What is the largest Church in America?

[steaver]

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?

I don't believe he has. One cannot KNOW (Born again, regeneration, Christ IN you, New creation, Spirit testifying with spirit, crying ABBA Father) Jesus Christ and then "change their mind".

If one would ever "change their mind" then that is all they ever had-a "mind consent" to a religion. Which cannot save and never could.

Once God creates a new heart it is Forever. It is called "Eternal Life".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

How is this an imposible situation? She once believed baptism was a symbol now she believes it does what it represents. She's working on a time line here. For her whether or not she believed baptism was a symbol of something already done and she did it as a witness makes no difference to a later believe that baptism does what it represents. And her response to "truth doesn't change overnight" can be very simply "I discovered truth overnight" or "I had believed a deception and came to a realization that it was so" Truth is immutable. Our understanding of it isn't.

 

[steaver]

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".

I like how Catholic appologist try to change the clear reading of their own declarations. "Baptismal character" Do you really buy into this garb??

DHK showed us the real deal...

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

Why don't you stop trying to find appologist for false teaching and just flee from it instead?

Even by this appologist you reference he still upholds the foundation of 1277 in his opening line.

So how about you answer my question for yourself?

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 answer "yes", then your beloved Catechism is in error at the point of baptism.

Don't you see how the RCC found it necessary to add all sorts of "explanations" for their unbiblical beliefs and then found it necessary to claim "Authority by Christ" to do so in order to make the unwise and unlearned people submit to them and their words??

I believe the very reason you are here posting with baptist is that you have doubts about your choice to submit to the RCC. Think about it, many people find it easier to simply submit than to study and show thyself approved.

Here is the clear word of the Catechism Lori....
1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

It needs no explanation, no appologist to make everyboby feel good about it. It is anti-biblical and anti-baptist. The MOrmons and the JW's do the exact same thing. Rather than standing firm on their own religions statements they go about twisting them so everybody can just get along.

So either you were saved by grace through faith as a baptist WITHOUT water baptism, WITHOUT "baptismal desire" or you were not. You keep trying to sneak something in so you can be justified somehow by your baptism. See if you can answer clearly Lori. Do not add anything about water baptism to your confession and to your "born again" and give an answer.

Was you born again as a baptist Lori, WITHOUT any water baptism or any "desire" for water baptism?

Once again, pick one. If you were, then the Catechism is False teaching and you should admit as much.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Maybe if we all looked at our mortality we would stop the witch hunt of people who we disagree with us doctrinally but do claim the Blood of Christ.

Little story: I have been having some serious problems with my health & the other day had some really terrible pains that sent me to the doctors. Yesterday I was told by the professionals that I have 4-5 months. Boy does that change ones perspective. So running thru my head all last night that as Christians, we are to love & forgive...so forgive me if I quote this (probably overused) scripture to illustrate:

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I like how Catholic appologist try to change the clear reading of their own declarations. "Baptismal character" Do you really buy into this garb??

DHK showed us the real deal...

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

Why don't you stop trying to find appologist for false teaching and just flee from it instead?

Even by this appologist you reference he still upholds the foundation of 1277 in his opening line.

So how about you answer my question for yourself?

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 answer "yes", then your beloved Catechism is in error at the point of baptism.

Don't you see how the RCC found it necessary to add all sorts of "explanations" for their unbiblical beliefs and then found it necessary to claim "Authority by Christ" to do so in order to make the unwise and unlearned people submit to them and their words??

I believe the very reason you are here posting with baptist is that you have doubts about your choice to submit to the RCC. Think about it, many people find it easier to simply submit than to study and show thyself approved.

Here is the clear word of the Catechism Lori....
1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

It needs no explanation, no appologist to make everyboby feel good about it. It is anti-biblical and anti-baptist. The MOrmons and the JW's do the exact same thing. Rather than standing firm on their own religions statements they go about twisting them so everybody can just get along.

So either you were saved by grace through faith as a baptist WITHOUT water baptism, WITHOUT "baptismal desire" or you were not. You keep trying to sneak something in so you can be justified somehow by your baptism. See if you can answer clearly Lori. Do not add anything about water baptism to your confession and to your "born again" and give an answer.

Was you born again as a baptist Lori, WITHOUT any water baptism or any "desire" for water baptism?

Once again, pick one. If you were, then the Catechism is False teaching and you should admit as much.

What is so blatantly obvious is your half truth or lie. You've only presented one aspect of the teaching and not in its entirety. You purposely skipped

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 (cf. LG 16).

Which show a disingenuous participation in your behalf. Just a few lines down from where you quoted was this quote. So either you purposely ignored it or are representing a half truth which is a lie. Your argument therefore is moot. You need to approach topic more honestly.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For clarification lets break it down.

I like how Catholic appologist try to change the clear reading of their own declarations. "Baptismal character" Do you really buy into this garb??

DHK showed us the real deal...

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

This statement was in response to Lori's quoted here

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".

Here statement is clearly expressed by the combination of your quote from the Catachism and the quote I put it a few lines down. So your premise that

Why don't you stop trying to find appologist for false teaching and just flee from it instead?

Is disingenuous and based on a falacy you purported by quoting only one line or one aspect. Taken in consideration of the other line you would be hard pressed to make this accusation.

So how about you answer my question for yourself?

It is obvious she did.

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.

Its wonderful you called on Jesus at 10. However, your point is irrelevant when considering the totallity of what Lori stated. You had faith thus your salvation is assured even by the Catholic understanding.

Would you say that I was truly born again at age ten?

Who wouldn't? According to Lori there are two aspects of being born again one is of the spirit the other is of water. Clearly your were born again of the spirit.

If you answer "yes", then your beloved Catechism is in error at the point of baptism

Non Sequitur since you miss applied the teaching to begin with

Don't you see how the RCC found it necessary to add all sorts of "explanations" for their unbiblical beliefs and then found it necessary to claim "Authority by Christ" to do so in order to make the unwise and unlearned people submit to them and their words??

You have yet to show what "unbiblical beliefs" the Catholic Church asserts. Certainly, you missed out on baptism. or Strike one.

I believe the very reason you are here posting with baptist is that you have doubts about your choice to submit to the RCC. Think about it, many people find it easier to simply submit than to study and show thyself approved

That certainly is one theory. Another theory is that she wants everyone to know what it is the Catholic Church really believes apart from accusations thrown at it. Or maybe she likes spirited debate. Or maybe she's writing a book. many theories.

It needs no explanation, no appologist to make everyboby feel good about it. It is anti-biblical and anti-baptist. The MOrmons and the JW's do the exact same thing. Rather than standing firm on their own religions statements they go about twisting them so everybody can just get along

as do all sects of Christianity. How about the creation museum that makes assertions scientific discoveries have blatantly refuted? They do all sorts of jumping through hoops to prove young earth.

So either you were saved by grace through faith as a baptist WITHOUT water baptism, WITHOUT "baptismal desire" or you were not. You keep trying to sneak something in so you can be justified somehow by your baptism. See if you can answer clearly Lori. Do not add anything about water baptism to your confession and to your "born again" and give an answer.

Your statement is a non sequitur. She's already indicated that it is faith that saves by grace. And you can be saved with out being baptised yet for her it is entrance into the Church Body or the Kingdom of Heaven in the same sense that circumssions sets apart the Jewish people. Whether or not you have this "indellible mark" you still are saved by grace through faith. Many people will have the mark of baptism and not be saved by Catholic Doctrine as well. For her Born again has two aspects. A spiritual birth and a water birth.

Was you born again as a baptist Lori, WITHOUT any water baptism or any "desire" for water baptism?

Once again, pick one. If you were, then the Catechism is False teaching and you should admit as much.

Non-Sequitur.

 

[Dr. Walter]

How is this an imposible situation? She once believed baptism was a symbol now she believes it does what it represents. She's working on a time line here. For her whether or not she believed baptism was a symbol of something already done and she did it as a witness makes no difference to a later believe that baptism does what it represents. And her response to "truth doesn't change overnight" can be very simply "I discovered truth overnight" or "I had believed a deception and came to a realization that it was so" Truth is immutable. Our understanding of it isn't.

It is statements like you make above that make me really doubt you are even close to being a Baptist much less a saved person.

"She once believed baptism was a symbol now she believes it does what it represents"


So, it makes no difference to you if literal salvation is in the type or antitype?????????? Lori, could believe in Christ for literal salvation and submit to baptism as a type of salvation in Christ as a Baptist, but then convert to a Roman Catholic and believe that baptism IS inseparable from the antitype or IS salvation and that makes no difference?????

One of two things is certain, either she was really saved and then apostatized from the gospel truth or she never was saved and her apostasy from gospel truth manifested her true spiritual state (I Jn. 2:19).

However, you have no excuse! You claim to be a Baptist and Baptists do not confuse types with antitypes in regard to salvation as such confusion is sacramentalism. But for you to defend Lori by suggesting that transition from type to antitype makes no difference places real questions upon the validity of your own salvation. Either salvation is found in the antitype or the type but not both as that destroys any distinction between type and antitype. If she has rejected baptism as a type and made it the antitype, she has rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the true antitype of baptism and replaced the gospel of Jesus Christ with baptism - that is sacramental salvation, sacramental gospel - "another gospel" an "accursed" one at that.

Apply this stupid reasoning to Hebews 10:1-4 and see what you get? The writer says that the law was but a "shadow" (type) that could never take away sin because only Christ's sacrifice could do that (Heb. 10:5-14). However, Lori and your reasoning applied to this or any other clear Biblical type and antitype would make the bull offering the literal means to remove sin equally as much as the sacrifice of Christ and that is exactly what you and Lori have done with baptism.

DHK rightly says this is an impossible situation as it changes the type of salvation into salvation itself as though it does not matter if salvation is in the type or antitype. In essence, she as well as you have destroyed any essential distinction between type and antitype. You are saying it does not make any difference in ones view of salvation if they believe at one time that baptism is a TYPE of salvation but now IS salvation. You are saying it makes no difference between what is a type of salvation and what IS salvation.

 

[lori4dogs]

For clarification lets break it down.


This statement was in response to Lori's quoted here Here statement is clearly expressed by the combination of your quote from the Catachism and the quote I put it a few lines down. So your premise that

Is disingenuous and based on a falacy you purported by quoting only one line or one aspect. Taken in consideration of the other line you would be hard pressed to make this accusation.


It is obvious she did.

Its wonderful you called on Jesus at 10. However, your point is irrelevant when considering the totallity of what Lori stated. You had faith thus your salvation is assured even by the Catholic understanding.

Who wouldn't? According to Lori there are two aspects of being born again one is of the spirit the other is of water. Clearly your were born again of the spirit.
Non Sequitur since you miss applied the teaching to begin with
You have yet to show what "unbiblical beliefs" the Catholic Church asserts. Certainly, you missed out on baptism. or Strike one.
That certainly is one theory. Another theory is that she wants everyone to know what it is the Catholic Church really believes apart from accusations thrown at it. Or maybe she likes spirited debate. Or maybe she's writing a book. many theories.


as do all sects of Christianity. How about the creation museum that makes assertions scientific discoveries have blatantly refuted? They do all sorts of jumping through hoops to prove young earth.


Your statement is a non sequitur. She's already indicated that it is faith that saves by grace. And you can be saved with out being baptised yet for her it is entrance into the Church Body or the Kingdom of Heaven in the same sense that circumssions sets apart the Jewish people. Whether or not you have this "indellible mark" you still are saved by grace through faith. Many people will have the mark of baptism and not be saved by Catholic Doctrine as well. For her Born again has two aspects. A spiritual birth and a water birth.

Non-Sequitur.

Could not have said it better, THANKS!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is statements like you make above that make me really doubt you are even close to being a Baptist much less a saved person. .

:laugh: Its statements like this that make me wonder if you have a Phd. Obviously, I show the argument and the fallacy of the argument against Mrs. Lori4dogs. It was not a statement of faith nor was it a theological review but succinctly a argument showing a fallacy of a prior argument. Its funny how you always question someones salvation or belief.

"She once believed baptism was a symbol now she believes it does what it represents"

Note what I said. Exactly.

So, it makes no difference to you if literal salvation is in the type or antitype??????????

Is this what I said? I suggest you read it again. My suggestion was to here it wouldn't matter because of what she once believed. Does it matter (you were never catholic) that a person believed in baptismal regeneration and now doesn't? Of course not. Fallicous argument.

Lori, could believe in Christ for literal salvation and submit to baptism as a type of salvation in Christ as a Baptist, but then convert to a Roman Catholic and believe that baptism IS inseparable from the antitype or IS salvation and that makes no difference?????

Again is that what I said? Obviously not. I suggest to her (that is Lori4dogs); how salvation operation works in her understanding has changed but does that change her having faith in Jesus? No it changes her understanding of the operation. It doesn't mean that when she initially believed it was in a similar vein as you purport. Overtime her view changed.

One of two things is certain, either she was really saved and then apostatized from the gospel truth or she never was saved and her apostasy from gospel truth manifested her true spiritual state (I Jn. 2:19).

Are you a Calvinist? Do you hold to reformed theology? If her salvation is based on faith alone and she is justified by that alone. Then her position changes she can't possibly loose her salvation. Apostacy is not for the elect. You could only summize that she has been deceived and has a current faulty belief. Rather than be a total Apostate. Call her confused. You can't call her an Apostate because of the Preserverance of the Saints. Once saved always saved. You may question how closely she listens to the spirit but she can't have fallen away because the base of calvinism is that she has a corrupt will and thus can not excersice the freedom of it. And if God elected her she can't jump back out of salvation. Your conclussion thus is in err.

However, you have no excuse!

My mom use to say that when I didn't clean my room! Excuse for what? showing a fallacious argument? Did I say baptism is required for salvation? I did not. I only showed how Lori doesn't have "choose" between the two based on her belief system.

You claim to be a Baptist and Baptists do not confuse types with antitypes in regard to salvation as such confusion is sacramentalism

.
Niether did I. Where did you get that I did such a thing? I didn't I just showed what it was she believed.

But for you to defend Lori by suggesting that transition from type to antitype makes no difference places real questions upon the validity of your own salvation

Again this is not what I said but what you infered. You can question my salvation all you want but first try getting the argument right before interjection.

Either salvation is found in the antitype or the type but not both as that destroys any distinction between type and antitype.

Non - sequitur.

If she has rejected baptism as a type and made it the antitype, she has rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the true antitype of baptism and replaced the gospel of Jesus Christ with baptism - that is sacramental salvation, sacramental gospel - "another gospel" an "accursed" one at that.

Certainly you can argue that with her. However, this wasn't the argument presented.

However, Lori and your reasoning applied to this or any other clear Biblical type and antitype would make the bull offering the literal means to remove sin equally as much as the sacrifice of Christ and that is exactly what you and Lori have done with baptism.

First of all its lori's position not mine.

DHK rightly says this is an impossible situation as it changes the type of salvation into salvation itself as though it does not matter if salvation is in the type or antitype

That is not what DHK said. Look 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.

He negates the time line which lori is speaking of. She believed one way at one time and believes another way now. She can't refute her initial believe its what she believed at the time. Now you can say her current belief is wrong but you can't go into the past and say she didn't believe it the way she described it.

In essence, she as well as you have destroyed any essential distinction between type and antitype. You are saying it does not make any difference in ones view of salvation if they believe at one time that baptism is a TYPE of salvation but now IS salvation. You are saying it makes no difference between what is a type of salvation and what IS salvation

I haven't done any such thing. I just clarified the issues.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Think Ann can attest to this being familiar with equestrian terms.......its called "Chomping at the bit"

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ok, I understand your logic. However, your whole response to DHK was a failure to understand his logic. DHK previously put forth the premise that repudiation of the true gospel by embracing the Roman Catholic false Gospel advertises that the former profession was just that, a profession, whereas the present embrace of a false gospel advertises the true spiritual state in keeping with 1 Jn 2:19. Even Lori admits her former religious state was a state of DECEPTION as she has repudiated it and embrace a complete OPPOSITE state.

DHK argues that for someone to claim they were truely saved through faith in the Baptist gospel but then proceed to repudiate the Baptist gospel by embracing something opposite to the Baptist gospel as the real truth of salvation presents a dilemma which is impossible to harmonize. You cannot claim that a FALSE GOSPEL (Baptist gospel) is responsible for TRUE SALVATION and yet the true gospel (Catholic) was not essential for salvation to begin with. To say the same thing another way, you cannot claim that a faith in a gospel WITHOUT WORKS was responsible for your salvation but true salvation is not by a gospel WITHOUT WORKS but WITH WORKS. To say the same thing another way, you cannot claim that saving faith that excudes baptism really saved you but true saving faith includes baptism. The former faith repudiated baptism as essential for salvation whereas the latter faith demands baptism as essential for salvation. The former viewed baptism as a type but the latter viewed baptism as the antitype.

DHK's argument is solid IF you do not exclude the former foundation he places this present argument upon.

:laugh: Its statements like this that make me wonder if you have a Phd. Obviously, I show the argument and the fallacy of the argument against Mrs. Lori4dogs. It was not a statement of faith nor was it a theological review but succinctly a argument showing a fallacy of a prior argument. Its funny how you always question someones salvation or belief.

Note what I said. Exactly.

Is this what I said? I suggest you read it again. My suggestion was to here it wouldn't matter because of what she once believed. Does it matter (you were never catholic) that a person believed in baptismal regeneration and now doesn't? Of course not. Fallicous argument.


Again is that what I said? Obviously not. I suggest to her (that is Lori4dogs); how salvation operation works in her understanding has changed but does that change her having faith in Jesus? No it changes her understanding of the operation. It doesn't mean that when she initially believed it was in a similar vein as you purport. Overtime her view changed.



Are you a Calvinist? Do you hold to reformed theology? If her salvation is based on faith alone and she is justified by that alone. Then her position changes she can't possibly loose her salvation. Apostacy is not for the elect. You could only summize that she has been deceived and has a current faulty belief. Rather than be a total Apostate. Call her confused. You can't call her an Apostate because of the Preserverance of the Saints. Once saved always saved. You may question how closely she listens to the spirit but she can't have fallen away because the base of calvinism is that she has a corrupt will and thus can not excersice the freedom of it. And if God elected her she can't jump back out of salvation. Your conclussion thus is in err.



My mom use to say that when I didn't clean my room! Excuse for what? showing a fallacious argument? Did I say baptism is required for salvation? I did not. I only showed how Lori doesn't have "choose" between the two based on her belief system.
.
Niether did I. Where did you get that I did such a thing? I didn't I just showed what it was she believed.

Again this is not what I said but what you infered. You can question my salvation all you want but first try getting the argument right before interjection.

Non - sequitur.


Certainly you can argue that with her. However, this wasn't the argument presented.


First of all its lori's position not mine.


That is not what DHK said. Look again He negates the time line which lori is speaking of. She believed one way at one time and believes another way now. She can't refute her initial believe its what she believed at the time. Now you can say her current belief is wrong but you can't go into the past and say she didn't believe it the way she described it.

I haven't done any such thing. I just clarified the issues.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

Sounds like decisional regeneration to me, as one man coined the term. You made a descision for Jesus. This doesn't save anyone.

The papist doctrine on baptism is not biblical. Nor is it the same as Lutherans, Methodists or Anglicans. Baptismal regeneration is unbiblical, and so is infant baptism.

The position cannot be traced back to the Apostles, nor can bible-believers be lied to anymore because we have the Apostle's doctrine in our hands...which at one time the Papists tried to keep from the people on pain of death, but now try to keep it from the people by convincing men they must submit their conscience and reason to "holy mother church."

"..a far greater number have suffered the papists to persuade them that its contents (the Bible) are so far above the grasp of natural intellect, its subjects so profound and exalted, its language so abstruse and ambigous that the common man is quite incapable of understanding it by his own efforts, and therefore that is is the part of wisdom for him to submit his judgment to "holy mother church," who brazenly claims to be the only Divinely authorized and qualified interpreter of God's oracles. Thus does the Papacy withhold God's Word from the laity, and impose her own dogmas and superstitions upon them." A.W. Pink

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok, I understand your logic. However, your whole response to DHK was a failure to understand his logic. DHK previously put forth the premise that repudiation of the true gospel by embracing the Roman Catholic false Gospel advertises that the former profession was just that, a profession, whereas the present embrace of a false gospel advertises the true spiritual state in keeping with 1 Jn 2:19. Even Lori admits her former religious state was a state of DECEPTION as she has repudiated it and embrace a complete OPPOSITE state.

DHK argues that for someone to claim they were truely saved through faith in the Baptist gospel but then proceed to repudiate the Baptist gospel by embracing something opposite to the Baptist gospel as the real truth of salvation presents a dilemma which is impossible to harmonize. You cannot claim that a FALSE GOSPEL (Baptist gospel) is responsible for TRUE SALVATION and yet the true gospel (Catholic) was not essential for salvation to begin with. To say the same thing another way, you cannot claim that a faith in a gospel WITHOUT WORKS was responsible for your salvation but true salvation is not by a gospel WITHOUT WORKS but WITH WORKS. To say the same thing another way, you cannot claim that saving faith that excudes baptism really saved you but true saving faith includes baptism. The former faith repudiated baptism as essential for salvation whereas the latter faith demands baptism as essential for salvation. The former viewed baptism as a type but the latter viewed baptism as the antitype.

DHK's argument is solid IF you do not exclude the former foundation he places this present argument upon.

Ok then why doesn't he just argue the position of symbolic use of baptism against baptismal regeneration? That would be better than suggesting she couldn't have at one time had a differeing belief than the one she holds to now?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ok then why doesn't he just argue the position of symbolic use of baptism against baptismal regeneration? That would be better than suggesting she couldn't have at one time had a differeing belief than the one she holds to now?

Lori has professed that it was the BAPTIST GOSPEL she was saved under and the Baptist Gospel repudiates works, baptism as inclusive of it. It is a package deal that denies baptism in its definition of saving faith. This is impossible to reconcile with the CATHOLIC GOSPEL which she now says is THE TRUE gospel which denies saving faith EXCLUDES baptism.

This is an impossible situation just as DKH said. You cannot claim you were TRULY saved through what you now claim to be a FALSE GOSPEL but you were never saved by what you claim is the TRUE GOSPEL!!!!!! Her view of baptism before and after distinguishes these two gospels; the former EXCLUDES it while the latter INCLUDES it.

By her own testimony the evidence points that she made a PROFESSION under the true gospel but her heart's condition is revealed by her apostasy from the truth to error (I Jn. 2:19). The former was mere profession under what she acknowledges to be a DECIEVED STATE and so the evidence is that she was DECEIVED in believing she was saved as her present state amplifies (1 Jn. 2:19).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I know there are a lot of terms I need to be familiar with. So can you explain to me how this works

Sounds like decisional regeneration to me, as one man coined the term. You made a descision for Jesus. This doesn't save anyone.

Decisional Regeneration? If a regeneration occures doesn't it imply salvation?

The papist doctrine on baptism is not biblical. Nor is it the same as Lutherans, Methodists or Anglicans. Baptismal regeneration is unbiblical, and so is infant baptism.

Ok it doesn't explain Decisional Regeneration and how it doesn't save.

The position cannot be traced back to the Apostles, nor can bible-believers be lied to anymore because we have the Apostle's doctrine in our hands...which at one time the Papists tried to keep from the people on pain of death, but now try to keep it from the people by convincing men they must submit their conscience and reason to "holy mother church."

Ok still no explination on how Decisional Regeneration works.

"..a far greater number have suffered the papists to persuade them that its contents (the Bible) are so far above the grasp of natural intellect, its subjects so profound and exalted, its language so abstruse and ambigous that the common man is quite incapable of understanding it by his own efforts, and therefore that is is the part of wisdom for him to submit his judgment to "holy mother church," who brazenly claims to be the only Divinely authorized and qualified interpreter of God's oracles. Thus does the Papacy withhold God's Word from the laity, and impose her own dogmas and superstitions upon them." A.W. Pink

Possibly but it seems to me that the layity impose their own superstitions upon the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. They really don't need help from the Papacy or clergy to do this. Neither have I known the Catholic Church to withhold "God's Word" from the layity despite their imposed supperstitions. Hmmm... Still doesn't explain the first question.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Baptismal regeneration is regeneration due to baptism and decisional regeneration is regeneration due to the sinners decision whereas the scriptures plainly say that we are "born not of the will of man" (Jn. 1:13).

I know there are a lot of terms I need to be familiar with. So can you explain to me how this works

Decisional Regeneration? If a regeneration occures doesn't it imply salvation?
Ok it doesn't explain Decisional Regeneration and how it doesn't save.



Ok still no explination on how Decisional Regeneration works.

Possibly but it seems to me that the layity impose their own superstitions upon the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. They really don't need help from the Papacy or clergy to do this. Neither have I known the Catholic Church to withhold "God's Word" from the layity despite their imposed supperstitions. Hmmm... Still doesn't explain the first question.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Lori has professed that it was the BAPTIST GOSPEL she was saved under and the Baptist Gospel repudiates works, baptism as inclusive of it. It is a package deal that denies baptism in its definition of saving faith. This is impossible to reconcile with the CATHOLIC GOSPEL which she now says is THE TRUE gospel which denies saving faith EXCLUDES baptism.

This is an impossible situation just as DKH said. You cannot claim you were TRULY saved through what you now claim to be a FALSE GOSPEL but you were never saved by what you claim is the TRUE GOSPEL!!!!!! Her view of baptism before and after distinguishes these two gospels; the former EXCLUDES it while the latter INCLUDES it.

By her own testimony the evidence points that she made a PROFESSION under the true gospel but her heart's condition is revealed by her apostasy from the truth to error (I Jn. 2:19). The former was mere profession under what she acknowledges to be a DECIEVED STATE and so the evidence is that she was DECEIVED in believing she was saved as her present state amplifies (1 Jn. 2:19).

I think you go to far in assumptions. Lori stated that when she was a baptist she believed that her faith saved her and that baptism was a symbolic rendering of what already happened in her heart. That point hasn't changed. Now years later she is convinced that Baptism is more sacramental in the sense that it does what it represents. Does it change the initial belief she once had? And if she had that belief at one time wouldn't it indicate she was elect. And if elect despite her current errors is she still yet saved?.

When I was baptized by a pastor I was under the assumption that he was an ordained minister. I find out years later that he was not and I was decieved. Does that make my baptism invalid?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Baptismal regeneration is regeneration due to baptism and decisional regeneration is regeneration due to the sinners decision whereas the scriptures plainly say that we are "born not of the will of man" (Jn. 1:13).

It still doesn't explain the difference. The term regeneration implies activity or a change. So how is decisional regeneration not salvific? Are you saying you can't make a "decision for Jesus"? If so I'll have to tell my pastor to stop using that during the alter call.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think you go to far in assumptions. Lori stated that when she was a baptist she believed that her faith saved her and that baptism was a symbolic rendering of what already happened in her heart. That point hasn't changed. Now years later she is convinced that Baptism is more sacramental in the sense that it does what it represents. Does it change the initial belief she once had? And if she had that belief at one time wouldn't it indicate she was elect. And if elect despite her current errors is she still yet saved?.

When I was baptized by a pastor I was under the assumption that he was an ordained minister. I find out years later that he was not and I was decieved. Does that make my baptism invalid?

You did not place your faith in that man or his ordination for salvation and so it made no difference as to your salvation.

The Bible clearly teaches that there are true and false PROFESSORS. Wheat and tares look alike to the untrained eye. I lived in eastern Washington in the wheat counties. The only visible distinction that I could make between the wheat and tare is that in the time of harvest the tare stood erect while the wheat was bent over due to the fruit or grain.

The Bible says that the true believers are known by their FRUIT and so are false prophets. One indicator of a false profession is that they begin with a profession of Christ but turn against Christ (1 Jn. 2:19). The epistle of First John is how to distinguish a true from a false profession in Christ. You repudiate Christ when you repudiate justification by faith without works.

Either such a person is completely without the inward confirming work of the Holy Spirit (as the Holy Spirit does not bear witness with error but with truth) and deceived or their initial profession was simply an empty profession and their present profession is indicatitive of their true spiritual state.

 

[lori4dogs]

Sounds like decisional regeneration to me, as one man coined the term. You made a descision for Jesus. This doesn't save anyone.

The papist doctrine on baptism is not biblical. Nor is it the same as Lutherans, Methodists or Anglicans. Baptismal regeneration is unbiblical, and so is infant baptism.

The position cannot be traced back to the Apostles, nor can bible-believers be lied to anymore because we have the Apostle's doctrine in our hands...which at one time the Papists tried to keep from the people on pain of death, but now try to keep it from the people by convincing men they must submit their conscience and reason to "holy mother church."

"..a far greater number have suffered the papists to persuade them that its contents (the Bible) are so far above the grasp of natural intellect, its subjects so profound and exalted, its language so abstruse and ambigous that the common man is quite incapable of understanding it by his own efforts, and therefore that is is the part of wisdom for him to submit his judgment to "holy mother church," who brazenly claims to be the only Divinely authorized and qualified interpreter of God's oracles. Thus does the Papacy withhold God's Word from the laity, and impose her own dogmas and superstitions upon them." A.W. Pink

Who is telling the lie here? You say the 'papist doctrine' concerning baptism is different than the Anglican position. Absolutely FALSE. Not one iota of difference. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. You have stated that the Catholic teaching on baptism is different than the Lutheran (position). Here is the Lutheran position:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3967

Please show me the difference.

Here is the Methodist statement concerning baptism:

We also believe that in baptism God initiates a covenant with us, announced with the words, “The Holy Spirit works within you, that being born through water and the Spirit, you may be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ.” This is followed by the sign-act of laying hands on the head, or the signing of the cross on the forehead with oil. The word covenant is a biblical word describing God’s initiative in choosing Israel to be a people with a special mission in the world, and Israel’s response in a life of faithfulness. The baptismal covenant calls us to a similar vocation.

God Has Chosen Us
Christians have also understood the baptismal covenant in light of Jesus’ baptism. At Jesus’ baptism, God said: “This is my son.” While Jesus’ relation to God as Son is unique, for Christians baptism means that God has also chosen us as daughters and sons, and knows us intimately as a parent.

So the most important things about us, our true identity, is that we are now sons and daughters of God. That is why the introduction to the United Methodist Baptismal Covenant states, “We are incorporated into God’s mighty acts of salvation and given new birth through water and the Spirit.”

The introduction also says, “Through the Sacrament of Baptism, we are initiated into Christ’s holy church.”

Please show me how this differs from the Catholic teaching on baptism.

You are so full of anti-Catholic venom that you spew staement like the above post without checking out the facts.