# Do you have to be Baptized to go to Heaven?



## rjcruiser

Well, in another thread, this got brought up.  See quote below.



Dick Winters said:


> Not sure about what you just posted. I study Scripture quite a bit and I cannot see where your statement holds water. There are numerous verses in the bible which support regenerative baptism. There are also verses in Scripture that support works, as well. I am not at home right now but I have notes and will post chapter and verse to support this.
> DW



I do believe that baptism is a command from God.  I believe that it is for people that have turned from Sin to God (ie true believers...not for babies or infants).  However, there is no scripture that points to the fact that you must be baptized to be saved.  

For those of you who believe this, I bring up the thief on the cross next to Christ.  He didn't turn from his sin until moments before his death.  He wasn't baptized, yet Christ says to him that they will see eachother in paradise (Heaven).


----------



## Spotlite

rjcruiser said:


> I do believe that baptism is a command from God.  However, there is no scripture that points to the fact that you must be baptized to be saved.
> 
> For those of you who believe this, I bring up the thief on the cross next to Christ.  He didn't turn from his sin until moments before his death.  He wasn't baptized, yet Christ says to him that they will see eachother in paradise (Heaven).



How can you believe its a command if you dont think you have to do it? Read Acts 2, matter of fact, read all of Acts.

You have to be baptized. Baptism alone does not save, but its a very important part of the plan of salvation.

And the thief on the cross, what about him? That happened before the new covenant


----------



## farmasis

rjcruiser said:


> Well, in another thread, this got brought up. See quote below.
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that baptism is a command from God. I believe that it is for people that have turned from Sin to God (ie true believers...not for babies or infants). However, there is no scripture that points to the fact that you must be baptized to be saved.
> 
> For those of you who believe this, I bring up the thief on the cross next to Christ. He didn't turn from his sin until moments before his death. He wasn't baptized, yet Christ says to him that they will see eachother in paradise (Heaven).


 
Couldn't agree more, and a great example.

Another example from my daily reading is in Acts 10. When grace was extended to the gentiles first, at Cornelius's house. When they heard the message and recieved the Holy Spirit, then Peter said could anyone say that they should not be baptized, because they have recieved the Holy Spirit as they (the Jews) have.


----------



## Lowjack

At least you need a good shower,IMO


----------



## shawn mills

farmasis said:


> Couldn't agree more, and a great example.
> 
> Another example from my daily reading is in Acts 10. When grace was extended to the gentiles first, at Cornelius's house. When they heard the message and recieved the Holy Spirit, then Peter said could anyone say that they should not be baptized, because they have recieved the Holy Spirit as they (the Jews) have.



My thoughts also.


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> How can you believe its a command if you dont think you have to do it? Read Acts 2, matter of fact, read all of Acts.
> 
> You have to be baptized. Baptism alone does not save, but its a very important part of the plan of salvation.
> 
> And the thief on the cross, what about him? That happened before the new covenant


 

Of course we should. We should also witness. That is a command, but if we do not we will still go to heaven. No works necessary for entrance.


----------



## rjcruiser

Spotlite said:


> How can you believe its a command if you dont think you have to do it? Read Acts 2, matter of fact, read all of Acts.
> 
> You have to be baptized. Baptism alone does not save, but its a very important part of the plan of salvation.
> 
> And the thief on the cross, what about him? That happened before the new covenant



You contradict your self...baptism alone doesn't save, but you have to be baptized?

So, based on your first comment, and it being a command.  If you are in sin when you die, in other words, you have un-repentent sin in your life when you die as a Christian, are you not going to heaven?

Which brings another thread in and of itself....do you believe you can lose your salvation?


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> Couldn't agree more, and a great example.
> 
> Another example from my daily reading is in Acts 10. When grace was extended to the gentiles first, at Cornelius's house. When they heard the message and recieved the Holy Spirit, then Peter said could anyone say that they should not be baptized, because they have recieved the Holy Spirit as they (the Jews) have.




Hey Farmasis...we agree on something


----------



## farmasis

rjcruiser said:


> Hey Farmasis...we agree on something


 
See we got a lot for in common than not, as most Christians do, so i try to not get wrapped up in the things we do not.

Just FYI, yes, sadly some here believe you can walk away from your salvation.


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> Just FYI, yes, sadly some here believe you can walk away from your salvation.



How depressing...not knowing if you are truly saved or that you might lose your salvation.  There is such comfort in knowing that once Truly saved, you are always saved.


----------



## Tim L

Acts 2:38...when the gentiles heard Peter preach and asked what they had to do to be saved, he told them reprent AND be baptized..pretty plain...he didn't tell them to be baptized as a profession of faith to tell them world they had alreadty become christians (or joined the church), repent and be baptized was his answer to what they should do to be saved in the first place......

Yea, I'm a rare bird, a Methodist that not only believes in imersion but that you have to be baptized before your saved.....


----------



## Lowjack

Who baptized the thief on the cross ?


----------



## Tim L

Thats the number one come back....Jesus was still alive on the cross; just my opinion, but he could tell the thief whatever he wanted, he is God...at least to me, that (while Jesus was on the cross and before he arose) was a time between the law (old Jewish law) and the New Testament.....But theres no doulbt that in the early church (at least according to the New Testament) baptism by water was part of becoming a christian, not a sign to the world that one had become a christian....


----------



## SBG

Rouster said:


> Thats the number one come back....Jesus was still alive on the cross; just my opinion, but he could tell the thief whatever he wanted, he is God....




Wouldn't that make God a respecter of persons?


----------



## fishnguy

What about John the Baptist, who told Christ that he should be the one getting baptized by Him, and then he was killed. We never read about John getting dunked. Did he go to Heaven?


----------



## farmasis

Rouster said:


> Acts 2:38...when the gentiles heard Peter preach and asked what they had to do to be saved, he told them reprent AND be baptized..pretty plain.....


 
So, you don't have to confess that Jesus is Lord? Just ask for forgiveness and get wet.

Here is a good explanation.

http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html


----------



## Spotlite

Spotlite said:


> You have to be baptized. Baptism alone does not save, but its a very important part of the plan of salvation.





rjcruiser said:


> You contradict your self...baptism alone doesn't save, but you have to be baptized?


I dont see how you can come to that conclusion.............

Very simple, baptism alone does not save, but its "part" of the plan of salvation.


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> So, you don't have to confess that Jesus is Lord? Just ask for forgiveness and get wet.
> 
> Here is a good explanation.
> 
> http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html



How you gonna ask for forgiveness in the first place without the knowledge that Jesus is Lord?


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> Of course we should. We should also witness. That is a command, but if we do not we will still go to heaven. No works necessary for entrance.



I heard about 5 minutes of a sermon this morning on the radio before I changed the station, the ole boy said "everybody" is going to heaven. But anyways, baptism has nothing to do with works.


----------



## jkdodge

rjcruiser said:


> How depressing...not knowing if you are truly saved or that you might lose your salvation.  There is such comfort in knowing that once Truly saved, you are always saved.



Lose your salvation? I have never read anything about an erasor with the lambs book of life. I have how ever read that you will be held accountiable for your sins. And I for one dont really want to haft to explain to god why I was so stupid.


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> How you gonna ask for forgiveness in the first place without the knowledge that Jesus is Lord?


 
It is not enough to know that Jesus is Lord, even the demons know that and they tremble. Salvation is asking for forgiveness and believing that Jesus died on a cross for our sins and was raised again in 3 days and that he now sits on the right of the father and reconciles us to God.


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> Very simple, baptism alone does not save, but its "part" of the plan of salvation.


 
I see it more as part of the sanctification process, but a minor point to bicker about. 

I would ask what you think would happen to someone who became born again, but died before he could be baptised? 

Heaven or the other place?


----------



## Tim L

Spotlite said:


> I dont see how you can come to that conclusion.............
> 
> Very simple, baptism alone does not save, but its "part" of the plan of salvation.




Exactly...its not the only thing but its one of the things we are commanded to do....in the early church christians didn't have any problems understanding this, but now 90%of denominations have forsaken christian baptism as it was actually taught in the New Testament.......Now folks will argue against it till their blue in the face playing "biblical simon says" picking and choosing their verses to support their beliefs...well you don't pick and choose, you accept it all or nothing....accept christ as your savoir, repent of your sins, and be baptized...not one, not two, all three...

But, I'm getting drawn into it myself now (biblical simon says), which is something I dispise when its christians argueing with other christians....so I will shut up now..


----------



## Lead Poison

farmasis said:


> It is not enough to know that Jesus is Lord, even the demons know that and they tremble. Salvation is asking for forgiveness and believing that Jesus died on a cross for our sins and was raised again in 3 days and that he now sits on the right of the father and reconciles us to God.



Exactly.

Salvation does not require one to be baptized. However, I believe those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior should be baptized, as it is a public profession of faith in Jesus.


----------



## farmasis

Rouster said:


> Exactly...its not the only thing but its one of the things we are commanded to do....in the early church christians didn't have any problems understanding this, but now 90%of denominations have forsaken christian baptism as it was actually taught in the New Testament.......Now folks will argue against it till their blue in the face playing "biblical simon says" picking and choosing their verses to support their beliefs...well you don't pick and choose, you accept it all or nothing....accept christ as your savoir, repent of your sins, and be baptized...not one, not two, all three...
> 
> But, I'm getting drawn into it myself now (biblical simon says), which is something I dispise when its christians argueing with other christians....so I will shut up now..


 

Let's just say, if you do all 3 you will be saved no doubt!

However, if you are up to a little game... let's pick and choose this verse.

Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..

(pretty straightforward right?)

ooops, let's finish.

...but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 

So, what happens to those who believe only and are not baptised?


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> It is not enough to know that Jesus is Lord, even the demons know that and they tremble. Salvation is asking for forgiveness and believing that Jesus died on a cross for our sins and was raised again in 3 days and that he now sits on the right of the father and reconciles us to God.



I dont think I ever led anyone to think otherwise, at least not intentionaly. I have always stood behind that there is more to salvation than just simply believing. Im not quiet sure were on the same page here


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> Let's just say, if you do all 3 you will be saved no doubt!
> 
> However, if you are up to a little game... let's pick and choose this verse.
> 
> Mark 16:16
> 
> Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..
> 
> (pretty straightforward right?)
> 
> ooops, let's finish.
> 
> ...but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
> 
> So, what happens to those who believe only and are not baptised?



They are just simply believers. 

I believe in the constitution of marriage, but just because I beleive in it did not make me married...............


----------



## Spotlite

Lead Poison said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Salvation does not require one to be baptized.


Really? Then Mark 16 vs 16 and maybe Acts 2 vs 38 are typos


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> They are just simply believers.


 

...and simply not condemned. (see John 5:24 for confirmation)


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> Really? Then Mark 16 vs 16 and maybe Acts 2 vs 38 are typos


 
Are John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14 all typos?

I have given an explanation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. How about explaning why bapitsm was not included in the verses above.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in baptism. I am a Baptist, but do not believe it necessary for salvation, according to the word.


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

Rouster said:


> Exactly...its not the only thing but its one of the things we are commanded to do....in the early church christians didn't have any problems understanding this, but now 90%of denominations have forsaken christian baptism as it was actually taught in the New Testament.......Now folks will argue against it till their blue in the face playing "biblical simon says" picking and choosing their verses to support their beliefs...well you don't pick and choose, you accept it all or nothing....accept christ as your savoir, repent of your sins, and be baptized...not one, not two, all three...
> 
> But, I'm getting drawn into it myself now (biblical simon says), which is something I dispise when its christians argueing with other christians....so I will shut up now..


 
SO, example....if I am a brand spankin new CHRISTIAN.....and I get steps one and two down but I get hit by a MACK TRUCK....Im gone miss heaven after JESUS saved me THROUGH the HOLY SPIRIT in my HEART. Because, I didn't make it to the creek fast enough? I guess the church you attend must immediately BAPTIZE you on the spot.....if not, you may want to push for them to HAVE THE BAPTISMAL POOL ALWAYS FULL. A new CHRISTIAN (BY THESE SET OF STANDARDS TO BE TRULY SAVED) probably doesn't know he aint goin to HEAVEN TILL he is submerged??   

SORRY, I JUST  DISAGREE. 

CHRISTIANITY.....ITS NOT A RELIGION.....ITS A RELATIONSHIP.


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

*Born Again!!!!!!!!*



rjcruiser said:


> Well, in another thread, this got brought up. See quote below.
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that baptism is a command from God. I believe that it is for people that have turned from Sin to God (ie true believers...not for babies or infants). However, there is no scripture that points to the fact that you must be baptized to be saved.
> 
> For those of you who believe this, I bring up the thief on the cross next to Christ. He didn't turn from his sin until moments before his death. He wasn't baptized, yet Christ says to him that they will see eachother in paradise (Heaven).


 
THERE IS YOUR ANSWER RIGHT THERE........not for babies or infants.....what does it mean to be born again? whether we are 8 or 80 on the day that we accept JESUS gift of salvation, and we become born again through CHILD LIKE FAITH (NOT CAUSE MY DADDY AND GRAND DADDY WENT TO CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY AND SO HAVE I) that JESUS is the SON of GOD who came to SAVE the world and accept HIM as LORD (THATS RIGHT, we are also suppose to let HIM take control of our lives....the biggest STRUGGLE of our CHRISTIAN life) and SAVIOR, he will reveal to us through FELLOWSHIP with other CHRISTIANS and HIS HOLY SPIRIT his commandments and his WILL. Being SAVED by JESUS and being a CHRISTIAN are two totally different things. The day I am saved, I am a baby CHRISTIAN who must grow in GODS REVEALED WISDOM FOR ME. If we are of the world on the day we are saved, our WORLDLY sins are revealed to us on our daily walk with JESUS. If not, we remain SAVED but, the crowns that we lay at HIS feet will be few and our earthly lives unfulfilled due to disobedience of what we do not seek for HIM and HIS GLORY.....including to be BAPTIZED after we have been saved by HIM.


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> Are John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14 all typos?
> 
> I have given an explanation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. How about explaning why bapitsm was not included in the verses above.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I believe in baptism. I am a Baptist, but do not believe it necessary for salvation, according to the word.



I agree with Farmasis on this one.  I believe that one needs to be baptized and that christians who have not been baptized are not following God's command.  However, if you are a christian and you die without having been baptized, God isn't going to reject you based on that one decision.  Are you going to be held accountable for not obeying? Yes....will you be in heaven with God for eternity?  Yes.

Again, Baptism is not required for salvation, but is part of the sanctification process.


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> Are John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14 all typos?
> 
> I have given an explanation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. How about explaning why bapitsm was not included in the verses above.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I believe in baptism. I am a Baptist, but do not believe it necessary for salvation, according to the word.



farmasis, this is not about the name over the door of the Church, Those scriptures, they ALL go hand in hand actually. You cant just use one of them and leave the rest out, isnt that what they call "cherry picking". Just because 8 say just call on the name of the Lord and you shall be saved and 4 say repent, be baptized and so forth and 2 say simply believe......................................

You cant just accept the majority and overlook the rest, put the whole new Test into context. You have to understand that by calling on the name of the Lord and or believing is part of repentance. Remember, faith without works is dead. Where does that leave just believing without repentance and baptism? Does that also make the devils saved cause they believe to?

How bout explaining we were told in black and white at least twice to do it, no where can you find that you were told you dont have to do it.


----------



## Spotlite

BRANCHWYNN said:


> SO, example....if I am a brand spankin new CHRISTIAN.....and I get steps one and two down but I get hit by a MACK TRUCK....Im gone miss heaven after JESUS saved me THROUGH the HOLY SPIRIT in my HEART. Because, I didn't make it to the creek fast enough? I guess the church you attend must immediately BAPTIZE you on the spot.....if not, you may want to push for them to HAVE THE BAPTISMAL POOL ALWAYS FULL. A new CHRISTIAN (BY THESE SET OF STANDARDS TO BE TRULY SAVED) probably doesn't know he aint goin to HEAVEN TILL he is submerged??
> 
> SORRY, I JUST DISAGREE.
> 
> CHRISTIANITY.....ITS NOT A RELIGION.....ITS A RELATIONSHIP.



we keep ours full all the time.

I only know of a few folks that denied baptism..............


I dont recall seeing them in service for the last several years either.............

Says alot for them.......................


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> I have given an explanation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.


If your referring to the link below, your only getting someones opinion of what they think.  


farmasis said:


> Here is a good explanation.
> 
> http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html


----------



## Dick Winters

Can you lose your salvation? Sure you can! Just as you had to choose to accept Christ you can choose to deny him also.

He who endures to the end will be saved (Matthew 10:22)

He who perseveres to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13

Whoever loses his life for my sake will be saved (Mark 8:35)

We shall be saved through the grace of Jesus (Acts 15:11)

Since we are justified, we shall be saved (Romans 5:9-10)

Salvation is nearer now than first believed (Romans 13:10)

he will be saved but only as through fire (1Corinthians 3:15)

deliver man to Satan so his spirit might be saved (1Corinthians 5:5)

Jesus will appear a second time, to bring salvation (Hebrews 9:28)

It is reckless to think that you can ask Jesus into your heart then do whatever you wish without consequence.

DW


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> farmasis, this is not about the name over the door of the Church, Those scriptures, they ALL go hand in hand actually. You cant just use one of them and leave the rest out, isnt that what they call "cherry picking". Just because 8 say just call on the name of the Lord and you shall be saved and 4 say repent, be baptized and so forth and 2 say simply believe......................................
> 
> You cant just accept the majority and overlook the rest, put the whole new Test into context. You have to understand that by calling on the name of the Lord and or believing is part of repentance. Remember, faith without works is dead. Where does that leave just believing without repentance and baptism? Does that also make the devils saved cause they believe to?
> 
> How bout explaining we were told in black and white at least twice to do it, no where can you find that you were told you dont have to do it.


 
It's not cherry picking, it's putting scripture in context. Just like faith without works is dead must be put into context. It is not dead to God, it is dead in the eyes of man. Faith is all God needs.

Of course we are to be baptised, just as we are to go out and preach the gospel-- but that doesn't save us, it sanctifies us.


----------



## PJason

We should also remember that the baptisms we are seeing in the Bible are of converts, adults. The baptizing of whole households would have to include infants and children too.  I would guess if baptizing infants was strictly forbidden it would have been negligent to not include it in the scripture.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> Why did they baptize entire households in the Bible and not exclude infants and babies?



Didn't know that they did include the infants and the babies.  How do you know that there were infants/babies in the household?  Also, Luke points that the Word of God was spoken to all those who were baptized, thus suggesting that not infants, but those who could hear the Word, were baptized. See Acts 16:30-33

30 [The jailer said], "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.


----------



## rjcruiser

PJason said:


> The baptizing of whole households would have to include infants and children too.



Why would it have to?  Not in the context it is used.



PJason said:


> I would guess if baptizing infants was strictly forbidden it would have been negligent to not include it in the scripture.



What is the purpose of Baptism and who is it for?  It is to be a public demonstration of a true believer's faith in Christ.  Like circumcision for the Jews.  Something that sets them apart from the rest of the world.  Something that identifies them with Christ.  

If it is strictly for believers, why would it even be a question as to if infants need to be baptized.  Obviously, a child can't make a decision of faith, so no need to be baptized or even make it forbidden.  So the scripture is not being negligent by not including it.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> Well I am pretty sure they didn't keep the kids in the barn



Do you have any infants in your household?  What about your parents household?  I know plenty of people who don't have any kids in there household.


----------



## farmasis

Dick Winters said:


> Can you lose your salvation? Sure you can! Just as you had to choose to accept Christ you can choose to deny him also.


 
You can lose or give back your salvation if you are stronger than God.

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. (*John 10:27-28)*

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30)

In Him you also _trusted,_ after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (Eph 1:13-14)

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,  nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. (John 6:39)




> He who endures to the end will be saved (Matthew 10:22)
> 
> He who perseveres to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13
> 
> Whoever loses his life for my sake will be saved (Mark 8:35)
> 
> Jesus will appear a second time, to bring salvation (Hebrews 9:28)


 
These were given specifically to the Jews, who will remain through the tribulation because grace was not extended to them because of their rejection.

These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt 10: 5-6)



> It is reckless to think that you can ask Jesus into your heart then do whatever you wish without consequence.
> 
> DW


 
True.


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> Of course we are to be baptised, just as we are to go out and preach the gospel-- but that doesn't save us.......


OK, were back on the same page now. 


dawg2 said:


> Well I am pretty sure they didn't keep the kids in the barn


----------



## PWalls

Dick Winters said:


> It is reckless to think that you can ask Jesus into your heart then do whatever you wish without consequence.



I agree. I believe in OSAS and do not think that means a license to do whatever you want. Anyone that preaches living in sin wilfully even though their salvation is secured is preaching a false doctrine.


----------



## Spotlite

PWalls said:


> I agree. I believe in OSAS and do not think that means a license to do whatever you want. Anyone that preaches living in sin wilfully even though their salvation is secured is preaching a false doctrine.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> I would agree with that for sure.



So do I....I guess we found something we can all agree on


----------



## Mako22

All you have to do to get saved (born again) is repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## kw5891

rjcruiser said:


> Well, in another thread, this got brought up.  See quote below.
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that baptism is a command from God.  I believe that it is for people that have turned from Sin to God (ie true believers...not for babies or infants).  However, there is no scripture that points to the fact that you must be baptized to be saved.
> 
> For those of you who believe this, I bring up the thief on the cross next to Christ.  He didn't turn from his sin until moments before his death.  He wasn't baptized, yet Christ says to him that they will see eachother in paradise (Heaven).


lets say jesus did it & with water & holy spirit


----------



## Dunamis

PWalls said:


> I agree. I believe in OSAS and do not think that means a license to do whatever you want. Anyone that preaches living in sin wilfully even though their salvation is secured is preaching a false doctrine.



Help me understand something? You guys believe in OSAS, yet say that "_Anyone that preaches living in sin willfully even though their salvation is secured is preaching a false doctrine_". So if someone DOES choose to live however they want to after they get saved, are there no consequences? Shouldn't we ban together and mean-mug them since regardless of how they live, they will have a mansion, or at least a tent, in Glory right next to ours?


----------



## farmasis

Dunamis said:


> are there no consequences?


 
Yes, there will be consequences for unconfessed sin and if we choose to continue to live in sin despite being saved.

God will punish us on earth;

Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected _us,_ and we paid _them_ respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened _us_ as seemed _best_ to them, but He for _our_ profit, that _we_ may be partakers of His holiness. (Hebrews 12)

and also in heaven:

each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on _it_ endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 cor 3)

There will not be a free pass on sin just because we are saved.

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things _done_ in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences. (2 cor 5)


----------



## Dunamis

As far as OSAS is concerned, if I can get "saved" and live like I want to and still get into Glory, why would someone not take advantage of that? I mean you get your cake and can eat it too.

Disclaimer: I'm throwing this out there for discussion purposes. I am saved!


----------



## Spotlite

Dunamis said:


> As far as OSAS is concerned, if I can get "saved" and live like I want to and still get into Glory, why would someone not take advantage of that? I mean you get your cake and can eat it too.
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm throwing this out there for discussion purposes. I am saved!



Dunamis, I actually found out, there really are two beliefs in OSAS. You and I have probably always heard the OSAS side of it dont matter how you live, your saved, and theres the other side of they were never truly saved to begin with if they willfully sin after salvation. Bottom line, true born again Christians are gonna live a holy clean life anyway.


----------



## Dunamis

"What if's" can sometimes be good, because they offer the opportunity to broaden our understanding. In a perfect world, people get saved, fall head-over-heals in love with Jesus, and grow in their relationship with Him until they garduate from thid life into the next.

Any realist will tell you it doesn't always happen that way. This is the stand point from which I want to ask a question. We all know the "life happens". If someone were to get "saved", have life deal them a sorry hand, and the person freely chose to not to follow through with the lifestyle changes that accompany salvation. They choose to "walk away". Does "OSAS" dictate that even in the above circumstance this person goes to Glory even though they freely chose to walk away?


----------



## farmasis

Dunamis said:


> "What if's" can sometimes be good, because they offer the opportunity to broaden our understanding. In a perfect world, people get saved, fall head-over-heals in love with Jesus, and grow in their relationship with Him until they garduate from thid life into the next.
> 
> Any realist will tell you it doesn't always happen that way. This is the stand point from which I want to ask a question. We all know the "life happens". If someone were to get "saved", have life deal them a sorry hand, and the person freely chose to not to follow through with the lifestyle changes that accompany salvation. They choose to "walk away". Does "OSAS" dictate that even in the above circumstance this person goes to Glory even though they freely chose to walk away?


 
You cannot walk away. You cannot lose your salvation in my Bible.

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. (*John 10:27-28)*

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30)

In Him you also _trusted,_ after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (Eph 1:13-14)

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. (John 6:39)

Will someone who believes that you can lose your salvation please explain to me why God sent his son to die for temporary salvation when he could have continued sacrifices or how you can be stronger than God and remove yourself from his hand when he says nobody can (that includes yourself)?


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> Dunamis, I actually found out, there really are two beliefs in OSAS. You and I have probably always heard the OSAS side of it dont matter how you live, your saved, and theres the other side of they were never truly saved to begin with if they willfully sin after salvation. Bottom line, true born again Christians are gonna live a holy clean life anyway.


 
I don't think there are two different versions of OSAS. I think that if a person does go back to where he was and leaves the life they lived for Christ, one must question if he was truely saved to begin with (albeit that is between the man and God.) There is proof of this when Paul says that if they would have been of us, they would have remained with us, and that when Jesus comes into your life, your life should change.


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

how about this for a question? I wonder if I walk with HIM daily, and I make HIM LORD of my life, have fellowship regularly with brothers and sisters in CHRIST, read HIS WORD daily. Talk to HIM in prayer so that I can build my relationship with HIM, SO that I can be in HIS will for my life, attend church as he has commanded to worship HIM===NOT TO SEE if I can get somethin out of it for me---------but to praise AND WORSHIP HIM......Im still a pig who wants to run to the mud.......we all are.....but through obedience and seeking what he has for my purpose for his GLORY, HE TAKES THE TASTE of the mud from my mouth and from my thoughts. Yet, when I am not in touch with HIM and I dont seek HIM, my relationship is distant when I have jumped back in the mud, not because I want the things of the WORLD, but because I have focused on the WORLD and not HIM. That is the difference, I may be like the hogg at the show who has been cleaned up, sprayed with perfume, and have a big red bow around my neck but the hogg will always run to the mud. Once you have been TRULY SAVED, you may get in the mud....but unlike the hogg, you know through THE HOLY SPIRIT......that you shouldn't be in the mud.....I ONCE WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEE.  OBEDIENCE does not keep me free from sin. But it can help me from a path of distruction...and bearing no fruit. So, to get saved and think you got some fire insurance aint gone get it....HE expects us to grow in his likeness and you cant do that by living the same life you lived before in the mud and wanting to without remorse.


----------



## PWalls

Dunamis said:


> We all know the "life happens". If someone were to get "saved", have life deal them a sorry hand, and the person freely chose to not to follow through with the lifestyle changes that accompany salvation. They choose to "walk away". Does "OSAS" dictate that even in the above circumstance this person goes to Glory even though they freely chose to walk away?



The short answer is "yes". Jesus secured your Salvation.

Now, in your example above, that person will obviously have to face the consequences of his sin here in this life and in Heaven.

Also, I believe in Romans 8:28. Once you are saved, God is the one that makes "life happens" situations. Life is geared towards making you grow. If someone has a "life happens" situation and they drift or fall away, then their lack of faith is a prime culprit or how they respond. I don't like it when someone says "that's life" or some other similar response. In actuality, they should say "that's God" and then examine their response. That is how you grow. Life is a test of faith from God. How we respond is evidence of our faith.


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> I think that if a person does go back to where he was and leaves the life they lived for Christ, one must question if he was truely saved to begin with



my point is you have Joe Blow over here that preaches OSAS and secured salvation while sleeping with the neighbors wife cause he has nothing to worry about, he can do what ever cause he has been saved.

Then of course, you have your statement above..............

Which one is right or wrong is not the issue, you have 2 different versions of OSAS that others hear.


----------



## PWalls

Spotlite said:


> Which one is right or wrong is not the issue, you have 2 different versions of OSAS that others hear.



I have never heard that other version preached that you and others say. I have never heard a preacher in a pulpit or anywhere else say OSAS is a license to sin. It doesn't make doctrinal sense and is no where in the Bible. Anyone that preaches that or believes in it is clearly and utterly wrong. It is my opinion that this viewpoint was started by people who do not believe in OSAS to try and discredit that doctrine or was started by people weak in the Word.


----------



## Dunamis

_-”one must question if he was truely saved to begin with”_

I’m with you, this is between the individual and God. It stands to reason I have been this “individual”. I had backslid. I had a real salvation experience and I WAS saved (still am for those interested). No doubt about it, and nobody could convince me otherwise. I’m sure I am not the only person in the history of Christendom to experience this. In a perfect world nobody backslides and this question wouldn't have to be asked.

_-”So, to get saved and think you got some fire insurance aint gone get it....HE expects us to grow in his likeness and you cant do that by living the same life you lived before in the mud and wanting to without remorse.”_

My thoughts exactly. Like I said above. In a perfect world this question wouldn’t have to be proposed. That doesn’t always happen. People fall away.

_-”The short answer is "yes". Jesus secured your Salvation. Now, in your example above, that person will obviously have to face the consequences of his sin here in this life and in Heaven.”_

I have a problem with this. I don’t want to rehash the argument that “does Jesus get crucified every time I fail”. It just seems like a get out of jail free card. Honestly, there is no  consequence that WOULD NOT pale in comparison to getting into Glory.

_-”God is the one that makes "life happens" situations.”_

Not necessarily. He does however ALLOW things to happen. Look in the book of Job.

_-’Life is a test of faith from God. How we respond is evidence of our faith.’_

Exactly. When people are saved they receive a “measure” of faith. Although that measure is sufficient, we humans don’t always make the right decisions. 


PLEASE: Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that every time we mess up or sin that our Glory Membership card gets revoked, but “OSAS” really does seem “too good to be true”. At the root of OSAS no matter what I do after I get saved, I’ve got a ticket to Glory that can‘t be taken away, even if I completely disregard my salvation. It doesn't sit well with me for some reason...


----------



## rjcruiser

Dunamis said:


> but “OSAS” really does seem “too good to be true”. At the root of OSAS no matter what I do after I get saved, I’ve got a ticket to Glory that can‘t be taken away, even if I completely disregard my salvation. It doesn't sit well with me for some reason...



Doesn't Salvation sound "too good to be true?"  I mean, it is not of us, but is a free gift of God?  




			
				Spotlite said:
			
		

> my point is you have Joe Blow over here that preaches OSAS and secured salvation while sleeping with the neighbors wife cause he has nothing to worry about, he can do what ever cause he has been saved.



You never have free reign to sin.  See Rom 6:1-2

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 
 2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 

Also, once you are saved, you are a new creature.  See 2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 


Also, See Matthew 7 for notes on people who say they are Christians, yet live like they want to and live in sin.

 15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 
 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 

 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 

 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 

 19"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 

 20"So then, you will know them by their fruits. 

 21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 

 22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 

 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' 

This is the problem with most tele-evangelists and seeker-friendly churches.  They teach a watered down salvation message.  People believe that if they are in Church on Sunday and after doing something wrong, say "I'm sorry" they'll get into heaven.


----------



## Dunamis

-"Doesn't Salvation sound "too good to be true?" I mean, it is not of us, but is a free gift of God? "

I mean no offense. I know cookie cutter Chritsian answers when I see them. 

-"At the root of OSAS no matter what I do after I get saved, I’ve got a ticket to Glory that can‘t be taken away, even if I completely disregard my salvation."

So you agree?


----------



## PWalls

Dunamis said:


> -"At the root of OSAS no matter what I do after I get saved, I’ve got a ticket to Glory that can‘t be taken away, even if I completely disregard my salvation."
> 
> So you agree?



I would "question" your "Salvation" if you could completely disregard it.


----------



## farmasis

BRANCHWYNN said:


> how about this for a question? I wonder if I walk with HIM daily, and I make HIM LORD of my life, have fellowship regularly with brothers and sisters in CHRIST, read HIS WORD daily. Talk to HIM in prayer so that I can build my relationship with HIM, SO that I can be in HIS will for my life, attend church as he has commanded to worship HIM===NOT TO SEE if I can get somethin out of it for me---------but to praise AND WORSHIP HIM......Im still a pig who wants to run to the mud.......we all are.....but through obedience and seeking what he has for my purpose for his GLORY, HE TAKES THE TASTE of the mud from my mouth and from my thoughts. Yet, when I am not in touch with HIM and I dont seek HIM, my relationship is distant when I have jumped back in the mud, not because I want the things of the WORLD, but because I have focused on the WORLD and not HIM. That is the difference, I may be like the hogg at the show who has been cleaned up, sprayed with perfume, and have a big red bow around my neck but the hogg will always run to the mud. Once you have been TRULY SAVED, you may get in the mud....but unlike the hogg, you know through THE HOLY SPIRIT......that you shouldn't be in the mud.....I ONCE WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEE. OBEDIENCE does not keep me free from sin. But it can help me from a path of distruction...and bearing no fruit. So, to get saved and think you got some fire insurance aint gone get it....HE expects us to grow in his likeness and you cant do that by living the same life you lived before in the mud and wanting to without remorse.


 
You didn't have to talk so dirty did you? 
Good post.


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> my point is you have Joe Blow over here that preaches OSAS and secured salvation while sleeping with the neighbors wife cause he has nothing to worry about, he can do what ever cause he has been saved.
> 
> Then of course, you have your statement above..............
> 
> Which one is right or wrong is not the issue, you have 2 different versions of OSAS that others hear.


 
I guess I understand what you are saying, however, we are not far off from each other. We both think there is only one salvation and the results for disobedience as Christians can be reward or consequences. OSAS proponents just believe that the consequences do not included losing your salvation.


----------



## Dunamis

PWalls said:


> I would "question" your "Salvation" if you could completely disregard it.



Again, I WAS that guy! I know the decision I made. I know what happened to me. I was a changed man and I don't need someone else's questions to validate me. Things happened and I CHOSE TO WALK AWAY.

EDIT: Just thought I would add that I've been saved for several years now. I'm not backslidden


----------



## rjcruiser

Dunamis said:


> -"At the root of OSAS no matter what I do after I get saved, I’ve got a ticket to Glory that can‘t be taken away, even if I completely disregard my salvation."
> 
> So you agree?



No...because if someone disregards their salvation...they are not saved.  If you are truly saved, you won't ever disregard your salvation.

Here's another reason that I believe OSAS.  I believe in predestination/election.  So....God chose me to be a Christian before the foundations of the world.  He had my name written in the lambs book of life far before I was even born.  

See this post for reasoning/discussion/debate  http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=210265

So, if God chose me, there is nothing that I can do to unchoose God.


Also, this brings about the reason for church discipline.  See Matthew 18

15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 
16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 

So, it is Biblical to believe/think that someone who is in un-repentant sin is a non-believer.


----------



## Dunamis

wow...


----------



## Dunamis

_-"because if someone disregards their salvation...they are not saved"_

Exactly! They walk away.

_-"I believe in predestination/election"_

2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, _*not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance*_." 

As far as predestination: God chose everyone to be saved, but we have to CHOOSE whether or not we walk into salvation. It is a free gift extended to us, but it's meaningless unless we accept it!

_-"So, if God chose me, there is nothing that I can do to unchoose God."_

Um, yea! We are not angels that we no ability to choose. What father want His children to "love" Him simply because we have to or are pre-programed to do so. It is a choice.


----------



## farmasis

rjcruiser said:


> Doesn't Salvation sound "too good to be true?" I mean, it is not of us, but is a free gift of God?


 
The more I grow physically and spiritually, I realize that grace sounds too good to be true. I see how dirty my life has been and how disgusted my heavenly Father must be when he reviews it. By any standard other than the worlds I have not lived up to a life worthy to be presented to a holy God. For him to accept me because of what his son has done for me does seem too god to be true. Grace and mercy means so much to me.

Grace is getting what I DO NOT deserve.
Mercy is NOT getting what I DO deserve.


----------



## farmasis

Dunamis said:


> Um, yea! We are not angels that we no ability to choose. What father want His children to "love" Him simply because we have to or are pre-programed to do so. It is a choice.


 
We have free will to choose him, but not to unchoose him. That is a beautiful promise of God. He will never leave us or forsake us, even if we do to him.


----------



## Dunamis

farmasis said:


> The more I grow physically and spiritually, I realize that grace sounds too good to be true. I see how dirty my life has been and how disgusted my heavenly Father must be when he reviews it. By any standard other than the worlds I have not lived up to a life worthy to be presented to a holy God. For him to accept me because of what his son has done for me does seem too god to be true. Grace and mercy means so much to me.
> 
> Grace is getting what I DO NOT deserve.
> Mercy is NOT getting what I DO deserve.



You and me both! I get plum embarrassed sometimes when I thnk of some of the stu[id things I did in my life, but His grace is sufficient!


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> We have free will to choose him, but not to unchoose him. That is a beautiful promise of God. He will never leave us or forsake us, even if we do to him.



Well...we won't re-hash this one, but how can you choose to be saved, but not choose to be un-saved?  Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, atleast we agree on the OSAS  

You are totally right about God never leaving us or forsaking us.  It is a wonderful promise.

Dunamis, it is important to consistently test your own salvation.  See I John and know that how you respond to the "tough hands" that God deals you reflects your spiritual condition (See James 1).


----------



## Dunamis

I'll say this: We will certainly have to agree to disagree.  That makes you guys no-less my brothers-in-Christ. If Christians would learn the concept of "agreeing to disagree" while remaining "brothers in the faith" maybe we would not have so much animosity within the church.


----------



## rjcruiser

Dunamis said:


> I'll say this: We will certainly have to agree to disagree.  That makes you guys no-less my brothers-in-Christ. If Christians would learn the concept of "agreeing to disagree" while remaining "brothers in the faith" maybe we would not have so much animosity within the church.




I agree with you somewhat...on doctrinal issues that do not determine salvation...I agree.  However, on issues such as Lordship Salvation, Inerrancy of Scripture, Doctrine of Grace etc etc, those are doctrines that have no wiggle room and is impossible to agree to disagree.

I believe that your post above was meaning this based on your previous posts.


----------



## farmasis

If we can agree on the 95%, I can live with the other 5%.

It is called keeping the main thing, the main thing.


----------



## Spotlite

PWalls said:


> I have never heard that other version preached that you and others say. I have never heard a preacher in a pulpit or anywhere else say OSAS is a license to sin. It doesn't make doctrinal sense and is no where in the Bible. Anyone that preaches that or believes in it is clearly and utterly wrong. It is my opinion that this viewpoint was started by people who do not believe in OSAS to try and discredit that doctrine or was started by people weak in the Word.


Weak in the Word would probably apply better than any. I personally have never heard a preacher preach this, but I know my brother in law tells me all the time "I can go out and kill someone or rape someone and if I get killed in a car wreck before I have time to repent, it dont matter, Im saved" I do know a preacher that preaches this way, but never heard him preach. I used to work for him and I have heard it a million times over from him, "it dont matter what you do as long as you have been saved".  I will not name his denominational belief cause that tends to categorize.    


farmasis said:


> I guess I understand what you are saying


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> Weak in the Word would probably apply better than any. I personally have never heard a preacher preach this, but I know my brother in law tells me all the time "I can go out and kill someone or rape someone and if I get killed in a car wreck before I have time to repent, it dont matter, Im saved" I do know a preacher that preaches this way, but never heard him preach. I used to work for him and I have heard it a million times over from him, "it dont matter what you do as long as you have been saved". I will not name his denominational belief cause that tends to categorize.


 
It helps me to remember that if you break one commandment (like lying) you break them all. You are just as guilty had you raped, murdered, or committed idolatry. I think it is just as wrong to get wrapped up in self righteousness as a Christian as it is to cheapen grace by using it as a license to sin.


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

I just cant understand how GOD can love us so much that he gave his only begotten SON to die. MY son is 8 years old, I could never imagine  him going through the pain and anguish that JESUS must have felt on the cross. And to top it all off...he did it for all of us. But that is the reality of WHO he is...our brains can not fathom(sp) why AND how HE operates. We are not suppose to understand how he can SAVE someone FOREVER, even if they seem to indulge daily in their sin. You can't LOGICALLY understand the GRACE and MERCY of GOD. He supplies these when we need them. Its HIS to grant and HIS to withhold. The physical tangible steps that we may see a person take on one SUNDAY morning may be just that. To come down and acknowledge HIM and to even speak the words ouloud in front of a huge congregation and jump in the pool......do not mean that this person is SAVED. Dont get me wrong, they may be...but they may not. ACCEPTANCE is the key. To say the words and go through the motions without TRUE accepatance of CHRIST, is still just a lost soul who THINKS he is saved. If the presentation of salvation is brought to one saying that you can be saved without change in your life.....you can live like the world and be saved then YOU ARE NOT SAVED. There would be no reason for JESUS to die on the cross.....remember he died for our sins. It is obvious that JESUS wnats us to try our best to live a life as free from it as we can. So to say I can live like the devil cause I got my ticket for heaven, is to be lost and undone. To still commit sin and still enjoy it without remorse knowing we need to turn from it and seek GOD to take it from us.....is not OSAS. Its just someone who never was saved to start with. The proof of this is easy, there is not one CHRISTIAN that I know including myself, who has been saved and not committed sin....that includes the MOST OBEDIENT CHRISTIAN I know. But my focus should not be on whether HE is going to sin or not. NEWS FLASH...he will. So the focus should be on being LIKE CHRIST not on the sins of the lost nor the saved. SO if someone on here wants to believe that THEY are saved and they can rob a bank tomorrow. What I say and think will not change what this person thinks. It is a matter again, "AM I IN GODS WILL FOR MY LIFE", a question we need to ask ourselves ALL DAY, EVERYDAY.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> Ummmm.....NO.  That is not the same.



In God's eyes...yes.  If you break one of His commandments, you are guilty just the same as someone who has broken them all.

See James 2:10

10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 

There are no levels of sin in God's eyes.


----------



## PWalls

rjcruiser said:


> There are no levels of sin in God's eyes.



Ssshhhh. He'll break out the Venial versus Mortal sin argument.


----------



## farmasis

dawg2 said:


> Ummmm.....NO. That is not the same.


 
James 2
8 If you really fulfill _the_ royal law according to the Scripture, _“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,”_<SUP>[a]</SUP> you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one _point,_ he is guilty of all.


----------



## Spotlite

PWalls said:


> Ssshhhh. He'll break out the Venial versus Mortal sin argument.


----------



## furtaker

Eternal security is not a separate doctrine from salvation.  It is the gospel itself.  It is impossible for a person to believe the gospel and at the same time deny eternal security, because the promise Jesus made in the gospel is, "Truly truly, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."  Either you believe Him or you don't.  If you believe Him, then you believe in eternal security.  Either He paid for all my sins and does what He promises, or He is a liar.

How could you "lose" everlasting life?  If it is everlasting life, then it lasts forever.  Period.  Jesus said it himself.

The old eternal security debate goes straight back to the good old "grace verses works" issue in the Bible that the Apostles faced constantly.

It certainly seems to me that a person who denies eternal security believes in works for salvation.  They hope they have lived a good enough life to make it to heaven in the end.

Salvation is either a true gift by God's grace, or it is a reward that you earned by living right.

"For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.  Not of works, lest anyone should boast."  Eph. 2:8-9


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

*Mmmmmmmmmmmmm....thats Right....*



brentus said:


> Eternal security is not a separate doctrine from salvation. It is the gospel itself. It is impossible for a person to believe the gospel and at the same time deny eternal security, because the promise Jesus made in the gospel is, "Truly truly, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." Either you believe Him or you don't. If you believe Him, then you believe in eternal security. Either He paid for all my sins and does what He promises, or He is a liar.
> 
> How could you "lose" everlasting life? If it is everlasting life, then it lasts forever. Period. Jesus said it himself.
> 
> The old eternal security debate goes straight back to the good old "grace verses works" issue in the Bible that the Apostles faced constantly.
> 
> It certainly seems to me that a person who denies eternal security believes in works for salvation. They hope they have lived a good enough life to make it to heaven in the end.
> 
> Salvation is either a true gift by God's grace, or it is a reward that you earned by living right.
> 
> "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast." Eph. 2:8-9


 
I totally agree......and for those who do not believe in eternal salvation......how do you lose your salvation? At what point does GOD say, "Alright, I take back BRANCHWYNNS' salvation".


----------



## Israel

What sometimes seem a useless tautolgy at first glance can have deeper relevance than we often first appreciate.
Essentially, the saved are the saved (and always are).
Now, that sounds useless unless we understand that from the Lord's perspective..."if God were your father you would love me..."
I believe we are moving from unknowing to knowing...but God never is. He has known from the foundation of the world who is his, and all who are his will come to Christ and be saved. 
A very poor analogy might be this...for God's eternal wisdom and reasons some are created for glory, some are created for him to show his righteous judgments upon...I am not God, so it is not for me to decide who is or who is not.

So, in a very simple sense, if you will, some are born of God...and made of iron...some are not (and again, I cannot overstress, it is not for me to decide who is/who isn't), but some are born of something that looks just like iron. The test is when Jesus is put into the mix, for he is of the very substance of the Father...and he is a magnet. What is born of God, in another place Jesus says "taught of God"...simply what is "of God" will be drawn by the magnet...others will not. It is very hard to say this...but Jesus called some "of their father, the devil"...and although even those who are "saved" are in a certain place called "children of disobedience", in no place are they (we) called "children of the devil". 

A disobedient child is still his father's child...

So, then...what is a child of the father charged with? Nothing, but to grow in obedience. What will be the proper order for such a one? John describes it...Children, to young men...to fathers. 

The ultimate growth we are to achieve is to "know him who is from the beginning" Children learn "God is my father"...young men grow and in this knowledge overcome the evil one...but the fully grown and mature believer knows him who is "from the beginning"...knows that God isn't moving along adjusting things...but that everything has been settled in him from the foundation of the world...

Part of this is knowing something we come to understand...Christ is not plan "B" to remedy a failed plan "A" in Adam. This is what Paul came to understand...as he struggled to understand all that he thought he previously knew, but realized he didn't know at all after Christ undid all his carnal (which he thought was spiritual) thinking. 
God does not make mistakes...and since God in his infinite wisdom and mercy...wanted men to know his mercy he consigned _all_ men to diobedience. Paul addresses this and warns those who would reply to God...but if you made me disobedient, why do you hold me accountable? 
Because along wth the realization of disobedience (for only the light of the Holy Spirit can reveal our own disobedience) comes the revelation of God's mercy in Christ...therefore every man that wants to accuse God of making a disobedient creation must willfully ignore the mercy God has shown in Christ. Mercy has triumphed over judgment...or more plainly...there is something God wants us to know even in geater measure than we know his righteous judgments...just as there is something every father wants his son to know even more than he wants him to be obedient...and that is this...that when he is grown he will know that the father gave him instruction, not because he was older/stronger/bigger and could force him...but because he loved him. He will understand the fathers purpose from the beginning in all the do's and don't do's.

And how many of us fathers have learned that joy? That your child, now grown in love really understands that? 
Unless we were bad fathers. 
But God is not.
Remember Jesus said "be merciful, even as your heavenly Father is merciful" and also "be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect"

Now, what has this to do with baptism? Do we want to know the Father...do we want to know Jesus? What did John say to Jesus when he came to be baptised by him? "It is I who have need to be baptised by you..." (more or less) 

What did Jesus say (the only one who never had any need to be washed of anything)?

Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. 
What is this righteousness if not doing what may appear unnecessary but is done, nonetheless, in obedience to the Father? 
Is there anything about this lfe of faith that speaks contrary to this? Aren't righteousness and faith linked? 

Now to him who works, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt, but to him who works not but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, to him his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

We can apply this to every comandment from Jesus...I can preach the gospel because "I'd better if I want to go to heaven and some people won't if I don't do my part"...or...I can believe God...and come to know with a surety that not one of his own "will go to gehenna", no one that the Father has prepared a place for will end up anywhere but at his table...regardles of what I do or do not do...I can cooperate with God...but I can never thwart his will by not cooperating. So, then, what can be my reason for preaching? What will be my reason for getting baptised if "I am already saved" Is it enough that I want to see my Lord's joy fulfilled by simply obeying what he tells me? 

When he finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Push the boat out further to the deep water, and you and your partners let down your nets for a catch." "Master," Simon answered, "we worked hard all night long and caught nothing. _But if you say so_, I will let down the nets." (Italics mine.)

Oh, his joy is going to be full whether I obey or not...but the issue is _will I see it?_ What do I want to see? What I can or cannot do and still get my candy?...or...do I want to see and taste the joy of the Lord? Will I do what appears totally unnecessary (to me, and maybe even others)...just because I have heard Jesus say so?

We cannot "follow the bible" though some still seem to think that is the goal. In the beginning was not "the bible", but the one to whom the whole book points. Will we come to him that we might have life? Or will we ignore a very clear and urgent instruction given in that very bible by one of the "fathers"...today, if you hear his voice, harden not your hearts...

therefore, if you do not hear Jesus telling you to repent and be baptised, but only men, and are only interested in either pleasing or resisting them...then all your confessions of his name and dunking will be to no avail...but...today...if you hear his voice...

But his mother told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

*Thank You*



Israel said:


> What sometimes seem a useless tautolgy at first glance can have deeper relevance than we often first appreciate.
> Essentially, the saved are the saved (and always are).
> Now, that sounds useless unless we understand that from the Lord's perspective..."if God were your father you would love me..."
> I believe we are moving from unknowing to knowing...but God never is. He has known from the foundation of the world who is his, and all who are his will come to Christ and be saved.
> A very poor analogy might be this...for God's eternal wisdom and reasons some are created for glory, some are created for him to show his righteous judgments upon...I am not God, so it is not for me to decide who is or who is not.
> 
> So, in a very simple sense, if you will, some are born of God...and made of iron...some are not (and again, I cannot overstress, it is not for me to decide who is/who isn't), but some are born of something that looks just like iron. The test is when Jesus is put into the mix, for he is of the very substance of the Father...and he is a magnet. What is born of God, in another place Jesus says "taught of God"...simply what is "of God" will be drawn by the magnet...others will not. It is very hard to say this...but Jesus called some "of their father, the devil"...and although even those who are "saved" are in a certain place called "children of disobedience", in no place are they (we) called "children of the devil".
> 
> A disobedient child is still his father's child...
> 
> So, then...what is a child of the father charged with? Nothing, but to grow in obedience. What will be the proper order for such a one? John describes it...Children, to young men...to fathers.
> 
> The ultimate growth we are to achieve is to "know him who is from the beginning" Children learn "God is my father"...young men grow and in this knowledge overcome the evil one...but the fully grown and mature believer knows him who is "from the beginning"...knows that God isn't moving along adjusting things...but that everything has been settled in him from the foundation of the world...
> 
> Part of this is knowing something we come to understand...Christ is not plan "B" to remedy a failed plan "A" in Adam. This is what Paul came to understand...as he struggled to understand all that he thought he previously knew, but realized he didn't know at all after Christ undid all his carnal (which he thought was spiritual) thinking.
> God does not make mistakes...and since God in his infinite wisdom and mercy...wanted men to know his mercy he consigned _all_ men to diobedience. Paul addresses this and warns those who would reply to God...but if you made me disobedient, why do you hold me accountable?
> Because along wth the realization of disobedience (for only the light of the Holy Spirit can reveal our own disobedience) comes the revelation of God's mercy in Christ...therefore every man that wants to accuse God of making a disobedient creation must willfully ignore the mercy God has shown in Christ. Mercy has triumphed over judgment...or more plainly...there is something God wants us to know even in geater measure than we know his righteous judgments...just as there is something every father wants his son to know even more than he wants him to be obedient...and that is this...that when he is grown he will know that the father gave him instruction, not because he was older/stronger/bigger and could force him...but because he loved him. He will understand the fathers purpose from the beginning in all the do's and don't do's.
> 
> And how many of us fathers have learned that joy? That your child, now grown in love really understands that?
> Unless we were bad fathers.
> But God is not.
> Remember Jesus said "be merciful, even as your heavenly Father is merciful" and also "be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect"
> 
> Now, what has this to do with baptism? Do we want to know the Father...do we want to know Jesus? What did John say to Jesus when he came to be baptised by him? "It is I who have need to be baptised by you..." (more or less)
> 
> What did Jesus say (the only one who never had any need to be washed of anything)?
> 
> Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.
> What is this righteousness if not doing what may appear unnecessary but is done, nonetheless, in obedience to the Father?
> Is there anything about this lfe of faith that speaks contrary to this? Aren't righteousness and faith linked?
> 
> Now to him who works, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt, but to him who works not but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, to him his faith is reckoned as righteousness.
> 
> We can apply this to every comandment from Jesus...I can preach the gospel because "I'd better if I want to go to heaven and some people won't if I don't do my part"...or...I can believe God...and come to know with a surety that not one of his own "will go to gehenna", no one that the Father has prepared a place for will end up anywhere but at his table...regardles of what I do or do not do...I can cooperate with God...but I can never thwart his will by not cooperating. So, then, what can be my reason for preaching? What will be my reason for getting baptised if "I am already saved" Is it enough that I want to see my Lord's joy fulfilled by simply obeying what he tells me?
> 
> When he finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Push the boat out further to the deep water, and you and your partners let down your nets for a catch." "Master," Simon answered, "we worked hard all night long and caught nothing. _But if you say so_, I will let down the nets." (Italics mine.)
> 
> Oh, his joy is going to be full whether I obey or not...but the issue is _will I see it?_ What do I want to see? What I can or cannot do and still get my candy?...or...do I want to see and taste the joy of the Lord? Will I do what appears totally unnecessary (to me, and maybe even others)...just because I have heard Jesus say so?
> 
> We cannot "follow the bible" though some still seem to think that is the goal. In the beginning was not "the bible", but the one to whom the whole book points. Will we come to him that we might have life? Or will we ignore a very clear and urgent instruction given in that very bible by one of the "fathers"...today, if you hear his voice, harden not your hearts...
> 
> therefore, if you do not hear Jesus telling you to repent and be baptised, but only men, and are only interested in either pleasing or resisting them...then all your confessions of his name and dunking will be to no avail...but...today...if you hear his voice...
> 
> But his mother told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”


 
I heard him through his vessel, thank you brother.


----------



## redwards

Some questions for thought. 
Anyone can respond if you feel led to.

1. The word 'baptism" - Is it an event or a process?

2. The word "saved" - Is it an event or a process?

3. The word "salvation" - Is it an event or a process?

4. Situation - A church that believes in baptism by immersion - Does not have a baptismal pool - Must baptize candidates in a stream, lake, etc., or use the baptismal pool at another church.
An individual comes forward to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
A baptism is scheduled for some few weeks in the future.
Before the individual is baptized, he/she dies.
Will that individual go to heaven?

5. Situation - An unbeliever suffers from a fatal disease; is visited by a believer and through the witnessing of that believer accepts Jesus as his/her Lord and Savior; but before that individual can be baptized, he/she passes away.
Will that individual go to heaven?


----------



## win280

Isn't salvation an internal and baptism an external acknoledgement of christ?


----------



## Cricket

The scriptures that farmasis quoted were perfect for this debate.  Either Christ did it all on the cross or it was all in vain.  The gift is yours - just receive it.  It is truly about a relationship.  If there is anything that I HAVE to do to be saved than it is up to me to do the saving - NOT Christ.  As for loosing salvation - He says that we are a new creation in Him and we have been given the heart of Christ.  I can no more walk out of my house and leave my heart on the kitchen counter than I can walk away from my Savior.  Will we ever experience brokeness to the point where we are angry at or question God ?- YES  maybe even for years at a time!!  I believe that this is what He will use to transform us into His image daily - He never promised a cake walk - look at the disciples.  When my child rebels and defies me I do not disown him.  Yes, there are consequences.  I believe that God's love for His children cannot compare to the love for mine.  The question of loosing salvation looks alot more like questioning God's goodness.  I have read this debate many times on these forums and I always enjoy the mystery of God and how you all bring interesting points to the table.


----------



## PWalls

redwards said:


> Some questions for thought.
> Anyone can respond if you feel led to.
> 
> 1. The word 'baptism" - Is it an event or a process?
> 
> 2. The word "saved" - Is it an event or a process?
> 
> 3. The word "salvation" - Is it an event or a process?
> 
> 4. Situation - A church that believes in baptism by immersion - Does not have a baptismal pool - Must baptize candidates in a stream, lake, etc., or use the baptismal pool at another church.
> An individual comes forward to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
> A baptism is scheduled for some few weeks in the future.
> Before the individual is baptized, he/she dies.
> Will that individual go to heaven?
> 
> 5. Situation - An unbeliever suffers from a fatal disease; is visited by a believer and through the witnessing of that believer accepts Jesus as his/her Lord and Savior; but before that individual can be baptized, he/she passes away.
> Will that individual go to heaven?




1. Event - Baptism is getting dunked - only needs to happen once as affirmation of your faith
2. Event - "Saved" is what you are when you accept Christ - That is an event in your life
3. Event - "Salvation" is what you call being "Saved" - That also is an event
4. Yes - goes to Heaven - Baptism by immersion in water is not required for entrance into Heaven
5. Yes - goes to Heaven - Baptism by immersion in water is not required for entrance into Heaven


The only "processes" are Justification and Sanctification.


----------



## rjcruiser

PWalls said:


> 1. Event - Baptism is getting dunked - only needs to happen once as affirmation of your faith
> 2. Event - "Saved" is what you are when you accept Christ - That is an event in your life
> 3. Event - "Salvation" is what you call being "Saved" - That also is an event
> 4. Yes - goes to Heaven - Baptism by immersion in water is not required for entrance into Heaven
> 5. Yes - goes to Heaven - Baptism by immersion in water is not required for entrance into Heaven
> 
> 
> The only "processes" are Justification and Sanctification.




Ditto.


----------



## farmasis

win280 said:


> Isn't salvation an internal and baptism an external acknoledgement of christ?


 

That is pretty good. I like it.


----------



## MudDucker

farmasis said:


> It is not enough to know that Jesus is Lord, even the demons know that and they tremble. Salvation is asking for forgiveness and believing that Jesus died on a cross for our sins and was raised again in 3 days and that he now sits on the right of the father and reconciles us to God.



Great points, but you left out a big key to Salvation...repentance.  Even if you profess, you must still repent to be saved.


----------



## farmasis

MudDucker said:


> Great points, but you left out a big key to Salvation...repentance. Even if you profess, you must still repent to be saved.


 
Originally Posted by *farmasis* 

 
_It is not enough to know that Jesus is Lord, even the demons know that and they tremble. *Salvation is asking for forgiveness* and believing that Jesus died on a cross for our sins and was raised again in 3 days and that he now sits on the right of the father and reconciles us to God._

__


----------



## z71gacowboy

farmasis said:


> Of course we should. We should also witness. That is a command, but if we do not we will still go to heaven. No works necessary for entrance.





are you freaking serious?? no works necessary? the bible says let your faith be known by your works.......faith without works is dead. Are people not reading thier bibles or just making itup as they go along and picking what they wanna do? you have to profess your acceptance of Christ, repent and be baptized, and your faith in Christ is shown by your works or the things you do. Do is an action word means you are required to physically show your motivation. you are niether hot nor cold so i spew you out of my mouth, return to your first love before i forget you because you have gotten wrapped up in things and have frgotten me


----------



## z71gacowboy

dawg2 said:


> Ummmm.....NO.  That is not the same.




uhhh yea.....show me where God or Christ said one rape is worse than lying. Is it not all sin? does all sin not need to be repented of? then if it is what it is and its corrected in all the same manner then how are you going to classify it into categories? all iniquity is sickening and perverse in the sight of an awesome holy God.


----------



## z71gacowboy

win280 said:


> Isn't salvation an internal and baptism an external acknoledgement of christ?



acknowledging Christ isn't enough, and it aint salvation. Even then demons acknowledged Christ because they knew who he was and what he was to them, that doesnt mean they had salvation.


----------



## z71gacowboy

and you are no christian if you go to church on Sunday and live for the world 6 days a week, you are no disciple of Christ, no child of God, if you totally forsake him. you become a hypocrite, a poor example, professing Christ and living like you never knew him. people like that should repent and turn back to God to be approved and accepted of God. Peter denied but was forgiven.....after he repented. You are not forgiven if you continue on a sinful path and God have mercy on those. I was that guy, I veered of path and I tell you with all conviction although i had accepted christ, professed christ, and was baptized I believe if I had died during that time I most assuredly would not be in heaven because no faith was shown no servant work was done to be called good and faithful and I didn't know christ because i wasnt seeking him and he knew me not.


----------



## Israel

z71gacowboy said:


> and you are no christian if you go to church on Sunday and live for the world 6 days a week, you are no disciple of Christ, no child of God, if you totally forsake him. you become a hypocrite, a poor example, professing Christ and living like you never knew him. people like that should repent and turn back to God to be approved and accepted of God. Peter denied but was forgiven.....after he repented. You are not forgiven if you continue on a sinful path and God have mercy on those. I was that guy, I veered of path and I tell you with all conviction although i had accepted christ, professed christ, and was baptized I believe if I had died during that time I most assuredly would not be in heaven because no faith was shown no servant work was done to be called good and faithful and I didn't know christ because i wasnt seeking him and he knew me not.



pray for me you fiery man.


----------



## Cricket

Israel said:


> pray for me you fiery man.



Pray for all of us.  I once was told a story of statistics taken on confession.  Less than 1% confessed coveting.  Probably all coveted but it is not an outward sin that most see so most did not think to confess.  I am not Catholic but I found this interesting.  We can all be good rule keepers especially when it comes to the rules that we are good at keeping.  Christ did it all and it is up to us only to allow Him to live through us.  That will come naturally because He has given us His heart and we are in Him never to be removed.


----------



## lndixon

I dont think a person has to be bapitzed to go to Heaven.I think its your first steps as a new person.A newborn child is not born running,they learn to crawl first.baptizing is a crawl.I also think if a person is not baptized he/she will be missing out on some blessings from God.oh you'll still get blessings,but If you cant even take the first step how will your relationship grow?


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

*list?*



z71gacowboy said:


> are you freaking serious?? no works necessary? the bible says let your faith be known by your works.......faith without works is dead. Are people not reading thier bibles or just making itup as they go along and picking what they wanna do? you have to profess your acceptance of Christ, repent and be baptized, and your faith in Christ is shown by your works or the things you do. Do is an action word means you are required to physically show your motivation. you are niether hot nor cold so i spew you out of my mouth, return to your first love before i forget you because you have gotten wrapped up in things and have frgotten me


 
are you saying then that it takes works for entrance? and if so, how many are there? What if I only do a few of these works and don't complete this list that grants me entrance to heaven? 

I say again, JESUS is the savior....we must make him our LORD...to be in HIS will....which furthers HIS kingdom. Yes, I agree that as a CHRISTIAN, I should strive to seek HIS purpose for me...FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT....what is mine? THEN work to witness to the lost as he guides me. We all have a gift. This is where I feel we need to WORK.....by spreading the GOSPEL and planting the seeds (works?) so that the holy spirit can then change the hearts of the lost and they may be saved.


----------



## newmoon

I have been preching in a level 5 state prison for the last 6 years every monday night and have witnessed the power of the Holy Spirit draw men to Christ. I have witnessed the change in the lives of a lot of these me and also the prison staff have commented that they are walking the Christian walk inside prison walls. If you think its hard to live a Christian life in the out side world try behind the razor wire. They have now way of being Baptized, Can you honestly say they cant make it to heaven because of that.   alan


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

z71gacowboy said:


> and you are no christian if you go to church on Sunday and live for the world 6 days a week, you are no disciple of Christ, no child of God, if you totally forsake him. you become a hypocrite, a poor example, professing Christ and living like you never knew him. people like that should repent and turn back to God to be approved and accepted of God. Peter denied but was forgiven.....after he repented. You are not forgiven if you continue on a sinful path and God have mercy on those. I was that guy, I veered of path and I tell you with all conviction although i had accepted christ, professed christ, and was baptized I believe if I had died during that time I most assuredly would not be in heaven because no faith was shown no servant work was done to be called good and faithful and I didn't know christ because i wasnt seeking him and he knew me not.


 
sorry....your debt was paid 2000 years ago....you can't truly forsake him if you truly have been saved.....its like bein pregnant.....either you are or you aint. And by the way, churches are full of CHRISTIANS that are hypocrites. I tell folks not to worry about that when they question goin to church... just tell em to come on down...one more aint gone hurt nothing. AS far as you not believing if you would have went to heaven because you had veered from the path........I would say your path may have been wide and not narrow, but if you were truly saved....your name was not taken from the lambs book of life......despite of how vial you may have felt or been....you may have felt as if you let go, but he never let go of you.


----------



## THREEJAYS

Spotlite said:


> How can you believe its a command if you dont think you have to do it? Read Acts 2, matter of fact, read all of Acts.
> 
> You have to be baptized. Baptism alone does not save, but its a very important part of the plan of salvation.
> 
> And the thief on the cross, what about him? That happened before the new covenant



I agree with you,if scripture is all God inspired,God breathed then who are we to say this or that don't matter.Jesus himself in Mark 16;16 says it matters.



farmasis said:


> Of course we should. We should also witness. That is a command, but if we do not we will still go to heaven. No works necessary for entrance.



I agree works don't save,but if you read in Hebrews it's impossible to please God w/out Faith.Then in James we are told "no works no faith".Abraham was found faithful because of action.If he hadn't of followed through w/ what God told him to do do you think it would have been OK.I don't.
oh yea


----------



## Israel

It often becomes abundantly apparent after these discussions get started how little interest there is in the glory of God. They take on a "minimalists guide to heavenly entrance" or what's the least I (you) can do to be saved flavor. 
The apostles, of whom so many seem convinced, are now all dead, were little concerned with what seems to be the general and prevalent attitude so frequently encountered today. Must I do this or that? And the frequent response "you need only do this, you need only do that" Rarely do we hear matters of affections addressed. 

In other words...why does one ask..."Must someone be baptised to go to heaven"? 

The answer is not yes...or...no. The answer is, or at least should be, to one professing to be a member of the Lord's body "do you have any interest in obeying the Lord?" 
Then do whatever you hear him instructing you to do. 

(But if you don't care about obedience...don't be deceived...it's not the Lord Jesus that's alive in you, but something else.)

Oh, but doesn't that presuppose I must be able to hear from the Lord, then? 
Of course. 

Perhaps our instruction in the gospel was deficient, for it must include the believer's privilege/honor/glory is to be able to hear from God in all matters. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to make known all of Jesus to us.

But if one has not yet personally heard the Lord Jesus instruct/command you to repent and believe the gospel through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, then it is back to the beginning. 

That is the first thing "to do". Obey the Lord in that...and he will give you the next instructions.

OK, I believe, Lord. You've convinced me you're alive and who you say you are. 

What is the first response we so often see in the scriptures? 

"Lord, what would you have me to do?" 

Not, "OK, now I am a believer, do I have to do this or that?"

We talk about regeneration and new birth, about the Lord Jesus coming to live in us and be our life. If this is so (as it most assuredly is) then what can ever be a fit response?
If Jesus is indeed our life, then what could be our proper meat except that which he himself ate and grew so fat in spirit with? The will of the Father. For the glory of the Father. 

And if the Father is glorified in our obedience to Jesus, how can we then ask...should I do this thing that I see plainly the Lord instructed in the scriptures? At the very least I should be concerned with "why"?

At least go to the Lord and ask...as is typical of a disciple, or should be. 

Now, this does not exclude the Lord taking opportunity, even in our "curiousities", to make himself known. 

But I wonder how applicable to us a description I have so often heard of the religious Jews of that day applies...they loved to gather and argue the scriptures and seemingly be involved with what they thought were spiritual pursuits by doing so...yet how few recognized the author of those very scriptures when he presented himself.


----------



## Big7

Dick Winters said:


> Can you lose your salvation? Sure you can! Just as you had to choose to accept Christ you can choose to deny him also.
> 
> It is reckless to think that you can ask Jesus into your heart then do whatever you wish without consequence.
> 
> DW



BINGO!


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Dick Winters said:


> Can you lose your salvation? Sure you can! Just as you had to choose to accept Christ you can choose to deny him also.


 


Big7 said:


> BINGO!


 

Good to know that DW and Big7 are more powerful than God...

Just for the debate...

What does it take for you to loose your salvation?
A curse word?
Looking at a woman in a lustful manner?
Not being curtious?
Hating someone else?
Anything?

If you can never be sure of your salvation, then you will constently be second guessing, "Am I saved, I just did a bad thing, I better ask for forgiveness before I die..." That has to be a terrible way to live, always wondering if you are saved...

DB BB


----------



## PJason

Double Barrel BB said:


> Good to know that DW and Big7 are more powerful than God...



It is not about being more powerful then God. It is about exercising the free will God allows us.



Double Barrel BB said:


> Just for the debate...
> 
> What does it take for you to loose your salvation?
> A curse word?
> Looking at a woman in a lustful manner?
> Not being curtious?
> Hating someone else?
> Anything?
> 
> If you can never be sure of your salvation, then you will constently be second guessing, "Am I saved, I just did a bad thing, I better ask for forgiveness before I die..." That has to be a terrible way to live, always wondering if you are saved...
> 
> DB BB



Is it terrible or is it a more difficult way to live? We should struggle with sin everyday, not just say “oh well I’m goanna sin away no big deal after all I’m saved”. I thought we were to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. When a sin becomes common place we slowly sever that bond between ourselves and God. Yes I know no one can pluck us from the hand of the Lord. No one else can cause us to sever that bond we do it to ourselves. When we humble ourselves and ask for God’s forgiveness we restore that bond.


----------



## rjcruiser

PJason said:


> , not just say “oh well I’m goanna sin away no big deal after all I’m saved”.



Of course not.  See what Paul says in Rom 6:1-2  What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?



PJason said:


> When a sin becomes common place we slowly sever that bond between ourselves and God. No one else can cause us to sever that bond we do it to ourselves. When we humble ourselves and ask for God’s forgiveness we restore that bond.



So how long does it take to sever that bond?  What if I die on my way to confession?  Am I going to Heaven or He!!

Living with worry about whether or not I'm doing enough good is not what the Lord wants us to do.  Matt 6:34 "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

However, when you hold that fear over someone...you can control them.


----------



## PWalls

PJason said:


> “oh well I’m goanna sin away no big deal after all I’m saved”.



Fortunately, OSAS does not teach/preach that. Eternal Security does not preach wanton sinning. That viewpoint or belief is held by people either ignorant of scripture or combative because of lack of understanding.


----------



## Big7

Double Barrel BB said:


> Good to know that DW and Big7 are more powerful than God...
> 
> Just for the debate...
> 
> What does it take for you to loose your salvation?
> A curse word?
> Looking at a woman in a lustful manner?
> Not being curtious?
> Hating someone else?
> Anything?
> 
> If you can never be sure of your salvation, then you will constently be second guessing, "Am I saved, I just did a bad thing, I better ask for forgiveness before I die..." That has to be a terrible way to live, always wondering if you are saved...
> 
> DB BB



Hey Buddy!

I can't speak for Mr. Winters but I am supprised
you would say that about me.

You know me well enough by now
to know that I don't think that
I (or anyone else that's sane) am/is more powerful than God. 
Even though we (you and I) rarely agree on the delivery, the
 message is the same for Christians.
Catholics and Protestants agree  Trinity, by
definition is: Items of threefold symmetry or composition.
For our purpose here we are talking about The Holy Trinity.
The Father, The Son and The Holy Sprit or if you prefer:
The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, are/is
necessary for salvation.

BTW - Did you post one time that you were not
Protestant - But Ana-Baptist (sp)? I don't
know what that means. I thought that as Christians
you were either Catholic or Protestant? I know there are "fringes" 
that claim to be "close" to one or the other
and "Interdenominational", ie; UCCF, etc.


The short answer to your question is this: Mortal
(or Grave) Sin, un-repented will cost you your salvation.

So what kind of Sins are Mortal?

    In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions: 

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter (explained in the link)
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner 
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner. 
You can find more about it HERE:
http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

Then there is Venial Sin and that is a different kind and sort of sin and there is a HUGE difference.
More on that HERE: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm

Now, I have to admit that I have considered how
much easier it would be for me - or anyone else,
to be "OSAS" or "By Grace Alone" and all the other terms,
some of which I am not familiar, that refer to the
contention that - If you believe in God and Man-God (Jesus)
 you are done and finished and you will be and are "saved" simply 
by saying "I believe" and that
"Jesus already paid" and those notions are in fact very appealing. 
Frankly, that would just be to "easy" for
me.

This is in fact a "Free Country" and everyone has
the right to worship as they see fit. I just think it is
VERY DANDEROUS to think that you (or me) can say
"I Believe" and truly believe it - then commit a mortal sin
and not repent through the Blessed Sacraments will
get you in big trouble. You know "The Hot Place".
That is for God only to decide, but it makes sense to me.

Please open up the links and give it a chance.
It is all there - if you will go in with an open mind and
be objective.


----------



## PJason

rjcruiser said:


> So how long does it take to sever that bond?  What if I die on my way to confession?  Am I going to Heaven or He!!



I can not tell you that. It is as every thing else, up to the Grace of God.



rjcruiser said:


> Living with worry about whether or not I'm doing enough good is not what the Lord wants us to do.  Matt 6:34 "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."



We should of course be concerned with sin. But once I have confessed I do not worry about the sins I have committed nor the ones I may commit. I simply rejoice in the forgiveness I have been granted. Will I sin again, I earnestly hope not to, I hope to do as He commanded “go and sin no more”. What an impossible task that is, “go and sin no more”. Why did Christ ask for such an impossible thing? He knows the human heart and our failure in the face of sin, why then would He ask such a thing?



rjcruiser said:


> However, when you hold that fear over someone...you can control them.



I am in no fear. Some may be and you are correct fear can be used for control. However the transverse is also true. If I believe that no sin I commit, once I am “saved”, can take away my salvation, then I have given myself a license to sin. Does that mean I can sin all I want and just go to confession. Absolutely not, confession should ever be an excuse for sin. If I said “well I can watch this porn movie or have sex outside of marriage and just go confess and I will fine” I would be no better off then the “saved” person who believes that they may sin as much as they want and still be saved. We must all have the earnest desire not to sin, understanding that we are need of God’s Divine Mercy, and the willingness to confess and except forgiveness when do sin.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> The short answer to your question is this: Mortal
> (or Grave) Sin, un-repented will cost you your salvation.
> 
> Then there is Venial Sin and that is a different kind and sort of sin and there is a HUGE difference.
> 
> Now, I have to admit that I have considered how
> much easier it would be for me - or anyone else,
> to be "OSAS" or "By Grace Alone" and all the other terms,
> some of which I am not familiar, that refer to the
> contention that - If you believe in God and Man-God (Jesus)
> you are done and finished and you will be and are "saved" simply
> by saying "I believe" and that
> "Jesus already paid" and those notions are in fact very appealing.
> Frankly, that would just be to "easy" for
> me




So what happens if you commit a mortal sin....ie slander someone and ruin their reputation (an example pulled from your website on venial sins and mortal sins).  You lose your salvation.  You are driving to confession knowing that you did wrong.  On your way into the parking lot of the church, you get hit by a truck and you die.  You knew what you did was wrong, but you hadn't confessed it to the priest.  Heaven or Hel!?



You can't just say..."I Believe"  for even the demons believe and they shudder.  James 2:19

Obviously if you believe and love the Lord your God and make Him Lord of your life, you will obey Him out of Love, not out of necessity or duty.

Yes, this can seem to be a foriegn concept....gaining favor in God's eyes for doing absolutely nothing.  That is what the definition of grace and why in Rom. 6:23, Paul tells us salvation is the "FREE" gift of God.  Not purchased by good works.


----------



## Cricket

dawg2 said:


> Very good point


Thank you!  That was not an easy lesson learned.  Self-righteousness was the sin that continued to show it's face in my life while I pointed out everyone else's eye specks.  Until the only righteousness in your life is that of Christ it can be rather hard on everyone around you.  These discussions are still quite enjoyable even though.


----------



## rjcruiser

PJason said:


> However the transverse is also true. If I believe that no sin I commit, once I am “saved”, can take away my salvation, then I have given myself a license to sin. Does that mean I can sin all I want and just go to confession.



Read Romans 6 for Paul's response to that question and argument.

I've brought it up several times already, but for some reason, you and others who don't believe OSAS don't seem to get it.


----------



## PWalls

Big7 said:


> Hey Buddy!
> 
> I can't speak for Mr. Winters but I am supprised
> you would say that about me.
> 
> You know me well enough by now
> to know that I don't think that
> I (or anyone else that's sane) am/is more powerful than God.
> Even though we (you and I) rarely agree on the delivery, the
> message is the same for Christians.
> Catholics and Protestants agree  Trinity, by
> definition is: Items of threefold symmetry or composition.
> For our purpose here we are talking about The Holy Trinity.
> The Father, The Son and The Holy Sprit or if you prefer:
> The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, are/is
> necessary for salvation.
> 
> BTW - Did you post one time that you were not
> Protestant - But Ana-Baptist (sp)? I don't
> know what that means. I thought that as Christians
> you were either Catholic or Protestant? I know there are "fringes"
> that claim to be "close" to one or the other
> and "Interdenominational", ie; UCCF, etc.
> 
> 
> The short answer to your question is this: Mortal
> (or Grave) Sin, un-repented will cost you your salvation.
> 
> So what kind of Sins are Mortal?
> 
> In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:
> 
> Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter (explained in the link)
> Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
> Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner.
> You can find more about it HERE:
> http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html
> 
> Then there is Venial Sin and that is a different kind and sort of sin and there is a HUGE difference.
> More on that HERE: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm
> 
> Now, I have to admit that I have considered how
> much easier it would be for me - or anyone else,
> to be "OSAS" or "By Grace Alone" and all the other terms,
> some of which I am not familiar, that refer to the
> contention that - If you believe in God and Man-God (Jesus)
> you are done and finished and you will be and are "saved" simply
> by saying "I believe" and that
> "Jesus already paid" and those notions are in fact very appealing.
> Frankly, that would just be to "easy" for
> me.
> 
> This is in fact a "Free Country" and everyone has
> the right to worship as they see fit. I just think it is
> VERY DANDEROUS to think that you (or me) can say
> "I Believe" and truly believe it - then commit a mortal sin
> and not repent through the Blessed Sacraments will
> get you in big trouble. You know "The Hot Place".
> That is for God only to decide, but it makes sense to me.
> 
> Please open up the links and give it a chance.
> It is all there - if you will go in with an open mind and
> be objective.



Where is sin classification in the Bible? Where is Mortal and Venial Sins in the Bible? Sin is Sin is Sin.


----------



## PWalls

rjcruiser said:


> Read Romans 6 for Paul's response to that question and argument.
> 
> I've brought it up several times already, but for some reason, you and others who don't believe OSAS don't seem to get it.



It does get extremely tiring to hear the same rehashed arguments/statement over and over and over again.


----------



## Branchminnow

SBG said:


> Wouldn't that make God a respecter of persons?



yep shore would


----------



## PJason

Yes of course Salvation is a free gift from God no one questions that. What did the prodigal son do to gain his inheritance? Nothing he went to his father and asked for it, his father gave it to him freely. What did the prodigal do with his inheritance? He squandered it until one day he found himself sleeping with the pigs.


----------



## rjcruiser

PJason said:


> Yes of course Salvation is a free gift from God no one questions that.



Then why have indulgences and believe that true salvation is not by GRACE ALONE?


----------



## Big7

PWalls said:


> Where is sin classification in the Bible? Where is Mortal and Venial Sins in the Bible? Sin is Sin is Sin.



Before I answer your question and given that we
are Catholic or Protestant, for the most part
and that, though not stated MOST of us have dismissed the "fringes":

Which Bible are you refering to regarding your question:
"Where is sin classification in the Bible? Where is Mortal and Venial Sins in the Bible?"


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> Then why have indulgences and believe that true salvation is not by GRACE ALONE?



pjason, dawg2. Dick Winters, others and myself have already "splained" that to you in the thread that you and blimpque( or whatever his name is) trolled to the point that the thread was closed.

Dismissed! GO TROLL SOMEWHERE ELSE!


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> pjason, dawg2. Dick Winters, others and myself have already "splained" that to you in the thread that you and blimpque( or whatever his name is) trolled to the point that the thread was closed.
> 
> Dismissed! GO TROLL SOMEWHERE ELSE!



Didn't realize I was trolling...especially in "that thread" that was closed.  I have tried to keep my discussion and debate professional and curteous.  I apologize if you feel otherwise.  It is not my intent to upset you to the point of you dismissing any and all I have to say.

The question about indulgences was never answered in that thread....the question about Grace Alone was brought up in another thread...and it wasn't answered there either.  

I find it interesting that PJason agrees that it is a "Free" gift.  However, we still have to do things.  Maybe I just have a warped definition of free...but I thought it meant that there was nothing I needed to pay, nothing I needed to do, nothing that was expected....I only had to receive the gift?


----------



## PWalls

Big7 said:


> Before I answer your question and given that we
> are Catholic or Protestant, for the most part
> and that, though not stated MOST of us have dismissed the "fringes":
> 
> Which Bible are you refering to regarding your question:
> "Where is sin classification in the Bible? Where is Mortal and Venial Sins in the Bible?"



I have a KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and I even have two Catholic Companion editions (from my past). I have one or two that I read. I refer to all of them on occasion.

Take your pick.


----------



## PWalls

Big7 said:


> pjason, dawg2. Dick Winters, others and myself have already "splained" that to you in the thread that you and blimpque( or whatever his name is) trolled to the point that the thread was closed.
> 
> Dismissed! GO TROLL SOMEWHERE ELSE!


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> Didn't realize I was trolling...especially in "that thread" that was closed.  I have tried to keep my discussion and debate professional and curteous.  I apologize if you feel otherwise.  It is not my intent to upset you to the point of you dismissing any and all I have to say.
> 
> The question about indulgences was never answered in that thread....the question about Grace Alone was brought up in another thread...and it wasn't answered there either.
> 
> I find it interesting that PJason agrees that it is a "Free" gift.  However, we still have to do things.  Maybe I just have a warped definition of free...but I thought it meant that there was nothing I needed to pay, nothing I needed to do, nothing that was expected....I only had to receive the gift?



Indulgences: What it is and what it is not.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Grace is FREE! and YES, we STILL have to do things.
We keep giving you answers and you keep asking the
same question(s) - trying to get a different answer.

If you really want to know what the Catholic Church 
teaches and are not willing to accept what 
we, as lay people have to offer in the SF. then go HERE:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ THE BIBLE.
WITH ALL THE BOOKS!

Then if still unwilling to hear what we are offering you 
to get the technical picture go HERE:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm

I know it is technical.
I know it is demanding.
I know it is not easy.

I wish it was as easy as "Grace Alone" or
OSAS - but it is not. I would love to have that latitude
myself, but I know it is not true to my Faith.

If you are in need of help we Catholics
and our Protestant Friends will be glad to help you.

If you already have your mind made up then 
GOOD FOR YOU!

All of your questions have been answered.
The world is round is not in The Bible either.
We know that it is round.

Fact is, like it or not - The first few (hundred) years of
 Christianity is based on the Oral Traditions of The
Roman Catholic Church. The first written accounts
of THE WORD came from The Roman Catholic Church.

THE WORD has not changed. Martin Luther CHANGED
the book.

Good luck in your search though!


----------



## PWalls

Big7 said:


> Fact is, like it or not - The first few (hundred) years of
> Christianity is based on the Oral Traditions of The
> Roman Catholic Church. The first written accounts
> of THE WORD came from The Roman Catholic Church.



I guess this is the hangup with most Protestants when trying to understand the RCC.

Man is sinful and fallible. Yet, so much of the doctrine of the RCC is based on "oral" traditions that are passed on sinful and fallible man. When you look in the Bible, you do not see that "tradition" so it becomes a hangup for understanding by others.


----------



## Big7

PWalls said:


> I have a KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and I even have two Catholic Companion editions (from my past). I have one or two that I read. I refer to all of them on occasion.
> 
> Take your pick.


My pick: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

Chapter(s) and Verse(s) noted at the bottom.

HERE: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm


PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST 
SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 

ARTICLE 8
SIN 

I. MERCY AND SIN 

1846 The Gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God's mercy to sinners.113 The angel announced to Joseph: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."114 The same is true of the Eucharist, the sacrament of redemption: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."115 

1847 "God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."116 To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."117 

1848 As St. Paul affirms, "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."118 But to do its work grace must uncover sin so as to convert our hearts and bestow on us "righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."119 Like a physician who probes the wound before treating it, God, by his Word and by his Spirit, casts a living light on sin: 


Conversion requires convincing of sin; it includes the interior judgment of conscience, and this, being a proof of the action of the Spirit of truth in man's inmost being, becomes at the same time the start of a new grant of grace and love: "Receive the Holy Spirit." Thus in this "convincing concerning sin" we discover a double gift: the gift of the truth of conscience and the gift of the certainty of redemption. The Spirit of truth is the Consoler.120 
II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN 

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121 

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125 

1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate's cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas' betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter's denial and the disciples' flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly. 

III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS 

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127 

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.


IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN 

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience. 

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. 

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. 

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation: 


When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130 
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131 

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger. 

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. 

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. 

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. 

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. 

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134 


While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135 
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. 

V. THE PROLIFERATION OF SIN 

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root. 

1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called "capital" because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia. 

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143 

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: 

- by participating directly and voluntarily in them; 

- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; 

- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; 

- by protecting evil-doers. 

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144 

IN BRIEF 

1870 "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all" (Rom 11:32). 

1871 Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22L 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ. 

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity. 

1873 The root of all sins lies in man's heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects. 

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death. 

1875 Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us. 

1876 The repetition of sins - even venial ones - engenders vices, among which are the capital sins. 



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

113 Cf. Lk 15.
114 Mt 1:21.
115 Mt 26:28.
116 St. Augustine, Sermo 169,11,13L 38,923.
117 1 Jn 8-9.
118 Rom 5:20.
119 Rom 5:21.
120 John Paul II, DeV 31 § 2.
121 St. Augustine, Contra Faustum 22L 42,418; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,71,6.
122 Ps 51:4.
123 Gen 3:5.
124 St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 14,28L 41,436. 
125 Cf. Phil 2:6-9.
126 Cf. Jn 14:30.
127 Gal 5:19-21; cf. Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 9-10; 2 Tim 2-5. 
128 Mt 15:19-20.
129 Cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17.
130 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,88,2, corp. art.
131 RP 17 § 12.
132 Mk 10:19.
133 Cf. Mk 3:5-6; Lk 16:19-31.
134 John Paul II, RP 17 § 9.
135 St. Augustine, In ep. Jo. 1,6L 35,1982.
136 Mt 12:31; cf. Mk 3:29; Lk 12:10.
137 Cf. John Paul II, DeV 46.
138 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, 31,45L 76,621A.
139 Cf. Gen 4:10.
140 Cf. Gen 18:20; 19:13.
141 Cf. Ex 3:7-10.
142 Cf. Ex 20:20-22.
143 Cf. Deut 24:14-15; Jas 5:4.
144 John Paul II, RP 16. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright permission for posting of the English translation of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on the Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site was granted by Amministrazione Del Patrimonio Della Sede Apostolica, case number 130389.

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

Read up!


----------



## Big7

PWalls said:


> Where is sin classification in the Bible? Where is Mortal and Venial Sins in the Bible? Sin is Sin is Sin.



see # 140



PWalls said:


> It does get extremely tiring to hear the same rehashed arguments/statement over and over and over again.



yes, It does.



Big7 said:


> Before I answer your question and given that we
> are Catholic or Protestant, for the most part
> and that, though not stated MOST of us have dismissed the "fringes":
> 
> Which Bible are you refering to regarding your question:
> "Where is sin classification in the Bible? Where is Mortal and Venial Sins in the Bible?"



Please see post # 140


----------



## PJason

rjcruiser said:


> Then why have indulgences and believe that true salvation is not by GRACE ALONE?



An indulgence does not gain salvation for anyone. I can have as may indulgences as I wish but if I am going to He ll then I am going. An indulgence as said before is the remission of temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt has already been forgiven. We will pay temporal punishment for our sins that have been forgiven. If I break your window I can say I am sorry and you can forgive ( the guilt is gone) but that does not unbreak the window (the temporal punishment remains). It must be repaired and it is only just that I be the one to repair it.


I would contend that you do not believe that it is Grace Alone because as the 5 Solas state you need Faith, Christ, Scripture,God, and Grace. Will Grace Alone get you there without Christ Alone? Will Christ Alone get you there without Faith Alone? Will Faith Alone get you there without Grace Alone?

What about the obedience that St. Paul calls for in Romans 6:16 or the Love called for in Romans 12:10. These are both good works. Things needed for Justification.


----------



## PWalls

Big7 said:


> see # 140



Thank you for the information.

I still disagree with the interpretations. Sin is still sin. No where does the Bible say that this sin will cause eternal seperation and this will not. There is a lot of "opinion" in that post about that. What the Bible says is that all sin is bad. Also, it is my opinion that the "death" being referred to by sin is a physical death and not eternal.

But, I do thank you for the information. It is well put together.


----------



## PJason

PWalls said:


> I guess this is the hangup with most Protestants when trying to understand the RCC.
> 
> Man is sinful and fallible. Yet, so much of the doctrine of the RCC is based on "oral" traditions that are passed on sinful and fallible man. When you look in the Bible, you do not see that "tradition" so it becomes a hangup for understanding by others.



Yet the Bible was written by sinful and fallible men. We do not see the difference. We both view the Bible as God's Word written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit however it was still written by sinful and fallible men. I also view Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium as inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit yet it is still passed on by sinful and fallible men. However as with the Sacred Scripture when guided by the Holy Spirit they can be infallible too.


----------



## PWalls

PJason said:


> I also view Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium as inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit yet it is still passed on by sinful and fallible men.



Yet Scripture itself says it is infallible and validates itself. It bears itself out. I do not believe that "tradition" is sacred as you do. I do not believe that "tradition" was inspired as you do.


----------



## PJason

PWalls said:


> Yet Scripture itself says it is infallible and validates itself. It bears itself out.



Sacred Scripture is infallible who says it is not. However it can be hard to understand and how are we to understand it if we have not been taught. 



PWalls said:


> I do not believe that "tradition" is sacred as you do. I do not believe that "tradition" was inspired as you do.



Why? Is God not capable of using men, sinful and fallible men, to spread infallible Sacred Scripture as well as infallible Sacred Traditions. I do hold fast to the Sacred Traditions which have been taught both by word of mouth and by letter.


----------



## PWalls

PJason said:


> Sacred Scripture is infallible who says it is not. However it can be hard to understand and how are we to understand it if we have not been taught.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Is God not capable of using men, sinful and fallible men, to spread infallible Sacred Scripture as well as infallible Sacred Traditions. I do hold fast to the Sacred Traditions which have been taught both by word of mouth and by letter.



I did not mean to imply that you think Sacred Scripture is not infallible. Sorry if it cam across that way.

God is fully capable of using anything for His glory.

Just don't agree with some of the traditions is all.


----------



## PWalls

dawg2 said:


> Are there no "sinful" and "fallible" men in the Protestant faith?
> 
> The original Bible is one long tradition from Adam to Revelations.



Of course there are and I have never denied it. All men are sinful and fallible.

The Bible is the written and inspired Word of God.


----------



## PWalls

Hey, PJ. Ain't it a Tuesday or Thursday between 6-8 PM?

Time to agree on something.


Jesus is Lord!!!!!


----------



## PJason

PWalls said:


> Hey, PJ. Ain't it a Tuesday or Thursday between 6-8 PM?
> 
> Time to agree on something.
> 
> 
> Jesus is Lord!!!!!




On that we can agree 


How about this Dawg2's avatar kind of freaks me out.








At first it's like "hey that's kind of cute" and then you really get a good look and think  "what the..."


----------



## PWalls

PJason said:


> On that we can agree
> 
> 
> How about this Dawg2's avatar kind of freaks me out.
> 
> 
> At first it's like "hey that's kind of cute" and then you really get a good look and think  "what the..."



But, "it" does have a very nice set of teeth.


----------



## Spotlite

I just got 1question for the Catholics. Based on the lenght of your post(s), are your services that long to?


----------



## PJason

Spotlite said:


> I just got 1question for the Catholics. Based on the lenght of your post(s), are your services that long to?



It depends

A typical Novus Ordo Mass is an hour

We had one Priest growing who could say Mass in 48 minutes.

However the Easter Vigil Mass can run 3-4+ Hours. (The Length will depend on how many people are in the RCIA class and how many different languages there are, which is why I like the Latin but that is really off topic)

Most of the Holiday Masses Easter and Christmas can run over an 1 hour almost 2. (Again depending on the number of people who attend which is typically more then your normal Mass)

Daily Mass is around thrity minutes.

When you talk about the Tridentine Mass or Latin Mass has a few different forms

Low Mass all spoken runs .75-1 hours

High Mass some spoken some sung runs 1.25 hours

Solemn High Mass all sung runs 1.5 hours

I prefer the Tridentine Mass but that is just me.


Of course all this is based on the Priest, how many people are attending, and how much the choir likes to sing.

You also have to remember that there are many different Masses. Funerals, Marriages, Baptism, Conformation, and the list go on. 

Short answer the Mass is typically around 1 hour, but I never mind when it is longer.


----------



## Spotlite

wow, 3 to 4 hours. Im used to a 1 to 1 1/2 hour service myself but thats not every service either.


----------



## PJason

Spotlite said:


> wow, 3 to 4 hours. Im used to a 1 to 1 1/2 hour service myself but thats not every service either.



That is not every Mass, but some can last that long if not longer.


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

*Impossible*



Big7 said:


> BINGO!


 
IF YOU BECOME A NEW CREATURE THROUGH ACCEPTING HIM...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY HIM.....TO DENY HIM AFTER ONE HAS TRULY BEEN SAVED....IS IMPOSSIBLE. LIKE IT WAS STATED HE COMES INTO YOUR HEART...ONCE HES THERE-TRULY THERE THROUGH TOTAL ACCEPTANCE, JUST AS OTHER RELATIONSHIPS GROW STRONGER THROUGH FELLOWSHIP(MARRIAGE, JOBS, FRIENDS, PARENT-CHILD) THEN WE BECOME MORE IN TUNE WITH HOW WE ARE TO LIVE OUR LIVES...WHICH IS IDENTIFYING SIN WE COULDN'T SEE AND SPREADING THE GOSPEL. WITH NO OBEDIENCE AND RELATIONSHIP, WE REMAIN SINFUL AND WITH THIRST FOR FULFILLMENT. WHICH, WE TRY TO ACCOMODATE WITH WORLDLY PLEASURE, WHICH NEVER LAST LONG....


----------



## Big7

Spotlite said:


> I just got 1question for the Catholics. Based on the lenght of your post(s), are your services that long to?



The posts are serious effort to enlighten those that
are interested - with that comes, unfortunately, the
need to be Apologetic. (Defendor, Defender of the Faith)
Link to that terminology follows below*.

Short Answer:
About an hour for a Sunday in Ordinary Time.
Lent, Funeral Mass, Wedding Mass, Holy Days of Obligation.
Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Bapatism and Bike Week at Daytona Beach, 
among many others directly influence the length of the Service.

Who, what, when, where and why found HERE:
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm

Consists of at least two readings from the Bible, usually three;
one from the Old testament, one from the New Testament
and a reading from one of the Gospels. 
Gospel is not optional. Between the second reading and a reading
from the Gospel is the Homily. AKA - to our Protestant Brothers and Sisters
 as the "Sermon" or the "Preaching"
part. (same thing) Left up to the Priest
 (same as and Officially eqv. to Reverend, Preacher, Pastor) 
except in Higher in rank, i.e.; Holy Orders - Archbishop, Bishop, Pope etc.
All ordained can do Mass.
Deacons, ordained can do most duties and often do in case of large 
congregations or sometimes the opposite, ie;
missionarys, ministering to the sick etc, where a Priest
is unavailable. Can not consectate Eucharist and some other 
Priestly Duties, Confession, Last Things (Rites)
etc... They can and you or I can Baptize. 

Between the Second reading and the Gospel comes
THE LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST - The essence
of the Mass, and the purpose (one) of ceremony.

All the same things happen in the Order of Mass.
What makes the weekday Mass a little shorter is
that there is usually not the same number of people,
hence, the Take and Eat and Take and Drink part
does not take as long.

Foot Note: 1) If you can make Mass everyday, desirable
but not practical for most people - you will get the 
WHOLE BIBLE with the Homily in JUST THREE SHORT
YEARS!
So much for the detractors that say the Roman Catholic
Church does not teach the Bible. 
2) Everyday is desirable but not mandatory.
Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation are!

*http://www.catholicapologetics.org/cabiapbk.htm


----------



## Big7

BRANCHWYNN said:


> IF YOU BECOME A NEW CREATURE THROUGH ACCEPTING HIM...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY HIM.....TO DENY HIM AFTER ONE HAS TRULY BEEN SAVED....IS IMPOSSIBLE. LIKE IT WAS STATED HE COMES INTO YOUR HEART...ONCE HES THERE-TRULY THERE THROUGH TOTAL ACCEPTANCE, JUST AS OTHER RELATIONSHIPS GROW STRONGER THROUGH FELLOWSHIP(MARRIAGE, JOBS, FRIENDS, PARENT-CHILD) THEN WE BECOME MORE IN TUNE WITH HOW WE ARE TO LIVE OUR LIVES...WHICH IS IDENTIFYING SIN WE COULDN'T SEE AND SPREADING THE GOSPEL. WITH NO OBEDIENCE AND RELATIONSHIP, WE REMAIN SINFUL AND WITH THIRST FOR FULFILLMENT. WHICH, WE TRY TO ACCOMODATE WITH WORLDLY PLEASURE, WHICH NEVER LAST LONG....



What about our Protestant Friends that "backslide"?
What happens to them?

As a Catholic we (I) have heard the term, but do not understand?
If you "backsilde" to the point of "REAL BAD" whatever
that means as far as severety, and are "OSAS", or
"Grace Only", are you telling me that you can't do
enough "bad" to lose salvation?


----------



## PJason

I will say one last thing about the Mass. I have never cared how long Mass was. I do not wear a watch or carry a cell phone with me to Mass. The only thing I care about is that it is done corretctly. We do have what are called rubrics these can be found in the GIRM or General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as long as the rubrics are followed then I could care less about the length of the Mass.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> Grace is FREE! and YES, we STILL have to do things.



Webster's gives a definition of free as having no obligations (as to work) or commitments.  How can Grace be FREE and you still have to do things?  That isn't free.



			
				PJason said:
			
		

> We will pay temporal punishment for our sins that have been forgiven. If I break your window I can say I am sorry and you can forgive ( the guilt is gone) but that does not unbreak the window (the temporal punishment remains). It must be repaired and it is only just that I be the one to repair it.



Forgiveness is to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>.  In your example, if you broke my window, and I forgave you, I would expect nothing in return.  That is the great thing about Christ.  He has forgiven us our sins with the expectation and knowledge that we can do nothing to repay this debt.

Isaiah 64:6b "And all our (L)righteous deeds are like a filthy garment"

To God, any good deed we do is still like filth compared to His righteousness and perfection.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

PJason said:


> It is not about being more powerful then God. It is about exercising the free will God allows us.
> 
> Is it terrible or is it a more difficult way to live? We should struggle with sin everyday, not just say “oh well I’m goanna sin away no big deal after all I’m saved”. I thought we were to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. When a sin becomes common place we slowly sever that bond between ourselves and God. Yes I know no one can pluck us from the hand of the Lord. No one else can cause us to sever that bond we do it to ourselves. When we humble ourselves and ask for God’s forgiveness we restore that bond.


 

That is where we differ, I am not a freewiller.  I believe that God chose me before the foundation of the world. Because if I think I had any part in my Salvation, even by saying yes to it, then that means I had the power to refuse God, which in turn means I would have power over God.

I am not saying I continue to sin, even though I am Saved. What I am saying is once you are Saved, you won't continue to knowingly sin, yes we all slip, but I think it is a Christian's duty to try their best never to sin again.  And it does bother me when I do something that I know God would not approve of, because I know it is breaking His heart that I am not a better Christian than I am. And yes I do ask for forgiveness and ask for God's help to never do it again.

We should all strive to be the best witness for what God has done for us(the Saved), because there is no greater blessing than being Saved.

*Spurgeon once said this: "We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, ‘I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,’ marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow.”*

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Big7 said:


> Hey Buddy!
> 
> I can't speak for Mr. Winters but I am supprised
> you would say that about me.
> 
> You know me well enough by now
> to know that I don't think that
> I (or anyone else that's sane) am/is more powerful than God.
> Even though we (you and I) rarely agree on the delivery, the
> message is the same for Christians.
> Catholics and Protestants agree  Trinity, by
> definition is: Items of threefold symmetry or composition.
> For our purpose here we are talking about The Holy Trinity.
> The Father, The Son and The Holy Sprit or if you prefer:
> The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, are/is
> necessary for salvation.
> 
> BTW - Did you post one time that you were not
> Protestant - But Ana-Baptist (sp)? I don't
> know what that means. I thought that as Christians
> you were either Catholic or Protestant? I know there are "fringes"
> that claim to be "close" to one or the other
> and "Interdenominational", ie; UCCF, etc.
> 
> 
> The short answer to your question is this: Mortal
> (or Grave) Sin, un-repented will cost you your salvation.
> 
> So what kind of Sins are Mortal?
> 
> In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:
> 
> Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter (explained in the link)
> Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
> Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner.
> You can find more about it HERE:
> http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html
> 
> Then there is Venial Sin and that is a different kind and sort of sin and there is a HUGE difference.
> More on that HERE: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm
> 
> Now, I have to admit that I have considered how
> much easier it would be for me - or anyone else,
> to be "OSAS" or "By Grace Alone" and all the other terms,
> some of which I am not familiar, that refer to the
> contention that - If you believe in God and Man-God (Jesus)
> you are done and finished and you will be and are "saved" simply
> by saying "I believe" and that
> "Jesus already paid" and those notions are in fact very appealing.
> Frankly, that would just be to "easy" for
> me.
> 
> This is in fact a "Free Country" and everyone has
> the right to worship as they see fit. I just think it is
> VERY DANDEROUS to think that you (or me) can say
> "I Believe" and truly believe it - then commit a mortal sin
> and not repent through the Blessed Sacraments will
> get you in big trouble. You know "The Hot Place".
> That is for God only to decide, but it makes sense to me.
> 
> Please open up the links and give it a chance.
> It is all there - if you will go in with an open mind and
> be objective.


 

I did not mean any offense, what I was trying to do is make a point that no one is more powerful than God, sorry that I offended you, I guess it didn't come across the way I thought it would.

Yes my belief is based on the beliefs of the True Early Christians. The Ana-Baptist were never protestants, they were descendents of the True Church... See this thread my friend...

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=197041

I have supplied several resources on the descendents of what I believe is the True Church. I am not saying that others in other christian beliefs are not saved, I am just stating my belief of the True Church.

DB BB


----------



## Big7

From THIS: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's Corner/why_baptists_are_not_protestants.htm  taken from bmpique's
post #171, I went through some of the links to find THIS:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/protestantism.htm

I can't believe what I'm reading here. 

Flip through them for yourself - I think you will find
most of the "junk" on this site very distasteful and
hateful, not only toward Catholics, which is to be expected
from one of his "sources", but toward Protestants
as well. What do some of the Protestant member's
of the forum think?

Yes, it is talking about Baptism among all the other things
so it is "on topic"


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> From THIS: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's Corner/why_baptists_are_not_protestants.htm  taken from bmpique's
> post #171, I went through some of the links to find THIS:
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/protestantism.htm



Must be good stuff because the web filter here at work blocks it.  Says it is in the "Intolerance and Hate" category.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> That would be the mild description.  It lumps Protestants into the nasty gategory with extremely offensive references and adjectives.  I'd erase your cookies and history on your computer for even trying to access it from work if I were you.




The diversity council just walked into my cube and is taking my PC away for me as I'm typing this........


----------



## crackerdave

bmpique: To learn what "Christian duty" is,read the words of Jesus Christ in the last part of Matthew.It's often referred to as the Great Commission,and it says NOTHING about being the "truth police" so please - just drop it! I,for one,do not need you to tell me what the truth is.


----------



## Big7

rangerdave said:


> bmpique: To learn what "Christian duty" is,read the words of Jesus Christ in the last part of Matthew.It's often referred to as the Great Commission,and it says NOTHING about being the "truth police" so please - just drop it! I,for one,do not need you to tell me what the truth is.



Me neither - plus, don't go away mad, JUST GO AWAY!
WAY - FAR - AWAY!


----------



## PJason

bmpique said:


> inquisition and holy crusades



You seem to be holding yourself up as an expert in these two fields. So please start a new thread about the "Inquisition" and the "Holy Crusades" I for one would love to hear all you have to say about it.




bmpique said:


> yall say that I am hate filled.



I do not say you are hate filled because you continue to spread lies about something know nothing about, for that I call you ignorant. I say you are hate filled because of the tone of your post.


----------



## PJason

bmpique said:


> You guys can't stand the truth.  Because I tell you what is truth and in the history books (inquisition and holy crusades) yall say that I am hate filled.  It appears that I am the only one on this board who is not scared of you catholics.  I keep getting PM's by Protestants and Baptists (one in the same)saying "thank you" for standing up for the truth and telling those Catholics about their own church history...
> What have yall done to scare these non-catholics into speaking the truth here?  Why do they have to PM me and say "thank you..."?



Let them PM me I am always happy to speak with them. Why do they not do it on the board? I can tell you I have never once run to a MOD crying because "someone hurt my feelings". I knew what I was getting into when I joined this board and I have no fear of anything that anyone has to say. I am a Domini Canis and I fear no typed word.


----------



## PJason

bmpique said:


> Anybody who sweeps under the rug the millions of murders done by the papacy or the thousands of molestations by the priesthood is no Christian...  You should be standing against this kind of wickedness and not for it.



So you are saying I am for murder and child molestation.

I challanged you before start a thread and we will discuss it. I have nothing to hide.




bmpique said:


> Yall bash me for standing against evil...  that makes a lot of Christian sense...  My prayers are with all of you papists who are putting your faith in men instead of God.  I pray that God has mercy on your souls for not loving the truth...



That's odd earlier you wanted hot coals heaped on my head. And yes I know that is from Proverbs you looking for some kind of reward?



bmpique said:


> Its a shame that yall are blinded by satan and follow the anti-christ popes blindly into the pit...  forgive me for having a burden on my heart for the souls of you papists...



Funny I thought you said only God could forgive your sins.



bmpique said:


> and yes, the papacy is THE anti-christ...



You know I wish you folks would make up your mind either the anti-christ is one person or two hundred and sixty-six people. Growing up I heard John Paul the Great called the anti-christ and how Jesus was going to return and smite him, but it never happened. Now I hear how Papa Ratzinger is the anti-christ and how Jesus is going to come and smite him. So please make up your mind either the anti-christ is one person or many people. Stop changing it every time we have a new Pope.


Pax Christi


----------



## PWalls

bmpique said:


> and yes, the papacy is THE anti-christ...



Really? I don't believe that.

Anti-Christ is a singular person that will rise up at a point in history when God wills it. He will be the prime mover for Satan and all the evil that will befall the world during the Tribulation.

The "Papacy" is a whole bunch of popes stretching back through history.

So, I think you are a little off there.


Also, the RCC is not "evil". They just preach a different doctrine than you or I believe in. That doesn't make them "evil". At worst, it makes them misguided. At best, it still means I can enjoy relationships with my RCC breathren who know that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.


----------



## Big7

O.K.  Forget the don't go away mad part.
just GO AWAY!


----------



## PJason

*This is what I found on your quote...*



bmpique said:


> l wish to purposely introduce non-Baptist testimony to the great antiquity of Baptist people. Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579) was a Roman Catholic prelate who had as his life work the investigation and suppression of non-Catholic groups. By Pope Paul IV he was designated one of the three papal presidents of the famous Council of Trent. Hosius carried on vigorously the work of the counter-reformation. If anyone in post-reformation times knew the doctrines and history of nonCatholic groups, it was Hosius. Cardinal Hosius says, "Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1,200 years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers" (Letters Apud Opera, pp.112, 113). Note carefully that this knowledgeable Catholic scholar has spoken of the vicious persecution Baptists have endured, that he clearly distinguishes them from the Reformers, and that he dates them 1,200 years before the Protestant Reformation.





So let’s take a closer look…

In 1931 J. Carroll published a pamphlet in which he tried to establish that the Baptist Churches had been around since the begining of Christianity entitled "Trail of Blood"

In one section he quoted the following;

"Cardinal Hosius (Catholic,1524) President of the Council of Trent

'Were it not that the Baptists have been grieviously toremented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater numbers than all the Reformers.' (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp 112,113)"

In 1931 J. Carroll published a pamphlet in which he tried to establish that the Baptist Churches had been around since the begining of Christianity entitled "Trail of Blood"

In one section he quoted the following;

"Cardinal Hosius (Catholic,1524) President of the Council of Trent

'Were it not that the Baptists have been grieviously toremented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater numbers than all the Reformers.' (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp 112,113)"

A few things about this.

First, there are no writtings entitled "Apud Opera" written by Cardinal Hosius. 

In fact let's take a look at the title "Apud Opera"

Being a Catholic Cardinal, Stanislaus Hosius would have a proper command of the Latin Languge 

Apud = near
Opera= works

Now, in 1584 his complete works were published in Cologne under the title, "Opera Omnia"

Opera= works
Omnia= All or total

Now, the correct title for the cited title should have been "Opera Apud" the with the noun first and the adjective second. But why would he have published "Near works"? Since Hosius was proficient in Latin, it is extremely doubtful he would make such a basic mistake.

Next, let's look at the year Cardinal Hosius was suppose to have said this-1524- as the "President of the Council of Trent"

the Council of Trent didn't start until December, 1545. 21 years after the date cited.

, Hosius didn't arrive until the 3rd session in 1561, 37 years after the quote is cited.

In addition, he wasn't the president of the Council. He was a Cardinal Legate, an assistant to the President- Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. In fact Cardinal Hosius was one of 5 legates.

now then, before someone says," well it was just a typo, it was probably 'Opera Omnia'" let me assure you that I expect to have a copy of those cited pages in the next few weeks, and if they do confirm what Carroll stated, I will not infringe upon my academic integrity.

But Prima Facie evidence is that the quote that Mr. Carrol published is bogus and a pure work of fiction. 

I found this on a website about the pamphlet “Trail of Blood”


http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm



> Likewise, in writings of their enemies as well as friends, Dr. Carroll found, their history and that their trail through the ages was indeed bloody:
> 
> Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
> 
> "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)
> 
> The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.


----------



## Big7

bmpique said:


> can yall tell me which one above is the pope and which one is the Christian?



Pope Benedict XVI - Answer to question # 1

Pope Benedict XVI - Answer to question # 2

How and why? HERE: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/

Go find a street corner and deliver all of your...
Well, I better not say.

BTW- You wouldn't last long there either.
Everybody knows a TROLL when they see one.

Tell you what? Get on YouTube or something like
like that. There - you will find un-moderated response
to your spewage of filth. Shame on you -


----------



## PJason

bmpique said:


> Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.), Donatists (305 A.D.), Albigenses (1022 A.D.), Waldensians (1170 A.D.),



I am very curious do you know and understand these five groups that you are linking yourself with. Can you tell us anything about what they believed ?


----------



## Spotlite

bmpique said:


> Pick up your history books and READ !
> Mary was not an ever virgin
> 
> Mary was not immaculately conceived



I refer to read the Bible, which is where you should start, based on your comments above.


----------



## crackerdave

bmpique: Don't you think your Savior would prefer that you lead people to Him? Or are you too busy minding other people's business? You're wasting time trying to convince Catholics that they're evil.


----------



## PWalls

bmpique said:


> Well, if you are Protestant, you need to know that all of the reformers thought that the papacy was the antichrist...
> 
> ok, watch this link in its entirety.  Its about 18 minutes long. All of the info in it is straight from the Bible...
> 
> watch this:
> http://www.john1429.org/video/antichrist/Antichrist-128.html
> This video is quite clear and uses the Bible to prove who the antchrist is.  Your view that the antichrist coming near the end and being one man is incorrect.  Its called the "futurism" veiw.  The futurism view was created by a Jesuit Doctor named Francisco Ribera.  The Protestants had made such a major dent in the rc church that had to find a way to redeem themselves...  This jesuit found a way.. Since all the reformers was blasting the papacy as the antichrist, this jesuit decided that he would try to help "call off reformation the dogs" from the papacy.  His goal was to put a paper that would show that the papacy couldn't possibly be the ant-christ.  he wanted to divert all of the antichrist attention going to the papacy and get it going somewhere else.  so he wrote this paper and released it into the world.  It basically said that the antichrist would come back as one man near the end of time... and if you look around today you will see that most people believe this future event... Well, its a lie. just another false lie from the catholic church to get people off their backs and back into their churches.
> 
> you can hear a sermon on this exact topic which explains from the Bible that the antichrist has been with us since the days of the apostles...  This view is called the "
> Historicist" view...  Its actually the right view.  If you listen to the sermon it will make sense...
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=716081039198
> 
> Ok, lets see what God thinks about different doctrines...
> Gal 1:8,9
> 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> 
> 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
> 
> Heres the definition of "accursed"...
> Abominable; hateful: this accursed mud.
> Being under a curse; doomed.
> 
> Its obvious that the papacy has spent the last 1500 years pillaging and plundering the world. Not to mention, they take a verse out of the Bible like, "feed my sheep"...  B/c of this simple phrase, the rc church says that this vers proves that we are to have a papacy... Its a lie.
> 
> Rev 22:18
> 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, _*If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:*_
> 
> The Rc church has made a career out of maing their own doctrines  1) praying to mary 2) eating jesus 3) praying to dead saints 4) eucharist 5) lent, etc, etc..
> 
> So, since this church is an "accursed" church, then yes i would say that they are evil.  They are accursed for changing all of God's doctrines and perverting the True Gospel of Jesus.  This isnt my opinion. It is found in the Bible by simply reading it...




Ummm...Well...OK....

You're wrong. Your entitled to be wrong. I also have read the Bible and continue to read it. However, I don't also look at hate-mongering websites for my information.

I am a Baptist. I believe in a physical Rapture, 7 year Tribulation and the second coming of Jesus to fight at Armegeddon and establish his Millenial Kingdom as cleary detailed in Revelation. My belief is that the Anti-Christ (single person) will appear prior to the Rapture behind the scenes to place himself in positions of importance so that he can control the world during that 7 year Tribulation period and usher in Armegeddon. I also believe that the One Church mentioned in Revelation that the Anti-Christ uses and then betrays is not the RCC. I think this Church will be some large universalism movement. I think the RCC will be persecuted along with all other Christian denominations during the Tribulation.

It seems to me that you have decided to be Protestant (which is fine by the way) when you turned away from the RCC. But what it also seems is that you decided to spend you energies in finding new ways to hate that denomination you used to believe in. In my opinion, you have wasted and are continuing to waste your time. You would be better served and be a better servant if you were to expend you efforts to evangalize rather than tear down. There are many Catholics out there that would listen to your message if you would change your delivery.


----------



## 60Grit

I'm sorry, I read the thread title wrong.

I thought it said, " Do you have to be a Baptist to go to Heaven?".......

Carry on.....


----------



## 60Grit

bmpique said:


> every time you open your mouth, your ignorance of the Bible shows. My Savior is the one telling me that I have to witness to rc's. The job of the evangelist is to help them see the light however that needs to be done... I have NEVER said "catholics" are evil. What is evil is the roman church. Why dont you go read your Bible then come back to this discussion.


----------



## PJason

60Grit said:


>



Funny I was thinking the same thing...


http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2390262&postcount=9


----------



## 60Grit

It must be tiring to have all of the only correct answers that there are to this vast world of ours.


----------



## PJason

bmpique said:


> sure, he's God. But God created mary, mary did not create Jesus or God. So to call mary, the mother of God is incorrect.
> 
> The Catholic church has given hundreds, even thousands of titles to Mary the Mother of Jesus. Of all of them, Mother of God is one of the most common. In fact, some Catholics like to just use the impressive, synonymous term theotokos when referring to Mary. This title seems logical when one considers that Jesus is God and Mary gave birth to him. In other words, from a Catholic’s perspective a syllogism could be erected to read as follows:
> 
> Jesus is God.
> Mary is Jesus’ mother.
> Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
> Jesus is both God and Man
> If Mary is not the mother of God, then that syllogism is flawed somehow, but where? Let’s look at the Scriptures to gather more information. First of all, regarding Jesus’ identity, we learn that he is both God and man. (Because Jesus’ deity is not questioned among Catholics, only proof for his humanity will be cited here.) Please note the following Scriptures which state Jesus is man:
> For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5)
> But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:15-17)
> 
> It can also be easily proven that Jesus was man because he got hungry, thirsty, slept, etc. just like all other men. God became flesh is what the Bible teaches. Ponder this passage:
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:1-4,14)
> The whole of Scripture shows Jesus is God, who became a man. This truth is the simple answer to the syllogism error, as cited earlier. Hence, it should be revised in the initial premise to read: Jesus is God, who became man. But by stating only a partial truth about Jesus’ identity people have gotten a fallacious idea about Mary. This in turn has led to the unscriptural title about Mary being the mother of God and worse—trusting in her for salvation. This additional fact about Jesus being man helps us to rightly conclude that Mary was the mother of his humanity or of the man Christ Jesus. This is why we never read in the Bible that she is the mother of God, but only that she is Jesus’ mother or the mother of Jesus, as identified in Scripture:
> Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. (Mark 3:31)
> Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. (Luke 8:19)
> 
> They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (Acts 1:14)
> 
> Jesus Existed Before His Birth in Bethlehem
> One should also logically reject the Catholic concept that God could or does have a mother based on the fact that such a mother would have to be in existence before God, which is impossible. The Bible states that God is eternal and had no beginning. God can have no mother and still be God. Also, there can be no person who existed before God.
> I still remember, as a former Catholic, the surprise I had when I learned from reading the Bible, that Jesus existed before he was born in Bethlehem. I wonder how many Catholics are aware of this precious truth. Ponder a few Scriptures which show this:
> 
> “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58)
> Jesus existed before Abraham, who was a character from Genesis! To be more precise, Jesus stated his eternal existence in John 8:58 by using the words I am, which refer back to Exodus 3:14 and YHWH describing himself. Another verse which shows Jesus existed before his human birth is Micah 5:2:
> But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
> So, there are irreconcilable problems with the unscriptural title given to Mary as mother of God. If Mary is the mother of God, then how could he have been in existence before his mother? Impossible. Jesus has always been God from the very beginning who became man when born in Bethlehem. Jesus only got his humanity from Mary and, therefore, she can’t be correctly labeled Mother of God. The aforementioned syllogism is in error.
> The Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of the Bible. They are totally two different characters, with the similar trait of bearing the man Jesus. Once we realize this it will be much easier for us to extend a 100% trusting-submitting faith in Jesus alone for our soul’s salvation, as the Bible teaches to be saved. Jesus is the all-sufficient Savior, who needs no help from another to save us. In fact, to believe on Jesus and Mary for salvation, as some do, is to be in disobedience to what the Bible teaches and will not bring true salvation.




Is your name Dan Corner? Because the man's name from this website  http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/motherofgod.htm is Dan Corner.

Oh wait sorry you could not be Dan Corner he is from Washington Pennsylvania, and your loction is Marietta. 

So you either are Dan Corner and you are just lying about your location, or you are not Dan Corner and are just plagiarizing once again. So you are either lying or stealing. Could you please clarify which?


----------



## 60Grit

PJason said:


> So you are either lying or stealing. Could you please clarify which?


----------



## Spotlite

bmpique said:


> It's very tiring to try and get people to see the truth when they don't want to. My post above blatantly shows the papacy as being blasphemers but all you can do is make fun of me.  I provide factual truth and data and yall just knock me for it... To me its frustrating but it just goes to prove how blind the world is to the facts and the truth.



then why beat yourself over the head trying? if your so up to date with your studies, you should know what to do when you witness to someone and they refuse to hear.


----------



## elfiii

Wow! And all this time I thought Jesus was yet to come. Lo and behold, here he is, right here on Woody's Spiritual Debate forum handin' down the Almighty Word!

Sweet baby Jesus!


----------



## jeffro429

*wow*

You guys are something else. go easy on the beating each other up, for you are not setting a very good example. as for the title of the thread, it say's in Romans that "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" and I believe it. If I asked the lord to save me and I meant it in my heart but died before my scheduled baptism do you really think I would not get into Heaven.This doesn't sound like the God who love's me.


----------



## PWalls

elfiii said:


> Lo and behold, here he is, right here on Woody's Spiritual Debate forum handin' down the Almighty Word!



Now, Lee you know that ain't right. I'm still here.


----------



## 60Grit

elfiii said:


> Wow! And all this time I thought Jesus was yet to come. Lo and behold, here he is, right here on Woody's Spiritual Debate forum handin' down the Almighty Word!
> 
> Sweet baby Jesus!


 
That was cool!!! 

I still hear the swooshing sound, it's just a matter of time....


----------



## elfiii

PWalls said:


> Now, Lee you know that ain't right. I'm still here.



Just doin' my small part Phillip.


----------



## 60Grit

Is this the spiritual forum's version of Linwood??


----------



## 60Grit

Well, I can see you are dead set in beating anyone that doesn't believe denominationally as you do, to a bloody pulp with staunch evangelical "beliefs".

What I don't see is a relativity to the Bible you claim to adore, nor the ability to carry out constructive debate. Only a brainwashed mentality of some other mans version of how it should be.

Dangerous stuff your practicing there, better be careful.


----------



## PJason

bmpique said:


> ok, next sunday morning when you go to re-crucify Jesus (which is forbidden in Heb 6:6) and they say they first reading, tell them to stop b/c they are not allowed to use the writings of the Holy Spirit without His approval.  They must get the approval of the HS to read His words...



I think it would funnier if you did it. 



bmpique said:


> pjason, this is the lamest comeback I have ever heard from anyone...
> 
> All evangelists like Dan Corner and myself, always use other peoples writings.  give me a break.




All we would like is an original thought and if you do not have one at least a footnote.


----------



## PJason

bmpique said:


> Salvation Through The Church
> Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is available only through the Catholic church:
> "The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'" Pg. 215, #816
> Here, the 1994 catechism reaffirms the existing teaching of Vatican II, that salvation can be obtained only through the Roman Catholic church. The catechism leaves no doubt that the Catholic church is necessary for salvation:
> "...all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation..." Pg. 224, #846
> Past popes have taught this doctrine, as have previous catechisms and church fathers. Here is but one example…
> On May 7, 2001, Pope John Paul II told 2,000 youth gathered at the Greek-Melkite Cathedral of Damascus that "you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Church founded on Jesus Christ."1
> 
> Catholic friend, you personally may not believe this, but your pope does. And it is an official doctrine of your religion.
> 
> If you check God's Word on this subject, you will not find a single verse requiring one to go through a church to be saved. In fact, the opposite is taught:
> 
> "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13
> 
> When Jesus died on the cross, He paid the full price for the sins of all mankind. According to God's Word, anyone can go directly to Him for salvation. Jesus Himself announced that:
> 
> "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36
> 
> Jesus preached:
> 
> "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life…" John 5:24
> 
> "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47
> 
> 
> Jesus repeats this message in John 3:16, 3:18, and 6:40. If the Catholic church really is necessary for salvation, then Jesus Christ is a liar.
> 
> The Apostle Paul gives step by step instructions on how to be saved:
> 
> "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10
> 
> Notice, no church is required. So if Catholicism is right, then the Apostle Paul is also a liar. And since he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is a liar as well.
> 
> "But as many as received (trusted in) him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." John 1:12
> 
> John says you become God's child by believing in Jesus Christ. If this Catholic doctrine is true, then John's name must be added to the list of liars.
> 
> But John is not a liar. Jesus never requires a church for salvation:
> 
> "To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43
> 
> The key is belief in Christ, not a church:
> 
> "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth…" Romans 1:16
> 
> According to Paul, Timothy needed faith in Christ to be saved, not a church:
> 
> "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:15
> 
> When the Philippian prison guard asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?," did Paul answer, "You must become a member of the Roman Catholic church?" No, he responded:
> 
> "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…" Acts 16:31
> 
> Remember when Jesus was hanging on the cross? The thief on the cross next to Him cried out:
> 
> "…Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Luke 23:42
> 
> When that dying sinner uttered those words of faith, Jesus responded by saying:
> 
> "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43
> 
> Salvation is in Christ… not in a church.
> 
> The catechism claims salvation comes "…through Christ's Catholic Church alone…" But God's Word says it is obtained through Jesus Christ:
> 
> "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
> 
> "… God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." 1 John 4:9
> 
> 
> Only Christ can offer us salvation because He alone shed His blood for us:
> 
> "Much more then, being now justi-fied by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Romans 5:9
> 
> No church can offer salvation. Only Jesus can:
> 
> "Neither is there salvation in any other (except Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:10, 12
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Since the Bible and Catholicism clearly disagree, here are some questions you must answer:
> 
> • If the Catholic church is necessary to escape Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- and reach heaven, would not God have clearly stated it in His Word… at least once?
> 
> • Why would Jesus repeatedly lie by saying that salvation is available through faith in Him?
> 
> •Are you willing to call Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John all liars? For your religion to be right, you must.
> 
> • For centuries, Bible believing Christians have contended that this unbiblical doctrine was created to keep members in bondage. Was it?
> 
> • Lastly, you must again answer the question, "Which will I obey and serve, the traditions of men, or the Word of God?" You cannot say "both" because each says the other is wrong.
> 
> Someday you will stand face to face with Jesus Christ. You will look Him right in the eyes. You might want to start thinking about how you are going to tell the Lord that you rejected His teachings and obeyed the traditions of sinful men because you assumed He was lying.
> 
> "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…" Mark 7:8
> 
> 
> 1From article "Pope Meets with Youth of Various Christian Confessions," Vatican City, 5/7/01 (VIS) reported by the Catholic Information Network, 5/9/01, N. 86
> 
> Salvation Through Good Works
> To be saved, Catholic doctrine requires the continual performance of good works.
> 
> "Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved." Pg. 222, #837
> 
> These works include baptism (pg. 320, #1257), various sacraments (pg. 292, #1129) plus many additional works.
> 
> Once again the teachings of Catholicism oppose God's Word, which states that salvation cannot be earned, but is a free and undeserved gift of God:
> 
> "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5
> 
> The Bible repeatedly states that salvation comes through faith-never by good works:
> "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28
> "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith…" Galatians 3:8
> 
> How do we become God's children?:
> "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26
> The Pharisees and good works
> The religious Pharisees were convinced that performing good works would earn them salvation, but Jesus set them straight. In Mark's gospel, the Pharisees and scribes asked Jesus:
> "Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" Mark 7:5
> In response, Jesus chastised them:
> "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9
> 
> What a tragedy! By elevating tradition above God's Word, the Pharisees had actually rejected the commandment of God. Jesus also accused the Pharisees of:
> "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition…" Mark 7:13
> 
> This is exactly what the Catholic church does by elevating church tradition above the Word of God.
> The Pharisees were convinced that salvation was obtained by performing good works, but good works can never save anybody:
> "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:16
> 
> "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:1
> 
> Good works will not get you in
> 
> Many who stand before God will think they should enter heaven because of their good works. Jesus tells us in His Word:
> 
> "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven… Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Matthew 7:21-22
> How shocked they will be when they hear Jesus respond:
> 
> "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:23
> How tragic! Millions of Catholics never learn that good works cannot save them until after they die. But after death is too late. At that point they are already doomed to an eternity in the lake of fire.
> 
> The Apostle Paul makes another important statement concerning good works:
> "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Galatians 2:21 In other words, if you could earn heaven through your good works, then Jesus suffered that horrible death on the cross for nothing.
> But He did not die in vain. Scripture declares that Jesus gave His life because there is no other way for our sins to be forgiven:
> "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18
> 
> Jesus repeats this same truth:
> "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life…" John 6:40
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Roman Catholic friend, you must make another decision. Either you will believe God's Word and accept the free gift of salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ, or you will believe the traditions of the Catholic church, that salvation must be earned through continual good works.
> 
> You cannot choose Catholic doctrine and God's Word because both disagree with each other.
> 
> My prayer is that you will make the right choice. If you choose to receive the God's free gift of salvation, before the end of the book, we will explain how you can do it:
> 
> "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." John 6:29
> 
> ok you papists....  please answer this and stop dodging the questions... i want all of these differences between the beloved catechism and the Bible explained to me....  Lets have it. How do you explain all of these contradictions between the catechism and Bible when yall claim to get ALL OF YOUR DOCTRINES FROM THE SCIPTURES....   C'mon papists, please explain this....  this forum is waiting, i am waiting... and the whole world is waiting... please explain the differences between the catechism and the Holy Bible...
> 
> oh sorry, i better put my source in here or i will be accused of plaigerism which could mean life in prison if dawg2 or pjason is my judje...




You are correct paragraph #846 reads as follows

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: 

_Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336_

however if you past it here is what you find


847  This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: 

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 



335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21L 3,1169; De unit.L 4,509-536.
336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.


----------



## 60Grit

Now I know why I like the peaceful confines of the Political Forum instead......

You boys have fun trying to save the world from eternal dangnation over the internet.

From what I've seen from Blimpy's posts, about 1,000 guest readers or so have probably turned away from Christianity on this thread alone.....


----------



## crackerdave

60Grit said:


> Now I know why I like the peaceful confines of the Political Forum instead......
> 
> You boys have fun trying to save the world from eternal dangnation over the internet.
> 
> From what I've seen from Blimpy's posts, about 1,000 guest readers or so have probably turned away from Christianity on this thread alone.....



Yep. 

I have no comment at this time concerning the political forum,other than to say you're welcome to it.


----------



## rjcruiser

60Grit said:


> Now I know why I like the peaceful confines of the Political Forum instead......
> 
> You boys have fun trying to save the world from eternal dangnation over the internet.
> 
> From what I've seen from Blimpy's posts, about 1,000 guest readers or so have probably turned away from Christianity on this thread alone.....



Wow...I started a thread that is in the top 10 for # of posts and the top 20 for # of views.  Not sure if I'm proud of the way this thing turned out or not.

Keep posting....we gotta get to number 1....this is more important than interracial marriage and the KJV vs. the NIV


----------



## Big7

bmpique said:


> The anti-christ is NOT one single person. You need to study a little more.
> 
> 
> How much more proof do yall need?



I thought you said the "Pope" was the anti-Christ.
Now, you say the anti-Christ is "NOT" one single
person. Last time I checked the Pope was one person.

Now - Go back to your idiotic web sites and cut-n-paste
a response.


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...I started a thread that is in the top 10 for # of posts and the top 20 for # of views.  Not sure if I'm proud of the way this thing turned out or not.
> 
> Keep posting....we gotta get to number 1....this is more important than interracial marriage and the KJV vs. the NIV



Yeah- we had another one going - destined  to be in
the top ten. HERE: 
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=214858

But it was closed
I guess when the "truth hurts" it depends on
your version of "the truth" and whom is "getting hurt".

Closed, on demand, I might add, HERE:
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2376543&postcount=185


----------



## Big7

bmpique said:


> every time you open your mouth, your ignorance of the Bible shows. My Savior is the one telling me that I have to witness to rc's.  The job of the evangelist is to help them see the light however that needs to be done...  I have NEVER said "catholics" are evil.  What is evil is the roman church. Why dont you go read your Bible then come back to this discussion.



rangerdave? What say you? 

Noticeable absence of the poster that goes by the 
"three letter word's" and the avatar of ole' brother Jimma', dressed
with a rag on his head. 
What say he?

Not lumping rangerdave in the same category though.


----------



## Big7

dawg2 said:


> Believe me when I say I am not hiding.  I'm not really hard to find.  If this were a boxing match....well never mind.  I am not sure which question you want answered.  You are like a flea on a hot brick: All over the place.
> 
> All I keep seeing are quotes lifted from an X-Files / psycho babble bigot website(s) talking about illuminatis and papal domination of the world, masons, anti christ, etc.  If the Church were as powerful as you ALLUDE, then there never would have been any claims of child abuse, nor would there be anything in the history books negative about the RCC....don't cha agree
> 
> You know the movie "DaVinci Code" was a work of fiction , right?



What dawg2 said.


----------



## PWalls

Big7 said:


> Yeah- we had another one going - destined  to be in
> the top ten. HERE:
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=214858
> 
> But it was closed
> I guess when the "truth hurts" it depends on
> your version of "the truth" and whom is "getting hurt".
> 
> Closed, on demand, I might add, HERE:
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2376543&postcount=185



It was closed for very good reasons. It had ceased to be a thread with any good information and had done nothing but devolve into a name-calling and bickering contest between individuals. There was nothing Christ-like involved or shown on either side. I applaud the mods for locking that one out. I also applaud them for leaving it for reference because of the few good informative posts that were in there. The original topic question had been answered and discussed many pages before it got hijacked by emotion and prejudice and back-biting. No reason for it to remain open. Once again, thanks Mods.


----------



## PWalls

Big7 said:


> rangerdave? What say you?
> 
> Noticeable absence of the poster that goes by the
> "three letter word's" and the avatar of ole' brother Jimma', dressed
> with a rag on his head.
> What say he?
> 
> Not lumping rangerdave in the same category though.



Not speaking for Russ, but I imagine that he is not too fond of how bmpique chooses to post either. But, what's your purpose in mentioning it? You want to start something all over again or continue more bashing. You like being a victim or something? I really enjoyed this forum before this latest round of RCC bashing.


----------



## GODZHUNTER77

*Answer*

Water baptism is a sign of a goodconscience towards God. It is a public statement. It is symbolic. It is not a commandment, believing in Jesus is. Being baptized in water does not have anything to do with going to Heaven. 

However, if you want to have a better Christian walk, you were commanded to be baptized in the Holy Ghost. (It means to be fully immersed).


----------



## Big7

bmpique said:


> Salvation Through The Church
> Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is available only through the Catholic church:
> "The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'" Pg. 215, #816
> Here, the 1994 catechism reaffirms the existing teaching of Vatican II, that salvation can be obtained only through the Roman Catholic church. The catechism leaves no doubt that the Catholic church is necessary for salvation:
> "...all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation..." Pg. 224, #846
> Past popes have taught this doctrine, as have previous catechisms and church fathers. Here is but one example…
> On May 7, 2001, Pope John Paul II told 2,000 youth gathered at the Greek-Melkite Cathedral of Damascus that "you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Church founded on Jesus Christ."1
> 
> Jesus repeats this message in John 3:16, 3:18, and 6:40. If the Catholic church really is necessary for salvation, then Jesus Christ is a liar.
> 
> Notice, no church is required. So if Catholicism is right, then the Apostle Paul is also a liar. And since he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is a liar as well.
> 
> John says you become God's child by believing in Jesus Christ. If this Catholic doctrine is true, then John's name must be added to the list of liars.
> 
> But John is not a liar. Jesus never requires a church for salvation:
> 
> According to Paul, Timothy needed faith in Christ to be saved, not a church:
> 
> "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:15
> 
> When the Philippian prison guard asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?," did Paul answer, "You must become a member of the Roman Catholic church?" No, he responded:
> 
> Salvation is in Christ… not in a church.
> 
> The catechism claims salvation comes "…through Christ's Catholic Church alone…" But God's Word says it is obtained through Jesus Christ:
> 
> "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
> 
> "… God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." 1 John 4:9
> 
> 
> Only Christ can offer us salvation because He alone shed His blood for us:
> 
> "Much more then, being now justi-fied by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Romans 5:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Since the Bible and Catholicism clearly disagree, here are some questions you must answer:
> 
> • Why would Jesus repeatedly lie by saying that salvation is available through faith in Him?
> 
> •Are you willing to call Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John all liars? For your religion to be right, you must.
> 
> • For centuries, Bible believing Christians have contended that this unbiblical doctrine was created to keep members in bondage. Was it?
> 
> • Lastly, you must again answer the question, "Which will I obey and serve, the traditions of men, or the Word of God?" You cannot say "both" because each says the other is wrong.
> 
> rejected His teachings and obeyed the traditions of sinful men because you assumed He was lying.
> 
> "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…" Mark 7:8
> 
> 
> 1From article "Pope Meets with Youth of Various Christian Confessions," Vatican City, 5/7/01 (VIS) reported by the Catholic Information Network, 5/9/01, N. 86
> 
> Salvation Through Good Works
> To be saved, Catholic doctrine requires the continual performance of good works.
> 
> "Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved." Pg. 222, #837
> 
> These works include baptism (pg. 320, #1257), various sacraments (pg. 292, #1129) plus many additional works.
> 
> Once again the teachings of Catholicism oppose God's Word,
> 
> "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5
> 
> The Bible repeatedly states that salvation comes through faith-never by good works:
> "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28
> "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith…" Galatians 3:8
> 
> How do we become God's children?:
> "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26
> The Pharisees and good works
> The religious Pharisees were convinced that performing good works would earn them salvation, but Jesus set them straight. In Mark's gospel, the Pharisees and scribes asked Jesus:
> "Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" Mark 7:5
> In response, Jesus chastised them:
> "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9
> 
> What a tragedy! By elevating tradition above God's Word, the Pharisees had actually rejected the commandment of God. Jesus also accused the Pharisees of:
> "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition…" Mark 7:13
> 
> This is exactly what the Catholic church does by elevating church tradition above the Word of God.
> The Pharisees were convinced that salvation was obtained by performing good works, but good works can never save anybody:
> "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:16
> 
> "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:1
> 
> Good works will not get you in
> 
> Many who stand before God will think they should enter heaven because of their good works. Jesus tells us in His Word:
> 
> "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven… Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Matthew 7:21-22
> How shocked they will be when they hear Jesus respond:
> 
> "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:23
> How tragic! Millions of Catholics never learn that good works cannot save them until after they die. But after death is too late. At that point they are already doomed to an eternity in the lake of fire.
> 
> The Apostle Paul makes another important statement concerning good works:
> "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Galatians 2:21 In other words, if you could earn heaven through your good works, then Jesus suffered that horrible death on the cross for nothing.
> But He did not die in vain. Scripture declares that Jesus gave His life because there is no other way for our sins to be forgiven:
> "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18
> 
> Jesus repeats this same truth:
> "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life…" John 6:40
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Roman Catholic friend, you must make another decision. Either you will believe God's Word and accept the free gift of salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ, or you will believe the traditions of the Catholic church, that salvation must be earned through continual good works.
> 
> You cannot choose Catholic doctrine and God's Word because both disagree with each other.
> 
> My prayer is that you will make the right choice. If you choose to receive the God's free gift of salvation, before the end of the book, we will explain how you can do it:
> 
> "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." John 6:29
> 
> ok you papists....  please answer this and stop dodging the questions... i want all of these differences between the beloved catechism and the Bible explained to me....  Lets have it. How do you explain all of these contradictions between the catechism and Bible when yall claim to get ALL OF YOUR DOCTRINES FROM THE SCIPTURES....   C'mon papists, please explain this....  this forum is waiting, i am waiting... and the whole world is waiting... please explain the differences between the catechism and the Holy Bible...
> 
> oh sorry, i better put my source in here or i will be accused of plaigerism which could mean life in prison if dawg2 or pjason is my judje...




First off- I got a little help from my sister, a longtime
Catechist and devout Catholic from birth.
Devout definition:
 1. devoted to divine worship or service; pious; religious: a devout Catholic.  

What is a Catechist? Go HERE:
http://www.catechesis-chicago.org/WhatIsACatechist.htm

This is what I e -mailed her.
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2392239&postcount=238
I had to shorten the quote above from bmpigue,
to get down to 15000 chatacters. (sorry)
The sarcasm, as in ("like your friend") is for bmpigue
only - not the other members of the forum

Below is her response and I believe as all Cathilics do,
every word of it.


There is no conflict between the Catechism and the Bible.  There may be conflict between the way the Church INTERPRETS the Bible in the Catechism and the way OTHERS (like your friend) do.  This is what is meant when the Catechism says, as your friend quoted, 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'" Pg. 215, #816 – exactly what it says – the Church is the UNIVERSAL HELP toward salvation, that the FULLNESS of the means of salvation can be obtained.  Not only is your friend interpreting the BIBLE to suit his own opinion, he is also interpreting the CATECHISM to suit his own opinion.    This passage, and others like it, say NOTHING about the Church PROVIDING salvation – only God provides salvation (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) – Catholics know this and understand this, this is and always has been our very clear teaching.  What the passage REALLY says is that it is through the CHURCH, which, remember, is GUIDED INTO ALL TRUTH BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, which REMAINS WITH US FOREVER (John 14) is the authoritative interpreter and teacher and by following the teachings of the Church, we are HELPED in our faith, which allows us to receive the GRACE that saves us. (Neither our faith nor our works saves us – only the unmerited GRACE of God). 



It also doesn’t say that there is no other means of salvation, only that the FULLNESS of the means of salvation can be obtained by the Church.  You could use several common analogies to explain this: 1) the way to receive the FULLNESS of your education is to attend class daily and do your homework so you will make straight A’s BUT you can also graduate with a C even if you skip class and miss a few assignments.  2) the way to receive the FULLNESS of health is to eat right, exercise regularly and get your necessary check-ups, BUT you can also live to a ripe old age with a less fastidious lifestyle.



The passage isn’t saying the Church is the ONLY way to salvation, rather, that its teachings are the BEST way because they provide the FULLNESS of understanding about the teachings of Christ.   There are several reasons we believe this is true.  Here are the ones I can think of right away, but there are others:



1)      The Holy Eucharist – through weekly reception (and the prayerful, repentant preparation for it that we go through) of the Body of Christ we reaffirm our unity with Him and with each other – we become more Christ-like

2)      The Sacraments – by receiving the sacraments, we open our hearts to receive God’s graces.  Anyone who wants to argue that the sacraments are empty need only look at marriage – clearly there is a difference between being married and not being married and it is a holy difference (otherwise we would be married at the courthouse).  This is the power of a sacrament and there are SEVEN of them – Baptism, Reconciliation (Confession), Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders (becoming a priest), Marriage, Anointing (Last Rites).

3)      Apostolic Succession – we are taught the correct interpretation of the Bible because it has been handed down through an unbroken succession of bishops, DIRECTLY from the APOSTLES for the last 2000 years.   The first bishops were the Apostles.  They taught their successors (like Paul taught Timothy and Timothy taught Titus).  The Catholic Church compiled the Bible in the 4th century from writings that THE CHURCH deemed to be accurate and inspired.  Things are in the Bible BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THEY ARE TRUE – not the other way around.  It’s not that we believe something because it is in the Bible, it’s that things are in the Bible because we believe them.  

4)      SACRED TRADITION – We believe that the Bible AND the Sacred Tradition of the Church come together to make up the FULLNESS of TRUTH.  Truth cannot contradict Truth.  There is nothing in our tradition that is in conflict with the Bible – there is nothing in the Bible that is in conflict with our Sacred Tradition.  Folks who say they are in conflict are MISINTERPRETING the BIBLE.  How do we know?  Apostolic Succession!  We’ve been taught by the Apostles – don’t ya think they would know?  Bible only ?  No, the Bible says NO:  2Thess 2:15 “So then our brothers, stand firm and hold onto these truths which we taught you, BOTH in our PREACHING and in our LETTER.” Scripture AND Tradition. 

5)      GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT – “I will send you a paraclete who will guide you into ALL TRUTH and remain with you FOREVER.”  John 14:25-26.  Jesus said this to the Apostles, whose teachings about Christ, writings and successors we follow TO THIS DAY in the same ancient traditions that were followed by THE FIRST CHRISTIANS. 



The rest of his theories and so-called proofs are all based on this basic idea – that the Catechism is in conflict with the Bible, which it is not.  In conflict with HIS INTERPRETATION of the Bible? Maybe....but I’m sticking with the Apostles on interpretation – they wrote it, you know....


----------



## PJason

Big7 said:


> First off- I got a little help from my sister, a longtime
> Catechist and devout Catholic from birth.
> Devout definition:
> 1. devoted to divine worship or service; pious; religious: a devout Catholic.
> 
> What is a Catechist? Go HERE:
> http://www.catechesis-chicago.org/WhatIsACatechist.htm
> 
> This is what I e -mailed her.
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2392239&postcount=238
> I had to shorten the quote above from bmpigue,
> to get down to 15000 chatacters. (sorry)
> The sarcasm, as in ("like your friend") is for bmpigue
> only - not the other members of the forum
> 
> Below is her response and I believe as all Cathilics do,
> every word of it.
> 
> 
> There is no conflict between the Catechism and the Bible.  There may be conflict between the way the Church INTERPRETS the Bible in the Catechism and the way OTHERS (like your friend) do.  This is what is meant when the Catechism says, as your friend quoted, 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'" Pg. 215, #816 – exactly what it says – the Church is the UNIVERSAL HELP toward salvation, that the FULLNESS of the means of salvation can be obtained.  Not only is your friend interpreting the BIBLE to suit his own opinion, he is also interpreting the CATECHISM to suit his own opinion.    This passage, and others like it, say NOTHING about the Church PROVIDING salvation – only God provides salvation (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) – Catholics know this and understand this, this is and always has been our very clear teaching.  What the passage REALLY says is that it is through the CHURCH, which, remember, is GUIDED INTO ALL TRUTH BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, which REMAINS WITH US FOREVER (John 14) is the authoritative interpreter and teacher and by following the teachings of the Church, we are HELPED in our faith, which allows us to receive the GRACE that saves us. (Neither our faith nor our works saves us – only the unmerited GRACE of God).
> 
> 
> 
> It also doesn’t say that there is no other means of salvation, only that the FULLNESS of the means of salvation can be obtained by the Church.  You could use several common analogies to explain this: 1) the way to receive the FULLNESS of your education is to attend class daily and do your homework so you will make straight A’s BUT you can also graduate with a C even if you skip class and miss a few assignments.  2) the way to receive the FULLNESS of health is to eat right, exercise regularly and get your necessary check-ups, BUT you can also live to a ripe old age with a less fastidious lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> The passage isn’t saying the Church is the ONLY way to salvation, rather, that its teachings are the BEST way because they provide the FULLNESS of understanding about the teachings of Christ.   There are several reasons we believe this is true.  Here are the ones I can think of right away, but there are others:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)      The Holy Eucharist – through weekly reception (and the prayerful, repentant preparation for it that we go through) of the Body of Christ we reaffirm our unity with Him and with each other – we become more Christ-like
> 
> 2)      The Sacraments – by receiving the sacraments, we open our hearts to receive God’s graces.  Anyone who wants to argue that the sacraments are empty need only look at marriage – clearly there is a difference between being married and not being married and it is a holy difference (otherwise we would be married at the courthouse).  This is the power of a sacrament and there are SEVEN of them – Baptism, Reconciliation (Confession), Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders (becoming a priest), Marriage, Anointing (Last Rites).
> 
> 3)      Apostolic Succession – we are taught the correct interpretation of the Bible because it has been handed down through an unbroken succession of bishops, DIRECTLY from the APOSTLES for the last 2000 years.   The first bishops were the Apostles.  They taught their successors (like Paul taught Timothy and Timothy taught Titus).  The Catholic Church compiled the Bible in the 4th century from writings that THE CHURCH deemed to be accurate and inspired.  Things are in the Bible BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THEY ARE TRUE – not the other way around.  It’s not that we believe something because it is in the Bible, it’s that things are in the Bible because we believe them.
> 
> 4)      SACRED TRADITION – We believe that the Bible AND the Sacred Tradition of the Church come together to make up the FULLNESS of TRUTH.  Truth cannot contradict Truth.  There is nothing in our tradition that is in conflict with the Bible – there is nothing in the Bible that is in conflict with our Sacred Tradition.  Folks who say they are in conflict are MISINTERPRETING the BIBLE.  How do we know?  Apostolic Succession!  We’ve been taught by the Apostles – don’t ya think they would know?  Bible only ?  No, the Bible says NO:  2Thess 2:15 “So then our brothers, stand firm and hold onto these truths which we taught you, BOTH in our PREACHING and in our LETTER.” Scripture AND Tradition.
> 
> 5)      GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT – “I will send you a paraclete who will guide you into ALL TRUTH and remain with you FOREVER.”  John 14:25-26.  Jesus said this to the Apostles, whose teachings about Christ, writings and successors we follow TO THIS DAY in the same ancient traditions that were followed by THE FIRST CHRISTIANS.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of his theories and so-called proofs are all based on this basic idea – that the Catechism is in conflict with the Bible, which it is not.  In conflict with HIS INTERPRETATION of the Bible? Maybe....but I’m sticking with the Apostles on interpretation – they wrote it, you know....




Great Post

Amen


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> Things are in the Bible BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THEY ARE TRUE – not the other way around. It’s not that we believe something because it is in the Bible, it’s that things are in the Bible because we believe them.


 
This quote bothers me. I believe things because THEY ARE IN THE BIBLE.



> In conflict with HIS INTERPRETATION of the Bible? Maybe....but I’m sticking with the Apostles on interpretation – they wrote it, you know....


 
I am taught by the Apostles as much as any catholic. I have their words. I also have something greater than an apostle. That is a Holy Spirit that lives in me and guides my understanding. I will take that over a series of people who have laid hands on each other for 2000 years and tell me how to believe.

Sorry, just me.


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> Sorry, just me.



Nope...not just you....I'm in agreement with Farmasis on this one.

I believe in the Bible because it is in the Bible.  Not I believe in things...so they're in the Bible.

That is like the Mormon faith and the Book of Mormon.  Mormons believe it is true, so it is on the same level of the Bible.  

Also, Sacred Tradition is not on the same level as the Bible.  Not inspired by God...2 Thes 2:15 is not saying that traditions are required/on an equal level as the inspired Word of God.  If that was the case, Paul would have taught that circumcision was essential for salvation since it was a tradition.


----------



## Big7

farmasis said:


> This quote bothers me. I believe things because THEY ARE IN THE BIBLE.
> 
> 
> 
> I am taught by the Apostles as much as any catholic. I have their words. I also have something greater than an apostle. That is a Holy Spirit that lives in me and guides my understanding. I will take that over a series of people who have laid hands on each other for 2000 years and tell me how to believe.
> 
> Sorry, just me.



The Apostles were - you guessed it. Catholic

No one is telling you how to believe - ONLY
how WE believe.



rjcruiser said:


> Nope...not just you....I'm in agreement with Farmasis on this one.
> 
> I believe in the Bible because it is in the Bible.  Not I believe in things...so they're in the Bible.
> 
> That is like the Mormon faith and the Book of Mormon.  Mormons believe it is true, so it is on the same level of the Bible.
> 
> Also, Sacred Tradition is not on the same level as the Bible.  Not inspired by God...2 Thes 2:15 is not saying that traditions are required/on an equal level as the inspired Word of God.  If that was the case, Paul would have taught that circumcision was essential for salvation since it was a tradition.



The Bible came from Sacred Tradition for 400 or
so years. The first Bibles were Catholic. Granted,
after the reformation a lot was changed and there
is the problem. Things like omiting seven of the books
that were in use for 1200 years by Christians. Also,
by adding things like the word "alone" as in "by faith alone"


Again, no one is telling you how to believe.
Just what we believe.

I has nothing to do with Mormons - Just like everyone else
they are free to worship as they see fit.
But if you must reference Mormons their "other book"
is the KJV. Same goes for Seventh -Day Adventist. KJV


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> The Apostles were - you guessed it. Catholic



This is where you are wrong.  The apostles and early church followers were not Catholic.  You won't see the word Catholic in any writings until around 400 or so AD.  You will see the word catholic, but not Catholic.  Notice the lower case "c."  Why?  The word catholic means church.  So, they were referencing the common church as stated in the NT.  It wasn't until several centuries later that the word was Capitalized and became a proper noun.


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> This is where you are wrong.  The apostles and early church followers were not Catholic.  You won't see the word Catholic in any writings until around 400 or so AD.  You will see the word catholic, but not Catholic.  Notice the lower case "c."  Why?  The word catholic means church.  So, they were referencing the common church as stated in the NT.  It wasn't until several centuries later that the word was Capitalized and became a proper noun.



"catholic" lower case "c" actually means Universal Church.
By your own post you acknowledge a "common church"

I'll pose you this question:
Which Church do you think was the "common church",
before the Reformation?
Better yet, which "common church" did the Reformer's
"split from" ?

Please give me some facts, as I usually do. Not an opinion.
That in no way means I don not value your opinion.

Thanks!


----------



## Big7

*I. Born Again in Water Baptism - Scripture on Baptism*

Scripture



I. Born Again in Water Baptism
John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit). 

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism. 

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5. 

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures. 

Acts 10:47 - Peter says "can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?" The Bible always links water and baptism. 

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism. 

Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water. 

Heb. 10:22 – the author is also writing about water baptism in this verse. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Our bodies are washed with pure water in water baptism. 

2 Kings 5:14 - Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh was restored like that of a child. This foreshadows the regenerative function of baptism, by water and the Holy Spirit. 

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them. 

Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.


Chapter and Verse, I might add.


----------



## Big7

*II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic*

II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic
Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual. 

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved. 

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.” 

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase "born again" is "anothen" which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where "anothen" is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation. 

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus? 

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism? 

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ. 

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required. 

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away. 

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation. 

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic. 

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul. 

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic. 

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation. 

There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit. 

Heb. 10:22 - in baptism, our hearts are sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (again, dealing with the interior of the person) as our bodies are washed with pure water (the waters of baptism). Baptism regenerates us because it removes original sin, sanctifies our souls, and effects our adoption as sons and daughters in Jesus Christ. 

1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water. 

Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior). Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature). 

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments. 

Luke 23:43 - the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus. 

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, "I have a baptism to be baptized with" referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents). 

Mark 10:38 - Jesus says "are you able...to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?," referring to His death. 

1 John 5:6 - Jesus came by water and blood. He was baptized by both water and blood. Martyrs are baptized by blood. 

Chapter and Verse, I might add.


----------



## Big7

*III. Infant Baptism*

III. Infant Baptism
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature. 

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception. 

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism? 

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism. 

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God. 

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." 

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason. 

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse. 

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants. 

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults. 

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults. 

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children. 

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith. 

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years). 

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children. 

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls. 

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom. 

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults. 

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism. 

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean. 

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith. 

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith. 

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well. 

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith. 

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents. 

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died. 

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation. 

Chapter and Verse, I might add.


----------



## Big7

*IV. Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion*

IV. Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion

Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God "will 'sprinkle' clean water on you and you shall be clean." The word for "sprinkle" is "rhaino" which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)

2 Kings 5:14 - Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for "dipped" is "baptizo." Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that "baptizo" and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim. 

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion. 

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize ("baptisei") with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, "baptisei" refers to a "pouring" out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus' head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles' heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist's prophecy, the Lord baptized ("baptizo") in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person. 

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from "baptizo") of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion. 

Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash ("baptizo" ) their hands. This demonstrates that "baptizo" does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands). 

Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed ("bapto" from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them. 

Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed ("ebaptisthe") His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of "baptizo" just means washing up, not immersing. 

Acts 2:41 - at Peter's first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism. 

Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they "went down into the water," many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb ("katabaino") used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel's instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water. 

Acts 8:39 - because the verse says "they came up out of the water," many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for "coming up out of the water" is "anebesan" which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize. 

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled. 

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled. 

Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible. 

Acts 2:17,18,33 - the pouring of water is like the "pouring" out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called "infusion" (of grace). 

1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized ("baptizo") in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, "baptizo" does not mean immersed in these verses. 

Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person. 

Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized. 

Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion. 

Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.” This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person). 

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord "pours" water on the thirsty land and "pours" His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.” 

2 Thess. 2:15 - hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling. 

Chapter and Verse, I might add.


----------



## Big7

*V. Original Sin*

V. Original Sin

Gen. 2:17 - the day you eat of that tree, you shall die. Adam and Eve ate of the tree, and they spiritually died. Some Protestant communities ignore or deny the reality of original sin. But if there is no original sin, then we do not need a Savior either. The horrors of our world testify to the reality of original sin.

Gen. 3:14-19 - God's punishment for eating of the tree was cursing satan, increasing women's pain in childbirth, and condemning man to toil and labor for his whole life. 

Job 14:1,4 - man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? All humans are afflicted with original sin, and this includes babies as well. This is why the Catholic Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years. 

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We have inherited Adam's sin from the moment of our conception. This is why babies need baptism – to wash away the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve. 

Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. This sin affects all people, men and women, babies and adults. Through the merits of Jesus Christ, we have the sacrament of baptism to wash away the sin that came through Adam. 

Rom. 5:14 - death reigned from Adam to Moses, born from Adam's original sin. This is a mystery we do not fully understand, but we must all acknowledge our propensity toward evil and our need of God. 

Rom. 5:16 - the judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism. 

Rom. 5:19 - by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin is passed on as part of the human condition, and only God in the flesh could atone for our sins by the eternal sacrifice of Himself. Through this sacrifice, God has re-opened the doors to heaven, and through baptism, we are once again made children of God. 

1 Cor. 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die. In Christ, the new Adam, all now may live. 

Eph. 2:1-3 - we were all dead through sin and all lived in the passions of our flesh until Christ came to save us.

Chapter and Verse, I might add.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> "catholic" lower case "c" actually means Universal Church.
> By your own post you acknowledge a "common church"
> 
> I'll pose you this question:
> Which Church do you think was the "common church",
> before the Reformation?
> Better yet, which "common church" did the Reformer's
> "split from" ?
> 
> Please give me some facts, as I usually do. Not an opinion.
> That in no way means I don not value your opinion.
> 
> Thanks!



You are correct....universal church...not common church.

The reformers split from the Roman Catholic Church.  I think we can both agree on that fact.

The problem is that you state that the RCC has been passed down from the time of the Apostles.  Again, not factual.  The RCC was not created until the 400s.

What the reformers went to was the NT Church....based on the NT...not sacred tradition.  

You don't give facts, but merely state historical renderings written by Roman Catholic historians.  That is why I hold the Bible in such high regard....Sola Scriptura.  And when I say Sola Scriptura, this means that the Bible (66 books, not more or less) is the divine truth, inspired by God (NAS I Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness).  All other teaching must align itself with it.  If other teachings or traditions don't align with it, they are not from it.

I've posted several scripture references that disagree with the sacred traditions of the RCC.  Therefore, I don't believe them to be divine truth.  The faith "alone" arguement....saying that Luther added the word "alone" doesn't work.  Why not, because there are other scripture references that show Salvation to be a "Free Gift" from God....requiring nothing from ourselves.

How can a gift be free if we are required to do something


----------



## rjcruiser

All your postings are scripture references with RCC notes and interpretations.  They are taken out of context and twisted to align with RCC teachings and traditions.

For example...


			
				big7 said:
			
		

> II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic
> Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.



Baptism is not salvific.  Baptism is an outward expression showing the inward change.  The biggest example of showing baptism is not required for salvation is the thief on the cross.  He was not baptized...no last rights....no rosemary's....and Christ said, I'll see you today in paradise.


----------



## Big7

*Tradition / Church Fathers*

A LOT MORE HERE:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Chapter and Verse. 

What the Church Fathers have to say is
about half-way down.

Over the 15000 ct. limit


----------



## PWalls

rjcruiser said:


> salvific



Awesome!!!

I think I just learned a new word. 

Or, is my sorry South Georgia education showing?


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> You are correct....universal church...not common church.
> 
> The reformers split from the Roman Catholic Church.  I think we can both agree on that fact.
> 
> The problem is that you state that the RCC has been passed down from the time of the Apostles.  Again, not factual.  The RCC was not created until the 400s.
> 
> What the reformers went to was the NT Church....based on the NT...not sacred tradition.
> 
> You don't give facts, but merely state historical renderings written by Roman Catholic historians.  That is why I hold the Bible in such high regard....Sola Scriptura.  And when I say Sola Scriptura, this means that the Bible (66 books, not more or less) is the divine truth, inspired by God (NAS I Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness).  All other teaching must align itself with it.  If other teachings or traditions don't align with it, they are not from it.
> 
> I've posted several scripture references that disagree with the sacred traditions of the RCC.  Therefore, I don't believe them to be divine truth.  The faith "alone" arguement....saying that Luther added the word "alone" doesn't work.  Why not, because there are other scripture references that show Salvation to be a "Free Gift" from God....requiring nothing from ourselves.
> 
> How can a gift be free if we are required to do something



Tell you what - Why don't you start another thread
about Sola Scriptura. I can show you where that don't fly either.

 If I do, rangerdave will say I'm starting something


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> III. Infant Baptism



Circumcision and baptism are two totally different things.

None of your scripture references show infant baptism.  Didn't happen in the NT church.  Circumcision was for cleanliness in the OT and the reason it was done on the 8th day is because that is when a childs white blood cell count is the highest (white blood cells help the blood clot).  It was another way that God was able to seperate His chosen people, the Jews, from all other nations.

In the NT, Paul wrote that it was not necessary as the NT Church was not under the law and the traditions of the Jewish people.

See Gal 5:1-3
Galatians 5

 1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 
 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 

 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Again, this is showing that circumcision was unnecessary along with the thought that works were going to save.  Verse 3 says that if you believe circumcision/works are going to save you, then you are under obligation to keep the whole Law...something that is impossible to do.


----------



## Big7

PWalls said:


> Awesome!!!
> 
> I think I just learned a new word.
> 
> Or, is my sorry South Georgia education showing?




salvific - definition of HERE:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/salvific

Glad to help.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> Tell you what - Why don't you start another thread
> about Sola Scriptura. I can show you where that don't fly either.
> 
> If I do, rangerdave will say I'm starting something



Your wish is my command


----------



## Big7

Big7 said:


> Tell you what - Why don't you start another thread
> about Sola Scriptura. I can show you where that don't fly either.
> 
> If I do, rangerdave will say I'm starting something





rjcruiser said:


> Your wish is my command



Thanks.
I be there with bells on.


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> The Apostles were - you guessed it. Catholic


 
They were Christian.



> No one is telling you how to believe - ONLY
> how WE believe.


 
No, I meant how the Church tells you how something is interpreted.



> The Bible came from Sacred Tradition for 400 or
> so years. The first Bibles were Catholic.


 
Correction, the Bible was and still is God's. It is the arrogance of Catholics that tend to set people like bmpquie off. The Catholic church is not the foundation of truth, God is. Laying on off hands in apostilisic succesion is not better and adds nothing to the laying on of the Holy Spirit to your life.


----------



## PJason

If the laying on of hands means nothing then why did St. Matthias and St. Paul and anyone else the Apostles sent out have hands laid upon them.

God called on St. Ananias to go and lay hands on Saul. I don't know when God calls on someone to do something that "thing" must be pretty important.


----------



## PJason

farmasis said:


> No, I meant how the Church tells you how something is interpreted.



How can I learn if I am not taught? Did you have a Phillip in your life? Or did you just open the Bible one day and start to read?


----------



## Big7

*II. Scripture is not Subject to Private Interpretation*



farmasis said:


> They were Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I meant how the Church tells you how something is interpreted.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction, the Bible was and still is God's. It is the arrogance of Catholics that tend to set people like bmpquie off. The Catholic church is not the foundation of truth, God is. Laying on off hands in apostilisic succesion is not better and adds nothing to the laying on of the Holy Spirit to your life.



Go HERE:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#tradition-II

Then HERE: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#tradition-III


----------



## Big7

*The Catholic Church protected the Bible*



farmasis said:


> They were Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I meant how the Church tells you how something is interpreted.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction, the Bible was and still is God's. It is the arrogance of Catholics that tend to set people like bmpquie off. The Catholic church is not the foundation of truth, God is. Laying on off hands in apostilisic succesion is not better and adds nothing to the laying on of the Holy Spirit to your life.



Like it or not the facts remain:

The Catholic Church protected the Bible
The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed. And the Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD).  The non-Catholic scholar Peter Flint, who translated the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells us that there was no Bible until 397's when the Catholic Church infallibly decided on what books belong there. Before that there were hundreds of letters and the Septuagint.

From HERE:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/are_catholics_christian.htm

Open it up and read it. Show me where it is wrong.
Facts only please.


----------



## Big7

*When was the word Catholic (big "C") first used?*



rjcruiser said:


> You are correct....universal church...not common church.
> 
> The reformers split from the Roman Catholic Church.  I think we can both agree on that fact.
> 
> The problem is that you state that the RCC has been passed down from the time of the Apostles.  Again, not factual.  The RCC was not created until the 400s.
> 
> What the reformers went to was the NT Church....based on the NT...not sacred tradition.
> 
> You don't give facts, but merely state historical renderings written by Roman Catholic historians.  That is why I hold the Bible in such high regard....Sola Scriptura.  And when I say Sola Scriptura, this means that the Bible (66 books, not more or less) is the divine truth, inspired by God (NAS I Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness).  All other teaching must align itself with it.  If other teachings or traditions don't align with it, they are not from it.
> 
> I've posted several scripture references that disagree with the sacred traditions of the RCC.  Therefore, I don't believe them to be divine truth.  The faith "alone" arguement....saying that Luther added the word "alone" doesn't work.  Why not, because there are other scripture references that show Salvation to be a "Free Gift" from God....requiring nothing from ourselves.
> 
> How can a gift be free if we are required to do something



"I am wondering if you are truly Christian then why do you call yourselves Catholic? Believers were called Christian in Acts 11 & no other denomination or religion." 

I could ask the same question, "why do Baptists, Pentecostals, United, Methodist, or even nondenominational communities use those words and not simply say Christian?" The word Catholic was used before the end of the first century to distinguish the Church of the Apostles from heretical teachings. St. Ignatius of Antioch, apostolic Father and bishop, was a disciple of St. John, along with St. Polycarp. The Church historian Theodoret says Ignatius was consecrated bishop by St. Peter, who was the first bishop of Antioch before going to Rome. Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluable information about the early Church. He was the first to use the term "Catholic" to describe the Church. It means universal.

Now, to correct you, as you have tried to do for me.
Go HERE. 
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/are_catholics_christian.htm

Open it up and read it. Show me where it is wrong.
Facts only please.


----------



## 60Grit

Soooo, does this mean I can go to heaven now???

You boys have confused me with all of the Catholic / non-Catholic talk.....


----------



## PWalls

60Grit said:


> Soooo, does this mean I can go to heaven now???
> 
> You boys have confused me with all of the Catholic / non-Catholic talk.....



Hey Grit, know I'll see you there.

Make a bet with ya.

Bet we won't be talking about whether we were Catholic or Protestant here on Earth when we get there.


----------



## 60Grit

PWalls said:


> Hey Grit, know I'll see you there.
> 
> Make a bet with ya.
> 
> Bet we won't be talking about whether we were Catholic or Protestant here on Earth when we get there.


 
I bet you're right, I just hope the fishins good up there...


----------



## PWalls

60Grit said:


> I bet you're right, I just hope the fishins good up there...



Brother, it's ALL gonna be good up there.


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> Like it or not the facts remain:
> 
> The Catholic Church protected the Bible
> The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed. And the Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). The non-Catholic scholar Peter Flint, who translated the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells us that there was no Bible until 397's when the Catholic Church infallibly decided on what books belong there. Before that there were hundreds of letters and the Septuagint.
> 
> From HERE:
> http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/are_catholics_christian.htm
> 
> Open it up and read it. Show me where it is wrong.
> Facts only please.


 
Fact's huh? Ok.

Fact- GOD protected His word!

God did not need Catholics to make sure His word was made available. This is exactly what I am talking about with arrogance.

If you want to claim that the Catholic church was the vessel God used to protect His word until printing, that is fine with me.


----------



## Big7

*Facts Please!*



farmasis said:


> Fact's huh? Ok.
> 
> Fact- GOD protected His word!
> 
> God did not need Catholics to make sure His word was made available. This is exactly what I am talking about with arrogance.
> 
> If you want to claim that the Catholic church was the vessel God used to protect His word until printing, that is fine with me.



I have tried to give you references, some of which are 
ancient, all of which do have basis to be considered true,
even by some Protestants. Example: Lutherans to this day
use some of the VERY same creeds as Catholics.

I can tell you are not interested in what I have to say.
I would hope you at least give me credit for supplying
you (and the rest on the SF) with credible references.

Something you don't do for the rest of us.

If you are happy with your beliefs, GOOD FOR YOU! 

Now all this I'm right and you are wrong stuff like in this
post, ("Fact's huh? Ok.") is neither constructive or
productive. Also not very friendly coming from a
fellow Christian -such as yourself.

If you want to correct me, I have no peoblem with that.
Show me some facts. Don't just tell me how wrong I am
and just say " Huh" and only give me YOUR OPINION!

I will try to do the same for you, as I always have.


----------



## 60Grit

I'm just curious Big7, how many of these Catholic bashers do you believe recite the Apostle's Creed in their church??


----------



## Big7

*Btw-*



farmasis said:


> Fact's huh? Ok.
> 
> Fact- GOD protected His word!
> 
> God did not need Catholics to make sure His word was made available. This is exactly what I am talking about with arrogance.
> 
> If you want to claim that the Catholic church was the vessel God used to protect His word until printing, that is fine with me.



BTW - In your effort to come back with a remark
you must have missed, along with a lot of other stuff 
THIS PART:

"The non-Catholic scholar Peter Flint, who translated the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells us that there was no Bible until 397's when the Catholic Church infallibly decided on what books belong there. Before that there were hundreds of letters and the Septuagint."

 Emphasis on "The non-Catholic scholar" part.
It is not just Catholics.


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> I have tried to give you references, some of which are
> ancient, all of which do have basis to be considered true,
> even by some Protestants. Example: Lutherans to this day
> use some of the VERY same creeds as Catholics.
> 
> I can tell you are not interested in what I have to say.
> I would hope you at least give me credit for supplying
> you (and the rest on the SF) with credible references.
> 
> Something you don't do for the rest of us.
> 
> If you are happy with your beliefs, GOOD FOR YOU!


 
You must have me confused with someone else. 



> Now all this I'm right and you are wrong stuff like in this
> post, ("Fact's huh? Ok.") is neither constructive or
> productive. Also not very friendly coming from a
> fellow Christian -such as yourself.
> 
> If you want to correct me, I have no peoblem with that.
> Show me some facts. Don't just tell me how wrong I am
> and just say " Huh" and only give me YOUR OPINION!
> 
> I will try to do the same for you, as I always have.


 
Do you really think God is so weak, that he needed the Catholic church to bring his word to the world? Do you think he has baked a whole bunch of cookies so that he can give you each one in honor for the work he couldn't do without Catholics?

Do you need proof that God can accomplish his Will?


----------



## farmasis

PJason said:


> How can I learn if I am not taught? Did you have a Phillip in your life? Or did you just open the Bible one day and start to read?


 

I have learned most of what I know by picking it up and reading. That is the beauty of having the Holy Spirit.


----------



## PJason

farmasis said:


> Do you really think God is so weak, that he needed the Catholic church to bring his word to the world?



No but I do think God has used the Catholic Church to carry out His will. Which included gathering the books of the Bible and preserving it. 



farmasis said:


> Do you think he has baked a whole bunch of cookies so that he can give you each one in honor for the work he couldn't do without Catholics?



I bet those are good cookies.





farmasis said:


> Do you need proof that God can accomplish his Will?



Do you. Do you need proof that God has preserved His Church through out the centuries. I do not. I believe that God has preserved His Will through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. 

I walk by Faith not by sight.


----------



## farmasis

PJason said:


> No but I do think God has used the Catholic Church to carry out His will. Which included gathering the books of the Bible and preserving it.


 
I can agree with that, that is why I said the Catholic church as the vessel.



> Do you. Do you need proof that God has preserved His Church through out the centuries. I do not. I believe that God has preserved His Will through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.
> 
> I walk by Faith not by sight.


 
We are not too different. Substitute the Holy Spirit for the Magisterium and throw out tradition and we are the same.

Ditto on walking by faith. I just don't think tradition and some folks who tell me how to interpret is walking by faith. That is faith in man to me and not God.


----------



## PJason

farmasis said:


> I can agree with that, that is why I said the Catholic church as the vessel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> farmasis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not too different. Substitute the Holy Spirit for the Magisterium and throw out tradition and we are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Magisterium is lead by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> farmasis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto on walking by faith. I just don't think tradition and some folks who tell me how to interpret is walking by faith. That is faith in man to me and not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then comes the question of is God not powerful enough to use man to do His will?To use a denier of Christ to lead His Apostles, to use a killer of Christians to preach His Word?
> 
> Did it just stop with the last word of the Bible? Is that where God's power ended?
Click to expand...


----------



## farmasis

PJason said:


> I believe the Magisterium is lead by the Holy Spirit.


 
I will not disagree with that either.
But, If I am led by the Holy Spirit, and so is the Magisterium-- and it is the same Spirit, and The Spirit is of God and cannot lie and is unchanging, why would I need a Magisterium?



> Then comes the question of is God not powerful enough to use man to do His will?To use a denier of Christ to lead His Apostles, to use a killer of Christians to preach His Word?


 
He most definately does, and he uses non-Christians also.



> Did it just stop with the last word of the Bible? Is that where God's power ended?


 
Of course not. Because He is still in power and active, I don't feel that I have to rely on apostlistic succession and tradition.


----------



## Israel

Ergo, the jewish religion must be right...because they copied and protected the scriptures...so lets all keep the 613 laws. Throw out your bacon bubba. Don't let your wife sit on your couch during "her time".
All of this glorying in men and religions is just a symptom of the lack of Godliness spoken of in the very scriptures folks want to take a glory stand on.
God could from out of the ground raise up a perfect testimony...in fact...HE did!
Strip it all away, every last polluted religious vestige, let us be naked so that we may be clothed with Christ. Let us be done with the grave clothes and put on life. 
Till then we walk about blind and arrogant, boasting how well we see. All of this so called "defense of the faith" is just a bunch of dung...when we defend our own religions...God sees plainly what is going on, it is not to him that we are devoted...when we glory in our own religions...we are only glorying in ourselves. 
Men with their own little kingdoms that must, and will, make way for the Lord...


----------



## 60Grit

Israel said:


> Ergo, the jewish religion must be right...because they copied and protected the scriptures...so lets all keep the 613 laws. Throw out your bacon bubba. Don't let your wife sit on your couch during "her time".
> All of this glorying in men and religions is just a symptom of the lack of Godliness spoken of in the very scriptures folks want to take a glory stand on.
> God could from out of the ground raise up a perfect testimony...in fact...HE did!
> Strip it all away, every last polluted religious vestige, let us be naked so that we may be clothed with Christ. Let us be done with the grave clothes and put on life.
> Till then we walk about blind and arrogant, boasting how well we see. All of this so called "defense of the faith" is just a bunch of dung...when we defend our own religions...God sees plainly what is going on, it is not to him that we are devoted...when we glory in our own religions...we are only glorying in ourselves.
> Men with their own little kingdoms that must, and will, make way for the Lord...


 
Amen,,,,,,,,,,,this post alone ought to be a Sticky in this forum....


----------



## rjcruiser

Israel said:


> Till then we walk about blind and arrogant, boasting how well we see. All of this so called "defense of the faith" is just a bunch of dung...when we defend our own religions...God sees plainly what is going on, it is not to him that we are devoted...when we glory in our own religions...we are only glorying in ourselves.



Israel....I agree with your post for the most part.  However, I believe that you are somewhat misguided in what you are saying.  Both myself and Farmasis are trying not to defend "our religion" but rather, the Bible.  

When things that are not taught in the Bible are defended...then one is defending a religion, something man-made and they are not trying to glorify God, but rather glorify man.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> "http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/are_catholics_christian.htm
> 
> Open it up and read it. Show me where it is wrong.
> Facts only please.




Your article and website is an interesting one and I disagree with most of it.  

Why do we have to keep coming up with different denominations of the same thing?  Aren't we all Christian?  Doesn't that mean we all believe in Christ and the Bible? No.  Just throughout this post, you can see that the Christ you worship, the Bible you read....is different than mine.  The message, the path to eternity, the teachings...similar, yes...but very very different as well.  

One might think, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians.....all Christians...much the same.  Then what about the Mormons?  They call themselves Christians.  Why, they even have Christ in the name of their church---Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints.  Of course  Christian.

All of these "Christian" religions started with Christ.  They had His teachings directly.  Perfection.

The problem....over time, man has carried the torch of Christianity.  However, no man is perfect.  Pride and Sin starts to take over and the perfection of Christ and the teachings He taught begin to warp and change.  And this is where different denominations...religions come from.  This is why there are 10 churches within a 250 yard radius of the Covington Square.  They all have different thoughts on what they believe...what the Bible says...how the Worship service should run.  So, how do we unite and come together and be able to say "we are all Christians?"  We must look back to Christ...the center of our religion and imitate His life and teachings.  

That is what the reformation was in the 1600s.  It was looking back at Christ, looking back at His teachings, the desciples and apostles that were called directly from Christ/God Himself, and making sure that all things aligned with Him.

There is no man that has any authority.  Only the Bible has the authority.  Only Genesis to Revelation.  Only 66 books.  This is the ultimate authority.  If a man's teachings or a religion's teachings do not align with those 66 books...they are not teaching True Biblical Christianity.

Did God use the RCC to preserve the Bible...Yes.  Did God use the reformers to refine Christianity and return it to its foundations...Yes.


----------



## THREEJAYS

ttt it had moved down a little


----------



## trckdrvr

Yes


----------



## rjcruiser

THREEJAYS said:


> ttt it had moved down a little



Love it....if we're going to break the record in the Spiritual debate forum....this is going to have to stay at the top


----------



## 60Grit

rjcruiser said:


> Love it....if we're going to break the record in the Spiritual debate forum....this is going to have to stay at the top


 
I thought this was about saving souls, not saving posts??


----------



## rjcruiser

trckdrvr said:


> Yes



What about the thief on the cross?  Not baptized, but was told he would see Christ in Paradise.


----------



## rjcruiser

60Grit said:


> I thought this was about saving souls, not saving posts??



Nope...that is the "Are Catholics Christians" post.  This one is strictly for views and post.

I will say, this is strictly a jesting joking post.  Of course, the object of this post is to hopefully bring individuals to a better understanding of their belief's and the basis for their belief's.


----------



## Dunamis

I think we are to follow Christ's example and get water baptized: however, NOT getting baptized will NOT prevent you going to Glory. To think other wise is ignorant.


----------



## farmasis

Dunamis said:


> I think we are to follow Christ's example and get water baptized: however, NOT getting baptized will NOT prevent you going to Glory. To think other wise is ignorant.


 

Looks like your move went OK. Glad to see you back.


----------



## Dunamis

Yes'sir the move went well! Of course it was definately an experience. Delaware turns out to be very similar to Georgia, although there appears to be more "rainbow flags" blowing in the wind up here.


----------



## Big7

Dunamis said:


> Yes'sir the move went well! Of course it was definately an experience. Delaware turns out to be very similar to Georgia, although there appears to be more "rainbow flags" blowing in the wind up here.



Watch your "six"


----------



## Dunamis

Big7 said:


> Watch your "six"




All day long!


----------



## rjcruiser

rjcruiser said:


> Big7, Circumcision and baptism are two totally different things.
> 
> None of your scripture references show infant baptism.  Didn't happen in the NT church.  Circumcision was for cleanliness in the OT and the reason it was done on the 8th day is because that is when a childs white blood cell count is the highest (white blood cells help the blood clot).  It was another way that God was able to seperate His chosen people, the Jews, from all other nations.
> 
> In the NT, Paul wrote that it was not necessary as the NT Church was not under the law and the traditions of the Jewish people.
> 
> See Gal 5:1-3
> Galatians 5
> 
> 1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
> 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
> 
> 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
> 
> Again, this is showing that circumcision was unnecessary along with the thought that works were going to save.  Verse 3 says that if you believe circumcision/works are going to save you, then you are under obligation to keep the whole Law...something that is impossible to do.



TTT...wondering if I could get a response on this from one of the Catholics on the board.....don't want to let this thread die.  If it needs to die, I'll let it.  This will be the last TTT I give.  The only other posts to this thread by me will be responses.


----------



## farmasis

Wanted to add this from Romans 4 also.

 9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.


----------



## Ronnie T

Dunamis said:


> I think we are to follow Christ's example and get water baptized: however, NOT getting baptized will NOT prevent you going to Glory. To think other wise is ignorant.



To think that Jesus Christ would command that new disciples be baptized and then allow them to decide if they would submit to His command is probably the proper definition of ignorant.

Baptism is commanded. The book of Acts is filled with examples of people submitting to it.

Nuff said.


----------



## PWalls

Ronnie T said:


> To think that Jesus Christ would command that new disciples be baptized and then allow them to decide if they would submit to His command is probably the proper definition of ignorant.
> 
> Baptism is commanded. The book of Acts is filled with examples of people submitting to it.
> 
> Nuff said.



Agree. But, the book of Acts is not filled with people that HAD to be baptized to go to Heaven. It is not a requirement to get to Heaven.


----------



## Ronnie T

Bro. Walls, I have to admit that I don't have much of a response to your above statement.  Here's way.  Your belief is not based upon Biblical evidence.  People were taught that they needed to be baptized because Jesus told His disciple to teach that particular thing.  It's even obvious that the Holy Spirit continued to inspire the disciples to teach baptism and to see that it was carried out.   Once the concept of baptism was taught, why would anyone decide that it wasn't a necessity?  Why would God expect that some people would not want to be baptized?  Why would God be pleased with anyone who made the decision to NOT do what the 1st century Christians did?
The Bible even describes Paul's baptism.  Thru the inspiration of Jesus, Anninias said to Paul:  "Why do you delay, arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Every New Testament letter(Except for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts) was written to believers who had already been baptized.  Anything contained there, for the most part, was written to disciples of Jesus Christ.

By the way, I love your Signature scripture:    1 John 1:9   "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Those words were written to Christians.  Christians who had already been baptized.

*I love these discussions but I'm horrified that many may read subjects such as this one and decide to ignore the teachings of the Bible and refuse baptism.
God Bless


----------



## PWalls

This is the 317th post on this topic. Please go back and read the many posts made by many people showing Scripture that says what you have to do to get to Heaven.

You have to believe. That is all.

There is no Scripture that says you must be baptized.

Of course the apostles and others kept teaching Baptism. It is a wonderful and public acknowledgement of the new re-birth that takes place when you are saved. Every Christian should have it done.

But, if you become a Christian and trust Jesus as your Saviour at a Wednesday night revival, do you believe that if you got in a car wreck on the way home and died that you would spend eternity in the hot place because you did not go submerge your body in water?

Baptism is not "required" for Salvation.


----------



## Ronnie T

PWalls said:


> This is the 317th post on this topic. Please go back and read the many posts made by many people showing Scripture that says what you have to do to get to Heaven.



I have read all those scriptures.  But, truly, those scriptures were written to folks who had already been baptized.  
Those scriptures were telling baptized believer that they must live by faith.  That they need to trust in God.
God Bless


----------



## PWalls

What is your answer to that hypothetical question I asked then.


----------



## Ronnie T

Would you refresh my memory please.  I don't remember so well.  I'll also scan back and see if I can find it.  Thanks


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> I have read all those scriptures.  But, truly, those scriptures were written to folks who had already been baptized.
> Those scriptures were telling baptized believer that they must live by faith.  That they need to trust in God.
> God Bless



Jesus was not speaking to people who had already been baptized...sure some of them were, but not all.  It is ignorant to think that you have to do anything to get to Heaven other than have faith that the Lord's death and resurection covers our sins and make Him Lord of your life.

Yes, baptism is commanded, but it isn't a requirement for salvation.

Again, I point to Rom 6:23..The wages of Sin is death, but the FREE gift of God is eternal life.


----------



## Ronnie T

Then what do I do with all the scriptures that deal with a person being baptized prior to salvation????????  
The first dozen or so verses of Roman 6 gives a lot of information about the process of baptism.  It seems to be THAT point when we become clothed in Christ.

No place in the New Testament........ No Place..... does it proclaim that you may or may not be baptized.  Baptism is symbolic of the beginning of the Christians walk with Christ.  I take that back.  It isn't even symbolic.
But yes, you are correct when you say that salvation is free.  A person certainly doesn't buy it with baptism.  I will never be able to work my way to heaven.  I will always need Gods grace.  I am pig fat compared to what God has done for me.  I deserve none of it except for the love of God and the Sacrifice of Christ.
But, it was Christ's intentions that new disciples be baptised....... so they must.
Let me ask you this:  If Paul had refused baptism, what do you suppose Christ's response would have been?

I got to go to bed.


----------



## Big7

*I'll help.*



rjcruiser said:


> TTT...wondering if I could get a response on this from one of the Catholics on the board.....don't want to let this thread die.  If it needs to die, I'll let it.  This will be the last TTT I give.  The only other posts to this thread by me will be responses.



OK rj - I will help you out when I get a minute.
Just need to read back and make sure I've not already
posted everything I believe on the subject.

pjason and dawg2 will prolly oblige as well?


----------



## Big7

Baptism
Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. 
The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water. 
Baptism confers the grace of justification. 
Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal. 
Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated. 
Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation. 
Baptism can be validly administered by anyone. 
Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised. 
The Baptism of young children is valid and licit. 

From HERE: http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-XVI-Last


----------



## Big7

*Infant Baptism*

INFANT
BAPTISM
"‘He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.’ Therefore, only people who have faith can be baptized. So why baptize infants?"

Those who believe that we should baptize adults only quote St. Mark 16, 16 for support: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Therefore, only those who have first undergone a "born again" experience by accepting Jesus Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior" can be baptized. It is also argued that Jesus Christ Himself was not baptized until the age of thirty. 

According to St. Paul, baptism in the Christian religion replaces the Jewish rite of circumcision (Col. 2, 11-12). This Jewish rite was normally given to infants and made them "religiously" clean and a member of God’s Chosen Race. With the coming of the Christianity, infants were to be accorded a similar and even greater spiritual privilege.

Catholics and Fundamentalists differ radically as to the meaning and effect of Baptism. Fundamentalists hold that baptism is only an ordinance whereby the "born-again" adult makes a public manifestation of his conversion. It is not necessary for salvation as the person has already been saved by accepting Jesus as his "personal Lord and Savior." Baptism does not infuse any grace to re-generate the soul as the candidate’s sins are "covered up" with the acceptance of Christ. Infants without reason who die unbaptized go straight to heaven as they only need to accept Christ as Savior after they have committed sin. Therefore, baptism of infants is pointless.

Catholics, on the other hand, assert that Baptism is an obligatory sacrament instituted by Christ which in itself makes us born-again: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (St. John 3, 5 [Douai]). Further, baptism bestows the grace it signifies into the soul of the recipient. This includes sanctifying grace, the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the infused theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the infused moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, as well as the uncreated grace of the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity: "Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them" (St. John 14, 23). Lastly, the candidate receives a right to actual graces to assist him in carrying out his baptismal promises. Consequent upon infusion of grace, all sin, original and actual, is forgiven and all temporal punishment due to sin is remitted. Without this infusion of grace the soul cannot be in a fit state to behold the Beatific Vision upon death. Baptism has all these effects irrespective of the age of the candidate.

On this basis Catholics see no reason to withhold the wonderful effects of Baptism from infants until they reach the age of reason. By baptizing infants, the Catholic Church frees them as soon as possible from the dominion of Satan and admits them into the company of children of God: "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs" (St. Matt. 19, 14). No where is it stated in Sacred Scripture that Baptism be administered only to adults.

With the enormous growth of the Church after Pentecost, large numbers of adult Jews and Pagans were being converted (Acts 2, 41). Obviously, these new Christians first had to believe in Jesus Christ before being baptized. However, in the case of some of these adults their entire families were baptized with them. Probably some of these families would have had infant children: 

(The family of Cornelius and all the persons present in his house during St. Peter’s visit) "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10, 47); 

"A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us...The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us..." (Acts 16, 14-15); 

"At the same hour of the night he (the jailer) took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay" (Acts 16, 33); 

"I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1, 16).

As for the claim that Jesus Christ was baptized only when He was an adult, it should be realized that Our Lord did not receive Christian baptism, in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the baptism of St. John the Baptist, which was only a symbolic washing and did not infuse grace. 

It is entirely false that infant baptism began late in the Church’s history. However, it is true that after three centuries of evangelization generations were now Christian by family tradition and this led to a decrease in the rate of adult catechumens and baptisms.

From HERE: http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Course/Book2-A.htm#INFANT


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> Baptism
> Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
> The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.
> Baptism confers the grace of justification.
> Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.
> Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.
> Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.
> Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.
> Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.
> The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.
> 
> From HERE: http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-XVI-Last



Several issues I have with the statements above.  

Why would someone in a "wayfaring state" be baptized?  It does no good for some one not truly a Christian to be baptised.  Just like taking a dip in the pool to them.

Also, I go back to my example.  The thief on the cross.  Wasn't baptized.  Went to heaven.  How do you explain that if baptism is required for true salvation?


----------



## PWalls

Ronnie T said:


> Would you refresh my memory please.  I don't remember so well.  I'll also scan back and see if I can find it.  Thanks




A couple of posts up:

"But, if you become a Christian and trust Jesus as your Saviour at a Wednesday night revival, do you believe that if you got in a car wreck on the way home and died that you would spend eternity in the hot place because you did not go submerge your body in water?"


I am not denying that we should be baptized. I think we should once you are born again. But, I do not think that it is a "requirement" for Salvation.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> Lastly, the candidate receives a right to actual graces to assist him in carrying out his baptismal promises. Consequent upon infusion of grace, all sin, original and actual, is forgiven and all temporal punishment due to sin is remitted. Without this infusion of grace the soul cannot be in a fit state to behold the Beatific Vision upon death. Baptism has all these effects irrespective of the age of the candidate.




This is and can't be scripturally supported.  Baptism does nothing in obtaining the Grace of God.  Again, I point to Rom 6:23.  God's grace is free.  We don't have to do anything.  

Yes, God calls us to obey him and if we make Him Lord of our life, we will strive to please Him through obedience.  However, God's grace, Jesus' blood of the cross, His conquering of death....covers me the second I receive Him as Lord and Savior of my life.

If I was to cry out to the Lord and make Him Lord of my life and die two seconds later, without being baptized, I'd be saved and going to heaven.  Again, this is what the thief on the cross did.  

Big7, your Catholic articles show the main difference between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity.  Catholicism teaches that in order for one to receive God's Grace and justification from Sin, one must perform works.  Biblical Christianity teaches that it is the FREE gift of God 

Eph 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;


----------



## rjcruiser

PWalls said:


> A couple of posts up:
> 
> "But, if you become a Christian and trust Jesus as your Saviour at a Wednesday night revival, do you believe that if you got in a car wreck on the way home and died that you would spend eternity in the hot place because you did not go submerge your body in water?"
> 
> 
> I am not denying that we should be baptized. I think we should once you are born again. But, I do not think that it is a "requirement" for Salvation.



PWalls...I agree with you 100%.  

If Paul had refused baptism.  I think that the Lord would have rebuked him...just as He did Peter in the upper room when Jesus wanted to wash Peter's feet.  And I think Paul would have responded as Peter did when the Rooster crowed the morning after he denied Christ 3 times.  True Biblical repentance.


----------



## farmasis

rjcruiser said:


> Also, I go back to my example. The thief on the cross. Wasn't baptized. Went to heaven. How do you explain that if baptism is required for true salvation?


 
It was either a cruel joke from Jesus, or he forgot to check "the pillar and foundation of truth", first.


----------



## PWalls

Ronnie T said:


> But, it was Christ's intentions that new disciples be baptised....... so they must.



I agree. Christ himself modeled it for us. A full immersion into the water.

But, Baptism is not a requirement to become saved. He told us to do lots of things. How about the Great Commission. Do you have to go and make disciples before you can be saved? Do you have to forgive your enemy 70 x 70 before you can be saved.

No one is saying that Baptism is unimportant. Just saying that it is not a commandment/requirement that must be done before a person is saved.


----------



## Ronnie T

Subject:  The thief on the cross.

The thief is an example of God's mercy and Jesus' power but it has no connection with salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
You see, Christ had not died on the cross.  The sacrifice had not been made.  The church had not been established.  Jesus had not yet instructed his disciples to  "go into the world baptizing believers".  A lot of things happened between the thiefs death and the establishment of the church in Acts 2. 

The thief falls in the same category as John the Baptist.
Matthew 11:10-12 (New American Standard Bible)
 10"This is the one about whom it is written,
         'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
         WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.' 
 11"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 
 12"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.


----------



## Ronnie T

Let me ask you this.

Why did God send Peter to the man Cornelius?  Why wasn't he saved simply because he prayed to God?
God sent Peter to teach this man and then to baptize him.

Again I say, there is no example in the book of Acts of a person praying to God and receiving salvation thru the blood of Jesus Christ.

I didn't want to pull the big gun out but here it is:

1 Peter 3:20-22 (KJV)
 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 
22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> The thief is an example of God's mercy and Jesus' power but it has no connection with salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
> You see, Christ had not died on the cross.  The sacrifice had not been made.



The way I read it....Christ was the first to die out of the three on the cross.  That is why the soldiers only pierced His side instead of breaking the bones in His legs.  They broke the legs to keep those on the cross from being able to push up and breath.  They did this with the other two, but not with Christ.

But I don't see how you can group the thief or John the Baptist into a different category.  They were both saved by their faith...not by works.  Before Christ, the Jews were saved through sacrifice and using the blood of sacrifice to cover their sins.  When Christ came John the Baptist believed that faith in Christ would get him into Heaven...Not works or sacrifice.


----------



## Ronnie T

PWalls said:


> A couple of posts up:
> 
> "But, if you become a Christian and trust Jesus as your Saviour at a Wednesday night revival, do you believe that if you got in a car wreck on the way home and died that you would spend eternity in the hot place because you did not go submerge your body in water?"



"First, why didn't the folks at the revival get to the business of baptising this person instead of sending him home?  But, to answer your question:  I cannot say for sure.  Jesus will do as Jesus will do.  If the man had been given an opportunity to be baptized and he declined, I fear for him.  But that decision is left to God.  Neither I nor you can decide that for God.  I got out of making those sort of decisions a few years ago.  All I can do is follow the teaching of God's word as best I can and share it's teachings with others.


----------



## PWalls

Ronnie T said:


> "First, why didn't the folks at the revival get to the business of baptising this person instead of sending him home?  But, to answer your question:  I cannot say for sure.  Jesus will do as Jesus will do.  If the man had been given an opportunity to be baptized and he declined, I fear for him.  But that decision is left to God.  Neither I nor you can decide that for God.  I got out of making those sort of decisions a few years ago.  All I can do is follow the teaching of God's word as best I can and share it's teachings with others.



Problem with your theory is that you had better only witness to someone while your standing waist deep in a stream. Don't witness to anyone in Wal-mart or at the gas station or anywhere else where you don't personally have a pool of water handy. Otherwise, as you say, you had better "fear" for them.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Let me ask you this.
> 
> Why did God send Peter to the man Cornelius? Why wasn't he saved simply because he prayed to God?
> God sent Peter to teach this man and then to baptize him.
> 
> Again I say, there is no example in the book of Acts of a person praying to God and receiving salvation thru the blood of Jesus Christ.
> 
> I didn't want to pull the big gun out but here it is:
> 
> 1 Peter 3:20-22 (KJV)
> 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
> 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
> 22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.


 
See http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

Now can you explain:

John 1:12; John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:21-30; Romans 4:5; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:9; Galatians 2:16


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> See http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html
> 
> Now can you explain:
> 
> John 1:12; John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:21-30; Romans 4:5; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:9; Galatians 2:16



Ohhh No.....Farmasis brought out an even bigger Gun  and more of them too

Here is another good article on I Peter 3:21.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/bapsav08.htm


----------



## Ronnie T

Farmasis I will comment on those scriptures.

1.  John 1:12  12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name"......... Obviously, I agree with this inspired scripture.  Read the scripture before it.  Jesus came into the world to His own(that would be to the Jews), but many of them would not receive Him.  But all of those who would receive Him were given the right to become children of God thru Jesus Christ.

2.  John 3:16  "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."  I obviously agree with this scripture.
In this scripture Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, a Jew, concerning the need to be born again into Jesus Christ.
This scripture does not invalidate the scriptures that pertain to water baptism.

3.  Acts 16:31  31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." This was a great opportunity for this jailer.  He had certainly not believed until this night.  

But using this verse by itself wouldn't be proper.  
If that were proper, someone could use Acts 2: 38 "Peter said to them,  "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit..... and verse 41  "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."..... Those four verses says nothing about the people believing.  Be it has to be assumed that that did.

The apostles correctly told the jailer if he could believe, he could be saved.  They then taught him and then they baptized him.

32And they taught the things of Jesus to him together with all who were in his house.  33 and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 

4.  Romans 3:21-30  These verses are dealing with a serious problem in the 1st century church.  Many were still seeking to be justified by the Law of Moses.  Under that Law(capital letter), people such as the Pharisees were boasting because they believed they were following the Law to the "T".  No errors at all.  Paul here states there is no justification thru the works of the Law.  Jesus has become the last sacrifice for the sins of the believer.  Jesus has paid the penalty for each persons sins who accepts and lives for Jesus.........

But, Romans 6: 1-3 makes it clear that Paul was talking to people who had already been baptized.  Here's the proof
     Romans 6:1-3   1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 
     *Did you see what that said:  "Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death?"
     *In baptism, a person is baptized into Jesus' death on the cross.


I'll post concerning the other references if you want me to.  Let me know.  Seldom can one verse be quoted and get a good understanding of it's intent.

God Bless


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> 1. John 1:12 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name"......... Obviously, I agree with this inspired scripture. Read the scripture before it. Jesus came into the world to His own(that would be to the Jews), but many of them would not receive Him. But all of those who would receive Him were given the right to become children of God thru Jesus Christ.


 
Read the scripture right after it.

12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,<SUP>[c]</SUP> nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 




> 2. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." I obviously agree with this scripture.
> In this scripture Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, a Jew, concerning the need to be born again into Jesus Christ.
> This scripture does not invalidate the scriptures that pertain to water baptism.


 
Did God give his son to only the Jews? No, the whole world that might believe in him and will be saved. This is the only requirement for salvation-- not baptism.



> 3. Acts 16:31 31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." This was a great opportunity for this jailer. He had certainly not believed until this night.
> 
> But using this verse by itself wouldn't be proper.
> If that were proper, someone could use Acts 2: 38 "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit..... and verse 41 "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."..... Those four verses says nothing about the people believing. Be it has to be assumed that that did.


 
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 
 31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

I wonder why Paul and Silas didn't say, believe and be baptised?



> 4. Romans 3:21-30 These verses are dealing with a serious problem in the 1st century church. Many were still seeking to be justified by the Law of Moses. Under that Law(capital letter), people such as the Pharisees were boasting because they believed they were following the Law to the "T". No errors at all. Paul here states there is no justification thru the works of the Law. Jesus has become the last sacrifice for the sins of the believer. Jesus has paid the penalty for each persons sins who accepts and lives for Jesus.........


 
Once again, Paul confirms
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,<SUP>[a]</SUP> through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 
 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.



> But, Romans 6: 1-3 makes it clear that Paul was talking to people who had already been baptized. Here's the proof
> Romans 6:1-3 1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
> *Did you see what that said: "Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death?"
> *In baptism, a person is baptized into Jesus' death on the cross.


 
Sorry, this is a baptism in the Spirit (Baptized in Christ Jesus), not in water.

In the previous chapter Paul makes that clear-
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we<SUP>[a]</SUP>have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. 

That is access by faith. Not faith and baptism.



> I'll post concerning the other references if you want me to. Let me know. Seldom can one verse be quoted and get a good understanding of it's intent.
> 
> God Bless


 
Yes, please do, the best is yet to come.


----------



## Ronnie T

I am in awe of the things people will do to prevent accepting what Jesus asked of us and asked us to teach.  This is not a contest to prove you are smarter than I or that I am smarter than you.  It's a matter of simply reading God's word and accepting it for what it says.  Yes we are saved by grace.  Yes it is a gift of God.  Yes we are commanded to be baptized.
I am appalled that you could have such a great desire to disprove something commanded by Jesus and taught extensively throughout the New Testament.
There is so much more that could be said but frankly, I think enough has been said for now.  
But I plead with you to do a study of baptism.  Not to disprove it-but to learn why it's included in the teachings of the New Testament. 2Tim 3:  "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"
There is value in baptism.  There is meaning in baptism.  I can visualize those early Christians down at the river side celebrating there inclusion into the kingdom of God.  I can visualize the apostle Peter raising someone up from the water, praising God.
God Bless


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> I am in awe of the things people will do to prevent accepting what Jesus asked of us and asked us to teach. This is not a contest to prove you are smarter than I or that I am smarter than you. It's a matter of simply reading God's word and accepting it for what it says. Yes we are saved by grace. Yes it is a gift of God. Yes we are commanded to be baptized.
> I am appalled that you could have such a great desire to disprove something commanded by Jesus and taught extensively throughout the New Testament.
> There is so much more that could be said but frankly, I think enough has been said for now.
> But I plead with you to do a study of baptism. Not to disprove it-but to learn why it's included in the teachings of the New Testament. 2Tim 3: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"
> There is value in baptism. There is meaning in baptism. I can visualize those early Christians down at the river side celebrating there inclusion into the kingdom of God. I can visualize the apostle Peter raising someone up from the water, praising God.
> God Bless


 
I have no problem in being baptized. I think all Christians should, but regulations were the problem in the early church and with the Jewish nation that Jeus preached about. We are commanded to do many more things than just be baptized. We are to preach the gospel. But preaching the gospel cannot save us. No work of any kind will. Baptism is important. It is a symbolic cleansing of the flesh that follows (and always follows) the internal cleansing (baptism if you will).
I have done a study on baptism. I plead with you to do a study on grace. I respect your appreciation of baptism. I hold it sacred also, but secondary to grace because grace through faith is what has made me free from death.
Look at it this way. John preached repetance and baptized, but none were saved. The difference came from the blood of Christ on which you must confess with your mouth and believe in your heart for salvation. That is the deal maker.


----------



## GA_DAWGS

I have been baptized many years ago but I do NOT think that anyone has to be baptized to be saved. My Bible says that if you believe in Christ and ask his forgivness of your sins you will be saved. I think being baptized is important but it has nothing to do with getting into the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## Dunamis

-“To think that Jesus Christ would command that new disciples be baptized and then allow them to decide if they would submit to His command is probably the proper definition of ignorant.”

This is not the question on the table. The question is not: _Can I choose whether or not I want to be water baptized?_ The question is this: _Is water baptism required to enter Heaven?_ The answer is no. Water Baptism is an outward expression of and inward change. Nothing more...

 Ponder this:

1 Peter 3:18-20: “(18) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; (20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

-“that he might bring us to God” is speaking of salvation.

-“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;” is referring to the “_bosom of Abraham_”, essentially a waiting room. It is referenced by Jesus Himself in a parable in Luke 16:22. The “_spirits_” are not spirits in the sense of angels or demons, but specifically referenced as those that were killed by the flood in the story of Noah. I personally believe that “Abraham’s Bosom” wasn’t reserved solely for that group, but for every man, woman, and child that had passed away prior to Jesus’ death. Those people had not had the gift of salvation offered to them. All they had was the sacrifice of animals. This only pacified the “_wages_” of sin for one year at a time.  Since Jesus hadn’t died to bring reconciliation, the gates of Heaven were still shut to these few.  In that the blood of a perfect sacrifice pacified the “_wages_” of sin in the Old Testament, even if only for one year, the blood of Jesus’ perfect sacrifice pacified the “_wages_” once-and-for-all!


Luke 16:22- “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom…”

When Jesus descended and preached to these people, did he require them to be baptized before they entered Heaven? I choose to think not. I believe He showed Himself for who He really was: the Son of God. If they accepted Him, they entered into Glory. 

-“Baptism is commanded. The book of Acts is filled with examples of people submitting to it.”

You are right. It is commanded! 100% truth, but is it a requirement to making it to Heaven? My church doesn’t have a baptismal service every Sunday. We wait until we have a handful of people that want to be baptized and then we conduct a service for them. Sometimes it can take a couple weeks for enough people to come forward to be baptized before we have the service. Do you really think that if these people were killed between the time they accepted Christ and the time they were baptized that they would NOT go to heaven? That’s troublesome…


----------



## Ronnie T

Dunamis

If your church is causing people to wait several weeks to be baptized, then your church and it's leaders and you are ignoring the teachings of the apostles and you are placing in jeopardy those who've come to you expecting you to do what is right.  You also are willfully disobeying a command of Jesus Christ.  The only reason a person can be saved is thru the grace of God..... and because of that, you better do as He says and get your rear end down there and be baptized.  To do otherwise is to think too much of what you hope to be true rather than what the Bible teaches.
That's it plain and simple.  You can do what the Bible teaches or you can do what your preachers says.  If I were you, I'd be very very fearful.  You are simple wrong, misguided, and in error.

A person is absolutely saved by grace.........
And that person must be baptized.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Dunamis
> 
> If your church is causing people to wait several weeks to be baptized, then your church and it's leaders and you are ignoring the teachings of the apostles and you are placing in jeopardy those who've come to you expecting you to do what is right. You also are willfully disobeying a command of Jesus Christ. The only reason a person can be saved is thru the grace of God..... and because of that, you better do as He says and get your rear end down there and be baptized. To do otherwise is to think too much of what you hope to be true rather than what the Bible teaches.
> That's it plain and simple. You can do what the Bible teaches or you can do what your preachers says. If I were you, I'd be very very fearful. You are simple wrong, misguided, and in error.
> 
> A person is absolutely saved by grace.........
> And that person must be baptized.


 
Sorry to but in, but those are some strong words and accusations. I don't think he said that they do not baptize, but wait and have baptism a certain time for many.
Does your Bible say that you must be immediately baptized?


----------



## Ronnie T

Yes.  The New Testament example is that believers were always baptized as part of their conversion.
The early verses of Romans 6 give a pretty good indication as to why they considered it so important.

3Or do you not know that all of us who have been *baptized into Christ Jesus *have been *baptized into His death? *
 4Therefore we have been *buried with Him through baptism into death*, so that *as Christ was raised from the dead *through the glory of the Father, *so we too might walk in newness of life. *
 5For *if we have become united with Him in the likeness *of His death, *certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection*, 

 6knowing this, that *our old self was crucified with Him*, in order *that our body of sin might be done away with*, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 

 7for *he who has died is freed from sin*. 

 8Now if we *have died with Christ*, we believe that *we shall also live with Him*, 



Those are the things that occur during baptism.  Not things that I accomplish during baptism but things that God does during baptism.

No one should be sent home from a revival without being baptized.


----------



## Dunamis

_-“If your church is causing people to wait several weeks to be baptized, then your church and it's leaders and you are ignoring the teachings of the apostles and you are placing in jeopardy those who've come to you expecting you to do what is right. You also are willfully disobeying a command of Jesus Christ.”_

How are we “_ignoring_” Christ’s teaching and placing people in “_jeopardy_”? Unless I missed it, there’s nothing in the Word that places a time constraint on getting water baptized after receiving Christ. There’s nothing that states it should be a simultaneous action. Besides, if it did have a time constraint then that would imply that My God is limited in His abilities.  

Your reference of Romans Chapter 6 is the “_outward sign of the inward change_” that I’ve spoken of. It signifies the death and burial of the old man while showing the resurrection of the new man. It’s for our benefit to be baptized. It provides a reference point for us to look back on during our christian walk.

I agree with you 100% that water baptism is a commandment from Jesus and that all Christians SHOULD comply with it. To say that water baptism is plain-and-simply not needed doesn't line up with the Bible and could lead to living a life in rebellion. However, your claims that water baptism is required to get into Glory are scripturally unfounded. We are to “_rightly divide the Word of Truth_”. Until I am presented with scripture supporting these things I have to assume that these things are taught from the "This is What We Believe" pamphlet and not the Bible. We need to draw conclusions from what the Bible says, not add our 2 cents to make it say what we want.


_-“The only reason a person can be saved is thru the grace of God..... and because of that, you better do as He says and get your rear end down there and be baptized.”_

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that we are saved by grace. Then you say we must be baptized to go to Heaven. These are not two separate events that we are talking about. Being saved by Grace and geting into Heaven are synonymous. When you accept Christ your name is written in the Lambs book of Life. They don't scribble your name in pencil so it can be removed, just in case you don't get baptized! They also don't have a "pending baptism" column either! It's written in His Blood. PRAISE GOD!

_ -“To do otherwise is to think too much of what you hope to be true rather than what the Bible teaches.”_

I disagree. I am confident in what my Bible tells me. 

Acts 16:30-31: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, *Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved*, and thy house."


_-“That's it plain and simple. You can do what the Bible teaches or you can do what your preachers says. If I were you, I'd be very very fearful. You are simple wrong, misguided, and in error.”_

It’s obviously not that simple. If it were, there would not be so many people teaching error.


----------



## Ronnie T

I agree with your feelings concerning God's grace.  Mine and your disagreement is in the need to consider all scripture.  Biblical teaching concerning baptism as a part of the salvation process cannot be ignored in order to insure that God's grace is protected.
Christians are in a covenant relationship with God.  Christians must........ must respond to God's grace by submitting to baptism.  Baptism isn't an afterthought.  It was part of the process.

*Acts 2:38  Peter said to them, " Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  (please don't remove baptism from this verse)

*Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.  (please don't remove baptism from this verse)

*Acts 8:12  But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

*Acts 8:13  Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

*Acts 8:36  As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

*Acts 10:48  And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

*Acts 16:15  And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

*Acts 16:33  And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household

*Acts 18:8  Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

*Acts 19:3  And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, " Into John's baptism."  4Paul said, " John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."  5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

*Acts 22:16  'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

*Romans 6:3  Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

*Galatians 3:27  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
                (This by the way, is water baptism.)

*Col 2:11  and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 


Baptism is not a work.  It is part of the covenant.  It is God who does the work of baptism.  It is that point that many things take place.
Most importantly, it doesn't make me the creator of my salvation.  It is God who saves.


----------



## Israel

In following this thread I cannot help but reminded of a story I heard many years ago regarding faith and what appears as faith.
I am sure it is not new to most of you, but to those that haven't heard it and even those who have, I still find it very applicable to this life we are called to. 
Simply:

A man walks across a tightrope over Niagara Falls pushing a wheelbarrow. The gathering crowd watches in awe as he does this. Making it to the other side he then sets back to do it again in the other direction. At the other side he again turns around and pushes the wheel barrow back. 
This time when he reaches the other side he adresses the crowd who has now watched him do it several times.
"How many of you believe I can make it to the other side pushing this wheelbarrow?", he asks.
Everyone raises their hands and nods in assent.
"Then", he asks, "who of you will get in the wheelbarrow?"

Following Jesus is not a mental assent, it is not a life of conjecture under the assumption that discussing spiritual things makes one spiritual.
The same grace that saves us is the same grace that produces obedience. 
No man who has ever followed the Lord in faith believes one thing done in obedience to the gospel has ever come from any place other than the indwelling Lord of Glory, the obedient One. No man of faith would dream of taking credit for a single breath.
To those who do not know the very compulsion of Christ within to obey, to those who have not yet cried out (even after they know it is Jesus they are speaking to) "what must I do to be saved, Lord", I would suggest their salvation is very different than that recorded by, and about, almost every disciple mentioned in the scriptures. 
"Why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things I say?"

If one is prepared here to declare he has specifically heard the Lord tell him he need not get baptized after he has spoken to Jesus about it...then come...let us stop all the talking and test the spirits. 

For such a one has obviously received a revelation that supercedes that which the apostles were careful to instruct, or one is hearing from beneath.


----------



## Dunamis

...


----------



## farmasis

Israel said:


> If one is prepared here to declare he has specifically heard the Lord tell him he need not get baptized after he has spoken to Jesus about it...then come...let us stop all the talking and test the spirits.
> 
> For such a one has obviously received a revelation that supercedes that which the apostles were careful to instruct, or one is hearing from beneath.


 
I would like to turn that around a bit.

If anyone here would like to declare that a child who dies after giving his life to the Lord, but before he gets to be baptized will be sent to hades then I want to see the reults of that test and words from the apostles.

Besides, I do have a revelation from the Lord, The Word of God as written by the apostles and 200 times it is said in the Bible we are saved by faith or belief in Jesus only. That is good enough for me.


----------



## Dunamis

_-“I agree with your feelings concerning God's grace.”_

Clearly not.

_-“Mine and your disagreement is in the need to consider all scripture. Biblical teaching concerning baptism as a part of the salvation process cannot be ignored in order to insure that God's grace is protected.”_

Our disagreement isn’t in the need to consider all scripture. The disagreement is the fact that the word of God isn’t being “rightly divided”. On subjects such as this, you can’t just type in the word “Baptism” in the search function of your online Bible and get a clear understanding of what “baptism” is or what is does. Well, I guess you could but you would be forming an opinion on only half of the necessary relevant information. 

Who are we that God's grace should be protected from us or by us?

_-“Christians are in a covenant relationship with God. Christians must........ must respond to God's grace by submitting to baptism. Baptism isn't an afterthought. It was part of the process.”_


 There is no “salvation process”. The gift is extended and you respond with a yes or no. That’s it. Jesus is absolutely all you need for salvation.

-“*Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, " Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (please don't remove baptism from this verse)

*Acts 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name. “

Again, I’m not arguing that water baptism is not commanded. I’m not arguing that we should see it as unnecessary. What I am arguing is that you are placing water baptism as an equal to the application of Jesus Blood to our lives and that water baptism completes the equation of salvation. You are incorrect. The only scripture that you listed that can be used within this debate is Acts 22:16 and Acts 2:38. Water Baptism has it's place, but is can not save you nor complete the salvation "process". When you say "yes" to Jesus, your salvation sealed. Regardless of whether you are wet or not. IF you “rightly divide” you’ll find that “with out blood, there is no remission (forgiveness) of sin”. That’s why Jesus had to come. Life is in the Blood. The life in Jesus’ blood was required to pacify the wages of sin which is death.

Hebrews 9:22 ; “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” 

Genesis 9:4 – “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood”

Romans 6:23 ; "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"

-“Baptism is not a work. It is part of the covenant. It is God who does the work of baptism. It is that point that many things take place.”

What covenant? All baptism does is signify you taking up your cross and following Jesus. To my knowledge, which is limited, baptism serves only as a reference point in your pursuit of Jesus. Many people want water baptism to accompany the accepting of salvation so as to have a clear point of separation between the old man and the new man. It is Jesus blood and only Jesus blood that is required to go to Glory!


----------



## farmasis

I got a question.

What makes a work a work? Why isn't baptism a work? The Catholics seem to think it is.

If we consider necessity alone -- the Eucharist being left out as our daily bread, and God's greatest gift -- three are simply and strictly necessary, Baptism for all, Penance for those who fall into mortal sin after receiving Baptism, Orders for the Church. The others are not so strictly necessary. Confirmation completes the work of Baptism; Extreme Unction completes the work of Penance; Matrimony sanctifies the procreation and education of children, which is not so important nor so necessary as the sanctification of ministers of the Church (Summa Theologiæ III:56:3, ad 4). 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

Can someone provide evidence that Baptism is not a work?


----------



## Ronnie T

If Baptism is a work, then so is the Lord's Supper.  Neither are works.  The Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesu Himself for all Christians.
Baptism is not a work, it is a response to God.  Baptism is no more symbolic than circumcision was for the people of Israel.

By the way Dunamus, I don't happened to need the search button to help me understand or illustrate the scripture.  I'm 59 years old and have been studying, meditating over, preaching, and praying over God's word for many years.

It is obvious to me that your minds are closed to even think and ponder the things I've brought up.  I'm now knocking the dust on my feet.

God Bless


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> Dunamis
> 
> If your church is causing people to wait several weeks to be baptized, then your church and it's leaders and you are ignoring the teachings of the apostles and you are placing in jeopardy those who've come to you expecting you to do what is right.  You also are willfully disobeying a command of Jesus Christ.  The only reason a person can be saved is thru the grace of God..... and because of that, you better do as He says and get your rear end down there and be baptized.  To do otherwise is to think too much of what you hope to be true rather than what the Bible teaches.
> That's it plain and simple.  You can do what the Bible teaches or you can do what your preachers says.  If I were you, I'd be very very fearful.  You are simple wrong, misguided, and in error.
> 
> A person is absolutely saved by grace.........
> And that person must be baptized.



Ronnie,
I think you are over-zealous in your belief of baptism.  In one post, you say it doesn't save, but in another post you say the person must be baptized and if they don't obey this command, they may or may not be going to heaven?

Yes..it is a command.  So is not letting any unwholsome word out of your mouth.  So what makes the Lord's command of baptism more important or more salvific than the command of no unwholsome word coming from your mouth?

The problem when you start requiring works for salvation is that you have taken the emphasis off of God and His work done on the cross and start putting it on Man and what he has done. 

Then it spirals from there.  You must start splitting sins and making some worse than others...so that you can make commands such as Baptism or communion more important than unwholsome words.  


Also, I find it extremely important for one to be careful about rushing a new convert into baptism.  I believe that it is important to ensure that the individual is truly saved and not like the seed that was thrown on stoney soil...sprouting up quickly only to be choked out and die in a time of no rain.

The issue with rushing one to Baptism is that they believe that that is what saved them.  They degress and backslide, but they hold on to that Baptism as their "key" to salvation.  They don't have Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life, but they remember back..."I've been baptized, I'm a good person...I'll be alright."

Don't get me wrong...I'm a huge proponent of baptism by immersion.  I was baptized by immersion when I was in Jr. High.  It is commanded by God and I believe that all who are baptized will be rewarded in Heaven because of it....maybe a jewel in a crown.  But in no way, will the baptism factor into whether someone is going to Heaven or not.


----------



## Ronnie T

Thank you for accusing me of being overzealous of baptism.  I strieve to be overzealous of all God's word.

As I said earlier, baptism is no more a work than taking part in the Lord's Supper is for a Christian is.  It is not a work.  It does not save as a work.
And you dear brother in Christ do not have the right to decide that it's best to wait a while to baptise someone.  All Biblical examples imply that baptism should not be delayed.

I am so sorry that you don't understand.

You say that baptism will not be a factor in heaven.  
Don't be surprise it Jesus doesn't say to you:  "If you knew that I commanded that all be baptised; and if you knew all Bible examples indicated that new Christians were baptised immediately; then why didn't you just do it??????  Why didn't you?  Why did you say people didn't have to if they didn't want to??  Did I ask you to figure all that stuff out and come to conclusions??  Not I didn't!  I simply ask you to teach the Gospel and baptize those who believe.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> You say that baptism will not be a factor in heaven.



Can you not read?



			
				rjcruiser said:
			
		

> It is commanded by God and I believe that all who are baptized will be rewarded in Heaven because of it....maybe a jewel in a crown.



Please don't call us "close-minded" to your posts and your conviction when you don't even bother to read ours.


----------



## Ronnie T

My mistake:  You said baptism will not be a factor as to whether someone goes to heaven or not.


Don't be surprise if Jesus doesn't say to you: "If you knew that I commanded that all be baptised; and if you knew all Bible examples indicated that new Christians were baptised immediately; then why didn't you just do it?????? Why didn't you? Why did you say people didn't have to if they didn't want to?? Did I ask you to figure all that stuff out and come to conclusions?? Not I didn't! I simply ask you to teach the Gospel and baptize those who believe.


----------



## Dunamis

_-“By the way Dunamus, I don't happen to need the search button to help me understand or illustrate the scripture. I'm 59 years old and have been studying, meditating over, preaching, and praying over God's word for many years.”_

Sir, I’m 30 years your junior. I don’t mean any offense by anything I say. I’m human and can get carried away like everybody else. For that I apologize. Concerning our discussion, I’ve listened to your supporting statements. I’ve weighed them against my personal research and conviction. The two simply do not jive together. Nothing in my research even hints at the fact that water baptism effects salvation. To me, the supporting statements just don't hold up. When we look at this subject, look not only to this subject specifically but also to what the Bible says in it's entirety regarding everything around this subject.

_-"Thank you for accusing me of being overzealous of baptism. I strieve to be overzealous of all God's word."_

There needs to be a balance. We need to be zealous, but not to the point that we turn people off to the message of salvation. This could be a bad thing. An opinion with little supporting scriptural basis could lend itself to be seen as traditionally based as opposed to Biblically based.

_-"All Biblical examples imply that baptism should not be delayed."_
Going from a previous post of yours you use the folloing as your basis:

_Acts 8:36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized? 

Acts 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household

Acts 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name​_Nothing here tells me that I should got to the baptismal right after I leave the alter. It's simply not there.


_-"I am so sorry that you don't understand."
-"It is obvious to me that your minds are closed to even think and ponder the things I've brought up." _

Again, I've listened to your comments and they just don't add up. There are several questions that I posed that haven't gotten any attention as well.

_-"Why did you say people didn't have to if they didn't want to?? "_

Herein is another issue all together. Words are being twisted. Nobody, that I can tell, has stated that baptism was an option. For the fourteenth time, it is a commandment, but it is not a required to go to Glory.

_-"Did I ask you to figure all that stuff out and come to conclusions"_

He made us in His image. He gave us intellect with the ability to calculate and reasonably deduct. Why would He give us these things if they weren't intended to be used?

_-"I simply ask you to teach the Gospel and baptize those who believe. "_

EXCACTLY! What you won't hear at the point of salvation is, "You have exactly 13 minutes to get baptized or your salvation experience will be null and void along with having you name stricken from the Lambs Book of Life!!"



The good thing is that you may believe what you want to believe, even if I don’t agree with it. Going from the alter to the baptismal won’t hurt anything, if that’s what you want to do. So if you want to preach that I see no problem with it. Preach on! As long as He is lifted up!


----------



## Israel

farmasis said:


> I would like to turn that around a bit.
> 
> If anyone here would like to declare that a child who dies after giving his life to the Lord, but before he gets to be baptized will be sent to hades then I want to see the reults of that test and words from the apostles.
> 
> Besides, I do have a revelation from the Lord, The Word of God as written by the apostles and 200 times it is said in the Bible we are saved by faith or belief in Jesus only. That is good enough for me.


OK.
But there's one thing you do that the apostles didn't.
The apostles knew (and know) very well there are no such things as hypotheticals with the Lord.
And perhaps you betray a bit of soulishness by playing the "child" card...


----------



## Israel

It's somewhat amazing that brother's whose words we say we treasure...the apostles (and some others) in the scriptures, were often beaten, many slaughtered, all persecuted in various ways in their obedience to the Lord's instructions, yet we, who seem to know little or nothing of this are so eager to decide what commandments and instructions "lead to life". 
As to those of you who have seen the inside of jails, tasted the spit of others upon your face, been lashed, beaten, and in other ways seen the wrath of the dragon for the Lord and his disciples, you may understand of what I speak. 
To those who imagine the world is now a kinder place to the Lord, or that, worse, believe the USA is hospitable to the gospel, you have my sincere encouragement...seek the Lord while he may be found.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> If Baptism is a work, then so is the Lord's Supper. Neither are works. The Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesu Himself for all Christians.
> Baptism is not a work, it is a response to God.


 
So what is a work? If Jesus says to do it, then it is not a work?


----------



## farmasis

Israel said:


> OK.
> But there's one thing you do that the apostles didn't.
> The apostles knew (and know) very well there are no such things as hypotheticals with the Lord.
> And perhaps you betray a bit of soulishness by playing the "child" card...


 
They didn't? My Bible says:

 21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" (Matt 18)

What does child have to do with anything? Replace it with an old man and answer the question.


----------



## farmasis

Israel said:


> It's somewhat amazing that brother's whose words we say we treasure...the apostles (and some others) in the scriptures, were often beaten, many slaughtered, all persecuted in various ways in their obedience to the Lord's instructions, yet we, who seem to know little or nothing of this are so eager to decide what commandments and instructions "lead to life".
> As to those of you who have seen the inside of jails, tasted the spit of others upon your face, been lashed, beaten, and in other ways seen the wrath of the dragon for the Lord and his disciples, you may understand of what I speak.
> To those who imagine the world is now a kinder place to the Lord, or that, worse, believe the USA is hospitable to the gospel, you have my sincere encouragement...seek the Lord while he may be found.


 
I am treauring the word's of the apostles, and those word's say we are saved by faith and faith alone. Some have a hard time letting religion and self righteousness go and do not understand the free gift of grace. You don't have to be beat to understand that.


----------



## Ronnie T

Farmasis
You keep speaking of "Your" Bible as if your Bible obviously contains something that "Ours" does not.  I have news for you, I suspect your Bible and mine say the same.

Here's the problem is this discussion.

1.  Your Bible says that Paul was told:  Arise and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Yet you and others pretend it doesn't say that or you intellectualize it to be a gross overexageration of the truth.

2.  Galatians 3:27 says:  All of you who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Yet you cannot believe or acknowledge that because to do so would mean that baptism must somehow be involved in the process.  Certainly, being clothed with Christ is part of salvation.
     You try to figure things out rather than reading, accepting, following and believing.


----------



## Ronnie T

You also said   "I am treauring the word's of the apostles, and those word's say we are saved by faith and faith alone. Some have a hard time letting religion and self righteousness go and do not understand the free gift of grace. You don't have to be beat to understand that."
In all truth, it is you who are ignoring the words of the apostles if they threaten your stand on what God's grace is.

Grace:  Unmerited Favor.

Romans 6:14For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Farmasis
> You keep speaking of "Your" Bible as if your Bible obviously contains something that "Ours" does not. I have news for you, I suspect your Bible and mine say the same.


 
Sometimes I wonder.



> Here's the problem is this discussion.
> 
> 1. Your Bible says that Paul was told: Arise and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
> 
> Yet you and others pretend it doesn't say that or you intellectualize it to be a gross overexageration of the truth.


 
Paul also clearly states that faith is what saves and not any work.



> 2. Galatians 3:27 says: All of you who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.


 
Check the verse before 27 as well as the context of the whole chapter.

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.



> Yet you cannot believe or acknowledge that because to do so would mean that baptism must somehow be involved in the process. Certainly, being clothed with Christ is part of salvation.
> You try to figure things out rather than reading, accepting, following and believing.


 
Dunking under water cannot save you. Only belief in Jesus. It is not a process it is an event. We are made new creatures, not slowly evolved into a new creature. Being baptized into Christ is not water baptism, it is spiritual, i.e. faith.

I am a Christian. I am a Baptist. I believe baptism is an important symbolic command we must follow as Christians, but it doesn't make us Christians.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> You also said "I am treauring the word's of the apostles, and those word's say we are saved by faith and faith alone. Some have a hard time letting religion and self righteousness go and do not understand the free gift of grace. You don't have to be beat to understand that."
> In all truth, it is you who are ignoring the words of the apostles if they threaten your stand on what God's grace is.
> 
> Grace: Unmerited Favor.


 
No, I am not. Funny how people accuse you of things when they believe something different. 

Grace = unmerited favor is exactly what I am talking about! Unmerited because God has given it to us freely for believing in him. Had baptism been a requirement for grace, it would be merited.



> Romans 6:14For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
> 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
> 16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
> 17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
> 18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.


 
I love Romans, but don't see the point.


----------



## Ronnie T

I'm not at all surprised that you don't see the point.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> I'm not at all surprised that you don't see the point.


 
It is a great passage that warns us CHRISTIANS not to cheapen grace by continuing to sin. It has nothing to do with how to become a Christian.


----------



## furtaker

farmasis said:


> It is a great passage that warns us CHRISTIANS not to cheapen grace by continuing to sin. It has nothing to do with how to become a Christian.



You are exactly right.

The book of Romans was written to BELIEVERS, those who have already trusted in Christ and are saved.

The apostle Paul was sending a warning to _Christians_ to not use grace as a license to sin.

It is obviously possible for Christians to abuse grace, or Paul would never have written the warning!!

If a person believes in Jesus alone for everlasting life, and goes out and commits alot of sins and lives like the devil, he still goes to heaven when he dies.

If a person lives very morally and serves in church his whole life but has not trusted Jesus alone to give him eternal life, he does not go to heaven.

Doesn't seem fair to many people does it?  However God is the one who designed salvation.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord"  (Is. 55:8)

Jesus promised everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it.  Either I believe Him or I don't.  How long would everlasting life last?

Then why are believers not supposed to live in sin?  Because it grieves their Heavenly Father, and sin has consequences.  Ask any alcoholic.

A person doesn't go to h e l l because they committed murder, adultery, or anything else.  Jesus has already paid for all those things by his death and resurrection.

After all, who is sinless among us?  No person is "better" than another person.

A person goes to h e l l for the sin of unbelief.  They never believed that Jesus ALONE is sufficient to guarantee their eternal destiny by His death and resurrection.

Jesus never promised eternal life to those who are baptized, pray, and try to clean up their life and start going to church.

Rather, this is what He said:  "He who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and whoever lives and believes in Me will never die.  Do you believe this?"  (Jn. 11:26-27)


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> So what is a work? If Jesus says to do it, then it is not a work?



is repentance a work? 

baptism is not a work 

"works" are helping little ladies across the street, trying to be the good fella to get in.

If Jesus said do it, its a commandment. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments.

We all know baptism itself does not save, but its part of the pie and even more, no where are you told you dont have to do it.

 "IF" baptism or even just believing was all there is to it, we could rip Acts 8 and Acts 19 out and throw it away.


----------



## Dunamis

The word says what the word says. An opinion with little supporting scriptural basis could lend itself to be seen as traditionally based as opposed to Biblically based.

 Dueces!


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> is repentance a work?
> 
> baptism is not a work


 
The Catholic church says it is.



> "works" are helping little ladies across the street, trying to be the good fella to get in.
> 
> If Jesus said do it, its a commandment. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments.


 
Didn't he order us to do works? 



> We all know baptism itself does not save, but its part of the pie and even more, no where are you told you dont have to do it.
> 
> "IF" baptism or even just believing was all there is to it, we could rip Acts 8 and Acts 19 out and throw it away.


 
Let's not start ripping out stuff in the Bible, because you would only be left with a few verses after ripping out salvation by faith.

Salvation is an instant event, not a process. Consider this event. They recieved the Holy Spirit immediately, then baptized.

 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues<SUP>[b]</SUP> and praising God. 
   Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Can you recieve the Holy Spirit and not be saved?


----------



## furtaker

Spotlite said:


> is repentance a work?
> 
> baptism is not a work
> 
> "works" are helping little ladies across the street, trying to be the good fella to get in.
> 
> If Jesus said do it, its a commandment. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments.
> 
> We all know baptism itself does not save, but its part of the pie and even more, no where are you told you dont have to do it.
> 
> "IF" baptism or even just believing was all there is to it, we could rip Acts 8 and Acts 19 out and throw it away.



Repentance (from Gk. "metanoia") simply means to change the mind.  If you are an unbeliever, and you become a believer, what have you just done?  Changed your mind.

Many people redefine repentance to mean turning from sins.  This is a totally false definition.  In this case, it would be works.  God never saved any person because he stopped any of his sins and tried to be a good little person.

What could POSSIBLY be the difference in trying to get to heaven by:
1)  Helping a lady across the street, or
2)  Being baptized??

There is no difference whatsoever.

A work is anything whatsoever that a person does to try to be justified before God.

Faith is totally opposite from works according to the Bible:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"  (Rom. 4:5).

Baptism is a command for believers to do to publically identify with Christ.  It is very important but has no saving merit whatsoever.  There are many people in h e l l who were baptized, and there are many people in heaven who never were baptized.

The only thing that matters as far as their eternal destiny goes is what they trusted in to give them everlasting life.


----------



## Ronnie T

Brentus, Just about everything you said in the above post is either unscriptural or unverifiable.  The only true thing you wrote is when you quoted Rom 4:5.  You did accurately type it.


----------



## Israel

What does "cut off" mean?


Does it mean something other than disqualification?
I will not guess, but I will imagine this...that there will be some tortured explanation of how "cut off" means something like, you won't get as big a "reward" or some nonsense, but "you'll still go to heaven".

Romans 11: 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be _cut off._

Yes, this was written to the church. 


So was this.

What does it mean to "fall away"


Hebrews 6: 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall _fall away_, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


These are the days of the politician. Politicians lying in the square, politicians lying in the church.

What does it mean to say "Jesus is Lord?" Is it a magic incantation that binds the Lord in some way?
He certainly doesn't think so.

Matthew 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Read the first few chapters of Revelation.
Read the warnings to the churches, not "unbelievers".

Especially note this:

Revelation 2: 11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Jesus is warning believers to overcome...lest they be hurt by the second death. 

What is the second death, why would or should a believer care?

Is the second death just that thing we put on some chart in a sunday school class, you know, somewhere after the millenial reign...or is it before...or after we draw Satan running around loose and all that fire? It's near that White Throne, right?

What does it mean to be spewed from the Lord's mouth?
Does it mean he'll spit you out, but save a place for us at the feast, well, just because?

Revelation 3: 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.


Revelation 3: 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

In another place we are told that if we do not submit to chastening we are illegitimate.

Hebrews 12: 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye *******s, and not sons.

We are also warned

Hebrews 12: 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.  For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.


Some might say these warnings and come short of disqualification for entrance into glory, that somehow they involve something less severe and dreadful...well, like you just won't get as big a crown or something. 

God is not stupid. 

Why would he warn those who are already flirting with the world and have a such lax attitude with loss of something as vague to them as a crown for the Lord's sake? 

The last thing these folks are interested in (at this point) is the Lord's glory...but they sure might want to hold on to their fire insurance.

But one can dismiss it all if one cares to, go find the verse that says "God has to do such and such for me regardless of my lack of affection for him and his instruction"...and the disregard of brothers who received these revelations often after the shedding of their own blood in faithfulness.

These are the dreadful days the Lord spoke of, men fearing the opinion of others rather than fearing him, who after the body is killed, can cast the soul into perdition. 


There's much to be said for walking in the shoes of another, indeed Jesus said unless we do that, we are not worthy of him.


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> The Catholic church says it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't he order us to do works?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not start ripping out stuff in the Bible, because you would only be left with a few verses after ripping out salvation by faith.
> 
> Salvation is an instant event, not a process. Consider this event. They recieved the Holy Spirit immediately, then baptized.
> 
> 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues<SUP>[b]</SUP> and praising God.
> Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
> 
> Can you recieve the Holy Spirit and not be saved?



Well Im not Catholic


To answer your question, when you recieve the Holy Spirit, you are saved.

And no, I would not be left with just a few scriptures, cause it takes Faith to know when I called on God he would hear my voice, its hard to repent (or turn around whatever you want to call it, Bible says repent) or even confess your sins without calling on God and having Faith, so yes, call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved..................the scriptures you just quoted above are a fine example of that. Now that looks like it lined up perfect with what Ronnie posted earlier. You can call out, believe all you want, but until God fills you with his Spirit, your just a believer, again look at Acts 8 and Acts 19. Might want to look at the devils to, they believe he is the Son of God.

So now, answer my question,what happened in Acts 8 and Acts 19 "IF" all you had to do was believe? Dont get me wrong, I know believing is the first step, but its just the first step, these folks believed but still hadnt received anything yet, in other words, they were not saved until filled with the Holy Ghost.

And I never said salvation was a process


----------



## furtaker

Ronnie T said:


> Brentus, Just about everything you said in the above post is either unscriptural or unverifiable.  The only true thing you wrote is when you quoted Rom 4:5.  You did accurately type it.



Really?  Can you give me some examples?

Try reading Romans and Galatians, two books defending the true gospel of grace without works (Galatians especially).

Jesus promised eternal life to all who simply believe in Him over and over and over in the Gospel of John.  As a matter of fact, the word "believe" occurs over 90 times.

So salvation by faith alone without works is unscriptural?  And the Greek word for "repent" does in fact mean to turn from sins?  And helping a little lady across the street won't get you to heaven, but being dunked in water will?


----------



## Spotlite

brentus said:


> Repentance (from Gk. "metanoia") simply means to change the mind.  If you are an unbeliever, and you become a believer, what have you just done?  Changed your mind.
> 
> Many people redefine repentance to mean turning from sins.  This is a totally false definition.  In this case, it would be works.  God never saved any person because he stopped any of his sins and tried to be a good little person.
> 
> What could POSSIBLY be the difference in trying to get to heaven by:
> 1)  Helping a lady across the street, or
> 2)  Being baptized??
> 
> There is no difference whatsoever.
> 
> A work is anything whatsoever that a person does to try to be justified before God.
> 
> Faith is totally opposite from works according to the Bible:
> 
> "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"  (Rom. 4:5).
> 
> Baptism is a command for believers to do to publically identify with Christ.  It is very important but has no saving merit whatsoever.  There are many people in h e l l who were baptized, and there are many people in heaven who never were baptized.
> 
> The only thing that matters as far as their eternal destiny goes is what they trusted in to give them everlasting life.



I will just have to agree with Ronnie

I will say this, you can help all the little ladies you want across the road, and its good, I wished everyone would, they need help, but it will not save you one bit. You admitted baptism was a command, so when were we given the authority to decide a command was not important enough to keep?


----------



## Spotlite

brentus said:


> Jesus promised eternal life to all who simply believe in Him over and over and over in the Gospel of John.



you do understand that John said there would come one after him dont you? (read Acts 8 also)


----------



## furtaker

Spotlite said:


> I will just have to agree with Ronnie
> 
> I will say this, you can help all the little ladies you want across the road, and its good, I wished everyone would, they need help, but it will not save you one bit. You admitted baptism was a command, so when were we given the authority to decide a command was not important enough to keep?



Bingo!!!!!!

How many commands in Scripture do you think you would have to keep in order to be saved??

You would have to keep every command of God PERFECTLY to be able to get to heaven.

The problem is, we are sinners and are not perfect.  The book of James says that if we keep the whole law, and stumble in just one point, we are guilty of ALL.  Therefore, we owe God a death penalty (Rom 6:23).

That is why God sent a perfect Savior to die in our place.

The only way to be made right with God is to believe in Him.


----------



## Spotlite

brentus said:


> Bingo!!!!!!
> 
> How many commands in Scripture do you think you would have to keep in order to be saved??
> 
> You would have to keep every command of God PERFECTLY to be able to get to heaven.
> 
> The problem is, we are sinners and are not perfect.  The book of James says that if we keep the whole law, and stumble in just one point, we are guilty of ALL.  Therefore, we owe God a death penalty (Rom 6:23).
> 
> That is why God sent a perfect Savior to die in our place.
> 
> The only way to be made right with God is to believe in Him.



I cant argue that, I agree, thats what the Spirit of God is all about, but whats that got to do with how you get it?

Either way, in the end, if Im wrong, no worries, I believed, I was baptized and I received just like in Acts. But what if your wrong and all you did was believe, like in acts 8 and not received anything?


----------



## gordon 2

I was always under the impression that to believe was not only to know, but to do. Saved is as saved does. 

To be baptized in the name of the Lord, or to believe onto Him is it not the same as is circumcision in scipture? All at first apear to  be done to  the flesh, yet all are aimed to the heart, the engine of our deeds. So to do is the same as to know, or to believe or to be baptized, or to be circumcised. The doing is IN the knowledge gained by baptism or belief etc. The Holy Spirit is a facilitator, a helper regards our doings.

So at which point are we saved? We are saved when we "believe" because to believe is to know the Good News, and to know or believe in the Creator entails doing or action or re-creation according to His will. To do and to believe are the reflextions of each other and I think that perhaps this is what Jesus is talking about when he calls all to believe in  Him.

Clear as mud if you are "baptised" RC or a "belivin" Baptist, "Spirit Filled" Methodist, etc..etc

Salvation is not a word game, it is a spiritual enter-prize.


----------



## rjcruiser

brentus said:


> Repentance (from Gk. "metanoia") simply means to change the mind.  If you are an unbeliever, and you become a believer, what have you just done?  Changed your mind.
> 
> Many people redefine repentance to mean turning from sins.  This is a totally false definition.  In this case, it would be works.  God never saved any person because he stopped any of his sins and tried to be a good little person.
> .



Brentus...
Your definition of repentance is not a good one.  You cannot remain in sin and call yourself a true Christian.  Do works save you...no.  But Faith without works is dead.  See the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15.  He not only changed his mind while eating pig slop...but he turned away from it and returned home.  Complete 180 degree change.

You need to read Romans 6.  Paul writes that even though we are saved by Grace....we should not remain in Sin.  If you remain in sin, Jesus Christ is not the Lord of you life.  Of course, we as humans can do nothing but constantly fail and continue to sin...but we should strive to please God.  We should see a growth in our spiritual maturity...Sanctification.  Yes....we will not be perfect until God calls us to Heaven...Glorification.

Again, someone who has done nothing good in their life...repents and turns to Jesus Christ....and dies in a horrific car crash 2 minutes later....saved...going to heaven.

However, if they merely say it with their mouth, but have no fruit, then one must question the validity of their statement of faith.  This is the same with baptism.  Does it save?  No.  But if someone refuses to follow the commands of Jesus Christ, one must question the validity of their faith.


----------



## rjcruiser

Spotlite said:


> is repentance a work?



Yes it is...that is another reason that I believe in Election/predestination.  God chose me...He made me alive in Him.  

Therefore, it has nothing to do with me.  All I do is fall on my face before Him..thanking Him for His sacrifice that covered my sins.

See Eph 1 for scriptural back-up.


----------



## rjcruiser

brentus said:


> And the Greek word for "repent" does in fact mean to turn from sins?



It actually does.  See here.

In the New Testament, the word translated as 'repentance' is the Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia), "after/behind one's mind", which is a compound word of the preposition 'meta' (after, with), and the verb 'noeo' (to perceive, to think, the result of perceiving or observing). In this compound word the preposition combines the two meanings of time and change, which may be denoted by 'after' and 'different'; so that the whole compound means: 'to think differently after'. Metanoia is therefore primarily an after-thought, different from the former thought; a change of mind accompanied by regret and change of conduct, "change of mind and heart", or, "change of consciousness". 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repent


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> you do understand that John said there would come one after him dont you? (read Acts 8 also)


 
What do you see in Acts 8 that shows we must be baptized to be saved?

This is what Jesus says.
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16)

Now, the argument has been made that we must believe and be baptized to be saved. I can understand that and the first part sure does seem to enforce that. If they do not believe they will be condemned. But, what happens to those who believe and are not baptized? They are not condemned according to the scriptures. Belief should lead you to baptism, but it will lead you to salvation.


----------



## Israel

Jesus is very different.
Sometimes we should not help old ladies across the street.
Sometimes Jesus just wants them stuck on one side of the street for his reasons.
If we continually set out to do what _we consider_ good, we will find ourselves at odds with the Lord.
Our own _good intentions_ must also go to the cross, till all work is either the Lord, or not.
Jesus found a man by the pool whom no one would put in the water.
I am afraid we might develop ministries for the "putting of folks that can't help themselves get into the pool at Bethesda international" 
That day, that man was very glad no one came to help him except Jesus.
When it is Jesus helping old ladies across the street, it is well.
Whe it is us deciding "all old ladies should be helped across the street" we end up in the mess the world is today.
All evil claims good intentions...


----------



## gordon 2

farmasis said:


> What do you see in Acts 8 that shows we must be baptized to be saved?
> 
> This is what Jesus says.
> 15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16)
> 
> Now, the argument has been made that we must believe and be baptized to be saved. I can understand that and the first part sure does seem to enforce that. If they do not believe they will be condemned. But, what happens to those who believe and are not baptized? They are not condemned according to the scriptures. Belief should lead you to baptism, but it will lead you to salvation.



Whoever believes and is baptized, simply means whoever is circumsiced in their heart. It is not an  A follows B as the instructions for pitching up a camping tent. Simply one cannot dismantel "salvation"  in reverse order and go back home. The A follows B is the way of the world, the A and B if the Way. 

The "whoever does not believe are condemned" part simply means unbelievers have got a problem simply for not being in the Way.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> Whoever believes and is baptized, simply means whoever is circumsiced in their heart. It is not an  A follows B as the instructions for pitching up a camping tent. Simply one cannot dismantel "salvation"  in reverse order and go back home. The A follows B is the way of the world, the A and B if the Way.
> 
> The "whoever does not believe are condemned" part simply means unbelievers have got a problem simply for not being in the Way.



Very well put brother. 
Especially the understanding of: The A follows B is the way of the world, the A and B if the Way. 
The world says...ok, I get this part, but I won't do the next part till I understand why.
Jesus doesn't see faith/obedience as two different things...
Neither did the apostles...they well knew if you have a life that is not your own in control, then you will follow the footsteps of the one who called you and indwells you.


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> What do you see in Acts 8 that shows we must be baptized to be saved?
> 
> This is what Jesus says.
> 15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16)
> 
> Now, the argument has been made that we must believe and be baptized to be saved. I can understand that and the first part sure does seem to enforce that. If they do not believe they will be condemned. But, what happens to those who believe and are not baptized? They are not condemned according to the scriptures. Belief should lead you to baptism, but it will lead you to salvation.


I see the same thing in Acts 8 as the rest of it, even in the same scripture you just quoted, see blue dont be mistaken, the actual dunking in the water dont save you, but scripture says in order to have salvation, you got to believe and be baptized. And that was shown in Acts 8 and Acts 19. As far as those that have salvation and not made it to the tank yet, Did they do everything they knew to do? Did they reject baptism? Was it not available for them at the moment? I dont know and its not my call, God is the one that will do the judging, we are to preach teach and baptize.


----------



## farmasis

gordon 2 said:


> Whoever believes and is baptized, simply means whoever is circumsiced in their heart. It is not an A follows B as the instructions for pitching up a camping tent. Simply one cannot dismantel "salvation" in reverse order and go back home. The A follows B is the way of the world, the A and B if the Way.
> 
> The "whoever does not believe are condemned" part simply means unbelievers have got a problem simply for not being in the Way.


 
Whomever does A + B will be saved.
But, who does not do A is condemned.
B will follow A, but not required for salvation.

Also, A + B + works + evangalism + whatever God commands = salvation, but whomever does not do A is condemned.

All the others will follow A is A is done truely.


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> I see the same thing in Acts 8 as the rest of it, even in the same scripture you just quoted, see blue dont be mistaken, the actual dunking in the water dont save you, but scripture says in order to have salvation, you got to believe and be baptized. And that was shown in Acts 8 and Acts 19. As far as those that have salvation and not made it to the tank yet, Did they do everything they knew to do? Did they reject baptism? Was it not available for them at the moment? I dont know and its not my call, God is the one that will do the judging, we are to preach teach and baptize.


 
We have his answer, literally hundreds of times he says believe on me and you will be saved.

Acts 8:

34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, _here is_ water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” 
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”<SUP>[c]</SUP>
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

The enuch salvation was secure at the blue. Had he fell on his way down the hill and bumped his head, he would be saved.


----------



## farmasis

Israel said:


> Very well put brother.
> Especially the understanding of: The A follows B is the way of the world, the A and B if the Way.
> The world says...ok, I get this part, but I won't do the next part till I understand why.
> Jesus doesn't see faith/obedience as two different things...
> Neither did the apostles...they well knew if you have a life that is not your own in control, then you will follow the footsteps of the one who called you and indwells you.


 
The apostles also understood that you could not follow him until you were his, and when you were his you were saved already.


----------



## farmasis

Israel said:


> Jesus is very different.
> Sometimes we should not help old ladies across the street.
> Sometimes Jesus just wants them stuck on one side of the street for his reasons.
> If we continually set out to do what _we consider_ good, we will find ourselves at odds with the Lord.
> Our own _good intentions_ must also go to the cross, till all work is either the Lord, or not.
> Jesus found a man by the pool whom no one would put in the water.
> I am afraid we might develop ministries for the "putting of folks that can't help themselves get into the pool at Bethesda international"
> That day, that man was very glad no one came to help him except Jesus.
> When it is Jesus helping old ladies across the street, it is well.
> Whe it is us deciding "all old ladies should be helped across the street" we end up in the mess the world is today.
> All evil claims good intentions...


 
So do you determine which old ladies need help? Which people need evangalism? I see a lot of self righteousness in this post. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Spotlite

farmasis said:


> We have his answer, literally hundreds of times he says believe on me and you will be saved.
> 
> Acts 8:
> 
> 34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, _here is_ water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
> 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
> And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”<SUP>[c]</SUP>
> 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
> 
> The enuch salvation was secure at the blue. Had he fell on his way down the hill and bumped his head, he would be saved.



Great story that will answer some of your previous question also. But read the rest of it before that and after that, you will see that Phillip was sent that way for a reason, (maybe to baptize him?),  a few verses prior the very same thing happened to Phillip, someone was sent to him. Remember what I said? We are to preach, teach and baptize, God will do the calling and sending parts, he knows what he is doing. I know you believe OSAS, so in order to believe that, you must also believe God has that "keeping power" Now do you not believe God has that same keeping power enough for someone until they are baptized if he is dealing with them? I think he proved that with the eunuch and Phillip. The eunuch believed, he was also baptized, but the Spirit of God never moved on the eunuch until he came up out of the water. 

What is 1 good reason to not get baptized?


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man

Good lord almost 400 posts they must be drowned by now.


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> Great story that will answer some of your previous question also. But read the rest of it before that and after that, you will see that Phillip was sent that way for a reason, (maybe to baptize him?),


 
I think to lead him to salvation and to baptize him.



> a few verses prior the very same thing happened to Phillip, someone was sent to him. Remember what I said? We are to preach, teach and baptize, God will do the calling and sending parts, he knows what he is doing. I know you believe OSAS, so in order to believe that, you must also believe God has that "keeping power" Now do you not believe God has that same keeping power enough for someone until they are baptized if he is dealing with them? I think he proved that with the eunuch and Phillip. The eunuch believed, he was also baptized, but the Spirit of God never moved on the eunuch until he came up out of the water.


 
Yes he has the keeping power until baptism. Because I believed you are saved when you accept Christ.



> What is 1 good reason to not get baptized?


 
I cannot think of a single one.
The only thing we disagree with is the saving power of baptism. But, like I said it is pointless since we are both saved and baptized and we both believe someone should be baptized after they ask Christ into their life. The only difference is we might disagree when salvation starts.


----------



## farmasis

> Good lord almost 400 posts they must be drowned by now.


 
It split the church and has been debated for hundreds of years so I doubt we will get it solved on GON.


----------



## Spotlite

Spotlite said:


> .... the actual dunking in the water dont save you, but scripture says in order to have salvation, you got to believe and be baptized.........





farmasis said:


> The only thing we disagree with is the saving power of baptism.



all Ive said is what scripture says.

not directed at you by all means, but if were going to go out of context and get away from what scripture says, why bother with believing or baptism, why not just endure to the end, the same shall be saved.


----------



## Spotlite

No. GA. Mt. Man said:


> Good lord almost 400 posts they must be drowned by now.



pretty bad folks need longer dunking


----------



## Israel

farmasis said:


> So do you determine which old ladies need help? Which people need evangalism? I see a lot of self righteousness in this post. I hope I am wrong.



I can't fault you for finding me self righteous, I imagine one would have to be pretty near blind to miss that.
What I am responding to was a reference above about always helping old ladies across the street.
Smack the prophet when he tells you to...do what the spirit says, not what you have determined is "good".
Being led of the spirit is far different than simply going about doing what we think are good things.


----------



## farmasis

Israel said:


> I can't fault you for finding me self righteous, I imagine one would have to be pretty near blind to miss that.
> What I am responding to was a reference above about always helping old ladies across the street.
> Smack the prophet when he tells you to...do what the spirit says, not what you have determined is "good".
> Being led of the spirit is far different than simply going about doing what we think are good things.


 
I agree. If God doesn't want me to help her across because he is wanting to teach her something, there will be no way I will be able to because I would violate his will. That won't happen.


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> why not just endure to the end, the same shall be saved.


 
That would work if I was Jewish.


----------



## furtaker

Spotlite said:


> I cant argue that, I agree, thats what the Spirit of God is all about, but whats that got to do with how you get it?
> 
> Either way, in the end, if Im wrong, no worries, I believed, I was baptized and I received just like in Acts. But what if your wrong and all you did was believe, like in acts 8 and not received anything?



I don't worry about being wrong.  I have no doubt whatsoever.

I am 100% certain that I am going to heaven.  I wish all people could experience this joy that comes from certainty.

"These things have I written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).

And, according to Ephesians 1:13, I received the Holy Spirit the instant I believed.

Saving faith is not believing that Jesus + anything gets me to heaven.

What exactly do you believe about Jesus?  You clearly don't believe that He ALONE is sufficient to give you eternal life.


----------



## Spotlite

brentus said:


> according to Ephesians 1:13, I received the Holy Spirit the instant I believed.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you believe about Jesus?  You clearly don't believe that He ALONE is sufficient to give you eternal life.



no, Ephesians 1:13 does not say you are saved instantly cause you believed. It says "after" you believed, not the moment you believed, looks allot like what happened to the eunuch, remember he believed also.............and Phillip believed...............

What I believe about Jesus? Why would I think any other way than he alone can save me and give me eternal life, without him I have no hope, so what are you getting at? Is it that you think I clearly dont believe that he alone is sufficient cause I chose not to overlook the Book of Acts and pretend it does not pertain to me?

I also believe in the constitution of "marriage" did that make me automatically married cause I believed in that?


----------



## furtaker

Spotlite said:


> no, Ephesians 1:13 does not say you are saved instantly cause you believed. It says "after" you believed, not the moment you believed, looks allot like what happened to the eunuch, remember he believed also.............and Phillip believed...............
> 
> What I believe about Jesus? Why would I think any other way than he alone can save me and give me eternal life, without him I have no hope, so what are you getting at? Is it that you think I clearly dont believe that he alone is sufficient cause I chose not to overlook the Book of Acts and pretend it does not pertain to me?
> 
> I also believe in the constitution of "marriage" did that make me automatically married cause I believed in that?



Your theology is quite inconsistent.

Earlier you said that you must be baptized to be saved.

Now you are saying Jesus alone gives you salvation.

Which way is it??


----------



## Spotlite

brentus said:


> Your theology is quite inconsistent.
> 
> Earlier you said that you must be baptized to be saved.
> 
> Now you are saying Jesus alone gives you salvation.
> 
> Which way is it??


Uuuuh Brent, not me, but the Bible says you do have to be baptized, and yes Jesus does the saving.Do you honestly think that baptism itself saves you? I'm sorry you don't get it, its plain as day, "he who believes and is baptized" Now go back and find my inconsistent post and post them for all to see.


----------



## farmasis

Spotlite said:


> Uuuuh Brent, not me, but the Bible says you do have to be baptized, and yes Jesus does the saving.Do you honestly think that baptism itself saves you? I'm sorry you don't get it, its plain as day, "he who believes and is baptized" Now go back and find my inconsistent post and post them for all to see.


 
You know that old saying, "that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee, as long as you don't forget the 50 cents.". 

That is how I see Mark 16:16.

Go and preach the good news. If someone believes and is baptized, they will be saved. As long as they don't forget to believe.


----------



## furtaker

Spotlite said:


> Uuuuh Brent, not me, but the Bible says you do have to be baptized, and yes Jesus does the saving.Do you honestly think that baptism itself saves you? I'm sorry you don't get it, its plain as day, "he who believes and is baptized" Now go back and find my inconsistent post and post them for all to see.



Actually, about 150 places in the NT say that faith alone gives eternal life, and say nothing about baptism.

And, the Gospel of John, the only book written to tell people how to be saved (Jn. 20:31), has the word believe in it over 90 times, and never even once mentions baptism as a requirement for salvation.

If baptism were a condition of eternal life, don't you think there might be a very good chance that the Gospel of John would say that over and over??  It doesn't.

And you're going to take a couple of verses in Acts, twist the meaning all around, add baptism as a condition, and throw out 150 other verses in the New Testament that list faith alone as the only condition?

Who is being inconsistent here?


----------



## Spotlite

brentus said:


> Actually, about 150 places in the NT say that faith alone gives eternal life, and say nothing about baptism.
> 
> And, the Gospel of John, the only book written to tell people how to be saved (Jn. 20:31), has the word believe in it over 90 times, and never even once mentions baptism as a requirement for salvation.
> 
> If baptism were a condition of eternal life, don't you think there might be a very good chance that the Gospel of John would say that over and over??  It doesn't.
> 
> And you're going to take a couple of verses in Acts, twist the meaning all around, add baptism as a condition, and throw out 150 other verses in the New Testament that list faith alone as the only condition?
> 
> Who is being inconsistent here?


I think youve got the word inconsistent mixed up with something else.

But,
OK, get out of Acts then, take it to Mark 16vs16, well looky there, another something that is not in Acts that says you have to be baptised, yea I really twisted that up again, I mean its written there and all that, imagine that

You really dont understand Johns role do you? 

Im not throwing anything out, I dont deny you got to believe, Ive said it a 100 times, you got to believe to start with, if you cant, your just waisting your time. Theres a world of difference in "ye shall" and "ye just did". Stop leaving verses out, they go hand in hand, then you will understand it.

And Brent, if it only says it once in the Bible, thats enough reason to follow it. How does this work, you compare how many times it says one thing, compare how many times it says another and go with the one that gets the most counts?

 Im done with this one, if you want to discuss it further, feel free to PM anytime. I think this horse is dead. Nothing productive is coming from it anymore.


----------



## furtaker

Spotlite said:


> I think youve got the word inconsistent mixed up with something else.
> 
> But,
> OK, get out of Acts then, take it to Mark 16vs16, well looky there, another something that is not in Acts that says you have to be baptised, yea I really twisted that up again, I mean its written there and all that, imagine that
> 
> You really dont understand Johns role do you?
> 
> Im not throwing anything out, I dont deny you got to believe, Ive said it a 100 times, you got to believe to start with, if you cant, your just waisting your time. Theres a world of difference in "ye shall" and "ye just did". Stop leaving verses out, they go hand in hand, then you will understand it.
> 
> And Brent, if it only says it once in the Bible, thats enough reason to follow it. How does this work, you compare how many times it says one thing, compare how many times it says another and go with the one that gets the most counts?
> 
> Im done with this one, if you want to discuss it further, feel free to PM anytime. I think this horse is dead. Nothing productive is coming from it anymore.



So then what do you do with all the verses that say faith alone is the only condition?  I guess they mean faith plus baptism, they just forgot to say baptism 

I guess those poor old Eskimos can't get to heaven because they're banging their heads on the ice trying to be baptized.

Yep, I understand John's role 100%.  He says explicitly he was writing to tell people how to have eternal life (Jn. 20:31).

And he says that faith alone is the only condition over 90 times.  He never mentions baptism plus faith.

Therefore, if baptism were a condition, then Jesus lied when he said, "Truly, truly, he who believes in Me has eternal life"  (Jn. 6:47).  Period.  He gave one condition.

I'm finished too.  Thanks, I enjoyed the discussion.


----------



## Ronnie T

brentus said:


> So then what do you do with all the verses that say faith alone is the only condition?  I guess they mean faith plus baptism, they just forgot to say baptism
> 
> I guess those poor old Eskimos can't get to heaven because they're banging their heads on the ice trying to be baptized.
> 
> Yep, I understand John's role 100%.  He says explicitly he was writing to tell people how to have eternal life (Jn. 20:31).
> 
> And he says that faith alone is the only condition over 90 times.  He never mentions baptism plus faith.
> 
> Therefore, if baptism were a condition, then Jesus lied when he said, "Truly, truly, he who believes in Me has eternal life"  (Jn. 6:47).  Period.  He gave one condition.
> 
> I'm finished too.  Thanks, I enjoyed the discussion.



I don't know if you intentionally did it but you twisted John 20:31.  John 20:31 does not tell us how to be saved.  In verse 30 and 31 John is saying that miracles were performed along with him written this Gospel so that the readers would come to believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God.  And then, because of that believing, you may have eternal life.

John 20:30-31  "Therefore many other signs Jesus also preformed in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book.  31  but these(signs) have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Also, you say the Gospel of John is the only book written to explain how to be saved..........  That is totally false.  I don't know, and have never heard of any biblical scholar who would agree with that.  John wrote one of the four Gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.  John wrote primarily to persuade greeks that Jesus was authentic.  

Quite the contrary, the book of Acts is the only book in the Bible that...........
1.  Presents to us the history of the establishment of the church.
2.  Describes the first invition into Christ's church.
3.  Describes the first sermon, and the second, and third.
4.  Records the conversion of unsaved becoming saved.

All the other books of the Bible are written to Christians.  These books (or letters) were written to specific churches.
Romans was written to Christians in Rome.  Galations was written to churches in Galatia.  Written to churches that had all kind of problems.  Christians who were turning back to Judaism, Christian's who thought Jews were better than Gentiles.  Christian's who were trying to earn their way to heaven.  Christian's who weren't doing anything at all because they were just waiting for Christ to return.

The book of Acts tells of people becoming Christians


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> We have his answer, literally hundreds of times he says believe on me and you will be saved.
> 
> Acts 8:
> 
> 34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, _here is_ water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
> 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
> And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”<SUP>[c]</SUP>
> 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
> 
> The enuch salvation was secure at the blue. Had he fell on his way down the hill and bumped his head, he would be saved.




Farmasis, will you please admit to me and yourself that in Acts 8:34-38 the eunuch ask Philip if he could be baptized since they had come upon some water.  And Philip responded:  "Yes, you can be baptized it you believe with all your heart." ??

You can't help but see that.

God sent Philip to this man.
Philip taught this man what he needed to know.
They began traveling together.
They came upon water.
The man knew about baptism(Philip had taught him).
The man, based on being taught, sought baptism.
Philip baptized him......... then Philip disappeared.
Philip didn't disappear after teaching the man.
Philip disappeared after Christian baptism was completed.

Philip's mission completed


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Farmasis, will you please admit to me and yourself that in Acts 8:34-38 the eunuch ask Philip if he could be baptized since they had come upon some water. And Philip responded: "Yes, you can be baptized it you believe with all your heart." ??
> 
> You can't help but see that.
> 
> God sent Philip to this man.
> Philip taught this man what he needed to know.
> They began traveling together.
> They came upon water.
> The man knew about baptism(Philip had taught him).
> The man, based on being taught, sought baptism.
> Philip baptized him......... then Philip disappeared.
> Philip didn't disappear after teaching the man.
> Philip disappeared after Christian baptism was completed.
> 
> Philip's mission completed


 
I will. 
You cannot go through believer's baptism until saved. I think that is what Phillip was saying. I believe that if you are not truely saved before baptism you change from a dry sinner to a wet sinner.
I will admit Phillip wasn't done until he baptized the enuch. However, I think his salvation was set at belief.
The only thing we disagree on is if salvation is a single event or a process. Minor point brother. You tell them sinners you run across to believe in Jesus and be baptized to be saved and I will tell them to believe in Jesus to be saved then go and be baptized in obedience and we will rack em up for God and each will be equally saved!


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> I will.
> You cannot go through believer's baptism until saved. I think that is what Phillip was saying. I believe that if you are not truely saved before baptism you change from a dry sinner to a wet sinner.
> I will admit Phillip wasn't done until he baptized the enuch. However, I think his salvation was set at belief.
> The only thing we disagree on is if salvation is a single event or a process. Minor point brother. You tell them sinners you run across to believe in Jesus and be baptized to be saved and I will tell them to believe in Jesus to be saved then go and be baptized in obedience and we will rack em up for God and each will be equally saved!






I totally agree


----------



## Big7

*illusion that baptism is a work; it is not.*



brentus said:


> So then what do you do with all the verses that say faith alone is the only condition?  I guess they mean faith plus baptism, they just forgot to say baptism
> I guess those poor old Eskimos can't get to heaven because they're banging their heads on the ice trying to be baptized.
> 
> Yep, I understand John's role 100%.  He says explicitly he was writing to tell people how to have eternal life (Jn. 20:31).
> 
> And he says that faith alone is the only condition over 90 times.  He never mentions baptism plus faith.
> 
> Therefore, if baptism were a condition, then Jesus lied when he said, "Truly, truly, he who believes in Me has eternal life"  (Jn. 6:47).  Period.  He gave one condition.
> 
> I'm finished too.  Thanks, I enjoyed the discussion.



I think the point AGAIN is the fact that Martin Luther
added "Alone". I have given everyone all the references
on this matter in another thread. I believe it was in the 
Sola Scripture thread , or it may be here, somewhere
in this thread.

Faith "Alone" is added by man, that is to say man made scripture, Without the "Alone"
part there is no defence.
This is an un-disputed fact. Take out "Alone" and the rest would make sense.

In closing, I will add: A lot of these post's keep going back
 to the illusion that baptism is a work; it is not.
Baptism is Sacrament, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself
and properly so-called. Sacred Scripture is NOT for private
interpretation. That is a job for The Church Leaders.
The first 400 or so years were based on oral traditions of the 
Catholic Church. Yes, there were writings as well BUT
the compilation of the Bible was based on this, ALL inclusive. 
Then, Martin Luther (and others) CHANGED
THE SACRED SCRIPTURE to suit their needs around
1611. What was working for 1600 years was/is correct
along with the seven books that were removed during
the Reformation. 

We believe that what is in the Bible is there because it is true,
not everything in the Bible is true because it is there.
Do you see the difference?


----------



## Big7

ttt


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> I think the point AGAIN is the fact that Martin Luther
> added "Alone". I have given everyone all the references
> on this matter in another thread. I believe it was in the
> Sola Scripture thread , or it may be here, somewhere
> in this thread.
> 
> Faith "Alone" is added by man, that is to say man made scripture, Without the "Alone"
> part there is no defence.
> This is an un-disputed fact. Take out "Alone" and the rest would make sense.
> 
> Then, Martin Luther (and others) CHANGED
> THE SACRED SCRIPTURE to suit their needs around
> 1611. What was working for 1600 years was/is correct
> along with the seven books that were removed during
> the Reformation.



Here we go again.  No where can I find the word "Alone" in Rom 3:28.  Not in any of the translations on BibleGateway (atleast the one's in English).  So where did Martin Luther add the word "Alone"

Martin Luther did not change scripture.  Martin Luther kept scripture the same.  He took out all of the oral traditions and extra teachings that the Catholic Church over time added to it.  And please don't say that he took out the apocrypha.*  It wasn't until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that the Roman Catholic Church officially pronounced these books as part of the canon.   If it was the inspired word of God, why did it take so long to be officially prounounced part of the canon?*



Big7 said:


> We believe that what is in the Bible is there because it is true,
> not everything in the Bible is true because it is there.
> Do you see the difference?


So if something is deemed true by a group of men, can it be added to the Bible?  If things that are true are in the Bible, why not add the Book of Mormon.  It has many truisms in it.  Why not add the Koran, it has many truisms in it.  *Why stop?  That is the problem with your statement.*

I believe that God ordained the Bible to be what it is today.  He is in control of all things and through divine inspiration, He caused the Bible to include 66 books, Genesis thru Revelation.  *Nothing more, nothing less.  I believe it is true because it is in the Bible.  No other book holds that much reverence.  None.*


----------



## farmasis

rjcruiser said:


> Here we go again. No where can I find the word "Alone" in Rom 3:28.


 
It is in a german version that he translated. When something is added to scripture, we assume added and changes the meaning of. Every translation "adds" to scripture when compared with other texts. In one text, a certain word may be used, and another in a another text. When I read other translations of Romans 3:28, alone could easily be added without changing the meaning of the verse. Surely this is what Paul meant.

How would alone change the context of this text?

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith (alone) apart from the deeds of the law.


----------



## PJason

rjcruiser said:


> And please don't say that he took out the apocrypha.*  It wasn't until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that the Roman Catholic Church officially pronounced these books as part of the canon.   If it was the inspired word of God, why did it take so long to be officially prounounced part of the canon?*



The same reason it took until the Council of Nicea to define the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity was defined by the Council of Nicea due to the Arian Heresy which denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Everyone knew and believed in the doctrine of the Trinity before the Council, but because of the heresy it was defined, so there would be no confusion. The Council of Ephesus defined the true personal unity of Christ,100% God 100% human and declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) answering a challange from Nestorianism which believe Christ was two persons one being Jesus the man and the other being Jesus the Divine. When in truth Jesus has two natures both human and Divine in one person. 

Commonly known and believed doctrines, and accepted practices such as the canonical status of the Deuterocanonical books,do not need definition, however it is in the best interest of all to define them when heresies arise.

And that is as you say "why it took so long".


----------



## Big7

I almost blew a temple vein on those last two post'.

Guy's - that's what I'm talkin' bout'.!


----------



## PJason

rjcruiser said:


> Circumcision and baptism are two totally different things.



Here I will agree and disagree with you. You are correct circumcision was for the Jews alone and separated them from the gentiles. Baptism is for all, every man, woman, and child regardless of being a Jew or a Gentile. However they are both the same. circumcision entered the Jewish child into the Covenant Family of God. Baptism also enters the child both Jew and Gentile into God’s Covenant Family.



rjcruiser said:


> None of your scripture references show infant baptism.  Didn't happen in the NT church.






rjcruiser said:


> Circumcision was for cleanliness in the OT and the reason it was done on the 8th day is because that is when a childs white blood cell count is the highest (white blood cells help the blood clot).



While this maybe true there is no Biblical proof for it. As a matter of fact the first to be circumcised where grown men, I wonder what their white blood cell count was. 




rjcruiser said:


> It was another way that God was able to separate His chosen people, the Jews, from all other nations.



Yes it entered the child into God’s Covenant Family.



rjcruiser said:


> In the NT, Paul wrote that it was not necessary as the NT Church was not under the law and the traditions of the Jewish people.



The Gentiles where under the law of grace which required baptism, funny thing about laws they have requirements.



> See Gal 5:1-3
> Galatians 5
> 
> 1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
> 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
> 
> 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.






rjcruiser said:


> Again, this is showing that circumcision was unnecessary along with the thought that works were going to save.  Verse 3 says that if you believe circumcision/works are going to save you, then you are under obligation to keep the whole Law...something that is impossible to do.



Colossians 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 
and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead

I have to wonder why St. Paul would parallel circumcision and baptism here.

Remember circumcision for the Jews is very important. In Joshua God punishes the Jews for not circumcising their children. It was due to the parents’ faith and not the faith of the child that they were circumcised, the same is true of baptism.


----------



## Big7

*73*



rjcruiser said:


> He caused the Bible to include 66 books, Genesis thru Revelation.  *Nothing more, nothing less. ** I believe it is true because it is in the Bible.  No other book holds that much reverence.  None.*



That would be seventy-three. 

See all of them HERE: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/


----------



## reformedpastor

*Is the topic still baptism/ household baptism?*

Wow, I got on here to sell some guns, but I never imagined I would find a discussion on spiritual matters. 
I tried reading through most of the comments but they were sometimes hard to follow. 

To make this point at this time may be irrelevant, if it is just point it out, that's ok.  

This thread has stirred some interesting conversation, BUT isn't the better question WHICH BAPTISM SAVES? 

Part of the confusion seems to be over those texts using the word baptism or baptized which does not mean water baptism every time its used. In fact, the word means a lot more then being dunked! 

This is a true statement----Without baptism no one enters into heaven. 

This is a true statement---------Baptism does not justify or save anyone. 

So the question is Which baptism saves?


----------



## rjcruiser

PJason said:


> The Gentiles where under the law of grace which required baptism, funny thing about laws they have requirements.



Grace requires nothing on the part of the receiver.  What is the definition of Grace...getting what you don't deserve.  

We as sinful humans deserve Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.  Yet Christ gives us the free gift of eternal life. Yes FREE gift.  Rom 3:23...The wages of sin is death, but the FREE gift of God is eternal life.  


We are no longer under the law. See the whole book of Galations which speaks of this.  Grace is not the law.


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> Wow, I got on here to sell some guns, but I never imagined I would find a discussion on spiritual matters.
> I tried reading through most of the comments but they were sometimes hard to follow.
> 
> To make this point at this time may be irrelevant, if it is just point it out, that's ok.
> 
> This thread has stirred some interesting conversation, BUT isn't the better question WHICH BAPTISM SAVES?
> 
> Part of the confusion seems to be over those texts using the word baptism or baptized which does not mean water baptism every time its used. In fact, the word means a lot more then being dunked!
> 
> This is a true statement----Without baptism no one enters into heaven.
> 
> This is a true statement---------Baptism does not justify or save anyone.
> 
> So the question is Which baptism saves?


 
Excellent point made a whole lot more simpler than I did.
In my understanding of the word, Baptism of the Spirit is what saves, and it is done before we ever enter the water. Bible reference is 1 Cor 12:13 and Matt 3:11


----------



## rjcruiser

reformedpastor said:


> Wow, I got on here to sell some guns, but I never imagined I would find a discussion on spiritual matters.
> I tried reading through most of the comments but they were sometimes hard to follow.
> 
> To make this point at this time may be irrelevant, if it is just point it out, that's ok.
> 
> This thread has stirred some interesting conversation, BUT isn't the better question WHICH BAPTISM SAVES?
> 
> Part of the confusion seems to be over those texts using the word baptism or baptized which does not mean water baptism every time its used. In fact, the word means a lot more then being dunked!
> 
> This is a true statement----Without baptism no one enters into heaven.
> 
> This is a true statement---------Baptism does not justify or save anyone.
> 
> So the question is Which baptism saves?




The original question was pointed towards water baptism....ie being dunked in a pool of water.


----------



## reformedpastor

*Baptism*



rjcruiser said:


> The original question was pointed towards water baptism....ie being dunked in a pool of water.



Ok. My quick and biblical answer to this is NO. Baptism cannot not save. Water baptism doesn't justify or cleans the heart. And if you make this a requirement then you have added to the word of God. I assure you God enjoys taken all the credit for saving filthy sinners like us and will not share His joy with no one, not even with the one who thinks HE DOES SOMETHING TO HELP SAVE HIMSELF. God does not need help. He is the God of Israel, of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the one who is the Almighty and Everlasting who created all see and don't see by His word. He wants all the credit. 

Baptism is a glorious and precious thing but it is not a step to heaven done by man.


----------



## Big7

*73*



Big7 said:


> That would be seventy-three.
> 
> See all of them HERE: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/


----------



## farmasis

> At what specific *YEAR* did the bible become "valid?"
> 
> ....and WHY?


 
In 1611 with the authorization of the KJV.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> At what specific *YEAR* did the bible become "valid?"
> 
> ....and WHY?



Around AD 90 when John penned these verses in Rev 22.

18  I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 

 19  and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. 

 20  He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen Come, Lord Jesus. 

 21  The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen. 


I think after reading those verses, it is fairly self explanable as to why.


----------



## rjcruiser

I should clarify...this was not when it "became valid" but rather when the canon was closed.

The Word of God has always been valid.  From the time it was put on to the paper it was written on.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> So that knocks out the KJV?



Not at all....the KJV is merely a translation of what was originally written.  Again, translated into English so that it was accessible to the common english man living.

Just like the Vulgate was the Bible translated into Latin...the common language of the day.

You probably know this, but just for the others who don't....that is where the word Vulgar comes from.  Vulgate...meaning common.  

The problem is that as the world changed...and Latin became an in-common language, the original translation of the vulgate has stayed the same and no longer is in a translation that is useful to the majority of people in the pews.


----------



## farmasis

rjcruiser said:


> I should clarify...this was not when it "became valid" but rather when the canon was closed.
> 
> The Word of God has always been valid. From the time it was put on to the paper it was written on.


 
Well, actually before it was put to paper, but I know what you mean.

See John 1
In the begining was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God......

You are spot on about the translations. The only written word of God is the original manuscripts. All others are translations.


----------



## reformedpastor

Gentlemen, 

The church never declared what was scripture and what was not, they only recognized it as THE SCRIPTURE and compiled it into a collection. The word of God testifies to itself it needs no man to give it authority. 

From the Westminster Confession of Faith; on holy scripture 

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

When men read the bible they know it is the word of God! The elect bow before it and the wicked suppress it in unrighteousness, Romans chapter one.


----------



## crackerdave




----------



## Big7

*Rev.22:10,11,12*

OK -if we are talking Revelations

Rev.22:10,11,12



10 
Then he said to me, "Do not seal up the prophetic words of this book, for the appointed time is near. 

That is the "who has the AUTHORITY part".

11 
Let the wicked still act wickedly, and the filthy still be filthy. The righteous must still do right, and the holy still be holy." 

WORKS Part - Good and bad! YOU MUST STILL DO RIGHT!!

12 
"Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds. 

Rewards -or lack there of, ACCORDING TO WORKS!

Check it out HERE:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation22.htm


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> 11
> Let the wicked still act wickedly, and the filthy still be filthy. The righteous must still do right, and the holy still be holy."
> 
> WORKS Part - Good and bad! YOU MUST STILL DO RIGHT!!


 
Not to be saved, but yes you should do good works.



> 12
> "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.
> 
> Rewards -or lack there of, ACCORDING TO WORKS!


 
To recieve your rewards in heaven, you would already be there, correct? i.e. saved.


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> From the Westminster Confession of Faith; on holy scripture


 
Can you post the part where it claims that the Pope is the debil?


----------



## reformedpastor

Big7, 

1st- the Apostles had authority. But their authority did not extend to what the pope believes he has today. 

2nd- works are a vital part of christianity! But its not the cause of our faith but the fruit of it a major difference. James didn't contradict Paul when he said "I will show my faith by my works." 

All he was saying is that true faith, a real faith leads to works, acts of righteousness. We were saved to do good works Eph 2:8-10. 

3rd- The reason God will accept our works is not on the bases of our own personal goodness but on the righteousness that comes from Christ. We must have His righteousness or we will be cast into ----. 

Our works are often filled with weakness and unbelief but the one who has faith in Christ, his works is accepted by the Father. 

Grace and peace


----------



## reformedpastor

*farmasis*



farmasis said:


> Can you post the part where it claims that the Pope is the debil?



I am sorry, I don't understand the word debil?


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> I am sorry, I don't understand the word debil?


 
Sorry, a little Adam Sandler influence. The anti-Christ.


----------



## reformedpastor

Here ya go.

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Not many Protestants believe this today. Very Sad.


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> Can you post the part where it claims that the Pope is the debil?



I'm not seeing it in the quote from Reformed pastor....only seeing the Pope called the Anti-Christ.

Do we need to start another debate on whether the Devil is the Anti-Christ


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> At what specific *YEAR* did the bible become "valid?"
> 
> ....and WHY?



So now that I answered your questions about the Bible...all 66 books.

When do you believe the canon closed?  The oral traditions no longer added to?

Why?


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> Here ya go.
> 
> There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
> 
> Not many Protestants believe this today. Very Sad.


 
I am not Catholic, so I do not know why I am defending them except for I do believe they are my brothers in Christ. A little mixed up and hung up on traditions, but brotthers indeed.


*Who is the Head of the Catholic Church?* 
The Head of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ our Lord. 

*Has the Church a visible Head on earth?* 
The Church has a visible head on earth—the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ. 
*Visible.* That which we can see. Our Lord is the invisible Head of the Church. Invisible means that which we cannot see. 
*Bishop.* An overseer, one who has charge of a diocese; a successor of the Apostles. 
*Rome. *The residence of the Popes, and the chief city of Italy. St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. *Vicar.* One who performs the office or duty of another; one who supplies the place of another. http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/catholichandbook/12_9tharticle.asp


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> *Has the Church a visible Head on earth?*
> The Church has a visible head on earth—the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ.
> 
> *Vicar.* One who performs the office or duty of another; one who supplies the place of another.



After reading that, it emphasizes the fact that Catholics believe that the Pope has taken the place of Christ on earth.  The pope performs the duties of Christ.  Am I right in my understanding?

That just doesn't sound Biblical to me.  Isn't that what the Holy Spirit is to Christians er...I mean protestants?


----------



## farmasis

I don't see it being any different than saying that my pastor is the leader of my church. When I say that, I do not exalt him equal or greater than Jesus. He is the head of the church as in building, but not church as in the body of believers.

I would be willing to change my mind if presented proof that Catholics exalt the Pope to a holy standing.


----------



## Ronnie T

The Pope was a man-made instrument of the Roman government in the very early centuries when the Romans basically took over the church.  Plain and simple.  There it's been said.  The office of the Pope has nothing........ nothing to do with the Gospel or the church at taught by Jesus or preached by the apostles or inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, the Pope is not valid in my eyes.


----------



## Ronnie T

dawg2 said:


> So the Romans picked Peter as well?  Sounds kind of....."Islamic".....



No the Romans didn't pick Peter.  Jesus Christ chose Peter to be an Apostle.  And an Apostle is what Peter was.  After Peter's death, some things were instituted by the Roman government that became part of the church and Peter's name was attached to it, but that was the Roman government - not Jesus Christ.

At the church I attend, we could decide we were going to have a "Most Surpreme Shepherd" of our congregation and everyone in this congregation was to look to him as God's instrument; but that doesn't mean it would be valid or mean a hill of beans to God.


----------



## reformedpastor

*Who is the head of the CHurch?*

Gentlemen, 

This topic is important to both catholics and protestants. No man, group of men, or denomination is the head of the Church. 

*Jesus Christ is head and is present with His church- *

Matthew 28:19-20  19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,  20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." 

*
He is present with His church by the Holy Spirit-* 

John 14:16-18   16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;  17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.  18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 

John 16:7-11   7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.  8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;  9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;  10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;  11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. 

*Jesus is present by His word- *

John 17:17-19   17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.  18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.  19 "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 

1 Timothy 4:16 - 5:1  16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.  

2 Timothy 1:13-14   13 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.  14 Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.

*Jesus is present by His sacraments- *

1 Corinthians 11:23-27   23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;  24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."  25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."  26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.  27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 

*This should be enough to make my point- *

No baptist pastor is head of the church or board of deacons; no presbyterian session; no charismatic leader; nor pope. Christ is perfectly able to lead His church which He has purchased with His own blood by those things I have mentioned. Anything other than this leads to ecclesiastical tyranny. 

Every true church most bow to the reveled word of God and if they are not willing to do this then they cease being a true church. 

There is only one true Church and thats the one that Christ owns. Yet among true churches some are more faithful than others. Some churches by degrees are more faithful than others because of their doctrine and practice and form of church government. 

There so much more that can be said about this; I hope this help some of you out there. 


Grace and Peace


----------



## rjcruiser

rjcruiser said:


> So now that I answered your questions about the Bible...all 66 books.
> 
> When do you believe the canon closed?  The oral traditions no longer added to?
> 
> Why?



Since I can no longer bump or ttt in the classifieds...


----------



## Ronnie T

Peter never ever looked upon himself as a Pope and the church was alive and well up until 312AD.

Paul even warned the eldership of the church in Ephesus that problems were going to come to the church.  Even from within the church.  That the church would even begin to forbid eating certain foods and forbiding marriage.  Paul told them to be on the guard against that sort of thing.  But it happened anyway.
There are now certain religious groups who forbid certain people from marriage and there are new commands concerning certain foods.  I know many who wish the pope would begin to allow abortions and birth control.  That tells me something.  Don't get me wrong; I'm not down on Catholics.  I believe they are looking for Jesus Christ.


----------



## Big7

I thought this was the "do you need to be Baptized" thread?

Please don't start again with the Pope.

Rangerdave had a good idea a while back.
New Guys - Please go back through the SF threads and READ. We already covered the Pope


----------



## Big7

farmasis said:


> I am not Catholic, so I do not know why I am defending them except for I do believe they are my brothers in Christ. A little mixed up and hung up on traditions, but brotthers indeed.
> 
> 
> *Who is the Head of the Catholic Church?*
> The Head of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ our Lord.
> 
> *Has the Church a visible Head on earth?*
> The Church has a visible head on earth—the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ.
> *Visible.* That which we can see. Our Lord is the invisible Head of the Church. Invisible means that which we cannot see.
> *Bishop.* An overseer, one who has charge of a diocese; a successor of the Apostles.
> *Rome. *The residence of the Popes, and the chief city of Italy. St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. *Vicar.* One who performs the office or duty of another; one who supplies the place of another. http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/catholichandbook/12_9tharticle.asp



Great post!


----------



## reformedpastor

Until the Pope can shed his blood and cleanse a people from their sins he can never be the head of the Church.

1 Timothy 2:5-6   5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,  6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

dawg2 said:


> The Douay-Rheims Version because it contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants).


 

*The Apocrypha:  is it scripture? *

The apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ.  The word "apocrypha" (Î±Ï€ÏŒÎºÏ�Ï…Ï†Î±) means "Hidden."  These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture.  These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.  The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.
Is the Apocrypha Scripture?  Protestants deny its inspiration but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it.  In order to ascertain whether it is or isn't, we need to look within its pages.
*Not quoted in the New Testament*

First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books.  Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., S. Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc.  Does this mean that they aren't inspired either?  But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, where the Apocrypha had not.  The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the apocrypha in it.  This is significant because of what Paul says.
_"then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? <SUP>2</SUP> Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," _(Rom. 3:1-2S. ).​Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.  This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were and they never accepted the apocrypha.
*Jesus' references the Old Testament:  from Abel to Zechariah*

Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference.  "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’" (Luke 11:51).
"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not _chronologically_ the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish _canonical_ order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."<SUP>1</SUP>​This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today.  This was the arrangement that Jesus was referring to when he referenced able and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the apocryphal and was not including it in his reference.
*Jesus' references the Old Testament:  The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms*

Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts, the law, the prophets, and the writings.  It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the apocrypha.  But this designation is not found in the Bible.  On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled,"(Luke 24:44).​So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalid in their argument is incorrect.  Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings" it would not include the apocryphal for the above mentioned reasons.

*Church Fathers*

Did the Church fathers recognized the apocrypha is being Scripture?  Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the apocrypha.  Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the first century never mentioned the apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and The great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."<SUP>2 </SUP>  So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the apocryphal.  They didn't.


----------



## Big7

dawg2 said:


> The Douay-Rheims Version because it contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants).
> 
> My question to you is this; Why were these seven books included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles?



I have asked that a few times myself. Did not get an answer.
Doubt you will get one either.

Because Martin Luther will have it so! 

Here is a good link - with all the books, the way
it is supposed to be!
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2456901&postcount=433


----------



## PJason

Big7 said:


> I thought this was the "do you need to be Baptized" thread?
> 
> Please don't start again with the Pope.
> 
> Rangerdave had a good idea a while back.
> New Guys - Please go back through the SF threads and READ. We already covered the Pope




We covered the Pope and every other thing that has come up in this thread and many more. GO BACK AND READ PLEASE. 

If anyone can come up with an original question I will answer it. Until then I think I need to go on snooze.


----------



## Big7

The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century at the Council of Rome (not Nicea as people who have seen the error-filled DaVinci Code like to quote).  Prior to this, “Scripture” referred to the Torah, or the Old Testament, the historical Jewish text.  It was the Catholic Church who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 14:16-18&version=9; ) discerned which contemporary writings were accurate and inspired.  Remember, these writing were 400 years old by then.  That would be like us trying to figure out which writings really came from Thomas Jefferson, only 150 years from now.  The Holy Spirit had to be at work in order for the leaders of the Church to know which ones were truly the Word of God, since writings and accounts of Jesus were numerous and often unreliable (which is where we get the Gnostic Gospels – rejected by the Church as heresy).  Prior to the 4th century, the stories of Jesus and the Apostles were passed on verbally through “oral tradition” by the bishops of the CC – direct successors of the Apostles, who carefully guarded the message.  Literacy in America today is about 50% - imagine how many people could read and write back then – it was all done through storytelling – there was no Bible. 


The Holy Spirit guides the Church.  The Spirit was sent by the Father to abide in ‘us” forever.  Well, who is “us” ?  US is the Catholic Church, the only Church that existed for the first 1000 years of Christianity, until the Orthodox split in the Schism of the West in 1054.  Splits are bad.  1 Corinthians 1:10-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 1:10-13.  The Protestants split again in the 1500’s with Calvin and Luther (that’s a long story).  And they’ve been splitting ever since – there are now more than 35,000 Protestant denominations.   The KJV was translated 1611 from the Hebrew and Latin texts of the writings approved by the Catholic Church 1200 years earlier (but the Protestants later left 7 books out).  Yes, Catholics had been reading, studying, preaching and spreading ALL of the Good News for 1600 years before we had the KJV, and we had it all written in a text we agreed on for 1200 of those years.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

dawg2 said:


> Ummm....read this about Jerome:
> 
> St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin. Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct.
> 
> 
> http://www.drbo.org/index.htm


 
"The scrolls consist of every Old Testament book of the Bible except the book of Esther. In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls also include non-biblical literature. These include commentaries on the Torah and other sources of ancient Jewish literature."

So does that mean that Esther shouldn't be in the Bible?

DB BB


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> Until the Pope can shed his blood and cleanse a people from their sins he can never be the head of the Church.
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:5-6 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.


 
Would you not agree that a pastor should be the leader of his flock (congregation)? In a sense, is he not the overseer of the church that he has been given by God (1 Tim 3:5)? Isn't he in charge of gaurding the doctrine and eliminating problems within the Church?
If the pastor is the leader of the church, is he not the visible head of the church? No doubt Jesus is the Head of the church and who the pastor is responsible to.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

dawg2 said:


> No, but it supports what I said about the other books.


 
Why not?

Could those Jews been wrong to include the "Extra books"?

According to what I have read the Jews in Jerusalem, did not use the extra books, just the ones at Alexandria... Interesting...

DB BB


----------



## reformedpastor

*Are we debating scripture or baptism?*

Please allow me to quote from Robert Shaw, his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, I am sure you can find this on line. 

" The books commonly called Apocrypha, were never admitted into the list of canonical books, until the Council of Trent, at its fourth session, 1546, placed them in the same rank with the inspired writings. 

They are rejected by the Protestant Churches for the following reasons:–The Jews, to whom the oracles of God were committed, and who were never blamed for unfaithfulness to their trust, never acknowledged these books to be of divine authority. They were not written in the Hebrew, but in the Greek language, and the authors of them were posterior to Malachi, in whom, according to the universal testimony of the Jews, the spirit of prophecy ceased. No part of these books is quoted by Christ or his apostles, nor a single word found in all the New Testament from which it can be inferred that such books were in existence. These books contain many things erroneous, superstitious, and immoral; and some of the writers, instead of advancing a claim to inspiration, acknowledge their own weakness, and apologies for their defects. 

The Church of England, though she does not receive the apocryphal books as canonical Scripture, and therefore does not "apply them to establish any doctrine," yet she directs certain portions of them to be read in the church, "for example of life, and instruction of manners." Now, as these portions are read promiscuously with the lessons taken from the canonical books, and no notice is given to the people that they are selected from the Apocrypha, they are in reality undistinguished from the inspired writings; and however good and instructive these apocryphal lessons may be, it never can be justified that they should thus be put on a level with the Word of God." 

I will post more concerning this later.


----------



## reformedpastor

*Jesus as Head*



farmasis said:


> Would you not agree that a pastor should be the leader of his flock (congregation)? In a sense, is he not the overseer of the church that he has been given by God (1 Tim 3:5)? Isn't he in charge of gaurding the doctrine and eliminating problems within the Church?
> 
> 
> If the pastor is the leader of the church, is he not the visible head of the church? No doubt Jesus is the Head of the church and who the pastor is responsible to.



Brother, 

I do agree there is leadership, those who have been appointed by the Holy Spirit ,Acts 20. And I agree that pastors have a charge to keep concerning their commission. But the Pastor can never be the visible head of the Church because all pastor's including myself fail terribly.

Pastor's are undershepherds, unprofitable servants if you will, that carry out the will of the Master. We can admit that the pastor is the vocal one with limited invested authority but the authority he carries is only for doing the will of Christ. 

Pastors have been given the keys to the kingdom, protect the apostolic truth, teach it preach it etc. To excommunicate the unrepentant among the true sheep   thus encouraging faithfulness to Christ commands among the others. But its Christ that tells them when to lock and unlock. 

If I have confused you I do apologize, it might even seem very unimportant to the novice but if we get this wrong we fail the next generation. 

Grace and Peace


----------



## reformedpastor

Dawg2 

The web site you listed is terrible. Thats the thing about catholics they want to keep Jesus on the cross when He is on His throne!


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> Dawg2
> 
> The web site you listed is terrible. Thats the thing about Catholics they want to keep Jesus on the cross when He is on His throne!



Two things Catholic is capitalized common courtesy will get you much further.


and second


“We preach Christ crucified.” — 1 Corinthians 1:23

If the image of Christ on the Cross bothers then good it should. He died there because of you and me and every other person.

Pax Christi


----------



## reformedpastor

I think you find protestant not capitalized much in my posts, so take no offense where there is none given. 

Hey we both preach Christ- just not the same one. 

Grace and Peace


----------



## Big7

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2459222&postcount=474

There was NO BIBLE!


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> Brother,
> 
> I do agree there is leadership, those who have been appointed by the Holy Spirit ,Acts 20. And I agree that pastors have a charge to keep concerning their commission. But the Pastor can never be the visible head of the Church because all pastor's including myself fail terribly.
> 
> Pastor's are undershepherds, unprofitable servants if you will, that carry out the will of the Master. We can admit that the pastor is the vocal one with limited invested authority but the authority he carries is only for doing the will of Christ.
> 
> Pastors have been given the keys to the kingdom, protect the apostolic truth, teach it preach it etc. To excommunicate the unrepentant among the true sheep thus encouraging faithfulness to Christ commands among the others. But its Christ that tells them when to lock and unlock.
> 
> If I have confused you I do apologize, it might even seem very unimportant to the novice but if we get this wrong we fail the next generation.
> 
> Grace and Peace


 
I guess we are just hung up on the word head. From the website I quoted, Catholics recognize Christ as the Head of the church.

We agree that the Pastor is the the leader. I don't understand why a human pastor can be a leader of a church, but not a earthly head of the church because he is fallible. Why is OK to call someone fallible a leader of the church?

What are synonyms of leader?
Main Entry:   leader <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Part of Speech:   noun <o></o>
Synonyms:   archimandrite, avant-garde, bellwether, bishop, boss, cantor, captain, cardinal, caudillo, chairman, chairperson, champion, chief, chieftain, coach, commander, conductor, corypheus, dean, doyen, doyenne, duke, elder, executive, figurehead, foreman, front man, general, governor, groundbreaker, guide, guru, head, hierophant, honcho, innovator, line, lion, maestro, mentor, mogul, pacemaker, patron saint, pilot, pioneer, pope, premier, president, priest, primate, principal, protagonist, rabbi, ruler, shogun, spark plug, speaker, spokesman, trailblazer, trendsetter, tycoon, vanguard, warlord
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/leader

I think it is all symantics. From what I read, Catholics do not think of their Pope as a God. I would hope that before my church declared another religious leader the anti-Christ we would have more proof.

The Bible says that
3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. ( 2 Thess 2:3-4)

What proof do we have that the Pope claims to be God?


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2459222&postcount=474
> 
> There was NO BIBLE!


 
I would think Jews would take issue with that, since their Bible was written 600-800 years before that. I bet they think there was a Bible prior to 400 AD.


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> I think you find protestant not capitalized much in my posts, so take no offense where there is none given.
> 
> Hey we both preach Christ- just not the same one.
> 
> Grace and Peace



Well that's funny because the Christ I am preaching is the same one St. Paul preached, St. Peter preached, and St. Dominic preached, the same one that the Catholic Church has preached for nearly 2000 years. 

As a matter of fact I was pretty sure there was only One, not two or more Christ to preach.


----------



## reformedpastor

*TO Dawg2  and Pjason*

Gentlemen, 

I cannot help that we are at odds over true christianity. This really should not be a surprise to you. In fact the catholic church believes that there can be no salvation outside a true church, right? If the catholic church doesn't see the protestant church as a true church then they can't be saved. 

Here is a testimony of a former priest (carm.org) 

Bartholomew F. Brewer.  He applied to the Discalced Carmelites, a strict monastic order.  He received training of "four years of high school seminary, two years in the novitiate, three years of philosophy, and four years of theology (the last after ordination)."  He was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington, D.C.  He eventually served as a diocesan priest in San Diego, California and entered the Navy as a Roman Catholic chaplain. 

 Upon questioning Rome's Beliefs, "At first I did not understand, but gradually I observed a wonderful change in mother.  Her influence helped me realize the importance of the Bible in determining what we believe.  We often discussed subjects such as the primacy of Peter, papal infallibility, the priesthood, infant baptism, confession, the mass, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven.  In time I realized that not only are these beliefs not in the Bible, they are actually contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture." 

papal infallibility- could you please explain what these means and how the pope can be infallible? It looks like this doctrine has him usurping Christ. This seems to be the only reasonable explanation. But I would like to hear yours.  

The catholic church does not view the protestant church as a true church, but you know this. Getting upset over a protestant that is just as passionate about his faith seems odd to me. 

Vatican II on ecumenicalism 
www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2ecum.htm

"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem."

IF you read the whole section you will see that they are the ones defined as the TRUE church and their ecumenical efforts are for the purpose of bringing the less fortunate brethren back into the true fold of God, "catholic church." 

Another quote same chapter and web site 

"For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed." 

Ok, here all truth has not been given to the Church all christian sects but ONLY to the "CATHOLIC" church. 

All protestants are the "SEPARATED BRETHREN" and there can be no true unity until all of us protestants are brought back into the TRUE FOLD of God. 

I suggest the protestants on this forum got to the source and read what they believe, you might be shocked. 

I can over look your personal insults, like I said, I know you are passionate about your beliefs but so am I. I am not changing you and you are not changing me. 

Catholicism is offensive to me, the teaching not the people. It's a whole list of unpleasant things to me. From idolatry to blasphemy; The mass is superstitious and a mockery of the Lord's Supper. I cannot deny that I find a lot offensive in the catholic religion. But you can't be surprised by that?

I could go on but the post must come to an end.  

Once again I encourage the protestants to read the Vatican II counsel it will truly be an education. Catholics are not Christians. 


Grace and Peace


----------



## Big7

farmasis said:


> I would think Jews would take issue with that, since their Bible was written 600-800 years before that. I bet they think there was a Bible prior to 400 AD.




You know I was talking about NT.


----------



## Big7

farmasis - Your post's are getting good!

Some of our "other" "friends" are not so "friendly".


----------



## reformedpastor

PJason,

What about the mormon church, they claim to be christian, are they? Don't they preach Christ too? Or what about the JW's? Don't they preach Christ? 

One Christ or more being preached ? 

Interested in your thoughts?


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I cannot help that we are at odds over true christianity. This really should not be a surprise to you. In fact the catholic church believes that there can be no salvation outside a true church, right? If the catholic church doesn't see the protestant church as a true church then they can't be saved.
> 
> "Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. "


 
Believe me pastor, I totally disagree with much of what Catholics believe. I admit I know little, but more now than I did just months ago. I was shocked at the differences in us.
However, do Catholics feel that others outside of the "true" church cannot be saved, or that they will benefit fully if saved through Catholicism? I read this (in blue) as that they feel that their brand of Christianity will lead to a more fuller Christian walk. Isn't that what all of us Christians believe? I am a Baptist. I think we got it right as I am sure you do. But, if I say if you believe the way I do, you will benefit more fully the gift of grace Christ has bestowed, I am not saying you are not saved.
As for the part I put in green, I do not think they are saying that we are not in union with Christ, but not in the union of one church that they feel Jesus wished for.



> Catholicism is offensive to me, the teaching not the people. It's a whole list of unpleasant things to me. From idolatry to blasphemy; The mass is superstitious and a mockery of the Lord's Supper. I cannot deny that I find a lot offensive in the catholic religion. But you can't be surprised by that?


 
I can't say I disagree with that. However, if a person or religion confesses that the shed blood of Jesus contains the power of salvation, that Mary was a virgin when she concieved a fully man, fully God, perfect child who was the only son of God and he led a perfect life and took my and your sins on his back and suffered and died for us and was raised again in 3 days and now sits on the right hand of the one true God interceeding on our behalf- I can overlook some of our differences. I believe a leader of a church that believes that cannot be the anti-Christ.
Maybe I am too tolerant. Maybe I should be more constraint in who I think should be justified before God, or maybe I am just glad Jesus was tolerant and unconstraint toward me when he looked down at my sinful life and I feel that he is my example.


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I cannot help that we are at odds over true Christianity. This really should not be a surprise to you. In fact the Catholic Church believes that there can be no salvation outside a true church, right? If the Catholic Church doesn't see the protestant church as a true church then they can't be saved.



http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Read through this section it will help with your misunderstanding.



reformedpastor said:


> Here is a testimony of a former priest (carm.org)
> 
> Bartholomew F. Brewer.  He applied to the Discalced Carmelites, a strict monastic order.  He received training of "four years of high school seminary, two years in the novitiate, three years of philosophy, and four years of theology (the last after ordination)."  He was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington, D.C.  He eventually served as a diocesan priest in San Diego, California and entered the Navy as a Roman Catholic chaplain.
> 
> Upon questioning Rome's Beliefs, "At first I did not understand, but gradually I observed a wonderful change in mother.  Her influence helped me realize the importance of the Bible in determining what we believe.  We often discussed subjects such as the primacy of Peter, papal infallibility , the priesthood, infant baptism, confession, the mass, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven.  In time I realized that not only are these beliefs not in the Bible, they are actually contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture."



Jack Chick good source…




reformedpastor said:


> papal infallibility- could you please explain what these means and how the pope can be infallible? It looks like this doctrine has him usurping Christ. This seems to be the only reasonable explanation. But I would like to hear yours.



How where St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John infallible in their teachings? 



reformedpastor said:


> The Catholic Church does not view the protestant church as a true church, but you know this. Getting upset over a protestant that is just as passionate about his faith seems odd to me.



The thing is I have not seen or read a single thing about your faith, the only thing you have given is how mine is wrong.

Do you stand in the pulpit each week preaching about how the Catholic Church is wrong or do you stand and teach about Christ and all He did for us? 

If the former is true then you are doing a great disservice to congregation and should really reconsider your motives for being a Pastor. 

Tell about your faith and I will tell about mine.




reformedpastor said:


> Vatican II on ecumenicalism
> www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2ecum.htm
> 
> "Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem."
> 
> IF you read the whole section you will see that they are the ones defined as the TRUE church and their ecumenical efforts are for the purpose of bringing the less fortunate brethren back into the true fold of God, "catholic church."
> 
> Another quote same chapter and web site
> 
> "For although the  Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace,  yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren  and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed."
> 
> Ok, here all truth has not been given to the Church all Christian sects but ONLY to the "CATHOLIC" church.
> 
> All Protestants are the "SEPARATED BRETHREN" and there can be no true unity until all of us Protestants are brought back into the TRUE FOLD of God.



I would suggest that most of them know it already, because I am not embarrassed afraid to say it.

Yes the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Christ handed on from St. Peter, the Apostles, and the Saints throughout the ages to today. While our separated brethren in ecclesiastical communities may contain some of the Truth only the Catholic Church contains the Fullness of the Truth. 



reformedpastor said:


> I suggest the Protestants on this forum got to the source and read what they believe, you might be shocked.



I would suggest it too, especially you, I will post a link to the Catechism and the RSV. And I will gladly mail a copy of the Catechism and a Bible to anyone who asks for one. I would rather have this conversation based on what the Church really teaches as opposed to what you think it teaches.



reformedpastor said:


> I can over look your personal insults, like I said, I know you are passionate about your beliefs but so am I. I am not changing you and you are not changing me.






reformedpastor said:


> Catholicism is offensive to me, the teaching not the people. It's a whole list of unpleasant things to me. From idolatry to blasphemy; The mass is superstitious and a mockery of the Lord's Supper. I cannot deny that I find a lot offensive in the catholic religion. But you can't be surprised by that?



How can you be offended by something that you do not even have the lightest understanding of?  That is like being offended by the Japanese language because you cannot read kanji.





reformedpastor said:


> Once again I encourage the Protestants to read the Vatican II counsel it will truly be an education.



I do too please read it read the Bible, all the Papal Encyclicals, the Catechism, read all the Saints, read all the ECF’s please read as much as you can on the Catholic Church by the people who actually practice it. If you still disagree then we can talk.

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church -which is, of course, quite a different thing." – Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Pax Christi


----------



## reformedpastor

Dawg2, 

If you don't know what I believe how do you know its flawed? 

Now, how did this this post go from baptism to this, I don't know. 

I will answer some of your remarks later today if not tonight. Don't fret, you haven't run me off. 

But don't you think your personal attacks lessens anything you have to say? 

Nothing I have posted is a clear indication of "insecurity," "flawed theology"? It's only an indication that the doctrine of the catholic church is odious to me. I can assure you its not from ignorance that I make these claims. Many conversations with catholics, some friendly some not so friendly, but nevertheless, I have learned a lot about catholicism over the 20 years. 

We are to live at peace with all men, as much as it depends on us. But we can never sacrifice TRUTH for peace. If we can live at peace with those contrary to us, GREAT. But if not, God be our judge. 

Truth is more important than life! Without truth life isn't worth living. We could never know Christ, or know we are sinners etc.....without truth. 

Proverbs 23:23   Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding. 

Proverbs 3:3  3 Do not let kindness and truth leave you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart. 

Whats interesting about this verse is this when one is convinced he has the truth it sure is is easier to be kind to those who don't have it. 

Grace and Peace


----------



## rjcruiser

farmasis said:


> I am a Baptist. I think we got it right as I am sure you do. But, if I say if you believe the way I do, you will benefit more fully the gift of grace Christ has bestowed, I am not saying you are not saved.
> 
> 
> I can't say I disagree with that. However, if a person or religion confesses that the shed blood of Jesus contains the power of salvation, that Mary was a virgin when she concieved a fully man, fully God, perfect child who was the only son of God and he led a perfect life and took my and your sins on his back and suffered and died for us and was raised again in 3 days and now sits on the right hand of the one true God interceeding on our behalf- I can overlook some of our differences.




Farmasis,
I've gathered much from this debate/discussion as well.  I respect Dawg2, Big7, PJason and most everyone else who has posted on this debate.  

However, I think that the biggest difference that I've been able to see is that a Catholic's definition of Grace is much much different than the definition that I as a Protestant have.  

I believe that the only true way to an eternity with Jesus Christ is by relying solely upon Him for our salvation.  Not by anything I've done, but only by the grace of God...a "free" gift.  If Dawg2, Big7 and PJason believe that, I am confident that they are going to heaven.  If they believe that it is Grace plus something that they contribute to receive that gift, I fear they are gravely mistaken.

Dawg2, Big7, PJason, I don't say this to offend....merely as a statement of my beliefs and in a hope to help you grow in Christ.  I hold no grudges towards you and I pray that we all will be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 

"Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

Examine the Scriptures DAILY to see whether these things were so.


----------



## reformedpastor

Here are some quotes to chew on through out the day. I submit these with love and compassion and with a desire to lead all men to the truth. 

From a book critiquing Catholicism by Loraine Boettner P&R publishing

"The true (Roman Catholic) Church can tolerate no strange churches besides herself" Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. XIV p. 766.

"The Roman Catholic Church…….must demand the right of freedom for herself alone" Civilta Cattolica, April 1948; official Jesuit organ; Rome. 

"The pope has the right to pronounce sentence of deposition against any sovereign" Bronson's Review Vol. I, pg.48 

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that every being should be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII; Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 126

"No Catholic may positively and unconditionally approve of the separation of Church and State" msgr. O'Toole Catholic University of America 1939  

"The pope is the supreme judge, even of civil laws, and is incapable of being under any true obligation to them" Civilta Cattolica 

"Individual liberty in reality is only a dead anarchy" Pope Pious XII April 6, 1951

"All Catholics, therefore are bound to accept the Syllabus ( of Errors, of pope Pius IX) Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14 


I will post more later. Hope this will stimulate more good debate- all for the sake of truth. 

Grace and Peace


----------



## reformedpastor

Dawg2, 

You are right, I guess this debate started with me. So, I will not post any more comments concerning the idolatry of the Catholic Church. 

To the one who started this post I sincerely ask you to please accept my humble apology. 

But as I leave, I remind you, you have not dealt with any of my comments except with mockery and ridicule. Nothing else! 

If someone challenged my faith I hope I think I could give an answer with kindness and meekness. 

1 Peter 3:15-16;  15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;  16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. 

Lastly- your rants baffle me. If you wish to excuse my comments by insulting me by insinuating that I am some "conspiracy theorist" now I must laugh because that's hilarious. This really looks like smoke and mirrors on your part. Distracting from the real issue at hand; the unbiblical teachings of the Catholic Church. Instead of dealing with your own church documents you try and kill the messenger through slander and distortion. 

Look, this is what the Catholic Church holds to though you may not hold to it. You may be embarrassed by it, I don't know. I am sure that you wouldn't agree with burning protestants at the stake! Nor do I agree with the silence of the protestant Church in Germany when so many Jews  where killed just for being a JEW. TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE and almost unforgivable. ALMOST! Praise God for grace that abounds greater than our sins.  

I don't pretend to know your intentions, whether or not you are sincere only God knows and thats enough for me. He is the Judge of the heart. 


Grace and Peace


----------



## rjcruiser

reformedpastor said:


> To the one who started this post I sincerely ask you to please accept my humble apology.



No apology necessary.

I believe this thread started to mushroom on the first page  and we are all guilty of getting on to topics that don't deal directly with the original question.  However, I believe they are (to a point) related.  In reality, my question was specific on baptism, but was driving at works.  Are works necessary for salvation.  Baptism is a subset of that.

I will say, as we are on the topic of conspiracy theories...it was my whole goal to have the most posts and most views of any thread in the Spiritual Forum when I started this

Dawg2,
I will make this challenge to you.  I understand that it can come across the wrong way when some one tells you your religion is heresy...especially when the person is a newbie.  However, if you are so sure of your religion, why do you get so defensive?  If you are so sure of your eternal destiny, why respond the way you do?


----------



## crackerdave

I have to say - it does sometimes seem that our resident Catholic Christians have just a wee bit of a "chip" on their shoulder.


----------



## Huntinfool

PJason said:


> Yes the Catholic Church is the One True Church
> 
> While our separated brethren in ecclesiastical communities may contain some of the Truth only the Catholic Church contains the Fullness of the Truth.



WOW


....and YOU are offended???

If you don't mind (and I seriously want to know this) what exactly is the "Fullness of the Truth" and what parts are we, your seperated bretheren, missing?  I mean, there is truth and there is falsehood.  There is no such thing as partial truth.  So either the Catholic church has the whole truth and no other church does (which I think is what reformedpastor was so undelicately trying to get at) or it doesn't, right?


----------



## crackerdave

Here we go -chasing another wabbit!


----------



## Israel

The one true church is composed of every member of the body of Christ. It wears no earthly title, it has no worldly address, it is not advertised in the yellow pages, it doesn't post a sign outside calling itself the church to deceive the simple, it is not received or known by the world, it has no earthly head (although don't mistake that for the head being in absentia, He is very present), it has no interest in calling attention to itself, and is hidden with Christ in God.
Only when one finds the Lord does the Lord introduce his bride, and just as the Lord is one, so is she.
Though we see through a glass darkly, we are instructed to keep looking till all is light. His bride is learning that.


----------



## Huntinfool

dawg2 said:


> I started a thread which pretty much sums up how I feel about other Christians, right in the very 1st post.



Not trying to be a jerk here....but where?  I don't see where you laid it out.


----------



## Huntinfool

So then answer my other post.  How does the Catholic church have the "Fullness of the Truth"?  Truth is whole truth.  There is no partial.

So if the Catholic church has it, then the rest of us don't, right?  That's conflicting with your exlpanation in that post IMO.  I'm really not trying to be combative.  I just want to understand.  I've read through a bunch of your posts today and you do seem awfully convinced that other "versions" of the church don't have the truth in them.  I'm just looking for some clarification on what the "Fullness of the Truth" is.

Also, I'm not following all these claims that "Jesus, himself, founded the Catholic church."  How do we get there??

I'm going Googling!


----------



## crackerdave

Since when do servants have Popemobiles,bodyguards,international news coverage,and folks kissing their hand?


----------



## Big7

*since you have it all "figured out" ????*

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2461387&postcount=497

How where St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John infallible in their teachings?

Dig deep - you know the answer, right?


----------



## Big7

farmasis said:


> I would think Jews would take issue with that, since their Bible was written 600-800 years before that. I bet they think there was a Bible prior to 400 AD.



I believe they called it the "Torah"


----------



## Ronnie T

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus selected Peter to be the head of the church.  And I know which verse you're fixin to quote.  "Upon the rock I will build my church".  It just doesn't fit though.  Peter had the keys to heaven symbolically:  Peter spoke the first sermon and he taught the first Gentile, but Peter was not the head of the church.  Jesus gave all apostles authority in the establishment of the church.  
The rock upon which the church was established was the confession of Peter.  That Jesus Christ was the Son of God.  Upon that confession lies everything that relates to the church.
The Nicene creed is a man-made creed that means nothing to me.

The true church was established in AD 33 in Jerusalem, on the day of pentacost.  The Roman government took the church and claimed it as "their" own church many many decades later.  The Roman government then re-invented the church so that it could better meet the needs of the government.  I think you have the faith of the Catholic church....... You need the faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Big7

rangerdave said:


> Since when do servants have Popemobiles,bodyguards,international news coverage,and folks kissing their hand?



That would be when you are THE SINGLE, MOST IMPORTANT, CHRISTIAN, VICAR OF CHRIST ON EARTH.

Ain't never seen a Muslim come after Billy Graham. Have you?


----------



## Huntinfool

dawg2 said:


> Only the Roman Catholic Church can validly claim all four marks. It is the Roman Catholic Church which has always been and continues to be that Church which Jesus Himself established almost 2000 years ago.



I think that is where I'm not following you.  You said that Jesus told Peter to start the church (or that he would build his church on him more correctly).  According to all of this, Peter started "the church" 2000 years ago.  I'm going to guess you call that simantics.

Peter began a ministry (I agree at the direction of Jesus) IMO that we call "the church"...in a universal sense.  The church is those who share the christian faith, it's not The Church..."the one true church".  Just because the Roman Catholic church may be the predecesor to the modern protestant churches does not make it THE Church IMO.  It was just the first one.  Those who trust in Jesus Christ for salvation are THE Church....

I mean, would we follow this logic and say that Ancient Rome is THE civilization or THE country?  NO!  It was just a big and powerful country.  There are others now that have taken what it built and improved upon it.  I don't know if that makes sense anywhere other than in my head.  I guess the point is that being first doesn't equate to "ONLY".

Again, this is all just my understanding of things.  I'll admit that I'm not as knowledgable about the Catholic church as I should be.  But I do not believe that the experiences that MILLIONS of people across the world have had with Christ and through the ministry of protestant churches are illegitimate....as in "not fully true".  

The Catholic church has done more to spread the Word than any other organization ever.  That I will not argue.  Obviously (based on the discussions around here) there are some MAJOR differences in belief.  

I guess my next question would be this.  If the Catholic church is the "one true church"....then what say you about all other churches?  Are they illegitimate?  Is their belief system flawed and are their followers doomed?

If I need to start another thread, somebody tell me.


----------



## Big7

Ronnie T said:


> There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus selected Peter to be the head of the church.  And I know which verse you're fixin to quote.  "Upon the rock I will build my church".  It just doesn't fit though.  Peter had the keys to heaven symbolically:  Peter spoke the first sermon and he taught the first Gentile, but Peter was not the head of the church.  Jesus gave all apostles authority in the establishment of the church.
> The rock upon which the church was established was the confession of Peter.  That Jesus Christ was the Son of God.  Upon that confession lies everything that relates to the church.
> The Nicene creed is a man-made creed that means nothing to me.
> 
> The true church was established in AD 33 in Jerusalem, on the day of pentacost.  The Roman government took the church and claimed it as "their" own church many many decades later.  The Roman government then re-invented the church so that it could better meet the needs of the government.  I think you have the faith of the Catholic church....... You need the faith in Jesus Christ.



You guy's - need to check out your facts!

OK – here is your list of the popes:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm 



Jesus gave authority (keys to the kingdom of heaven, by which some erroneously interpret as the Pearly Gates, but which really describes God’s people on earth) in Matthew 16:18. King James version here:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=9 – needs to be read in context of the rest of the chapter.  Jesus is giving a new name to his best friend and lead disciple (he is named specifically more than any other disciple).  His name is Simon Bar-Jonah (Simon, son of John) and Jesus is saying – From now on, I am going to call you Rock (Peter means ROCK – in the original Aramaic (which Jesus spoke) the work is cephas, translated into Greek petros and into English, peter.  He is basically naming him ROCKY.  He goes on to say, and on this ROCK I will build my Church – in other words, Peter is the foundation of the human church on earth, AND the gates of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- will not prevail against it  - nothing will cause the end of the Church.  



And this is true.  The RCC is the earth’s oldest organized institution, outlasting any ancient government (including China – the People’s Republic was founded in 1949).  The Catholic Church has been in existence since 1000 years before the English language was developed.   Christianity has just recently become outnumbered by Muslims, but more than HALF of all Christians in the world are Catholics and Catholicism is the largest single denomination of Christianity in AMERICA – one of every 4 people in US are Catholic. 



The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century at the Council of Rome (not Nicea as people who have seen the error-filled DaVinci Code like to quote).  Prior to this, “Scripture” referred to the Torah, or the Old Testament, the historical Jewish text.  It was the Catholic Church who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 14:16-18&version=9; ) discerned which contemporary writings were accurate and inspired.  Remember, these writing were 400 years old by then.  That would be like us trying to figure out which writings really came from Thomas Jefferson, only 150 years from now.  The Holy Spirit had to be at work in order for the leaders of the Church to know which ones were truly the Word of God, since writings and accounts of Jesus were numerous and often unreliable (which is where we get the Gnostic Gospels – rejected by the Church as heresy).  Prior to the 4th century, the stories of Jesus and the Apostles were passed on verbally through “oral tradition” by the bishops of the RCC – direct successors of the Apostles, who carefully guarded the message.  Literacy in America today is about 50% - imagine how many people could read and write back then – it was all done through storytelling – there was no Bible. 



The Holy Spirit guides the Church.  The Spirit was sent by the Father to abide in ‘us” forever.  Well, who is “us” ?  US is the Catholic Church, the only Church that existed for the first 1000 years of Christianity, until the Orthodox split in the Schism of the West in 1054.  Splits are bad.  1 Corinthians 1:10-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 1:10-13.  The Protestants split again in the 1500’s with Calvin and Luther (that’s a long story).  And they’ve been splitting ever since – there are now more than 35,000 Protestant denominations.   The KJV was translated 1611 from the Hebrew and Latin texts of the writings approved by the Catholic Church 1200 years earlier (but the Protestants left 7 books out).  Yes, Catholics had been reading, studying, preaching and spreading ALL of the Good News for 1600 years before we had the KJV, and we had it all written in a text we agreed on for 1200 of those years.



Is the Pope the leader of the Christian World?  Unfortunately, no.  He is the leader of all who profess Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church which traces its roots to the first Christians (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/history.html) and the Church that was commissioned and authorized directly by Christ.  Yes, we’ve had chaff among our wheat (Matthew 3:12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 3:12&version=9; ) but the Church itself is not capable of moral error (people IN the Church ARE).  This is because Jesus said to Peter, whatever you loose on earth, I will loose in Heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth, I will bind in Heaven.  (Matthew 16:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 16:18,19&version=9;)  The combination of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (to deny that the Spirit guides the Church is to say that Jesus lied to the Apostles when he said he would send a Comforter to guide and remain with them FOREVER or is to deny that the Spirit (who is GOD – the third person of the Trinity) is CAPABLE of guiding us) and the authority to loose and bind (again, to deny that Jesus gave Peter this authority is to deny that the Bible is correct or to say that Jesus lied or to say that Jesus did not have the power to give Peter that authority) – these things alone or in combination make it impossible for the Church to be in error in its teaching on faith and morals.   You will not find a place in history where bad things happened in the Church where the Church said it was OK.  The rules never change.  To deny that the RCC is “the Church” of the early Christians that prevails today is simple ignorance of historical facts. 



More info:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html 

READ UP!  PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I'M WRONG.

Back it up, I'm not looking for opinions here.

Scripture IS NOT for private interpretation !!!


----------



## Ronnie T

The catholic church was not indeed the first organized church.  The first was in Jerusalem, then Corinth, Ephesus, etc. The Roman government was it's enemy.  The original church was organized with Elders(Pastor's), Ministers, Deacons.  The Catholic church changed and reorganized it so it could be better managed.  I don't care what was said or don't in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century.  It is the church as first established that I seek to emulate.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ignorance?  When Christ said "my church", I think you, and yes, all of this and all Catholics apparently, misinterpret it as a physical manifestation.....

The church was just as metaphorical then as it is now.  From your website:

"These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
"

So God is the rock on which the church is built....or is it Peter?  OR is it that Jesus was simply telling Peter that upon the faith he professed at that moment, the church (meaning the fellowship of believers) would be built and would continue.  

Do you seriously think that Jesus gave Peter a manual and said "ok, here's the deal.  I want you to start a church....a building....and here's how I want you to run it."

Give me a break dude.  And BTW....all of that stuff that you reference is all somebody's interpretations of scripture.  Go read it yourself?  I thought scripture was not open to interpretation.  ALL interpretation is private man.

What I don't get is that you guys are bent on declaring that you are "right".  But none of you will man up and say what you're really trying to get at.  Is the protestant church a heathenistic (and thus sinful) mutation of the Catholic church?  If that's not what you're getting at, it sure does sound like it.


----------



## Big7

Ronnie T said:


> The catholic church was not indeed the first organized church.  The first was in Jerusalem, then Corinth, Ephesus, etc. The Roman government was it's enemy.  The original church was organized with Elders(Pastor's), Ministers, Deacons.  The Catholic church changed and reorganized it so it could be better managed.  I don't care what was said or don't in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century.  It is the church as first established that I seek to emulate.




Like I said, PLEASE show me!


----------



## Big7

So God is the rock on which the church is built....or is it Peter? OR is it that Jesus was simply telling Peter that upon the faith he professed at that moment, the church (meaning the fellowship of believers) would be built and would continue. 

Get it right. The "fellowship of believers" is The Catholic Church!


----------



## Huntinfool

So all of the "churches" referenced in the Bible after Jesus' death were Roman Catholic churches?  They all had the same belief systems, all did the same things?


----------



## Huntinfool

Big7 said:


> Get it right. The "fellowship of believers" is The Catholic Church!



I assume then the rest of that statement goes something like this in your brain:

"and no other church!"

...and THERE we have it ladies and gents!  At least he was man enough to stand up and admit his lunacy.  I'll give you props for that man.  Good job.


----------



## Ronnie T

Show you what.......
It's all contained in the Bible.
Very easy to find.

I just pulled up this sight.  It  it has some interesting questions and answers.    http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm

And I'm going to try not to discuss this with you anymore.  Here's why:  Anyone has the right to chose for themselves.  It's an important choice.


----------



## Big7

Huntinfool said:


> So all of the "churches" referenced in the Bible after Jesus' death were Roman Catholic churches?  They all had the same belief systems, all did the same things?



Yes - they did, until the Reformation. Glad you picked up on that.



Huntinfool said:


> I assume then the rest of that statement goes something like this in your brain:
> 
> "and no other church!"
> 
> ...and THERE we have it ladies and gents!  At least he was man enough to stand up and admit his lunacy.  I'll give you props for that man.  Good job.



The "loon" is correct. Again, the challenge is: PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I'M WRONG?

I have given you facts, not my opinion.


----------



## crackerdave

The first Christian churches [before Christ,there were NO Christians] were in the homes of true followers of Jesus Christ - many of whom had seen Him in person.
Not sure but what we'd be better off if we went back to having church that way.I've sure thought about it.


----------



## Big7

Scramble? 

Eggs, please - I'm running out of


----------



## Huntinfool

Big7 said:


> I have given you facts, not my opinion.



No sir, you've given me references to opinions (interpretations) that it is your opinion are correct.  That does not in any way make them facts.

I'm gonna stop now because I don't have any dilusions that I'm going to convince anybody that they are wrong.  I really just wanted to understand where some of this came from.  What I've gotten, unfortunately, is smug elitism.

If you seriously believe that the Holy Spirit was sent to abide only in the Catholic Church, I have grave concerns about you man.  There's really nothing more I can say.  I'm sorry you believe that.  I hope some day your eyes are opened.

I'm done.


----------



## crackerdave

This thread is always so far off-topic,I figgered I'd just throw that in!
Seems like every thread deteriorates into either a "Catholics vs. Protestant" or a "once saved,always saved" argument!


----------



## Big7

rangerdave said:


> The first Christian churches [before Christ,there were NO Christians] were in the homes of true followers of Jesus Christ - many of whom had seen Him in person.
> Not sure but what we'd be better off if we went back to having church that way.I've sure thought about it.




rangerdave - You seem like a good guy, even after all of
our differences. You gotta know, there were no Christian Churches - before Christ? 

PS - Let's get back to the thread topic - or start a new thread.


----------



## Big7

rangerdave said:


> This thread is always so far off-topic,I figgered I'd just throw that in!
> Seems like every thread deteriorates into either a "Catholics vs. Protestant" or a "once saved,always saved" argument!



You got that right!


----------



## Ronnie T

Big7 said:


> rangerdave - You seem like a good guy, even after all of
> our differences. You gotta know, there were no Christian Churches - before Christ?



I think that's what Rangerdave was saying.


----------



## crackerdave

rangerdave said:


> The first Christian churches [before Christ,there were NO Christians] were in the homes of true followers of Jesus Christ - many of whom had seen Him in person.
> Not sure but what we'd be better off if we went back to having church that way.I've sure thought about it.



Here ya go Brother Big7 - see parentheses.
And whatever good there might be in me is only there because of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Big7

Ronnie T said:


> Show you what.......
> It's all contained in the Bible.
> Very easy to find.
> I just pulled up this sight.  It  it has some interesting questions and answers.    http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm
> 
> And I'm going to try not to discuss this with you anymore.  Here's why:  Anyone has the right to chose for themselves.  It's an important choice.




Where do you think the Bible came from? Surely you don't 
think it "fell out of the sky". Before you say "from God", I would add that it is the Inspired Word of God, that came through man. Maybe God had a printing press? Maybe Martin Luther, Calvin and L. Ron Hubbard?

Splits are NOT GOOD. that is the debil's work; to divide
and conquer. Looks like he (the debil) is having his way on here!


----------



## Big7

rangerdave said:


> Here ya go Brother Big7 - see parentheses.
> And whatever good there might be in me is only there because of Jesus Christ.



OK I got it. The first Christian Churches [before parentheses] threw me off a little.

I stand corrected. Thanks!


----------



## Ronnie T

God's inspired word was brought into existance through inspiration from God's Spirit towards Jesus' apostles.  Jesus told them before His death that the Holy Spirit would be teaching them other things.  It was the apostles who brought the gospel of Jesus into the world as given to them via Holy Spirit.

Since then, 100's of thousands of people have claimed to have been enlightened by God himself through one form or another.  But it seems that all those "want-to-be's" deviate or add to the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles.  That's a sure mark of falseness.


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> I believe they called it the "Torah"


The term _*Hebrew Bible*_ is a generic reference to those books of the Bible originally written in Biblical Hebrew (and the related Biblical Aramaic). The term closely corresponds to contents of the Jewish Tanakh and the Protestant Old Testament, see also Judeo-Christian, but does not include the deuterocanonical portions of the Roman Catholic or the _Anagignoskomena_ portions of the Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. The term does not imply naming, numbering or ordering of books, which varies, see also Biblical canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible


----------



## Big7

Ronnie T said:


> God's inspired word was brought into existance through inspiration from God's Spirit towards Jesus' apostles.  Jesus told them before His death that the Holy Spirit would be teaching them other things.  It was the apostles who brought the gospel of Jesus into the world as given to them via Holy Spirit.
> 
> Since then, 100's of thousands of people have claimed to have been enlightened by God himself through one form or another.  But it seems that all those "want-to-be's" deviate or add to the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles.  That's a sure mark of falseness.[/QUOTE]
> 
> First paragraph sounds kinda' CATHOLIC.
> 
> The second backs up what I just said. SPLITS ARE NOT GOOD!
> 
> Thanks for helping me make my point.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> Since then, 100's of thousands of people have claimed to have been enlightened by God himself through one form or another.  But it seems that all those "want-to-be's" deviate or add to the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles.  That's a sure mark of falseness.



That is what the oral traditions are.  Catholics believe that these oral traditions are on the same level as scripture.  

Big7, you put Calvin and Luther in the same bucket as L. Ron Hubbard.  Calvin and Luther didn't add anything to scripture...I know, you say he added "alone" but everything he said and wrote was in agreement with scripture.  

L Ron Hubbard has said nothing that is consistent with scripture.  I would say he is writings are more like the oral traditions and the book of Mormon.  Man-made ideas that have bits and pieces of truth in them to further the agenda and power of their religion.


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> That is what the oral traditions are.  Catholics believe that these oral traditions are on the same level as scripture.
> 
> Big7, you put Calvin and Luther in the same bucket as L. Ron Hubbard.  Calvin and Luther didn't add anything to scripture...I know, you say he added "alone" but everything he said and wrote was in agreement with scripture.
> 
> L Ron Hubbard has said nothing that is consistent with scripture.  I would say he is writings are more like the oral traditions and the book of Mormon.  Man-made ideas that have bits and pieces of truth in them to further the agenda and power of their religion.



So, the question still begs: Where did the Bible come from.

Dance all around it if you want to. The books of the Bible were Canoned by the Catholic Church. That is da' fact! 

That came from The Oral traditions of The Catholic Church.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> Splits are NOT GOOD. that is the debil's work; to divide
> and conquer. Looks like he (the debil) is having his way on here!



I wouldn't agree with you that splits are not always good.  They can be good...they can purify the church and that is what happened during the reformation.

However, I think that the Lord has used this post to a great extent.  I know that I've learned much about the Catholic church and the beliefs that they hold to.  Based on the other posts, I think that other Christians have been enlightened as well, seeing that the difference between Catholics and Protestants is much larger than the Catholic church would want one to believe.



			
				Big7 said:
			
		

> and we had it all written in a text we agreed on for 1200 of those years.



This couldn't be further from the truth.  The 7 books of the apocrypha weren't a part of your canon until the mid 1500s.  If it was in such agreement, it would have been in there a lot sooner.

Also, Catholics keep adding to the truth.  It is called "oral traditions" and based on your posts and PJason's posts, they are held on the same level of truth as scripture.

Nothing is on the same level as scripture...the inspired Word of God.


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> I wouldn't agree with you that splits are not always good.  They can be good...they can purify the church and that is what happened during the reformation.
> 
> However, I think that the Lord has used this post to a great extent.  I know that I've learned much about the Catholic church and the beliefs that they hold to.  Based on the other posts, I think that other Christians have been enlightened as well, seeing that the difference between Catholics and Protestants is much larger than the Catholic church would want one to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> This couldn't be further from the truth.  The 7 books of the apocrypha weren't a part of your canon until the mid 1500s.  If it was in such agreement, it would have been in there a lot sooner.
> 
> Also, Catholics keep adding to the truth.  It is called "oral traditions" and based on your posts and PJason's posts, they are held on the same level of truth as scripture.
> 
> Nothing is on the same level as scripture...the inspired Word of God.



STILL: http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2462965&postcount=550


----------



## reformedpastor

Ok off topic I see. 

I would love to offer an opinion. But, only if its ok with the host. 

Or should I start my own thread on the ONE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH? 

Grace and Peace


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> Here are some quotes to chew on through out the day. I submit these with love and compassion and with a desire to lead all men to the truth.
> 
> From a book critiquing Catholicism by Loraine Boettner P&R publishing
> 
> "The true (Roman Catholic) Church can tolerate no strange churches besides herself" Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. XIV p. 766.
> 
> "The Roman Catholic Church…….must demand the right of freedom for herself alone" Civilta Cattolica, April 1948; official Jesuit organ; Rome.
> 
> "The pope has the right to pronounce sentence of deposition against any sovereign" Bronson's Review Vol. I, pg.48
> 
> "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that every being should be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII; Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 126
> 
> "No Catholic may positively and unconditionally approve of the separation of Church and State" msgr. O'Toole Catholic University of America 1939
> 
> "The pope is the supreme judge, even of civil laws, and is incapable of being under any true obligation to them" Civilta Cattolica
> 
> "Individual liberty in reality is only a dead anarchy" Pope Pious XII April 6, 1951
> 
> "All Catholics, therefore are bound to accept the Syllabus ( of Errors, of pope Pius IX) Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14
> 
> 
> I will post more later. Hope this will stimulate more good debate- all for the sake of truth.
> 
> Grace and Peace



So this is your source book. Again I would recommend you read the Bible and the Catechism if you want to know the truth about what Catholics believe. It is all laid out for you. Going to Loraine Boettner for information on Catholicism is like going to a proctologist to get your teeth cleaned. They may know a little about teeth, but you are going to leave with a bad taste in your mouth and you have know idea where that finger has been.


----------



## Big7

reformedpastor said:


> Ok off topic I see.
> 
> I would love to offer an opinion. But, only if its ok with the host.
> 
> Or should I start my own thread on the ONE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
> 
> Grace and Peace



Please, by all means.


----------



## reformedpastor

FUNNY

Deal with the statements He cites from catholic sources and then I will move from thinking your funny to having respect. 

Grace and Peace


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> So, the question still begs: Where did the Bible come from.
> 
> Dance all around it if you want to. The books of the Bible were Canoned by the Catholic Church. That is da' fact!
> 
> That came from The Oral traditions of The Catholic Church.


 
The books in my Bible were canonized from the reformed movement.


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> Look, this is what the Catholic Church holds to though you may not hold to it. You may be embarrassed by it, I don't know.



I am embarrassed by nothing that the Catholic Church professes. Now if you could actually explain one or two of those beliefs correctlly then we would have no problem.


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> FUNNY
> 
> Deal with the statements He cites from catholic sources and then I will move from thinking your funny to having respect.
> 
> Grace and Peace



Not a problem please provide these sources in context and I will be more then happy too.


----------



## Big7

reformedpastor said:


> FUNNY
> 
> Deal with the statements He cites from catholic sources and then I will move from thinking your funny to having respect.
> 
> Grace and Peace




Who is "He" 

What is "funny"


----------



## Big7

farmasis said:


> The books in my Bible were canonized from the reformed movement.



That's the problem.


----------



## Ronnie T

Please take no offense at this but frankly, I have no interest in what *The Oral traditions of The Catholic Church* states.  I don't have any interest in what the oral traditions of the church I am a part of(if we have any).  I am only concerned with that taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles.
Have faith in the Christ of the New Testament....  Not faith in the catholic church.


----------



## reformedpastor

This may help the canon issue. 

When did the church begin? What is constituted a church?


----------



## Ronnie T

I believe this is the first time it is specifically addressed.

Acts2:44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;  45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.  46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,  47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> This may help the canon issue.
> 
> When did the church begin? What is constituted a church?


 
Pentacost. Christian believers.


----------



## PJason

Huntinfool said:


> WOW
> 
> 
> ....and YOU are offended???



I do not recalled saying I was offended. 



Huntinfool said:


> If you don't mind (and I seriously want to know this) what exactly is the "Fullness of the Truth"



It is everything, everything Christ, His Father, and the Holy Spirit has handed down throughout the ages. Handed on to the Apostles and threw them to us by means of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 



Huntinfool said:


> and what parts are we, your seperated bretheren, missing?



It depends. The fact is there are nearly 35 to 40 thousand different denominations out there. Some are missing different things.

All are missing Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist.

Some have valid sacramental baptism some do not

Some believe in the Trinity some do not

And so on… 



Huntinfool said:


> I mean, there is truth and there is falsehood.



You are correct there is Truth and there is falsehood. 



Huntinfool said:


> There is no such thing as partial truth.  So either the Catholic church has the whole truth and no other church does (which I think is what reformedpastor was so undelicately trying to get at) or it doesn't, right?



A pastor may teach the Trinity and teach it validly, but he may also teach against the Real Presence in the Eucharist which is invalid. On one point he taught the Truth on one point and falsehood on the other.


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> This may help the canon issue.
> 
> When did the church begin? What is constituted a church?




Mine 33 AD


----------



## reformedpastor

*Church*

It will help if we can think of all the synonyms used for the people of God. If the church started in ad 33 or at Pentecost
then where does that leave the saints in the OT? 

I will go ahead and promote the idea that there is only one true church and it began after the fall. 


This passage will help.  

Hebrews 3:1-6  Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;  

2 He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.  

3 For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.  

4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.  

5 Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later;  

6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house-- whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end. 

This passages (i will post others as we go along) strongly advances the doctrine of one church beginning in the ot then it was an infant church and in the new it has matured and grown up so to speak. Notice the one house- these NT believers are apart of the same house that Moses worked on. 

But where Moses was a servant in this house Jesus owns the house. Moses served the church as a servant. The author is pointing out to these nt saints to be careful because what happened to the members of the church in the ot can easily happen to them, since they were more accountable, being in the nt and all. 


Read the whole context-- interest in your thoughts; this will lead to some canon issues.


----------



## farmasis

I don't know if I would consider the Christian church before the resurection.

Jesus said "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of h-e-l-l---- shall not prevail against it."

I don't think it could have existed before "I will build"


----------



## Israel

PJason said:


> I do not recalled saying I was offended.
> 
> 
> 
> It is everything, everything Christ, His Father, and the Holy Spirit has handed down throughout the ages. Handed on to the Apostles and threw them to us by means of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> It depends. The fact is there are nearly 35 to 40 thousand different denominations out there. Some are missing different things.
> 
> All are missing Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist.
> 
> Some have valid sacramental baptism some do not
> 
> Some believe in the Trinity some do not
> 
> And so on…
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct there is Truth and there is falsehood.
> 
> 
> 
> A pastor may teach the Trinity and teach it validly, but he may also teach against the Real Presence in the Eucharist which is invalid. On one point he taught the Truth on one point and falsehood on the other.




We don't have to have any bread to know Jesus is really present. 
In truth he is the ever present one...
And in fact that is argued against, and is therefore heresy, if we think we can decide when he will be "really" present.


----------



## redwards

rjcruiser,
If you will pardon me for being  of your thread title (for it does seem this thread has meandered a bit), I would like to ask a question of some of our Catholic members that relates (at least to me) to some of the confusion, disagreement, etc. between Protestants and Catholics.

dawg2, Big7, PJason,
This Plenary Indulgence continues to bug me.


> APOSTOLIC PENITENTIARY
> 
> DECREE
> 
> according to which is granted a daily Plenary Indulgence
> on the 150th Anniversary of the Apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Lourdes
> 
> 
> On the occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Grotto of Massabielle near Lourdes, a daily Plenary Indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who, from 8 December 2007 until 8 December 2008, devoutly and in accordance with the established conditions, visit the Grotto of Massabielle, as well as those who, from 2-11 February 2008, visit a blessed image of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Lourdes solemnly displayed for public veneration in any church, oratory, grotto or suitable place.
> 
> God's omnipotence and infinite love have joined together in a marvellous bond the role of Mary, Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ and hence, Mother of his Mystical Body the Church, and the salvific work of the Church herself: Blessed Abbot Guerric thus connects the protection sought by the Christian faithful from Mother Mary with the Catholic Church's universal ministry of salvation: "The Blessed Mother of Christ, insofar as she sees herself the mother of Christians by way of mystery, also shows herself to be a mother by her solicitude and tender affection for them.... Consider if her children, prompted by a certain spontaneous sense of faith, do not also acknowledge her as mother as they find refuge, before all else, at the invocation of her name in every trial and danger just like children in the arms of their mother" (Sermo I, In Assumptione B. Mariae Virg.).
> 
> Similarly, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council highlights what we might call the "joint" mission of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and the Catholic Church: "For Mary, who since her entry into salvation history unites in herself and re-echoes the greatest teachings of the faith as she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her Son and his sacrifice and to the love of the Father. Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her exalted Type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things" (n. 65).
> 
> The history of the Church and the marvellous signs of Marian devotion continually and clearly confirm the ways of Divine Providence and foster devotion among the faithful.
> 
> A glance over the nearly 150 years since Mary Most Holy, revealing herself to little Bernadette Soubirous as the Immaculate Conception, wanted a shrine, a treasury of grace, to be built and maintained in the place called Massabielle, in the city of Lourdes, brings to mind the countless number of signs by which the supernatural life of souls and even the health of bodies have benefited much from the goodness of Almighty God. This plan of Divine Providence, accompanied by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, clearly demonstrates that the integral end of man is the good of the whole human person, both here on earth and especially in eternal salvation.
> 
> Since the establishment of the Shrine at Lourdes, the Christian faithful have understood that there the Blessed Virgin Mary, through the ministry of the Catholic Church, desires to provide most lovingly for the complete health of men and women.
> 
> For as they venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary in the place "touched by her feet", they refresh themselves with the sacraments, make firm resolutions to lead more perfect Christian lives, perceive more clearly the meaning of the Church and experience the solid reasons for all these things: the very connection of these remarkable events over time has clearly attested to the joint action of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Church: indeed, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was defined in 1854, and in 1858, Mary Most Holy appeared to the devout young girl Bernadette Soubirous with ineffable motherly sweetness, uttering the words of the dogmatic definition: "I am the Immaculate Conception".
> 
> In order to allow the fruits of renewed holiness to grow from this blessed commemoration, the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI has generously decreed that the gift of a Plenary Indulgence be granted according to the following conditions:
> 
> Each and every member of the Christian faithful who, truly repentant, is purified through sacramental confession, restored through the Most Holy Eucharist and offers prayers for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff, will be able to gain a Plenary Indulgence daily, which may also be applied, by way of suffrage, to the souls of the faithful in Purgatory:
> 
> A) If, during the year running from 8 December 2007 until the end of 8 December 2008, they devoutly visit the following places, preferably in this order - 1) the parish baptismal font used for the Baptism of Bernadette; 2) the house of the Soubirous family called the "cachot"; 3) the Grotto of Massabielle; 4) the chapel of the hospice where Bernadette made her First Communion - and pause to reflect for an appropriate length of time at each of these Jubilee sites, concluding with the Lord's Prayer, some legitimate form of the Profession of Faith, and the Jubilee prayer or some other Marian invocation.
> 
> B) If, from the Feast of the Presentation of our Lord on 2 February 2008 until the end of the Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Lourdes on 11 February 2008, which is also the 150th Anniversary of the Apparition, they devoutly visit a blessed image of the Holy Virgin Mary of Lourdes in any church, chapel, grotto or other suitable place in which it is solemnly displayed, and in the presence of that image perform some pious act of Marian devotion, or at least pause to reflect for an appropriate length of time, concluding with the Lord's Prayer, some legitimate form of the Profession of Faith, and the Jubilee prayer or some other Marian invocation.
> 
> C) The elderly, sick, and all those unable to leave home for a just cause, if they consciously reject all sin and have the intention to fulfil the above-mentioned conditions as soon as possible, are likewise able to obtain - at home or wherever they may be - a Plenary Indulgence, if, between the days of 2 and 11 February 2008, they complete a "spiritual visit" (to the aforementioned places) in the desire of their heart, recite the prayers indicated above, and trustingly offer the pains and discomforts of their own lives to God through Mary.
> 
> In order that the Christian faithful may partake more readily of these heavenly gifts, priests who have received approval to hear confessions by the competent ecclesiastical authorities should welcome them with a willing and generous spirit and solemnly lead the recitation of public prayers to the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God.
> 
> Notwithstanding anything to the contrary.
> 
> Given in Rome, at the Offices of the Apostolic Penitentiary, 21 November 2007, on the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
> 
> Cardinal James Francis Stafford
> Major Penitentiary
> 
> Gianfranco Girotti, O.F.M. Conv.
> Titular Bishop of Meta, Regent


 
Would this be the type of prayer the Pope's decree is asking the 'faithful' to repeat?



> *Lourdes Jubilee Prayer*
> 
> *Prayer of the Jubilee Year of 2008 *
> God our Father
> among all creatures You have formed Mary,
> the perfect creature, the “Immaculate Conception”.
> Here in Lourdes she proclaimed this name and Bernadette repeated it.
> The Immaculate Conception; this is a cry of hope:
> evil, sin, and death are no longer victors.
> Mary, precursory sign, dawn of salvation!
> 
> Mary,
> You, the innocence and refuge of sinners
> We pray to you.
> _Hail Mary……….. !_
> 
> Lord Jesus,
> You gave us Mary as our Mother.
> She shared Your Passion and Resurrection.
> Here in Lourdes she showed herself to Bernadette,
> saddened by our sins but radiant with Your light.
> Through her, we entrust to You our joys and our sorrows,
> our own, those of the sick, and those of all people.
> 
> Mary,
> Our sister and our mother,
> our confidant, and our help
> We pray to you
> 
> _Hail Mary……….. !_
> 
> Holy Spirit, you are the Spirit of love and unity.
> Here in Lourdes, through Bernadette, Mary asked
> for a Chapel, and for people to come in procession.
> Inspire the Church which Christ is building on Peter’s faith:
> that it may be one.
> Guide the pilgrimage of the Church:
> that it may be faithful and daring!
> 
> Mary, you are filled with the Holy Spirit,
> you are the spouse and the servant.
> You are the model for Christians, and the maternal face of the Church.v We pray to you.
> 
> _Hail Mary……….. !_
> ...
> 
> For the many graces received here,
> for all the conversions,
> all the forgiveness,
> all the healings,
> for the vocations and promises
> which you have witnessed or engendered,
> for the love of serving others, which you have let us experience,
> Our Lady of Lourdes
> we thank you!
> 
> With all our brothers and sisters of the human race,
> with all people in need of peace and justice,
> with young people in search of a way,
> you who appeared so young to little Bernadette,
> with all those who are in mourning, who are ill,
> handicapped, or facing a setback,
> with those who may have a reason for despair:
> Our Lady of Lourdes
> We pray to you!
> 
> Because you are the smile of God,
> the reflection of the light of Christ,
> the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit,
> because you chose Bernadette in her misery,
> because you are the star of the morning, the gate of Heaven,
> and the first resurrected creature
> we praise you,
> we acclaim you
> and with you we sing the wonders of God
> _Magnificat !_


source website...
http://www.lourdes2008.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=63

What I just don't get is this.
In 1 John 2: 1-2 we read this...


> <DD>_*1 My [SIZE=-1]<SUP>R32</SUP>[/SIZE] little children, I am writing [SIZE=-1]<SUP>R33</SUP>[/SIZE] these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we [SIZE=-1]<SUP>R34</SUP>[/SIZE] have an Advocate [SIZE=-1]<SUP>R35</SUP>[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]<SUP>F1</SUP>[/SIZE] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; *_<DD>_*2 *_and He Himself is the [SIZE=-1]<SUP>R36</SUP>[/SIZE] propitiation [SIZE=-1]<SUP>F2</SUP>[/SIZE] for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for [SIZE=-1]<SUP>R37</SUP>[/SIZE] those of the whole world.


<DD>.....now if we have an "Advocate" with the Father, and that "Advocate" is Jesus Christ, who is in the person of The Holy Spirit, our Intercessor, then why is it necessary to pray to the Virgin Mary as is indicated in the prayer quoted above?



</DD>


----------



## PJason

redwards said:


> rjcruiser,
> If you will pardon me for being  of your thread title (for it does seem this thread has meandered a bit), I would like to ask a question of some of our Catholic members that relates (at least to me) to some of the confusion, disagreement, etc. between Protestants and Catholics.
> 
> dawg2, Big7, PJason,
> This Plenary Indulgence continues to bug me.
> 
> 
> Would this be the type of prayer the Pope's decree is asking the 'faithful' to repeat?
> 
> 
> source website...
> http://www.lourdes2008.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=63
> 
> What I just don't get is this.
> In 1 John 2: 1-2 we read this...
> <DD>.....now if we have an "Advocate" with the Father, and that "Advocate" is Jesus Christ, who is in the person of The Holy Spirit, our Intercessor, then why is it necessary to pray to the Virgin Mary as is indicated in the prayer quoted above?
> 
> 
> 
> </DD>




It is not necessary to pray to the Virgin Mary.

Nor is it necessary to go over to the Spiritual Support and Encouragement side and ask for people to pray for you and your loved ones. But as you can see there are over 3000 threads devoted to prayer request.

A prayer is a request. 

"God I pray to you" is the same as "God I ask of you"


----------



## Ronnie T

You didn't answer the question.  
What is the scriptural purpose of have Mary as an important part of any prayer?
It is not scriptural.  It is only, as you say:  Inspired Tradition. 
Inspired Tradition equals Traditions that someone wants to maintain.


----------



## PJason

Ronnie T said:


> You didn't answer the question.
> What is the scriptural purpose of have Mary as an important part of any prayer?
> It is not scriptural.  It is only, as you say:  Inspired Tradition.
> Inspired Tradition equals Traditions that someone wants to maintain.



Well in the scriptures we are told to pray for each other. When we ask someone to pray for us we ask them to intercede for us. Prayer is also a request or asking for something. In this prayer we are asking (praying) for Mary to intercede for us.

I do not know how much more simple it could be.


----------



## Ronnie T

1Corinthians 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.


----------



## Israel

Might as well cut to the chase, anyway. 

The Church teaches that “In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life.

The Council of Trent declared: No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin.

Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: of the Virgin Mother of God, that: “she was immune from all sin, personal or inherited” (pg. 203 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott).

Mary’s sinlessness is rooted in Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace”. ..” Moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of grace.”

And:

Like any divinely-revealed mystery, the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother body and soul into Heaven “keeps on giving”—one can’t exhaust this magnificent truth of the Faith. 

The essence of the Church’s teaching, which was solemnly defined as a dogma of the Catholic Faith on November 1, 1950 by the Servant of God Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), is thus: at the end of her earthly life, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God, who had never been tainted with Original Sin, was assumed by the Almighty body and soul into Paradise. 

Our Blessed Lady is now in Heaven, where she prays for us to her Divine Son Jesus and awaits our triumphant entry into the unceasing Kingdom—the “New Jerusalem” for which each of us rightly pines. 

The Assumption reminds us how close Mary was—and remains—to Jesus. She completely submitted her will to the Divine Plan. The Lord God raised this obedient woman on high, granting her a fitting place next to Christ. It was appropriate that as Our Lady continually cooperated with Jesus on earth, she should now be close to Him in Paradise, thereby inheriting the prize promised by her Son: Everlasting Life in the presence of the Most Blessed Trinity. As Christ was victorious over Satan, so was His Holy Mother. 


I love my sister Mary, she is an excellent example of the faith, but she needed to be saved from her sins as did every other faithful disciple.
She is not my mother, nor is she the queen of heaven...indeed she will return in glorious splendor with the Lord to see his vengeance upon those who have sought to pervert her piety. 
She waited with the brethren in the upper room and was delightfully filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
The Lord is sure with Mary, and I am blessed that her Lord is my Lord, too.


----------



## reformedpastor

Careful redwards these boys don't like being pressed. They get testy! 

Where we are every commanded, given an Apostolic example, or where can it be logically deduced from scripture to pray to the dead? 

Farmasis, 

work through Hebrews 4, if one house and Moses was a servant in the same one Jesus is head over and the same one the Hebrews were in, then it existed before Jesus said those words out of Matt. But I don't think the passages warrants the assumption that in order to build nothing exists. Quite the opposite, to build you start with a foundation. 

You see, the christian church wasn't just beginning it already had a secure and solid foundation for the Apostles to build on. 

Here is another key verse

Ephesians 2:19-22  So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,  20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,  21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,  22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. 

One thing is for sure the gates of hades will not prevail...........the church continue her march triumphantly with Christ as her only head. 

Another great verse from Paul 

Ephesians 1:18-23  I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,  19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might  20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,  21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.  22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,  23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. 

Rules for interpretation- the bible never contradicts itself and is its own infallible interpreter. The bible interprets itself (ok I can't resist it ---not tradition); scripture with scripture; the clearer sections brings light to the less clear texts.


----------



## reformedpastor

DW

Not true the Apostles had the complete old testament which was more than sufficient. What do you think the Berean christians in Acts used to examine the preaching of Paul? The OT. 

The catholic church does not pre---date scripture. They will love that statement.


----------



## Big7

What da' heck is a zion presbyterian?

Vintage 2002?

Another SPLIT. (statement)

or another SPLIT? (question)

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

Do you even know who or what you are?


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> Careful redwards these boys don't like being pressed. They get testy!


 
We commonly refer to them as fire ants.



> Farmasis,
> 
> work through Hebrews 4, if one house and Moses was a servant in the same one Jesus is head over and the same one the Hebrews were in, then it existed before Jesus said those words out of Matt. But I don't think the passages warrants the assumption that in order to build nothing exists. Quite the opposite, to build you start with a foundation.
> 
> 
> You see, the christian church wasn't just beginning it already had a secure and solid foundation for the Apostles to build on.


 
I don't see Moses in Hebrews 4. Can you check your reference?
No doubt Jesus is the foundation and has always been. But, the Christian church seems to have started at Pentecost. If I build my house on a rock and the rock is my foundation, is my house as old as the rock?



> Here is another key verse
> 
> Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
> 
> One thing is for sure the gates of hades will not prevail...........the church continue her march triumphantly with Christ as her only head.
> 
> Another great verse from Paul
> 
> Ephesians 1:18-23 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.


 
In Acts 2 Jesus fulfills his promise of both sending the comforter and raising Peter us to start his church. The first Christiuan church is built on the new covenant. See Hebrews 8

 1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. 

 3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."<SUP>[a]</SUP> 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. 
 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said<SUP>[b]</SUP>: 
   "The time is coming, declares the Lord, 
      when I will make a new covenant 
   with the house of Israel 
      and with the house of Judah. 
 9It will not be like the covenant 
      I made with their forefathers 
   when I took them by the hand 
      to lead them out of Egypt, 
   because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, 
      and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 
 10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel 
      after that time, declares the Lord. 
   I will put my laws in their minds 
      and write them on their hearts. 
   I will be their God, 
      and they will be my people. 
 11No longer will a man teach his neighbor, 
      or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' 
   because they will all know me, 
      from the least of them to the greatest. 
 12For I will forgive their wickedness 
      and will remember their sins no more."<SUP>[c]</SUP>  13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.



> Rules for interpretation- the bible never contradicts itself and is its own infallible interpreter. The bible interprets itself (ok I can't resist it ---not tradition); scripture with scripture; the clearer sections brings light to the less clear texts.


 
Yes, but the less clearer text do not contradict the more clear. The less clear requires more interpretation, and if something you believe is contrary to the clear, go back and start over. 
Christ says I will build my church on Peter. So his church (The Christian church) started with Peter on Petecost. If the Christian church has always been, then Jews are in the Christian church? How can they be in the church of the one they do not believe has come?


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> What da' heck is a zion presbyterian?
> 
> Vintage 2002?
> 
> Another SPLIT. (statement)
> 
> or another SPLIT? (question)
> 
> GIVE ME A BREAK!!
> 
> Do you even know who or what you are?


 
C'mon Big 7. That is not fair. He is a Christian despite what brand of Christianity he believes and what date it branched.


----------



## Big7

farmasis said:


> C'mon Big 7. That is not fair. He is a Christian despite what brand of Christianity he believes and what date it branched.



SPLITS ARE BAD!


----------



## farmasis

Big7 said:


> SPLITS ARE BAD!


 
Not all of them.


----------



## Ronnie T

Nope, you got to go way back in the back room and look under the bed to try and put the Christian church's origin prior to the Acts 2 outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, and Peter's sermon.  It just doesn't fit.


----------



## rjcruiser

Dick Winters said:


> Here's the deal...in A.D.50 you couldn't look something up in the Bible. There wasn't one! It didn't exist! There were no "Bible Believin' Churches" cause there wasn't a Bible!



Then why in Acts 17:11 does it say that the Bereans studied the scripture daily?  They had written manuscripts...also called letters (ie, the books of the NT)




Dick Winters said:


> I can tell you this, the philosophy is pretty good, though. I do anything my mama asks of me if it hairlips the Pope! (just kidding, didn't mean to kick the antpile) My own kids even know to ask my wife to ask me things they know I probably won't allow. They know the odds are better if she asks me.
> DW



There are a lot of differences between you and God.  First, God is omniscient.  He knows what are requests are going to be before we even offer them up.  So why pray to Mary?  She can give no information to God that God doesn't already know.  God is perfect.  He is not swayed by public opinion or the sweet smile of his servant Mary.  He has layed out what He will do from before the foundations of the Earth.  Prayer to Mary is futile and pointless.  

Also, Jesus gives us an example of what prayer should be like.  It goes something like this...Matt 6:7ff

And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. 

 8"So do not be like them; for (K)your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. 

 9"(L)Pray, then, in this way:
         'Our Father who is in heaven,
         Hallowed be Your name. 
    10'(M)Your kingdom come 
         (N)Your will be done,
         On earth as it is in heaven. 
    11'(O)Give us this day our daily bread. 
    12'And (P)forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 
    13'And do not lead us into temptation, but (Q)deliver us from (R)evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]'

It doesn't start....Dear Mary....


----------



## reformedpastor

farmasis, 

Sorry about the text its hebrews 3. 

Just a comment on the catholic interpretation of matthew 16; which is suspect. Why would Jesus give Peter all of this authority? Not doubt it His prerogative to give but if Jesus was going to give all authority to anybody it seems it would have John. One reason is John lived almost another 30 years longer than Peter. This seems important to a fledgling church. Peter was martyred in the mid 60's. 

It just makes more since with the whole scripture that when Jesus was talking to Peter He was talking to the rest as well. 

Ephesians 2:20-22  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,  21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,  22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. 


Why doesn't Paul say Apostle instead of Apostles why the plural number here? Paul was taught by Christ himself- surly Christ would have told Paul that Peter was the man the pope my church is built on him. You think? 

Where does it say or imply the Christian church is built on the new covenant in hebrews 8?


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> So, the question still begs: Where did the Bible come from.
> 
> Dance all around it if you want to. The books of the Bible were Canoned by the Catholic Church. That is da' fact!
> 
> That came from The Oral traditions of The Catholic Church.



Big7...since you seem to keep bringing this up and keep asking the same question over and over again...and it has been answered several times (I believe DBBB posted a nice article on it earlier) I'll further expand on his post.

The books of the Bible did not come from Oral traditions.  The OT came from the Jews...but I don't think that is your issue.  The NT, which you say came from Oral Traditions couldn't be further from the truth.  Every book of the NT was written down by the author...most by Paul as letters to the churches abroad.  So, the NT came from these letters.  They were a collection of letters written by the apostles.  Apostles are those that saw Christ after the resurrection.  Not someone who saw Peter, who knew so and so and knew so and so and knew so and so.

The OT & NT was agreed upon early on in the life of the Church.  The Vulgate (from my understanding and please correct me if I'm wrong) is very close to the Bible we have today (other than the apocrypha) and that wasn't stuck in there until the mid-1500s.  

The question really is...how do you put the thoughts and teachings of man, that don't agree with the Word of God (Oral traditions) as more important or atleast on the same level as the Inspired Word of God?  Do you not hold to the fact that God's written Word has to be more important and infallible compared to thoughts and traditions that were conceived by mankind?


----------



## PJason

Israel said:


> Might as well cut to the chase, anyway.
> 
> The Church teaches that “In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life.
> 
> The Council of Trent declared: No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin.
> 
> Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: of the Virgin Mother of God, that: “she was immune from all sin, personal or inherited” (pg. 203 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott).
> 
> Mary’s sinlessness is rooted in Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace”. ..” Moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of grace.”
> 
> And:
> 
> Like any divinely-revealed mystery, the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother body and soul into Heaven “keeps on giving”—one can’t exhaust this magnificent truth of the Faith.
> 
> The essence of the Church’s teaching, which was solemnly defined as a dogma of the Catholic Faith on November 1, 1950 by the Servant of God Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), is thus: at the end of her earthly life, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God, who had never been tainted with Original Sin, was assumed by the Almighty body and soul into Paradise.
> 
> Our Blessed Lady is now in Heaven, where she prays for us to her Divine Son Jesus and awaits our triumphant entry into the unceasing Kingdom—the “New Jerusalem” for which each of us rightly pines.
> 
> The Assumption reminds us how close Mary was—and remains—to Jesus. She completely submitted her will to the Divine Plan. The Lord God raised this obedient woman on high, granting her a fitting place next to Christ. It was appropriate that as Our Lady continually cooperated with Jesus on earth, she should now be close to Him in Paradise, thereby inheriting the prize promised by her Son: Everlasting Life in the presence of the Most Blessed Trinity. As Christ was victorious over Satan, so was His Holy Mother.
> 
> 
> I love my sister Mary, she is an excellent example of the faith, but she needed to be saved from her sins as did every other faithful disciple.
> She is not my mother, nor is she the queen of heaven...indeed she will return in glorious splendor with the Lord to see his vengeance upon those who have sought to pervert her piety.
> She waited with the brethren in the upper room and was delightfully filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
> The Lord is sure with Mary, and I am blessed that her Lord is my Lord, too.




Is Christ a King in the line of David?


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> Where we are every commanded, given an Apostolic example, or where can it be logically deduced from scripture to pray to the dead?




Can you be in Christ and die?


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> DW
> 
> Not true the Apostles had the complete old testament which was more than sufficient. What do you think the Berean christians in Acts used to examine the preaching of Paul? The OT.
> 
> The Catholic Church does not pre---date scripture. They will love that statement.



Actually you are right. The Catholic Church does not pre-date the OT. It does however pre-date the NT.


----------



## PJason

rjcruiser said:


> Then why in Acts 17:11 does it say that the Bereans studied the scripture daily?  They had written manuscripts...also called letters (ie, the books of the NT)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of differences between you and God.  First, God is omniscient.  He knows what are requests are going to be before we even offer them up.  So why pray to Mary?  She can give no information to God that God doesn't already know.  God is perfect.  He is not swayed by public opinion or the sweet smile of his servant Mary.  He has layed out what He will do from before the foundations of the Earth.  Prayer to Mary is futile and pointless.
> 
> Also, Jesus gives us an example of what prayer should be like.  It goes something like this...Matt 6:7ff
> 
> And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.
> 
> 8"So do not be like them; for (K)your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
> 
> 9"(L)Pray, then, in this way:
> 'Our Father who is in heaven,
> Hallowed be Your name.
> 10'(M)Your kingdom come
> (N)Your will be done,
> On earth as it is in heaven.
> 11'(O)Give us this day our daily bread.
> 12'And (P)forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
> 13'And do not lead us into temptation, but (Q)deliver us from (R)evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]'
> 
> It doesn't start....Dear Mary....




So this is the only prayer you ever say?

Since according to you praying for each other is futile then how do you explain this?



> 1 Timothy 2:1f
> First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
> for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior


----------



## PJason

It is clear throughout the New Testament that St. Peter is the leader of the Apostles. Search your Bibles you will find St. Peter listed first among the Apostles save for two times. 

As for Matthew 16:18f go back and reread Isaiah, look at the words Christ used when addressing St. Peter and look at the words God used to address Eli'akim. 

Explain to me why Chirst would parrallel the two?


----------



## Israel

Saint Jason, I am not sure I agree with your assessment of Peter as the leader of the apostles. In truth the only "leader" of the apostles is the Lord himself...
I believe we can all find the scripture where Paul corrected Peter for his fear of the jews and addressed him before all. See Galatians. 
That does not diminish Peter, nor exalt Paul...but I believe there is no evidence that Peter had any preeminence.
To begin to set up a structure that mimics the world is not at all in the Lord's plan...A CEO with a bunch of underlings of varying degree beneath is a false representation. 
Every disciple knows who the head of the church is...and he is not in Rome, unless by extension Rome is included in his omnipresence. 
I understand the difficulty one has in letting go of things close to the heart.
So I tell you this not in derision, not in malice, and not in hopes of bringing evil upon anyone. But you will have to discern this for yourself.
Any man, other than Jesus Christ the Lord, who claims to be head of the church...is both a liar and antichrist.
Jesus needs no one to be his Vicarious (Vicar) presence, he is truly here and alive in the spirit, moving in and speaking through every member that is submitted to his Lordship.


----------



## PJason

Pope Israel 


Seeing that you are your own infallible interpreter of scripture or at least the scripture you care to acknowledge.

Could you please explain to me why Christ using words from Isaiah would parallel St. Peter to Eli'akim?


----------



## redwards

reformedpastor said:


> Careful redwards these boys don't like being pressed. They get testy!.....


 
reformedpastor,
Trust me, I am not upset by any of their testiness! 
I go wa-a-a-ay back, before any of them ever even came onto this scene!
Anyway, I'm just pointing out scripture to them. And they still have not answered my question.
Which still remains....Why such a prayer when scripture does not call for it? 


PJason said:


> Well in the scriptures we are told to pray for each other. When we ask someone to pray for us we ask them to intercede for us. Prayer is also a request or asking for something. In this prayer we are asking (praying) for Mary to intercede for us.
> 
> I do not know how much more simple it could be.


 

The problem, PJason, is that the prayer was set as a requirement to receive the Plenary Indulgence (you know, you defined what an indulgence is for me in another post, by the way, I'm still waiting on the answers to all my other questions about the indulgence which you promised me in our PM's to each other) from the Pope. Just look at the statements in the Indulgence which I show as red. If that is not the case then please correct the error in my thinking.

I will simply agree to disagree with you, dawg2, and Big7, and scripture backs me up. 

It is only TO and THROUGH the name of The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit that our prayers should be made to God . It is through Jesus Christ that sins are remitted, and Him alone.
The Holy Spirit is our Intercessor, not Mary, the mother of Jesus, although I recognize the import of her role in history!

and dawg2, 
p-l-e-a-s-e, give me a break, you have used that head covering thing until the covering is worn out!


----------



## reformedpastor

*Clear As Mud*



PJason said:


> It is clear throughout the New Testament that St. Peter is the leader of the Apostles. Search your Bibles you will find St. Peter listed first among the Apostles save for two times.
> 
> As for Matthew 16:18f go back and reread Isaiah, look at the words Christ used when addressing St. Peter and look at the words God used to address Eli'akim.
> 
> Explain to me why Chirst would parrallel the two?



CLEAR----------is it really?????????????? 

HEY- somebody bring me the READ BETWEEN THE LINES THING- then I'll find it, I'm sure of it.

No dirty words PLEASE! This thing is moderated.


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> CLEAR----------is it really??????????????
> 
> HEY- somebody bring me the READ BETWEEN THE LINES THING- then I'll find it, I'm sure of it.
> 
> No dirty words PLEASE! This thing is moderated.



Would you like me to give you the verses for everytime the New Testament says Peter and the Apostles? Or maybe the 155 times St. Peter is mentioned as opposed to combined 130 times for all the other Apostles.


----------



## reformedpastor

We read the bible by stats NOW! How many times is the name Trinity listed? 

Need more than this.


----------



## PJason

reformedpastor said:


> We read the bible by stats NOW! How many times is the name Trinity listed?
> 
> Need more than this.



Ah I see Tradition when it fits your purpose.

So the cry of show me that in the Bible is a farce?


----------



## farmasis

reformedpastor said:


> farmasis,
> 
> Sorry about the text its hebrews 3.
> 
> Just a comment on the catholic interpretation of matthew 16; which is suspect. Why would Jesus give Peter all of this authority?


Because he chose him to start his church.
Why do you think Jesus asked Peter 3 times to feed his lambs and take care of his sheep?



> Not doubt it His prerogative to give but if Jesus was going to give all authority to anybody it seems it would have John. One reason is John lived almost another 30 years longer than Peter. This seems important to a fledgling church. Peter was martyred in the mid 60's.


 
Well, he didn't. Why did God ask Moses to lead his people out? Because he did.



> It just makes more since with the whole scripture that when Jesus was talking to Peter He was talking to the rest as well.


 
Are you denying Jesus was talking directly with Peter here?

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 

 16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,<SUP>[b]</SUP> the Son of the living God."  17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,<SUP>[c]</SUP> and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades<SUP>[d]</SUP> will not overcome it.<SUP>[e]</SUP> 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be<SUP>[f]</SUP> bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be<SUP>[g]</SUP> loosed in heaven." (Matt 16)



> Ephesians 2:20-22 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
> 
> Why doesn't Paul say Apostle instead of Apostles why the plural number here? Paul was taught by Christ himself- surly Christ would have told Paul that Peter was the man the pope my church is built on him. You think?


 
All of the apostles were very important for the establishment of the church. What is your point? I think Jesus made Peter the leader of the church based on scripture. Why does that seem to upset you? What do you think gives more authority, a direct quote from Jesus or from an apostle?



> Where does it say or imply the Christian church is built on the new covenant in hebrews 8?


 
You are serious? The church is a direct result of the new covenant. It is why it was established. Without the new covenant why would we need a new church? The new covenant is the new church.

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9)


----------



## Big7

Good Post!


----------



## Ronnie T

dawg2 said:


> Keep reading, says her HEAD SHOULD BE COVERED



The womans head should be covered.  If properly done, by her long hair.  But, if her head is shaved (as was the custom of many 'loose' women in Corinth) in had to be artificially covered.


----------



## crackerdave

I'm ashamed to know that  a lot of un-churched people are probably - no,surely - reading this petty bickering and thinking to themselves  "These are CHRISTIANS????"


----------



## Israel

Jason, although I am not a pope, I trust you are called by God to be a saint. 

Revelation 3: 7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

It is not speaking of any mortal man there, Jason.

The word of God is not without power, continue to watch if you must, but the Roman religion will soon be manifest for what it is...and it is not the bride of Christ.


----------



## Ronnie T

dawg2 said:


> try again....



Dawg you've already distorted a large portion of the scripture, now you seem intent to distort another in order to remove yourself from the discussion.
Not going to happen.
Believe me brother, you are not an expert in analysing and properly using the Holy Scripture.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> The womans head should be covered. If properly done, by her long hair. But, if her head is shaved (as was the custom of many 'loose' women in Corinth) in had to be artificially covered.


 
I don't know why this is a big issue, but also consider the societal norms of the days. It was considered proper for a woman to cover her head in submission to men. Those that removed their covering was rebelious to that submission. Today, that is not a societal norm and is not used for submission in our culture.


----------



## crackerdave

farmasis said:


> I don't know why this is a big issue, but also consider the societal norms of the days. It was considered proper for a woman to cover her head in submission to men. Those that removed their covering was rebelious to that submission. Today, that is not a societal norm and is not used for submission in our culture.



There IS no submission in our culture!


----------



## Israel

rangerdave said:


> There IS no submission in our culture!



Yes Dave...these are the days spoken of...rebellion is everywhere and glorified...and because it is so normal for the world, we must be careful not to take that attitude with the Lord...we may think that _compared_ to the rest of what we see we're not doing too badly...but the Lord, gracious as he is, calls for submission, not "relative" obedience...it is only in following him we are saved...indeed it has now gotten to the point where even a discussion of obedience brings accusations of "works"...even if one does not get specific, few care to even admit the "concept" of obedience to the spirit is necessary for salvation. 
The workers of iniquity do many "wonderful" things...but Jesus says...I don't know you.


----------



## reformedpastor

Guy's 

I agree, but there is hardly submission in the church. 

The culture is what it is because the church is what it is. IT STARTS with the church.

you preach doom and gloom and you get doom and gloom. How many churches hold to literal 6 day creation? If you compromise here you open pandora's box to compromise else where. 

Forsaking this one doctrine has allowed evolutionary ideas to seep into many pulpits. 

What about God's grace in Christ Jesus reforming culture? The gospel transforms people, families, churches, states----cultures.

Matthew 5:13-18  13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.  14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;  15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.  17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.  18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.


----------



## Big7

Ronnie T said:


> Dawg you've already distorted a large portion of the scripture, now you seem intent to distort another in order to remove yourself from the discussion.
> Not going to happen.
> Believe me brother, you are not an expert in analysing and properly using the Holy Scripture.



You are?


----------



## Big7

rangerdave said:


> I'm ashamed to know that  a lot of un-churched people are probably - no,surely - reading this petty bickering and thinking to themselves  "These are CHRISTIANS????"



rangerdave - Hit that right on top of the head.
WITH A BIG HAMMER!


----------



## Gentleman4561

I firmly believe you don't have to be baptized to go to heaven.  The way you get to heaven is by having a personal relations ship with Jesus Christ.  It dosent matter if you pray alot or get baptized.  What matters is that you accept him into your heart,


----------



## coreyhopper22

well in my own beliefs i dont think you have to be just to go to heaven i feel if you live a good live and dont do to much harm it shouldnt matter! Mabey its just all the church people around here and again not trying to affend anyone but just cause i have 42 tattoos and 7 piercings im a bad person but belive me ive seen alot of the church folks that talk about me do worse than i ever would! I know not everyone is perfect and you cant do the best all the time but like i said i belive if you do wrong and learn your lesson and try to do better thats all that matters


----------



## PWalls

coreyhopper22 said:


> well in my own beliefs i dont think you have to be just to go to heaven i feel if you live a good live and dont do to much harm it shouldnt matter! Mabey its just all the church people around here and again not trying to affend anyone but just cause i have 42 tattoos and 7 piercings im a bad person but belive me ive seen alot of the church folks that talk about me do worse than i ever would! I know not everyone is perfect and you cant do the best all the time but like i said i belive if you do wrong and learn your lesson and try to do better thats all that matters



I respect your belief and recognize that a large portion of soceity believes the same way. However, I would like to respectfully point out that you can never, ever, ever be "good" enough to get to Heaven.


----------



## coreyhopper22

All im saying is i think we go where we are supposed to go reguardless of your beliefs! Not pointing you out or trying to offend anyone but the ones who go to church are no better than the ones who dont! I choose not to go cause i know all i need to about it i just dont see the point in going every sunday and wed. talking about the same thing again and again i know since the first bible its been rewritten time and time again with things lost and added so who knows whats the real thing and again im not trying to tell anyone there wrong, i may be but when its my time i shall see whos right and whos wrong! Im not trying to make anyone mad or start a big debate the forum was just posted so i put in my belief so for anyone who belives different more power to you


----------



## crackerdave

Corey,I understand how you feel and why you feel that way.A LOT of people feel the same way,especially those who have seen church members doing wrong.Just remember,though - "church people" are human,just like every other human and we do make mistakes.

It doesn't matter how good a person we are,we will never be good enough to stand in front of THE Judge and say "I'm good."That judgement will come to each and every one of us,as sure as death.We have a "public defender," though,and His name is Jesus.No charge!


----------



## 60Grit

We still hashing this one out???


----------



## coreyhopper22

I agree Ranger Dave


----------



## crackerdave

60Grit said:


> We still hashing this one out???



Yeah,but you don't hafta play,if you don't wanna!


----------



## jesuslives31548

without boring everyone with a half page of my thoughts, I simple say no its an outward expression of faith.... But I feel its very important..


----------



## beginnersluck

Lowjack said:


> Who baptized the thief on the cross ?



Before the new covenant...wasn't covered yet by the blood of Jesus.


----------



## NorthGa.Sportsman

Lead Poison said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Salvation does not require one to be baptized. However, I believe those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior should be baptized, as it is a public profession of faith in Jesus.


Amen to that.Also I thank my Lord and Savior for eternal security.There are alot of people who do not fully understand God's grace and mercy.


----------



## Big7

redwards said:


> rjcruiser,
> If you will pardon me for being  of your thread title (for it does seem this thread has meandered a bit), I would like to ask a question of some of our Catholic members that relates (at least to me) to some of the confusion, disagreement, etc. between Protestants and Catholics.
> 
> dawg2, Big7, PJason,
> This Plenary Indulgence continues to bug me.
> 
> 
> Would this be the type of prayer the Pope's decree is asking the 'faithful' to repeat?
> 
> 
> source website...
> http://www.lourdes2008.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=63
> 
> What I just don't get is this.
> In 1 John 2: 1-2 we read this...
> <DD>.....now if we have an "Advocate" with the Father, and that "Advocate" is Jesus Christ, who is in the person of The Holy Spirit, our Intercessor, then why is it necessary to pray to the Virgin Mary as is indicated in the prayer quoted above?
> 
> 
> 
> </DD>



No different than if you "pray' for your Grandmother
Great Grand etc... THAT HAS DECEASED to help you out in getting
prayer on the fast track. Don't know how old you
are - surely you ask help from above (besides, and along with Christ)
to help or intervene for you at some point in your life???

That is called The Veneration of Saints - no you don't have to die 
Catholic to be a Saint!  People before you are Saints! 

Would help in the Beatification process though!


----------



## hawglips

rjcruiser said:


> For those of you who believe this, I bring up the thief on the cross next to Christ.  He didn't turn from his sin until moments before his death.  He wasn't baptized, yet Christ says to him that they will see eachother in paradise (Heaven).



How do you know the thief's background, and whether he was or was not baptized?

And you are putting words in Christ's mouth.  He didn't say "heaven."  He said "paradise."


----------



## redwards

Big7 said:


> No different than if you "pray' for your Grandmother
> Great Grand etc... THAT HAS DECEASED to help you out in getting
> prayer on the fast track. Don't know how old you
> are - surely you ask help from above (besides, and along with Christ)
> to help or intervene for you at some point in your life???
> 
> That is called The Veneration of Saints - no you don't have to die
> Catholic to be a Saint! People before you are Saints!
> 
> Would help in the Beatification process though!


I'm 65 yrs old
But isn't it a bit different to "pray for" someone than to "pray to" someone?
And I refer you back to my post which you only posted part of...
Who is our "Advocate" in heaven?
Not arguing...just pointing out the difference in my belief versus yours.


----------



## Ronnie T

hawglips said:


> How do you know the thief's background, and whether he was or was not baptized?
> 
> And you are putting words in Christ's mouth.  He didn't say "heaven."  He said "paradise."



I don't care what the circumstances were for the thief on the cross.  It has no business being in a conversation about Jesus commanding His apostles to go into the world and teach His Gospel and Baptize those who believe.  Over and over and over and over the apostles saw to it that believers were baptized.  That's what any conscientious follower of Jesus Christ would do.
How can an educated teacher of the Gospel ignore it when it was such an important part of the establishment of the church and Christianity.


----------



## Ronnie T

redwards said:


> I'm 65 yrs old
> But isn't it a bit different to "pray for" someone than to "pray to" someone?
> And I refer you back to my post which you only posted part of...
> Who is our "Advocate" in heaven?
> Not arguing...just pointing out the difference in my belief versus yours.




It isn't a matter of what your beliefs are or his beliefs are or my beliefs.  The Bible says to baptize believers.  Don't have to be a scholar to read and see that.


----------



## mtnwoman

I do think people should be baptized because Jesus ask us to. But I don't think it's a requirement to enter into heaven.
In my opinion Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that's all we have to believe.
Should we do other things we are ask to do or not to do, of course.....but if it takes baptism to get us into heaven then Christ didn't do it ALL on the cross.


----------



## mtnwoman

As far as intercessary prayer.....

Romans 8:26-27 (King James Version)


 26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 

 27And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

When we don't even have the words to pray, because we are too devasted, or too overwhelmed or simply don't even know what to ask God to do. The HS searches our heart and intercedes for us. And personally that's all I need. And He knows the heart of the person we are praying for, too....and intercedes for us and them.


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> I do think people should be baptized because Jesus ask us to. But I don't think it's a requirement to enter into heaven.
> In my opinion Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that's all we have to believe.
> Should we do other things we are ask to do or not to do, of course.....but if it takes baptism to get us into heaven then Christ didn't do it ALL on the cross.



Just to correct you a little bit.  Jesus did not ask us to be baptized.  Jesus COMMANDED that believers be baptized.
And where in the Bible did it say that it all ended on the cross.  I'm going to start a thread on this in the near future.  I got to try to teach you bunch of denominationalist.    (kidding)


----------



## gtparts

Ronnie T said:


> Just to correct you a little bit.  Jesus did not ask us to be baptized.  Jesus COMMANDED that believers be baptized.
> And where in the Bible did it say that it all ended on the cross.  I'm going to start a thread on this in the near future.  I got to try to teach you bunch of denominationalist.    (kidding)



"Eli Eli lama sabachthani ......ta telesti"


----------



## Ronnie T

gtparts said:


> "Eli Eli lama sabachthani ......ta telesti"




Here's something else Jesus said:
"Not all who say unto Me Lord Lord will enter into the kingdom, but he who does the will of My father."


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> Just to correct you a little bit.  Jesus did not ask us to be baptized.  Jesus COMMANDED that believers be baptized.
> And where in the Bible did it say that it all ended on the cross.  I'm going to start a thread on this in the near future.  I got to try to teach you bunch of denominationalist.    (kidding)



Jesus commanded us to do a lot of things Ronnie.  The NT is littered with commandments that Jesus gave us. 

Does salvation hinge on every single one of them?

Of course he commanded us to be baptized.  But it's a pretty far step to take when you move on with that and infer that he required baptism to complete the work of salvation.


----------



## hawglips

Ronnie T said:


> Over and over and over and over the apostles saw to it that believers were baptized.  That's what any conscientious follower of Jesus Christ would do.
> How can an educated teacher of the Gospel ignore it when it was such an important part of the establishment of the church and Christianity.



I agree, 100%.


----------



## hawglips

Huntinfool said:


> Of course he commanded us to be baptized.  But it's a pretty far step to take when you move on with that and infer that he required baptism to complete the work of salvation.



I don't see any inference whatsoever.

Peter taught that baptism was for the remission of sins, and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Paul taught that baptism was necessary to wash away our sins and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Jesus taught a man must be born of water and of the spirit to enter into the kingdom of God.  He also said that he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.

It seems very clear to me.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Jesus commanded us to do a lot of things Ronnie.  The NT is littered with commandments that Jesus gave us.
> 
> Does salvation hinge on every single one of them?
> 
> Of course he commanded us to be baptized.  But it's a pretty far step to take when you move on with that and infer that he required baptism to complete the work of salvation.



It wasn't a far step for the apostles in Acts 2:38.  Why shouldn't I ask all believers to do the same?  I don't even have to analize it.  I just follow the simple guide of the New Testament.  Those folks in Acts 2 weren't sent on their way without it nor were they given an option.

Why not do it the Bible way?


----------



## Ronnie T

If a couple were marooned on an island, and one day a copy of the New Testament washed up onto the shore.  If they read that Bible alone, without any input from another human being, there isn't a doubt in my mind that upon believing, they would baptize each other.
Yet, preachers today are instilling in their listeners that it is not necessary.


----------



## preacher

Baptism is extremely important seeing as how it's the first act of obedience AFTER someone is saved, but it's not a Biblical requirement for salvation and admission into Heaven.  We have no record of the thief on the cross ever being baptized, but Jesus told him that he would be in Paradise with Him that very day.  I understand that Paradise was not the same place as Heaven, but it's a good indicator of whether or not baptism is a requirement for entrance into Heaven.  Also, there were many O.T. saints that ascended into Heaven with Christ according to Ephesians chapter 4, and we have no evidence that they were ever baptized.  As for being born of water and spirit, the Bible is simply talking about the fact that a person must be born twice to be saved.  One must have a natural birth (water) and a spiritual birth.


----------



## ALLBEEF

From reading some of the other post - I think alot of the people that have posted here only want to do only what is convenient - not what is commanded. 

Good post Ronnie!


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Jesus commanded us to do a lot of things Ronnie.  The NT is littered with commandments that Jesus gave us.
> 
> Does salvation hinge on every single one of them?
> 
> Of course he commanded us to be baptized.  But it's a pretty far step to take when you move on with that and infer that he required baptism to complete the work of salvation.



Being baptized did not and does not fall in the same category as loving each other, or helping the needy.  Baptism was clearly a part of the salvation experience of the early church.  It was clearly connected to a person believing in Jesus as the Christ.
Philip told the man in the desert,  "If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, then you can be baptized."

Jesus said:  "Those who BELIEVE and ARE baptized shall be saved."  Those who do not believe cannot.   If they didn't believe, wouldn't have been baptized in the first place.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> If a couple were marooned on an island, and one day a copy of the New Testament washed up onto the shore.  If they read that Bible alone, without any input from another human being, there isn't a doubt in my mind that upon believing, they would baptize each other.
> Yet, preachers today are instilling in their listeners that it is not necessary.



Not "not necessary"....just not required for salvation to occur.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> Baptism was clearly a part of the salvation *experience* of the early church.  It was clearly connected to a person believing in Jesus as the Christ.
> Philip told the man in the desert,  "If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, then you can be baptized.".



Note the bold.  "Salvation Experience".  Yes, it is part of the salvation experience.  But it is not a requirement of salvation.

It is an outward expression of an inward event that has already occurred.  

What happens if I ask Christ into my life but am not able to be baptized for several months or years after that for whatever reason.  Am I not saved until the baptism occurs?  That's just silly.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> If a couple were marooned on an island, and one day a copy of the New Testament washed up onto the shore.  If they read that Bible alone, without any input from another human being, there isn't a doubt in my mind that upon believing, they would baptize each other.
> Yet, preachers today are instilling in their listeners that it is not necessary.



So if a couple were lost in the desert and came across a Bible buried in the sand?....

...would they read that as "there is no way we can be saved.  Man that really stinks!"?

Come on guys.


----------



## preacher

Well said Huntinfool.


----------



## Ronnie T

No Huntinfool, they can baptize each other.  But they aren't going to be able to listen to a sermon on Sunday morning.


----------



## Ronnie T

preacher said:


> Well said Huntinfool.





Don't tell me, you're a preacher who ignores Jesus' command to baptize believers?  You and me both better do it the way Jesus instructed his disciples to do it.


----------



## Huntinfool

Everybody is in favor of baptism and, as Preacher stated, it is your first act of obedience after salvation.  We must obey Jesus' commandments.  That is very clear.  

Nobody is saying you don't need to be baptized.  But it's the REASON for baptism.  It's an act of obedience.  It is NOT, however, required for salvation to occur nor (as the thread asks) is it required for entry into heaven.

It is a matter of the heart.  God will not refuse salvation based on the availability of water.

And there can be no exceptions in salvation.  If it is required for one, then it is required for all.  Are those people just simply out of luck?


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> No Huntinfool, they can baptize each other.  But they aren't going to be able to listen to a sermon on Sunday morning.



How do they baptize each other if there is no water....spit on each other...pee?  They are in the desert!!!!

That's a new way to do it.  I'll give ya that one.

Based on the 550+ responses to this thread, I'll just say we disagree.  I don't think that baptism is required for salvation.  You do.  Neither one of us is in danger, let's put it that way.  I've been baptized in every manner possible (except, of course for the two I listed above!).


----------



## Ronnie T

preacher said:


> Baptism is extremely important seeing as how it's the first act of obedience AFTER someone is saved, but it's not a Biblical requirement for salvation and admission into Heaven.  We have no record of the thief on the cross ever being baptized, but Jesus told him that he would be in Paradise with Him that very day.  I understand that Paradise was not the same place as Heaven, but it's a good indicator of whether or not baptism is a requirement for entrance into Heaven.  Also, there were many O.T. saints that ascended into Heaven with Christ according to Ephesians chapter 4, and we have no evidence that they were ever baptized.  As for being born of water and spirit, the Bible is simply talking about the fact that a person must be born twice to be saved.  One must have a natural birth (water) and a spiritual birth.



Preacher, you and I shouldn't be concerned about the thief.  New Testament baptism was instituted on day of Pentacost in Acts 2.  It DID NOT come AFTER they were saved.  It was part of the process.  It was always part of the process.  
We are saved by the blood of Jesus......... But baptism is part of the process of getting access to that blood.

"It is baptism that doeth now save us".


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Ronnie T said:


> Preacher, you and I shouldn't be concerned about the thief. New Testament baptism was instituted on day of Pentacost in Acts 2. It DID NOT come AFTER they were saved. It was part of the process. It was always part of the process.
> We are saved by the blood of Jesus......... But baptism is part of the process of getting access to that blood.
> 
> "It is baptism that doeth now save us".


 

So Ronnie T once someone comes before your church, you have them in the baptismal pool or the stream or the pond, just minutes even seconds afterward? What happens between the time they are Saved and the time of the Baptism?  If they were Saved on like Saturday Night late, from hearing the word through the radio of a tape/cd sermon that they happen to get... and show up at your church on Sunday morning and say they are saved... do you take them directly to the Baptism?? What if someone was to die in between the time he professed salvation in the time it took you to baptism him/her? I mean stranger things have happened...

DB BB


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

salvation is something that happens internally in our hearts and in our souls.  _there is no physical act we can ever commit that will save us_, including being baptized.

it is good to do and it is the will of God to be baptized in water, but it is nothing more than an outward profession of faith.  it is a sign to show others what Christ has done in your life, just as witnessing and sharing the gospel are.


----------



## farmasis

Huntinfool said:


> Not "not necessary"....just not required for salvation to occur.


 
It is a command just like the great commission. It is a command, we are to do it, but it occurs after salvation and not a part of it.


----------



## redwards

Ronnie T said:


> It isn't a matter of what your beliefs are or his beliefs are or my beliefs....


I know that, and agree...to an extent... for as believers, we must be as certain as we can that what we as individuals believe agrees with God's Word, because His Word states that we will be held accountable for the ways of our teaching. Ref. Matt. 8:1-6


Ronnie T said:


> ...The Bible says to baptize believers. ...


I agree with you, and I believe in Baptism by immersion. 
I also believe that Baptism is an event in the process of God's plan of Salvation, an event which every TRUE BELIEVER should seek to follow Christ's example in.
But it is not the door which provides that Salvation.


Ronnie T said:


> ...Don't have to be a scholar to read and see that.


I agree with you in that statement, too.

I also know that my response to Big7 (the one which you quoted)was not relating to baptism. It was relating to a previous post in this thread which I had made some months ago. It had to do with a question which I had upon several occasions sought an answer to. 
It deals with 'indulgences'.
Ref. http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2381895&postcount=133

I don't know whether you have read every post in this thread or not, but just in case you missed the posts which I have contributed to this thread, here they are (in order from oldest to newest), including the one which you have quoted.
I was simply seeking, in my post yesterday to clarify to WHOM we as believers should 'pray to', as I disagree with my Catholic friends on this issue of prayer.

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2355866&postcount=89

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2463637&postcount=483

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2464740&postcount=507

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2902157&postcount=537


----------



## Ronnie T

Double Barrel BB said:


> So Ronnie T once someone comes before your church, you have them in the baptismal pool or the stream or the pond, just minutes even seconds afterward? What happens between the time they are Saved and the time of the Baptism?  If they were Saved on like Saturday Night late, from hearing the word through the radio of a tape/cd sermon that they happen to get... and show up at your church on Sunday morning and say they are saved... do you take them directly to the Baptism?? What if someone was to die in between the time he professed salvation in the time it took you to baptism him/her? I mean stranger things have happened...
> 
> DB BB




I have had people call me before breakfast wanting to know if I would baptize them before they went to work.  I baptized an 85 year old lady one evening at 8:30.  It was her idea.  It took 4 men to get her into the baptistry.  I have been called to people's homes on Saturday night because a youth devotional turned into a discussion about salvation.  So teens wanted to be baptized that night.  I baptized one of the young men, the other 4 were baptized by their fathers.  Yes, I think it's great for a father to baptize his children.  If they are Christians.
I'll tell you something else; I never feel more insignificant than while I'm baptizing someone.  It's God who does the work of baptism.

You bet, if you accept Jesus in front of me on Sunday morning, we gonna eat lunch late cause me and you gonna get wet.
If I don't tell you about baptism, me and you both are disobedient.  Especially me.


----------



## crackerdave

Ronnie T said:


> I have had people call me before breakfast wanting to know if I would baptize them before they went to work.  I baptized an 85 year old lady one evening at 8:30.  It was her idea.  It took 4 men to get her into the baptistry.  I have been called to people's homes on Saturday night because a youth devotional turned into a discussion about salvation.  So teens wanted to be baptized that night.  I baptized one of the young men, the other 4 were baptized by their fathers.  Yes, I think it's great for a father to baptize his children.  If they are Christians.
> I'll tell you something else; I never feel more insignificant than while I'm baptizing someone.  It's God who does the work of baptism.
> 
> You bet, if you accept Jesus in front of me on Sunday morning, we gonna eat lunch late cause me and you gonna get wet.
> If I don't tell you about baptism, me and you both are disobedient.  Especially me.



So - can I take this to mean you will come to Judgment Journey next year and help baptize the new believers? [A simple yes or no will be fine,thank you.]

There's talkin' the talk,then there's walkin' the walk,Brother.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> I have had people call me before breakfast wanting to know if I would baptize them before they went to work. I baptized an 85 year old lady one evening at 8:30. It was her idea. It took 4 men to get her into the baptistry. I have been called to people's homes on Saturday night because a youth devotional turned into a discussion about salvation. So teens wanted to be baptized that night. I baptized one of the young men, the other 4 were baptized by their fathers. Yes, I think it's great for a father to baptize his children. If they are Christians.
> I'll tell you something else; I never feel more insignificant than while I'm baptizing someone. It's God who does the work of baptism.
> 
> You bet, if you accept Jesus in front of me on Sunday morning, we gonna eat lunch late cause me and you gonna get wet.
> If I don't tell you about baptism, me and you both are disobedient. Especially me.


 
What if someone wanted to be baptized first (before accepting Christ).....would that matter? Is the order important?


----------



## gtparts

They'd be wet???


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> Just to correct you a little bit.  Jesus did not ask us to be baptized.  Jesus COMMANDED that believers be baptized.  *Ok so Jesus didn't do it ALL on the cross? He commanded us to do stuff that He knows we can't do? and that's mercy?*
> And where in the Bible did it say that it all ended on the cross.*you're kidding? eh?*  I'm going to start a thread on this in the near future.  I got to try to teach you bunch of denominationalist.    (kidding)



Yeah well I can take it...LOL


----------



## mtnwoman

Double Barrel BB said:


> So Ronnie T once someone comes before your church, you have them in the baptismal pool or the stream or the pond, just minutes even seconds afterward? What happens between the time they are Saved and the time of the Baptism?  If they were Saved on like Saturday Night late, from hearing the word through the radio of a tape/cd sermon that they happen to get... and show up at your church on Sunday morning and say they are saved... do you take them directly to the Baptism?? What if someone was to die in between the time he professed salvation in the time it took you to baptism him/her? I mean stranger things have happened...
> 
> DB BB



And what about people on their death bed?...3 floors from the indoor pool. So he goes to hades---- Oops...just by seconds.
What about the folks in9/11 that might of been last minute converts....oops I can't get into the babtismal so I'm dead...in Christ.


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> What if someone wanted to be baptized first (before accepting Christ).....would that matter? Is the order important?



In the Bible, baptism always came after believing.  The man in the desert asked if he could be baptized since water was ahead.  Philip replied:  "If you believe with all your heart, you can be baptized."


----------



## Ronnie T

rangerdave said:


> So - can I take this to mean you will come to Judgment Journey next year and help baptize the new believers? [A simple yes or no will be fine,thank you.]
> 
> There's talkin' the talk,then there's walkin' the walk,Brother.



It's a deal.  I'll even help gather others to help and assist in the baptisms.  You get me the details next year.  I'll pay my motel room.   But........ this runs for several nights doesn't this?  I don't think I can spend two weeks there.  But it can be worked out.  Can you imagine several hundred people being baptized into Christ in one night?


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> .  But it can be worked out.  Can you imagine several hundred people being baptized into Christ in one night?



Uh yeah, I can see it now!! 

It's all coming soon!


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> And what about people on their death bed?...3 floors from the indoor pool. So he goes to hades---- Oops...just by seconds.
> What about the folks in9/11 that might of been last minute converts....oops I can't get into the babtismal so I'm dead...in Christ.



This is normally the second question people ask me.  The 
1st question has to do with the thief on the cross.

Anyway, concerning the person who get's hit by a car on the way to get baptized.  In my heart, I believe Jesus Christ will save that person and be thrilled at this man's intent to be baptized unto the name of Christ Himself.
As for death-bed conversions, I'll leave those to Christ.  I couldn't say.

Let me also say this to you Mtnwoman.  About 5 years ago a young couple called me wanted to be baptized because her mother told her the world was getting horrible so she urged her daugher and young husband to find someone to baptize them so they'd go to heaven if they get shot or mugged or nuked.
I'll told her that baptism wasn't the magical key that provides entrance into heaven.  That she needed to accept Jesus as her Lord and Savior, that she needed to acknowledge Jesus as God's very own Son.  She needed to believe in Jesus as her Savior.  And she needed to want Christ in her life.................. She and her husband were never baptized.  They didn't want Christ, they wanted heaven.

Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,


Mtnwoman, have you been baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?

Goodnight


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> Mtnwoman, have you been baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
> 
> Goodnight



Yes at 12YO...but I drifted far like the prodical son/daughter. But our Lord says NOTHING will snatch you out of the palm of my hand...my testimony, even though it took  22 yrs..He knew where I was and left the 90 and 9, to come get me.


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> Matthew 28:19
> " Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
> 
> 
> Mtnwoman, have you been baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
> 
> Goodnight



Buried with Christ...and dunk... resurrected In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost....the Trinity


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Ronnie T said:


> I have had people call me before breakfast wanting to know if I would baptize them before they went to work. I baptized an 85 year old lady one evening at 8:30. It was her idea. It took 4 men to get her into the baptistry. I have been called to people's homes on Saturday night because a youth devotional turned into a discussion about salvation. So teens wanted to be baptized that night. I baptized one of the young men, the other 4 were baptized by their fathers. Yes, I think it's great for a father to baptize his children. If they are Christians.
> I'll tell you something else; I never feel more insignificant than while I'm baptizing someone. It's God who does the work of baptism.
> 
> You bet, if you accept Jesus in front of me on Sunday morning, we gonna eat lunch late cause me and you gonna get wet.
> If I don't tell you about baptism, me and you both are disobedient. Especially me.


 

So tell me this... What if a man/woman gets Saved... Walks infront of the church and you are in the process of taking them to the baptismal, when they drop dead of a massive heart attack... In your eyes is this person Saved?

DB BB


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> In the Bible, baptism always came after believing. The man in the desert asked if he could be baptized since water was ahead. Philip replied: "If you believe with all your heart, you can be baptized."


 

Yep, and grace from faith in believing for salvation. (Eph 2:8)
So, are they saved before they enter the pool and are being obedient- or is salvation a process?


----------



## Ronnie T

Double Barrel BB said:


> So tell me this... What if a man/woman gets Saved... Walks infront of the church and you are in the process of taking them to the baptismal, when they drop dead of a massive heart attack... In your eyes is this person Saved?
> 
> DB BB




Please see post #575


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> Anyway, concerning the person who get's hit by a car on the way to get baptized.  In my heart, I believe Jesus Christ will save that person and be thrilled at this man's intent to be baptized unto the name of Christ Himself.
> As for death-bed conversions, I'll leave those to Christ.  I couldn't say.



Do you not see the inconsistency in this statement?



If, as you claim, it is a step in salvation and is required for salvation to occur, then that person is NOT saved.  That's like saying that Christ would allow someone into heaven who had intended to accept Christ as his savior.  They are both parts of salvation, right?  So if you can bypass one, surely God would overlook the other, right?

I can see it now: God "Well, he was GOING to ask me into his heart.....come on in buddy!"


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Ronnie T said:


> This is normally the second question people ask me. The 1st question has to do with the thief on the cross.
> 
> Anyway, concerning the person who get's hit by a car on the way to get baptized. In my heart, I believe Jesus Christ will save that person and be thrilled at this man's intent to be baptized unto the name of Christ Himself.


 
So then in your belief it is not essential to Salvation to be Baptized... Just to have the intent of getting baptized?

Doesn't this prove that Baptism is not a determination of weather you go to Heaven or not?

I am not saying people should ignore/refuse Baptism, and I believe that a person who professes Salvation, but ignore/refuses to be baptized was probably never saved in the first place...

DB BB

Here are some quotes on Refusel of baptism by Spurgeon:



> I do not question the safety of the soul that has believed, but I do say again, I would not run the risk of the man who, having believed, refuses to be baptized.
> 
> I feel shocked when I hear people say, “But it is not essential to salvation.” Thou mean and beggarly spirit! Wilt thou do nothing but what is essential to thine own salvation? A Pharisee or a harlot might talk so. Is this thy love to Christ—that thou wilt not obey him, unless he shall pay thee for it? unless he shall make thy soul’s salvation depend upon it?
> 
> “Well,” says one, “I do not think that I shall confess Christ; the dying thief did not confess him, did he? He was not baptized.” No, but he was a dying thief, recollect; and if you are not baptized, I think that you will be a living thief; for you will rob God of his glory, you will rob his servant also of the comfort which he ought to receive.
> 
> I once met a man who had been forty years a Christian, and believed it to be his duty to be baptized; but when I spoke to him about it, he said, “He that believeth shall not make haste.” After forty years’ delay, he talked about not making haste. I quoted to him another passage: “I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandment,” and showed him what the meaning of his misapplied passage was.


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> Yep, and grace from faith in believing for salvation. (Eph 2:8)
> So, are they saved before they enter the pool and are being obedient- or is salvation a process?



Ain't that the truth!  Without God's grace I would have no need of this forum.  God's grace is everything.  I have known people who put their faith in their baptizm rather than God.  The older I get the more amazed I become at God's ability to Love and Forgive and Give.  
I have never considered baptism a work.  It isn't something I do to earn salvation.  It is an instrument of God.  I believe it is during baptism that we are clothed with Christ.  That's what Paul said in Romans 6.  Galatians 3:27 also.  "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."  It also seems to me that baptism is a moment of commitment.

As to your thoughts about the exact point of being saved, we could talk about that all day and maybe never totally agree.  But, no matter what, baptism should not be separated from what preceeds it.
In Acts 2 when Jews came to believe, they asked "what shall we do" Peter told them to Repent AND be baptized.  In Mark 16:16  "He who HAS believed and HAS been baptized will be saved."  Because of that I am forced, no, not forced, compelled to connect baptism to belief.
But it isn't the water...... it's the conscience, the willingness

I'm feeling especially thankful to God this morning.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Do you not see the inconsistency in this statement?
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, it is a step in salvation and is required for salvation to occur, then that person is NOT saved.  That's like saying that Christ would allow someone into heaven who had intended to accept Christ as his savior.  They are both parts of salvation, right?  So if you can bypass one, surely God would overlook the other, right?
> 
> I can see it now: God "Well, he was GOING to ask me into his heart.....come on in buddy!"




Hey, brother, don't jump on me for trying to answer your hypothetical question.  I couldn't tell you for sure how God would judge a person who dies on the way the baptism.  I know he struck down a man who touch the Ark.  I know a man named Ananias and his wife, Christians, were struck down because they lied about money given to the apostles.
I've never known anyone, anyone, who died on the way to get baptized.  I've never know anyone to get sick from getting into cold water in the winter time.

Huntinfool, have you been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?


----------



## hawglips

You cannot be saved without receiving a remission of sins.  Baptism is part of that.

Baptism in and of itself is useless.  But combined with faith and repentence, it is part of the God-ordained process necessary for eternal life.

Jesus' last words to his followers before ascending into heaven to sit at the right hand of God were, he who believes AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved.

It's an outward expression of an inward change of heart, but it is commanded of God, nonetheless.  I can't imagine a preacher teaching that it is something less than that.


----------



## hawglips

Huntinfool said:


> So if a couple were lost in the desert and came across a Bible buried in the sand?....
> 
> ...would they read that as "there is no way we can be saved.  Man that really stinks!"?
> 
> Come on guys.



The Lord has provided means to allow for eternal life for those who never had a chance to accept Christ and/or get baptized.


----------



## Ronnie T

Double Barrel BB said:


> So then in your belief it is not essential to Salvation to be Baptized... Just to have the intent of getting baptized?
> 
> Doesn't this prove that Baptism is not a determination of weather you go to Heaven or not?
> 
> I am not saying people should ignore/refuse Baptism, and I believe that a person who professes Salvation, but ignore/refuses to be baptized was probably never saved in the first place...
> 
> DB BB
> 
> Here are some quotes on Refusel of baptism by Spurgeon:




I disagree with Spurgeon in one area.  I believe with all my heart that if a person believes in God; believes in Jesus as the Son of God; yet he refuses to submit to New Testament baptism, that person will die and when he does, he will go to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.  The blood of Jesus will not save a person who refuses to submit to what God wants.  
I'm not talking about sin that we each fall to at various times in our lives because we are weak and selfcentered.  I'm talking about a person who refuses to do what Jesus Himself did.

Double Barrell BB have you been buried with Christ thru baptism into His death?  Roman 6:4


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> Huntinfool, have you been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?



Twice (sprinkled as a kid by my dad...a pastor.  Then dunked when we joined a church with baptist background.)

But you are avoiding the question.  If it is essential to salvation, then it is essential.


----------



## Huntinfool

hawglips said:


> The Lord has provided means to allow for eternal life for those who never had a chance to accept Christ and/or get baptized.



and what are those means?  If you are not saved until you are baptized.....


----------



## hawglips

Ronnie T said:


> The blood of Jesus will not save a person who refuses to submit to what God wants.



Amen.


----------



## Huntinfool

We're not discussing whether it's ok to refuse baptism.  We're discussing whether it's essential to salvation.  Those are two different things.


----------



## hawglips

Huntinfool said:


> and what are those means?  If you are not saved until you are baptized.....



I Pet. 3:19
I Cor. 15:29


----------



## hawglips

Huntinfool said:


> We're not discussing whether it's ok to refuse baptism.  We're discussing whether it's essential to salvation.  Those are two different things.



It is essential to eternal life.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Ronnie T said:


> I disagree with Spurgeon in one area. I believe with all my heart that if a person believes in God; believes in Jesus as the Son of God; yet he refuses to submit to New Testament baptism, that person will die and when he does, he will go to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. The blood of Jesus will not save a person who refuses to submit to what God wants.
> I'm not talking about sin that we each fall to at various times in our lives because we are weak and selfcentered. I'm talking about a person who refuses to do what Jesus Himself did.
> 
> Double Barrell BB have you been buried with Christ thru baptism into His death? Roman 6:4


 
Yes, I have been baptized!! And I believe that if a person is Saved, then they will follow that Salvation in Scriptual Baptism... But I also believe that Baptism is just an outward showing of what Jesus did when He Saved me... I don't believe it added anything to my Salvation, I did it because I wanted to and because I wanted to obey God... It is an act that tells everyone that is there that Jesus Saved you and that He is the Lord of your life...

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool

hawglips said:


> It is essential to eternal life.



In the sense that you are following what was commanded.  But it is NOT essential to salvation.  

Giving your life over to the control of Christ is the ONLY step involved in salvation on our part.


----------



## Huntinfool

hawglips said:


> I Pet. 3:19
> I Cor. 15:29



Care to expound?  I don't see it.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

hawglips said:


> It is essential to eternal life.


 

If that was the case then everyone that had been saved, and didn't make it in to be baptized, by dying in between being Saved and then being Baptized whether it was 1 sec in between or 1 year... are going to he11...

Are you limiting the power of the Blood of Jesus?

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Double Barrel BB said:


> So then in your belief it is not essential to Salvation to be Baptized... Just to have the intent of getting baptized?
> 
> Doesn't this prove that Baptism is not a determination of weather you go to Heaven or not?


 
Ronnie, you never answered my questions?


----------



## Ronnie T

Double Barrel BB said:


> Ronnie, you never answered my questions?




Whew, man I thought I answered that question at least a couple of times.

Question:  Is baptism part of salvation.

Let me go to the Acts of the apostles.
1.  First, let me go to Mark 16:16.  Jesus sent his disciples out telling them to teach the Gospel and that    ""those who believe AND are baptized will be saved.  Baptism was included in their salvation.

2.  In Acts 2, Peter preached and gave guilty Jews a chance to receive Jesus as their Savior.  After he spoke, they asked:  "What shall we do?"  Peter had many choices.  He could have said, 'drop to your knees and pray for forgiveness'  He could have said,  'there's nothing for you to do, Jesus did it all on the cross'.  But Peter said (2-38)  "repent and be baptized".  There, baptism was part of the salvation process.  They were baptized that day.

3.  Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus??  Maybe not.  Scripture says (I think it says 3 days later) Paul was instructed to  "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord".  For me, that indicates baptism was part of the salvation process.

4.  There are others but that's enough.  Is baptism part of salvation?     Absolutely.  How could I ignore the evidence?


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Ronnie T said:


> Whew, man I thought I answered that question at least a couple of times.
> 
> Question: Is baptism part of salvation.
> 
> Let me go to the Acts of the apostles.
> 1. First, let me go to Mark 16:16. Jesus sent his disciples out telling them to teach the Gospel and that ""those who believe AND are baptized will be saved. Baptism was included in their salvation.
> 
> 2. In Acts 2, Peter preached and gave guilty Jews a chance to receive Jesus as their Savior. After he spoke, they asked: "What shall we do?" Peter had many choices. He could have said, 'drop to your knees and pray for forgiveness' He could have said, 'there's nothing for you to do, Jesus did it all on the cross'. But Peter said (2-38) "repent and be baptized". There, baptism was part of the salvation process. They were baptized that day.
> 
> 3. Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus?? Maybe not. Scripture says (I think it says 3 days later) Paul was instructed to "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord". For me, that indicates baptism was part of the salvation process.
> 
> 4. There are others but that's enough. Is baptism part of salvation? Absolutely. How could I ignore the evidence?


 

Then by your belief, that person that had an intent to get baptized, is not Saved... No matter how much they wanted to be baptized, if they didn't make it to their own baptism, then they are not Saved...

DB BB


----------



## gtparts

Huntinfool said:


> Care to expound?  I don't see it.



H'lips is Mormon. These two verses are their scriptural basis for baptism of the dead. They have genealogical archives that exceed anything you could imagine of this nature. In the temple, they baptize people in the names of the deceased; Jews, Catholics, Baptist preachers, Satanists, Hindu, Muslim, Janist, atheist, all long passed away. Some Jews have been informed that "great great uncle and rabbi Ezra" had, most certainly against his will,  been baptized by a pseudo-Christian church, and gone to great lengths to have the vicarious baptism annulled. They simply will not accept that the ref. in 1Cor. is the use, by Paul, of an illustrative ancient custom adapted to Christianity (by others), to emphasize the resurrection from the dead as a central element Christian doctrine and proving the deity of Christ. There is obviously no mandate to perform vicarious baptisms or to give such practice any standing as being effective  in accomplishing anything of a spiritual nature other than being a comfort to those still alive.

And, as usual, I stayed at Holiday Inn Express last night.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Giving your life over to the control of Christ is the ONLY step involved in salvation on our part.



Maybe that's a large part of what baptism shows, you're willingness to submit to baptism.


----------



## Ronnie T

Double Barrel BB said:


> Then by your belief, that person that had an intent to get baptized, is not Saved... No matter how much they wanted to be baptized, if they didn't make it to their own baptism, then they are not Saved...
> 
> DB BB




Well, okay then.

I'll still leave it in God's hands.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> Maybe that's a large part of what baptism shows, you're willingness to submit to baptism.



Sure it does!  Nobody is denying that.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

why would God, throughout the Bible, tell us that no earthy work can save us.  No amount of good deeds, no physical act, nothing but the believing in Jesus Christ to save you.................. then all of a sudden he says "oh but you have to be dunked in water to be saved."

The Bible does not contradict itself.  Why in the world would God put some physical act that a human has to physically do in his plan for salvation?  He might as well have said, "you can only get saved at an altar in a church."

Water baptism is an act of obedience in proclaiming what God has done in your heart.


----------



## redwards

Ronnie T said:


> .....
> Let me also say this to you Mtnwoman. About 5 years ago a young couple called me wanted to be baptized because her mother told her the world was getting horrible so she urged her daugher and young husband to find someone to baptize them so they'd go to heaven if they get shot or mugged or nuked.
> I'll told her that baptism wasn't the magical key that provides entrance into heaven. That she needed to accept Jesus as her Lord and Savior, that she needed to acknowledge Jesus as God's very own Son. She needed to believe in Jesus as her Savior. And she needed to want Christ in her life.................. She and her husband were never baptized. They didn't want Christ, they wanted heaven.......


Assuming you are a Pastor, and given your statement regarding the couple "wanting heaven and not Christ" (my paraphrase), I assume the Holy Spirit led you to that conclusion.
That being the case, and with Jesus' words regarding the 'one lost sheep vs. the ninety-nine sheep who are not lost', Scripture here, was God's Plan of Salvation presented to them on that occasion, or has any follow up with that couple been done since that meeting?
Any follow up done by the deacons/elders of the church, or has the couple just been written off as 'lost forever'?
Would you care to elaborate?
In the Love of Christ,
Ralph


----------



## Ronnie T

redwards said:


> Assuming you are a Pastor, and given your statement regarding the couple "wanting heaven and not Christ" (my paraphrase), I assume the Holy Spirit led you to that conclusion.
> That being the case, and with Jesus' words regarding the 'one lost sheep vs. the ninety-nine sheep who are not lost', Scripture here, was God's Plan of Salvation presented to them on that occasion, or has any follow up with that couple been done since that meeting?
> Any follow up done by the deacons/elders of the church, or has the couple just been written off as 'lost forever'?
> Would you care to elaborate?
> In the Love of Christ,
> Ralph





I do still see the couple occasionally.  I've personally written and tried to visit them on more than once.  They simply don't want anything to do with church and don't want to discuss the Bible.  I don't believe they are attending church now and I have no idea if someone else baptized them.


----------



## redwards

Ronnie T said:


> I do still see the couple occasionally. I've personally written and tried to visit them on more than once. They simply don't want anything to do with church and don't want to discuss the Bible. I don't believe they are attending church now and I have no idea if someone else baptized them.


Then if you would like to PM me their names (first names only), I will add them to my prayer list.
Thanking you in advance,
Ralph


----------



## thedeacon

*Do you have to be baptised to go to Heaven?*

What a loaded question. This is my first response on here so I am not sure how much space is provided but I will try to be brief. In the New Testiment God did not sit someone down and make a list of commands like he did under the law of Moses. In 11 tim. 2:15 Paul says to Study to show yourself approved unto God, A workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly deviding the truth, or the word of God. The way to get to heaven is to obey the word of God. Its just that simple. Is being baptized obeying the word of God. Well why don't you read Acts 2:38-Mark 16:16-1st Peter 3:21. Read about the conversion of Paul in Acts where he met Jesus Himself on the road to Demascus. He was thrown from his horse, blinded and scared to the point he ask "Jesus" himself what he should do. Jesus told him to go into the city and he would be told. He was told after three days of seclusion to arise and be baptized and was away his sins. Question???  Was it his sins before or after his experience on the road. I think we all know it was all his sins. Is baptism necessary for salvation according to the Bible. Of course it is but being Baptized does not make you a Christian. Christianity is not about babtism it is about Jesus. Can you go to heaven without faith? I think not? Can you go to heaven without works. I think not. Salvation is about falling in love with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
And it is not nearly as hard as some people would make it seem. Excuse the grammer and misspelled wurds. I don't usually check on these discussions. anyone feel free to ask me a question. I believe the Bible and only the Bible and I believe the Grace of God Is greater than we can imagine.


----------



## hawglips

gtparts said:


> H'lips is Mormon. These two verses are their scriptural basis for baptism of the dead.



GT, you might want to try a new source for information on Mormonism.

These two NT scriptures are merely references showing that Christ engaged in preaching to the spirits of the dead between the time of his death and resurrection, and that baptisms for the dead were being carried out at the time of Paul.

The basis for doing it in modern times comes via modern revelation -- not from interpreting those passages.



gtparts said:


> They have genealogical archives that exceed anything you could imagine of this nature. In the temple, they baptize people in the names of the deceased; Jews, Catholics, Baptist preachers, Satanists, Hindu, Muslim, Janist, atheist, all long passed away. Some Jews have been informed that "great great uncle and rabbi Ezra" had, most certainly against his will,  been baptized by a pseudo-Christian church, and gone to great lengths to have the vicarious baptism annulled.



How can the spirit of someone who has passed on, be baptized "against his will?" 






gtparts said:


> They simply will not accept that the ref. in 1Cor. is the use, by Paul, of an illustrative ancient custom adapted to Christianity (by others), to emphasize the resurrection from the dead as a central element Christian doctrine and proving the deity of Christ. There is obviously no mandate to perform vicarious baptisms or to give such practice any standing as being effective  in accomplishing anything of a spiritual nature other than being a comfort to those still alive.



I would certainly disagree about the "no mandate" part., even though you're right about the part that the passing scripture reference to baptism for the dead by Paul, in itself, is no mandate.



gtparts said:


> And, as usual, I stayed at Holiday Inn Express last night.



You might want to try a Hampton Inn tonight instead.


----------



## hawglips

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> why would God, throughout the Bible, tell us that no earthy work can save us.  No amount of good deeds, no physical act, nothing but the believing in Jesus Christ to save you.................. then all of a sudden he says "oh but you have to be dunked in water to be saved."



"Dunked in the water?"  My brother used to dunk me in the water all the time when we went swimming as kids.  But that wasn't baptism.


----------



## farmasis

thedeacon said:


> What a loaded question. This is my first response on here so I am not sure how much space is provided but I will try to be brief. In the New Testiment God did not sit someone down and make a list of commands like he did under the law of Moses. In 11 tim. 2:15 Paul says to Study to show yourself approved unto God, A workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly deviding the truth, or the word of God. The way to get to heaven is to obey the word of God. Its just that simple. Is being baptized obeying the word of God. Well why don't you read Acts 2:38-Mark 16:16-1st Peter 3:21.


 
How about these verses?

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:28)

 1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have<SUP>[a]</SUP> peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, (Romans 5:1)

24 Therefore the law was our tutor _to bring us_ to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)




> Read about the conversion of Paul in Acts where he met Jesus Himself on the road to Demascus. He was thrown from his horse, blinded and scared to the point he ask "Jesus" himself what he should do. Jesus told him to go into the city and he would be told. He was told after three days of seclusion to arise and be baptized and was away his sins. Question??? Was it his sins before or after his experience on the road. I think we all know it was all his sins. Is baptism necessary for salvation according to the Bible. Of course it is but being Baptized does not make you a Christian. Christianity is not about babtism it is about Jesus. Can you go to heaven without faith? I think not?


 
Saul (Paul) was forgiven, then was baptized.

17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus,<SUP>[b]</SUP> who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes _something_ like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. 




> Can you go to heaven without works. I think not.


 
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; _it is_ the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8-9)

5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)

6 And if by grace, then _it is_ no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.<SUP>[c]</SUP> But if _it is_ of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. (Romans 11:6)


----------



## crackerdave

thedeacon said:


> What a loaded question. This is my first response on here so I am not sure how much space is provided but I will try to be brief. In the New Testiment God did not sit someone down and make a list of commands like he did under the law of Moses. In 11 tim. 2:15 Paul says to Study to show yourself approved unto God, A workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly deviding the truth, or the word of God. The way to get to heaven is to obey the word of God. Its just that simple. Is being baptized obeying the word of God. Well why don't you read Acts 2:38-Mark 16:16-1st Peter 3:21. Read about the conversion of Paul in Acts where he met Jesus Himself on the road to Demascus. He was thrown from his horse, blinded and scared to the point he ask "Jesus" himself what he should do. Jesus told him to go into the city and he would be told. He was told after three days of seclusion to arise and be baptized and was away his sins. Question???  Was it his sins before or after his experience on the road. I think we all know it was all his sins. Is baptism necessary for salvation according to the Bible. Of course it is but being Baptized does not make you a Christian. Christianity is not about babtism it is about Jesus. Can you go to heaven without faith? I think not? Can you go to heaven without works. I think not. Salvation is about falling in love with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
> And it is not nearly as hard as some people would make it seem. Excuse the grammer and misspelled wurds. I don't usually check on these discussions. anyone feel free to ask me a question. I believe the Bible and only the Bible and I believe the Grace of God Is greater than we can imagine.



Welcome to the "Land of Loaded Questions," Deacon! Glad to have you here!


----------



## Bones

*Baptised*

No

What did Jesus say to the thief of the cross next to him.  Today wilt thou be with me in paradise.  Did not read anywhere where Jesus told him he had to be baptised to be with him in heaven.

Bones


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

hawglips said:


> "Dunked in the water?"  My brother used to dunk me in the water all the time when we went swimming as kids.  But that wasn't baptism.



You totally missed the point.

I'm not saying baptism is an empty deed, but it is a physical deed and nowehere in the Bible does it say that any deed we can do will save us.

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."

It doesn't say "confess with your mouth, believe in your heart, and submerge with the rest of your body."


----------



## gtparts

hawglips said:


> "Dunked in the water?"  My brother used to dunk me in the water all the time when we went swimming as kids.  But that wasn't baptism.



Doesn't "take" unless your held down long enough.


----------



## hawglips

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> You totally missed the point.
> 
> I'm not saying baptism is an empty deed, but it is a physical deed and nowehere in the Bible does it say that any deed we can do will save us.



It does record that Christ said the deed combined with belief will save us: "...he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."  (Mark 16:16)

And it says that baptism is necessary for eternal life.


----------



## hawglips

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> 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."
> 
> It doesn't say "confess with your mouth, believe in your heart, and submerge with the rest of your body."



Do you think anyone who truly believes in their heart would refuse to do what Christ said we must do regarding baptism?   And if the Bible in one place says belief only is necessary, but in another place says belief combined with baptism is necessary, why would a true believer do less than what is specified by the higher of the two standards?

Throughout Biblical history, the Lord has always commanded his people to use physical ordinances and exercises as symbolic tokens of their inward faith and repentence.  Killing and burning a lamb didn't cleanse anyone from sin under the Mosaic law, without the inward repentence that it symbolized.  And baptism without the inner faith and repentence does nothing for our salvation.

But the Lord commanded both for a reason.


----------



## rjcruiser

hawglips said:


> Do you think anyone who truly believes in their heart would refuse to do what Christ said we must do regarding baptism?   And if the Bible in one place says belief only is necessary, but in another place says belief combined with baptism is necessary, why would a true believer do less than what is specified by the higher of the two standards?
> 
> Throughout Biblical history, the Lord has always commanded his people to use physical ordinances and exercises as symbolic tokens of their inward faith and repentence.  Killing and burning a lamb didn't cleanse anyone from sin under the Mosaic law, without the inward repentence that it symbolized.  And baptism without the inner faith and repentence does nothing for our salvation.
> 
> But the Lord commanded both for a reason.




Boy...I'm beginning to think that Mormons have more in common with our Catholic brethren than us Protestants.  Why?  Both believe in a works-based salvation.


----------



## Huntinfool

Uh oh....Now you gone and did it!


----------



## hawglips

rjcruiser said:


> Boy...I'm beginning to think that Mormons have more in common with our Catholic brethren than us Protestants.  Why?  Both believe in a works-based salvation.



Mormons don't believe in a works-based salvation.  But they believe that faith without works is dead.


----------



## Ronnie T

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> You totally missed the point.
> 
> I'm not saying baptism is an empty deed, but it is a physical deed and nowehere in the Bible does it say that any deed we can do will save us.
> 
> 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."
> 
> It doesn't say "confess with your mouth, believe in your heart, and submerge with the rest of your body."



Concerning your last sentence, oh yes it does.  Acts 2:38 and and others.  All scripture must be used together.  One verse isn't more important than another just because you want it to be.


----------



## hawglips

rjcruiser said:


> Boy...I'm beginning to think that Mormons have more in common with our Catholic brethren than us Protestants.



Cruiser, this brings up a thought I've had frequently.

My wife and I had a daughter 14 years after what I thought would be our last child.  Being so much older, and more established, we decided to look for a private school for her to attend.  Our choices were basically a protestant run school, and a few Catholic schools.

One thing that became clear during our investigations was that Mormons were welcome at Catholic schools, but not particularly wanted at the protestant school.  

This differing mindset is also evident in the various discussions regarding Mormonism on this site.  It is an interesting contrast.


----------



## mtnwoman

uh oh, we drink grapejuice at our church instead of wine....i'd better get my asbestos suit on, I guess. 

I still believe Jesus is ALL we need for salvation. 
I would never witness to someone to accept Jesus and tell them He will be their all in all but only if they get Baptized...they say "so Jesus ain't all we need? we need Baptism and Jesus, ok and what else?".....sorry I just can't buy that.


----------



## rjcruiser

hawglips said:


> Mormons don't believe in a works-based salvation.



Hmmm...then what is baptism?  My feeble mind (yes, I'm an incredibly humble person) thinks it is a work if it is something "required" for salvation.


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> But baptism is part of the process of getting access to that blood.



Got scripture on that?


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> Maybe that's a large part of what baptism shows, you're willingness to submit to baptism.



I personally don't know of anyone that refused Baptism, course I've always gone to Baptist churches, independant mostly. When someone accepts Jesus as their saviour the pastor talks about baptism at that time and schedules that baptism. I agree with it as an outward showing for an inward acceptance.

But I still don't consider it a requirement to enter heaven.
I sin everyday, do I need to be baptized everyday when I ask for forgiveness? Or when I'm baptized my sins are washed away once and for all and I'm automatically forgiven because I was baptized once?

I'm not arguing the point that we should be baptized because Jesus ask us/commanded us to, as a matter of fact I'd love to be re-baptized in the Jordan River if I ever got the chance.

I just don't believe it's a requirement to enter heaven

I can barely feed myself, so am I not going to heaven because Jesus said to feed the hungry, and yet I can't.
I recycle lots of clothes, housewares etc to people who need it. People give me stuff to give other people...I'm like a walkin' talkin' goodwill....LOL.
But Jesus said to FEED the hungry....

I do what I do BECAUSE Jesus works thru me, I don't do it to buy my way into heaven.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Ronnie T said:


> But baptism is part of the process of getting access to that blood.


 
The blood comes first!

DB BB


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

hawglips said:


> Do you think anyone who truly believes in their heart would refuse to do what Christ said we must do regarding baptism?   And if the Bible in one place says belief only is necessary, but in another place says belief combined with baptism is necessary, why would a true believer do less than what is specified by the higher of the two standards?



I agree we are supposed to do it, just like we are supposed to witness, we are supposed to live righteous lives, we are supposed to tithe, we are supposed to help the needy, we are supposed to work in the church...

but I don't think us NOT doing all of things will keep us out of heaven.

God knows the intent of our hearts.  He knows whether or not we truly believe in him and that Jesus is his son and that he died for us.  Getting baptized in water is proving those things to people here on Earth, not to God.



hawglips said:


> Throughout Biblical history, the Lord has always commanded his people to use physical ordinances and exercises as symbolic tokens of their inward faith and repentence.  Killing and burning a lamb didn't cleanse anyone from sin under the Mosaic law, without the inward repentence that it symbolized.  And baptism without the inner faith and repentence does nothing for our salvation.



actually, the Bible teaches that without the spilling of blood there can be no remission of sin... so those sacrifices were physical.  that was food for those people.  once Jesus dies for us, no other blood needed to be spilt, but before that, it did.  the inward beliefe was not enough and the sacrifice was not just a symbol.  now, the animals' physical blood alone had no saving power, but the sacrifice was a step in the repentance process.  a physical sacrifice, obviously, is not anymore.  

and I agree, of course, that baptism does not save us on its own if there is no faith.  what I disagree with is that there is a physical work beyond just having faith in Christ that is necessary to save us.


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> Got scripture on that?





For One:    

Acts 22:16
'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

For another:

Romans 6
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 
5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,


Now, I'm sure that your next comment will be that..... "those scriptures don't count!"

You are not saved because you got baptized.  You are saved because of your belief and because of the work of God thru your baptism.

Your next question is this,  "Why would God have to depend upon us being baptized for all that to happen?"
My answer:  "I don't have the foggiest idea, But that's what God decided.
You and I cannot ignore the above verses.  At least I can't.

There are many, many other verses.


----------



## Ronnie T

rjcruiser said:


> Hmmm...then what is baptism?  My feeble mind (yes, I'm an incredibly humble person) thinks it is a work if it is something "required" for salvation.




If that thinking be true, then faith is a work, and it isn't.

Gitten me a glass of water is a work.


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> For One:
> 
> Acts 22:16
> 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'
> 
> For another:
> 
> Romans 6
> 3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
> 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
> 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
> 
> 
> Now, I'm sure that your next comment will be that..... "those scriptures don't count!"
> 
> You are not saved because you got baptized.  You are saved because of your belief and because of the work of God thru your baptism.
> 
> Your next question is this,  "Why would God have to depend upon us being baptized for all that to happen?"
> My answer:  "I don't have the foggiest idea, But that's what God decided.
> You and I cannot ignore the above verses.  At least I can't.
> 
> There are many, many other verses.



I know those scriptures, you said you have to be baptized to have "access to the blood".....where is that written?

So you really believe that accepting Jesus as saviour, but not being baptized will keep you out of heaven? So we ARE saved by works?


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> I sin everyday, do I need to be baptized everyday when I ask for forgiveness? Or when I'm baptized my sins are washed away once and for all and I'm automatically forgiven because I was baptized once?
> .



Here's the way you take care of sin after Believing, Repenting, and Baptism.........

1John was written to people who were already baptized.

1John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;  7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 _If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us _our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> If that thinking be true, then faith is a work, and it isn't.
> 
> Gitten me a glass of water is a work.



Nope...faith and repentance are a matters of the heart.  It is your desires that change.

Baptism...good works....those are deeds that are done as a direct reflection of this change in desire.  That is how one can say faith without works is dead, but works are not required for saving faith.

The horse goes before the cart....not the cart before the horse.


----------



## Branchminnow

thedeacon said:


> I believe the Bible and only the Bible and I believe the Grace of God Is greater than we can imagine.



KJV or NIV?


----------



## Ronnie T

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> I agree we are supposed to do it, just like we are supposed to witness, we are supposed to live righteous lives, we are supposed to tithe, we are supposed to help the needy, we are supposed to work in the church...
> 
> but I don't think us NOT doing all of things will keep us out of heaven.
> 
> God knows the intent of our hearts.  He knows whether or not we truly believe in him and that Jesus is his son and that he died for us.  Getting baptized in water is proving those things to people here on Earth, not to God.
> 
> 
> 
> actually, the Bible teaches that without the spilling of blood there can be no remission of sin... so those sacrifices were physical.  that was food for those people.  once Jesus dies for us, no other blood needed to be spilt, but before that, it did.  the inward beliefe was not enough and the sacrifice was not just a symbol.  now, the animals' physical blood alone had no saving power, but the sacrifice was a step in the repentance process.  a physical sacrifice, obviously, is not anymore.
> 
> and I agree, of course, that baptism does not save us on its own if there is no faith.  what I disagree with is that there is a physical work beyond just having faith in Christ that is necessary to save us.



You say that God knows the heart of each person and that's what saves the person...... What does God think of the person who ignores all the the gospel says about being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
If I don't teach baptism as part of the gospel message, what must God think of me?  If you consider it to be a "do it only if you want to" obligation, what must God think of your heart?
Your telling me that it's okay for a person not to bet baptized tells me a lot about you.

Doc Holliday, have you been baptized in the name of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Ronnie T

Double Barrel BB said:


> The blood comes first!
> 
> DB BB




Without Jesus' sacrifice of love on the cross oh where would we be?????
Jesus died on the cross and we're admitting that some people won't even submit to being baptized into His death.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> You say that God knows the heart of each person and that's what saves the person...... What does God think of the person who ignores all the the gospel says about being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
> If I don't teach baptism as part of the gospel message, what must God think of me?  If you consider it to be a "do it only if you want to" obligation, what must God think of your heart?
> Your telling me that it's okay for a person not to bet baptized tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Doc Holliday, have you been baptized in the name of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?



Ronnie,
I think you've got it all wrong.  I don't mean to answer for Doc, but I think we view this subject very similarly...and even if we don't, I like to answer questions for others 

I'm not preaching that it is okay to not get baptized.  Baptism is a command from God.  If I were to preach that lying was okay, it would be the same as if I were to preach that not getting baptized was okay.  Is someone still saved if they lie?  Yes.  Is someone still saved if they haven't been baptized?  Yes.  Are they living in sin?  Yes.  Will the Lord deal with that and hold them accountable for that?  Yes.

Have I been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?  Yes.

Boy...I sure do like these "Yes" questions.


----------



## Ronnie T

rjcruiser said:


> Nope...faith and repentance are a matters of the heart.  It is your desires that change.
> 
> Baptism...good works....those are deeds that are done as a direct reflection of this change in desire.  That is how one can say faith without works is dead, but works are not required for saving faith.
> 
> The horse goes before the cart....not the cart before the horse.



I believe baptism is a matter of the heart.  I do not believe baptism is a work.  Not a work of mine.  It is a work of God.  In Salvation, there is no horse and cart.  There is only the horse.  If you want salvation, you must get on the horse.

Tell me this RJ.  When Christ told His disciples to go into all the world and teach the gospel and that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, do you belive Jesus, at that point expected His disciples to insure that all believers were baptized??????????

Answer me this also please.  In Acts 2 when these Jews responded to this message by Peter they asked Peter, "What shall we do?"  Peter responded:  "Repent and be baptized."...........    Do you think the baptism portion of Peter's statement was open for debate?  Was Peter just being a jerk for requiring them to be baptized?  Or do you think Peter insisted upon it because Jesus had told the disciples to do it?


----------



## Branchminnow

rjcruiser said:


> I like to answer questions for others
> 
> :






stop it!!! Just stop it!!!


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Ronnie T said:


> Without Jesus' sacrifice of love on the cross oh where would we be?????
> Jesus died on the cross and we're admitting that some people won't even submit to being baptized into His death.


 

So the Sacrifice of Jesus is not enough to Save someone?

DB BB


----------



## dawg2

Branchminnow said:


> KJV or NIV?


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> I believe baptism is a matter of the heart.  I do not believe baptism is a work.  Not a work of mine.  It is a work of God.  In Salvation, there is no horse and cart.  There is only the horse.  If you want salvation, you must get on the horse.


Salvation is the horse.  Works are represented by the cart.  You have the horse, you'll get the cart...but the horse pulls the cart.  The Cart doesn't pull the horse.  

So Salvation gives way to works.  Works don't give way to Salvation



			
				Ronnie T said:
			
		

> Tell me this RJ.  When Christ told His disciples to go into all the world and teach the gospel and that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, do you belive Jesus, at that point expected His disciples to insure that all believers were baptized??????????


  Just as He expected all people to repent and be saved.



			
				Ronnie T said:
			
		

> Answer me this also please.  In Acts 2 when these Jews responded to this message by Peter they asked Peter, "What shall we do?"  Peter responded:  "Repent and be baptized."...........    Do you think the baptism portion of Peter's statement was open for debate?  Was Peter just being a jerk for requiring them to be baptized?  Or do you think Peter insisted upon it because Jesus had told the disciples to do it?



Same as in John 8:10-11.  Jesus told the Harlot to "Go and sin no more."  Do you think that He expected her to never sin again? Of course not.  We all know that that is impossible.

Not being baptized is a sin.  Just as not witnessing is a sin.  See the Great Commission.  But it is not a requirement for salvation.


----------



## Ronnie T

1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


----------



## gtparts

I believe the true issue here is spiritual baptism, which is the Holy Spirit coming to dwell in a believer (something God does) and water baptism, which is a physical representation of the  spiritual baptism (something man does). At Pentecost, spiritual baptism took place before water baptism. Sometimes they might occur simultaneously.

Those who are baptized in the spirit go to heaven, regardless of water baptism. 

Does God desire every believer to submit to water baptism? Emphatically, yes!

Would God bar entrance into heaven to one who called on the name of Jesus, believed, confessed, repented and received baptism of the Holy Spirit, IF he or she had not been baptized with water? I can't see it. If it is willful disobedience, it is sin and will be forgiven. If it is the result of circumstance, rather than will, it is not sin and he or she needs no forgiveness. But, no, neither will be barred from heaven.


----------



## Ronnie T

Please read the great verses from Colossians 1 and 2.
Baptism is included....... not as a work or fruit.


Colossians 1: 1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 
2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. 
3We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, 4since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints; 5because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel 6which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth............................................
21And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- 23if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. 


Colossians 2  9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 
10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 
12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 
13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 
14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.



*Could someone explain the usefulness of baptism in the above verse?


----------



## Ronnie T

Quote from RJCruise  "Same as in John 8:10-11. Jesus told the Harlot to "Go and sin no more." Do you think that He expected her to never sin again?

Yes, I believe He expected her to never sin again....... But I also know that he forgives even those who do sin.  Jesus didn't tell her:  "Go and do the best you can".  I believe God and His Son rightly expect perfection, but they lovingly accept the sinful.


----------



## gtparts

Ronnie T said:


> Please read the great verses from Colossians 1 and 2.
> Baptism is included....... not as a work or fruit.
> 
> 
> Colossians 1: 1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
> 2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
> 3We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, 4since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints; 5because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel 6which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth............................................
> 21And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- 23if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
> 
> 
> Colossians 2  9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
> 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
> 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
> 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
> 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
> 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
> 
> 
> 
> *Could someone explain the usefulness of baptism in the above verse?



Have to say, it reads like spiritual baptism to me. Not arguing against water baptism, you understand. Just reading Paul's opening comments.

Peace.


----------



## gtparts

Ronnie T said:


> Quote from RJCruise  "Same as in John 8:10-11. Jesus told the Harlot to "Go and sin no more." Do you think that He expected her to never sin again?
> 
> Yes, I believe He expected her to never sin again....... But I also know that he forgives even those who do sin.  Jesus didn't tell her:  "Go and do the best you can".  I believe God and His Son rightly expect perfection, but they lovingly accept the sinful.



Expressed the Father's will for her, God's standard.


----------



## Ronnie T

gtparts said:


> I believe the true issue here is spiritual baptism, which is the Holy Spirit coming to dwell in a believer (something God does) and water baptism, which is a physical representation of the  spiritual baptism (something man does). At Pentecost, spiritual baptism took place before water baptism. Sometimes they might occur simultaneously.
> 
> Those who are baptized in the spirit go to heaven, regardless of water baptism.
> 
> Does God desire every believer to submit to water baptism? Emphatically, yes!
> 
> Would God bar entrance into heaven to one who called on the name of Jesus, believed, confessed, repented and received baptism of the Holy Spirit, IF he or she had not been baptized with water? I can't see it. If it is willful disobedience, it is sin and will be forgiven. If it is the result of circumstance, rather than will, it is not sin and he or she needs no forgiveness. But, no, neither will be barred from heaven.




Your teaching on this subject is at odds with what Jesus commanded and what the apostles taught in the book of acts.  I hope God understands your willingness to take that stand and possible affect someone elses decision not to submit to baptism based upon what you have taught.


----------



## Ronnie T

gtparts said:


> Have to say, it reads like spiritual baptism to me. Not arguing against water baptism, you understand. Just reading Paul's opening comments.
> 
> Peace.



Check the original Greek, it's water baptism.


----------



## Ronnie T

Ronnie T said:


> I believe baptism is a matter of the heart.  I do not believe baptism is a work.  Not a work of mine.  It is a work of God.  In Salvation, there is no horse and cart.  There is only the horse.  If you want salvation, you must get on the horse.
> 
> Tell me this RJ.  When Christ told His disciples to go into all the world and teach the gospel and that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, do you belive Jesus, at that point expected His disciples to insure that all believers were baptized??????????
> 
> Answer me this also please.  In Acts 2 when these Jews responded to this message by Peter they asked Peter, "What shall we do?"  Peter responded:  "Repent and be baptized."...........    Do you think the baptism portion of Peter's statement was open for debate?  Was Peter just being a jerk for requiring them to be baptized?  Or do you think Peter insisted upon it because Jesus had told the disciples to do it?




I don't think anyone has specifically answered these questions yet.


----------



## gtparts

Ronnie T said:


> Your teaching on this subject is at odds with what Jesus commanded and what the apostles taught in the book of acts.  I hope God understands your willingness to take that stand and possible affect someone elses decision not to submit to baptism based upon what you have taught.



I don't teach that is all right to ignore water baptism. I understand that we are to teach it and do it. I just can't find where it says that "if you do not submit to water baptism, you will not go to heaven."

Please show me where it says, " No one will go to heaven unless they have received water baptism.", and I will take every step possible to correct my error. Believe me when I tell you, I want to be correct in this thing, since the eternal destiny of others is a burden from God on my heart.


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> Boy...I'm beginning to think that Mormons have more in common with our Catholic brethren than us Protestants.  Why?  Both believe in a works-based salvation.



I don't know where you got this from but read on.
Only Catholics are Catholic.

Mormons are not Protestant in the sense that they were not formed in PROTEST of the Catholic Church.  They were formed much later than the Protestant movement because they see their founder as a prophet who came with new revelations. 

Protestants, technically, are those led by Luther and Calvin and other reformers in the 1500’s – those who broke from the Catholic Church and formed their own doctrines. 

Some Baptists say they are not Protestants, rather, that their history dates back to early Christians.  If their history dates back to the early centuries, though,  it dates back to heretical sects, because the early Christians who considered themselves to be in the ONE TRUE CHURCH were part of a hierarchical organization described (as early as 110 – shortly after Paul’s writings) as “catholic” with a  small C –meaning UNIVERSAL, later becoming known as the Roman Catholic Church to distinguish it from others who had broken away.  In the early centuries, there was no need to distinguish it because there were no others – it was simply the Church.  But today’s Roman Catholic Church, and specifically the Vatican, holds records of its proceedings that date all the way back to the time of Peter.  

Mormons were founded in the 1800’s – some 300 years after the Protestant Revolt – and their teachings are not based on Protestant beliefs, but instead on a belief that the whole church collapsed (apostasy) in the early centuries and that the Mormon founder, John Smith, was a prophet sent to re-establish the Christ’s church. 

Details here:  http://www.catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> I don't think anyone has specifically answered these questions yet.


 
Nobody is denying baptism is important, just not required for salvation.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Please read the great verses from Colossians 1 and 2.
> Baptism is included....... not as a work or fruit.
> 
> 
> Colossians 1: 1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
> 2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
> 3We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, 4since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints; 5because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel 6which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth............................................
> 21And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- 23if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
> 
> 
> Colossians 2 9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
> 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
> 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
> 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
> 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
> 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
> 
> 
> 
> *Could someone explain the usefulness of baptism in the above verse?


 
Most definately a spiritual baptism, IMO. Just as Paul described it in Romans 6 as baptism into Christ death.

3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?.....
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Your teaching on this subject is at odds with what Jesus commanded and what the apostles taught in the book of acts. I hope God understands your willingness to take that stand and possible affect someone elses decision not to submit to baptism based upon what you have taught.


 
No actually your view is different from Christ's, IMO.


 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11)

Why did Jesus forget baptism?


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Concerning your last sentence, oh yes it does. Acts 2:38 and and others. All scripture must be used together. One verse isn't more important than another just because you want it to be.


 

http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html


----------



## furtaker

farmasis said:


> No actually your view is different from Christ's, IMO.
> 
> 
> 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11)
> 
> Why did Jesus forget baptism?



Great point...this is the difference between salvation by grace and salvation by works.

How would a person answer Jesus' question if that person believed that baptism is a requirement for salvation?

Logically, he could only answer, "No, Jesus, I don't believe you.  You are not sufficient for my salvation.  I must do good works as well."

Either a person is trusting in Jesus ALONE for their salvation or they are not.

I truly believe this is a heaven and h e l l issue.


----------



## furtaker

Most people who believe that baptism is required for salvation also believe a person can lose his salvation.

Doesn't that mean they should get baptized EVERY Sunday just in case they lost their salvation the week before?


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> Nobody is denying baptism is important, just not required for salvation.



Then please specifically answer each question if you would.


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> Most definately a spiritual baptism, IMO. Just as Paul described it in Romans 6 as baptism into Christ death.
> 
> 3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?.....
> Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.




You are certainly mistaken about it being baptised by the holy spirit.  Check the Greek.


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> No actually your view is different from Christ's, IMO.
> 
> 
> 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11)
> 
> Why did Jesus forget baptism?




He obviously didn't.  
After Jesus died on the cross He said:  He that believes in Me and is baptized shall be saved.  
Both are important.

It isn't that I believe differently than Jesus.  
It is this:  I believe what Jesus said.  I believe it all, the part about believing..... and the part about baptism.  
Christ, the risen, commanded baptism.


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html



I checked out that sight.  I have to be honest with you.  I saw there an awful lot of side stepping in an attempt to make a verse say what someone needed it to say.  Most of the thinking there has no literary backing at all.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Then please specifically answer each question if you would.


 
Otay...




> Tell me this RJ. When Christ told His disciples to go into all the world and teach the gospel and that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, do you belive Jesus, at that point expected His disciples to insure that all believers were baptized??????????


 
Yes, because he wanted them to be obedient and give a symbolic profession of their faith.



> Answer me this also please. In Acts 2 when these Jews responded to this message by Peter they asked Peter, "What shall we do?" Peter responded: "Repent and be baptized."........... Do you think the baptism portion of Peter's statement was open for debate? Was Peter just being a jerk for requiring them to be baptized? Or do you think Peter insisted upon it because Jesus had told the disciples to do it?


 

But what about Acts 2:38? Doesn't this verse say very clearly that we must be baptized 'for' the remission of sins? Acts 2:38 reads, "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" 
For those who believe baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, the interpretation of the word "for" is "to obtain". It is not the only possible interpretation. The original Greek word, _eis_, has many shades of meaning. It can mean "in order to", or it can mean "because of". For example, in Matthew 12:41, it is written, "they repented at the preaching of Jonah". The word translated "at" is _eis_. Did they repent to obtain the preaching of Jonah, or did they repent because of the preaching of Jonah? Likewise, when there are so many verses saying that only repentance is needed for the remission of sins, did they get baptized "to obtain" the remission of sins (contrary to other Scripture) or did they get baptized "because of" the remission of sins (in agreement with all other Scripture)? I think the answer is obvious. 
http://www.compassdistributors.ca/topics/baptism.htmhttp://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> He obviously didn't.
> After Jesus died on the cross He said: He that believes in Me and is baptized shall be saved.
> Both are important.
> 
> It isn't that I believe differently than Jesus.
> It is this: I believe what Jesus said. I believe it all, the part about believing..... and the part about baptism.
> Christ, the risen, commanded baptism.


 

  16"<SUP>(U)</SUP>He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (Mark 16)

So to be saved, I must believe and be baptized. But, to be condemned, I must not believe.
The necessary step is belief, not baptism.

Like I said many times, Jesus could have included many other commands in the first part of the phrase such as believe, be baptized, obey my words, spread the gospel and be saved. But if you do not believe, you will not be saved.


----------



## Ronnie T

brentus said:


> Great point...this is the difference between salvation by grace and salvation by works.
> 
> How would a person answer Jesus' question if that person believed that baptism is a requirement for salvation?
> 
> Logically, he could only answer, "No, Jesus, I don't believe you.  You are not sufficient for my salvation.  I must do good works as well."
> 
> Either a person is trusting in Jesus ALONE for their salvation or they are not.
> 
> I truly believe this is a heaven and h e l l issue.




No brentus, here would be my answer.     "Lord, I know that I could never work my way to heaven.  I know I am totally dependant upon you for my salvation.  It is only thru you sacrifice and your shed blood and the grace and mercy of my heavenly Father than I even have the audacity to humble come before you.  And Lord, because you commanded that those who believe in you should be baptized; and because that's the example I see from the apostles as they brought people to your grace, I was baptized and I taught all other believers that they must be baptized if they believe in you as Lord and Savior."
"And Lord, I did not instruct them that it was a work which they preformed thru baptism, I instructed them to be baptized because it was taught to be a part of a person coming to Christ."


----------



## Ronnie T

brentus said:


> Most people who believe that baptism is required for salvation also believe a person can lose his salvation.
> 
> Doesn't that mean they should get baptized EVERY Sunday just in case they lost their salvation the week before?




I'm not dealing with that subject.  I don't want to change this subject.  I want you people to begin teaching in accordance with God's word rather that.......


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> You are certainly mistaken about it being baptised by the holy spirit. Check the Greek.


 
Help me out, what greek word for baptism is baptism in the spirit and not water?

βάπτισμα is the greek word used in Col. 2. It is the same root word Matthew used both times in this verse for water and spirit baptism.

 11"As for me, <SUP>(W)</SUP>I baptize you <SUP>[a]</SUP>with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; <SUP>(X)</SUP>He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Matt 3)


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> I checked out that sight. I have to be honest with you. I saw there an awful lot of side stepping in an attempt to make a verse say what someone needed it to say. Most of the thinking there has no literary backing at all.


 
There are many difficult verses that when used alone may seem to contradict many other verses. My rule of thumb is that when a verse like Acts 2:38 or Mark 16:16 seem to contradict a wealth of other verses that say we are saved by grace through faith, then very careful study needs to be done on them to get the meaning.


----------



## Ronnie T

Please take a look at this site.
Especially the lower part of the page.

http://bible.cc/acts/2-38.htm


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> No brentus, here would be my answer. "Lord, I know that I could never work my way to heaven. I know I am totally dependant upon you for my salvation. It is only thru you sacrifice and your shed blood and the grace and mercy of my heavenly Father than I even have the audacity to humble come before you. And Lord, because you commanded that those who believe in you should be baptized; and because that's the example I see from the apostles as they brought people to your grace, I was baptized and I taught all other believers that they must be baptized if they believe in you as Lord and Savior."
> "And Lord, I did not instruct them that it was a work which they preformed thru baptism, I instructed them to be baptized because it was taught to be a part of a person coming to Christ."


 
Got no problem with that at all...but just would add that as those believers obedient to His commands were on their way to the pool, they were fully saved by grace through faith.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Please take a look at this site.
> Especially the lower part of the page.


----------



## furtaker

Ronnie T said:


> No brentus, here would be my answer.     "Lord, I know that I could never work my way to heaven.  I know I am totally dependant upon you for my salvation.  It is only thru you sacrifice and your shed blood and the grace and mercy of my heavenly Father than I even have the audacity to humble come before you.  And Lord, because you commanded that those who believe in you should be baptized; and because that's the example I see from the apostles as they brought people to your grace, I was baptized and I taught all other believers that they must be baptized if they believe in you as Lord and Savior."
> "And Lord, I did not instruct them that it was a work which they preformed thru baptism, I instructed them to be baptized because it was taught to be a part of a person coming to Christ."



Jesus didn't mention baptism in this question to Martha.

He only mentioned belief in Him.

You said you would mention belief and baptism in your response.

So you could only answer His question, "No. I don't believe that all who simply believe in You will never die.  Baptism is also required."

This is a cut and dry question to Martha.  And she knew exactly what He was talking about.

There is no way to dodge this question.


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> There are many difficult verses that when used alone may seem to contradict many other verses. My rule of thumb is that when a verse like Acts 2:38 or Mark 16:16 seem to contradict a wealth of other verses that say we are saved by grace through faith, then very careful study needs to be done on them to get the meaning.



Here's the difference farmasis,  All books of the Bible that are written after the book of Acts are written to believers.  Thereby, Christians who have already been baptized into Christ.  In Col 2, they had already been baptized.  In Romans 6, they had already been baptized.  It was correct that those people remember and be taught they they were saved by grace.  They were saved by grace, but they had been baptized.

You and I are different.  I leave no verse out or minimize nothing.  It can all be used together.  To do that, all I have to do is relax, forget everything someone else taught me, and simply following the teachings of the Holy Word, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ.


----------



## furtaker

And, notice Martha's simple response:

"Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."


----------



## Ronnie T

Ronnie T said:


> Please take a look at this site.
> Especially the lower part of the page.
> 
> http://bible.cc/acts/2-38.htm




Sorry I forgot the site.


----------



## Ronnie T

brentus said:


> And, notice Martha's simple response:
> 
> "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."




I cannot speak to what occurred between Jesus and Mary/Martha precisely.  But after this conversation, Jesus later told His apostles to go and baptize believers.  Then, in Jerusalem, converts were told to be baptized BEFORE they received the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Ronnie T

brentus said:


> Jesus didn't mention baptism in this question to Martha.
> 
> He only mentioned belief in Him.
> 
> You said you would mention belief and baptism in your response.
> 
> So you could only answer His question, "No. I don't believe that all who simply believe in You will never die.  Baptism is also required."
> 
> This is a cut and dry question to Martha.  And she knew exactly what He was talking about.
> 
> There is no way to dodge this question.





No Brentus, I would say:  "Lord I know that you have the power to save me without baptism, but since you included in the salvation process, I was baptized.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Here's the difference farmasis, All books of the Bible that are written after the book of Acts are written to believers. Thereby, Christians who have already been baptized into Christ. In Col 2, they had already been baptized. In Romans 6, they had already been baptized. It was correct that those people remember and be taught they they were saved by grace. They were saved by grace, but they had been baptized.


 
Yes, but SAVED by grace through belief.



> You and I are different. I leave no verse out or minimize nothing. It can all be used together. To do that, all I have to do is relax, forget everything someone else taught me, and simply following the teachings of the Holy Word, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ.


 
I am not leaving out a verse or not following the teachings of the Word. We are just different in that I believe the Bible says that baptism is a command of believers saved by grace to do. You seem to think salvation is a process that is not completed until you are baptized.


----------



## furtaker

Ronnie T said:


> No Brentus, I would say:  "Lord I know that you have the power to save me without baptism, but since you included in the salvation process, I was baptized.



Once again, you dodged the question.  That's not what He said to Martha.

I think you and I both know what Jesus was asking.  The question is whether or not we believe it.


----------



## Ronnie T

brentus said:


> Once again, you dodged the question.  That's not what He said to Martha.
> 
> I think you and I both know what Jesus was asking.  The question is whether or not we believe it.




Brentus, I promise I don't know what you are getting at but it doesn't matter anyway.  Jesus did not make those statements under the Christian era.  What Jesus said to Mary/Martha does not mean that you or I can ignore what he LATER said about baptism.


----------



## Ronnie T

Noah Webster's Dictionary
1. (n.) Submersion in water; a dipping; as, the immersion of Achilles in the Styx.

2. (n.) Submersion in water for the purpose of Christian baptism, as, practiced by the Baptists.

3. (n.) The state of being overwhelmed or deeply absorbed; deep engagedness.

4. (n.) The disappearance of a celestial body, by passing either behind another, as in the occultation of a star, or into its shadow, as in the eclipse of a satellite; -- opposed to emersion.

Int. Standard Bible Encyclopedia

TRINE IMMERSION; TRIUNE IMMERSION

trin tri'-un i-mur'-shun:

I. LINGUISTIC BASIS

1. Immersion

2. Triple Action

II. DOCTRINAL ARGUMENT

III. HISTORICAL PRACTICE

1. The Jews

2. John the Baptist

3. The Didache

4. Justin Martyr

5. Tertullian

6. Eunomius

7. Greek Church

LITERATURE

I. Linguistic Basis.

1. Immersion:

The meaning of the word baptizo, is "to dip repeatedly," "to sub-merge" (Thayer, Greek Lexicon of the New Testament). It is probably the frequentative of bapto, "to dip," meaning "to dip repeatedly." The word baptizo (and baptisma) in the New Testament is "used absolutely, `to administer the rite of ablution,' `to baptize' " (same place). It is "an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin," etc. (same place); "Baptizo, to dip in or under water" (Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon).

2. Triple Action:

The threefold immersion is based upon the Trinity into which the believer is to be baptized "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (eis to onoma tou patros kal tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos, Matthew 28:19). (On the genuineness of this passage see Plummer, Commentary on Matthew.)

II. Doctrinal Argument.

Whether Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 28:19 as a baptismal formula or not does not affect the question. The passages in Acts, "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38; 10:48), and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16; 19:5), are not baptismal formulas, but mean the confession of Christ with all that Christ stands for, namely, the fullness of God and His salvation. The idea of the Trinity pervades the New Testament and many of the earliest writings (compare 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:14-17; 4:4-6 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; Hebrews 6:4-6 1 John 3:23, 24; 1 John 4:2 Jude 1:20, 21 Revelation 1:4, 5). "Baptized into Christ" has the same religious content as Matthew 28:19. Triune immersion is the symbol of baptism into the Triune God. All believers in the Trinity should see the consistency of this symbol. Baptism is the symbol

(1) of a complete cleansing,

(2) of death,

(3) of burial,

(4) of resurrection, and

(5) of entering into full union and fellowship with the Triune God as revealed by Christ.

Triune immersion is the only symbol that symbolizes all that baptism stands for. Note the words of Sanday on Romans 6:1-14 (comm. on Rom, ICC, 153): "Baptism has a double function:

(1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, so close that it may fitly be described as personal union with Him.

(2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Immersion = Death. Submersion = Burial (the ratification of Death). Emergence = Resurrection. All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ." Hence, the psychological need of a true symbol, triune immersion, to teach and impress the significance of the new life.

III. Historical Practice.

1. The Jews: The Jews received proselytes by circumcision, baptism (complete immersion) and sacrifice (Schurer, HJP, II, 2, pp. 319 f; Edersheim, LTJM, II, 745, and I, 273). John the Baptist, baptized "in the river Jordan" (Matthew 3:6) and "in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (John 3:23).

2. John the Baptist:

Philip and the eunuch "both went down into the water" and they "came up out of the water." All New Testament baptisms were by immersion (see also Romans 6:1-11).

3. The Didache:

The Didache (100-150 A.D.) chapter vii: "Baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if they have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm" (baptisate eis to onoma tou patos kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos en hudati zonti). "But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice (tris) upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Here the triple action is maintained throughout, even in clinical baptism, while immersion is the rule.

Justin Martyr (Apology i.61) describes baptism which can only be understood as triune immersion.

4. Justin Martyr:

Tertullian (De Corona, iii) says, "Hereupon we are thrice immersed" (dehinc ter mergitamur). Again (Ad Praxeam, xxvi), "And lastly he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not into a unipersonal God.

5. Tertullian:

And indeed it is not only once but three times that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names" (nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina, in personas singulos, tinguimur).

6. Eunomius:

Eunomius (circa 360) introduced single immersion "into the death of Christ." This innovation was condemned. Apostolical Constitutions, 50, says, "If any presbyter or bishop does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed." Single immersion was allowed by Gregory the Great (circa 691) to the church in Spain in opposition to the Arians who used a trine (not triune) immersion (Epis., i.43). This was exceptional.

7. Greek Church:

The Greek church has always baptized by triune immersion. The historical practice of the Christian church may well be summed up in the words of Dean Stanley: "There can be no question that the original form of baptism-the very meaning of the word-was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that for at least four centuries, any other form was either unknown, or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost monstrous case..... A few drops of water are now the western substitute for the threefold plunge into the rushing river or the wide baptisteries of the East" (History of Eastern Church, 28). "For the first three centuries the most universal practice of baptism was.... that those who were baptized, were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water" (Christian Institutions, p. 21).

See further, BAPTISM; LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC, II, 5.

LITERATURE.

James Quinter, Triune Immersion as the Apostolic Form of Christian Baptism; C. F. Yoder, God's Means of Grace, Brethren Pub. House, Elgin, Ill., U.S.A.; Smith, Dict. of Christian Antiquities; Hastings, ERE; Bible Dicts.; Church Fathers; Church Histories, and Histories of Baptism.

Daniel Webster Kurtz


----------



## Ronnie T

Again, would Brentus and framasis please answer each of these questions specifically?

They are important questions in all baptism discussions.

1.  Tell me this RJ. When Christ told His disciples to go into all the world and teach the gospel and that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, do you believe Jesus, at that point expected His disciples to insure that all believers were baptized??????????

2.  Answer me this also please. In Acts 2 when these Jews responded to this message by Peter they asked Peter, "What shall we do?" Peter responded: "Repent and be baptized."........... Do you think the baptism portion of Peter's statement was open for debate? Was Peter just being a jerk for requiring them to be baptized? Or do you think Peter insisted upon it because Jesus had told the disciples to do it? 

Thank you

I'm going to bed.


----------



## Lowjack

When was the thief on the cross baptized ?
When were the saints that resurrected with Christ baptized ?
Matthew 27;51+


----------



## thedeacon

*Do you have to be baptised to go to Heaven?*

The question is; Is baptism a matter of salvation? In the book of Acts we have many examples of conversions. I think it is important to look at the conversions in totality and gleen all the information that we find there. In the acts of the apostles many people heard the word of God from the Apostles and the Disciples of Christ. A large number of these people were picked by Jesus himself. He told them to Go and Preach the Gospel, Teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU. (Baptise) in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I can say for sure that Baptism was very important to Jesus. He himself wanted to be baptised to fullfill all rightousness. Are we not trying to be rightous in the sight of God. For some reason, even though Jesus was sinless he needed to be baptised to fulfill the rightousness of God. Now the question is "CAN YOU GO TO HEAVEN WITHOUT BAPTISM"? That is not a question for me a lowly sinner in the sight of God myself. But let me ask you a question. If something is importat to God (Jesus) should it be important to man. Will one thing like that keep us out of heaven? One hit on a rock kept Moses out of the promised land. One lie killed the husband and wife team of tentmakers. I can hear you now almost cursing me. Yes, yes, yes we are living under a law of Grace now and not the law of Moses. We need to spend more time studing Grace. I will tell you now that Grace is not Paul's wife. Grace is a gift from a very forgiving God. Another question; Does God's Grace open the door for us to sin willfully or to leave of something that God wants us to do. I Believe we are saved by faith, I think we are saved because we confess our sins, I believe we are saved because we hear the word of God and we are pricked in our hearts.  I believe we are saved because we have repented of our sins. What if I believed with all my heart that Jesus Christ was the son of God and died for my sins but was unwilling to repent of some of my sins because I did not want to stop commiting them. The point I want to make here is there is a differance in believing in God the Father and God the Son and the works of Jesus and in believing to the point that we are willing to follow all the commands of Jesus. Now baptism where does it fall. Right in there with everything else. Where does caring for your neighbor fall in there? right in the middle?

Think about this; To get to Heaven you have to be a Christian. I believe that and I refuse to argue the point. In order to be a Christian you have to be a Christ person. 

Baptism does not make you a Christian;

Just believing that Jesus was real and he was the son of tod does not make you a christian. Saten himself knows that is true.

We know you can't work yourself into Heaven

We know just going to Church does not make you a Christian, no more than sitting in a hen house makes you a chicken.

Knowledge will not get you to heaven aand so on and so on, I could go on all night.

Being a TRUE christian involves three things

1. a Believer (a working faith in our lord and savior Jesus Christ)

2. A follower (one willing to follow Jesus where ever he goes by using the directions in his inspired word)

3. A Disciple, (probably the most misunderstood). A christian  not only is a believer, and a follower, but he is a disciple. The word disciple means one who is disciplined. We don't stop at learning more about jesus ---but we learn to be "LIKE" Jesus. A christian strives to do what Jesus wants. 

I believe that I am saved by faith, because of the grace of God. But I also believe that True faith in God involves, repenting of your sins and turning away from them, confessing those sins to God. Taking responsibility for them. Being Baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rising and live of a newborn baby in Jesus. 

And by the way God adds you to the Church not the Elders of the church, not the Deacons, not the minister and not the congragation. No one can vote you in or out. You are added to the Church by God.

Now does Jesus want me to be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? I don't know about you but I want to be baptised for the forgiveness of my sins. I want to be a part of the rightousness that Jesus fulled when John baptized him.

If this is to much I am so sorry. You should get into a conversation with me. ha ha I love God and I love the word. Christianity is not a thing or an ownership it is a way of life. It is what we are. It is what identifies us. It is what people see in us first. 

Just think about it. Can a person go to Heaven without being baptised. God Can do anything he wants to. He has the power and the will to look into the hearts of man. I would never look at a man and say you are going to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. That is not my job. My job is to be a deciple, a steward of the word of God. 

Thank you and Good night ronniet


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Again, would Brentus and framasis please answer each of these questions specifically?
> 
> They are important questions in all baptism discussions.
> 
> 1. Tell me this RJ. When Christ told His disciples to go into all the world and teach the gospel and that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, do you believe Jesus, at that point expected His disciples to insure that all believers were baptized??????????
> 
> 2. Answer me this also please. In Acts 2 when these Jews responded to this message by Peter they asked Peter, "What shall we do?" Peter responded: "Repent and be baptized."........... Do you think the baptism portion of Peter's statement was open for debate? Was Peter just being a jerk for requiring them to be baptized? Or do you think Peter insisted upon it because Jesus had told the disciples to do it?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> I'm going to bed.


 
I thought I did....

1) Yes. All believers were to be baptized.

2) Yes. All believers were to be baptized.


----------



## Ronnie T

farmasis said:


> I thought I did....
> 
> 1) Yes. All believers were to be baptized.
> 
> 2) Yes. All believers were to be baptized.




No my friend, you did not actually answer.

Never mind.


----------



## Banjo

RonnieT...

I am curious as to how you would answer Lowjack's question?

What of all the Old Testament saints?  Were they baptized?  Did God change his requirement for salvation?  Hebrews 11 tells us they had faith...notice how many times it says:  In faith, In faith.....


----------



## Ronnie T

Banjo said:


> RonnieT...
> 
> I am curious as to how you would answer Lowjack's question?
> 
> What of all the Old Testament saints?  Were they baptized?  Did God change his requirement for salvation?  Hebrews 11 tells us they had faith...notice how many times it says:  In faith, In faith.....




Banjo,

None of that matters to you and I.  
The apostles were commanded to go and baptize.
Christians were instructed to be baptized.
Christians were not told to be baptized as an afterthought of salvation-they were told to be baptized.

Would you please answer the questions in #684.


----------



## Lowjack

Banjo said:


> RonnieT...
> 
> I am curious as to how you would answer Lowjack's question?
> 
> What of all the Old Testament saints?  Were they baptized?  Did God change his requirement for salvation?  Hebrews 11 tells us they had faith...notice how many times it says:  In faith, In faith.....



He he he LOL 

In all seriousness, isn't salvation By grace ? (Unmerited Favor)Through Faith and not with strings attached ? Otherwise it is not by grace.
Doesn't God say , "I will save whom I will save" ? I guess that shows who is in charged of the saving, Am Glad it is not by man's opinions who should be saved, otherwise there would be maybe 50 people in Heaven, LOL


----------



## thedeacon

*This is getting disturbing to me*

A friend of mine once told me that a person should know when to give up because

You could never outpuke a buzzard


----------



## Ronnie T

Lowjack said:


> He he he LOL
> 
> In all seriousness, isn't salvation By grace ? (Unmerited Favor)Through Faith and not with strings attached ? Otherwise it is not by grace.
> Doesn't God say , "I will save whom I will save" ? I guess that shows who is in charged of the saving, Am Glad it is not by man's opinions who should be saved, otherwise there would be maybe 50 people in Heaven, LOL



Man is not saved by man's opinions.  Jesus told the apostles how to get people saved.  The apostles did what God asked to get people saved.  Why do you teach otherwise??????

Lowjack

Why don't you answer the above questions?????

And how about answering the following question.

Lowjack, if Jesus told you to go into the world and teach the gospel, and those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, would you teach baptism like the apostles did, or would you not teach baptism, as you do now??????


----------



## MX5HIGH

thedeacon said:


> A friend of mine once told me that a person should know when to give up because
> 
> You could never outpuke a buzzard



Although I have not entered the conversation yet, I have been following this thread and understand where you're coming from with your statement.

I heard it this way,  "Never argue with a fool, for those standing around might not be able to tell the difference."

I like your explanation better.    ez


----------



## Lowjack

Ronnie T said:


> Man is not saved by man's opinions.  Jesus told the apostles how to get people saved.  The apostles did what God asked to get people saved.  Why do you teach otherwise??????
> 
> Lowjack
> 
> Why don't you answer the above questions?????
> 
> And how about answering the following question.
> 
> Lowjack, if Jesus told you to go into the world and teach the gospel, and those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, would you teach baptism like the apostles did, or would you not teach baptism, as you do now??????



Where do you get that I don't teach baptism ?, I do.
But I also believe, that God's grace is God's grace to give, I don't put limits to his love and to who should be saved.

Remember what he said ? In the last days anyone who calls upon his name shall be saved ?
In one occasion Jesus said "if you don't believe in me, then believe in the works I do" That seems to be a little different gospel there ,don't you think ?. God does not want anyone to be lost.

I just don't think it is our right to say who is and who is not saved, that is how dogma got into the Church and man ended up with a false gospel.Baptism is a work of the flesh, are you saved by works ?
It is God who decides who He wants to spend eternity with.


----------



## Ronnie T

Lowjack said:


> Where do you get that I don't teach baptism ?, I do.
> But I also believe, that God's grace is God's grace to give, I don't put limits to his love and to who should be saved.
> 
> Remember what he said ? In the last days anyone who calls upon his name shall be saved ?
> In one occasion Jesus said "if you don't believe in me, then believe in the works I do" That seems to be a little different gospel there ,don't you think ?. God does not want anyone to be lost.
> 
> I just don't think it is our right to say who is and who is not saved, that is how dogma got into the Church and man ended up with a false gospel.Baptism is a work of the flesh, are you saved by works ?
> It is God who decides who He wants to spend eternity with.




I too believe in God's grace.  And His mercy.  And His forgiveness.   And His commandments.
I don't put limits on God's grace.  God put limits on His grace.

You didn't answer the questions.


----------



## Ronnie T

Lowjack.

You claim that baptism is a work of the flesh.
Not according to Romans 6
Not according to Col 2
A work of the flesh is something one does because they are striving to live for Jesus.
Baptism is accomplished because it was a righteous command from Jesus to His apostles.  One is not baptized in order to please Jesus.  One is baptized because it is the seal of the belief I have in Jesus Christ.  Read some commentaries.

Oh brother.


----------



## Big7

Lowjack said:


> It is God who decides who He wants to spend eternity with.



No - God has decided that he wants EVERYONE
to spend eternity with Him.

It is now up to us to prove that we are worthy.

We demonstrate this to Him by our faith and our actions.


----------



## Big7

*The sacrament of baptism*

THE DIFFERENT BAPTISMS:

76. When John the Baptist baptised on the banks of the Jordan River, he was preaching the Baptism of water which is a Baptism of repentance. [Mt. 3:6] In that case, the Baptism was an outward sign, a profession of faith, on the part of the believer that he was repenting of his sins, giving his life to God. (C.C.C. # 720)

77. John preached that the Baptism of Jesus would be a Baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire. [Mt. 3:11] The Baptism of Jesus that includes water, the Holy Spirit and fire, represent four things that happen in the following order:

78. First of all, the Sacrament of Baptism by water reflects the believer's sincere repentance, his turning away from sin and giving his life to God. It is the public profession of faith that one now belongs to Jesus. (C.C.C. # 1427)

79. Secondly, through faith in Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of Baptism, the believer receives his new heart and spirit in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This happens at the moment when the Priest baptizes the new convert by saying the baptismal words and sprinkling the water. At this moment, a supernatural event takes place within the person, the old heart and human spirit being replaced by the new creation. [Gal. 6:15] This is the most beautiful gift that a person can receive during his life!

80. Thirdly, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit means that the Holy Spirit has descended on the Christian to dwell within his physical body, coexisting with the new heart and spirit. Now the believer begins to feel a growing burning desire for Jesus, being drawn towards God by the power of the Holy Spirit.

81. Finally, through the Baptism by fire, the new Christian accepts the purification of the Holy Spirit. (C.C.C. # 1227) This process of being purified provides the new creation with the necessary additional strength to gain control of the physical body. During this process of sanctification, the Christian shines in the fruit of the Holy Spirit through Jesus, displaying love towards God and others.

82. Following the receiving of the Sacrament of Baptism, many things happen such as the believer receiving the fruit of the Spirit, one or more spiritual gifts, being justified, receiving moral virtues and theological virtues to know God (C.C.C. # 1266), all of these being received from the Holy Spirit.

I think this is where pwalls gets his famous quote.
My observation. I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR HIM.

GOOD READ HERE:
http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/baptism.htm


----------



## betweenthehedges

*Acts 8:27-39 Conversion of the Ethiopia Eunuch...*

Acts 8:27-39 

27.  And he arose and went: and behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 

 28. Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 

 29. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 

 30. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 

 31. And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 

 32. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 

 33. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 

 34. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 

 35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 

 36. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 

 37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 

 38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 

 39. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

There are other examples of conversions in the bible you can find and see where people were baptized... If they were baptized that should be good enough for us to follow today!

A lot of people need to stop "feeling" and "thinking" and start reading the bible to see what it says. There is only one book that holds the answers and is perfect...


Revelation 22:18-20


18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 

 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


----------



## crackerdave

thedeacon said:


> A friend of mine once told me that a person should know when to give up because
> 
> You could never outpuke a buzzard



Don't let it get to you very much,Deacon - there are some []NOT pointing fingers!] here who would argue with a telephone pole.It's an ego thing,in my opinion.

Also,satan's folks are allowed here [gotta be politically correct,don'tcha know!] and we are to battle him in a Christ-like way,as much as humanly possible.I'm certainly not perfect and neither is anybody else.

That's funny -outpuke a buzzard!

This thread was started a long time ago,and everything that could possibly be said -negative AND positive- has been said.Most of the new folks will not take the time to read old posts to a thread.

Gotta go - time for church!


----------



## Ronnie T

thedeacon said:


> A friend of mine once told me that a person should know when to give up because
> 
> You could never outpuke a buzzard




Deacon,

Do you think I should not press so hard in regard to Jesus' instructions regarding baptism??


----------



## mtnwoman

RonnieT, do you personally know a lot of people who refuse baptism after being saved or something?

I've never known anyone who accepted Christ to refuse baptism or argue against being baptised.


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> RonnieT, do you personally know a lot of people who refuse baptism after being saved or something?
> 
> I've never known anyone who accepted Christ to refuse baptism or argue against being baptised.




No I've never known anyone to refuse.
But, and this is a big but, I know of several people who were taught and led to Christ but were not taught or given an opportunity to be baptized.
I've know three people who accepted Christ in the baptist church and they were told that baptism is a personal decision but not required as a Christian.

You'll be shocked to know that my core belief system is deeply and primarily held together by God's grace and mercy, not only to the unbeliever, but to the seasoned, mature Christian.  But when a person is ready for salvation, for me, and the New Testament, baptism is a part of it.  That's the way the apostles did it - that's the way good ol Ron does it.

Also, I am scared for those who do otherwise.
This is important stuff.
For me, it's like ignoring the obvious.


----------



## pfharris1965

*...*



rjcruiser said:


> Well, in another thread, this got brought up. See quote below.
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that baptism is a command from God. I believe that it is for people that have turned from Sin to God (ie true believers...not for babies or infants). However, there is no scripture that points to the fact that you must be baptized to be saved.
> 
> For those of you who believe this, I bring up the thief on the cross next to Christ. He didn't turn from his sin until moments before his death. He wasn't baptized, yet Christ says to him that they will see eachother in paradise (Heaven).


 
Saved gets you into Heaven from what I was taught growing up in a Baptist church...Baptism just says you are a member of a particular church.


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Deacon,
> 
> Do you think I should not press so hard in regard to Jesus' instructions regarding baptism??


 
I haven't heard one person say they do not think Jesus wants us to be baptized or to baptized believers.

It is simply a matter of what that dunking in the water does. Does it seal us or finish our salvation process, or is a symbolic sign of obedience?

I believe in a spiritual baptism that occurs at the moment your mouth confess Jesus is lord and believe that he died for your sins in your heart. I believe that is what cleanses you within. I believe that the outward symbolic profession of your faith should include the water baptism commanded by and given example by our Lord.

21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3)

 3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 

 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3)


----------



## Ronnie T

pfharris1965 said:


> Saved gets you into Heaven from what I was taught growing up in a Baptist church...Baptism just says you are a member of a particular church.



If you have not been baptized I'd like to encourage you to do a study of baptism in the New Testament.  Do not trust what I say or what someone else tells you.

1Tim 6:20-21    O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"--which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.


----------



## pfharris1965

Ronnie T said:


> If you have not been baptized I'd like to encourage you to do a study of baptism in the New Testament. Do not trust what I say or what someone else tells you.
> 
> 1Tim 6:20-21 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"--which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.


 
Never said I was not Baptized...just said you did not need it to get into Heaven.

Interesting verse you shared, the verse you quoted encompasses a lot of the reason a lot of good folks quit posting in this forum anyhow.  I posted for a while and asked questions but was constantly chastised and chased away for the very reasons indicated in the verse.

I do enjoy reading from some of those here (yourself included) though and rarely post anymore because of the very thing meant by the verse you shared.  I choose to read here for the spiritual value (when it presents itself) as well as the comedic value (which sometimes seems more prevalent sadly enough).

Thanks for the reply and I will check it out.


----------



## mtnwoman

We are born of water in the womb.....BUT we must be born again in spirit. When we are baptized we are not born, we are dead in Christ and resurrected with him, not reborn.

Being a born again Christian doesn't mean I've been baptized it means I have been born again in the spirit, I'm a new man/woman...I'm already born in the flesh out of water.

I've been baptized so I'm covered either way and I know what it means and believe it and try to live by that.

Someone just being baptized does not mean they are a born again Christian, I've seen that plenty in my life. Baptized but not dead to sin nor living a Christian life.

Am I going to hedoublehockysticks because we drink grapejuice at communion instead of wine? We aren't exactly following what Jesus commanded on that.

I ask my exhusband a while back (which took some courage) if he was saved. He said "well if you mean have I been baptized, yes I've been baptized. I'm not a heathen and I'm a pretty nice guy"......he happens to be a heathen or at least acts like one. He thinks since he's been baptized and hasn't killed anybody then he's good to go.

That's why people baptise their children, because they believe that's a guarantee. 

That's why I never make a big deal about baptism to people...I'm just happy to get them to receive Christ as their saviour, then they usually can't wait to get baptized.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Double Barrel BB said:


> So the Sacrifice of Jesus is not enough to Save someone?
> 
> DB BB


 

Did ya'll miss this one?

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> 1Tim 6:20-21    O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"--which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.





pfharris1965 said:


> Never said I was not Baptized...just said you did not need it to get into Heaven.
> 
> Interesting verse you shared, the verse you quoted encompasses a lot of the reason a lot of good folks quit posting in this forum anyhow.  I posted for a while and asked questions but was constantly chastised and chased away for the very reasons indicated in the verse.
> 
> I do enjoy reading from some of those here (yourself included) though and rarely post anymore because of the very thing meant by the verse you shared.  I choose to read here for the spiritual value (when it presents itself) as well as the comedic value (which sometimes seems more prevalent sadly enough).
> 
> Thanks for the reply and I will check it out.





pf....that was a good reply.  Gave me a good chuckle.  I think your participation would neither be empty nor worldly.


----------



## rjcruiser

thedeacon said:


> The question is; Is baptism a matter of salvation? In the book of Acts we have many examples of conversions. I think it is important to look at the conversions in totality and gleen all the information that we find there. In the acts of the apostles many people heard the word of God from the Apostles and the Disciples of Christ. A large number of these people were picked by Jesus himself. He told them to Go and Preach the Gospel, Teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU. (Baptise) in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I can say for sure that Baptism was very important to Jesus. He himself wanted to be baptised to fullfill all rightousness. Are we not trying to be rightous in the sight of God. For some reason, even though Jesus was sinless he needed to be baptised to fulfill the rightousness of God. Now the question is "CAN YOU GO TO HEAVEN WITHOUT BAPTISM"? That is not a question for me a lowly sinner in the sight of God myself. But let me ask you a question. If something is importat to God (Jesus) should it be important to man. Will one thing like that keep us out of heaven? One hit on a rock kept Moses out of the promised land. One lie killed the husband and wife team of tentmakers. I can hear you now almost cursing me. Yes, yes, yes we are living under a law of Grace now and not the law of Moses. We need to spend more time studing Grace. I will tell you now that Grace is not Paul's wife. Grace is a gift from a very forgiving God. Another question; Does God's Grace open the door for us to sin willfully or to leave of something that God wants us to do. I Believe we are saved by faith, I think we are saved because we confess our sins, I believe we are saved because we hear the word of God and we are pricked in our hearts.  I believe we are saved because we have repented of our sins. What if I believed with all my heart that Jesus Christ was the son of God and died for my sins but was unwilling to repent of some of my sins because I did not want to stop commiting them. The point I want to make here is there is a differance in believing in God the Father and God the Son and the works of Jesus and in believing to the point that we are willing to follow all the commands of Jesus. Now baptism where does it fall. Right in there with everything else. Where does caring for your neighbor fall in there? right in the middle?
> 
> Think about this; To get to Heaven you have to be a Christian. I believe that and I refuse to argue the point. In order to be a Christian you have to be a Christ person.
> 
> Baptism does not make you a Christian;
> 
> Just believing that Jesus was real and he was the son of tod does not make you a christian. Saten himself knows that is true.
> 
> We know you can't work yourself into Heaven
> 
> We know just going to Church does not make you a Christian, no more than sitting in a hen house makes you a chicken.
> 
> Knowledge will not get you to heaven aand so on and so on, I could go on all night.
> 
> Being a TRUE christian involves three things
> 
> 1. a Believer (a working faith in our lord and savior Jesus Christ)
> 
> 2. A follower (one willing to follow Jesus where ever he goes by using the directions in his inspired word)
> 
> 3. A Disciple, (probably the most misunderstood). A christian  not only is a believer, and a follower, but he is a disciple. The word disciple means one who is disciplined. We don't stop at learning more about jesus ---but we learn to be "LIKE" Jesus. A christian strives to do what Jesus wants.
> 
> I believe that I am saved by faith, because of the grace of God. But I also believe that True faith in God involves, repenting of your sins and turning away from them, confessing those sins to God. Taking responsibility for them. Being Baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rising and live of a newborn baby in Jesus.
> 
> And by the way God adds you to the Church not the Elders of the church, not the Deacons, not the minister and not the congragation. No one can vote you in or out. You are added to the Church by God.
> 
> Now does Jesus want me to be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? I don't know about you but I want to be baptised for the forgiveness of my sins. I want to be a part of the rightousness that Jesus fulled when John baptized him.
> 
> If this is to much I am so sorry. You should get into a conversation with me. ha ha I love God and I love the word. Christianity is not a thing or an ownership it is a way of life. It is what we are. It is what identifies us. It is what people see in us first.
> 
> Just think about it. Can a person go to Heaven without being baptised. God Can do anything he wants to. He has the power and the will to look into the hearts of man. I would never look at a man and say you are going to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. That is not my job. My job is to be a deciple, a steward of the word of God.
> 
> Thank you and Good night ronniet



good post.  We must be disciples of Christ.

Maybe my original question should have been, "can you be a true Disciple of Christ without being baptized"


----------



## thedeacon

*baptism*

Then the answer is obviously NO
If Jesus likes it I like it to


----------



## thedeacon

never stop pressing on just choose your battle's with wisdon and love


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Double Barrel BB said:


> So the Sacrifice of Jesus is not enough to Save someone?
> 
> DB BB


 

How hard of a question is this?(see quote above)

DB BB


----------



## Ronnie T

Here are a couple of questions I've been trying for several days to get several of you to answer.

NO ONE has seriously taken a look at the questions and answered then with much thought.

Please, would everyone involved just answer them.

*1. Tell me this RJ*. When Christ told His disciples to go into all the world and teach the gospel and that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, do you believe Jesus, at that point expected His disciples to insure that all believers were baptized??????????

*2. Answer me this also please*. In Acts 2 when these Jews responded to this message by Peter they asked Peter, "What shall we do?" Peter responded: "Repent and be baptized."........... Do you think the baptism portion of Peter's statement was open for debate? Was Peter just being a jerk for requiring them to be baptized? Or do you think Peter insisted upon it because Jesus had told the disciples to do it?


----------



## gtparts

1. I am certain that Jesus fully expected that they preach the Gospel and upon confession, repentance, and profession, then baptize them.

2a. No.
2b. No.
2c. Yes.


----------



## Lowjack

Is there any evidence in the bible that ,non-believers who were not baptized or believe in God, were saved by Christ ?


----------



## Huntinfool

man, this is the topic that never dies!


----------



## Huntinfool

man, this is the topic that never dies!


----------



## StriperAddict

Double Barrel BB said:


> So the Sacrifice of Jesus is not enough to Save someone?
> 
> DB BB


 


Lowjack said:


> Is there any evidence in the bible that ,non-believers who were not baptized or believe in God, were saved by Christ ?


 

In answer to both,  what about the thief on the cross who was promised paradise?


----------



## Ronnie T

Lowjack said:


> Is there any evidence in the bible that ,non-believers who were not baptized or believe in God, were saved by Christ ?




Not after the presentation of the Gospel in Acts 2.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

Ronnie T said:


> You say that God knows the heart of each person and that's what saves the person...... What does God think of the person who ignores all the the gospel says about being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
> If I don't teach baptism as part of the gospel message, what must God think of me?  If you consider it to be a "do it only if you want to" obligation, what must God think of your heart?
> Your telling me that it's okay for a person not to bet baptized tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Doc Holliday, have you been baptized in the name of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?



have you sinned since you were saved and baptized?  You do know that Jesus tells us that we should not sin anymore once we have been saved.  But we all still sin.

The person who "ignores what the gospel says" probably never was saved in the first place.  God knows that.  The person that repents and begins to live a righteous life... God knows that too.  Any person that is saved, I'm sure intends to be baptized in water also, just like they intend to pay their tithes and witness to the lost.  However, I do not think those things are, in and of themselves, a requirement for salvation because I think if a person gets saved but dies before he is baptized will still be in heaven.  Just like I think a person that gets saved but never has the chance to lead someone to Christ will also be in heaven, even though the scripture clearly tells us we are to go into the world and tell the Gospel.

if you think you know me you are sadly mistaken.  I have been baptized in water, in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and I have been baptized in the fire of the Holy Spirit.  I am not looking for some loophole in Christianity so I can do things I want to do all while clinging to Christ's saving grace as a backup plan.  I am sold out for Christ.  The difference is that I don't believe my physical baptism is what completed my salvation.  I believe that as soon as I stood up from that altar when I was 8 years old after having asked Christ to forgive me of my sins and come into my heart I was saved.  

I got baptized probably a month or two later.  If I had died... you think I'd be in h ell.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

rjcruiser said:


> Ronnie,
> I think you've got it all wrong.  I don't mean to answer for Doc, but I think we view this subject very similarly...and even if we don't, I like to answer questions for others
> 
> I'm not preaching that it is okay to not get baptized.  Baptism is a command from God.  If I were to preach that lying was okay, it would be the same as if I were to preach that not getting baptized was okay.  Is someone still saved if they lie?  Yes.  Is someone still saved if they haven't been baptized?  Yes.  Are they living in sin?  Yes.  Will the Lord deal with that and hold them accountable for that?  Yes.
> 
> Have I been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?  Yes.
> 
> Boy...I sure do like these "Yes" questions.


very good RJ, but don't make a habit out of it...


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

Ronnie T said:


> I believe baptism is a matter of the heart.  I do not believe baptism is a work.  Not a work of mine.  It is a work of God.  In Salvation, there is no horse and cart.  There is only the horse.  If you want salvation, you must get on the horse.


if it is a matter of the heart only, then why do you have to physically get up out of your chair, go to the baptismal pool, and be dunked?  It is a matter of the heart to decide to be obedient to God's will, in every way, not just baptism.  But that decision is made in the heart.  If you make that decision but for some reason circumstances don;t allow you to be baptized, you don't think someone will still go to heaven?



Ronnie T said:


> Tell me this RJ.  When Christ told His disciples to go into all the world and teach the gospel and that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, do you belive Jesus, at that point expected His disciples to insure that all believers were baptized???????????


do you believe the disciples made it to the entire earth before they died?  were they disobedient if they did not?

He said this: 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be dam ned.

Why didn't he say "he that believeth not, _or believeth but is not baptized_ shall be dam ned." ???



Ronnie T said:


> Answer me this also please.  In Acts 2 when these Jews responded to this message by Peter they asked Peter, "What shall we do?"  Peter responded:  "Repent and be baptized."...........    Do you think the baptism portion of Peter's statement was open for debate?  Was Peter just being a jerk for requiring them to be baptized?  Or do you think Peter insisted upon it because Jesus had told the disciples to do it?


Peter does not require anything for salvation because it is not in his power to require anything.  

You can find as many scriptures that do not say "be baptized" as there are that do.  And you can find plenty of other stipulations Christ said, like "sin no more"...  The fact is that they are corrolary and in addition to, the initial belief that is the sole requirement for salvation.


----------



## mtnwoman

Huntinfool said:


> man, this is the topic that never dies!



Looks like it.....this will stir things a little in a good way....LOL...this might be a repeat but it's still funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRT_dj6j7xM&feature=related


----------



## mtnwoman

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> He said this: 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be dam ned.
> 
> Why didn't he say "he that believeth not, _or believeth but is not baptized_ shall be dam ned." ???



I had ask that in a previous post, I'd like to have an answer on that, too.


----------



## Lowjack

Ronnie T said:


> Not after the presentation of the Gospel in Acts 2.


Explain ??


----------



## Ronnie T

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> if it is a matter of the heart only, then why do you have to physically get up out of your chair, go to the baptismal pool, and be dunked?  It is a matter of the heart to decide to be obedient to God's will, in every way, not just baptism.  But that decision is made in the heart.  If you make that decision but for some reason circumstances don;t allow you to be baptized, you don't think someone will still go to heaven?
> 
> 
> do you believe the disciples made it to the entire earth before they died?  were they disobedient if they did not?
> 
> He said this: 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be dam ned.
> 
> Why didn't he say "he that believeth not, _or believeth but is not baptized_ shall be dam ned." ???
> 
> 
> Peter does not require anything for salvation because it is not in his power to require anything.
> 
> You can find as many scriptures that do not say "be baptized" as there are that do.  And you can find plenty of other stipulations Christ said, like "sin no more"...  The fact is that they are corrolary and in addition to, the initial belief that is the sole requirement for salvation.




Is repentance required before salvation?
------repentance is a work.

Doc, you will find no place in the Bible that indicates that an unbeliever came to Jesus Christ and was not immediately baptized.  No place.

The book of Acts is the only book that I'm aware of that details the conversion of unbelievers into discipleship with Jesus Christ.

One of the Bible commentators from a few centuries ago described Baptism not a a work of the flesh or a fruit of the spirit, but as a work of faith.


----------



## thedeacon

*lets all meet*

If you will all meet me somewhere in the middle I will baptise all of you and we will all be safe ha ha ha


----------



## Ronnie T

Originally Posted by Doc_Holliday23  
He said this: 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be dam ned.
Why didn't he say "he that believeth not, or believeth but is not baptized shall be dam ned." ???



mtnwoman said:


> I had ask that in a previous post, I'd like to have an answer on that, too.



Mark 16:16 is a simple and easily understood verse unless you are trying to make it say something it isn't.

*"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;*"  If a person believes and is baptized he shall be saved by Jesus Christ.  No doubt about it.  Jesus said that if a person believes in me and is baptized, I will save him.  Meaning, I will become the sacrifice for his/her sins.

"*but he that believeth not shall be Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----*."  A person that has been properly taught the Good News of Christ, and yet does not believe in Jesus as the Christ, is condemned.  He has refused Christ as Lord and Savior.  Baptism isn't mentioned in the last part of the sentence for good reason.  If a person doesn't believe he certainly wouldn't be baptized.

Believing in Jesus is the key.  But according to Jesus, baptism goes along with belief.  Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have included it.

Now, if you don't like what Jesus commanded there, you'll have to take it up with Him.

Repentance is also commanded but it isn't included in this particular verse.


----------



## Ronnie T

Originally Posted by Ronnie T  
Not after the presentation of the Gospel in Acts 2.



Lowjack said:


> Explain ??




Acts chapter 2 is an important point in the New Testament.  Acts 2 records the beginning of the Church.  The beginning of salvation thru the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  In Acts 2 God began adding to the kingdom all who were being saved.


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> Looks like it.....this will stir things a little in a good way....LOL...this might be a repeat but it's still funny
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRT_dj6j7xM&feature=related




I love it.  He should know that you can't trust a teenager.


----------



## thedeacon

One of the hardest things I ever had to do was to baptize a fat boy scared of the water


----------



## Sterlo58

answer to the original ? is no


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

interesting passage:  1 Corinthians 1:13-17



> 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into* the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.*


*

Discuss.*


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

Ronnie T said:


> Is repentance required before salvation?
> ------repentance is a work.


I don't agree with you on that.  One is physical (being baptized) and one is in your heart and mind (repentance.)  Anything in the realm of heart/mind/soul is not a work.  



Ronnie T said:


> Doc, you will find no place in the Bible that indicates that an unbeliever came to Jesus Christ and was not immediately baptized.  No place.
> 
> The book of Acts is the only book that I'm aware of that details the conversion of unbelievers into discipleship with Jesus Christ.
> 
> One of the Bible commentators from a few centuries ago described Baptism not a a work of the flesh or a fruit of the spirit, but as a work of faith.



was the woman at the well baptized?

I still maintain Mark 16.  It says if a person does not believe, then he will be condemned.  That makes me believe, along with Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast," that God's grace and our belief in it alone will save us.


----------



## Ronnie T

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> interesting passage:  1 Corinthians 1:13-17
> 
> Discuss.




Here in these verses Paul has discovered a terrible thing going on in the church in Corinth.  That church appeares to be splintering.  They are beginning to follow men rather than follow Christ.  It appears they were even being baptized into the names of people such as Apollos rather than being baptized into the name of Christ.  Paul was glad he had not baptized many of them because he didn't want them to claim baptism into Paul rather than Christ.  It also appears that Paul left the task of baptizing new converts to his fellow travelers and to local ministers and elders.
It cannot be claimed that Paul did not believe in baptism.  Paul wrote the letter to the Romans and in it, in chapter 6, Paul reminded those Christians what had occurred during and as a result of their baptism.  Paul gave them a pretty good tongue lashing.

I hope my writing has made sense.


----------



## thedeacon

just a quick thought!!! the Bible says By transgression Judas Fell. What was the transgression and from where did he fall. Just a thought question. Maybe we better define saved. If a man is drowning and you throw him a rope. when is he saved? when he catches the rope or when he is actually back in the boat or is it when he gets back on dry land. Not a debate!!! just a question


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

Ronnie T said:


> Here in these verses Paul has discovered a terrible thing going on in the church in Corinth.  That church appeares to be splintering.  They are beginning to follow men rather than follow Christ.  It appears they were even being baptized into the names of people such as Apollos rather than being baptized into the name of Christ.  Paul was glad he had not baptized many of them because he didn't want them to claim baptism into Paul rather than Christ.  It also appears that Paul left the task of baptizing new converts to his fellow travelers and to local ministers and elders.
> It cannot be claimed that Paul did not believe in baptism.  Paul wrote the letter to the Romans and in it, in chapter 6, Paul reminded those Christians what had occurred during and as a result of their baptism.  Paul gave them a pretty good tongue lashing.
> 
> I hope my writing has made sense.



nobody is saying they don't believe in baptism.  

if he left the baptizing to local ministers, does it make sense that it could take a day or two to get baptized?  what if 5,000 people were saved in one fell swoop?  there had to be a time between their initial belief and their baptism.


----------



## Ronnie T

Doc
There's really no need in you and I continueing to discuss this subject.  You and I have a different perspective of God's word and how to use it.

You see, I understand that the Samaritan woman and the thief on the cross had personal encounters with Jesus and He dealt with them as He willed. That did not occur during the Christian dispensation.
Later, Jesus sent His disciples into the world to teach, baptize, and make disciples.

There is a chronoligical order to what we refer to as the New Testament.
You, Doc, use God's word to find verses to justify your beliefs.  
I use God's word, including the Gospel, as the place for me to learn to please God.
Ephesians Chapter 2 contains some powerful information for Christians.  But it is written to Christians.  That means, people who have already been baptized.  It isn't the appropriate book to teach someone how to become a Christian, but it is a great book to remind me and you that we are saved by grace, and not by doing good things.
But that doesn't mean that you should ignore Jesus' command and the examples found in Acts to be baptized.


----------



## Ronnie T

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> nobody is saying they don't believe in baptism.
> 
> if he left the baptizing to local ministers, does it make sense that it could take a day or two to get baptized?  what if 5,000 people were saved in one fell swoop?  there had to be a time between their initial belief and their baptism.



*I don't know about 5,000 in one day but the Bible speaks of 3,000 in one day.

Acts 2:
38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 

*Some Christians, in this forum, has stated that a person does not have to be baptized.  According to them, it is not necessary.


----------



## Lowjack

1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1 Pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1 Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

So I guess these people were baptized when they drowned ? But were saved from the very hades.


----------



## Ronnie T

Lowjack said:


> 1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
> 1 Pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
> 1 Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
> 
> So I guess these people were baptized when they drowned ? But were saved from the very hades.





Lowjack, I don't want to be rude but you gonna have to start reading all the other post.  We covered this earlier today.  During the days of Noah, the command to be baptized into the name of Jesus had not been given.
Oh, Abraham wasn't baptized either.


----------



## Ronnie T

I grow very very tired of the thread.  Not the subject.  Just the thread.

I'm going to try not to respond to anyother posts on this thread.
Now don't everyone go jumpin up and down.


----------



## Lowjack

Ronnie T said:


> Lowjack, I don't want to be rude but you gonna have to start reading all the other post.  We covered this earlier today.  During the days of Noah, the command to be baptized into the name of Jesus had not been given.
> Oh, Abraham wasn't baptized either.


But they were save by Jesus' Blood sacrifice , my brother.
I'll read the thread ,if you read the word in context, LOL


----------



## saifa

Why has nobody mentioned Pauls comments in answer to the question about continuing in sin that grace may abound?


----------



## Ronnie T

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

6:1,2 The apostle is very full in pressing the necessity of holiness. He does not explain away the free grace of the gospel, but he shows that connexion between justification and holiness are inseparable. Let the thought be abhorred, of continuing in sin that grace may abound. True believers are dead to sin, therefore they ought not to follow it. No man can at the same time be both dead and alive. He is a fool who, desiring to be dead unto sin, thinks he may live in it.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ-compare 1Co 10:2.

were baptized into his death?-sealed with the seal of heaven, and as it were formally entered and articled, to all the benefits and all the obligations of Christian discipleship in general, and of His death in particular. And since He was "made sin" and "a curse for us" (2Co 5:21; Ga 5:13), "bearing our sins in His own body on the tree," and "rising again for our justification" (Ro 4:25; 1Pe 2:24), our whole sinful case and condition, thus taken up into His Person, has been brought to an end in His death. Whoso, then, has been baptized into Christ's death has formally surrendered the whole state and life of sin, as in Christ a dead thing. He has sealed himself to be not only "the righteousness of God in Him," but "a new creature"; and as he cannot be in Christ to the one effect and not to the other, for they are one thing, he has bidden farewell, by baptism into Christ's death, to his entire connection with sin. "How," then, "can he live any longer therein?" The two things are as contradictory in the fact as they are in the terms


----------



## rjcruiser

Bump for the new girl.


Am I waking a sleeping giant


----------



## Lowjack

Ronnie T said:


> Lowjack, I don't want to be rude but you gonna have to start reading all the other post.  We covered this earlier today.  During the days of Noah, the command to be baptized into the name of Jesus had not been given.
> Oh, Abraham wasn't baptized either.


But they weren't saved back then, they were saved by the blood of christ and his message in hades even before he resurrected, so shouldn't they have being baptize according to your way of thinking ?


----------



## Lowjack

Silence ..........................................................................................


----------



## tell sackett

My answer to the o.p. is short: no.


----------



## Ronnie T

Lowjack said:


> But they weren't saved back then, they were saved by the blood of christ and his message in hades even before he resurrected, so shouldn't they have being baptize according to your way of thinking ?



I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## thedeacon

I believe and my bible says that I am saved by the grace of God, through faith. If that faith does not lead me to obey the commandments of God, then it is not Godly faith. 

We have to love God to be saved. God said If you Love me you will keep my commandments. Thats pretty plain and simple in my opinion.

The question was do you have to be baptized to be saved. The question should be, does the bible tell us to be baptized.
please take the time to read these scriptures. Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, that should be enough for now but I can give you more.

Is there going to be people in heaven that has not been baptized. Maybe, and I say probably but it is clear in the new testiment that baptism was a very important part of the belief and it is commanded in the new testiment, anyone that can read can see that is true.  and We are supposed to be in the business of pleasing God
In 2 pet. 3:21 we are told to Study to show ourselves approved of God a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly deviding the word of truth.

Can we please God without studing his word. I think salvation is a combination of the commands that God has set forth for us to follow. We are told that God is very jealous of us and wants us to follow his commands.

There are conditions to salvation. God says that he will vomit out the luke warm believer. Tell me what that means. If we know we must do. 
I can't prove in my bible that it is wrong to drink but I think its close to the line so I choose not to do it. I think that way about a lot of things. I read my bible and it seems to me when it says and I quote;

refering to the obedience of noah being saved by obeying God

In like manner whereunto baptism doth also NOW save us not putting away the filth of the flesh but answering a good concience toward God. Hope I got in correct.

In reading how much baptism was talked about in ALL the conversions in acts, I, myself, choose to be baptized and to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit for the remission of sins.

However I do not Judge you, God will and I think that is something we should all take into consideration.

God prepared terrow of hades just as he prepared the bliss of Heaven. God is a just and fair God but he is also a wrathful God.

His commandments are very important. I choose to follow his commandment to be baptized.


----------



## Jeffriesw

thedeacon said:


> I believe and my bible says that I am saved by the grace of God, through faith. If that faith does not lead me to obey the commandments of God, then it is not Godly faith.
> 
> We have to love God to be saved. God said If you Love me you will keep my commandments. Thats pretty plain and simple in my opinion.
> 
> The question was do you have to be baptized to be saved. The question should be, does the bible tell us to be baptized.
> please take the time to read these scriptures. Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, that should be enough for now but I can give you more.
> 
> Is there going to be people in heaven that has not been baptized. Maybe, and I say probably but it is clear in the new testiment that baptism was a very important part of the belief and it is commanded in the new testiment, anyone that can read can see that is true.  and We are supposed to be in the business of pleasing God
> In 2 pet. 3:21 we are told to Study to show ourselves approved of God a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly deviding the word of truth.
> 
> Can we please God without studing his word. I think salvation is a combination of the commands that God has set forth for us to follow. We are told that God is very jealous of us and wants us to follow his commands.
> 
> There are conditions to salvation. God says that he will vomit out the luke warm believer. Tell me what that means. If we know we must do.
> I can't prove in my bible that it is wrong to drink but I think its close to the line so I choose not to do it. I think that way about a lot of things. I read my bible and it seems to me when it says and I quote;
> 
> refering to the obedience of noah being saved by obeying God
> 
> In like manner whereunto baptism doth also NOW save us not putting away the filth of the flesh but answering a good concience toward God. Hope I got in correct.
> 
> In reading how much baptism was talked about in ALL the conversions in acts, I, myself, choose to be baptized and to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit for the remission of sins.
> 
> However I do not Judge you, God will and I think that is something we should all take into consideration.
> 
> God prepared terrow of hades just as he prepared the bliss of Heaven. God is a just and fair God but he is also a wrathful God.
> 
> His commandments are very important. I choose to follow his commandment to be baptized.





Excellent Post Sir.


----------



## ddd-shooter

16 pages....wow


----------



## donjon25

I apologize in advance if what I'm about to write has been posted already.  I just don't have time to read all SIXTEEN pages.  

According to scriptures, one DOES have to be baptized.  And...not in just any ole way either...it must be done in Jesus' name.  

The book of Acts plainly lays it out.  More specifically, Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

3 distinctly different things he laid out:  
1.  REPENTANCE (that's a given), 
2.  BAPTISM (in Jesus' name),
3.  RECEIVING the Holy Ghost.

Why did he tell them to be baptized?  He tells you...for remission of sins.  Why did he say that?  Jesus told him to.  Look at Luke 24:46-47 ...and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations...

Now that leads to another dilemna...was Peter being disobedient to Jesus in baptizing in Jesus' name?  Didn't Jesus say in Mark 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?  NO...he was not disobedient!  He understood exactly what Jesus was saying.  Jesus said baptize "IN THE NAME" not the titles.  So Peter obeyed Jesus by baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ".  The above scripture Luke 24:47 also tells us "in his name".  

From this point on in the book of Acts we find anyone and everyone that was baptized was done so in Jesus' name.  

In Acts 8 the Samaritans were baptized, even Simon the sorceror.  (BTW, the Holy Ghost IS NOT automatic upon repentance or baptism, read this chapter and you'll see).   Also the Ethopian eunuch was baptized.  
In Acts 9 the Apostle Paul was baptized.  
In Acts 10 Cornelius and his family was baptized.
In Acts 16 Lydia and her family and even one of the Guards at the jail were baptized.
In Acts 18 the Corithians were baptized.

Now here's a kicker.  In Acts 19 we come across some of John the baptists disciples, who were already baptized.  But guess what?  THEY WERE RE-BAPTIZED, this time in Jesus' name.

So just how important is baptism?  I think it's very important and a commandment from Jesus.

Isn't all power in 'that' name?, don't we lay hands on the sick in 'that' name?, isn't 'that' name the name above all other names?, aren't we saved in 'that' name?  Why wouldn't we be baptized in 'that' name?


----------



## tell sackett

I didn't look at all 16 pages to see if this has been discussed, but if baptism is essential for salvation, what do we do with 1Cor1:14-17? Paul rejoices that he baptized so few. Why would the greatest evangelist do this if we must be baptized to be saved? He says in v.17 that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.


----------



## donjon25

tell sackett said:


> I didn't look at all 16 pages to see if this has been discussed, but if baptism is essential for salvation, what do we do with 1Cor1:14-17? Paul rejoices that he baptized so few. Why would the greatest evangelist do this if we must be baptized to be saved? He says in v.17 that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.



Probably because he didn't have time and he left it to the pastors and/or churches he established.    Kinda like a Billy Graham thing.  He preached to thousands, possibly millions, but I don't think he baptized each one.  An evangelist preaches from place to place...always on the move spreading the gospel.  When an evangelist comes to our church, they preach...our pastor will do any baptism.


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> I apologize in advance if what I'm about to write has been posted already.  I just don't have time to read all SIXTEEN pages.
> 
> According to scriptures, one DOES have to be baptized.  And...not in just any ole way either...it must be done in Jesus' name.
> 
> The book of Acts plainly lays it out.  More specifically, Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 3 distinctly different things he laid out:
> 1.  REPENTANCE (that's a given),
> 2.  BAPTISM (in Jesus' name),
> 3.  RECEIVING the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Why did he tell them to be baptized?  He tells you...for remission of sins.  Why did he say that?  Jesus told him to.  Look at Luke 24:46-47 ...and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations...
> 
> Now that leads to another dilemna...was Peter being disobedient to Jesus in baptizing in Jesus' name?  Didn't Jesus say in Mark 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?  NO...he was not disobedient!  He understood exactly what Jesus was saying.  Jesus said baptize "IN THE NAME" not the titles.  So Peter obeyed Jesus by baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ".  The above scripture Luke 24:47 also tells us "in his name".
> 
> From this point on in the book of Acts we find anyone and everyone that was baptized was done so in Jesus' name.
> 
> In Acts 8 the Samaritans were baptized, even Simon the sorceror.  (BTW, the Holy Ghost IS NOT automatic upon repentance or baptism, read this chapter and you'll see).   Also the Ethopian eunuch was baptized.
> In Acts 9 the Apostle Paul was baptized.
> In Acts 10 Cornelius and his family was baptized.
> In Acts 16 Lydia and her family and even one of the Guards at the jail were baptized.
> In Acts 18 the Corithians were baptized.
> 
> Now here's a kicker.  In Acts 19 we come across some of John the baptists disciples, who were already baptized.  But guess what?  THEY WERE RE-BAPTIZED, this time in Jesus' name.
> 
> So just how important is baptism?  I think it's very important and a commandment from Jesus.
> 
> Isn't all power in 'that' name?, don't we lay hands on the sick in 'that' name?, isn't 'that' name the name above all other names?, aren't we saved in 'that' name?  Why wouldn't we be baptized in 'that' name?




Yes...that is right....and that is why John 3:16 in my Bible reads like this.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.  That whosoever believes in Him, _repents of sin, is baptised in name of Jesus and receives the Holy Spirit_, shall not perish, but have eternal life."


----------



## tell sackett

Donjon: I agree with you up to a point, Paul couldn't have baptized all who were saved under his ministry, but I  think the reason he rejoiced was that he knew that the message of the cross was all that is needed for salvation. He never mentions baptism in any of the Roman road passages.         Deacon makes a good point when he says the question should be"does the Bible tell us to be baptized"? Yes, it is a very important public profession of our faith and the death of the old man and our resurrection to new life in Christ, but it can't add to the completed work of Christ on the cross.


----------



## tell sackett

rjcruiser said:


> Yes...that is right....and that is why John 3:16 in my Bible reads like this.
> 
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.  That whosoever believes in Him, _repents of sin, is baptised in name of Jesus and receives the Holy Spirit_, shall not perish, but have eternal life."


 You're a bad boy


----------



## Ruger#3

Please indulge a related question if you would.

As most in this thread do not appear to believe in child baptism can you please provide scripture reference as to the existance of the age of accountability, when and how you know that age is reached so baptism would be appropriate. How do you know the 12 year old has or has not  vs the 16 year has or has not.


----------



## rjcruiser

tell sackett said:


> You're a bad boy







tell sackett said:


> Donjon: I agree with you up to a point, Paul couldn't have baptized all who were saved under his ministry, but I  think the reason he rejoiced was that he knew that the message of the cross was all that is needed for salvation. He never mentions baptism in any of the Roman road passages.         Deacon makes a good point when he says the question should be"does the Bible tell us to be baptized"? Yes, it is a very important public profession of our faith and the death of the old man and our resurrection to new life in Christ, but it can't add to the completed work of Christ on the cross.



exactly.  requiring anything cheapens the grace that God bestows on us.

I'm reading a book that deals with God's Grace and our response (can't remember the title of the book right now) but the author talks about the most powerful force of motivation.  Not fear, not respect...but love.  We should want to obey God and follow His commandments because we love Him.  If we try and do things out of duty, we will always fall short of the standard that God requires...perfection.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ruger#3 said:


> Please indulge a related question if you would.
> 
> As most in this thread do not appear to believe in child baptism can you please provide scripture reference as to the existance of the age of accountability, when and how you know that age is reached so baptism would be appropriate. How do you know the 12 year old has or has not  vs the 16 year has or has not.



David's child with Bathsheba was sent to heaven, correct?

Would you say that that child was accountable for the sins it committed or not accountable for the sins it committed?


----------



## Ronnie T

rjcruiser said:


> exactly.  requiring anything cheapens the grace that God bestows on us.
> I'm reading a book that deals with God's Grace and our response (can't remember the title of the book right now) but the author talks about the most powerful force of motivation.  Not fear, not respect...but love.  We should want to obey God and follow His commandments because we love Him.  If we try and do things out of duty, we will always fall short of the standard that God requires...perfection.




Not being obedient to God's will concerning baptism shows our blatant disregard for the Holiness of God's word.
The book of acts makes it very clear..... Anytime someone is taught the Gospel of Christ, that teaching should include baptism.  And it was not an option.
Baptism and John 3:16 work together.


----------



## Ronnie T

rjcruiser said:


> David's child with Bathsheba was sent to heaven, correct?
> 
> Would you say that that child was accountable for the sins it committed or not accountable for the sins it committed?



Isn't my purpose in life to know about a child of David that died centuries before the Savior died for our sins.
What would speculating about this have to do with what God, Jesus Christ, and the apostles required for the forgiveness of sin?

Water baptism is for the New Testament convert to Jesus Christ.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> Isn't my purpose in life to know about a child of David that died centuries before the Savior died for our sins.
> What would speculating about this have to do with what God, Jesus Christ, and the apostles required for the forgiveness of sin?



Nothing....  Has to do with the quote I had above my response on age of accountability.



rjcruiser said:


> David's child with Bathsheba was sent to heaven, correct?
> 
> Would you say that that child was accountable for the sins it committed or not accountable for the sins it committed?





Ruger#3 said:


> As most in this thread do not appear to believe in child baptism can you please provide scripture reference as to the existance of the age of accountability,


----------



## donjon25

rjcruiser said:


> Yes...that is right....and that is why John 3:16 in my Bible reads like this.
> 
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.  That whosoever believes in Him, _repents of sin, is baptised in name of Jesus and receives the Holy Spirit_, shall not perish, but have eternal life."



Key word:  Believes.  "If" one believes, I mean truly believes in him, then he will follow his teachings and be obedient to his word.  

If just believing was "all" that was required, why would he give his apostles their commission?  

In order for one to come to God, he must first believe that he is.

Let me ask you this:  Did Judas Iscariot believe in Jesus?  Infact James 2:19 says that devils believe there's one God and even tremble.


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> Key word:  Believes.  "If" one believes, I mean truly believes in him, then he will follow his teachings and be obedient to his word.
> 
> If just believing was "all" that was required, why would he give his apostles their commission?
> 
> In order for one to come to God, he must first believe that he is.
> 
> Let me ask you this:  Did Judas Iscariot believe in Jesus?  Infact James 2:19 says that devils believe there's one God and even tremble.



Yes...Judas believed in Christ...but not for the propitiation of his sins.  Christ calls him the son of perdition in one of the gospels....so no, Judas didn't go to heaven.

And yes, if one believes, they should do all they can to obey Christ.....but the key is that they do it out of love, not out of requirement.  If works were required, it wouldn't be a FREE gift.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> Not being obedient to God's will concerning baptism shows our blatant disregard for the Holiness of God's word.
> The book of acts makes it very clear..... Anytime someone is taught the Gospel of Christ, that teaching should include baptism.  And it was not an option.
> Baptism and John 3:16 work together.



This thread is not about "should" you be baptized.  All would agree the answer is yes.

The thread is about "Is baptism NECESSARY for salvation?".  That's an entirely different question my man.

You CAN be saved without baptism.  You should not REFUSE baptism because of that fact.  

If we were required to fulfill every single one of God's commands in order to be saved....we'd all be in a heap of trouble brother.


----------



## Ruger#3

rjcruiser said:


> David's child with Bathsheba was sent to heaven, correct?
> 
> Would you say that that child was accountable for the sins it committed or not accountable for the sins it committed?



Back to the question, specifically. I can accept the inference to the innocence of the infant in question though born into sin. Also, thats an old testament reference. 

Where does the scripture, new testament preferably, give reference to when you reach an age of accountability and how does one know that the age has been reached. 10, 12, 14, 16, a state of understanding your relationship with God, where's the reference?


----------



## Ronnie T

I always wonder why people are quick to quote John 3:16 but do not quote John 3:3
"3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

John 3:5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 

That talk of "spirit" reminds me of Acts 2:38
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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." 

We need to be born again.
We need the spirit in order to be born again.
In baptism our sins are forgiven.
AND, receive that spirit.


----------



## wholenotem

donjon25 said:


> I apologize in advance if what I'm about to write has been posted already.  I just don't have time to read all SIXTEEN pages.
> 
> According to scriptures, one DOES have to be baptized.  And...not in just any ole way either...it must be done in Jesus' name.
> 
> The book of Acts plainly lays it out.  More specifically, Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 3 distinctly different things he laid out:
> 1.  REPENTANCE (that's a given),
> 2.  BAPTISM (in Jesus' name),
> 3.  RECEIVING the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Why did he tell them to be baptized?  He tells you...for remission of sins.  Why did he say that?  Jesus told him to.  Look at Luke 24:46-47 ...and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations...
> 
> Now that leads to another dilemna...was Peter being disobedient to Jesus in baptizing in Jesus' name?  Didn't Jesus say in Mark 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?  NO...he was not disobedient!  He understood exactly what Jesus was saying.  Jesus said baptize "IN THE NAME" not the titles.  So Peter obeyed Jesus by baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ".  The above scripture Luke 24:47 also tells us "in his name".
> 
> From this point on in the book of Acts we find anyone and everyone that was baptized was done so in Jesus' name.
> 
> In Acts 8 the Samaritans were baptized, even Simon the sorceror.  (BTW, the Holy Ghost IS NOT automatic upon repentance or baptism, read this chapter and you'll see).   Also the Ethopian eunuch was baptized.
> In Acts 9 the Apostle Paul was baptized.
> In Acts 10 Cornelius and his family was baptized.
> In Acts 16 Lydia and her family and even one of the Guards at the jail were baptized.
> In Acts 18 the Corithians were baptized.
> 
> Now here's a kicker.  In Acts 19 we come across some of John the baptists disciples, who were already baptized.  But guess what?  THEY WERE RE-BAPTIZED, this time in Jesus' name.
> 
> So just how important is baptism?  I think it's very important and a commandment from Jesus.
> 
> Isn't all power in 'that' name?, don't we lay hands on the sick in 'that' name?, isn't 'that' name the name above all other names?, aren't we saved in 'that' name?  Why wouldn't we be baptized in 'that' name?


 DonJon are you equating Baptism with Salvation or coupling it with Salvation, in order to be Saved?


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> In baptism our sins are forgiven.





Our sins are forgiven because we're baptized?


----------



## rjcruiser

Ruger#3 said:


> Back to the question, specifically. I can accept the inference to the innocence of the infant in question though born into sin. Also, thats an old testament reference.
> 
> Where does the scripture, new testament preferably, give reference to when you reach an age of accountability and how does one know that the age has been reached. 10, 12, 14, 16, a state of understanding your relationship with God, where's the reference?



Okay...when Christ is teaching and the little children come to Him.  He calls them "innocents" again, referring to the Biblical theme (OT and NT) that God will spare children from His wrath because they do not understand nor comprehend their need for Him.


----------



## donjon25

wholenotem said:


> DonJon are you equating Baptism with Salvation or coupling it with Salvation, in order to be Saved?



I guess you could say I'm coupling it with salvation.  

Did not the apostles teach and preach baptism?  I think it's pretty obvious they did.  Did not Peter answer the question "what shall we do" when the people were pricked in their hearts in Acts 2:37?

Were they not taught and blessed by Jesus Christ and told to go into the world baptizing? (Mat 28:19)

No, I'm not downplaying what Jesus did on the cross.  I know that by HIS grace and mercy AND his action we are saved.  However, "WE" have to first accept such salvation.  We have to believe, not just an acknowledgement, but really believe, actually 'sell out' to Jesus, then we must repent and according to the apostles be BAPTIZED.  Peter didn't say "if you want to" he answered a direct question.   Jesus told Nicodemus you MUST be born again.

Mark 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.

Baptism is washing away your sins.  Acts 22:16.


----------



## donjon25

Huntinfool said:


> Our sins are forgiven because we're baptized?



Your sins are forgiven at repentance.  They are washed away at baptism.  A clean slate if you will.  The "old" man is buried and you rise up a "new" man.  If one messes up after that, then only repentance is required.


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> Your sins are forgiven at repentance.  They are washed away at baptism.  A clean slate if you will.  The "old" man is buried and you rise up a "new" man.  If one messes up after that, then only repentance is required.



Isn't that what forgiveness is?  A washing away?  Not being held against you anymore?


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Our sins are forgiven because we're baptized?



According to Jesus' commission to His apostles.. and .. according to the things the apostles taught in the book of their Acts, baptism is part of the forgiveness of our sins.

You guys can pick the scriptures apart, leave out part of the words of certain scripture, ignore some of the teaching, but baptism is still there.  Call it what you like; describe it in what ever form you choose; but baptism is part of salvation.

It is not a feeble work of a man trying to live life as Christ did.  It is a part of being as Christ is.

Don't deal with baptism in the way a Pharisee would deal with it.  It was instituted by Christ.  It was carried out by the apostles.

Any preacher who tells a new convert that they don't have to be baptized, in my opinion, is not teaching the true gospel and is in grave danger of their teachings being tested by the fire.

God forgive us all for playing games with His grace and mercy.
Only one physical act required, and we don't even want to teach or do it.


----------



## THREEJAYS

Ronnie T said:


> According to Jesus' commission to His apostles.. and .. according to the things the apostles taught in the book of their Acts, baptism is part of the forgiveness of our sins.
> 
> You guys can pick the scriptures apart, leave out part of the words of certain scripture, ignore some of the teaching, but baptism is still there.  Call it what you like; describe it in what ever form you choose; but baptism is part of salvation.
> 
> It is not a feeble work of a man trying to live life as Christ did.  It is a part of being as Christ is.
> 
> Don't deal with baptism in the way a Pharisee would deal with it.  It was instituted by Christ.  It was carried out by the apostles.
> 
> Any preacher who tells a new convert that they don't have to be baptized, in my opinion, is not teaching the true gospel and is in grave danger of their teachings being tested by the fire.
> 
> God forgive us all for playing games with His grace and mercy.
> Only one physical act required, and we don't even want to teach or do it.



Amen


----------



## Huntinfool

> baptism is part of the forgiveness of our sins.
> 
> Call it what you like; describe it in what ever form you choose; but baptism is part of salvation.



I'm not buyin'.  It is commanded and should be done.  No argument.  But it is not part of salvation....it is a signifier of salvation.



> Any preacher who tells a new convert that they don't have to be baptized, in my opinion, is not teaching the true gospel and is in grave danger of their teachings being tested by the fire.



Agreed....kind of.  But any preacher who tells the same that they are not saved after they have repented....and until they are baptized is wrong IMO.

BTW...How can you already be a convert and not be baptized if baptism is part of the "conversion" or forgiveness process?




> Only one physical act required, and we don't even want to teach or do it.



Nobody has said it should be taught or done Ronnie.  We are disagreeing with you that baptism is necessary for forgiveness or salvation.  It is a sign/symbol/submissive action...whatever you want to call it....just like cummunion, or any other such action.

I don't get it.  Why was Jesus baptized?  Because he needed to be forgiven or saved?  Was Jesus "saved" when he was baptized?  What was the purpose?


----------



## donjon25

rjcruiser said:


> Isn't that what forgiveness is?  A washing away?  Not being held against you anymore?



No.  A new convert is baptized to wash away their sins.  Acts 22:16.

One is forgiven at repentance.  

Baptism is part of the "born again" experience.  Burying the old man and coming up in the newness of life.  

Come on folks...this is like Christianity 101 here.  It's really not that hard.


----------



## wholenotem

donjon25 said:


> I guess you could say I'm coupling it with salvation.
> Did not the apostles teach and preach baptism?  I think it's pretty obvious they did.  Did not Peter answer the question "what shall we do" when the people were pricked in their hearts in Acts 2:37?
> 
> Were they not taught and blessed by Jesus Christ and told to go into the world baptizing? (Mat 28:19)
> 
> No, I'm not downplaying what Jesus did on the cross.  I know that by HIS grace and mercy AND his action we are saved.  However, "WE" have to first accept such salvation.  We have to believe, not just an acknowledgement, but really believe, actually 'sell out' to Jesus, then we must repent and according to the apostles be BAPTIZED.  Peter didn't say "if you want to" he answered a direct question.   Jesus told Nicodemus you MUST be born again.
> 
> Mark 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.
> 
> Baptism is washing away your sins.  Acts 22:16.



Could you answer me this, did the thief on the cross go to heaven? Yes!  According to the way you believe the scriptures read about baptism, thief didn't make it to heaven. So is Jesus a liar? I think not!! maybe you need to rethink your doctrine a little.

Lu 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


----------



## Ruger#3

First of all, as far as christianity 101, you have 10s of thousands of readers on this forum. Some may not be as schooled in your point of view as you assume. Pity those that fail to see the opportunity to give testimony of your faith from such a high vantage.

rjcruiser, thanks for taking time to answer. Those of another view of infant baptism have said;

"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). 

But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).

The example you referenced;

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

(Col. 2:11–12). Speaks to how baptism replaced circumcision which was done on the 8th day after birth.

Thanks again for sharing your view.


----------



## redwards

donjon25 said:


> No. A new convert is baptized to wash away their sins. Acts 22:16.
> 
> One is forgiven at repentance.
> 
> Baptism is part of the "born again" experience. Burying the old man and coming up in the newness of life.
> 
> Come on folks...this is like Christianity 101 here. It's really not that hard.


Then, what would be the meaning of Rev 1:5-6?


> _*5* and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, _
> _*6* and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. _


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> No.  A new convert is baptized to wash away their sins.  Acts 22:16.
> 
> One is forgiven at repentance.
> 
> Baptism is part of the "born again" experience.  Burying the old man and coming up in the newness of life.
> 
> Come on folks...this is like Christianity 101 here.  It's really not that hard.



No...it is not part of Christianity 101, but rather part of Catholicism 101.

I'd have to say, your definition of forgiveness is not the same as mine.  I think of Christ's forgiveness of my sins as not holding them against me.  If I have nothing held against me, what more do I need?

Baptism is not part of the salvation process (that happens instantly when I accept Christ's free gift of salvation).  Baptism is part of the sanctification process as I become more and more like Christ, doing what He wants me to do and not my own selfish desires.



Ruger#3 said:


> First of all, as far as christianity 101, you have 10s of thousands of readers on this forum. Some may not be as schooled in your point of view as you assume. Pity those that fail to see the opportunity to give testimony of your faith from such a high vantage.
> 
> rjcruiser, thanks for taking time to answer. Those of another view of infant baptism have said;
> 
> "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).
> 
> But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).
> 
> The example you referenced;
> 
> "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
> 
> (Col. 2:11–12). Speaks to how baptism replaced circumcision which was done on the 8th day after birth.
> 
> Thanks again for sharing your view.



Your welcome.  

As far as infant baptism replacing circumcision...not sure about that one.  I'll have to look at Col 2 and see...don't think I've heard that one before.  A few things come to mind.

If this was the case, why does Paul reference adult gentiles being circumcised in one of his epistles?  If baptism was to replace circumcision, doesn't seem like this would be an issue in the early church.

Also, circumcision was a part of the law and we as Christians are no longer under the condemnation of the law.


----------



## donjon25

wholenotem said:


> Could you answer me this, did the thief on the cross go to heaven? Yes!  According to the way you believe the scriptures read about baptism, thief didn't make it to heaven. So is Jesus a liar? I think not!! maybe you need to rethink your doctrine a little.
> 
> Lu 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.



Pls folks.  Enough already with the thief on the cross.  That is IRRELEVANT.  He was saved under the old covenant OK?  Jesus was STILL alive.  WE are now, starting with the 1st century church, under the dispensation of grace.  

Maybe a little 'paying attention to detail' would help?  

While you're in the book of Luke, go to Luke 24:47.  Jesus told his apostles to preach repentance and remission of sins.  Then go to Acts 2:38 and you'll see how that pesky little word remission comes up again.  And how does remission happen?  Oh yeah, through BAPTISM.

Don't hate on me.  I'm just telling you what the Holy Bible says.  Take it up with Peter.  You know, the one that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to...yeah that guy.


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> Pls folks.  Enough already with the thief on the cross.  That is IRRELEVANT.  He was saved under the old covenant OK?  Jesus was STILL alive.  WE are now, starting with the 1st century church, under the dispensation of grace.



Actually, I think he outlived Christ.  Considering when the guards came up to the cross, they broke the shins of the thieves, but only pierced the side of Christ.



			
				donjon25 said:
			
		

> Maybe a little 'paying attention to detail' would help?
> 
> While you're in the book of Luke, go to Luke 24:47.  Jesus told his apostles to preach repentance and remission of sins.  Then go to Acts 2:38 and you'll see how that pesky little word remission comes up again.  And how does remission happen?  Oh yeah, through BAPTISM.
> 
> Don't hate on me.  I'm just telling you what the Holy Bible says.  Take it up with Peter.  You know, the one that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to...yeah that guy.



So the remission of sins doesn't come through repentance?

And when did Jesus give the keys of Heaven to Peter?


----------



## Huntinfool

I'll ask again, since no one seems to want to answer....why was Jesus baptized?  Baptism is for the foregiveness of sins....right?


----------



## Huntinfool

I actually like the way it's explained in the notes of one of my study Bibles...



> Acts 2:38
> 
> *repent and be baptized.*  This does not imply that people can be saved without having faith in Christ as Savior, because the need to believe is implied bith in the command to "repent" and also inthe command to *"be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."*  The willingness to submit to baptism is an outward expression of inward faith in Chirst (1 Pet. 3:21).




The 1 Peter section is actually very telling as to what Peter actually means about baptism.

But that's just me...."paying attention to detail".


----------



## donjon25

rjcruiser said:


> Actually, I think he outlived Christ.  Considering when the guards came up to the cross, they broke the shins of the thieves, but only pierced the side of Christ.
> 
> Doesn't matter.  Jesus forgave him while he was still alive.
> 
> 
> So the remission of sins doesn't come through repentance?
> 
> Jesus said to preach repentance AND remission of sins.  Luke 24:47.
> 
> Peter said to repent AND be baptized for remission of sins. Acts 2:38.
> 
> And when did Jesus give the keys of Heaven to Peter?
> Mat 16:19.



This is one of those we agree to disagree.  Let's focus on what we DO have in common...JESUS CHRIST is our lord and savior!  He died for us so that we may have eternal life!!  PRAISE GOD!!!!


----------



## Huntinfool

I've been baptized twice....what happened the first time?  The second?

I was required to be dunked in order to be in fellowship with my current body of believers.  I was sprinkled earlier in my life.  During which one was I "forgiven"?  

See my post above.  It is and outward expression of inward faith.


----------



## donjon25

Huntinfool said:


> I actually like the way it's explained in the notes of one of my study Bibles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1 Peter section is actually very telling as to what Peter actually means about baptism.
> 
> But that's just me...."paying attention to detail".





I was just being a smarty pants to wholenotem, he told me I needed to rethink my doctrine a little.


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> This is one of those we agree to disagree.  Let's focus on what we DO have in common...JESUS CHRIST is our lord and savior!  He died for us so that we may have eternal life!!  PRAISE GOD!!!!



Matt 16:19?

You sure you're not Catholic?

I thought that Christ is referring to himself here.  The rock...not the pebble that Peter was.

I'm sure Willie will have something to add about Peter being the Pebble that the church was built on  

but I'll let it die.


For me, I've been baptized by immersion...so I'm good to go


----------



## donjon25

Huntinfool said:


> I'll ask again, since no one seems to want to answer....why was Jesus baptized?  Baptism is for the foregiveness of sins....right?



John relunctantly did it, as he knew WHO Jesus was.  John said he was the one needing baptism from Jesus.  Jesus told him in Mat 3:15 that he had to do this in order to "fulfil all righteousness".  Remember that Jesus followed the laws of Moses.   While He himself had not sinned, as our High Priest, it was his duty to be cleansed in accordance with the Law. The Laws of Moses were very strict on cleansing rituals, especially for the priests. In fact, they were so strict that if a priest accidentally touched something that was defiled, he had to go and wash. Why? Because the priests were consecrated to God and as such were considered holy to Him.

At this time in his life, Jesus had been on earth for approximately 30 years. It was necessary to "fulfil all righteousness" that he be ritually cleansed to symbolize his role as our High Priest before God. Jesus therefore, was being obedient to God by being baptized.


----------



## donjon25

rjcruiser said:


> Matt 16:19?
> 
> You sure you're not Catholic?
> 
> I'm positive.  Been there done that.
> 
> I thought that Christ is referring to himself here.  The rock...not the pebble that Peter was.
> 
> Are you serious?  Starting at verse 17:  "And Jesus answered and said unto him,...
> 
> He was talking to Peter.  I think you're just pulling my leg here.
> 
> I'm sure Willie will have something to add about Peter being the Pebble that the church was built on
> 
> but I'll let it die.
> 
> 
> For me, I've been baptized by immersion...so I'm good to go
> 
> Same here.  But I think you knew that



I just hope you were baptized in Jesus' name.


----------



## Huntinfool

donjon25 said:


> John relunctantly did it, as he knew WHO Jesus was.  John said he was the one needing baptism from Jesus.  Jesus told him in Mat 3:15 that he had to do this in order to "fulfil all righteousness".  Remember that Jesus followed the laws of Moses.   While He himself had not sinned, as our High Priest, it was his duty to be cleansed in accordance with the Law. The Laws of Moses were very strict on cleansing rituals, especially for the priests. In fact, they were so strict that if a priest accidentally touched something that was defiled, he had to go and wash. Why? Because the priests were consecrated to God and as such were considered holy to Him.
> 
> At this time in his life, Jesus had been on earth for approximately 30 years. It was necessary to "fulfil all righteousness" that he be ritually cleansed to symbolize his role as our High Priest before God. Jesus therefore, was being obedient to God by being baptized.



Ritual cleansing and baptism are two entirely different things man.  Jesus was baptized...


----------



## donjon25

Huntinfool said:


> Ritual cleansing and baptism are two entirely different things man.  Jesus was baptized...



You asked.  

I was just gonna say he did it as an example, but I didn't think you'd like that one.


----------



## Huntinfool

donjon25 said:


> You asked.
> 
> I was just gonna say he did it as an example, but I didn't think you'd like that one.





You were right!


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> I just hope you were baptized in Jesus' name.



As far as Matt 16...look at it in the greek text.  The word for Peter is pebble.  The word for "this rock" is boulder.  Christ isn't talking about building His church on Peter.

but I digress........

had to make 800


----------



## donjon25

rjcruiser said:


> As far as Matt 16...look at it in the greek text.  The word for Peter is pebble.  The word for "this rock" is boulder.  Christ isn't talking about building His church on Peter.
> 
> but I digress........
> 
> had to make 800



Sorry, I don't have a greek Bible handy.  In English, will you agree Jesus was talking to Peter?


----------



## Huntinfool

WHAT????????????????????????????

Is he speaking to someone different in the English translations?  Oh no!


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> Sorry, I don't have a greek Bible handy.  In English, will you agree Jesus was talking to Peter?



Yes...He was talking to Peter and to the disciples.

See this thread here.  Willie gives the Catholic viewpoint of which you seem to agree with.  I'm fine with that...well, not fine with it, but realize that I'm not going to change your mind through arguing around and around on it.  Already have worked on willie and dawg2 and we didn't get too far. 

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=369937&highlight=pebble

Specifically post 20 and 41.


----------



## donjon25

rjcruiser said:


> Yes...He was talking to Peter and to the disciples.
> 
> See this thread here.  Willie gives the Catholic viewpoint of which you seem to agree with.  I'm fine with that...well, not fine with it, but realize that I'm not going to change your mind through arguing around and around on it.  Already have worked on willie and dawg2 and we didn't get too far.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=369937&highlight=pebble
> 
> Specifically post 20 and 41.



Wow.  This is a first...I've never been told I agree with a catholic.  As a pentecostal, I thought I was as far from catholicism as I could possibly get


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> I'll ask again, since no one seems to want to answer....why was Jesus baptized?  Baptism is for the foregiveness of sins....right?



I don't know if anyone has answered this yet.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.
In other words,
         "Cause God wanted Him to get Baptized".

Now you tell me this:   What does the Bible say happened immediately after Jesus was baptized??

You see, Jesus' baptism was the beginning.
Just as it is ours.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> I've been baptized twice....what happened the first time?  The second?
> 
> I was required to be dunked in order to be in fellowship with my current body of believers.  I was sprinkled earlier in my life.  During which one was I "forgiven"?  During the immersion into water.  The sprinkling didn't count.
> 
> See my post above.  It is and outward expression of inward faith. Not according to Jesus


----------



## ddd-shooter

1 year 16 days and 17 pages later, everyone still believes the same.


----------



## Lowjack

See Post 59 and 60

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=305920&page=2


----------



## Huntinfool

> During the immersion into water. The sprinkling didn't count.







> Not according to Jesus







I rebutt your emoticons with emoticons!



Here is the author of that particular note.  No, he's not Jesus.  But, I can promise you he understands what the probable intent of the passage was better than I do.

John Polhill – 
Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 
Senior Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 

I think it's fair to say that Dr. Polhill who wrote that was fairly well versed in studies of the Bible and biblical sources.  I'll defer to him (especially since he agrees with me ).


----------



## rjcruiser

ddd-shooter said:


> 1 year 16 days and 17 pages later, everyone still believes the same.


----------



## FireDoc

IMHO, To the original post/question that is. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would surely see heaven on this day. I believe he did this b/c, well he's Jesus and he can do anything he very well pleases. Also, why all the why questions? Just follow orders soldier. Do what the general told you (me, us) to do.

Now as for baptism. I also believe in full immersion into water. To "wash away all sin" and to be born again as a new child of god. 

I bet everybody on here can recite John 3:16. Thats all fine and good. But, use all the word don't just take out what you want to accommodate your beliefs. Read also the whole chapter. Who was Jesus talking to? Nicodemus, the ruler of the jews. Nicodemus was confused about how a person can enter into the womb again once he's already born. Jesus answered him in John 3:5-8. Then comes John 3:16 later with only believing as a requirement. Why? B/c he's already stated previously "unless one is born of WATER & the SPIRIT, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven", and he probably didn't feel like repeating himself over & over.  Thats in Jesus' words not mine. How much more plainer can one get it than that? Not much IMO. He had alot of important stuff to say and not alot of time to say it in. Listen just once and believe it true, no questions asked. There will be time for question when we hopefully make to heaven.

As for the works problem. I don't see a problem. James is a good book. Not alot of people like it b/c it debunks the works/faith debate. Read James CH 2. Everyone should know it if you've debated faith/works. Clearly in black and white states faith without works is dead. As also works without faith is dead. You can't have one w/o the other. Kind of a yin-yang thing.
I've come to a personal conclusion of that whole matter. My best friend says faith only. I say works with faith and visa versa. But, I see this man doing things for people that makes Christ shine through him. I've heard people that didn't even know him come up to me and ask if he's a preacher/pastor or a saint. Well, guess what people. Those "things" he's doing for other people other than himself are works/deeds. Debate it all you want but thems what they are. 
Just an act of kindness in considered a good deed, or as some call it a "work". Do unto others as you've have them do unto you. All works of faith. Something as simple as going to church is a good deed/work. Joe public sees you go to church they know your a man of god. So my conclusion about faith/works, works/faith is that the people that say you don't need works are actually doing the work/deeds and not realizing they're doing them. Just don't believe one needs 'em. Don't mean there wrong. Don't mean I'm right.  Basically if a person has a hateful heart and is always negative it shows in his/her life outwardly. But if someone has a healthly heart and good spirited, giving.....A christian then that also shows in doing good things for other people other than themselves.........works/deeds.

Sorry long winded, Not debating anything here just calmly stating what I believe is fact. Sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## Ronnie T

FireDoc said:


> IMHO, To the original post/question that is. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would surely see heaven on this day. I believe he did this b/c, well he's Jesus and he can do anything he very well pleases. Also, why all the why questions? Just follow orders soldier. Do what the general told you (me, us) to do.
> 
> Now as for baptism. I also believe in full immersion into water. To "wash away all sin" and to be born again as a new child of god.
> 
> I bet everybody on here can recite John 3:16. Thats all fine and good. But, use all the word don't just take out what you want to accommodate your beliefs. Read also the whole chapter. Who was Jesus talking to? Nicodemus, the ruler of the jews. Nicodemus was confused about how a person can enter into the womb again once he's already born. Jesus answered him in John 3:5-8. Then comes John 3:16 later with only believing as a requirement. Why? B/c he's already stated previously "unless one is born of WATER & the SPIRIT, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven", and he probably didn't feel like repeating himself over & over.  Thats in Jesus' words not mine. How much more plainer can one get it than that? Not much IMO. He had alot of important stuff to say and not alot of time to say it in. Listen just once and believe it true, no questions asked. There will be time for question when we hopefully make to heaven.
> 
> As for the works problem. I don't see a problem. James is a good book. Not alot of people like it b/c it debunks the works/faith debate. Read James CH 2. Everyone should know it if you've debated faith/works. Clearly in black and white states faith without works is dead. As also works without faith is dead. You can't have one w/o the other. Kind of a yin-yang thing.
> I've come to a personal conclusion of that whole matter. My best friend says faith only. I say works with faith and visa versa. But, I see this man doing things for people that makes Christ shine through him. I've heard people that didn't even know him come up to me and ask if he's a preacher/pastor or a saint. Well, guess what people. Those "things" he's doing for other people other than himself are works/deeds. Debate it all you want but thems what they are.
> Just an act of kindness in considered a good deed, or as some call it a "work". Do unto others as you've have them do unto you. All works of faith. Something as simple as going to church is a good deed/work. Joe public sees you go to church they know your a man of god. So my conclusion about faith/works, works/faith is that the people that say you don't need works are actually doing the work/deeds and not realizing they're doing them. Just don't believe one needs 'em. Don't mean there wrong. Don't mean I'm right.  Basically if a person has a hateful heart and is always negative it shows in his/her life outwardly. But if someone has a healthly heart and good spirited, giving.....A christian then that also shows in doing good things for other people other than themselves.........works/deeds.
> 
> Sorry long winded, Not debating anything here just calmly stating what I believe is fact. Sorry if I offended anyone.



Great comments Doc.
I'm glad you posted.
I'm glad you're long winded.


----------



## ddd-shooter

I wonder if the dead horse we are beating knows all the drama it started??


----------



## tell sackett

ddd-shooter said:


> I wonder if the dead horse we are beating knows all the drama it started??


It's time to get out the backhoe. To borrow a line from Aerosmith: "Train Kept a'Rollin'". The sad part about it is not one person has changed their mind and this pore old nag is still getting a beatdown.


----------



## gordon 2

No and yes is my answer. I have changed my mind and my mind was changed. However I changed my mind again and came back again like a prodigal son where I was in the first place.

No, one does not have to be baptized and yes you have to be baptized. So there I'm honest about it.

It is not baptism that it  be found and worn like a charm around the neck, but rather it is the Servant's great overcoat or the church.


----------



## wholenotem

If you go by the example the Lord gave us, the thief on the cross What is there to debate? he was not baptized but he made it to heaven cased closed! Now, If we're not hanging on a cross , it should be one of the first cammandments we obey from the Lord. Our salvation is not contingent on our baptism, but I believe we will hinder our walk with God if we don't follow through with it.


----------



## donjon25

I just don't get why people can't understand that Jesus was still ((ALIVE)) when he pardoned the thief = Old covenant.  He taught his disciples and they fulfilled his wishes starting on the day of Pentecost Acts 2:38.  Repent and be baptized...in the "name" of Jesus Christ.  Baptism is for the remission of sins.  It is plainly written.  
For the OSAS, why bother living for God if you're already a shoe in?  Go party hardy til he comes back.


----------



## FireDoc

Amen, donjon


----------



## farmasis

donjon25 said:


> I just don't get why people can't understand that Jesus was still ((ALIVE)) when he pardoned the thief = Old covenant. He taught his disciples and they fulfilled his wishes starting on the day of Pentecost Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized...in the "name" of Jesus Christ. Baptism is for the remission of sins. It is plainly written.
> For the OSAS, why bother living for God if you're already a shoe in? Go party hardy til he comes back.


 
Obviously by being baptized in the name of Jesus we are talking about a spiritual baptism, not water. There is no power in the water. John knew this, and he was the best known baptist!

Water cleans the flesh, but the spirit cleans the soul, it is clear in scripture.

Just because your salvation is secure, does not mean you will not be punished by God. And if you love him, you will keep his commandments, not if you fear hades you will keep my commandments!

For the non-OSAS crowd that must always add something else to Jesus for salvation, why not keep the whole law? Why only keep some things that you see as requirements?

P.S. did grace and mercy change when Jesus died?


----------



## starmello

Wow, I just read this whole thread...whew...
First, there is no way we will ever agree on OSAS of Baptism....  We will and can agree that if you repent of your sins and ask God into your heart, he will save you....

Also, after reading everything about OSAS, I do have a question....
   for all who believe OSAS.. When do you lose your free will?  Do you lose your free will at the moment of salvation?

God created mankind with a free will so that we would/ could chose to worship Him.  He delights in that.  What kind of God would He be if we had no choice but to worship Him?

  I personally do not believe in OSAS.  I do think the doctrine is dangerous in that it can lead to complacency and the false believe that one can live whatever kind of life they chose because 'they are covered'.

  Again, does a person lose their Free Will at savation and does grace become irresistable at that point?  

Great Discussion

Tony


----------



## ddd-shooter

starmello said:


> Wow, I just read this whole thread...whew...



WOW! You better rest them eyes!! 17 pages! lol

Welcome Tony


----------



## tell sackett

farmasis said:


> Obviously by being baptized in the name of Jesus we are talking about a spiritual baptism, not water. There is no power in the water. John knew this, and he was the best known baptist!
> 
> Water cleans the flesh, but the spirit cleans the soul, it is clear in scripture.
> 
> Just because your salvation is secure, does not mean you will not be punished by God. And if you love him, you will keep his commandments, not if you fear hades you will keep my commandments!
> 
> For the non-OSAS crowd that must always add something else to Jesus for salvation, why not keep the whole law? Why only keep some things that you see as requirements?
> 
> P.S. did grace and mercy change when Jesus died?


Exactly! Well said.
I would like to add to the ones who believe that baptism is essential for salvation: one of your favorite proof texts is Acts2:38, but if Peter believed in baptismal regeneration, why did he not mention baptism in vs.21 or in ch.3,vs.19?


----------



## Ronnie T

tell sackett said:


> Exactly! Well said.
> I would like to add to the ones who believe that baptism is essential for salvation: one of your favorite proof texts is Acts2:38, but if Peter believed in baptismal regeneration, why did he not mention baptism in vs.21 or in ch.3,vs.19?



Oh, you want to play it that way.....
Then why did Peter mention it in Acts 2:38?
And why did Jesus mention it in His commission to apostles?

The original question was this:  Do a person have to be baptized to go to heaven??

Obvious answer:  This isn't a question that has to be answered.
Here's the real question:  Since Jesus told His apostles to baptize people; and the apostles baptized all people who believed in Jesus; and the apostles even wrote about the importance of baptism, do you believe a person should even consider NOT being baptized today?

Another question:  Why would you even consider suggesting that a person not be baptized?


----------



## farmasis

Ronnie T said:


> Another question: Why would you even consider suggesting that a person not be baptized?


 
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a believer not be baptized. Just the point one is a believer is already saved.


----------



## donjon25

farmasis said:


> Obviously by being baptized in the name of Jesus we are talking about a spiritual baptism, not water.   I disagree.  Jesus clearly explained this to Nicodemus.  ...Except a man be born of water AND of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God... John 3:5.  There is no power in the water. John knew this, and he was the best known baptist!
> 
> No one is talking of power in the water.  I'm talking about power in obedience.  John was baptizing people into "repentence".  Remember though, this was BEFORE Jesus came on the scene.
> 
> In Acts 19 you'll find that some of John's desciples were RE-BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus.  (verse 5).  Why were they baptized again if they had already been once?
> 
> Water cleans the flesh, but the spirit cleans the soul, it is clear in scripture.
> 
> Soap cleans the flesh...Baptism is for the remission of sin.  Acts 2:38.
> 
> Just because your salvation is secure, does not mean you will not be punished by God. And if you love him, you will keep his commandments, not if you fear hades you will keep my commandments!
> 
> For the non-OSAS crowd that must always add something else to Jesus for salvation, why not keep the whole law? Why only keep some things that you see as requirements?
> 
> P.S. did grace and mercy change when Jesus died?



There are plenty of scriptures suggesting that one CAN lose their salvation....  Hebrews 6:4-8 for starters.


----------



## donjon25

farmasis said:


> I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a believer not be baptized. Just the point one is a believer is already saved.



Then why bother if one is already saved?


----------



## farmasis

donjon25 said:


> Then why bother if one is already saved?


 

Why evangelize?

Why read the Bible?

Why attend church?

etc, etc.

......because we are commanded to do so.


----------



## donjon25

tell sackett said:


> Exactly! Well said.
> I would like to add to the ones who believe that baptism is essential for salvation: one of your favorite proof texts is Acts2:38, but if Peter believed in baptismal regeneration, why did he not mention baptism in vs.21 or in ch.3,vs.19?



In verse 21 he was still quoting Joel 2.  

In chapter 3 he's explaining a miracle and telling them what they had done to the son of God.  Sheesh man...ever hear of 'baby steps'?  You don't throw doctrinal meat at a newborn or even at a possible birth?  You start with....do you believe in Christ?  Do you want to accept him as Lord and savior, etc...  

In chapter 2, he laid it all out.  It was a thunderous sermon with conviction.  So convicted that peoples hearts were pricked and they asked HIM..."what shall we do?"


----------



## donjon25

farmasis said:


> Why evangelize?
> 
> Why read the Bible?
> 
> Why attend church?
> 
> etc, etc.
> 
> ......because we are commanded to do so.



So....what about that so called "Christian" that doesn't evangelize, read the Bible, attend church, etc... don't forget 'be baptized' (we're commanded to that too)?  He'll be right beside you in heaven.  Right?


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> So....what about that so called "Christian" that doesn't evangelize, read the Bible, attend church, etc... don't forget 'be baptized' (we're commanded to that too)?  He'll be right beside you in heaven.  Right?



Yup.  However, he'll not have the crowns or jewels that farmasis will have


----------



## donjon25

What about that person in Hebrews 6:4-8? or Hebrews 10:26?


----------



## rjcruiser

donjon25 said:


> What about that person in Hebrews 6:4-8? or Hebrews 10:26?



Knowledge is not acceptance.  You should know that....for even the Devil himself has knowledge of Christ...but he is far from being a part of God's kingdom.


----------



## farmasis

donjon25 said:


> There are plenty of scriptures suggesting that one CAN lose their salvation.... Hebrews 6:4-8 for starters.


 
Don, that says it is impossible to recieve the Holy Spirit and partake in holy and fall away from the things of God and renew themselves again. I hope you will prayerfully consider this.

Now, that can mean two things. 1) Either we can fall away but not be reconciled back to God, or 2) that there is no way we can fall away and renew ourselves again because God will not let that happen.

Letting scripture interpret scripture, we see....

1) once His, NOTHING can seperate us from God. NOTHING

*<SUP>33</SUP>* Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? _It is_ God who justifies. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28146>*34*</SUP> Who _is_ he who condemns? _It is_ Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28147>*35*</SUP> Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? _Shall_ tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28148>*36*</SUP> As it is written: 


_“ For Your sake we are killed all day long;_
_ We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”_<SUP class=footnote value='[c]' sizcache="3" sizset="33">[c]</SUP>

<SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28149>*37*</SUP> Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28150>*38*</SUP> For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28151>*39*</SUP> nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8)

2) Our old self is dead, we are a new creature and we cannot be un-new again

*<SUP>17</SUP>* Therefore, if anyone _is_ in Christ, _he is_ a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (2 Cor 5)

3) To lose your salvation, you must be stronger than God....

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were *sealed for the day of redemption*." (Ephesians 4:30)
  "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has *sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit*." (2 Corinthians 1:21)
  "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, *you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance* until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13)

4) and to lose your salvation you have to make a liar out of God...

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were *sealed for the day of redemption*." (Ephesians 4:30)
  "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has *sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit*." (2 Corinthians 1:21)
  "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, *you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance* until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13)
  "Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has *given us the Spirit as a guarantee*." (2 Corinthians 5:5 )

5) God does all the work in the salvation process (we just accept his offer) and once he does it, he doesn't take it away.

 <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28141>*29*</SUP> For whom He foreknew, He also predestined _to be_ conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28142>*30*</SUP> Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8)


----------



## farmasis

donjon25 said:


> So....what about that so called "Christian" that doesn't evangelize, read the Bible, attend church, etc... don't forget 'be baptized' (we're commanded to that too)? He'll be right beside you in heaven. Right?


 
yes he will.


----------



## farmasis

rjcruiser said:


> Yup. However, he'll not have the crowns or jewels that farmasis will have


 
I hope I have will have something when i get there, but not for me. I want something that I can lay at my Savior's feet.


----------



## donjon25

Personally, I hope OSAS is true.  I don't see it but I truly hope it's true.  

Also, in post #834 you said:  1) once His, NOTHING can seperate us from God. NOTHING

That's not what the scripture says.  Romans 8:39 (I think this is what you're referring to) says:  "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord".

Nothing can separate us from THE LOVE of God.  WE can separate ourselves from HIM.


----------



## farmasis

donjon25 said:


> Personally, I hope OSAS is true. I don't see it but I truly hope it's true.
> 
> Also, in post #834 you said: 1) once His, NOTHING can seperate us from God. NOTHING
> 
> That's not what the scripture says. Romans 8:39 (I think this is what you're referring to) says: "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord".
> 
> Nothing can separate us from THE LOVE of God. WE can separate ourselves from HIM.


 
Respectfully, I think my future sins, rebellion, and other failures are covered by "nor things present nor things to come".


----------



## dawg2

yawwwwwnnnnnn....mmmm....


----------



## farmasis

donjon25 said:


> There are plenty of scriptures suggesting that one CAN lose their salvation.... Hebrews 6:4-8 for starters.


 

I agree there are things in the Bible that appear that you can lose your salvation. But, I am sure we both agree both cannot be correct and the word of God is true. So, interpretation of one way or the other must be wrong. I am sure we each have our opinions on who is right.

I know you see OSAS as a license to sin. We don't. I see losing your salvation as a way for the devil to keep us pinned under the grief of our failures and put us in a defeated stance. I know you do not.

The best thing for all of us to do is to try and not take our salvation for granted, repent when we fail, remember that our God loves us and wants to restore us and try our best to take up our cross and follow Him knowing that our righteous God has for us the absoluetly perfect salvation for us.


----------



## starmello

farmasis said:


> Don, that says it is impossible to recieve the Holy Spirit and partake in holy and fall away from the things of God and renew themselves again. I hope you will prayerfully consider this.
> 
> Now, that can mean two things. 1) Either we can fall away but not be reconciled back to God, or 2) that there is no way we can fall away and renew ourselves again because God will not let that happen.
> 
> Letting scripture interpret scripture, we see....
> 
> 1) once His, NOTHING can seperate us from God. NOTHING
> 
> *<SUP>33</SUP>* Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? _It is_ God who justifies. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28146>*34*</SUP> Who _is_ he who condemns? _It is_ Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28147>*35*</SUP> Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? _Shall_ tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28148>*36*</SUP> As it is written:
> 
> 
> _“ For Your sake we are killed all day long;_
> _ We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”_<SUP class=footnote value='[c]' sizcache="3" sizset="33">[c]</SUP>
> 
> <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28149>*37*</SUP> Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28150>*38*</SUP> For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28151>*39*</SUP> nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8)
> 
> 2) Our old self is dead, we are a new creature and we cannot be un-new again
> 
> *<SUP>17</SUP>* Therefore, if anyone _is_ in Christ, _he is_ a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (2 Cor 5)
> 
> 3) To lose your salvation, you must be stronger than God....
> 
> "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were *sealed for the day of redemption*." (Ephesians 4:30)
> "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has *sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit*." (2 Corinthians 1:21)
> "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, *you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance* until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13)
> 
> 4) and to lose your salvation you have to make a liar out of God...
> 
> "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were *sealed for the day of redemption*." (Ephesians 4:30)
> "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has *sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit*." (2 Corinthians 1:21)
> "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, *you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance* until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13)
> "Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has *given us the Spirit as a guarantee*." (2 Corinthians 5:5 )
> 
> 5) God does all the work in the salvation process (we just accept his offer) and once he does it, he doesn't take it away.
> 
> <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28141>*29*</SUP> For whom He foreknew, He also predestined _to be_ conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28142>*30*</SUP> Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8)



So, you are saying that once you accept God's salvaton, you no longer have a free will??  So, in essence, you believe in Predestination?

  Another thought....Satan was an Angel...right?
In fact, he was the most beautiful Angel.....if you cannot
regect you salvation, does that mean that Satan is OK?

Respectively,
Tony


----------



## rjcruiser

starmello said:


> So, you are saying that once you accept God's salvaton, you no longer have a free will??  So, in essence, you believe in Predestination?
> 
> Another thought....Satan was an Angel...right?
> In fact, he was the most beautiful Angel.....if you cannot
> regect you salvation, does that mean that Satan is OK?
> 
> Respectively,
> Tony



oh boy...here we go again

Farm....I thought your last post was a fitting end to the thread, but apparently not.


But I'll respond.

Star...you've got it backwards.  Once we have "accepted" God's gift of salvation, then we have free will as we are made alive in Christ and have the ability to reject sin

You should do a word search in your Bible.  Predestination is in there


----------



## starmello

If free will gives one the ability to reject sin, it also gives the ability to sin....  

 I know we do not agree, and that is fine, but what happens to the person who drifts back into a sinful life after accepting salvation?  I'm not talking abut the person who continues to be repentant, rather the person who is not.  

We are probably going to just have to agree to disagree.

tony


----------



## rjcruiser

starmello said:


> If free will gives one the ability to reject sin, it also gives the ability to sin....
> 
> I know we do not agree, and that is fine, but what happens to the person who drifts back into a sinful life after accepting salvation?  I'm not talking abut the person who continues to be repentant, rather the person who is not.
> 
> We are probably going to just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> tony



But see...before we are Christians, we can't reject sin.  It is our nature.  We are spiritually dead.  There is none righteous.

As far as drifting back into sin, how can we drift back into unrepentant sin if we have God as our guide?  Romans 6 is a good chapter on this.

Farmisis put it well in his post above.....yes...we'll have to agree to disagree


----------



## dawg2

rjcruiser said:


> oh boy...here we go again
> 
> Farm....I thought your last post was a fitting end to the thread, but apparently not.
> 
> 
> But I'll respond.
> 
> Star...you've got it backwards.  Once we have "accepted" God's gift of salvation, then we have free will as we are made alive in Christ and have the ability to reject sin
> 
> You should do a word search in your Bible.  Predestination is in there



...and apparently we have free will to LEAVE Christ/God (i.e. No OSAS ) as Lucifer did.


----------



## starmello

rjcruiser said:


> But see...before we are Christians, we can't reject sin.  It is our nature.  We are spiritually dead.  There is none righteous.
> 
> As far as drifting back into sin, how can we drift back into unrepentant sin if we have God as our guide?  Romans 6 is a good chapter on this.
> 
> Farmisis put it well in his post above.....yes...we'll have to agree to disagree



I don't understand how it can happen, but I know it happens....  I have a friend from college who was a "model Christian" (whatever that is)  during our college years.  To see him today, that would be the last thing that you would think.  He is back into the same habits and lifestyle he led before his salvation..  So you ask how can one drift back.....
My only answer, I think, is that sin is fun....if it were not fun, what would be the appeal....

  On the same note, I know people who live a good, moral life.  They don't drink, smoke, curse, lie....etc...  But, they will be the first to tell you that they
are not Christians.  How then are they able to reject sin...(Before someone says it.... not I do not believe that works alone will save a person..)

  Tony


----------



## rjcruiser

starmello said:


> I don't understand how it can happen, but I know it happens....  I have a friend from college who was a "model Christian" (whatever that is)  during our college years.  To see him today, that would be the last thing that you would think.  He is back into the same habits and lifestyle he led before his salvation..  So you ask how can one drift back.....
> My only answer, I think, is that sin is fun....if it were not fun, what would be the appeal....
> 
> On the same note, I know people who live a good, moral life.  They don't drink, smoke, curse, lie....etc...  But, they will be the first to tell you that they
> are not Christians.  How then are they able to reject sin...(Before someone says it.... not I do not believe that works alone will save a person..)
> 
> Tony



As to your friend...I'd say he was the rocky soil.  The seed fell, took root, but was choked out by the world.  Never a true Christian.

As to others, they do good works, but their motives are wrong.  How important our motives are to Christ.  If motives weren't important, the scribes and pharisees would be in Heaven today.


----------



## farmasis

starmello said:


> So, you are saying that once you accept God's salvaton, you no longer have a free will?? So, in essence, you believe in Predestination?


 
I believe in predestination. It is in the Bible. But, it sounds like my definition of it is different from yours. 

Free will is not limitless will. Just as we do not have free will to run as fast as we want and are bound by physical llimits, we are also bound to spiritual limits that God controls. After salvation, we have no free will to give back salvation.



> Another thought....Satan was an Angel...right?
> In fact, he was the most beautiful Angel.....if you cannot
> regect you salvation, does that mean that Satan is OK?
> 
> Respectively,
> Tony


 
I am unaware of the plan of salvation for angels. It appears you can try and elevate yourself to a God and get kicked out of heaven. Seriously, I do think it is different for man than angels. I think that is why they look on our salvation through grace so curiously.

*<SUP>10</SUP>* Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace _that would come_ to you, <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-30381>*11*</SUP> searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-30382>*12*</SUP> To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us<SUP class=footnote value='[b]' sizcache="3" sizset="32">[b]</SUP> they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into. (1 Peter 1)


----------



## christianhunter

farmasis said:


> I believe in predestination. It is in the Bible. But, it sounds like my definition of it is different from yours.
> 
> Free will is not limitless will. Just as we do not have free will to run as fast as we want and are bound by physical llimits, we are also bound to spiritual limits that God controls. After salvation, we have no free will to give back salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> I am unaware of the plan of salvation for angels. It appears you can try and elevate yourself to a God and get kicked out of heaven. Seriously, I do think it is different for man than angels. I think that is why they look on our salvation through grace so curiously.
> 
> *<SUP>10</SUP>* Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace _that would come_ to you, <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-30381>*11*</SUP> searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-30382>*12*</SUP> To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us<SUP class=footnote value='[b]' sizcache="3" sizset="32">[b]</SUP> they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into. (1 Peter 1)



Very well put Brother.We definately see, eye to eye.


----------



## starmello

rjcruiser said:


> As to your friend...I'd say he was the rocky soil.  The seed fell, took root, but was choked out by the world.  Never a true Christian.
> 
> As to others, they do good works, but their motives are wrong.  How important our motives are to Christ.  If motives weren't important, the scribes and pharisees would be in Heaven today.




"Never a True Christian.."



Wow, pretty bold statement....but..then again...I guess that does help defend the once saved always saved doctrine...  maybe in the small print somewhere...lol

Seriously,  If this is the case (wasn't saved in the first place)...then I guess that none of us can ever be sure of our own salvation...until after we die....  (pretty sad)

By the way, I've been waiting for someone to say that...

I guess here is where we do truly agree to disagree...

Tony


----------



## earl

Predestination is much easier for those of us not going. Less to feel guilty about. Whew ! That's a load off of my mind.


----------



## christianhunter

earl said:


> Predestination is much easier for those of us not going. Less to feel guilty about. Whew ! That's a load off of my mind.



earl,your cornbread ain't done.


----------



## farmasis

starmello said:


> "Never a True Christian.."
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, pretty bold statement....but..then again...I guess that does help defend the once saved always saved doctrine... maybe in the small print somewhere...lol


 
The small print... 
*<SUP></SUP>* 
*<SUP>19</SUP>* They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but _they went out_ that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1 John 2:19)


----------



## tell sackett

I told myself on the 11th that I wasn't gonna do it,and then I fell off the wagon yesterday. Now I have to start over again.


----------



## rjcruiser

Just bumped this up after 6 mos as some want to rehash this one again.


----------

