Baptism Is Not A "work" For Salvation

[phatcatholic]

protestants and non-catholics,

i am interested in your response to the following article:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Isn't baptism a good work, and since Catholics claim that one normatively needs baptism for salvation that Catholics teach salvation by works?

A: There are several issues here that ought to be touched on. First, baptism is a normative necessity--not an absolute necessity--for salvation. An absolute necessity is one which admits of no exceptions. Baptism is not that kind of necessity, for God can and does save people who do not know that they should be baptized but would be if they knew it and people who have no opportunity for baptism. God does not hold against a person what they are unable to obtain or what they innocently don't know they need to obtain.

Second, the Catholic Church is very explicit about the fact one does not have to do good works to enter a state of salvation (or, for that matter, to stay in a state of salvation--all one has do to is avoid mortal sin to stay in a state of salvation). The Council of Trent forcefully declared: "[N]othing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For 'if it is by faith, it is no more by works. Otherwise,' as the Apostle says, 'grace is no more grace'" (Trent, Decree on Justification 8, citing Romans 11:6).

The objection that baptism is somehow a good work which earns salvation is simply ridiculous. To illustrate how absurd the idea is that simply allowing oneself to get wet "earns" eternal life, I use an illustration based on my own experience:

Back when Renee, my wife, died, I was a starving philosophy grad student in Arkansas. I had no money to pay for the treatment she received (which, I discovered after her death, ran into the tens of thousands of dollars for just a week of chemo treatment). She died because she had a very aggressive case of colon cancer which had started and spread widely before she began to manifest any symptoms.

Now let us suppose that during those dark days, a physician came to us and said, "Renee, there are a lot of malignant tumors, and they will kill you if we don't do something about them. I have found a treatment which will take them all away. It is a very, very costly treatment, and I know you don't have the ability to pay, so I will pay the fees for you out of my own pocket. All you have to do is let us lower you into a tank of medicinal fluid and all of those tumors will melt away, and you will live."

Would we say that Renee had earned her healing merely by allowing herself to be bathed in healing waters? She hadn't paid the doctor one red cent. In fact, he paid all the fees out of his own pocket! Renee merely submitted to the treatment. The whole idea that she had earned her healing would be absurd.

How much more absurd is it to say that baptism earns salvation when Jesus, the Great Physician, comes to us and says, "Friend, you have multiple sins clinging to your soul, and they will cause you to be lost if we do not do something about them. I have a treatment which will take them all away. It is a very, very costly treatment, and I know that you do not have the ability to pay. So I--Jesus--will pay the entire price myself. All you have to do is allow yourself to be lowered into a tank of water and all those sins will melt away, and you will live forever."

Simply getting wet does not in any way pay for or earn eternal life. Eternal life is a gift--a gift which Christ has chosen to bestow on us through baptism. Allowing ourselves to be baptized is a passive act; one does not baptize oneself, after all, symbolizing that eternal life is something given to you from outside, not something you reach out and take. It is simply the way we submit to Christ and receive his gift. Baptism earns nothing, and the idea it does is patently absurd. The very structure of baptism is set up to heighten the sense of humility and submission to God and his gift. Only a person with a big, BIG doctrinal ax to grind could possibly twist it into some kind of self-righteous attempt to "earn" salvation by the force of our works.

from the Internet Question Box

-----------------------------------

i post this article b/c i have seen non-catholics post many times in this board that catholics really believe in salvation by works, as witnessed by our sacraments.

does this shed light on the matter? let me know....

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Aloysius]

interesting. i think the claim of it being a work, however, is related to the ancient phrase proven by the dead sea scrolls to be in frequent use at that time as "works of the law" which many Biblical scholars now seem to hold that St. Paul was talking about. these are not just good works, but performing some ritual of the law in order to be justified: for example, circumsision. the same thing seemingly applies to this, saying you're not earning it by anything you're doing. the difference is, however, that sacraments are physical manifestations of God's bestowing of grace upon a person. by circumsision they only made a statement about being a part of God's covenant, by Baptism God comes to dwell within a person, and God bestows grace upon them.

[phatcatholic]

circle, bruce, any comments? how does this article effect ur views on the sacraments?

holla back,

phatcatholic

[twf]

It should be pointed out that even the act of repenting and accepting Christ is a work in a certain sense, as it is an act of the will. People who say we can do nothing to obtain salvation contradict themselves when they say that one must still believe/repent as that is an act of the will. Christ did the work necessary for us to obtain salvation, but we must still co-operate with God to receive salvation, though not to earn it. (Though true faith and conviction of sin...requires the Spirit's work, so grace is involved in the entire process).

Edited January 12, 2004 by twf

[Truth]

protestants and non-catholics,

i am interested in your response to the following article:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Isn't baptism a good work, and since Catholics claim that one normatively needs baptism for salvation that Catholics teach salvation by works?

A: There are several issues here that ought to be touched on. First, baptism is a normative necessity--not an absolute necessity--for salvation. An absolute necessity is one which admits of no exceptions. Baptism is not that kind of necessity, for God can and does save people who do not know that they should be baptized but would be if they knew it and people who have no opportunity for baptism. God does not hold against a person what they are unable to obtain or what they innocently don't know they need to obtain.

Second, the Catholic Church is very explicit about the fact one does not have to do good works to enter a state of salvation (or, for that matter, to stay in a state of salvation--all one has do to is avoid mortal sin to stay in a state of salvation). The Council of Trent forcefully declared: "[N]othing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For 'if it is by faith, it is no more by works. Otherwise,' as the Apostle says, 'grace is no more grace'" (Trent, Decree on Justification 8, citing Romans 11:6).

The objection that baptism is somehow a good work which earns salvation is simply ridiculous. To illustrate how absurd the idea is that simply allowing oneself to get wet "earns" eternal life, I use an illustration based on my own experience:

Back when Renee, my wife, died, I was a starving philosophy grad student in Arkansas. I had no money to pay for the treatment she received (which, I discovered after her death, ran into the tens of thousands of dollars for just a week of chemo treatment). She died because she had a very aggressive case of colon cancer which had started and spread widely before she began to manifest any symptoms.

Now let us suppose that during those dark days, a physician came to us and said, "Renee, there are a lot of malignant tumors, and they will kill you if we don't do something about them. I have found a treatment which will take them all away. It is a very, very costly treatment, and I know you don't have the ability to pay, so I will pay the fees for you out of my own pocket. All you have to do is let us lower you into a tank of medicinal fluid and all of those tumors will melt away, and you will live."

Would we say that Renee had earned her healing merely by allowing herself to be bathed in healing waters? She hadn't paid the doctor one red cent. In fact, he paid all the fees out of his own pocket! Renee merely submitted to the treatment. The whole idea that she had earned her healing would be absurd.

How much more absurd is it to say that baptism earns salvation when Jesus, the Great Physician, comes to us and says, "Friend, you have multiple sins clinging to your soul, and they will cause you to be lost if we do not do something about them. I have a treatment which will take them all away. It is a very, very costly treatment, and I know that you do not have the ability to pay. So I--Jesus--will pay the entire price myself. All you have to do is allow yourself to be lowered into a tank of water and all those sins will melt away, and you will live forever."

Simply getting wet does not in any way pay for or earn eternal life. Eternal life is a gift--a gift which Christ has chosen to bestow on us through baptism. Allowing ourselves to be baptized is a passive act; one does not baptize oneself, after all, symbolizing that eternal life is something given to you from outside, not something you reach out and take. It is simply the way we submit to Christ and receive his gift. Baptism earns nothing, and the idea it does is patently absurd. The very structure of baptism is set up to heighten the sense of humility and submission to God and his gift. Only a person with a big, BIG doctrinal ax to grind could possibly twist it into some kind of self-righteous attempt to "earn" salvation by the force of our works.

from the Internet Question Box

-----------------------------------

i post this article b/c i have seen non-catholics post many times in this board that catholics really believe in salvation by works, as witnessed by our sacraments.

does this shed light on the matter? let me know....

pax christi,

phatcatholic

I sorry for that person that think baptism is part of salvation. If that was the case you guys would have a problem. But, it lead to your like of understanding of the Word of God, from the high (pope) to the low (you). Without it you can not understand the WORD.

Baptism/Baptize both have there root in the Greek "bapto," meaning to immerse, dip, or plunge under water. We know that Catholics only use it metaphorically. Using a dipper to baptize.

[hyperdulia again]

ACTUALLY, in the Eastern Parts of our Church people ARE baptised by emersion. There was nothing symbolic about my baptism. I died and rose with Jesus Christ.

[Aloysius]

the matter needed is water. even the Apostles in their didache made exceptions, saying to do it in living water like a river, but it's not necessary, you could do it by immersion in such and such a situ and you know, even the pouring on of water is fine, just gotta be water and gptta be in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

[phatcatholic]

I sorry for that person that think baptism is part of salvation. If that was the case you guys would have a problem. But, it lead to your like of understanding of the Word of God, from the high (pope) to the low (you). Without it you can not understand the WORD.

Baptism/Baptize both have there root in the Greek "bapto," meaning to immerse, dip, or plunge under water. We know that Catholics only use it metaphorically. Using a dipper to baptize.

Truth,

u gotta do ur homework bro:

------------------------------------

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

Baptism: Immersion Only?

Although Latin-rite Catholics are usually baptized by infusion (pouring), they know that immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are also valid ways to baptize. Fundamentalists, however, regard only baptism by immersion as true baptism, concluding that most Catholics are not validly baptized at all.

Although the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism, Fundamentalists argue that the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means "to immerse." They also maintain that only immersion reflects the symbolic significance of being "buried" and "raised" with Christ (see Romans 6:3-4).

It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." No one in ancient Israel practiced immersion before dinner, but the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring."

Christian Baptism

The Fundamentalist contention that baptizo always means immersion is an oversimplification. This is especially true because in Christian usage the word had a highly particular meaning distinct from the term’s ordinary, everyday usage.

The same principle can be seen with other special Christian terms, such as "Trinity" and "agape" (divine love), that were originally ordinary Greek words with no special religious significance. The earliest evidence of anyone referring to God as a "Trinity" is a letter by Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autolycum [A.D. 181]). Before the Christian usage, a "trinity" (triad in Greek) was simply any group of three things.

However, as Christians made theological use of the term, it quickly gained a new, technical sense, referring specifically to the three persons of the Godhead. When Christians professed that God is a "Triad," they did not mean a group of three gods, but one God in three persons. Here, an everyday word was being used in a special, theological sense.

The same is true of agape, originally a general term for any sort of "love" very much like the English word. Greek had other, more specific terms for particular kinds of love, such as philia (friendship), eros (sexual love), and storge (affection); but early Christians quickly found that there was no adequate term for the divine love revealed by Jesus and infused into their own hearts. By default they began using agape, which then came to mean divine love specifically and lost its original sense of love generally.

In the same way, baptizo acquired a specialized Christian usage distinct from its original meaning. In fact, it already had a complex history of specifically religious usages even before Christians adopted it. Long before Jesus’ day, Gentile converts to Judaism were "baptized" as well as circumcised. Then John the Baptist performed a "baptism of repentance" for Jews as a dramatic prophetic gesture indicating that they were as much in need of conversion as pagans. Through these usages baptizo acquired associations of initiation, conversion, and repentance.

Given this history, it was natural for Jesus and his followers to use the same word for Christian baptism, though it was not identical either to the Jewish baptism or to that of John. But it is completely misguided to try to determine the meaning of the word in its Christian sense merely on the basis of ordinary secular usage. It would be like thinking that the doctrine of the Trinity is polytheism or that the New Testament exhortation to "love one another" means only to be fond of each other. To understand what Christian baptism entailed, we must examine not what the word meant in other contexts, but what it meant and how it was practiced in a Christian context.

Inner and Outer Baptism

One important aspect of Christian baptism in the New Testament is the clear relationship between being baptized with water and being "baptized with the Holy Spirit", or "born again." This tract is primarily concerned with the mode of baptism, not its effects [Footnote: For more on the relationship between baptism and rebirth, see John 3:5; Acts 2:38, 19:2–3, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21; and also the Catholic Answers tract Baptismal Grace.]; but even non-Catholic Christians must admit that the New Testament clearly associates water baptism with Spirit baptism and rebirth (even if they do not interpret this relationship as cause and effect).

Right from the beginning, as soon as the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost, water and Spirit went hand in hand: "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" (Acts 2:38). (Before that time, the Spirit had not yet been given; that is why the apostles themselves did not receive Spirit baptism at the time of their water baptism.)

In Acts 10:44, the first Gentiles to whom Peter preached received the Holy Spirit even before their water baptism. This is always possible, for God is free to operate outside the sacraments as well as within them. In this case it was fitting for the Spirit to be given before baptism, in order to show God’s acceptance of believing Gentiles. Even under these circumstances, however, the connection to water baptism is still evident from Peter’s response: "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47).

Still later in Acts, when Paul found people who did not have the Spirit, he immediately questioned whether they had received Christian water baptism. Upon learning that they had not, he baptized them and laid hands on them, and they received the Spirit (Acts 19:1–6).

These passages illustrate the connection between water and Spirit first made by Jesus himself: "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

Earlier we saw that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" was depicted as "pouring." But these passages show that the "baptism" or "pouring" of the Spirit is itself closely related to water baptism.

This provides some balance to the Fundamentalist argument that only baptism by immersion adequately symbolizes death and resurrection with Jesus. It is true that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239). (Immersion is actually the usual mode of baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.) On the other hand, pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit also associated with water baptism. And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing signified by baptism. No one mode has exclusive symbolical validity over the others.

Physical Difficulties

Paul was baptized in a house. In fact, he was baptized standing up (Acts 9:17–18). When Ananias came to baptize him, he said, "And now why do you wait? Rise [literally, "stand up"] and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).

After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.

Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).

Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.

What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command. The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.

Baptism in the Early Church

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."

Ancient Christian Mosaics Show Pouring

Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is always shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches, paintings in the catacombs, designs on ordinary household objects like cups and spoons, engravings on marble—it is always baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.

----------------------------------------

make sure u read that article.

i'll save the argument FOR the necessity of baptism for someone who has more time on their hands. if i can, i'll address this later.

God Bless you in your search for Truth,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

bump................for response to the original article that started this thread

[M.SIGGA]

I sorry for that person that think baptism is part of salvation. If that was the case  you guys would have a problem. But, it lead to your like of understanding of the Word of God, from the high (pope) to the low (you). Without it you can not understand the WORD.

Baptism/Baptize both have there root in the Greek "bapto," meaning to immerse, dip, or plunge under water. We know that Catholics only use it metaphorically. Using a dipper to baptize.

Pouring and immersion are used, but I've never heard of using a ladle-type intrument. Truth also remember that mainline protestants "christen" in which water is sprinkled from the minister's hands - remember that all protestants are not evangelical. This is extremly metaphorical. Emersion has been used sometimes in the Catholic Church and always in the Eastern Catholic Churches and in the E. Orthodox Churches and protestants revived the tradition during the Anabaptist movement. It continued with the Baptists and the Seperatists and the Puritans and is now totally embraced by present-day evangelical protestants in the west. If you ever travel to Rome, look inside the old basilicas and there are pools in these churches where baptism by emersion was also used.

[Bruce S]

ircle, bruce, any comments? how does this article effect ur views on the sacraments?

I *could* and won't, proof text you to death as the answer.

I won't.

I will simplify and clarify.

From a Pentecostal perspective [wearing that hat now] Baptism is only an outward sign. Period. Imparts NO salvation other than submission.

The "works" claim most Protestants level against the sacramental system is this.

Without them ONGOING, your salvation is in deep jeapordy.

It is in the need to KEEP doing things, rites, etc that the charge of "works" arise.

Most don't attribute the works charge to the Catholic Church practice of infant baptism.

Some might think that an infant can't really give assent and that confirmation is really just our version of baptism where we have one event instead of your two.

Having been baptised twice, once as an infant, and later as an adult, by immersion, I really prefer the adult version. That seems more the way it was done, but hey, that is a distinctive. In any case you can all read the boring proof texts, but you asked for my OPIONION, and reluctantly I'm giving it.

[Anna]

From a Pentecostal perspective [wearing that hat now] Baptism is only an outward sign. Period. Imparts NO salvation other than submission.

Bruce, dear,

I think your Catholic roots are showing. Grin.

Remember when we learned in Catechism class that a Sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ...?

The "works" claim most Protestants level against the sacramental system is this.

Without them ONGOING, your salvation is in deep jeapordy. It is in the need to KEEP doing things, rites, etc that the charge of "works" arise.

And phatCatholic's article has just shown that the Protestant claim levelled against the sacraments is WRONG. We are saved as long as we avoid all mortal sin.

But let's be realistic.

What human on this earth never, ever puts his own will before what he knows to be God's will? I can think of only two, and One of those had a Divine Nature. The other was preserved by special graces, for a special purpose, and happened to be God's Mom.

The rest of us, let's face it: we need some help every now and again. So, like a Good Host, God provides us with what we need for our stay here on earth, both physically and spiritually. I mean, he gives us air, and food and water. Is it a "work" to use these gifts? Nope.

He gives us the Sacraments. Is it a work to use these gifts? Nope.

Protestants will agree that He gives the gift of tongues. Is it a work to use that gift? Nope.

So, if Catholics don't accuse you folks of thinking you need tongues as a work in order to be saved, why can't y'all get it through your (thick?) skulls that we don't teach that we need Sacraments as works to be saved?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Sacraments are gifts from Jesus to His Church.

And they're very useful, practical gifts! They make us happy, strong, and secure. We feel His love when receiving His gifts. Receiving gifts is not a work.

Maybe if I could refrain from sinning, I'd have no need or desire for any more gifts. But, alas, I am a sinner, so I thank God for the gifts He's left for me, through the Church He founded for me!

Most don't attribute the works charge to the Catholic Church practice of infant baptism.

And why is that? Because they see a NEED for baptism, as does the Church. But they see the OTHER Sacraments as works, even though most protestants couldn't tell ya what the other sacraments are, or how many of them the Church has...But they know we don't need them! Grin. They know better than Christ, who instituted them...

Having been baptised twice, once as an infant, and later as an adult, by immersion, I really prefer the adult version. That seems more the way it was done, but hey, that is a distinctive. In any case you can all read the boring proof texts, but you asked for my OPIONION, and reluctantly I'm giving it.

Speaking of ONGOING...why wasn't ONE baptism enough? Why couldn't you just confirm the baptismal promises made by your godparents at the time of your infant baptism? Why did you NEED to GO THROUGH Baptism AGAIN? (not yelling here, just too lazy to keep typing in the [ ]'s.

I've known some protestants, not unlike yourself, who've gone through multiple "baptisms." Yet Scripture calls for "One baptism, One Faith, One Lord."

Pax Christi. <><

oh, and yes, I agree with that article! :D

Pax Christi. <><

Edited January 13, 2004 by Anna

[Bruce S]

And phatCatholic's article has just shown that the Protestant claim levelled against the sacraments is WRONG. We are saved as long as we avoid all mortal sin.

OK.

Now we come to the tricky part. Where you actually HAVE TO TRY TO ANSWER ME.

1: Can a person, born Catholic, baptised, who never again goes to a Catholic Church service, receives no more Sacraments, yet leads a totally good life, filled with works, and tries to be in synch with God, outside the Catholic Church system.

Still be a Catholic. And be just as saved as one who submits totally TO the system?

It would seem to me, that if this is so, your problems with Protestants are basically resolved. For the good people that is.

If salvation is not a Catholic distinctive belief within and co-operating with the system, its duties, practices, and directives, then the system is not a part of salvation?

Right or wrong?

[Bruce S]

Speaking of ONGOING...why wasn't ONE baptism enough? Why couldn't you just confirm the baptismal promises made by your godparents at the time of your infant baptism? Why did you NEED to GO THROUGH Baptism AGAIN? (not yelling here, just too lazy to keep typing in the [ ]'s.

I've known some protestants, not unlike yourself, who've gone through multiple "baptisms." Yet Scripture calls for "One baptism, One Faith, One Lord."

I wanted to show myself, the world, and my church, that I truly was "Born Again" [now the baptism had nothing to do with being Born Again understand that] but to me, I wanted an ADULT submission.

I know that is NOT a requirement, I did this voluntarily, without coercion, or even a push or shove. It was totally symbolic to me, but important as a sign. I had not truly accepted Jesus into my heart as a Catholic. I had accepted a church as my ruler, not a personal relationship with Jesus. I don't ask that you agree with me, just understand I'm answering your question.

[jasJis]

OK.

Now we come to the tricky part. Where you actually HAVE TO TRY TO ANSWER ME.

1: Can a person, born Catholic, baptised, who never again goes to a Catholic Church service, receives no more Sacraments, yet leads a totally good life, filled with works, and tries to be in synch with God, outside the Catholic Church system.

Still be a Catholic.  And be just as saved as one who submits totally TO the system?

It would seem to me, that if this is so, your problems with Protestants are basically resolved. For the good people that is.

If salvation is not a Catholic distinctive belief within and co-operating with the system, its duties, practices, and directives, then the system is not a part of salvation?

Right or wrong?

We have answered you, repeatedly. Please TRY to comprehend this time...

Your question is full of mistruths about Cathoicism to start off with.

1.) One cannot be "born Catholic".

2.) Including "filled with works" is misleading. Catholics do not teach that "works" save, but perfect Faith, literally as Scripture tells us.

3.) "outside the Catholic Church system" Despite your insistence of using 'Catholic Church system' as a put down, please define what you mean. As been repeated to you more than a few times, (and is in my sig), unintentional status outside the "normative" Catholic Church does not mean that spiritually one is not part of the Catholic Church.

4.) "Still be a Catholic". Since one isn't born Catholic, I assume you mean that the baptism was performed in a Catholic Church. Again, see my answer 3. It's a qualified Yes, they are a spiritual and normative member of the Catholic Church if it is ignorance, not rebellion against God's graces, that they are or remain outside the normative Catholic Church.

5.) "And be just as saved" is clumsy and unclear language. "Being saved" to a Catholic means you have stood infront of Jesus and been judged worthy to enter heaven. What most prots call "being saved", other Christians (Catholic and others) refer as "being in a state of Grace", meaning you have accepted (and not rejected) God's gift of Salvific Grace. Again, the answer is a qualified Yes. All are offered sufficient grace from God and we are free to accept or reject them.

Being outside the "normative" Catholic Church is not a problem, unless it is because you are knowingly rebelling against God's offered gifts of Grace. Even the Church will not make that judgement of the heart. By your outward actions, reason does give an indiction or where your heart likely stands, but only God knows the true measure of your heart.

That being said, it is now clear how your conclusion is wrong. Salvation lies in our acceptance of Grace. God's asks each of us different things. God graces each of us with different levels of His revealation to us. (See Thomas). Like the talents given to the servants by the Master, we will be judged according to what we do with them. That isn't works for salvation, but works that perfect the gift of Faith that was given by Grace alone. None of the servants earned the talents. But what they did with them is a serious matter.

You are partially right and partially wrong, Bruce.

Edited January 13, 2004 by jasJis