Testimony

[Thinkingstuff]

Did I say that "ALL" were accepted by Rome?? Where did I say "ALL" were accepted by Rome??? Seems to me you have errected a straw man in order to have a fine public burning so you can look real good!!

Just say it. You know you were wrong!

All Rome has to do is accept just ONE as authentic divine revelation. Ex-cathreda is on going revelation even if they qualify that it has to be in keeping with scriptures.

Talk about straw men!

All you are doing is manifesting your own convictions once more and showing one more of the MULTITUDES of contradictions in Catholic dogma and traditions.

again I've shown you what they actually believe and again you are saying its my own. HA HA HA HA. You kill me.

Like Rome you think by just declaring something not to be a revelation makes it so???? Or by redefining black to be white makes it so. There are shrines built and recognized by Rome concerning Mary where she gave revelations and I have read a few of these revelations and even the sites and shrines are continuously described as places where Mary gave a REVELATION.

You're lost in the woods dude. You don't even know what you're talking about. I just showed you what the Church says it believes about the subject.

Like all cults, Rome simply denies, redefines herself, her doctrine when it suits her and people like you swallow hook line and sinker

Oh you mean like you?

You are a Catholic not a Baptist in any way shape or form - period - and every time you open your mouth it is AGAINST BAPTIST

Dream on dude. Let me make this very clear for you since you're hard of reading. I'm against you. Not Baptist. Not Catholic. You. I'm contra Doctor Walter. Primarily because of how You present yourself. You can argue the sky is blue and I will contradict you because ultimately you are wrong.

and the very historical doctrines that make Baptists to be baptists such as baptism (No Baptist believes in baptismal regeneration or regeneration in baptism). You are a Catholic masquerding as a Baptist - period.

I don't buy landmarkism because it has no historical relevance or proof. There is no and I repeat no, none, nada, emprical evidence to support such a suggestion. In fact I will repeat something I heard while watching "In Touch" if you were to take a test I would grade you a "No"

 

[Dr. Walter]

You're playing word games. You know the Catholic organization is one made up of millions of individual people who believe in it so in effect when you call the institution a whore you're calling them a whore. Its the same thing as if you called Christians whore.

again playing games. Its the same thing. Calling some one fool and foolish is the same thing. The aramaic word for that is Raka.

No I'm speaking the truth. And yes I'm clarifying their proper position because your not honest enough to debate on that level.
I No you can't. You haven't yet. If all the explinations I gave were mine I'd leave my church and be Catholic. I've already told you I don't hold to 100% of any Christian denomination. I've told you that I believe the church has evolved. I've told you that I do appreciate and agree with the classical view of Justification. But thats all you really know of my beliefs. The rest of the stuff is what you would like to believe about me. Nope its not. I'm really my own person and I go to a baptist church so again you are concluding wrongly.

You think going to baptist church makes you a Baptist any more than entering into a chicken pen makes you a chicken????????

You reject the very essentials that make Baptists to be Baptists. You reject Baptist baptism. Your definition of the "classical view of justification" is not the HISTORIC Baptist view that can be found in nearly every Baptist confession of faith, every Baptist theology book since early 1600's.

It does not take a genius to figure out that you go far beyond simply clarifiying their position and their interpretation of scriptures. You go far beyond clarification unto defensive posturing. I have dealt with people like you hundreds of times. It is cyrstal clear that you are defending your own interpretations of the scriptues rather than clarifying Rome's. Most people know the difference between clarifying an issue and defending an issue. You are not convinced in your own heart and mind that their interpretations of scriptures are wrong and it is self-evident to anyone with a lick of common sense.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You think going to baptist church makes you a Baptist any more than entering into a chicken pen makes you a chicken????????

HA HA HA HA! I never heard that one before! Great! Ha!

You reject the very essentials that make Baptists to be Baptists. You reject Baptist baptism. Your definition of the "classical view of justification" is not the HISTORIC Baptist view that can be found in nearly every Baptist confession of faith, every Baptist theology book since early 1600's.

You actually only know 3-4 things about what I believe. That hardly qualifies you to think I deny every thing in the London Confession of Faith in 1689.

It does not take a genius to figure out that you go far beyond simply clarifiying their position and their interpretation of scriptures.

Which is a good thing for you.

You go far beyond clarification unto defensive posturing.

Because I hate people not accurately arguing a position. Its like a fingernail on a chalkboard to me. If I knew more about Mormonism or Islam I would do the same for them.

I have dealt with people like you hundreds of times.

You'e never dealt with anyone like me what so ever. You don't even really know my background and I even explained it to you. You're rather high on yourself aren't you.

It is cyrstal clear that you are defending your own interpretations of the scriptues rather than clarifying Rome's.

See exactly pointing out the point.

Most people know the difference between clarifying an issue and defending an issue.

Most people will say. "ah ok if that is the case then this is what I have a problem with." However, you keep saying the same original point. You keep going over the same stuff and then make up more stuff like the continuing revelation.

You are not convinced in your own heart and mind that their interpretations of scriptures are wrong and it is self-evident to anyone with a lick of common sense.

I am convinced that I am saved by the grace of God. I believe some of what the catholic Chruch says is correct other things are wrong. Just like I believe about all Christian denominations. Because when you get down the heart of ALL OF THEM. THEOLOGY IS A MAN MADE THING. No one is 100% perfect which is why I don't call anyone a whore or raka. I say they are wrong if I think they are.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No true child of God can openly, publicly and vigoriosly defend what they know to be error without also exposing it to be error due to love for the truth and concern for weaker brethren. If they openly, publicly and vigorously defend a position without any qualifications it is because they ACTUALLY BELEIVE what they are defending.

The indwelling Holy Spirit, love for truth, and loving concern for the weak who may be reading their posts would compell them to expose what they know to be error for the sake of the truth, for the sake of weaker brethren and for the sake of their own conscience.

No one who openly, publicly and vigoriously defends a postion without clarifications or qualifications is merely concerned about proper representation of a position unless they are a fool. Because only a fool would defend what he knows to be error without qualifying and clarifying what he knows to be the truth. Only a fool would do that as they would be destroying souls that read it and which may be convinced by it. Duty to God, love to brethren, and purity of conscience demands that truth prevail rather than being the instrument of Satan to confuse and convert others to error by such foolish nonsense.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No true child of God can openly, publicly and vigoriosly defend what they know to be error without also exposing it to be error due to love for the truth and concern for weaker brethren. If they openly, publicly and vigorously defend a position without any qualifications it is because they ACTUALLY BELEIVE what they are defending.

I'm actually never given the chance. However, I like how you presume to speak on behalf of all Children of God. That places you pretty high up doesn't it? Maybe you're making yourself a Pope. don't forget the parable of the wedding feast. If you sit at the head of the table without being invited you might be asked to sit at the kiddie table.

The indwelling Holy Spirit, love for truth, and loving concern for the weak who may be reading their posts would compell them to expose what they know to be error for the sake of the truth, for the sake of weaker brethren and for the sake of their own conscience

Oh that's rich! The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit causes someone to call a whole class of People whores or Raka!!!! Maybe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will lead you to take a more honest approach.

No one who openly, publicly and vigoriously defends a postion without clarifications or qualifications is merely concerned about proper representation of a position unless they are a fool.

All I knew you would attempt to call me Raka.

Because only a fool would defend what he knows to be error without qualifying and clarifying what he knows to be the truth.

For the head child of God you hold yourself to be you seem to know a lot about fools. I think your spirit is showing.

Only a fool would do that as they would be destroying souls that read it and which may be convinced by it.

I have not destroyed one soul on this site. I have not made one person question their faith. If anything some have searched more diligently and become better debaters.

Duty to God, love to brethren, and purity of conscience demands that truth prevail rather than being the instrument of Satan to confuse and covert others to error by such foolish nonsense.

Don't forget Duty to God to Call Catholics and mormons and whom ever else fits your fance a whore and a fool and a heretic and a damned person. Man this god of yours seems to be very gentile and meek and his burden is quite lite. Again sarcasm.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You actually only know 3-4 things about what I believe. That hardly qualifies you to think I deny every thing in the London Confession of Faith in 1689.

This statement illustrates my point exactly. I precisely point to those things which are necessary to be a Baptist in the historical doctrinal sense - (1) baptism and (2) Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works. However, what is your response? You response is that you don't deny "every thing" in the London Confession of Faith in 1689 (as though that is the first Baptist confession in the 1600's). A Mormon could make the same response! A Catholic could make the same response. Probably even a lost man could make the same response.

I talk about essentials to being historic and doctrinally a Baptist and you talk about generalties. This is the classic response you give. You erect straw men. You broaden the subject to avoid particulars. You misinterpret, distort the actual words I use. All of these are characteristics of a classic heretic. If the shoe fits wear it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This statement illustrates my point exactly. I precisely point to those things which are necessary to be a Baptist in the historical doctrinal sense - (1) baptism and (2) Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works. However, what is your response? You response is that you don't deny "every thing" in the London Confession of Faith in 1689 (as though that is the first Baptist confession in the 1600's). A Mormon could make the same response! A Catholic could make the same response. Probably even a lost man could make the same response.

See there you go assuming you can judge my salvation. You either buy it whole or you're damned. Didn't the Catholics do the same to the reformers? Shame.

I talk about essentials to being historic and doctrinally a Baptist and you talk about generalties. This is the classic response you give. You erect straw men. You broaden the subject to avoid particulars. You misinterpret, distort the actual words I use. All of these are characteristics of a classic heretic. If the shoe fits wear it.

No. I'm clear you errect the straw men because you set up the argument to favor your position rather than using objectivity. Again you say you must believe this confession of men to be saved. I say I don't have to buy the whole thing. But to you thats a burning offense.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thinkingstuff cannot deal with substance, with the specifics of my statements and so he rants and raves.

I point out specifics that historically and doctrinally identify a person or a church as "Baptists" - two specifics - regeneration does not occur in baptism and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works.

Thinkingstuff, affirms he denies both rediculing both in saying he does not have to buy into everything Baptist believe to be a Baptist. Of course, I mentioned just two specifics didn't I? I didn't say anything about "everything" Baptist believe did I?

The more he opens his mouth the more obvious it is that he is not a Baptist in any sense of historical theology and/or confessions in two essential points that make a Baptist recognizable as a Baptist.

Case closed

 

[Dr. Walter]

This was taken off a Roman Catholic website dedicated to APPROVED apparitions of Mary. Read the noted descriptions of on-going revelations (revelations,dreams, visions, prophecies, etc.).



CATHOLIC CHURCH
APPROVED APPARITIONS

With the increasing number of claimed heavenly apparitions, which ones have received the official recognition of the Holy Catholic Church during the past few centuries? A list is provided here of some of those apparitions that you can read about with the assurance that these have been recognized.

While the list of those who were blessed with heavenly manifestation begins after year 1,000 A.D, there are many more who's lives are worthwhile reading about. Some of these are: Polycarp, Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Jerome, Methodius, Leo, Hildegarde, etc.

These are the ones that Satan does not want you to read about because they knew the truth. Many of them prophesied the coming chastisement upon the world and the final victory of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.


1061: OUR LADY OF WALSINGHAM, ENGLAND

In 1061, Lady Richeldis de Faverches, a widow who lived in a manor in Walsingham, experienced three visions by Mary. In her visions, Mary showed Lady de Faverches the house in Nazareth where the angel Gabriel told her she would give birth to the Son of the Most High. The Blessed Mother asked Lady de Faverches to build a replica of her house in Nazareth dedicated as a memorial to the Annunciation to Mary and the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary promised:

"Let all who are in any way distressed or in need seek me there in that small house that you maintain for me at Walsingham. To all that seek me there shall be given succour."

1170-1221: ST. DOMINIC

He received the Rosary from the Virgin Mary as the greatest weapon against heresies.

1265: ST. SIMON STOCK

He received the Brown Scapular from the Virgin Mary with the promise that those who die while wearing it, they will be saved.

1302: ST. GERTRUDE THE GREAT

She received private revelations from Jesus regarding the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the importance of the Communion of Saints.

1360: CATHERINE OF SIENA

Privileged with private revelations since her tender age, Jesus entrusted her with bringing the Holy Father back to Rome from France while warning her of the dangers that the Church was facing. She was blessed with the invisible stigmata and often lived on the Eucharist as her only source of food.

1373: ST. KATHERINE OF SWEDEN

St. Katherine of Sweden, daughter of Saint Bridget, her private revelations were on the life and passion of the Lord Jesus and the life of our blessed Mother Mary.

1425: THE IMITATION OF CHRIST

Next to the Bible, this has been the most sold book in the world. Its content concerns the dialogue between Christ and Thomas Kempis. This spiritual treasure helps to understand the spiritual life, the Holy Bible and devotion to the Body and Blood of Christ during the Holy Mass.

1531: OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE

While Martin Luther divided the Church, taking away two millions Catholics, Our Lady appeared to Juan Diego in Mexico City, imprinting her image on the Holy Tilma. That same year, 5 million Indians came home to the Catholic Church. Endless miracles have been accredited to Our Lady of Guadalupe.

1558: SAINT TERESA OF AVILA

Living in days when false seers abounded, she was blessed with ongoing visions and ecstasies. She wrote "Interior Castle" which is a powerful spiritual tool for the discernment of spirits.

(Second half on next post)

 

[Dr. Walter]

(Second half of previus post on APPROVED apparitions and revelations)

1567: SAINT JOHN OF THE CROSS

He is known for having written his great guides for mystics. These are "The Ascent of Mount Carmel" and "The Dark Night Of The Soul."

1594: OUR LADY OF GOOD SUCCESS IN QUITO, ECUADOR
In 1594, Our Lady of Good Success began to appear in Spain to Saint Mariana de Jesus, also known as "The Lily of Quito." St. Mariana's Feast is on May 26th. In 1606, Pope Paul V approved the devotion to Our Lady of Good Success.

1830: THE MIRACULOUS MEDAL

Our Lady appeared to Catherine Laboure in Paris, France when she was a novice with the St. Vincent de Paul's Daughters of Charity. This is where the origin of the Miraculous Medal comes from, its devotion supporting the Immaculate Conception of Mary as the dispenser of graces.

1846: OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE

Our Lady appeared to two children, Melanie and Maximin. In tears, she warned of a coming chastisement if the people did not do penance for their sins.

1858: OUR LADY OF LOURDES

Appearing to Bernadette Soubirous, Our lady introduced herself as the Immaculate Conception. In Lourdes flows the promised miraculous waters, over and above the endless miracles that are credited to the Miraculous Medal.

1859: ST. JOHN VIANNEY

Known as a great exorcist, he was blessed with countless visions of Jesus, Mary and demons. He also prophesied the coming chastisement and the final triumph of Mary.

1862: ST. JOHN BOSCO

St. John Bosco is well known for his 40 prophetic dreams, one of them consisting of a ship in battle, the Pope being shot and falling but rising again. The second time he is fatally wounded and replaced by the next Pope who is elected.

1871: PONTMAIN, FRANCE

Our Lady appeared to four young children during the time of the Franco-Prussian War.

1873: MARIE-JULIE JAHENNY

From 1873 until her death in 1941, Marie-Julie of La Fraudais, France, enjoyed the blessing of the stigmata of Our Lord Jesus. During this time, she was privileged to have visions and messages regarding the coming chastisement and the final victory over communism.

1876: THE SCAPULAR OF THE SACRED HEART

The origin of this devotion is from revelations of Our Lady to Estelle Faguette in Pellevoisin, France. This devotion is called a devotion of Holy Communion with Christ, His sacrament of Love.

1879: KNOCK, IRELAND

Our Lady appeared to a group of villagers of mixed ages. This fortified the Irish in their struggle against religious and social oppression.

1917: OUR LADY OF FATIMA, PORTUGAL

Our Lady of Fatima appeared once a month in the Cova da Iria to the 3 children of Fatima, Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco from May 13, 1917 to October 13, 1929. Warnings were given regarding Communism. Devotion was asked to the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Rosary. During the last apparition, thousands witnessed the miracle of the sun. The apparitions of Fatima contain the promise that in the end the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph over Satan.

1918: PADRE PIO

For 50 years, from September 20, 1918 to 1968 when he died, Padre Pio had the stigmata of Christ. He would bleed during his Holy Masses. He had ongoing visions of Jesus and Mary and was instrumental in the miraculous healing of thousands in body and soul. He was blessed with all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. His great devotions were the Holy Mass, the Sacrament of Confession, the Holy Rosary, Our Lady of Fatima, praying for the souls in Purgatory and his Guardian Angel.

1922: CHARLES VON HAPSBURG

Little is known about him other than he died at 33 years old on April Fool's day in 1922. His body was found to be uncorrupted after being buried for 60 years and many are being cured at his coffin. His wife Zita, who recently died in Switzerland, enjoyed many apparitions from Mary while living in a convent in Switzerland.

1923: SISTER JOSEFA MENENDEZ

From 1919 to 1923 when she died, Sister Menendez received apparitions of Jesus and Mary related to Divine Love and understanding the Sacred Heart. She had a vision of Hell. She became a victim soul and endured numerous bodily attacks by Satan.

1930: BANNEUX, BELGIUM

Our Lady appeared to Mariette Beco, just as Hitler was coming to power in Germany.

1932: BEAURAING, BELGIUM

33 times, Our Lady appeared to 5 children ages 9 to 15 years old. The children were asked to be good and were each given a secret.

1932: THERESE NEUMANN

In Konnersreuth, East Germany, Therese received visions since here early childhood. In 1926, she was blessed with the stigmata and visions of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus. Enduring the stigmata the remaining of her life and only feeding on the Holy Communion, she wrote volumes about her visions.

1938: SAINT SISTER MARIA FAUSTINA KOWALSKA

These apparitions relate to the devotion to the Divine Mercy of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

1955: ALEXANDRINA

From the age of 14, Maria da Costa was paralyzed until her death on the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima on October 13, 1955. Her handicap resulted from jumping out of a window while escaping a man who was trying to molest her. Offering herself as a victim soul while paralyzed, she had visions and locutions from Jesus and Mary, over and above being physically attacked by the devil for 10 years.

1973: In AKITA, JAPAN

The July 6, 1973 to September 13, 1981 miracles and visions of Sister Agnes Sasagawa Katsugo of the Community of the Servants of the Eucharist were approved by the local bishop in 1984.

1976: BETANIA, VENEZUALA

Regarding Betania, the local Bishop has approved the apparition site where Our Lady appeared to hundreds of persons. But, this approval excludes the private message of Maria Esperanza that have not received the official approval (nor disapproval) of the Catholic Church. The approval of Betania must not be viewed as the approval of the seer.
1977: DAMASCUS, SYRIA

The statue of Our Lady of Fatima shed tears in Damascus, Syria.

1980: OUR LADY OF NICARAGUA

Our Lady appeared to Bernardo Martinez and gave him some prophesies, some having passed already. Emphasis was placed on the Five First Saturdays and the Family Rosary. In 1983, the Church approved these apparitions.

1981 to 1989, KIBEHO, RWANDA, AFRICA

Six girls and one boy received apparitions and private messages from Our Lady. The seven visionaries were shown terrifying glimpses into the future: a tree in flames, a river of blood, and many abandoned, decapitated corpses, etc. They were told that if Rwanda did not come back to God, there would be a 'river of blood.' Shortly afterwards, the predicted holocaust came to pass during which time two of the seers were killed.

1982: OUR LADY OF SOUFANIEH

Since November 27, 1982, Our Lady has been appearing to Mirna Nazzour in Damascus, Syria. In 1987, the bishop approved the apparitions.

 

[quantumfaith]

Thinkstuff

"I am convinced that I am saved by the grace of God. I believe some of what the catholic Chruch says is correct other things are wrong. Just like I believe about all Christian denominations. Because when you get down the heart of ALL OF THEM. THEOLOGY IS A MAN MADE THING. No one is 100% perfect which is why I don't call anyone a whore or raka. I say they are wrong if I think they are. "

QED :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Thinkstuff
THEOLOGY IS A MAN MADE THING.

QED :thumbs::thumbs:

Is this really true?
Theos = God.
"ology" = the study of God.

Jesus himself commanded: Search the Scriptures.

We are commanded to study about God. How then is this man made. It is a command from God to study Him and to study Him from the Scriptures. If you do not study God, and if you do not study Him from the Scriptures then you disobey the Creator, the one who made you and is Sovereign over you, the one who has every right to cast you into hell. Is that not so? Why would you take his commands so flippantly? Why would you have such a flippant view of the one who Created you and has a claim on your life as your Lord and Master whether you like it or not?

 

[quantumfaith]

DHK:

" Why would you have such a flippant view of the one who Created you and has a claim on your life as your Lord and Master whether you like it or not? "

Another completely baseless claim. Does it not bother you when you make broad sweeping allegations?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Dr Walter posted...

There is a huge difference between clarifying what a second party's position really is versus DEFENDING that position! Clarifying provides the proper presentation but DEFENDING it conveys it is still YOUR personal interpretative views.

If you were a Roman Catholic then you should DEBATE and DEFEND that position but you deny you are a Roman Catholic. You have gone far beyond simply defending a proper representation of a veiw to actually taking up Rome's interpretative defense.

Anyone reading your posts can easily see that you are not merely presenting Rome's interpretation of the scriptures but are vigoriously putting up a defense of those interpretations. ONLY A FOOL would be so gullible to imagine that you don't really believe the Biblical interpretations you are defending are entirely a second party's position rather than your own own.

1. You have defended their view of baptism vigoriously denouncing the Baptist view.

2 You have defended their view of sacraments AS YOUR OWN VIEW

3. You have defended their view of justificaiton AS YOUR OWN VIEW and even scorned the historic Baptist view.

I've always thought that there are WAY more catholics on these boards than many people think. I'm just sayin'.

Personally, I'm fine with them posting. With all due respect to the ones who make the decisions, I think that the purge that took place a while back, and the current ban regarding Catholics actually makes us look cowardly.

Why not have a seperate board set up exclusively for Evangelical/Catholic discussion???

We have nothing to fear! We are CLEARLY in the right regarding the issues that keep coming up. This an apostate false church we are dealing with, and its so easy to prove it.

OK...off my soap box now. :tongue3:

 

[quantumfaith]

Dr Walter posted...





I've always thought that there are WAY more catholics on these boards than many people think. I'm just sayin'.

Personally, I'm fine with them posting. With all due respect to the ones who make the decisions, I think that the purge that took place a while back, and the current ban regarding Catholics actually makes us look cowardly.

Why not have a seperate board set up exclusively for Evangelical/Catholic discussion???

We have nothing to fear! We are CLEARLY in the right regarding the issues that keep coming up. This an apostate false church we are dealing with, and its so easy to prove it.

OK...off my soap box now. :tongue3:

I share your position, that no one on this board has anything to fear in discussing and debating various scriptural positions and interpretations be they Catholic or Protestant in nature. Purging should be left for the "extremely hateful" no matter which side they fall upon. I am proudly a member of the "catholic" Christian church, but not a member of "THE Catholic church.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DHK:

" Why would you have such a flippant view of the one who Created you and has a claim on your life as your Lord and Master whether you like it or not? "

Another completely baseless claim. Does it not bother you when you make broad sweeping allegations?

QF anyone who says that "theology" is man made or defends a person who says it is, has problems. Theology proper is the study of God. Theology in general is the study of the Scriptures to form a understanding of what the Bible teaches in regard to various themes found in scripture.

Now, I realize that thinkingstuff was more than likely referring to theology books as final authority for truth. I agree, systematic theologies may be helpful but may be hurtful as they are not inspired.

However, Thinkingstuff was responding to my charge that he repudiates the TWO essentials that have historically and doctrinally identified Baptists as Baptists; (1) denial of regeneration in baptism; (2) justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Instead of consenting to these two essentials that have historically and doctrinally characterized Baptists and separating them from other denominations, Thinkingstuff rediculed these two essentials and denied them by saying that he does not beleive everything found in the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith when in fact I never mentioned that particular confession and when in fact I never mentioned anything but these TWO ESSENTIAL characteristics.

I don't care what you claim you are, if you assert that regeneration occurs in baptism you are not a Baptist by hisorical or doctrinal definition.

If you deny theology proper then DHK is precisely correct in his conclusion that you are ridiculing. If you deny theology in general as a helpful but not inspired study, then why are you even participating on this forum???

 

[quantumfaith]

QF anyone who says that "theology" is man made or defends a person who says it is, has problems. Theology proper is the study of God. Theology in general is the study of the Scriptures to form a understanding of what the Bible teaches in regard to various themes found in scripture.

Now, I realize that thinkingstuff was more than likely referring to theology books as final authority for truth. I agree, systematic theologies may be helpful but may be hurtful as they are not inspired.

However, Thinkingstuff was responding to my charge that he repudiates the TWO essentials that have historically and doctrinally identified Baptists as Baptists; (1) denial of regeneration in baptism; (2) justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Instead of consenting to these two essentials that have historically and doctrinally characterized Baptists and separating them from other denominations, Thinkingstuff rediculed these two essentials and denied them by saying that he does not beleive everything found in the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith when in fact I never mentioned that particular confession and when in fact I never mentioned anything but these TWO ESSENTIAL characteristics.

I don't care what you claim you are, if you assert that regeneration occurs in baptism you are not a Baptist by hisorical or doctrinal definition.

If you deny theology proper then DHK is precisely correct in his conclusion that you are ridiculing. If you deny theology in general as a helpful but not inspired study, then why are you even participating on this forum???

1. QF anyone who says that "theology" is man made or defends a person who says it is, has problems.

Another sweeping claim. Theology is as you say. "the study of God". The "man made" part is unavoidable, unless you want to claim special revelation or even "ex-cathedra" priveleges. Theology, is mans fallible study, investigation and contemplation of God's infallible revelation. So here is my broad and sweeping statment, "problems" of that I have many, this is not one of them.

2. I don't care what you claim you are, if you assert that regeneration occurs in baptism you are not a Baptist by hisorical or doctrinal definition.

Agreed. But when one disagrees with you or me on the issue, it does not make them an unbeliever or any less of a believer than you or I.

3. If you deny theology proper then DHK is precisely correct in his conclusion that you are ridiculing. If you deny theology in general as a helpful but not inspired study, then why are you even participating on this forum???

Dont quite understand your assertion here. Would you like me to leave, because I dont "see things" as you do?

 

[DHK]

1. QF anyone who says that "theology" is man made or defends a person who says it is, has problems.

Jesus had problems?? He is the one who commanded it! "Search the Scriptures..."

Another sweeping claim. Theology is as you say. "the study of God". The "man made" part is unavoidable, unless you want to claim special revelation or even "ex-cathedra" priveleges.

Paul said: "Study to show yourselves approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
That is inspired of God.
Why then do you call that which is inspired of God, "man-made"?

Theology, is mans fallible study, investigation and contemplation of God's infallible revelation. So here is my broad and sweeping statment, "problems" of that I have many, this is not one of them.

If it is according to the Scriptures, and not according to man's uninspired writings, such as: The Book of Mormon, the writings of Ellen G. White and the RCC Traditions, and Catechism, then why do you conclude that it is "man's fallible study," when it is the very words of God that are being studied.

2. I don't care what you claim you are, if you assert that regeneration occurs in baptism you are not a Baptist by hisorical or doctrinal definition.

There are those that study and by prejudice come to the wrong conclusion. Not only by prejudice, but by wrongful indoctrination.

Agreed. But when one disagrees with you or me on the issue, it does not make them an unbeliever or any less of a believer than you or I.

If a person disagrees on the essentials on salvation are they saved?

Dont quite understand your assertion here. Would you like me to leave, because I dont "see things" as you do?

Fortunately Baptists believe in soul liberty and fought hard for that principle. It is the Catholics that don't believe in this principle and killed many because of their belief in it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I qualified my statements but you cut out my qualifications and made it an unqualfied statement thus a "sweeping claim"- what is with that? I acknowledge that theology had problems if you approached it as inspired rather than a studied opinion. You cut out that qualification and then repeated as though it was your qualification!!!!!! Hence, my statement was not a "sweeping claim" but you made it that by omitting my qualification.

Another sweeping claim. Theology is as you say. "the study of God". The "man made" part is unavoidable, unless you want to claim special revelation or even "ex-cathedra" priveleges. Theology, is mans fallible study, investigation and contemplation of God's infallible revelation. So here is my broad and sweeping statment, "problems" of that I have many, this is not one of them.

2. I don't care what you claim you are, if you assert that regeneration occurs in baptism you are not a Baptist by hisorical or doctrinal definition.

Agreed. But when one disagrees with you or me on the issue, it does not make them an unbeliever or any less of a believer than you or I.

I was specifically referring to being a "Baptist" not being a Christian. Look at the context of my statement.

3. If you deny theology proper then DHK is precisely correct in his conclusion that you are ridiculing. If you deny theology in general as a helpful but not inspired study, then why are you even participating on this forum???

Dont quite understand your assertion here. Would you like me to leave, because I dont "see things" as you do?

My point is a very simple point. If you are so opposed to theology, then why are you on this forum as this forum consists of theological debate! What we are doing on this forum is exactly what you find written in theological books. If you are opposed to theology and theologions then why take part in a theological discussion??? The only ones on this forum who take a position of infalibility of what a post-Biblical Christians says or teaches are Catholics as that is their doctrine concerning their head and cheif in Rome when he sits and speaks ex-cathreda. This is their position with the approved apparitions of Mary and her visions, revelations, prophecies.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff cannot deal with substance, with the specifics of my statements and so he rants and raves.

I point out specifics that historically and doctrinally identify a person or a church as "Baptists" - two specifics - regeneration does not occur in baptism and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works.

Thinkingstuff, affirms he denies both rediculing both in saying he does not have to buy into everything Baptist believe to be a Baptist. Of course, I mentioned just two specifics didn't I? I didn't say anything about "everything" Baptist believe did I?

The more he opens his mouth the more obvious it is that he is not a Baptist in any sense of historical theology and/or confessions in two essential points that make a Baptist recognizable as a Baptist.

Case closed

Dr. Walter Can't argue the position without First Accusing the person rather than getting to substantive debate. For instance we can pull up 2 different views of justification because there are several I may or may not agree with my case however as it happens when I use scripture or point out a fact that disagrees with Dr. Walter his first approach is to say "see your catholic and a damned Raka whorish one at that and puts me on the defensive." All anyone on this site has to do is read every thread he and I argue on. This is his tactic. Which 1) is disingenuous. 2) lacks proper decorum for debate. Since, it becomes about me rather than the topic I tend to take it personally. He can't in his limited knowledge understand why people go beyond to bring up actual good points counter ones that they believe. Well, I'll tell you why because not everyone is a drone and all of us will be challenged by people more intelligent and informed than we are. Therefore we handel these situations by becoming engrosed in the other side of the debate and maybe in the end we become better for it. Also has everyone noticed how I don't post in the evening? This is always the time Dr. Walter tried to "conclude his case" which is a nother sign of disinguinity since I'm not there to defend myself. I will attempt to keep to the topic despite his personal attacks in an attempt to prove I'm Catholic Which I am not. This way 1) you will get the actual "other side" view and the logic behind it 2) we can progress to points of value or interest. Also I want everyone to remember that accusors have that title for a reason. They accuse. Failing to have authority or certainty of their own they are relegated to accusing. This is why this scene plays so prominant in Job

One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

The hebrew term SATAN means accusor. And in this instance Job's accusor has no authority or power of his own to effect JOB and therefore is relegated to accusing him of possible faithlessness. And so this is how it works. Now I will attempt to provide a more scholarly approached to debate those that are certain of their position. I may or may not agree with the position I hold but I will support it well. The most attacked group are the Catholics. They are defensless here. However, in truth though I don't agree with many things I consider them to be christian. I am not an elitist and hold that scripture is honest when it says in Acts 2:21

And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved

which includes Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterians, Amish, Mennonites, Bretheren, lutheran, etc... and every other denomination which holds an "orthodox" view of God. As for the details those are ultimately left up to God and he will decide for each of us.

When I am accused I will clearly say the person is wrong. And go into no further detail because accusing is just a tactic for lack of ability. I will then proceed to use further evidence to support the contrary position.

Case Closed.