• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imagican
  • Start date Start date
cybershark5886 said:
CC, I can give you the Baptism Paper I wrote that I also gave to Devekut, but I believe that though one can become saved at the moment of physical baptism, that it is rather the Baptism of the Spirit which is effectual. Cornelius and the Gentiles first received the Spirit, and once Peter saw it and could not deny it (to his initial increduility/amazement) he then said he could not refuse them baptism, he had no grounds in which to refuse them after seeing such an evidence of salvation. It is also true for the (notably special/unique) case of the theif on the cross. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. If you would like to read the paper I wrote on Baptism please PM me your e-mail address and I will gladly send it to you. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
We have a saying: We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not. In other words, since Christ commands us to be baptised, we must obey, and allow the sacrament to infuse grace into us and regenerate us. However, if God chooses to do this to certain people who have not been baptised, that is His perrogative. But, just because He can do that is not a green light for us to say it is not neccessary. Again: We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.

To be honest with you, its a challenge to take place in these discussions, because, in a sense, I am playing on your home field by your rules. My belief is that Jesus established a teaching Church, and endowed the apostles with the gift of teaching the truth: This gift was handed down through apostolic succession and resides with the pope and bishops in union with him. So thats all I need to know. I find great comfort in the fact that I don't have to "church shop" to find a group that fits my personal opinions, nor will my interpretation of certain scriptures change from year to year. I am home, and enjoy the fullness of truth. I cannot fathom the idea of being a protestant and constantly re-inventing the wheel. So this whole baptism thread is actually a moot point for me: Holy Mother Church teaches that it is a sacrament, and it is so. I play along with the give and take, but in the end, thats the final word for me.
 
Well I have to hand it to you that's an excellent end run but answering a question
with a question, can't you just answer the mans question or is that out of the
question?

Look. Eight were saved in the flood. Was God unrighteous or was it his will that eight should be saved? God couldn't find 10 righteous people in Sodom. God destroyed everything except for Lot and his family who, by the way, had to be dragged out of the city. Because God was merciful, he wouldn't let Lot perish. It shows you how merciful God is. He sends out his servants to drag people into the church; both the good and the bad are dragged in. The kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. Mt. 13:47 Then the angels sort the good and the bad.

So God is just. The end won't come until the full number of the Gentiles are brought into the church. I see no reason to be concerned. Think about Noah, and God who waited until Noah had brought on board the ark every animal and it's mate, and imagine the church is the ark. It goes without saying that men will hear, the saints will endure, the poor in spirit will be uplifted, the ones who mourn will be comforted. All things will come to pass as God declared from the beginning.
 
turnorburn said:
Well I have to hand it to you that's an excellent end run but answering a question
with a question, can't you just answer the mans question or is that out of the
question? :smt018

Iv'e answered it about a thousand times. Here, I'll do it once more for you:

QUESTION: Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

ANSWER: Baptism is what it is, no more, and no less. For us, baptism is the washing away of sin, the means by which one is “born againâ€Â, and the entrance into the covenant family of God. It does NOT cover sins committed afterwards, and therefore does not guarantee your salvation. It also does not guarantee that you will always be a good Christian, just as your formula of asking Jesus to be your “personal Lord and Savoir†does not guarantee that a person who does so will always be a good Christian either. Where we disagree is that Baptism is merely symbolic.
 
Scott1 said:
vic C. said:
There is a question that still lingers... and never is given real consideration by the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Traditional Anglicans and a few others, as CC pointed out. That question is: what about all those who for whatever reason, could not or cannot be baptized?
CCC #1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.
Mec, I haven't gotten any answers to the questions I've asked in this thread either. :smt102
I'd be happy to help... ask away.

Scot,

Once again you have shown yourself to BE a shinning example of your faith.

While many that profess the SAME faith would deny what you have offered AS 'church teaching', you have offered EXACTLY what the REST of us have been SEEKING in answer for about three pages now.

I thank you. God thanks you. For such is the work of a TRUE Saint. A recognition that YOU are bound to YOUR understanding but that is NOT the discerning factor to ALL others. That YOU have come to your own 'PLACE' in your walk, but that does NOT limit you in understanding that ALL have not reached such a penacle.

And, you SEEM to be aware that the 'church' is NOT the defining factor of WHO is or WHO isn't saved. The church IS composed of those that ARE saved PERIOD. Whether they are AS AWARE or not, their 'beliefs' in doctrine are SECONDARY to the GRACE of God. That NO ONE is denied or confirmed simply through an adherance to LAWS created by MEN.

I am NOT attempting to SPEAK 'for' you. I am offering what I have witnesses in your words and compassion. And that IS how we ARE to KNOW our brothers and sisters IN Christ. NOT by thier ADHERANCE to A 'church', (organization), but through the love and compassion that they are able to offer THROUGH Christ.

Blessings my brother,

Mike
 
Catholic Crusader said:
cybershark5886 said:
CC, I can give you the Baptism Paper I wrote that I also gave to Devekut, but I believe that though one can become saved at the moment of physical baptism, that it is rather the Baptism of the Spirit which is effectual. Cornelius and the Gentiles first received the Spirit, and once Peter saw it and could not deny it (to his initial increduility/amazement) he then said he could not refuse them baptism, he had no grounds in which to refuse them after seeing such an evidence of salvation. It is also true for the (notably special/unique) case of the theif on the cross. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. If you would like to read the paper I wrote on Baptism please PM me your e-mail address and I will gladly send it to you. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
We have a saying: We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not. In other words, since Christ commands us to be baptised, we must obey, and allow the sacrament to infuse grace into us and regenerate us. However, if God chooses to do this to certain people who have not been baptised, that is His perrogative. But, just because He can do that is not a green light for us to say it is not neccessary. Again: We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.

To be honest with you, its a challenge to take place in these discussions, because, in a sense, I am playing on your home field by your rules. My belief is that Jesus established a teaching Church, and endowed the apostles with the gift of teaching the truth: This gift was handed down through apostolic succession and resides with the pope and bishops in union with him. So thats all I need to know. I find great comfort in the fact that I don't have to "church shop" to find a group that fits my personal opinions, nor will my interpretation of certain scriptures change from year to year. I am home, and enjoy the fullness of truth. I cannot fathom the idea of being a protestant and constantly re-inventing the wheel. So this whole baptism thread is actually a moot point for me: Holy Mother Church teaches that it is a sacrament, and it is so. I play along with the give and take, but in the end, thats the final word for me.

Your doctrines are bad. The leaders of the church are wrong. Many of their interpretations are wrong.
 
Imagican said:
Scott1 said:
CCC #1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.
Mec, I haven't gotten any answers to the questions I've asked in this thread either. :smt102
I'd be happy to help... ask away.

Scot,

Once again you have shown yourself to BE a shinning example of your faith.

I posted that same quote on page two: viewtopic.php?p=368492#p368492 I guess you just don't read my posts
 
MarkT said:
Your doctrines are bad. The leaders of the church are wrong. Many of their interpretations are wrong.
By what authority do you say that? That is your personal intepretation, and nothing more. It is you who are wrong

Just remember, the leaders of the Church in union with Pope Damasus I canonized the New Testament. The fact that you accept your New Testament means you have accepted their decisions. Chew on that for a while.
 
To be honest with you, its a challenge to take place in these discussions, because, in a sense, I am playing on your home field by your rules. My belief is that Jesus established a teaching Church, and endowed the apostles with the gift of teaching the truth: This gift was handed down through apostolic succession and resides with the pope and bishops in union with him. So thats all I need to know. I find great comfort in the fact that I don't have to "church shop" to find a group that fits my personal opinions, nor will my interpretation of certain scriptures change from year to year. I am home, and enjoy the fullness of truth. I cannot fathom the idea of being a protestant and constantly re-inventing the wheel. So this whole baptism thread is actually a moot point for me: Holy Mother Church teaches that it is a sacrament, and it is so. I play along with the give and take, but in the end, thats the final word for me.

CC,

Your words above betray EXACTLY 'who' you follow. You have CHOSEN to follow A 'church' and for this 'choice', you have CHOSEN to limit your ability to discuss such issues with OTHERS that do NOT adhere to the TEACHINGS of YOUR 'church'.

I don't understand your words. For we EACH play on the SAME field so long as the rules are those SET down FIRST by Him that is ABLE to do so in truth.

NO, you have chosen to BELIEVE that YOUR rules are THE Rules. Yet God's rules do NOT DICTATE that YOUR rules ARE The Rules.

what YOU continually attempt to offer is YOUR understanding of that which has been TAUGHT to you BY an 'organization'. Whether what you have been taught is RIGHT or WRONG is not to BE discussed on certain areas of the forum. But that YOU HAVE accepted the teachings of 'certain men' is apparent and that LIMITS you to WHAT they have TAUGHT you. It also limits your ABILITY to BELIEVE that OTHERS do NOT HAVE to follow the SAME path that YOU have chosen.

God DOES as GOD wills. You OPENLY admitted this in your opening statement. But THEN you allow YOUR pride to OVERRULE this very statement in the second paragraph. Choosing to IGNORE what you have stated by TELLING us that it MUST be differently. That WE MUST do that which YOU have been TAUGHT to BELIEVE.

You offer that it's the 'church' that HAS the FINAL SAY. Yet when we SEE the doctrines of the church TRULY exposed, we SEE that the 'church itself' admits that IT has NO monopoly on the GRACE of God.

And CC, you are on NO more UNEVEN playing field than I. But regardless of opposition in understanding, the TRUTH will 'shine through' in the hearts of those that it's MEANT to regardless of oppostition. Some WILL simply choose to 'go with the flow'. And others will NEVER even SEEK the truth. But for those that ARE chosen of God, that which pertains to HIS truth is IMPOSSIBLE to 'hide under a rock'. For those that HEAR the words that ARE truth WILL SEE. And if your desire is to persuade ALL that YOUR way is the ONLY way, you have LOST the battle BEFORE it was EVEN begun. For that will NEVER happen, other than being ABLE to convince them that this is what you seek.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Imagican said:
CC,
Your words above betray EXACTLY 'who' you follow. You have CHOSEN to follow A 'church' and for this 'choice', you have CHOSEN to limit your ability to discuss such issues with OTHERS that do NOT adhere to the TEACHINGS of YOUR 'church'.
You just don't get it do you. You refuse to ever hear what I say.

As far as I'm concerned, the Church and Christ are ONE. Its not an either/or situation. I believe the Holy Spirit speaks through those Christ appointed. To hear the Church IS to follow Christ. Christ is my Lord and Savior - the Son of the Living God, and by obeying the Church HE ESTABLISHED, I obey HIM.

In my opinion, you have been infected with modern individualism - this "personal relationship" nonsense, and lost all sense of the family of God. The Family of God is a FAMILY, and I respect my elders in that family. Get it?
 
hi-1.gif

Awe come on guys can't we just all get along, I get some decent sleep last night wake up and its "Here we go again" Sheesh! :smt014

Catholic Crusader said:
Imagican said:
CC,
Your words above betray EXACTLY 'who' you follow. You have CHOSEN to follow A 'church' and for this 'choice', you have CHOSEN to limit your ability to discuss such issues with OTHERS that do NOT adhere to the TEACHINGS of YOUR 'church'.
You just don't get it do you. You refuse to ever hear what I say.

As far as I'm concerned, the Church and Christ are ONE. Its not an either/or situation. I believe the Holy Spirit speaks through those Christ appointed. To hear the Church IS to follow Christ. Christ is my Lord and Savior - the Son of the Living God, and by obeying the Church HE ESTABLISHED, I obey HIM.

In my opinion, you have been infected with modern individualism - this "personal relationship" nonsense, and lost all sense of the family of God. The Family of God is a FAMILY, and I respect my elders in that family. Get it?
 
By what authority do you say that? That is your personal intepretation, and nothing more. It is you who are wrong

Just remember, the leaders of the Church in union with Pope Damasus I canonized the New Testament. The fact that you accept your New Testament means you have accepted their decisions. Chew on that for a while.

I'm telling you what the book says. First you say it's a sacrament. Then you say God isn't bound by it. If this sacrament is from God, then it is God's word, and God is true, and just, and he keeps his word.

All you're doing by your talk is you are seeking to justify yourself and your great decision to be a Catholic. On what grounds? On the basis of tradition? If tradition was the grounds for justification, then the Pharisees would have been justified for they were the greatest followers of tradition.

What you call 'reinventing' is what I would call 'growing', that is, we are growing in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are living temples. We're not dead. We didn't stop growing in our knowledge of Christ in the 4th century. We are being watered by the words of God morning after morning, and God gives growth.

But 'in a great house', as Paul said, 'there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble' 2 Timothy 2:20
 
.
whatever

i don't feel like arguing anymore
 
Catholic Crusader said:
cybershark5886 said:
CC, I can give you the Baptism Paper I wrote that I also gave to Devekut, but I believe that though one can become saved at the moment of physical baptism, that it is rather the Baptism of the Spirit which is effectual. Cornelius and the Gentiles first received the Spirit, and once Peter saw it and could not deny it (to his initial increduility/amazement) he then said he could not refuse them baptism, he had no grounds in which to refuse them after seeing such an evidence of salvation. It is also true for the (notably special/unique) case of the theif on the cross. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. If you would like to read the paper I wrote on Baptism please PM me your e-mail address and I will gladly send it to you. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
We have a saying: We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not. In other words, since Christ commands us to be baptised, we must obey, and allow the sacrament to infuse grace into us and regenerate us. However, if God chooses to do this to certain people who have not been baptised, that is His perrogative. But, just because He can do that is not a green light for us to say it is not neccessary. Again: We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.

To be honest with you, its a challenge to take place in these discussions, because, in a sense, I am playing on your home field by your rules. My belief is that Jesus established a teaching Church, and endowed the apostles with the gift of teaching the truth: This gift was handed down through apostolic succession and resides with the pope and bishops in union with him. So thats all I need to know. I find great comfort in the fact that I don't have to "church shop" to find a group that fits my personal opinions, nor will my interpretation of certain scriptures change from year to year. I am home, and enjoy the fullness of truth. I cannot fathom the idea of being a protestant and constantly re-inventing the wheel. So this whole baptism thread is actually a moot point for me: Holy Mother Church teaches that it is a sacrament, and it is so. I play along with the give and take, but in the end, thats the final word for me.

This seems like a tricky place to discuss this, but how do you strike a balance between being spoon fed and investigating the truth for yourself? Is the RCC at all conducive or tolerant to Bereans who search the Scriptures? There has to come a point when you are no longer spoon fed but take up a leader quality and conviction, led by the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God as your sword, to go out and do the work of God and teach it. Could you do it? Or would you be speechless without the Catechism?
 
And also, how "comfortable" can you get without growing complacent? Comfort doesn't win you salvation nor doctrinal correctness; only "Test[ing] everything and hold[ing] on to the good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

~Josh
 
cybershark5886 said:
This seems like a tricky place to discuss this, but how do you strike a balance between being spoon fed and investigating the truth for yourself? Is the RCC at all conducive or tolerant to Bereans who search the Scriptures? There has to come a point when you are no longer spoon fed but take up a leader quality and conviction, led by the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God as your sword, to go out and do the work of God and teach it. Could you do it? Or would you be speechless without the Catechism?
Well, As I posted in another thread, the Church gives us GREAT tools for reading the Bible, and popes have written great encyclicals exhorting the faithful to "search the scriptures" as it were. BUT, as with circumcision in the first council of Jerusalem in Acts, when the apostles (or their successors) define a doctrine, that is the end of discussion. This thread represents such a subject. The matter is shut off for debate.

Now, if we were talking about, say, Genesis, and the meaning of the six days (just as an example), the Church has NOT defined this specifically, so we would be free to toss it about. A Catholic can believe in a litteral six days or millions of years and still be within the boundries of orthodoxy.

There are certain areas which have been dogmatically and infallibly defined. To deny them, for us, is heresy. (I think you would also find that most Catholic doctrine is in line with your own beliefs.)But outside those doctrines and dogmas, we are free to debate. And either way, it is ALWAYS good to be nourished by reading the Bible. Does that make sense?

cybershark5886 said:
And also, how "comfortable" can you get without growing complacent? Comfort doesn't win you salvation nor doctrinal correctness; only "Test[ing] everything and hold[ing] on to the good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

~Josh

Well, of course, I should NEVER become "spiritualy" lazy. The Church cannot help me in that regard - that is up to ME. The Church is my Teacher and my Family, but I am required to live a Godly life. Membership in the Church is by no means a ticket to heaven. I have always said: You will find all kinds in hell and all kinds in heaven. I can NEVER be complascent in my walk in Christ. But, I am comfortable knowing that I have been taught correct doctrine.
 
In Christ I have no need for any thing. I have access to all things in Him.

1 Corinthians 2:10-16
But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.

When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. For,

But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ.
 
Alabaster said:
... When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. For,

But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ.[/b]

I know I'm stepping in doo doo asking you this question, but who is to say who the spirit is speaking through? Isnt it presumptuous to say He is speaking through you, but not through those who can demonstrate their Bona Fides in having Christ-given authority? You speak of "human wisdom", but since you are a human, isnt it just as fair to say that YOUR beliefs are human wisdom? Or are you above the rest of us mere mortals?
 
There are certain areas which have been dogmatically and infallibly defined. To deny them, for us, is heresy. (I think you would also find that most Catholic doctrine is in line with your own beliefs.)But outside those doctrines and dogmas, we are free to debate. And either way, it is ALWAYS good to be nourished by reading the Bible. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I understand your position.

Well, of course, I should NEVER become "spiritualy" lazy. The Church cannot help me in that regard - that is up to ME. The Church is my Teacher and my Family, but I am required to live a Godly life. Membership in the Church is by no means a ticket to heaven. I have always said: You will find all kinds in hell and all kinds in heaven. I can NEVER be complascent in my walk in Christ. But, I am comfortable knowing that I have been taught correct doctrine.

Alright, I just hope you test the doctrines you are told before "finalizing" it in your mind, lest we infact are lazy and do not test everything and hold on to the good. Not that I am super amazing or anything, but because of my love for God and his Word I have come to a greater understanding (and appreciation) of God's Word than most people my age (as I myself have noticed and thanked God for as I constantly seek for more, and as people have told me). I have this indescribable passion to preach the truth and also to reach out in love, that I feel incredibly driven to either speak the word of God or die. I feel like I understand Jeremiah's "fire shut up in the bones" which he was not able to contain. I came to this by my personal delight in and study of the Bible. I would still be a pew-sitting, spoon-fed Christian if I had not pursued the knowledge of God's Word on days other than Sunday. And because of that I'm not a Sunday Christian I'm an every-day Christian. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
 
cybershark5886 said:
...I just hope you test the doctrines you are told before "finalizing" it in your mind...

What would I test them against? What I come up with in my own mind?
 
cybershark5886 said:
This seems like a tricky place to discuss this, but how do you strike a balance between being spoon fed and investigating the truth for yourself? Is the RCC at all conducive or tolerant to Bereans who search the Scriptures? There has to come a point when you are no longer spoon fed but take up a leader quality and conviction, led by the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God as your sword, to go out and do the work of God and teach it. Could you do it? Or would you be speechless without the Catechism?

Josh,

You are over-exaggerating the degree by which we are "spoon-fed". Naturally, we are told to read Scriptures. The Bereans did not read Scriptures and make up their own doctrines, Josh. That is what we have in some of our separated communities. People who take it upon themselves to read and understand Scriptures, a possibly dangerous proposition given that unlearned reading can lead to destruction.

I leave you with this thought from Scriptures which I just read an hour ago...

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; Romans 16:17-18a

Note, what is the measure? Is it Scriptures or it is the Doctrines that you have learned (Apostolic Tradition)? Those who deviate from the Doctrine from which we have learned are not serving the Lord.

Yes, read the Scriptures. But do so with the mind of the Church and the Doctrines given. Unfortunately, some prefer to serve themselves and their own "doctrines", "that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Regards
 
Back
Top