While I was a Baptist I did not believe that Baptism was needed in addition to faith. I believed a person only needed to repent and accept Christ as savior.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Qualifications for Pastor
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
While I was a Baptist I did not believe that Baptism was needed in addition to faith. I believed a person only needed to repent and accept Christ as savior.
So a pastor gets married. He wakes up in the morning and says: Whoops I made a mistake. And you say he is not blameless even if you put the fault on the woman. When married the proposition is "I do--until dead do us part." And both parties make that vow before God and man. It is a vow. If the vow is broken the man is disqualified to be a pastor. He is no longer blameless or above reproach any longer. What God put together, he has torn asunder. There is no such thing as "blaming-Eve-for-it" marriage. Adam is just as much at fault as Eve. Adam married her. It is a two way proposal.
Beliefs come and go unless they are based on truth.
Did you KNOW that baptism by a baptist was not saving you?
But that is not what the RCC teaches. So how do you reconcile the two?
I didn't miss your point. Marriage is a two-way proposition; a two-way road. It is not about one person walking away. It is about each person doing their homework before hand so that they know that neither one will walk away. I don't believe the entire fault must lay and does lay with one spouse.
Well, I think the problem becomes yours. As a Baptist I believed exactly what I said I did. In your view, I was saved and eternally secure. I believed that way for many years. I now believe that repentance and baptism are necessary for salvation. I believe it biblical. Now, are saying that because I have changed my mind about baptism I am no longer saved? Surely your not saying that are you?
You are the one that has to reconcile the two systems of theology in your mind. If you were truly saved as a Baptist, then why did you leave and join something you didn't believe in?
On the other hand if you truly believe in RCC theology, IMO I would get baptized (if I were you), because it is only RCC baptism that is the gateway to heaven. It has been that way for years. Maybe recently they have changed it, but the Bible doesn't change. The RCC still teaches baptismal regeneration--at total antipodes to the Baptists. How could they ever accept a heretical baptism--still according to the Council of Trent, heresy, and count it a valid baptism. They can't. According to the RCC they must consider you not saved. As long as you are there not baptized you are not saved. Correct? (According to them)
First, the Bible says he cannot remarry and he must remain single. Where does that put him in relation to the "husband of one wife" qualification. His wife (divorced or not) in God's eyes is his wife forever. God does not recognize divorce. He only allowed it "for the hardness of Israel's hearts. Read Matthew 19.
From the beginning it was not so.
Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Two people make a vow before God. God has joined them together. Where do they think they get the permission to break that vow and put asunder what God has joined together. It ain't there.
I totally agree with everything you have said here.
If he does not marry another he remains "blameless". Afterall, as you said, in the eyes of God he is still married to her. The states paperwork does not trump God's law.
So where does that leave him in the eyes of the baptist? Wouldn't he then still be qualified for pastor? Or does the baptist go by man's law of divorce rather than the law of God on divorce as you have presented in this post?
Ecclesiastes 5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.
Ecclesiastes 5:4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
Fairly strong language isn't. God takes no pleasure in fools--those that break their vows. Nor would I believe he would have a fool pastoring a church. Compare Scripture with Scripture and you find an obvious answer.
Again:
Vows are broken.
He is not any longer above reproach or blameless.
He no longer rules his house well.
1 Timothy 3:4-5 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Check your history. We used to be called "anabaptists" because we "baptized again." The Catholic church hated it so much they rounded them up tied their feet together, put weights upon them and drowned them. They mocked their baptism by immersion by immersing them permanently. To the RCC it was heresy. That second baptism; that baptism by immersion was and still is (historically) a heretical baptism by the RCC.
How can the RCC logically accept that which is heretical to them, as part of their own faith. That which has been written in the Council of Trent, the anathemas, has never been revoked. The baptism of the heretics (baptists) is still heresy. Please don't tell me that the RCC would accept a heretic's baptism as equivalent to their baptism.
That is about as equivalent to a Baptist accepting the RCC infant baptism as acceptable, and no baptist is going to do that.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Lori, you are simply not being honest here. By your own testimony you defined your Baptist salvation experience by your friends Protestant definition of salvation which was inclusive of works - which you said accurately portrayed your own salvation belief and experience while a Baptist. In so doing, that made it compatible with your friends Roman Catholic "love" definition of salvation which also is inclusive of works.
However, both definitions are POLAR OPPOSITE to what Baptist teach about salvation.
Hence, YOU NEVER BELIEVED THE BAPTIST GOSPEL of justification WITHOUT WORKS!!!
So you cannot possibly claim that Baptist must accept your EXPERIENCE as credible according to Baptist definition of the gospel.
No, I quite accurately described my Baptist salvation experience in other posts. I said I agree how my friend describes Protestants view of salvation. For the most part it is accurate. I don't see how 'personal works' is found in his statement about the Protestant view. I certainly didn't believe that works had anything to do with salvation as a Baptist. It is you who are attributing that to my belief as a Baptist and you are wrong.
DHK, you have been told time and time again that the Catholic Church accepts baptisms (Trinitarian) from other Christian churches by many other people than just me. They have and do. For you to keep insisting they don't is a FALSE ACCUSATION. Making false accusations is a sin, DHK. Why do you insist on doing that?
Last edited by a moderator:
It is hypocritical. I know what the Catechism says.
It makes the RCC ecumenical and their doctrine diverse and acceptable to many different denominations. It is no wonder that many point to it as the coming Anti-christ.
Look at history: The Catholic Church never, never in history accepted the Baptist faith, much less Baptist baptism. Why now??
Look at theology: Baptists say baptism is not required for salvation; the RCC believe in baptismal regeneration.
Knowing the above then, it is totally illogical for the RCC to accept a heretical and "non-Christian" (in their eyes) baptism. Historically we were never considered Christians at all, but have always been persecuted as heretics, and died at the hands of the Inquisitors. So the RCC is hypocritical. I know what the updated Catechism says. It also says that baptism is required for salvation. But two opposing statements of faith cannot both be right.
Dr. Walter
New Member
"The Protestant Gospel is one of Faith in the saving power of Jesus. It is one of complete surrender to God's will and power, with nothing else expected or required of the believer."
The bold underlined portion of your friends teaches another gospel than the Baptist gospel.
If he would have said, "The Protestant Gospel is one of faith in the saving power of Jesus with nothing else expected or required of the Believer." he would have accurately portrayed the Baptist gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works.
However, that middle line includes continuance in personal obedience to the will of God as the exception in your qualified conclusion "nothing else."
You stated this Protestant definition correctly portrayed your own belief as a Baptist but that is not the Baptist gospel.
So don't tell me that we must accept your Baptist understanding/experience of the gospel because we don't accept what you have stated to "accurately" descibe the gospel you beleived in as Baptist.