What is the largest Church in America?

A high percentage of the J.W.'s have a background of Baptist. Do you think it would be right or wrong to "question their salvation"? If they hold to the tenets of the J.W.'s now, do you think that they are saved just because they were former Baptists. We don't have the opportunity to question them because we don't allow cults on this board. But what would your answer be?

What do you think my motive would be in questioning anyone's salvation?

You tell me. Do you know the answer?

I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. This is no fling. I have been saved for more than 30 years and a missionary for well more than 25 years. Do you think that I am just going to suddenly change my beliefs? I don't have a religion; I have a relationship with Christ my Savior. As the hymn writer put it: "He walks with me; he talks with me along life's narrow road."

Why do you think I keep asking her to clarify things for us.
Perhaps she was deceived.
I know that I wasn't.

BTW, the rules state:

It speaks of Baptists and Christians.
If Lori does not know what it means to be born again or is not saved then she is not a Christian and I have every right to question her salvation, just as I would have the right to question the salvation of a Muslim.
[/SIZE]

 

You HAVE to believe it was no more than a mental assent. Your theology requires it. I know the truth and because I know the truth I also know your belief is false. I trusted in Christ, repented of my sins AND was baptised. Regardless of the fact that I believed baptism was a symbol, my faith, my repentance, my baptism was all valid. I WAS BORN AGAIN! PRAISE GOD!!

 

DHK is not questioning anyone's salvation. What he has done is held Lori to a simple fact. Either she believes she was saved by grace through faith ALONE, that is APART from baptism by water, or she believes she was saved by grace through faith BY baptism through water.

Which is it Lori? I have been waiting and waiting for you to clarify this. PLease pick one.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:


1Pe 1:5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

If a person changes their belief that Jesus Christ is Lord then they never had a born again belief and relationship with Jesus Christ.

If Lori believed in her heart (born again) that Jesus Christ is Lord while she was a baptist then she is saved and was saved as a baptist by this faith ALONE regardless of any misunderstandings she may have in her mind about baptisms and regardless of her being led doctrinally astray by the RCC.

1Cr 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Cr 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Cr 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Also, those teaching false doctrines to God's children will also receive a greater condemnation.

 

You see? you keep adding "AND was baptised".

We know you was baptised.

We want to know if you believed that the baptism as a baptist had any part in your being born again?

 

Baptism was a symbol then and you believed it.
Baptism is salvic now (baptismal regeneration) and you believe it.
Yet you do not repudiate your former belief.
Lori this is an impossible situation.

You cannot believe in both at the same time.
Either baptism is a symbol only or it is efficacious and it saves as the RCC says it does. Which one? If the latter, as you say you now believe, then how can you possibly be saved. Truth doesn't change overnight. It doesn't change at one's convenience.

 

Lori is trying to say that when she decided to become a Catholic and they said you must be baptised to be saved she said "Oh, I already did that as a baptist" and now she thinks that when she was baptised is when she must have been born again.

It doesn't work that way. One is born again when one receives Jesus Christ and when this happens one knows it. Lori is saying "well, I must have been saved when I was baptised".

Well, Lori, that is saying you don't know when you were saved, not a time and date, but you should know the moment you called on Jesus with your heart. Was it before you were baptised by water?

 

I don't want to put words in Lori's mouth but maybe I can clarify what she means here. When Lori was a Baptist, she made a public profession of faith and was baptized. At that time she thought she was saved through her faith. The public profession is just something Baptists do and it has scriptural support. She thought the baptism was a symbol of her death, burial and resurrection with Christ--nothing more. After becoming a Catholic she realized that her baptism had been more than just a symbol, that it was sacrament that conveyed the grace of forgiveness of sins. It mattered not that she believed it was only symbolic at the time it happened, it was none the less effective even though she didn't realize it at the time.

Lori, am I close to being right here or did I totally misconstrue what you are trying to convey?

 

March 13, 1970. I was baptised at Mira Loma Southern Baptist Church a short time after I professed my faith in Christ. When I received the Lord Jesus He gave me a new Spirit. I desired to be baptised. Had I dropped dead before I was baptised I would still have been saved. It's called baptism of desire.

You all insist on just singling out the Catholic Church on it's biblical view of baptism but as I keep mentioning and y'all conveniently keep ignoring the fact that Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. also have the same biblical postion. You know, the position that can be traced back to the Apostles.

 

I believe you have explained it perfectly.

Which means she must decide if she was saved as a baptist BEFORE she was baptised by water, or if she was saved when she was baptised.

If she says BEFORE then the Catholic dogma is wrong.

If she says WHEN then she was not saved according to baptist dogma.

Thus, she cannot say that she was saved as a baptist before she was baptised as a baptist.

 

bingo!! Spot on!

 

It was brought up on another thread about a month ago that most evangelicals view being saved as a crisis event that is usually remembered vividly. However, the person who raised the point observed that not everyone is like that. I can't remember when I trusted Jesus, it has been as far back as I can remember. My level of understanding the faith has grown over the years and is still growing, as is my faith. I remember making a public profession of faith but that's all it was. I didn't believe or trust any more after that event than I had for many years before.

So it may really be that Lori, like me, doesn't really know when she was saved--at least as a Baptist is saved.

 

"Baptism of desire"?

I called on Jesus Christ at age ten. Received the Spirit which testified with my spirit that I was a child of God. I lived my life from that point forward in relationship with Jesus. I never felt any "desire" to be baptised until age thirty-three.

Would you say that I was truly born again at age ten? If you believe I was then you have gained nothing towards salvation by joining the RCC.

 

I do not have a date either but I do remember the time when I called on Jesus Christ. I say at age ten, it could have been nine or eleven, but it was about that age.

Some people that are raised in a solid Christian home may not remember when they called on Jesus because it is something that they have been blessed with from birth, having parents lead them in God's word always. I know such people. Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were more testimonies such as these? But most people do know when they called on Jesus even if they do not have a date.

 

Like I said, I guess the rules don't apply if you're a moderator. I wonder what would happen if I reported your post.

 

Anglicans are simply a split from the RCC; not much difference there, and thus no surprise. Henry VIII came along just before the Reformation started.
Martin Luther, ex-priest, took some RCC baggage with him when he left. He too was anti-Baptist.
John Wesley: Wesley was an Arminian but had a background in the Orthodox Church--another cousin to the RCC.
--This is not most of Christianity. This is most of the RCC and its cousins.

There is no such thing as a baptism of desire.
There is no such thing as baptismal regeneration.
Neither one can be demonstrated from Scripture.

It is quite evident that what you believed from the Baptist Church was not salvation. Salvation is totally unconnected with baptism. Baptism doesn't save. H20 cannot get any one saved. Hydrogen and oxygen--there is nothing special about them. Pagans worship them. The RCC superstitiously believes that the water can wash away sin. So do the Hindus. But the Bible says only the Blood of Christ can wash away your sins.

 

You are more than welcome to.

 

Done. I reported it.

 

Baptism and the Baptism of Desire
By Raymond Taouk

"What is the Church's teaching on the Necessity of Baptism?

It is by baptism that we are incorporated into the mystical body of Christ. However, what makes a member of the Church primarily in a certain sense is our faith, since even amongst the damned souls in hell there are those who have the baptismal character and yet are not members of the Church in any sense of the term. While the sacraments give a visible dimension to the faith, as an external profession of the Church, it is nevertheless true to state that faith then is a more fundamental requirement for Church membership.[1] For that reason the Church teaches that, “Baptism of water is really necessary by necessity of means, but extrinsically only, according to the positive will of God. But what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied through something else; it was altogether fitting that this would be supplied through charity or perfect contrition, which are the best depositions".

 

This is simply the ecumenical Catholic equivocation of making sure they don't have any loop-holes. Face it. The Catechism in and of itself is contradictory. It even allows salvation for Muslims. That, of course, is heresy. Christ is the way to heaven not Islam.

In contrast to what Lori has quoted above, here is what the Catechism says about baptism:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1277

 

I can't but help notice that DHK has dodged this question several times now.

He wishes to put lori4dogs under the microscope to examine her salvation - but refuses to examine himself under the same standards?

Why is this?