/christianity/ - Christian Theology

Found at carm.org/cut-catholic

I used to be catholic, granted most catholics on this site would call me lukewarm, but I can give a couple pieces of insight.

>1. Baptism, confession of sins to a priest, eucharist (while in a clean state after confessing)

>2. Not sure how to answer this one

>3. The catholic dogma surrounding confession of sins is that unknown - and therefore unconfessed - sins are forgiven when you confess the ones you know about, or if one forgets to tell a sin in confession it is still forgiven. However, a purposefully hidden sin is not forgiven and the person is not clean.

>4. Not sure

>5. Yes, they do whatever has been declared "ex cathedra", and anything in the catechism of the catholic church. They do check against scripture as well, but it's more like asking their priest what the "correct" interpretation is.

On the topic of the last one though, they check against an errant translation of scripture. Just look to genesis 3:15 and compare the original Hebrew, the KJV, and the catholic douay rheims bibles. The DR uses the female pronoun for "she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" which they take to be Mary, the female seed of Eve. The original Hebrew, and the KJV (which is the best English translation of the original texts) says "he (or "it" in KJV) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel". The catholics look at this verse in their DR Bible and read their Mary veneration into it, but the verse is obviously about Jesus.

>>3070

>>3071

How can you reconcile salvation by ritual with what the Bible says about justification by faith?

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast," (Eph. 2:8-9).

"Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).

"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace," (Rom. 11:6).

>>3074

Rituals prevent possession and if you read the New Testament you would know possession and lack of faith go hand in hand.

>>3076

That doesn't address the question.

>>3071

>scripture was written by many people with many differing agendas who often disagreed with each other.

not in the text of holy scripture they didn't

>>3074

That's one of the reasons why I said "I used to be catholic" lol.

Funny thing when I was Evangelical these are literally my go to questions to my Catholic friends and they mostly cant really give a satisfactory answer. So why am I considering my former views as mistaken?

Because unironically it is the non sacramentalist who have to explain why Baptism in the New Testament for instance is more than just a symbol and is literally the moment of justification by faith too, or at least part of it. So ironically, question 1 is irrelevant because at least one ritual is required. I go as far as to say even the Eucharist is given the fact that it is a real participation into Christ's sacrifice that cannot be just a naked memorial.

CARM also ignores how faith in the New Testament is also expressive in nature which make works an inadvitable part of it unless one is quite literally unable to. Even then what about all the judgement passages and warning ones that indicate salvation can be lost?

No longer can I in good conscience be a Baptist or Evangelical after learning the truth for myself

>>3089

Except baptism isn't required, the thief on the cross was saved without it. Baptism does not merit salvation, but is an outward sign of your faith and commitment to Jesus. It is a work that justifies you in the eyes of men (like in James) but is not needed to justify you in the eyes of God.

>>3089

>Why is baptism in the NT more than just a symbol and literally (?) the moment of justification by faith

It isn't more than just a symbol, and to say it is contradicts the doctrine of justification by faith.

But to clarify, there are 2 baptisms:

Baptism by water

Baptism of the holy spirit

The symbolic one is the ritual we perform with water, but the Bible uses the term baptism to refer to the point if salvation.

<13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13

How did you conclude that water baptism is more than a symbol?

>>3090

The thief on the Cross has the reality of Baptism before him. Even Calvin whom I disagree strongly with has more sense to say the reality of the sacraments is Christ.

Secondly, there's practically no such thing as justification before men in James. The context is how ironically for some extreme OSAS Baptists, how one shouldnt be partial when it comes to treating those who are of a different social status as James 2 shows early on when contrasting how a poor man in the congregation is treated contra a rich man. This context is often ignored alongside James' reference to final judgement right after that. In fact James is also very explicit on what kind of faith saves, the one which bears fruit and is expressed, not the mere recognition of something like 1+1=2 which is what the demons do.

James saying "I will show my faith with works" to his hypothetical intercoluter also isnt proof that somehow works are before men either because in context, James is addressing his opponent's belief that faith which doesnt show itself in action saves. So James said "Show me your faith apart from your works" before comparing that sort of faith to that of demons. Nothing about justified before men especially since zero of the examples given indicate this. Certainly not the closing sentence either.

So how do some Baptists address this? They appeal to Romans 4 where Abraham's works brings no merit safe before men. But there's a huge problem there for OSAS Baptists, Abraham's faith is shown to be one that persevere later on in the chapter despite things appearing to the contrary to God's promise. That ironically turns Abraham's faith which is reckoned as righteousness into a Kierkegaardian kind of faith which struggles in the face of what is contrary to God's promise. Now who accepts this model of faith? Luther as his Sola Fide has an existential and sacramental bent. Second, Calvin insofar as true faith is perseverence. But then a simple explanation could be given for this supposed contradiction that now appears. James and Paul are referring to different phases of justification. James to those already in the New Covenant and Paul, for the question of how to enter the New Covenant. Catholics and some Reformed get credit for positing double justification even if the latter sees final judgement as a confirmation of the initial.

>>3091

Except it doesnt as Luther shows being more sola fide than any Evangelical on the planet. But this isnt about Luther, so I leave him aside for the moment. This is about the Bible.

So let's look at 1Peter 3:27. Here Baptism is said to be an appeal to God for a good conscience. On the surface a reading that Baptism is merely a declaration after one is Saved can be given. The problem is in Greek, the usage of the term in early papyri shows that it is literally contracts signed to enter into a trade agreement. So the author is essentially saying that Baptism is like a contract signed to enter into a relationship with God. Baptism by the Spirit in the New Testament is also not the Evangelical born again thing but a parallel to John the Baptist's baptism. We know this thanks to Acts 2 which shows this. Peter during Pentecost preach to an Israel who are collectively guilty for rejecting their Messiah, their only hope is to repent and believe in Christ. But how? Peter tells us by believing and be Baptized. The text also makes it clear that by meeting these two conditions, one is received into the Christian fold which is also indicated at the end of Matthew's Gospel. Go and make disciples of all nations, teaching and baptizing them, showing how again, believe and baptize are two things required to be in the New Covenant. Back to John, we see he does the same to his Jews, calling them to repent and receive his baptism. This simple parallel, often missed by people like you is why you end up projecting into the verses, rather than letting them speak for themselves. John's baptism of repentance also only have one parallel in context which his intended Jewish audience will get, Jewish Proselyte Baptism for Gentiles! It isnt some wishy washy feel something to be baptized in the Spirit as you say! That is what born of water in John's Gospel is! Nicodemus will know this right away when Jesus answered him. That water as birth fluid is unlikely because its use in texts that way are rare. And this pattern is what Acts show. Believe in the Messiah to express repentance and be Baptized into his name. To be "into the name of" easily conveys the sense of the individual being given to the bearer of the name. It even has sacrificial connoctations! Funny because in Romans the message is, people are in the realm of sin and death. They deserve punishment but to be transfered under Christ will enable salvation. This is why Romans 6 mentions baptized into Christ's death which is no mere symbol as NT Scholarship today is unanimous on.

So ultimately no. You have only repeated what I was told but now I see the light, I will never go back to the dark

>>3093

presuming you mean 3:21

> The problem is in Greek, the usage of the term in early papyri shows that it is literally contracts signed to enter into a trade agreement.

I'm lost, are you saying there was a different term on certain papyrus manuscripts that you think is correct, which isn't used now?

>Baptism is like a contract

yes, the sign of the new covenant. The question is what the terms of the "contract" are on our end. Are you just reasoning that such a "contract" must necessarily require work on man's side, even if it seems to contradict Paul's labor on justification by faith?

Consider the covenant that God made with Himself in Genesis 15.

>Baptism by the Spirit in the New Testament is also not the Evangelical born again thing but a parallel to John the Baptist's baptism. We know this thanks to Acts 2 which shows this.

I'm not following what you mean. Who teaches something like this?

>"Repent and be baptized" means baptism is a saving work

Contradiction with Eph 2. Baptism is inextricably linked with belief unto salvation, but is not presented here as a necessary condition.

It is not an evangelical argument that baptism is not an instruction to everyone. The only debate is the role it plays in salvation.

You're kind of stringing a bunch of thoughts together and it's clear you've argued over a number of key passages, but it's really impossible for me to follow. Did you read something that persuaded you to this position? If so, what was it? Who teaches what you're saying about John's baptism?

You have a complex systematic theology on this, but that does not permit the fundamental error you're making: salvation as a result of works contradicts God's word. Dance around this fact at your own peril.

>>3094

1)the term "ἐπερωτάω" in 1Peter 3:21 in early Greek papyri all refer to contracts used in trade relationships. This is against your view because no Evangelical or Baptist view Baptism as a contract that must be signed to enter into a relationship. The fact that you cannot understand my mention of "trade contract" also essentially makes what you present as a non argument. Because it does not tell us why your understanding accords to the text or why it is consonant with the usage of ἐπερωτάω in Greek. People who want to establish trade relations do so by signing a contract to rectify and enact the agreement. And this is why it is the means where one enters into trade relationships. Hence the parallel is clear for Baptism. It is the contract signed to enter the New Covenant

https://www.academia.edu/12720416/_Confessing_God_from_a_Good_Conscience_1_Peter_3_21_and_Early_Christian_Baptismal_Theology

2)Non argument. Because it isnt some sign of something already done in the past but the means by which one enters into the relationship. As my point on ἐπερωτάω shows, what I presented is accurate to the grammatical context contra your view. In fact in the OT there are plenty of examples of visible signs given to assure and reinforce God's promises. For instance Gen 9:12–17 where the rainbow is the sign of God's promise to Noah. In Gen 13:14–17, God's promise to Abraham is shown to be binded through sight. These signs are the visual means by which the contract or promise given by God is sealed.

Also Galatians 3 shows whosoever is Baptized into Christ, puts on Christ. And no, this is not the Baptism of Spirit ala Baptist born again. It's water Baptism because this is the only way Paul's point can make sense, as Baptism by its own meaning in Greek is always water related. Hence 1Corinthians saying the Israelites were Baptized into Moses refer to the Red Sea crossing. The water wasnt a metaphor or some Spirit. It was real water that parted! Josephus uses the term to refer even to drowning, not in the Spirit but in actual physical water or something close(citing from memory here). Even the BDAG, the authoritative lexicon for NT Greek makes it clear that the Baptism that is for Christian Initiation by water and classifies Galatians 3 as one of these. So then. Is Paul contradicting himself or is it just your bad eisegesis? I am the only one intertextualizing and going into context here. Not you.

3)And misunderstanding the "repent and be Baptized" point. Saying evangelicals dont deny that Baptism is instruction or associated with belief misses the point entirely. Baptism is belief. Baptism is part of conversion. That's why two instructions are given. Believe and Baptize. Both are required. It isnt something done after one is saved as you believe. It is done during conversion, during justification or at least part of it!

>>3096

>I am the only one intertextualizing and going into context here

I'm not trying to give you a master's thesis man, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

By the way you're not; you're just throwing a bunch of talking points up.

You're reasoning that sola fide is incompatible with 1 Peter 3:21 because of the use of eperotao, and the term's use in other greek documents of the time is the basis for a change in interpretation on that operative word. Is that right?

>>3096

Nice exegesis

>t. ex Baptist

>>3096

>during justification

The use of these words at that point in your post is strictly a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ, because our justification before God is not something that occurs within us where we are made truly pleasing to God in and of ourselves and declared righteous on the basis that we truly are righteous and good. We are not declared righteous on the basis of something pleasing in us, because we are nothing but displeasing to a holy God. This is why God declares us just, because we have died and now He sees only Christ, Romans 7:1-4

<Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.