What Is Necesssary For Salvation?

[CatholicCrusader]

What do you believe?

[Guest JeffCR07]

If the Catechism and Holy Father teach invincible ignorance and baptism by blood/desire, far be it from me not to humbly accept the teaching with my whole heart and mind!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[phatcatholic]

change the question to "what is [i][b]normatively [/b][/i]necessary" and i choose the first option

[Aloysius]

and besides, that teaching is just the work of a council and magisterium building upon doctrines that have existed in Catholocism through people like Pope Pius XII, St. Thomas Aquinas as well as Christians in the middle ages and Christians in the really early Church.

[Theoketos]

Many of the Choices would not answer the question and many of the choices are repeatitive, but I choose number one becuase that is the best means, and it is the usual means.

[Spriles]

Romans 10:9
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.


Acts 16: 30-31
He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved"


John 6: 28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

[ICTHUS]

That poll didn't give the choice I would have said

"If you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" you shall be saved. Also, your faith must work in charity (Galatians 5:6), and you must persevere unto the end.

Also, it is necessary to be born (of water, i.e. amniotic fluid) and then born again of the Holy Spirit at regeneration.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 2 2004, 04:17 PM'] That poll didn't give the choice I would have said

"If you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" you shall be saved. Also, your faith must work in charity (Galatians 5:6), and you must persevere unto the end.

Also, it is necessary to be born (of water, i.e. amniotic fluid) and then born again of the Holy Spirit at regeneration. [/quote]
This is part of the Catholic Faith, it's just not picked out and set aside, ignoring the rest of the Bible.

[amarkich]

ICHTUS, that is a good joke, but I do not think anyone would believe something so outlandish regarding the amniotic fluid birth. I believe you were citing St. John iii.5 which states: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." He commissions the Apostles with the mission of the Church before the Ascension saying: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." c.f., St. Matthew xxviii.19,20. With these two verses it is evident that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Your claim that a man is to be born of water (which you evidently claim to mean the amniotic fluid) and then again later of the Holy Ghost is laughable since Our Lord says explicitly "Unless a man be born [b]again[/b] of water and the Holy Ghost" such that his birth of water is a different birth than his natural birth. At the same time it is also evident that, while his birth of water is different from his natural birth, his supernatural birth of the Holy Ghost is attained at the same time as his birth of water (which actually effects the birth of the Holy Ghost). Your argument that water is the natural birth (amniotic fluid) is disproved by the words of Our Lord as he answers Nicodemus's question: "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?" c.f., St. John iii.4. Our Lord then answers that a man must be born [i]again[/i] (not in the womb) of water and the Holy Ghost. The birth of water is not the natural birth.

In any event, I chose the first choice, the only one defined [i]De Fide [/i]by the Church as necessary for salvation.

Edited August 2, 2004 by amarkich

[Guest JeffCR07]

amen to that, Sigga!

Edited August 2, 2004 by JeffCR07

[M.SIGGA]

[quote]That poll didn't give the choice I would have said

"If you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" you shall be saved. Also, your faith must work in charity (Galatians 5:6), and you must persevere unto the end. [/quote]

I only meant to quote this.

[Brother Adam]

Soteriology is much to complex to be adequately summed up in any of those statements.

I like this better:

Those who God saves, will be saved.

[Spriles]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 2 2004, 04:33 PM'] ICHTUS, that is a good joke, but I do not think anyone would believe something so outlandish regarding the amniotic fluid birth. I believe you were citing St. John iii.5 which states: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." He commissions the Apostles with the mission of the Church before the Ascension saying: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." c.f., St. Matthew xxviii.19,20. With these two verses it is evident that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Your claim that a man is to be born of water (which you evidently claim to mean the amniotic fluid) and then again later of the Holy Ghost is laughable since Our Lord says explicitly "Unless a man be born [b]again[/b] of water and the Holy Ghost" such that his birth of water is a different birth than his natural birth. At the same time it is also evident that, while his birth of water is different from his natural birth, his supernatural birth of the Holy Ghost is attained at the same time as his birth of water (which actually effects the birth of the Holy Ghost). Your argument that water is the natural birth (amniotic fluid) is disproved by the words of Our Lord as he answers Nicodemus's question: "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?" c.f., St. John iii.4. Our Lord then answers that a man must be born [i]again[/i] (not in the womb) of water and the Holy Ghost. The birth of water is not the natural birth.

In any event, I chose the first choice, the only one defined [i]De Fide [/i]by the Church as necessary for salvation. [/quote]
Sorry, but ICHTUS is dead on when he refers to "Born of water" as amniotic fluid.
It is incredibly clear that Jesus is not referring Baptism when he says "born of water". Nicodemus's asks how is a man born again. Jesus answers by saying, "You must be born of water (Physical Birth) and born [b]again[/b] of the spirit (the second birth)." In the sentence directly after that, Jesus says "Flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth Spirit." When somone is born of the spirit it is then he is born again.

[Brother Adam]

To the extent that "to be born again" is refering to the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism - yes.

[Dave]

[quote name='Spriles' date='Aug 2 2004, 06:04 PM'] Sorry, but ICHTUS is dead on when he refers to "Born of water" as amniotic fluid.
It is incredibly clear that Jesus is not referring Baptism when he says "born of water". Nicodemus's asks how is a man born again. Jesus answers by saying, "You must be born of water (Physical Birth) and born [b]again[/b] of the spirit (the second birth)." In the sentence directly after that, Jesus says "Flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth Spirit." When somone is born of the spirit it is then he is born again. [/quote]
It's incredibly clear that Jesus IS referring to baptism. The context of the passage clearly points toward baptism, and there is no evidence that the Greek word for water (hudor) represents amniotic fluid. If John had wished to show a dichotomy between water and the Spirit, he would have said "born of water and of the Spirit," thus indicating two births. When John speaks of being born of water and the Spirit, he mentions them as being a part of the same spiritual rebirth that takes place at baptism (as Paul affirms in Titus 3:5).

[amarkich]

[quote]"You must be born of water (Physical Birth) and born again of the spirit (the second birth)."[/quote]

No, Spriles, that is incorrect. Dave explains it well, but, in addition to that, it is not even stated that way in English. The correct quote is: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Your paraphrased quote was inaccurate and simply benefits your false belief. You probably use an illicit "Bible" anyway, but, as I said, Our Lord affirms this in his commission to the Apostles, and Saint Paul affirms it in his Epistles. Please reference my actual argument if you wish to attempt to refute it. Since we do not have the original Greek manuscripts, the closest thing we have is from the Vulgate, and the Latin reads as follows: "respondit Iesus amen amen dico tibi nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei." The translation I gave is a literal translation of that. It is clear in the Latin that it reads "ex aqua et Spiritu", that is, "from water and the Holy Ghost" (not "spiritu" but "Spiritu"; not "ghost/spirit" but "Holy Ghost"; N.B., it is also seen as "Spritus Sanctus" or, in this case, it could have been written "Spiritu Sancto").

Edit: As Dave says, birth of water never means natural birth. This is completely fabricated and has no indictation in either Greek or Latin (or even English).

Edited August 2, 2004 by amarkich

[Aloysius]

Ghost is the english word for spirit derived from the Germanic influences on the english language, while Spirit comes more from the french influences on the English language. We started calling it the Holy Spirit instead of the Holy Ghost because of the way the culture made the word "ghost" have the connotation of like, casper. Holy Spirit means the same thing.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 2 2004, 06:58 PM'] Ghost is the english word for spirit derived from the Germanic influences on the english language, while Spirit comes more from the french influences on the English language. We started calling it the Holy Spirit instead of the Holy Ghost because of the way the culture made the word "ghost" have the connotation of like, casper. Holy Spirit means the same thing. [/quote]
The Holy Ghost is not an "it" but a He, just as God the Father and God the Son are. (Yes, God has no gender, but I don't think anyone here would recommend using the feminine, and the neuter seems even less becoming.) In any event, it only makes sense to use the most ancient terms in worship, such as we do at Holy Mass. Latin, which is more ancient, is used. When we pray in English, we (should) use the more ancient form (Holy Ghost, Thee, Thou, Old English: doth, deign, etc.) rather than the newest form of language that changes day by day. We should avoid completely any form of slang or irreverent speach. This is all done to make sure a level of reverence is kept in prayer. Certainly hip-hop slang, etc. is much less reverent than Old English. A good Novus Ordo Priest near me (who says TLM privately) makes a good case as to why the more ancient form of language should be used rather than the new (apart from the fact that the new is constantly changing, which entails a constant change in meaning, which is why Latin is the language of the Church: the meanings never are confounded, since they remain constant).

[cmotherofpirl]

The Church uses the term Holy Spirit [Spiritu Sancto] so it is a completely appropriate term.

[Aloysius]

I always say He when speaking of God, i just slipped up there on the "it" because i was talking about words that refer to God and not God Himself, but now that i look at it that it was used in reference to God and I should not have done that (and at the least should have capitalized the It)

anyway, this is not a case of changing with the language, but rather of using the french influenced word instead of the germanic influenced word. both have been around just as long. the term "ghost" now has a casper-connotation, and thus the equally old "Spirit" is now used to clarify God is not casper. If we're siting awesome preists with good cases for our cause, Fr. Mitch Pacqwa makes a good case for the word "Spirit"