Baptism being necessary for salvation...

[Alabaster]

You are missing the entire point of proxy faith statements, which ARE INDEED biblical. They are based upon another biblical idea that even YOU believe, I think. Interceding for another person.

Why do you intercede for someone else? According to you, ONLY the individual can make such appeals to God based upon their own personal faith. I suggest that you have fallen into this culture's way of thinking, rather than following the teachings of Sacred Scriptures. Jesus healed others based upon the faith of an intercessor. Even as far back as Abraham - interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah, so this isn't a NT line of thought. Circumcision is based upon the idea of proxy statements of faith and baptism of infants follows this biblical line of thought.

Baptism is not intercession. Every person must obey the command oneself. Just like salvation!

What is at issue for YOU PERSONALLY is not whether it is in the Bible or not, but whether it suits your own limited personal interpretations of Scripture. I say limited, because it is apparent that you are unaware that baptism forgives sins, that the Jews practiced circumcision on infants (and was a shadow of Baptism) and that God heals people based upon the prayers and intercessions of OTHER people. These are all biblical facts that you have chosen to ignore.

Sorry, but that is a disingenuous statement. Your understanding of scripture is filtered through your church.

Let Holy Spirit teach you the truth about this.

Your denial seems strained and artificial.

Yeah, as if you can discern that...

Physical healing is connected to spiritual healing in the Gospels. Haven't you read them? Read Mark 2, for example. Jesus links the forgiveness of sins to physical healing. The Jews THEMSELVES were well aware of this fact - that sin and sickness were often related to each other, the later caused by the former. Another example is John 9. Paul verifies this in 1 Cor 11.

Babies are healed all the time, praise God.

Are you serious? HOW are we linked to Jesus blood again? Baptism... Romans 6. Or you can read the speach of Peter immediately following the Descent of the Spirit on Pentacost. Come on now...

Romans 6:4 NLT
For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

It is representational. Babies do not experience the 'new life' until they receive Jesus PERSONALLY, therefore, until they experience their own salvation moment, they are EXEMPT from this ordinance--just like any other unsaved person.

What are you talking about, wishful thinking? Which Scripture verses are you speaking of? What promises?

The one promise among others, is one I have already mentioned: if we are faithful to train our children up in the way they should go, THEY WILL NOT DEPART from it when they are older.

As far as I know, a person is born in sin and until that is washed away by the lather of salvation, you remain in sin. Now, PERHAPS God will grant mercy to infants - and perhaps God will judge them differently for parents who were too stubborn to yield to common sense and Scriptures. But I wouldn't be so "certain" about anything on this matter, since the bible doesn't state what happens to infants that die before baptism. We can only speculate, and that's a fact, since the Scriptures OR Sacred Tradition are not definitive on this.

Regards

God does have mercy on babies and young children. We shouldn't be so worried and untrusting of God in that area that we rush foolishly into performing meaningless rituals over and to them to force God's hand where He already has His hand and eye on them.

Babies who die before they come to an understanding of their need for a Saviour are under the blood of Christ, considered innocent and will have a home in heaven. Even King David was comforted in his own assurance that he would see his dead infant son again!

 

[RoadDebris]

So many fallacies, so little time:

LOL!!! Talk about being clueless... That matter was SETTLED!!! You bringing it up again merely reminds everyone here that you are without a clue and were demolished...

One, asserting your opinion on something doesn't make it so and b, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. Keep it real, if you are able.

As I said before, Calvinists like to change the words of Scriptures to suit their silly ideas. For those interested in God's Word, rather than RD's attempt to change God's Word:

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The body remains a body. It is not called something else, by James, only by Calvinists. It is given a modifier, an adjective. It is a Dead Body, but a body it remains.

What is a body with a spirit? It's a person. What is a body without a spirit? A corpse. That you claim the two are fundamentally the same says it all about the things you choose to believe.

Same with faith. It remains faith. It is not called something else. But it is given a modifier, an adjective. It is a Dead Faith. The comparison is obvious, but lost on Calvinists, unfortunately, because this verse EXPLAINS the vaunted "faith alone does not save". A dead faith (which IS CALLED FAITH, not something else) cannot save. Faith without works, a dead faith, cannot save.

Is this clear enough?

Yes, to those slavishly devoted to Catholicism corpses and people are fundamentally the same.

That is true, and on sanctification, at least Calvin had not totally put aside the truth of the Catholic Church.

Irrelevant. Those who follow orthodox (small o) Christianity don't mindlessly follow mere men. Calvin is not viewed by me or anyone I know as inerrant. He's not our pope.

And on the "truth" of the Catholic church (cough, cough) you mean like apostolic succession being carried by Alexander VI? Wow.

But 'dead' faith is still called faith. Thus, James can write: "faith alone does not save".

That kind of semantic dance might make you feel better about being a Catholic, but it's not in line with the actual state of affairs.

A faith that is dead, without "works", ALONE, is lifeless. Dead. Just like a dead body.

Just like a corpse, as opposed to a living person. I suggest you seek to discern the fundamental difference between the two.

Hardly. He couldn't have been more clear on the literalness of His words. But that is a discussion for another day.

The rational understand that that claim is disproven by the events recorded in the Bible. If all men must literally consume the flesh of Jesus, as you assert, then the thief on the cross could not have been saved. You do know what literal means, right?

Examples? I suggest that you are just having a problem with reading what is written. The "contradictions" are strictly in your mind, not in writings of the Catechism or myself.

Yes, I have a problem with self-defeating statements and ideologies. Something can't be necessary and unnecessary at the same time in the same sense. I suggest you study the Law of Contradiction.

Non-sequitar, we aren't dealing with two absolutes.

False. The Catechism makes an absolute statement by decreeing the sacraments to be necessary for all. I suggest you look into the definition of absolute.

The world is not black and white...

Is that absolutely true? If it's not then it's false. If it is, then it's self-defeating. That's the kind of wilful absurdity it takes to accept Catholicism.

God's interaction here is not based upon 'absolutes'. Again, this is Calvinists' inability to accept the biblical term of 'synergy'. No, REFUSAL to accept it.

False. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, makes an absolute statement in Eph. 2:8-10. You may be able to "synergoze" two sided triangles with three sided ones, but rational people don't delude themselves in that way.

Without works, faith is dead. Something dead will not win you eternal life. This is fundamental. We are not saying "10000000000 + 1" but "1000000000 X 1". Those who refuse "10000000000 X 0". This is what we believe, mathematically speaking. We aren't "adding" to God's work. But without our participation (which God desires as part of a relationship of Love with us), there is no value. You end up with nothing salvific.

And that's a great example of the wilful delusion you express here. You say "grace and works" and then deny there's any addition going on.

I am not understanding your point.

Apparently causation is anathema to you.

 

[francisdesales]

So many fallacies, so little time...

Indeed...

I looked at your entire post an hour ago, and read it again just now. To be quite frank, there is really nothing to respond to. All your post appears to be is compilation of smarky remarks and put-downs of the Catholic Church. Precious little about the OP. Mere denials on other subjects without any basis.

I'm sorry, but I have other things to do with my time than respond to your comments. Perhaps if they had some actual content, an ATTEMPT to engage in discussion, rather than polemic name-calling and twisting of words, I might.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

What am I ignoring? Yes, everyone is called to repent. Not everyone will. Only those who do are commanded to be baptized.

Alabaster,

I think our posts are becoming a bit unwieldy. In an effort to narrow the subject back to the OP - as well as to help in our discussion on infant baptism, I suggest we get back to a few basics. That way, I think we can understand each other a bit better, because I am getting the feeling we are talking past each other...

I would like to ask you a couple of questions, which may help me to understand your point of view better, and we can go from there. I realize I didn't ask for your permission to depart from our latest discussional format, but I hope you can understand why. In addition, if you feel I am missing something that you would like to reiterate, please do so in a second post.

1. In these discussions, you speak of "salvation" or "being saved". I asked this before of you - realizing that the Bible has at least three different uses of the term. Past, present, future. "Am saved", "Being saved", "Will be saved". Could you explain your point of view on the use of this term? I hinted at this before, and note the confusion with convoluting two definitions into one. I am sensing that this is part of why infant baptism is unacceptable to you. In other words, that a person "saved" as a result of baptism is saved for heaven - which doesn't have much biblical support - and I can then understand your concern.

So let's discuss what you mean by "salvation". For the record, Catholics use the term "justification" when discussing that first, initial time of conversion that leads to baptism. This justification DOES NOT mean one attains to eternal life in heaven. I would like to hear your comments...

2. What ARE the effects of Baptism? There also seems to be some confusion on the biblical details of what Baptism does. According to Scriptures, it forgives us from sin. How? By uniting us to the Paschal Mystery, the death of Jesus Christ (Romans 6). You appear to disagree with that. I would like to hear what you think baptism does and why Christ commands it (if it is merely symbolic).

I appreciate your responses, and I apologize if I left some statements of yours without comment. But I have some experience in this sort of discussions, and I believe we are at the point of just spinning our wheels. If you prefer to speak about something I missed, please post in a second post. I do think the answers to the above questions will better help me to understand your worries about infant baptism.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

James established what he meant by faith in the first line of James2:14 what does it profit my brethren though a man "SAY" he has faith. James is speaking of the person who is claiming true faith in God but who does not have true faith in God and his lack of actions prove that he does not have
true faith in God. Actually the statement,by works a man is justified and not by faith alone, is simply saying that if you believe Jesus is the Saviour then you must call upon Him to save you, the works of calling upon Jesus along with your faith in Christ is what saves you.

Sam,

You seem like a reasonable person. I will attempt to answer your question, but I think we are off topic (partly my fault for responding to Road Debris, who brought it up) and perhaps it might be worthwhile for you to begin another thread, if you desire further discussion on this. Let me know if you do, and I will respond there.

So, quickly here on your question...

The issue is not "true faith". James compliments them for having "true faith". To HIM, "true faith" is believing in "one true God". He says "thou does well" with this faith. What is MISSING is works. It appears that belief in one true God is "dead" if it is missing works. That is clear in his next verse:

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20

And so, to James, faith = belief in one true God. Even the devil has this. Nevertheless, it IS required. It is not "mere intellectual belief", since "we do well" by having this faith.

If one only has "faith in one true God" WITHOUT works, actions of love (he gives the example of his expectations in James 2:15-16), it is a dead faith.

A faith alone, a faith without these works, cannot save. James makes that abundantly clear:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17

Thus, James is not talking about "true faith" v "false faith". We MUST have faith, intellectual belief in one true God. But faith is not enough. You do well to believe in God, but you must also love, care for your fellows, provide for the poor, etc. Are not these the words of Jesus Christ, e.g. Matthew 25?

Again, if you want to further comment, I would suggest that you open another thread - and if you desire, move this over there.

Regards

 

[Sam21]

If one believes that God will only listen to their cry for mercy and grant forgiveness of sins if they are in water, then so be it,lets just hope that there is water and a baptizer around if they want to be saved. I believe in water baptism of course, but I am convinced by the scriptures and personal experience that real salvation involves the mind and heart and will and only occurs when a person comes under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Also when the Holy Spirit convicts a sinner it is for the sinner to reject the world,commit totally to God, and call upon Christ to be their personal Saviour. I believe if the person then under conviction responds and from the heart and mind rejects the world,commits to God and calls upon Christ to be his Saviour, and does this publicly, then God will forgive the sin of that person and give them the indwelling Holy Spirit and they will have instantly passed from death to life, and yes one should follow this experience with water baptism.

 

[Alabaster]

If one believes that God will only listen to their cry for mercy and grant forgiveness of sins if they are in water, then so be it,lets just hope that there is water and a baptizer around if they want to be saved. I believe in water baptism of course, but I am convinced by the scriptures and personal experience that real salvation involves the mind and heart and will and only occurs when a person comes under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Also when the Holy Spirit convicts a sinner it is for the sinner to reject the world,commit totally to God, and call upon Christ to be their personal Saviour. I believe if the person then under conviction responds and from the heart and mind rejects the world,commits to God and calls upon Christ to be his Saviour, and does this publicly, then God will forgive the sin of that person and give them the indwelling Holy Spirit and they will have instantly passed from death to life, and yes one should follow this experience with water baptism.

I know you and I have had our moments, but your responses in this thread are right and good.

 

[francisdesales]

If one believes that God will only listen to their cry for mercy and grant forgiveness of sins if they are in water, then so be it,lets just hope that there is water and a baptizer around if they want to be saved. I believe in water baptism of course, but I am convinced by the scriptures and personal experience that real salvation involves the mind and heart and will and only occurs when a person comes under the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Also when the Holy Spirit convicts a sinner it is for the sinner to reject the world,commit totally to God, and call upon Christ to be their personal Saviour. I believe if the person then under conviction responds and from the heart and mind rejects the world,commits to God and calls upon Christ to be his Saviour, and does this publicly, then God will forgive the sin of that person and give them the indwelling Holy Spirit and they will have instantly passed from death to life, and yes one should follow this experience with water baptism.

Scriptures are not technically consistent on the exact order of how this happens. Sometimes, people receive the Spirt and become baptized, in other cases, it is the other way around. This should not be ignored.

I think Luke was not concerned so much with the "order", but made the two a single event. Believing, receiving the Spirit, publically proclaiming the belief, and being baptised were all made into a single event without worrying about whether the chicken or the egg came first. "Everyone" knew that the Spirit of God blew where He willed and that one must be born of water and the Spirit... No one believed they were baptizing themselves by their faith or their zeal in Christ.

And if we recall that the forgiveness of sins is associated with baptism and being united to Christ's death, I would wonder which Christian would doubt that Christ's death had won us forgiveness of sins and would deny the necessity of baptism, since that is how we are united to that salvific event. Justification has been won by Christ's work, and it is applied to us visibly through water baptism.

Regards

 

[RoadDebris]

I looked at your entire post an hour ago...

That makes a certain ironic sense. Given the irrational nature of Catholicism, Catholics who're determined to remain faithful to their religion, regardless of the truth, must close their ears when confronted with reality. Sad.

 

[francisdesales]

That makes a certain ironic sense. Given the irrational nature of Catholicism, Catholics who're determined to remain faithful to their religion, regardless of the truth, must close their ears when confronted with reality. Sad.

Nothing to offer but name calling...

Thanks for proving my point...

 

[RoadDebris]

Nothing to offer but name calling...

Thanks for proving my point...

Francis, if I call you an idiot I'm name calling. If I call your ideology idiotic I'm not. Ideologies don't have feelings. Keep it real, if you are able.

Incidentally, you're proving mine when I criticize your tack and you cry "He's calling me names" instead of addressing the point.

 

[warhorse]

If one believes that God will only listen to their cry for mercy and grant forgiveness of sins if they are in water, then so be it,lets just hope that there is water and a baptizer around if they want to be saved. I believe in water baptism of course, but I am convinced by the scriptures and personal experience that real salvation involves the mind and heart and will and only occurs when a person comes under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Also when the Holy Spirit convicts a sinner it is for the sinner to reject the world,commit totally to God, and call upon Christ to be their personal Saviour. I believe if the person then under conviction responds and from the heart and mind rejects the world,commits to God and calls upon Christ to be his Saviour, and does this publicly, then God will forgive the sin of that person and give them the indwelling Holy Spirit and they will have instantly passed from death to life, and yes one should follow this experience with water baptism.

Agreed, and well said.

 

[reba]

Keep it nice guys
​

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, if I call you an idiot I'm name calling. If I call your ideology idiotic I'm not. Ideologies don't have feelings. Keep it real, if you are able.

Incidentally, you're proving mine when I criticize your tack and you cry "He's calling me names" instead of addressing the point.

Ah. Another fine red herring you cooked up. Again, your posts have no theological content, no point.

Where did I write you were calling ME names? You presumed it. Your polemics were against the Church you love to rail against, and I found no point in your babbling. Thus, my comments.

 

[turnorburn]

Is this the right thread to post this?

Westgate Baptist Church>WBC>The Most Important Thing


turnorburn

 

[dadof10]

We are told to repent, then be baptized. Only believers are called to obey that command. Yes, Paul was already a believer when He was baptized, just as ALL OTHERS in Scripture were, professing belief in Jesus Christ FIRST.

Where is your Scriptural backing for this assertion? You refuse to give any kind of Scripture for your contentions. "Baptism is symbolic", a contention without ANY Scriptural backing, in fact, it flies right in the face of Peters writing that water baptism saves. "Baptism is only for believers", no Scriptural backing and no admission that there are Scriptural examples of people who were baptized BEFORE "faith".

You simply keep repeating "baptism is symbolic" and "baptism is only for believers", no matter the mountain of Biblical evidence against these contentions. Lydia's household was baptized before they "came to Jesus". The Ethiopian was baptized before he had a "conversion experience", and Paul himself was baptized before he "accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior", yet you still parrot "Only believers are called to obey that command".

If you have evidence to back up this drivel, please post it. Simply saying it is not proving it.

 

[tim-from-pa]

27 pages of debate as to whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation or not. If you're so worried, why not just do it and get it over and done with? It doesn't take long, especially when compared to eternity. In the time it took me to type this message, I was baptized already. See? It's short.

 

[dadof10]

Look for yourself:

2041. ????? (ergon) -- work

I notice you didn't answer the question.

Why don't we take our discussion of James to another thread? I'll create it later and give an exegesis of James 2:14-26. You can follow up with your own. How does that sound?

 

[RoadDebris]

I notice you didn't answer the question.

Why don't we take our discussion of James to another thread? I'll create it later and give an exegesis of James 2:14-26. You can follow up with your own. How does that sound?

Great.

 

[RoadDebris]

Ah. Another fine red herring you cooked up. Again, your posts have no theological content, no point.

Where did I write you were calling ME names? You presumed it. Your polemics were against the Church you love to rail against, and I found no point in your babbling. Thus, my comments.

So in your world "necessary" doesn't mean absolutely essential, "everything" doesn't mean all things, and when you respond directly to a persons comment toward you with "name calling" you aren't talking about name calling. Um..yeah.