.
Acts 2:38 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Peter is quite clear; it is repentance plus baptism that equals salvation, not repentance alone.
You say that “for the forgiveness” should be translated “because of repentance”. I’m no Greek scholar, I have to rely on what they say, but the obvious question arises: If you are correct, why do Bible translators translate it as they do? I don’t know of a single Bible that translated the passage as you suggest. Secondly, the structure of the sentence would lead to the conclusion that, if baptism is “because or repentance” then the command to repent would have to be “because of repentance” and that makes no sense at all.
1 Pet 3:21 “Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah's flood], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ….” That’s pretty straightforward, baptism now saves you.
re: Rom 10:9-10
This passage does not mention baptism but other passages, like the ones I mentioned above, do teach it. I don’t know how you would describe yourself theologically but, the way you are using this passage would also contradict the beliefs of most Evangelicals. Now I haven’t read many Evangelical books since 1987 and maybe things have changes but I remember debates as to whether you could make Jesus your Savior without making Him your Lord. Although there was some dissent, most Evangelical theologians believed that it was possible. Secondly, the passage demands a certain level of doctrinal knowledge - granted, a very very low one - which contradicts Luther’s teaching that we are saved by faith alone.
This passage does not address baptism at all so it certainly does not deny the role of baptism in salvation. It just doesn’t talk about it.
re: baptism as declaring our identification with Jesus
If baptism is just for declaring our identification with Jesus as you say, why was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized in the desert in front of Philip alone rather than brought back to be baptized before the church? (Acts 8:38)
Lastly, where does Scripture say that baptism must be by immersion? Surprisingly, it is the preferred method of the Catholic Church but nowhere is it demanded.
BTW, I am also a Pentecostal.
re: sola scriptura
In your question to me you asked where Scripture mentions the baptism of desire. This indicates to me that you accept a teaching that Martin Luther called ’sola scriptura,’ which is Latin for Scripture alone. In 25 words or less, it means that in order for a belief to be a binding doctrine, it must be found in Scripture. One problem with sola scriptura (there are many) is that the belief is self-contradictory because it is not found anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, if it’s true, it has to be false. Even more importantly, the doctrine contradicts those passages in St. Paul’s letters where he says to hold on to what you were taught regardless of whether or not you were taught it by the written word or orally.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Hello Leesa and all,
Here’s some detailed insight into the backstory and subplot of the DaVinci Code and related books and texts.
Most have totally missed the point that the Gnostic texts and others are making. First, they refer to symbolic males and females, hence the philosophical masculine and feminine nature and character. All the Gnostic texts are philosophical and symbolic treatises, not literal narratives. When you try to interpret any of these ancient texts (including the Bible) as literal, you will always come to the wrong conclusions.
You may not initially agree with everything I reveal, but please be a little patient with my long-winded presentation of what I have waited a very long time to be able to say. I promise to amaze and enlighten.
Contrary to those who strive to assert that the DaVinci Code created the term, symbology is an ancient philosophical technology and I am a real life symbologist. Likewise, the upper-level members of secret societies such as Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Illumanti, and the Vatican are symbologists. Keeping their “craft” secretive and misunderstood is a purposeful ploy designed to hide the truth about ancient wisdom and the symbology used to model, encapsulate, and encode it. The title “mason” is itself a symbolic allusion to those who work with the “Philosophers’ Stone” which is the symbolic name given to an ancient body of symbology, hence “Masons” are workers of “stone.”
Read Proverbs 9:1 below to better understand this allusion.
Wisdom has built Her house. She has carved out Her seven pillars.
Notice that “wisdom” is referred to as “Her” and “She”, as in Sophia and Miriam (the Magdala), and that “She” has “hewn” “Her” “seven pillars” (of stone)? Read my Home Page to see what those seven pillars of “stone” have always referred to, contrary to what religions and mysticism have said for millennia.
Peace…
Here is the key to understanding what the Vatican and Papacy truly fear…
Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness…
Here’s a real hot potato! Eat it up, digest it, and then feed it’s bones to the hungry…
There’s much more to the story of the Vatican’s recent machinations than meets the eye. It’s not the DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas per se, but the fact that people have now been motivated to seek out the unequivocal truth about an age of deception, exactly when they expect me to appear. These recent controversies are spurring people to reevaluate the Vatican/Papacy and the religions that Rome spawned, at the worst possible time for them.
Remember, “I come as a thief…” ?
Read verse twelve of the Gospel of Thomas to understand who I am…
The DaVinci Code novel and movie are no more inaccurate as literal versions of history than the New Testament. The primary sub-plot involved purposeful symbology being used to encode hidden meanings, exactly like the Bible and related texts. In other words, none of these stories represent the literal truth. This is the common and pivotal fact of all such narratives about ancient Hebrew and Christian history. Debating whether the DaVinci Code, Gnostic texts, or the Bible are accurate history is a purposeful ploy designed to hide the truth by directing your inquiry away from the heart of the matter.
There is a foolproof way to verify the truth and expose centuries-old religious deceptions. It also proves why we can no longer let the Vatican tell us what to think about ancient history or much else. It is the common thread connecting why the ancient Hebrews, Yahad/Essene, Jews, Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Dead Sea Scrolls, DaVinci Code, and others have been targets of Rome?s ire and evil machinations. The Vatican and its secret society cohorts don?t want you to understand that the ancient Hebrew symbology in all of these texts purposely encodes and exposes the truth about them. Furthermore, the structure of ancient wisdom symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it. This is what they most fear you will discover.
If the Bible represented the literal truth or even accurate history, there would be no need for faith in the assertions of deceptive and duplicitous clergy and their ilk. It is undeniable the New Testament is awash with ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory. The same is evidenced in the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts, biblical apocrypha, Quran, DaVinci Code, and other related sources. All ancient religious, mystical, and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia for one primary reason: The ability to understand their widely evidenced symbology was lost in antiquity. How do we finally solve these ages-old mysteries? To recast an often-used political adage: It?s [the] symbology, stupid!
It is beyond amazing that the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are the literal truth. Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. Recasting the symbolism of earlier Hebrew texts as literal events in the New Testament is one of the central deceptions associated with Christianity. This is part of the secret knowledge held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, Cathars, and others, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code. None of these narratives or stories were ever intended as the literal truth. This fact is the key to unraveling many ages-old mysteries and exposing the truth about the Vatican’s long-term deceptions.
Moreover, the following Washington Post article (The Book of Bart) describes how many changes and embellishments were made to New Testament texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful. When you combine proof that the New Testament Gospels are not wholly literal with proof that these texts were heavily reworked in the early years of Christianity, you are left with only one possible conclusion. The Vatican has long lied to everyone about the central tenets and history of Christianity. This revelation also proves they are not the Creator?s representatives but Her long-time opponents. The recent hoopla over the Gospel of Judas and DaVinci Code demonstrates they are still desperately trying to deceive the world and obfuscate their true nature and activities.
It’s no wonder the Vatican fears the truth more than anything else. As further proof of these assertions, seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia. What then is the purpose of “faith” but to keep good people from seeking to understand the truth?
Now comes justice, hot on its heels… (symbolism…)
Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk…
Here is Wisdom!!
Revelations from the Apocalypse
Peace…
June 11th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
I think Baptism is very important but not for the reasons you state Gary. IN order to confirm our intention to follow Jesus we are instructed to: “That if you confess with your mouth, ?Jesus is Lord,? and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ?10? For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.? Believe and confess period. Baptism is an extreme identification with Christs Death Burial and Resurrection. It is a natural consequence of believing but as a “work” it has no effectiveness with out faith in Christs atonement. Often however, I have seen it as a catalyst for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in a believers life.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
If you believe that we are saved by faith you don’t have to make up another little loophole called the baptism of deisre to cover the times when your theology breaks down.
June 11th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Even in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch I am pretty sure it wasn’t in isolation that he got baptised. I doubt that someone that important would be travelling alone. There were likely at lease a few witnesses to the baptism. He was also going back to Ethiopia not to the local church assembly. Your example of the repentent theif only confirms to me the validity of my statement in my previous post.
June 12th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Seven Star Hand, although he probably will not read this and has moved on to spam other blogs all around the web, is spreading some bad ideas here, in the sense that they are profoundly unhistorical, illogical and poorly thought out. Here we go again …
“symbology is an ancient philosophical technology and I am a real life symbologist.”
What are the credentials required to become a “symbologist”? No recognized schools have “symbologists”. Personally I trust educated scholars, historians, theologians ahead of self-professed “symbologists”.
“The primary sub-plot involved purposeful symbology being used to encode hidden meanings, exactly like the Bible and related texts.”
Sorry, the Bible is not intended as a merely symbolic document. The entire idea of the New Testament is that God’s message is available to all; the idea of “secret knowledge” is a gnostic idea that did not appear until later in the 2nd century. Are there symbols used? Of course! But the gospel (”good news”) is not symbolic, the original authors did not intend it as symbolic, and the original hearers did not interpret it as symbolic.
“It is beyond amazing that the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are the literal truth.”
Regardless of whether you believe the Bible or not, its authors clearly believed what they were recording was literally true. A small sampling:
“I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:3-4)
“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17)
“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24) Again these do not PROVE what they wrote is true, only that the believed what they wrote was the truth.
It’s also worthwhile to note that this author seems to interpret “the Vatican” = “all Christians” which is not at all the case. He constantly refers to how the Vatican does this or that, but what about the nearly 1 billion Christians who place no particular emphasis on the Vatican?
“Moreover, the following Washington Post article (The Book of Bart) describes how many changes and embellishments were made to New Testament texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful.”
The “Bart” mentioned above is Bart Ehrman. His recent book which is the content of that article is not nearly as controversial as its title suggests. Here is a review which examines some of the mistakes in that book:
http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html
Certainly this book does not prove there were “many changes and embellishments” made to the Bible; in fact we are more sure that the Bible is reliable than any other ancient text from that time period or before. We have literally thousands of copies of the texts, and the variants (nearly all are spelling / word order type changes) do not put any Christian doctrines into question … not even close. Ehrman states a large number of “discrepancies”, but tries to use the large number to fool people into thinking there’s really a lot of variation between the texts, when that is not at all the case.
“As further proof of these assertions, seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped”
I accept this challenge :) Let’s see, this is a reference to the book of Revelation 1:16. Now, Revelation is indeed a book full of religious symbols, so it can be difficult to interpret. But in this case, we don’t NEED to interpret it, because just a little later in the book Jesus Himself explains the significance of the seven stars! “The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” (1:20) How Lawrence W. Page II connects this to himself, well, it doesn’t really matter, because it is NOT referring to him anyways. Seems he’s not much of a “symbologist”.
It seems Seven Star Hand likes to take biblical symbols out of context due to what he believes about himself … this quote is from his website:
“Lawrence W. Page II is the Teacher of Righteousness reincarnated who now stands forth as the long-prophesied Messiah and Lion of the Tribe of Juda, the Root of David; (a.k.a. Melchizedek, ?Archangel? Michael, Moses, Elijah, the Branch, the Stem and the Rod from the Stump of Jesse) to decisively end millennia of Vatican deception, injustice, genocide, false doctrine, and false prophecy. Here is Wisdom!!”
Somehow this guy does not invite trust; his motivation, as far as I can tell, seems to be to collect followers of himself as the messiah.
This sort of conspiracy theory is unfortunately popular today (and this is the main reason The Da Vinci Code is so popular). I mean, I used to watch the X-Files nstuff too. But please base your beliefs on what we know historically, using the oldest and most reliable texts (ie the biblical texts) and not on “symbologists” esoteric interpretations.
The Bible: True or False? (Doubters welcome)
http://www.thelife.com/landing/truefalsedvc.html
June 12th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Sorry to repeat myself (I just posted this on another blog but I think it fits here even better)
Yes the gnostics were into secret revelation a lot. Totally oppposite from the true Christian gospel which is open to all and so simple it can be understood by a little child. I think a little controversy once in awhile is good for us though as it gets us thinking and digging for truth. It is easy to get complacent and just believe because?..well because. Early in my Christian life I was approached by a lot of people who believed differently.(cults) They used a lot of the same terminology that I did but as I studied I realized that the actual heart of their messages were quite different than the one that changed my life. God wants us to be rooted and grounded in love and that comes by knowing who God said he was not just what others have told us about him. I have no trouble believing the Bible as my source for information (because I have checked it out for its historical accuracy and how it stacks up with other writings of antiquity) but I am not against checking out other sources. (Hence my interest in the Gnostic and apochryphal gospels). Now I kind of know a bit more what other people are talking about when they discuss these and I can feel confident that I have honestly checked it out with an open heart. So far nothing I have read has influenced me to become a gnostic tho. Your right God?s love cannot be beat.
Seven Star Hand sorry but get a real job.
Posting Your Comment
Please Wait
Leave a Reply
There was an error with your comment, please try again.
Welcome back Jan (Change) (Close)
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
June 12th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Wow, there’s some pretty intense words expressed here.
I think we’re living in a very interesting era. What is it now, 60 million people have read The Da Vinci Code… nevermind how many saw the movie. It’s been a wake up call to everyone.
It’s time to question the motivations of the Vatican. What are they REALLY trying to accomplish here on earth? Do you see them loving people unconditionally… NO STRINGS ATTACHED? I see many strings and they will be cut soon.
Also, if Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church the Bride…. where is the BRIDE? I think that’s a dude sitting there on his throne with his silly pope hat.
Emmzee, you said “again these do not PROVE what they wrote down is true, only that they believed what they wrote was the truth.” Seven Star Hand is also writing down what he believes to be true. Doesn’t this ring a bell, people? Beliefs are manifested in your mind and it’s up to you to follow it or deny it.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Mary-Jane; Seven Star Hand claimed that the gospels were never meant as being literally true. My point was that the authors at least believed them to be true and wrote them as being literally true. Seven Star Hand was therefore incorrect . That was my point. Sure, Seven Star Hand is free to believe that if he wants, but I certainly think he is very wrong on these points. His case is not based on anything he claims to have witnessed along with many other people, it is based on “secret messages” and “conspiracies”.
If someone is looking for 100% proof, of pretty much anything, they won’t find it. Like in the fictional Langdon/Sophie conversation in a previous article, a true skeptic can argue anything down, regardless of how reasonable the evidence is. It’s impossible to prove 100% that a wife’s husband loves her, or that a husband’s wife loves him, but we quite rightly believe that people do.
This is an interesting topic that Mary-Jane has brought up about “strings attached”. Remember, Vatican is not equal to the church. Many of us here are Christians but not Catholics, so lets not pretend that the “dude with his silly hat” represents us all. (Although, maybe he thinks your hat is silly? ;)) What kind of strings has the modern church (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, whatever) attached to the gospel? What would Paul, who spoke so much and so eloquently about grace, say about that? Moreover, what would Jesus, who loved and accepted those who were unacceptable by society, say about that?
June 12th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
It’s also up to each of us to evaluate what we believe. If I am a Christian, it is my responsibility to understand what Jesus (not the guy in the silly hat) teaches. If I wasn’t a Christian, I would have to be able to say, without any doubt, that what the Bible teaches is not true. Otherwise, I would be in a position where, if the Bible is true, when I die, I’d be going the wrong direction.
MJ, thank you for giving your opinions here, we are glad you feel open enough to share. As one of the people behind this site, I have put my heart into this so that you can have the ability to come to a knowledge of who God is.
I just pray (literally) that we are at least clear on what we believe here and that you have the opportunity to get to know who Jesus is. That is all I can do.
Let me know if there is anything I can do for you.
June 13th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I have never stumbled across The Gospel of Thomas. I have no idea why. Seven Star Hand has graciously posted it and I’ve read it word for word. It speaks truth to me. My question is this… why is the Gospel of Thomas not in the bible? Many of the words written are similar to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John…. but Thomas takes it a step further. After reading Thomas, I must say I am even more in love with Jesus. Holy crap… I never thought I’d say that again. lol.
Dimmi, who was given the right to canonize the bible??????? Why wasn’t this book included? I am asking for the truth, not what you’ve been told to believe.
Happy days are in the making!!!
June 13th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Mary-Jane(formerly known as MJ)
I also notice that there was quuite a lot in the Gospel of Thomas that was covered in the other gospels however if it was written later that is a no brainer it could have just been compied. Or perhaps there is another “source” document that we are no longer in possession of. Just look at the Book of Mormon, it is filled with wonderful King James version Bible quotes. so that doessn’ make it reliable.
I am interested to know how it makes you even more in love with Jesus. I find it confusing.
June 13th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
The bits that are familiar gospel passages I have no trouble with. I am not dissing the Book of Mormon by the way but it is pretty evident to me that Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from it to write his “revelation”.
June 13th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Jan, we are not talking about Joseph Smith… why even bring it up?
We are talking about the Gospel of Thomas. Please stay with me here.
Many verses ring true to me, but those in particular are 49-alone and chosen, 54-congrats to the poor (that would be me), 67-lacking in themselves, 75-those who come alone will enter, 77-Light over all, 78-powerful rulers, 82-those close to the FIRE!!!, 89-inside of the cup. These are just a few that stand out to me.
Jan, for me, it brings me closer to the truth… closer to what Jesus was about. It confirms what I already know. I’m sorry if you don’t understand.
No one has answered my question, though. Why wasn’t this book included in the bible? Is there something they didn’t like? I’m waiting…
June 13th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
MJ, The reason the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic writings are not include is partially because they were written hundreds of years after the events took place making them much less reliable than the Gospels that are included in the Bible, which were written within a couple of decades of the events. Also the early Church already recognized these as the true Word of God hundreds of years before they were “chosen” to be in the Bible. The truth is, the Gospels that appear in the Bible were the Bible long before the Bible was the Bible.
One other note. There are over 10000 copies and fragments of the Gospels that are included in the Bible as opposed to a few copies of the Gnostic “gospels.” Again, making what is in the Bible far more reliable.
June 13th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Thanks Mary-Jane(formerly known as MJ) do I have to write that everytime? Ha Ha
Anyway I will check out those verses you mentioned. The reason I brougnt up Joseph Smith is because I do not believe that his revelations have foundational credibility over and above simple personal revelation. Nothing written in it has ever been proven about early tribes in North America etc. He used another source docutment The King James Bible to supplement his writings. In the same way I think the writer of The Gospel of Thomas used the gospels to supplement his writing of the book of Thomas. Due to other facts stated by people on this blog I also think it lacks credibility due to its dubious authorship, its late arrival on the scene and the lack of back up copies over the years.
June 13th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Mary-Jane asked: “why is the Gospel of Thomas not in the bible?”
The main reason is because it was rejected by those who lived closest to Jesus’ time as being inauthentic to Jesus’ teachings. It lacks all of the criteria to be included as being authentic. Firstly, it is a late document. It is written at least 30 years after the last book included in the New Testament. Why trust this document that was written at least 60 years after the Gospel of Mark and at least 90 years after Jesus’ death? Secondly, it is not written by Thomas, for the reason just mentioned, namely that it was written far too late; Thomas would’ve been long dead by then. Finally, many of the ideas in it are foreign to both the biblical teachings and the earliest Christian writers; gnostic ideas start showing up in the early/mid 2nd century.
Mary-Jane asked: “Why wasn?t this book included in the bible? Is there something they didn?t like? I?m waiting?”
Besides the reasons above, there are indeed things that people didn’t, and shouldn’t, agree with. Take the last verse for example, verse 114:
Ouch! Females don’t deserve life? Jesus made Mary male? This is the last line, the conclusion, if you will, to this text! No wonder Dan Brown didn’t include the Gospel of Thomas in his book, even though it’s the earliest and best attested of all of the gnostic documents.
The Gospel of Thomas also is not really a “gospel”. The “gospel” is the good news, namely, Jesus’ death on the cross which allows us to be saved by God’s grace alone. The “Gospel” of Thomas does not include anything about that; therefore it is not a gospel. Lots of people throughout history taught that we should be nice to eachother. That’s not unique to Jesus. What is unique is the historical gospel story.
Please don’t think I’m some kinda religious bigot … I’m not trying to suggest that everything that is in the Gospel of Thomas is bad or evil or whatever. There’s many sections that I’d agree with; mostly those that were copied from the biblical gospels. I read the sections MJ noted, and most have direct parallels in the biblical gospels.
However, if we know that the Gospel of Thomas and other gnostics texts are 1) Written later than the biblical gospels, in the 2nd century, 2) Not by who they claim wrote them, 3) Teach a different message than the message taught by the earliest Christians, 4) Teach some strange practices (as above), 5) Ignore Jesus’ death, and therefore ignore our salvation by grace alone ….. why trust the gnostic texts at all?
June 13th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
“Read Proverbs 9:1 below to better understand this allusion.
Wisdom has built Her house. She has carved out Her seven pillars.”
“Prudence” is also referred to as a woman. So is “discretion”–there’s nothing “mystical” or secret about them at all.
Please re-read the WHOLE book of Proverbs.
No matter HOW much evil is around, those who honor God and obey Him will inherit His Kingdom.
“For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it.
But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and transgressors shall be rooted out of it.”
“To recast an often-used political adage: It?s [the] symbology, stupid!”
“For false Christs and false prophets will rise, and will show signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.”
You’ve been deceived into believing a lie–that’s all.
“This is part of the secret knowledge held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, Cathars, and others, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code.”
Your father was thrown RIGHT OUT OF HEAVEN because he coveted power that exclusively belonged to God–so God has not only dethroned him, but has given his power to those that He has found more worthy; those who have believed in his Son, chosen to obey Him, and not doubt.
…And that’s why he’s trying to deceive these people here right now, using you as his vessel–and some that are here will be deceived. From the beginning, he have been warring with the saints and trying to destroy them.
His time has come to go and try to deceive the people that are in the earth–satan, in Jesus’ name, go and do your job. And make it quick! Because your time is running out!
“How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] are you cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For you have said in yor heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Yet you will be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
They that see you will narrowly look upon you, [and] consider you, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
[That] made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; [that] opened not the house of his prisoners?
All the kings of the nations, [even] all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
But you are cast out of your grave like an abominable branch, [and as] the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, [and] slain your people: the seed of evildoers will never be renowned.
Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.
The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, [so] shall it stand:”
I rebuke you, sir, in the name of Jesus Christ–and I command you to walk in newness of life and quit deceiving people. I pray that you come to the full knowledge of the truth and come to know who Christ is.
In His grip,
–JJ
June 14th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
JJ, you talk too much.
You forget that Jesus spoke in parables. When he was asked a question, he responded with a question.
June 14th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
MJ I think it is the “preachy tone” that is the problem not that he has lots to say.
June 14th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
re: baptism
I have to disagree with you on baptism, Jan. It is much more important than you give it credit for. I have no problem with Rom 10:9-10. It is necessary to confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord but you are making the passage say something that it doesn’t. St. Paul does not say that this is the only thing we have to do. He doesn’t say that baptism is not necessary. And you are ignoring the passages I mentioned which are as clear as anything in Scripture that baptism is a requirement.
re: saved by faith and baptism of desire
There is a big difference between ’saved by faith’ and ’saved by faith alone.’ The latter is an invention of Martin Luther who inserted it into his German translation of Rom 3:28 despite the fact that it isn’t warranted. We are not saved by faith alone. James 2:24, the only passage in the entire Bible where the phrase ‘faith alone’ appears, says that we are specifically _not_ saved by faith alone. Now look at how St. Paul uses the word ‘faith’ in Romans. In Rom 1:5 and Rom 16:26, the very first and the very last time he uses the word in this letter, he calls it the ‘obedience of faith.’ St. Paul is defining faith as obedience. What does St. John say in 1 John 2:3? We know that we know God because we obey His commandments. It is clear that getting baptized is one of God’s commandments. Baptism by desire, far from being a loophole, allows us to obey God’s commandment to be baptized when, for reasons outside of our own fault, we are prevented from actually being baptized.
re: the Ethiopian Eunuch
Jan is correct in pointing out that a man as important as this would not have been traveling alone. But he also wouldn’t have been traveling with a church. His attendees would have been of whatever belief system he just converted from. How could being baptized in front of these people be a sign to the church?
June 14th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
You’re right Jan, it’s the “preachy tone”.
Believe me, JJ, that approach will only turn “unbelievers” off…. as you are turning me off right now. You’ll have to find another way to convince people that they need Jesus. I have an idea, why not try Christ’s approach and simply love people? Or is that not what Jesus would do?
June 14th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
That is what I mean when I stated earlier about “strings attached”. Jesus loves you…. but (insert all man-made rules here).
“God loves us unconditionally” or “God loves us conditionally”.
Which one is it?
If the first quote is true, then we have don’t have to live in fear because we can boldly communicate with God.
If the second quote is true, then we choose to live in vicious cycle of fear, regret, shame, and condemnation.
BTW, Emmzee, do you really think the pope thinks my hat is silly? Maybe I should ask if I could borrow his. lol.
Sheldon, thank you for being kind. I recognize who the real Christians are by the love they show.
Jan, it makes no difference what you call me. MJ or Mary-Jane. What on earth were my parents thinking when they named me? You’d think they were peace-loving hippies… yeah right! lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
MJ it is true about knowing the true Christians by the love they show. I have been thinking a lot about that. As probably anyone can tell from my posts I like to “know” things as much as I can with my mind. I don’t think this is wrong to try to uncover the “truth” about a topic. This is kind of the focus of these blogs ie are the scriptures reliable, unreliable, is the church deceiving the people etc. That is all good but when Jesus said we will know the truth and the truth will make us free. I believe he is the truth and in knowing him we are set free. It is not just spouting orthodoxy. In my orthodoxy I do not want to quench God’s spirit by putting down how others are being lead to a knowledge of Jesus love and forgiveness. When I was a young person, struggling with understanding the relevancy of my Christian faith and not doing a very good job of living for God,I was very moved by the movie Jesus Christ Superstar. It made me excited about Christianity once again and got me moving on the road to greater intimacy with God. On a bus trip from BC to Alberta I met a bunch of Christian young people who instead of engaging me in a spiritual discussion of God and who he is and what that means in my life;(I would have been very open to that by the way) all I heard was how the whole movie was of the devil. I was a bit disgusted to say the least. Thank God he didn’t give up on me though. He kept on, kind of like that Hound of Heaven poem Des Emery talks about and brought me through to peace and a personal relationship a few years later.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I realize that some of you may not know what I was referring to with the “Hound of Heaven”. It was referred to by Des Emery in a post on the “Did Davinci paint Mary Magdalene in the Last supper” Blog.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:06 am
MJ, I love your name.. it reminds me of Spiderman! woohoo!
Yes, God does love us unconditionally.. it’s something I’m still learning to understand each day. Another thing I’ve really been learning is what Jesus did on the cross for me. I already know what it means and what it means for my life, but I realize that I still need to keep understanding each day… for example, at the moment, I’m learning about grace. How comin’ to a greater understanding of what Jesus did on the cross for me teaches me about grace. If I can’t forgive myself for something or can’t forgive someone else, I don’t have a very full understanding of what Jesus did on the cross. I couldn’t believe it at the time, cuz for years I already knew and believed, but each day, I learn more and more. So to go back to the preachyness and everything, I’ve realized that it’s when I come to a greater understanding of who Jesus is and what he did on the cross for us that I can come to love people and want to tell them about Jesus. If my motives are wrong, it’s usually cuz I don’t have a very full understanding of what Jesus did on the cross for me. (I’m still learning tho, so please bear with me! haha) What I know now is this: There is nothing better than a relationship with God. It has changed my whole life and when I’ve sought after other things, they were good for a while, but later became empty. My value and identity is in Christ first. I’ve seen what it’s like to not have Christ, and I’ve also experienced what it’s like to have Christ in my life. Sometimes I truly weep and ache for people to come to know him, because I want them too to experience the love that I have and know the God of the universe. I’ll be honest with you, being a true Christian isn’t easy and it’s not like we run around in the meadows all day and pick daisies–there will be tough times. But God carries us through… and there’s nothing far greater than knowing our Lord. If any of you have anymore questions, please feel free to ask, or I’d love to talk to you through email. You guys seem really kool, people I’d actually wanna be friends with in real life (haha, I say it like this isn’t real life or something!) ok, I think I’ve typed too much, sorry and thanks for reading!
Jan, I’ve always wanted to watch Jesus Christ Superstar, I’ve heard some of the songs, they seem really good!
Emzee, ok, yea, I’m so glad I’m not being guided to be made male. I love being a woman!!! haha
JJ, I want you to know that you’re still very welcomed here and I’m glad you posted, because no matter what the post is, I still want to respect you :)
June 16th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Yes JJ I know you mean well and likely what you are saying is very true. It is just that sometimes we need to stop and really listen to what other people are saying before we bombard them with it all. An analogy for me would be forecefeeding an infant and you know what happens with that. Anyway I do hear your concern coming through for Seven Star, and I am assuming most of you post was directed at his entry. You know a lot about the judgement of God and unless we turn to The Light and Love of Jesus through Grace and Faith that is where we are headed whether we know it or not.
June 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I guess everyone is on vacation again. Anyway as this is a blog discussing Dan’s Brown’s claim to be a chrisitian. I thot this might fit. What is the best way to help people who are seeking God but you know that they are getting into stuff that even tho sounds good now will eventually lead them away fromthe pure truth of Jesus. For example I have a friend who is being given info on the Course in Miracles. Although they use both Old and New Testament scriptures the use gnostic gospels and mostly they rely heavily on the document dictated to some psychologist in the seventies for their main thrust of ideas about spirituality. Even tho they use the name of Jesus, he is always qualified as one of the perfected God showers and participants are encouraged to insert what ever name of God speaks to them. I know that isn’t their terminology but it is not “no man comes to the Father but by me” like our belief. Now if someone prays to Jesus for healing and salvation will they be saved even if they do not know the whole truth just yet?
June 17th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Jesus says if you seek me you will find me. And in a way these are honest seekers coming to hear about God.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Hello friends!
I just had to change my name… again!
I believe Dan Brown has it right when he states, “We’re all trying to decipfer life’s big mysteries, and we’re each following our own paths of enlightenment.” The last thing I want in my life is to think I have it all figured out. What a boring way to live. If I’m not learning something new about myself, the people around me, God, nature, and pretty much everything else in this universe… I wouldn’t have anything to live for.
Something/Someone Mysterious created this world and I trust that Love was the underlining reason for our existence.
Laurie, funny how you should mention spiderman. My biggest fear in this life is spiders. I’ve been biten by them since I was a child. When I was 15, I went on a trip to Paraguay. My best friend and I were riding in the back of a truck that was driving 6 hours away from civilization. I looked up ahead and in the distance saw a white shimmering wall with black dots spread across the road. Before I knew it, the 7 foot antenna on the truck caught the web and I heard and saw spiders fall on top of me and my friend. I remember feeling like I was in hell and the spiders and their webs would never stop falling on me. I can’t remember how many webs we went through because I lost track of time due to the sheer terror. The men in the truck decided they heard enough screaming and let us in the truck. Thee most frightening experience of my life, no doubt. To this day spiders are haunting me. Just a couple of weeks ago, while on this blog, a spider crept down from the ceiling and landed on my keyboard…. barely missing my finger. I was pissed off and asked the spider “what the hell do you want from me? Why are you bothering me all the time?” Then I had a lightbulb moment and I realized that I needed to learn something from the spider. That is the only way I will conquer my fear of them. Everything around us is trying to teach us something about life and ourselves. This ties into what I said earlier… we must never stop learning about ourselves, those around us, nature, God, the entire universe!
June 19th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
MJ, whoa.. I can understand why you’re so scared of them… our past experiences can really affect us later. For me, I’m freakishly scared of dolls…
so what did you learn from the spider that time?
haha, yea, you should be spiderwoman, kinda like how batman became batman after he was so scared of bats!
has a christian ever showed you love in a way that made you wanna know more about God or Jesus?
June 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
MJ(Spiderwomen) I disagree with Dan when he says. ?We?re all trying to decifer life?s big mysteries, and we?re each following our own paths of enlightenment.? I believe there is only one path to enlightenment and that is Jesus the Son of God. What I am trying to say is can we as Christian friends trust Jesus to steer our friends who are honest seekers of God, to that one path, especially if the direction they are looking at the moment does not eventually lead there. I definitely do not believe all roads lead to the truth.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:32 am
Happy Summer Solstice Day Friends!
Hey Laurie, I’ve only recently studied what spiders represent. To me, they symbolize female energy. They are also quick, resourceful, and work alone most of the time. They’re weavers and tricksters. They offer wisdom, caution, divine inspiration. Spiders are adaptable… always moving from one place to another when they realize their web is no longer of use. They remind me of something primitive and ancient. Dark and unknown… which can be very threatening. It is because of that threat that I must investigate why I am fearful of them.
In regards to your question, has a christian has every showed me love in a way that made me want to know Jesus/God?… I see the Divine in people when they respect and love me for who I am… regardless if they claim to be christian or not. Love is the only remaining factor.
Jan, you are entitled to your own opinion… I respect you for that. However, it is a big world out there and who is to say that God doesn’t speak to everyone in their own language and culture?
June 21st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
MJ said “However, it is a big world out there and who is to say that God doesn?t speak to everyone in their own language and culture?” I actually agree with you. I definitely believe that there are “types” in every culture just as there are in the Jewish tradition that points to Jesus love sacrifice for mankind. A great book showing that is called “Peace Child” by Don Richardson. However, when given the message of Jesus these cultural types are understood as having been fulfilled through Jesus death and resurrection. MJ sometimes I think you and I are saying the same words but meaning different things.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
I have always appreciated spiders as I used to live in a very mosquito infested area. Also after reading Charlottes Web whats not to love. (Oh yeah they eat live things and suck their blood) Ha Ha. It is interesting pondering God’s creation and asking why? Theres a few beasties I am not sure I would’ve included.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
When I first heard all the commotion about this book it paid little attention, I was not real sure i cared to be interested in what i felt was slanderous to my Christ, Then I decided to read it, #1 it is all fiction that I understand, but boy some of it makes my blood boil. the part that worries me the most is people who do not believe in Christ thinking that they have just found the answer to all lifes mysterys. The dialogue i keep seeing shows that there are alot of us who believe who are willing to answer their questions. God Bless you all ,
July 25th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Dee, what does Christ mean when he says… “seek and ye shall find?”
Keep seeking and you will keep finding… that is the mystery of life!
I’m not too sure who you’re blessing when you state “there are a lot of us who believe who are willing to answer their questions. God bless you all ,”
August 18th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
I think God knows our heart regardless of whether or not we have been baptized. In the church I was raised in it was stressed waaaayyyyy too much and almost a show for the congregation. God knows our heart and sincerity of faith, and baptism is not a “guarantee” into heaven.
My mother and several others have made the point that the Da Vinci Code may stir up those most who are insecure in their faith. It would have been nice to expect a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, but I expect _nothing_ from Hollywood.
Even though we do not know all the details and reasons for events, just remember God is in control.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Hi Michael,
Gee, it’s been a while since anyone has posted anything!
As one who believes that, under normal circumstances, baptism is a requirement for salvation (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 3:21), I agree with you 100% that God knows our heart. That’s why the Catholic Church teaches baptism of desire and baptism by fire. The former is when the person would have been baptized in fulfillment of God’s command had they known it and if they were able. (St. Dismas, the repentant thief who was crucified with Jesus is an example of that.) Baptism by fire occurs when a person is martyred for the faith before they are able to receive baptism.
Most of us today do not fit into either of these categories. And while God knows our hearts, if we are being disobedient by refusing to be baptized when we know that we should, then sin has entered our hearts. Scripture says that we cannot say that we love God and live in disobedience to Him (1 John 2:4). Since we know from Scripture that baptism is necessary for salvation, if we refuse to obey, what is in our hearts is not good.
Baptism, like all of the other sacraments, is not just an empty ceremony. Sacraments are a channel by which we receive God’s grace. If we reduce it to a mere display or a public proclamation of our belief, then we have cheapened it.
You are also correct in pointing out that baptism is not a guarantee of salvation. The belief that once we are saved we are always saved is a relatively new concept in Christianity and there are no end of scripture passages to prove it is a false doctrine. I often hear people who believe in this doctrine say something to the effect that those passages are unclear and must be viewed in the light of the clearer passages. This sounds reasonable until you realize that the ‘clear passages’ are the ones that agree with whatever teaching they wish to promote and the unclear passages, if taken at face value, always contradict it. Personally, I do not see any ‘unclear’ passages on the matter of eternal security. I don’t see how the people that hold to it get it from the passages they quote to support the belief. (Please don’t take this as my doubting their sincerity. I know they believe they are correct but I don’t see the evidence as saying what they claim.)
As far as TDVC stirring up those who are weak in their faith, I would assume that it could happen in some cases but I would think that the more strongly you believe, the more likely you are to be offended by an attack on your faith. The weaker your faith is, the more confused you would be, and the less likely you would be to say something.
Brown’s book, or “The Jesus Papers” or The Gospel of Judas have not had any affect on my faith at all. The only effect it has had at all is to increase my belief in how gullible people can be and how we seem to have lost the ability to reason through an issue. People seem to be willing to believe almost anything these days as long as it relieves them from the responsibility of living a moral life. No idea is thought to be too ridiculous to consider.
Lastly, your reminder that God is in control is timely but we must also remember that we are God’s arms and legs. God’s sovereignty is not an excuse to avoid our responsibility to defend our faith when called on to do so.
Gee, I haven’t lost my ability to be incredibly long-winded.
August 19th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It’s a declaration of your salvation. It publicly showing the church that you gave your life to God. The only requirement for salvation is believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and that he is Lord of lords, king of kings and he gives us eternal life.
August 19th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Michaela,
I know that most Evangelicals believe as you do but the Bible is quite clear. Under normal circumstances you cannot be saved unless you are baptized. Here is the evidence:
Mark 16:16 [Jesus speaking] “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Jesus said quite clearly that belief and baptism is necessary for salvation. Opponents of this belief point to the second half where baptism is not mentioned but might it be worded that way to allow for baptism by desire?
John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Prior to the Reformation, no Christian author we know of denied that Jesus was talking about water baptism here. And what does Jesus do when the conversation with Nicodemus is finished? He takes His disciples out to baptize people underscoring His words.
Acts 2:38 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Peter is quite clear; it is repentance plus baptism that equals salvation, not repentance alone.
1 Pet 3:21 “Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah's flood], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ….” That’s pretty straightforward, baptism now saves you.
August 19th, 2006 at 6:06 am
But the Bible also says:
“For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” -Romans 5:10
But I don’t want to argue and debate with you. The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways. I hope this doesn’t sound like a cop out answer but only God knows right? I can’t say what I believe the absolute right thing. Maybe you’re right. Or maybe we’re both right. I just believe what I believe and I respect what you believe too.
Peace out Brother!
August 19th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Michaela,
If you are saying that Paul is teaching in Rom 5:10 that we don’t need baptism in order to be saved, then you are essentially saying that the Bible contradicts itself. I gave you four passages from Scripture that clearly show that baptism is a prerequisite under normal circumstances. If you say this passage means that it is not necessary, they you have a contradiction.
Yes, we are saved by the death of Jesus. That is why baptism is different from taking a bath or going for a swim in the lake. Baptism is special. Paul is not teaching here that we don’t need baptism; he’s telling us that ultimately our salvation rests on the death of Jesus. But we still need to get baptized.
While I respect that you don’t want to argue, you were the person who made the claim that we don’t need baptism in order to be saved. If you are going around telling others that that is the case, then you are teaching error. Catholics are always being accused of ignoring the Bible or substituting human tradition for scriptural truth. It’s a bit irritating to have an Evangelical - I’m assuming that’s your position - say that they don’t want to argue when the tables get turned.
Again, I don’t mean to be offensive but it is a cop out to say that only God knows what is right. He gave us the Bible. Why would He not want us to know what it teaches? And if the Bible is infallible, which I believe and I assume you do also, then why can’t we have certainty? Do you see my point?
August 25th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Yeah, ultimately our salvation rests on Jesus’ death. That’s what I’m saying. Baptism doesn’t change anything. We should get baptized…that I agree with.
And I don’t want to argue. Fighting about it gets us nowhere, to be honest. I don’t know the Bible inside and out but all I know is this: I gave my life to Jesus when I was a kid. I was saved. I was going to Heavan from that point on unless I renounced my faith. I only got baptized when I was 16. Almost 10 years later. All I can know for absolute certain is what is in my heart. Jesus saved me when I was a kid, even though I wasn’t baptized.
And also, what do you mean by we NEED to be baptized? Baptism releases the Holy Spirit in us. It also releases spiritual gifts and what not. So if that’s what you mean than I agree. God wants us to be baptized so the Holy Spirit can be fully released in us.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Michaela,
I used to believe exactly like you do. However, one day I discovered I had been wrong. Nowhere does the Bible teach that all we have to do is “ask Jesus into our hearts” or “give our lives to Jesus” and then we are going to Heaven no matter what.
I’ve shown you four passages from the Bible that teach quite clearly that baptism is a requirement for salvation unless something outside of our control prohibits us from receiving it. You haven’t addressed those passages at all nor have you shown me anything from the Bible that shows I’m wrong.
Salvation is not a one-time event; it is a process. Here’s what the Bible says on the matter:
Acts 2:47 Because of the Holy Spirit moving through the preaching of St. Peter, God was adding to the number of those being saved, not the number of the saved.
1 Cor 1:18 St Paul wrote to the Corinthian church and said that the cross was the power of God to those who “are being saved.” The Greek here indicates salvation is an on-going process. Paul is not talking about salvation as something that has already happed to the Corinthian believers.
2 Cor 2:15 Again, not saved but “are being saved.”
1 Pet 1:3-5 In this passage St. Peter speaks of our salvation as something which God will reveal to us in the last time. This would seem to be a reference to the particular judgment when we stand before God and find out where we will spend eternity. If it isn’t completely revealed until then, it can’t have been finished in the past.
1 Pet 1:6-7 In a continuation of the above passage St. Peter tells us that we have to suffer trials in this life so that our faith is tested. If testing is necessary, salvation can’t be something already completed.
2 Pet 1:3-11 St. Peter describes a whole process which starts with faith and builds on it by developing a series of virtues which flow from each other. It is this way that God gives us all things that pertain to life.
Baptism is what joins us to Christ. It puts an indelible seal on us which says that “we belong to Jesus.” Baptism also forgives any sins committed up to that point.
I could go on even more but not tonight. Please sit down with your Bible and go over the passages I mentioned. Read them with an open mind. Look at what the passage says rather than what you would like it to say. I did this almost 20 years ago and believe me, it’s an eye-opener.
August 26th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Salvation isn’t a process but it lives on. I don’t really know how to put it. When you accept Christ you are saved, you are going to heavan but it isn’t supposed to stop there. You shouldn’t be thinking “ok I’m saved and that’s all I need to do.” You should read your Bible and pray. Go to church, evangelize, get baptized. I think baptism is making a commitment to God. Recieving salvation is accepting Jesus into your heart and accepting his forgiveness but it shouldn’t “end” like that. I think baptism is commiting to God. To be honest, I didn’t get baptized until I was 16 because I didn’t want to commit to God. I wanted to do my own thing. But then I realized how much I needed him and I re-dedicated my life to him. Then about 9 months later I got baptized. BUT that didn’t mean I wasn’t saved. I was rebellious like many christians have been but I came back to God.
1 Pet 1:3-5 is a good passage. We don’t recieve salavation physically so to speak until we get to heavan. And I think the final judgement, for christians, is based on what we did with our lives and how much faith we put in God. I think that God has “jobs” for us to do in Heavan. And I think that the judgement is on what we should do. If we wasted our time and our money why would God give us a huge responsibility in Heavan? For Christians, I don’t think the judgement is whether we get to go into heavan or not. But I can’t say for sure. God hasn’t revealed his whole plan in the Bible and everything he’s going to do in heavan and on earth and what his judgement is going to look like. Some things we just have to believe by faith.
I can’t answer all the questions that are in my head and in yours. Neither of us know all the answers. It doesn’t matter how long we’ve been a christian or how much we read the Bible there are just some things we just don’t know. And I’m ok with that. Are you?
August 26th, 2006 at 12:13 am
Oh and about before…I was coping out. I just didn’t feel like saying anything. Dumb huh? Debating, especially about theology, the Bible, faith and all that jazz is not my forte. And I really just don’t want to argue with you.
And to be honest…in the beginning of your reply you bluntly said I was wrong. That everything I believe is wrong and I wasn’t saved when I was kid. You can’t go up to a Muslim and say “Allah isn’t real and you’re wrong and everything you believe is wrong.” They probably won’t listen to you. It seems like you’re trying to evangelize to me (in a way) and telling me I’m wrong isn’t effective. But I’m not offended because I’m pointing it out and I sort of see where you’re coming from. Hey, I’m keeping an open mind about things. Sorry to leave two messages but I thought of this after.
August 26th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Michaela,
I don’t think that I ever said that everything you believed was wrong. My conversation with you began by when I made the statement to Michael on Aug 18th that baptism was necessary for salvation and you wrote the next day that it was not. You told me that I was wrong before I addressed anything to you. Not that I mind. I’ve been wrong before and I will be wrong again. That is why I sought the answer to the issue in the Scriptures. I provided four passages which I maintain clearly say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. I understand that you do not believe that but you haven’t shown me a scriptural basis for your beliefs. The same is true about my statement that salvation is a process rather than something that happens to us at a single point in time. Again, I provided the relevant passages to support that view. Again, I understand that you disagree but you provided no biblical support.
I see that you believe in the concept of eternal security, that once we are saved we are always saved but there are a multitude of clear scriptural teaching that it is quite possible not to lose our salvation because that implies that it was not our choice but to throw our salvation away.
Matt 18:23-35 The eorgiven servant lost his forgiveness because he refused to forgive his fellow servant.
Romans 5:2 St Paul writes that “we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (going to heaven). Salvation is something we hope for.
Romans 8:24 St Paul he says, “For in this hope we are saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?” Since hope concerns things that are possible but not certain, the saints in heaven no longer have the virtue of hope as they no longer need it. There is nothing left for them to hope for.
Rom 11:21-22 spare branches, continue or be cut off.
1 Cor 9:27 … after preaching … I myself disqualified. St Paul battled earthly temptations lest he succumb to them and lose heaven.
1 Cor 10:12 … thinks that he stands … lest he fall.
Phil 2:12 … work out salvation with fear and trembling.
1 Tim 5:8 A Christian who fails to provide for his family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
2 Tim 3:11-13 If we remain faithful to God, He will remain faithful to us. If we reject Him, however, He will reject us.
Heb 4:1 … fear of failing to reach salvation.
1 Jn 5:16,17 … some sins are mortal resulting is spiritual death, some are not.
Rev 3:5 If Jesus can say that if you are victorious, He will not erase your name from the book of life, then it must be possible for a name to be erased.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Ok. I don’t have “proof” so to speak. I know this won’t be good enough for you but I just know. It’s faith. And I haven’t been reading the Bible for 20 years. And you can throw all these verses at me and I respect that you really know your Bible but I can’t say that I do. But does it really matter? The disciples didn’t have a Bible to read out to everybody. The only proof they had was what Jesus had done in their lives. And that’s all I have. I have faith. And I know that isn’t good enough for some people but until I get to the point where I know the Bible pretty well I don’t think I can give you proof.
And you believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation, correct? Then why did you say that salvation is something we hope for(Romans 5:2)? If I’m saved because I get baptized then where’s the hope? I’m a little lost.
September 1st, 2006 at 8:21 am
Michaela,
If you ask a Mormon why he believes in the Book of Mormon, as well as their other false scriptures, he will tell you that he knows it’s true because he can feel it in his heart. A Jehovah’s Witness will say something similar. Clearly, just because we believe something with all your heart does not mean that it is true. That goes for me just as much as it goes for you. I hope that you don’t think I’m picking on you or trying to ruin your day. I have no desire to do either.
Although there are some things that we can know about God just from looking at His creation (Ps 19:1) He had to reveal quite a lot that we would never have arrived at on our own. In Old Testament times God spoke to us through the prophets but now He has revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1). Jesus revealed these truths to His apostles who, in turn, passed them on to us. Some of these truths were written down (the Bible) while others were only passed on orally (2 Thes 2:15). If what we believe is not found in either of these two sources it is nothing but speculation and if it disagrees with either of them, it contradicts what God has told us and is wrong no matter how right it feels. I quote the Bible a lot here for two reasons. First, it shows that it is not just my idea and secondly because, in my experience, Evangelicals want to see where the Bible says such and such. I’m not trying to rub what I know about Scripture in your face.
To answer your question, although baptism saves us because it cleanses us of all sins committed up to that point, we can still commit a mortal sin - one that will separate us from God resulting in our spiritual death. If we die in a state of mortal sin, we will go to Hell. Mortal sins can be forgiven by confession which God forgives us by using a priest to absolve us of our sin and put us in a state of grace. If we die in a state of grace, we will go to Heaven. (We may have to pass through Purgatory first but that is another matter.) Remember, salvation is not a one-time event. It is a process and there is no such thing as eternal security. Therefore we could be baptized but still hope for salvation.
One little additional point, many Evangelicals with whom I’ve discussed these matters in the past have gotten the idea that Catholics sit around and fret over whether or not we will get into Heaven. After all, one little mortal sin and we blow the whole thing. That’s not the case. Mortal sins are not easy to commit. You really have to be trying. Committing a mortal sin is the equivalent of telling God that you want nothing to do with Him anymore. This is not to say that there aren’t some Catholics who do worry about this constantly. Martin Luther, when he was still Catholic and in an Augustinian monastery, had this problem. Finally a Franciscan friar pointed out Rom 1:16 to him. The people who are like this are that way because they either have a bad image of God or they do not completely understand the Church’s teaching on the subject.
September 1st, 2006 at 10:13 am
You’re absolutely right! Just because I believe something doesn’t make it true. But thousands and thousands of Christians believe the same thing. And I’m sure they know some scripture to back themselves up. So…?
And another thing…I’m not catholic. I’m protestant so our views on Christianity are a little different. You said if our sins are forgiven and we die in a “state of grace” we’ll go to heavan, right? Well I think I should always asking the Lord for forgiveness everyday but if I died one day and I wasn’t forgiven for something, I think I would still go to Heaven.
And what to you mean by mortal sins? Because we sin everyday. So…?
September 1st, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Michaela,
I think you underestimate how many people agree with you. I would say millions rather than thousands. Of course there are 1 billion Catholics in the world today. The problem is that truth does not get decided by a vote so it doesn’t matter how many people agree with you or how many agree with me.
You speak of a Protestant viewpoint but there are approximately 30,000 different Protestant denominations at last count. Each of them believing something different and something that they felt was important enough to reject Jesus’ call for unity in John 17. Also, while I know of no Protestants who believe that are sins are forgiven in baptism, I know plenty who reject the idea that once we are saved we are always saved. When I returned to the Catholic Church from Evangelicalism I had long ago decided that eternal security was not a scriptural doctrine.
The problem remains that, if we believe two things that contradict each other, we may both be wrong but we cannot both be right. It is irrelevant whether the idea is a Protestant one or a Catholic one, what matters is if it is correct according to what God has revealed to us. If what we believe contradicts God’s revelation, then it is our duty to change what we believe so that we do agree with Him.
According to 1 John 5:16-17 speaks of sins which are deadly and sins which are not deadly. Mortal sins are those which are deadly; venial sins are not deadly. They are just terms which theologians have attached to the biblical concepts. This does not mean deadly in a fleshly way; we are talking about spiritual death, separation from God.
This does not mean that venial sins should be taken lightly. Even if they are not serious enough to separate us from God, they still weaken us spiritually. They make it easier for us to commit a mortal sin. A venial sin won’t keep us out of Heaven but it is still something to be avoided.
As I said last time, it is not easy to commit a mortal sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that three conditions must be met for a sin to be mortal. 1) It must be a serious matter. Anything that breaks one of the Ten Commandments for example. 2) The person must be aware that he is doing something that is abhorrent to God. If the person is honestly not aware that something is a sin, it is not a mortal sin. 3) The sinner must be doing this in his free will. An extreme example of this would be if someone held your child at gun point and threatened to kill him unless you stole something. Despite the fact that stealing would normally be a mortal sin it would not be so in this case.
A mortal sin is, in effect, saying “God, I want nothing to do with you any more.” If you feel that way about God, why would God force Himself on you? If He would, why does He give us free will? I know Evangelicals don’t believe that God will force us to be saved. Why would He force us to remain saved?
A belief in eternal security also demands that you believe that, at some point in time, God forgives all of our sins including the ones we have not yet committed. Evangelicals believe that this happens when they are born again. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that when Jesus spoke of being born again in John 3 (more literally, born from above) He was talking about being baptized. Catholic believe that baptism forgives any sins committed up to that point but not future sins. Scripture tells us which belief is correct.
In 1 John 1:9, St. John tells us that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. For our sins to be forgiven, they must first be confessed. (For the time being let’s skip the part about confessing directly to God or to God through a priest.) If we don’t confess our sins, they cannot be forgiven. Now the belief that our future sins are forgiven is based on the truth that God knows about them in advance. While that is true, it is irrelevant because we don’t have God’s foreknowledge and can’t know of a sin until we actually commit the sin. If we don’t know about it, we can’t confess it therefore it cannot be forgiven.
Now you might argue that when a person is born again they are confessing their future sins generally but not specifically and that is good enough. Apparently not because St. John is writing these words to a group of people who would already have been born again if the Evangelicals are correct. He calls them his brethren. Why would St. John tell them to do something they’ve already done, which he knows they’ve done and only needs to be done once? The simple fact is that our future sins cannot be forgiven until we commit and confess them. This is the clear teaching of Scripture.
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:02 am
I know there are billions of people who believe the same things I do and I there are a an amazing amount of Catholics. That wasn’t really my point. I was merely saying that I’m not the only one who believes the same thing. And I don’t want to take a vote on who’s right. Billions of people can be wrong about the same thing.
Having different denominations is not wrong. The Christian community is just one huge church with different parts. Different parts do different things.
1 Corinthians 12:12 says “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.”
There are just alot of parts to the protestant church. And I think it’s awesome. There are different styles of worship and different kinds of church services. But it’s the same body.
And absolutely agree with you. We can’t both be right and we could both be wrong. It’s hard to be wrong but if I am wrong, I’m absolutely sure God would let me know. I believe I’m right but maybe God isn’t telling me anything yet. My one goal is to seek out the truth.
What exactly is a “mortal sin”? Not following the 10 commmandments? Give me something specific.
I believe all sin separates us from God. That’s why we needed Jesus to bridge the gap. I believe if I sin I am separated from God until I ask for forgiveness. God can’t be in the presence of sin because of his holiness and perfectness. It’s says so in the Bible but I’m not sure where. But when I ask for forgiveness I am made right with him. I’m white as snow. Not perfect but I can be in his presence again.
I also believe if I’m saved breaking the 10 commandments, like committing adultery, won’t keep me out of Heavan. Not that I should take it lightly. It’s a command not to commit adultery.`
I believe the only way to not be saved anymore is to renounce your faith. Basically choosing not to believe in Jesus anymore. If you didn’t want to be saved then you can renounce your faith. God knows your heart. If you truly didn’t want to be saved and to be part of the faith he’d know. It’s not like it’s something you have to say outloud. God knows.
I don’t believe God forgives future sins. That would be foolish. If that were true we could run around and do what every wanted. Chuck the Bible out the window and forget everything Jesus has said. My sins are forgiven when I ask them to be forgiven. I think baptism symbolizes being born again. I believe when you are saved you are born again and when you get baptized it’s a symbol of that. This is how I’ve heard it: When you’re standing in the water or whatever you are your old sinful self. When you are dunked under you are leaving that behind you and you are accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. And when you come up you’re a new person so to speak. But I think it’s just a symbol. It’s amazing and important but I don’t think my sins are only forgiven when I get baptized.
Now you’ll be happy because I consulted with some people because I am very curious about all this and I was given a verse:
Romans 10: 9-10 says “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.”
Basically this verse is saying if we believe with our hearts and confess with our mouths then we are saved. It doesn’t say anything about baptism being a requirement for salvation.
September 2nd, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Michaela,
I have to disagree with your viewpoint on denominations. Of all the things that Jesus could have prayed for the night before He was crucified He chose to pray that all of His followers would be unified. He prayed that we would be one the same way that He and His Father were one (John 17:11). I can’t see the Father and the Son having doctrinal differences. Denominations bring division and confusion, they are not of God. They usually spring from a fight. In Matt 16:18 Jesus told St. Peter that he was the ‘rock’ on which Jesus was going to build His church, not His churches. If denominations were a good thing, why did we not get any until the 16th century? There were no denominations for the first 3/4ths of the Church’s existence.
St. Paul is writing about people being the different parts of the body, not denominations. In the very first chapter of the letter you quote he warns against sectarianism (1 Cor 1:12-13). If he were writing today he would be warning us about saying that ‘We are of Martin Luther’ or ‘We are of John Wesley’ or whoever started whichever denomination you belong to.
Denominations are not merely different styles of worship. Each denomination teaches something they claim to be the truth and it differs from what the other denominations teach. Yet all of them claim to be teaching what the Holy Spirit teaches. Is the Holy Spirit some kind of cosmic joker telling each denomination a different story? I don’t think so but you’d have to believe that if you believe that denominations are vital to the life of the Church. Denominations are not awesome, they are awful. They are an abomination.
As I said in my last post, a mortal sin is a sin that causes us to die spiritually. In other words, it separates us from God. I mentioned the three factors that make a sin a mortal sin the last time. Breaking one of the 10 commandments would qualify as being a serious matter so, if the person were aware of this and it was done willingly, it would be a mortal sin. Let me get a bit more concrete.
The Catholic Church teaches that engaging in sex outside of marriage is a serious sin. If you know that sex outside of marriage is against God’s will yet you choose to engage in it anyway, then you would have committed a mortal sin. If you died before you confessed it, you would go to Hell. However, if you are raped, you have not sinned because it was against your will. Also, if you really did not know that sex outside of marriage was wrong - perhaps you were raised in a culture where it was the accepted thing to do and there are some of these - then you have not committed a mortal sin because you were acting in ignorance rather than rebellion.
You said>> I believe all sin separates us from God. That’s why we needed Jesus to bridge the gap. I believe if I sin I am separated from God until I ask for forgiveness. God can’t be in the presence of sin because of his holiness and perfectness. It’s says so in the Bible but I’m not sure where. But when I ask for forgiveness I am made right with him. I’m white as snow. Not perfect but I can be in his presence again. > I also believe if I’m saved breaking the 10 commandments, like committing adultery, won’t keep me out of Heavan. Not that I should take it lightly. It’s a command not to commit adultery.
September 4th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
You’re right in a way. I don’t think Jesus wanted there to be denominations and they probably did start from a fight. It wasn’t planned but it happened anyway. Something good can come from bad things.
The thing is, it happened. There are denominations now. What can you do about it? And if denominations are so bad then shouldn’t the protestants and the catholics unite? We are all Christians, believing in the same God and the same Jesus.
I don’t think denominations are vital to the life of the church. We can do without them. But we have them. And I know that it isn’t just different styles of worship. I know each denomination believes in something a little different. But is something so small worth fighting about? Is it worth arguing who’s right and who’s wrong? I don’t think so. If they taught something that went against the Bible or against Jesus or against something so important to the faith then I would be worried. But I don’t know all the denominations out there and the ones that I know are just different in a little way. Paul wouldn’t have argued with something small.
I agree with you that breaking the 10 commandments willingly is really really serious. But where does is say in the Bible if you do so and haven’t confessed of that sin and you die you’re going to hell? And why are you quoting what I said?
Also, I did what you told me to do awhile ago, I sat down and read all the verses you gave me.
Matk 16:16 - The verse does not say whoever is not baptized is condemned. It says those who don’t believe.
1 Peter 1:3-5 - When we give our lives to Christ it’s like we are insuring we get a present. We don’t recieve it now but we will later. We recieve eternal life when we die.
Romans 8:24 - You need to look at the verse before. Romans 8:23 says we wait eagerly for the redemption of our bodies and then it goes to vrs. 24. The word “hope” also means “to believe, desire or trust.” Ex. My hope is in Jesus…My belief, desire, trust is in Jesus.
Hebrews 4:1 - That verse is talking about the Sabbath. First off, the title of the passage is called ” A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God” and the rest of the passage is talking about the Sabbath. You can’t take some verses out of context. Hebrews 4:1 can be interpreted anyway you want by itself. You need the rest of the passage to know it’s meaning.
You also said once “Baptism is what joins us to Christ. It puts an indelible seal on us which says that we belong to Christ.”
If we have an indelible seal on us that says we belong to Christ that means it never goes away. Therefore, we have eternal security because people who belong to Christ don’t go to Hell.
September 4th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Michaela,
OK, I’ll bite. What good has come from denominationalism. All I see is disunity and confusion. Denominations weaken the Church. They make us less able to fight the enemy because we’re too busy fighting ourselves. I heard someone say once that Jesus is coming back for a bride, not a harem.
We should be working for unity including uniting Catholics and Protestants. But unity cannot come at the cost of the truth.
You’re missing the point about denominations. It’s the fighting that produced them. Sometimes the differences are very small but sometimes the divisions are over major points. The groups that have divided over the minor points have even more to repent of than those who split over bigger issues. However, regardless of how big the issue is, once pride gets in the way, the truth no longer matters and divisions ensue.
I believe that the Reformation was completely unnecessary. All of the issues that Luther had when he nailed his 95 Theses to the church door were taken care of at the Council of Trent. Unlike Sts. Francis of Assisi, Dominic and Teresa of Avila who also saw major problems in the Catholic Church and spent their lives reforming it, Luther broke with the Church and started adding new, false doctrines such as salvation by faith alone and his view that all we needed was the Bible. (The latter is, I acknowledge, an oversimplification.) Had he followed the example of his predecessors - he overlapped with St. Teresa of Avila - we’d probably be calling him St. Martin now. Luther was ruined by pride. He thought that the Jews would flock to him once he broke with the papacy and, when they didn’t, he got angry and told his followers that, if they were to encounter a Jew on a bridge, they should throw him off. Toward the end of his life he wrote to one of the kings of his day saying that it would be fine to take a second wife.
1 John 1:9 is very clear. Confession is required for forgiveness. Therefore unconfessed sins are not forgiven. A person who commits a mortal sin and does not confess it remains separated from God. They are impure because they have unforgiven sin and nothing impure can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27).
I’m sorry if quoting you bothered you. I was trying to be clear about what I was responding to.
Mark 16:16 Jesus speaking: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
You are correct. Jesus does not mention baptism in the second part of the verse but He does say that it is necessary to be saved. I believe that the reason He didn’t mention baptism in the second part is because if you cannot be baptized for reasons outside of your control, it will not prevent you from going to Heaven. But you can’t just skip the first part of the verse. Jesus clearly says that there are two requirements to be saved: belief and baptism.
re: 1 Pet 1:3-5
I pretty much agree with what you said about this passage except that I would say that we will receive salvation if we remain faithful.
re: Rom 8:24
You also have to look at the verse that comes after it. We are hoping for salvation because we have not yet received it.
re: Heb 4:1
First, the titles are not part of the original text. They are put there by the editors of whichever version you are using. They are not part of the inerrant text.
If you start reading the last few verses of Heb 3 and then continue in ch 4, you will see that the author is using the sabbath rest of the Mosaic Law as type of our salvation. Those who fail to enter into the rest refers to those who, for whatever reason, failed to be saved. The letter to the Hebrews was written to Jews who had become Christian so the author is talking about Christians who will not be saved for whatever reason.
What makes you think that people who belong to Christ can’t go to Hell? Where does Scripture teach that? God gave us a free will. He doesn’t force salvation on us.
September 9th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Ok I give! I’ve been thinking about the whole denominations thing and you’re right. They’re bad. You’re right that they started from fighting and Jesus probably wouldn’t want them.
How do you know that Martin Luther had false teachings? Plus, people were so extreme in that time. Catholics were killing Protestants and Protestants were killing Catholics. It was crazy. Martin Luther wasn’t the only one. I think that was the church’s down fall.
Yes, you need to confess your sins to be forgiven but where in the Bible does it talk about “Mortal sins” and other ones. Where does it make the seperation in the Bible?
Quoting me didn’t bother me, I was just curious why you did it.
Ok, well if you aren’t baptized then it won’t keep you out of Heavan. You said so yourself. That’s my whole point.
You’re right. God doesn’t force salvation on us. I’m saying those who are saved belong to Christ. Those who belong to Christ can’t go to hell because they are saved. If you are not saved and/or don’t want to be saved you do not belong to Christ.
Where in the Bible does it talk about mortal sins and all that other stuff you were talking about that had to do with that?
And by the way, I have a friend who is Catholic so I don’t want you to think I hate Catholics or I say certain things out of ignorance. I am constantly asking questions about what she believes because I don’t want to be ignorant. I totally respect what you and other Catholics believe and I always want to know more about it.
September 9th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
sorry I repeated my question about mortal sins.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Michaela,
re: Martin Luther
I knew about Luther because Church history is a hobby of mine. I’ve read a lot about him and I’ve also done some reading of his own writings. He had a lot of good points but he also had some major problems, one of which was a huge ego. For example, when he made his German translation of the Bible, he inserted the word ‘alone’ into Rom 3:28 even though it isn’t there in the Greek. Then he wrote to a friend of his by