IF Water baptism requirement for salvation, another Gospel?

[Moriah]

Go back and read what I said. I was speaking of verse 5. Paul does not baptize unbelievers nor does he baptize unregenerated people. Hence, they had to be in possession of the Spirit prior to baptism if they were regenerated.

Verse 6 has to do with the laying on of hands and the gifts of the Spirit not regeneration. Hence, you have no argument.




Do you know the difference between "on" and "in"????? This language always refers to gifts and power of the Spirit never regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit.

That is your false beliefs of Calvinism.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus gave command to the apostles to baptise --- "IN THE NAME" --- not, 'in water / with water'.

Paul says, "ONE baptism" --- the baptism that actually "saves" 1Peter 3:21a --- "not, the putting away of the filth of the flesh" like baptism with or in water.

'The Great Commission' repeated by Peter the apostle of Christ, "Not water can forbid that someone cannot be baptized ... And he commanded them IN THE NAME of the Lord to be baptized."

Who insisted on water to be baptized? One who could not even read or understand what he read, but thought he could prescribe to a deputy apostle how to baptize and with what to baptize.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I just want to clarify a few things.

RCC teaches it is the TRUe CHURCH/ONLY one, kingdom of god upon the earth

This is true. The Catholic Church believes it is the One Holy and Apostolic Church by which the deposit of faith is passed on to the whole world. The Catholic Church Equates "the Church" and "the Kingdom of God".

RCC gets doctrines from mainly extra/non biblical sources

This is false. The majority of its teachings comes from Scripture. Tradition is the consistent teaching on 1) how scriptures are to be viewed or understood, and 2) The consistent teaching of the faith passed from the Apostles themselves. Since the Apostles both orally taught and wrote scriptures themselves the Catholic Church looks at both Apostolic forms of teaching as authoritative.

Rcc still teaches regeneration by sacramental way, NOT faith in Christ

This is also wrong one is not exclusive of the others. Sacraments are not a "work" but a participation in the life of Christ. Sacraments are no more a work than reading scripture.

RCC denies saved by faith /grace alone

This is also false. The formal form is that the Catholic Church believes that we are saved by Grace through faith working in love.

RCC offers slavation to others religions, such as sincere jews and Muslims, calling them people of faith in same God as the RCC

This is also not true. The Catholic Church speculates that those who, through no fault of their own, who have never heard the gospel may yet experience the Mercy of God and be saved through Christ as the scriptures says that some men are a "law unto themselves".

those here advocating for the RCC positions usually "withhold" that it would appear!

Again, it has been suggested to you to actually read Catholic Documents for what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Its pretty clear and that way you can still disagree but actually disagree with something they actually teach rather than heresay about something which they never really taught.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Back to the OP: 15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes AND is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
The word "and" is a joining word. snip...

In logic, the joining word "AND" makes the entire statement true when, and only when, both statements are true. IE...

condition1 AND condition2

In the above example both condition1 AND condition2 must be true for the whole statement to be true...

THUS: to be saved one must

Believe AND is baptized

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

That is your false beliefs of Calvinism.

The nature of this response manifests you are wrong and have no substance to defend yourself and so the only thing you resort to is personal attack. Thank you for admission of error because if you could overturn the evidence I presented you would.

 

[The Biblicist]

In logic, the joining word "AND" makes the entire statement true when, and only when, both statements are true. IE...

condition1 AND condition2

In the above example both condition1 AND condition2 must be true for the whole statement to be true...

THUS: to be saved one must

Believe AND is baptized

WM

However, that does not necessarily demand your interpetation of it is true. If the overall teaching of Scripture is that divine ordinances are merely signs that do not convey grace but symbolize what has already been conveyed by faith prior to submission to the sign as Paul clearly teaches in Romans 4:11 and as Christ clearly teaches in Luke 5:12-17 and as the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches in Hebrews 10:1-4 in regard to the whole ceremonial law and as Peter clearly teaches in 1 Peter 3:21 specifically in regard to baptism then the meaning is obvious different than your conclusion. The meaning is that those who believe in the gospel (Mk. 16:15) and in addition are baptized are saved literally and ceremonially (symbolically) but the one who does not believe is the one who is damned.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.................
those who, through no fault of their own, who have never heard the gospel may yet experience the Mercy of God and be saved through Christ as the scriptures says that some men are a "law unto themselves".

...............................

GE:

"... some men are a "law unto themselves" --- Surest sign if ever there was you're none of Christ's.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE:

"... some men are a "law unto themselves" --- Surest sign if ever there was you're none of Christ's.

Quote me in context please. I said the Catholic Church Speculates because of that particular passage. You have no idea whether I'm of Christ or not. If I am elect. There is nothing you say or can do to keep me from Christ. All you can do is speculate.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quote me in context please. I said the Catholic Church Speculates because of that particular passage. You have no idea whether I'm of Christ or not. If I am elect. There is nothing you say or can do to keep me from Christ. All you can do is speculate.

GE:

I have said what I said, "... some men are a "law unto themselves" --- Surest sign if ever there was you're none of Christ's. 'You' - meaning, 'he', 'one', 'any man'.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE:

I have said what I said, "... some men are a "law unto themselves" --- Surest sign if ever there was you're none of Christ's. 'You' - meaning, 'he', 'one', 'any man'.

Now, you've confused me. I'm not sure I understand. Maybe its lost in the translation from Afrikaans to English. Can you explain better what you mean? The verse I'm mentioning is in Romans 2

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In logic, the joining word "AND" makes the entire statement true when, and only when, both statements are true. IE...

condition1 AND condition2

In the above example both condition1 AND condition2 must be true for the whole statement to be true...

THUS: to be saved one must

Believe AND is baptized

WM

GE:

To be saved and to be baptized with the baptism of Christ is to be saved.

A baptism that does not save is as good as washing or bathing filth off one's body.

The baptism that distinguished and signified apostleship was commissioned the only apostles Christianity ever had. To arrogate their baptism is to arrogate their apostleship. The apostolic baptism ended with the apostolic era.

 

[Moriah]

I was speaking of verse 5. Paul does not baptize unbelievers nor does he baptize unregenerated people. Hence, they had to be in possession of the Spirit prior to baptism if they were regenerated.

Of course, only believers are baptized. What kind of defense is that? However, to say that they already had the Holy Spirit is the ridiculous Calvinism coming into your confused beliefs. If they already had the Holy Spirit, then Paul would not have asked them if they received the Holy Spirit WHEN THEY BELIEVED.
You cannot get around this scripture, you will pretend to, but all who can see can see that you are either blind or just completely in denial. What a wonderful scripture to knock out Calvinism.

Verse 6 has to do with the laying on of hands and the gifts of the Spirit not regeneration. Hence, you have no argument.

The scripture plainly says when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, AND they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

 

[Moriah]

The nature of this response manifests you are wrong and have no substance to defend yourself and so the only thing you resort to is personal attack. Thank you for admission of error because if you could overturn the evidence I presented you would.

Here, I will post the answer to you again, it is worth answering twice to show you the Truth.

I was speaking of verse 5. Paul does not baptize unbelievers nor does he baptize unregenerated people. Hence, they had to be in possession of the Spirit prior to baptism if they were regenerated.

Of course, only believers are baptized. What kind of defense is that? However, to say that they already had the Holy Spirit is the ridiculous Calvinism coming into your confused beliefs. If they already had the Holy Spirit, then Paul would not have asked them if they received the Holy Spirit WHEN THEY BELIEVED.
You cannot get around this scripture, you will pretend to, but all who can see can see that you are either blind or just completely in denial. What a wonderful scripture to knock out Calvinism.

Verse 6 has to do with the laying on of hands and the gifts of the Spirit not regeneration. Hence, you have no argument.

The scripture plainly says when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, AND they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

 

[Yeshua1]

I just want to clarify a few things.
This is true. The Catholic Church believes it is the One Holy and Apostolic Church by which the deposit of faith is passed on to the whole world. The Catholic Church Equates "the Church" and "the Kingdom of God".

jesus died to redeem/purchase out for the Father a Holy people unto Himself, NOT the RCC, but all those saved regardless of which church label they go under here on earth!
true Church of Christ members are those saved by the Lord, NOT the RCC itself!

This is false. The majority of its teachings comes from Scripture. Tradition is the consistent teaching on 1) how scriptures are to be viewed or understood, and 2) The consistent teaching of the faith passed from the Apostles themselves. Since the Apostles both orally taught and wrote scriptures themselves the Catholic Church looks at both Apostolic forms of teaching as authoritative.

wrong!The RCC views itself as having the right/authority to inteprete 'correctly' the Bible, and to add to and subtract from it with extra biblcal "traditions' and papal announcements, such as assumption of mary!

This is also wrong one is not exclusive of the others. Sacraments are not a "work" but a participation in the life of Christ. Sacraments are no more a work than reading scripture.

They are NOT found in the biblical record, and they cannot be be sacraments of Grace, as we all have the fullness of all spiritually blessings and and by jesus all ready! what can sacraments do for us that being found justified by God in christ cannot do for any of us?

This is also false. The formal form is that the Catholic Church believes that we are saved by Grace through faith working in love.

Sounds good, but the actual truth as regarding the RCC viewpoint on salvation is that we MUST have all of our sins purified and cleansed by us before can receive real salvations, and the grace of God provoded for us to be cleansed from original Sin in the sacrament of water baptism, gives us a 'clean slate' but RCC requires us to get enough merit through the sacraments and good works in order to have God see us as "good enough" to be fully saved by Him!

Jesus death cannot be the full atonement for sins in RCC, as required to have a meritorious enough life lived in order to allow God to justify us!

This is also not true. The Catholic Church speculates that those who, through no fault of their own, who have never heard the gospel may yet experience the Mercy of God and be saved through Christ as the scriptures says that some men are a "law unto themselves".

RCC holds to their 'baptism by desire", in that sincere peoples of other faith such as jews/Muslims can be pardoned due to them beleiving 'sorta" in same God as christianity!

Again, it has been suggested to you to actually read Catholic Documents for what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Its pretty clear and that way you can still disagree but actually disagree with something they actually teach rather than heresay about something which they never really taught.

have read their theologically documents, know what is "officially" taught by the RCC! Closest thing the RCC would be is a modern day Isreal of High priest/priests/Laws, being the papacy/Cardinals and RCC traditions of men!

you mean well, but the simple truth is that either you do not really understand just what the RCC means by their terminology, or are trying to make it more agreeable with classic Christianity....

 

[Thinkingstuff]

you mean well, but the simple truth is that either you do not really understand just what the RCC means by their terminology, or are trying to make it more agreeable with classic Christianity....

I do know what the Catholic Church teaches and it is classic Christianity as can be see by the testimony of the ECF. You still got a few things wrong. Who would know better you a non catholic who doesn't know the first thing about Catholicism or I who am a Catholic and has studied the Catholic Faith reading its documents a lot longer than you have? Lets look at some errors you falsly place on the Catholic Church.

wrong!The RCC views itself as having the right/authority to inteprete 'correctly' the Bible,

First of all you say wrong to my statement and then follow up with this statement. Pay attention to what I said

The majority of its teachings comes from Scripture. Tradition is the consistent teaching on 1) how scriptures are to be viewed or understood, and 2) The consistent teaching of the faith passed from the Apostles themselves. Since the Apostles both orally taught and wrote scriptures themselves the Catholic Church looks at both Apostolic forms of teaching as authoritative.

How can I be wrong when you say exactly what I said? Either in this case we are both right or we are both wrong it is silly to suggest I'm wrong then say what I've only asserted. The reason the Catholic Church believes it understands the intent of the Apostles is because they hold to both the Oral and written teachings of the Apostles. And to prove my point I will quote the authoritative teaching for the Catholic Church

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

Lets see what other nonsense you have to say about the Catholic Church.

and to add to and subtract from it with extra biblcal "traditions' and papal announcements, such as assumption of mary!

Here is where you are mistaken. The assumption of Mary is a Tradition believed by Catholics just like Catholics believe in the Assumption of Enoch and the Assumption of Elijah. The latter two are distinctly found in scriptures. What happen to Mary after her last mention in the Acts of the Apostles is not in scripture. It is a Tradition. However, it is not a dogmatic belief determining one's salvation which is the thrust of the Scriptures. As a Catholic whether you believe in a dormition or assumption it doesn't affect ones salvation. So the assumption is not as you say added to Catholic "soteriology" but is a traditional belief. Just like its a traditional prodestant belief that William Carey is the "Plodding Missionary". His mantra repreated by missionaries world wide

Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God.

. But to believe whether or not he's the plodding missionary or the Father of modern missions is irrelevant to what the bible says about salvation and it doesn't add or take away from scriptures so it is with the Assumption.
What else false things do you say about a faith you know nothing about.

They are NOT found in the biblical record, and they cannot be be sacraments of Grace, as we all have the fullness of all spiritually blessings and and by jesus all ready! what can sacraments do for us that being found justified by God in christ cannot do for any of us?

So you are suggesting the Eucharist or Communion cannot be found in the bible, How about Baptism? How about being filled with the Holy Spirit? (confirmation) How about Marriage? How about laying on of hands for ordination? How about healing? Nothing about Healing (extreme unction)? Everyone of these things are in the scripture. Sacraments are not a work but a participation in the life of Christ just as reading scriptures gives you strength and wisdom and knowledge and grace so does participation in the sacraments and the Sacraments are confired by those who believe by Jesus not a priest.

Christ himself is the mystery of salvation: "For there is no other mystery of God, except Christ."196 The saving work of his holy and sanctifying humanity is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the Church's sacraments (which the Eastern Churches also call "the holy mysteries"). The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit spreads the grace of Christ the head throughout the Church which is his Body.

The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called 'sacraments of faith.'"44

Jesus' words and actions during his hidden life and public ministry were already salvific, for they anticipated the power of his Paschal mystery. They announced and prepared what he was going to give the Church when all was accomplished. The mysteries of Christ's life are the foundations of what he would henceforth dispense in the sacraments, through the ministers of his Church, for "what was visible in our Savior has passed over into his mysteries."32

What other misiformation you want to pass on?

Sounds good, but the actual truth as regarding the RCC viewpoint on salvation is that we MUST have all of our sins purified and cleansed by us before can receive real salvations, and the grace of God provoded for us to be cleansed from original Sin in the sacrament of water baptism, gives us a 'clean slate' but RCC requires us to get enough merit through the sacraments and good works in order to have God see us as "good enough" to be fully saved by Him!

again wrong. At baptism catholics believe they are saved ie fully saved. You are confusing atonement with sanctification. You cannot merit heaven.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion

merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God

What then is the responsibility of the Christian who cannot merit heaven?

2012 "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified."64

2013 "All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity."65 All are called to holiness: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."66

It is clear God is calling us to Holiness not of our own ability but in the Power of Jesus Christ

Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

Baptism of desire is not for Non-Christians you really need to read the text for that one.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do know what the Catholic Church teaches and it is classic Christianity as can be see by the testimony of the ECF. You still got a few things wrong. Who would know better you a non catholic who doesn't know the first thing about Catholicism or I who am a Catholic and has studied the Catholic Faith reading its documents a lot longer than you have? Lets look at some errors you falsly place on the Catholic Church.

First of all you say wrong to my statement and then follow up with this statement. Pay attention to what I said How can I be wrong when you say exactly what I said? Either in this case we are both right or we are both wrong it is silly to suggest I'm wrong then say what I've only asserted. The reason the Catholic Church believes it understands the intent of the Apostles is because they hold to both the Oral and written teachings of the Apostles. And to prove my point I will quote the authoritative teaching for the Catholic Church Lets see what other nonsense you have to say about the Catholic Church.

Here is where you are mistaken. The assumption of Mary is a Tradition believed by Catholics just like Catholics believe in the Assumption of Enoch and the Assumption of Elijah. The latter two are distinctly found in scriptures. What happen to Mary after her last mention in the Acts of the Apostles is not in scripture. It is a Tradition. However, it is not a dogmatic belief determining one's salvation which is the thrust of the Scriptures. As a Catholic whether you believe in a dormition or assumption it doesn't affect ones salvation. So the assumption is not as you say added to Catholic "soteriology" but is a traditional belief. Just like its a traditional prodestant belief that William Carey is the "Plodding Missionary". His mantra repreated by missionaries world wide . But to believe whether or not he's the plodding missionary or the Father of modern missions is irrelevant to what the bible says about salvation and it doesn't add or take away from scriptures so it is with the Assumption.
What else false things do you say about a faith you know nothing about. So you are suggesting the Eucharist or Communion cannot be found in the bible, How about Baptism? How about being filled with the Holy Spirit? (confirmation) How about Marriage? How about laying on of hands for ordination? How about healing? Nothing about Healing (extreme unction)? Everyone of these things are in the scripture. Sacraments are not a work but a participation in the life of Christ just as reading scriptures gives you strength and wisdom and knowledge and grace so does participation in the sacraments and the Sacraments are confired by those who believe by Jesus not a priest.
What other misiformation you want to pass on? again wrong. At baptism catholics believe they are saved ie fully saved. You are confusing atonement with sanctification. You cannot merit heaven. What then is the responsibility of the Christian who cannot merit heaven? It is clear God is calling us to Holiness not of our own ability but in the Power of Jesus Christ
Baptism of desire is not for Non-Christians you really need to read the text for that one.

IF one has placed faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross, the Atonment, and are immediatly justified" pardoned in full" of ALL sins past/present/future, what can be added to that?

 

[Walter]

I do know what the Catholic Church teaches and it is classic Christianity as can be see by the testimony of the ECF. You still got a few things wrong. Who would know better you a non catholic who doesn't know the first thing about Catholicism or I who am a Catholic and has studied the Catholic Faith reading its documents a lot longer than you have? Lets look at some errors you falsly place on the Catholic Church.

First of all you say wrong to my statement and then follow up with this statement. Pay attention to what I said How can I be wrong when you say exactly what I said? Either in this case we are both right or we are both wrong it is silly to suggest I'm wrong then say what I've only asserted. The reason the Catholic Church believes it understands the intent of the Apostles is because they hold to both the Oral and written teachings of the Apostles. And to prove my point I will quote the authoritative teaching for the Catholic Church Lets see what other nonsense you have to say about the Catholic Church.

Here is where you are mistaken. The assumption of Mary is a Tradition believed by Catholics just like Catholics believe in the Assumption of Enoch and the Assumption of Elijah. The latter two are distinctly found in scriptures. What happen to Mary after her last mention in the Acts of the Apostles is not in scripture. It is a Tradition. However, it is not a dogmatic belief determining one's salvation which is the thrust of the Scriptures. As a Catholic whether you believe in a dormition or assumption it doesn't affect ones salvation. So the assumption is not as you say added to Catholic "soteriology" but is a traditional belief. Just like its a traditional prodestant belief that William Carey is the "Plodding Missionary". His mantra repreated by missionaries world wide . But to believe whether or not he's the plodding missionary or the Father of modern missions is irrelevant to what the bible says about salvation and it doesn't add or take away from scriptures so it is with the Assumption.
What else false things do you say about a faith you know nothing about. So you are suggesting the Eucharist or Communion cannot be found in the bible, How about Baptism? How about being filled with the Holy Spirit? (confirmation) How about Marriage? How about laying on of hands for ordination? How about healing? Nothing about Healing (extreme unction)? Everyone of these things are in the scripture. Sacraments are not a work but a participation in the life of Christ just as reading scriptures gives you strength and wisdom and knowledge and grace so does participation in the sacraments and the Sacraments are confired by those who believe by Jesus not a priest.
What other misiformation you want to pass on? again wrong. At baptism catholics believe they are saved ie fully saved. You are confusing atonement with sanctification. You cannot merit heaven. What then is the responsibility of the Christian who cannot merit heaven? It is clear God is calling us to Holiness not of our own ability but in the Power of Jesus Christ
Baptism of desire is not for Non-Christians you really need to read the text for that one.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[WestminsterMan]

IF one has placed faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross, the Atonment, and are immediatly justified" pardoned in full" of ALL sins past/present/future, what can be added to that?

Nothing can added except that, based upon your statement, one can sin in any and all ways and still expect to be "...pardoned in full ' of ALL sins past/present/future." - sort of like a turd being covered in snow. Sounds like a sweet deal to me. Accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and you're in like Flynn.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

you mean well, but the simple truth is that either you do not really understand just what the RCC means by their terminology, or are trying to make it more agreeable with classic Christianity....

The RCC IS classic Christianity!

WM

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The RCC IS classic Christianity!

WM

Haha.

The RCC is an amalgamation of Christianity, paganism/goddess worship, and the ancient Roman state. The teachings of a simple carpenter got swallowed up by that.