The next Pope

I look forward to hearing this response.

 

Here you say that they may or may not be born again.

What qualifies a person to be born again in the doctrine that you believe? Especially when one quotes John 3:16 "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish."

So you can't possibly know if a person is born again or not, then how can you sit in judgment on another's salvation?

Do you just assume everyone is lost who does not follow your doctrine? </font>[/QUOTE]"Does not necessarily mean" means what it says. I did not say "is" or "is not" (born again) for a reason. Read the next statement immediately after that:

I had the same knowledge when I was a Catholic, but I was not saved. Knowledge in and of itself does not save.
I know or a Muslim that memorized the entire New Testament, but that didn't save him. He had the knowledge. But he wasn't saved.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

"I can't possibly know." Speaking on an individual basis you are right. Only God knows the heart.
In general the Catholics believe that being born again is being baptized and that baptism saves. Check the catechism. If this is their belief, they cannot be saved no matter what you have said above. Salvation is by faith alone. It is not by faith plus baptism, or faith plus works. It is falth alone. We are justified by faith (Romans 5:1); not by faith plus..... But the Catholis vehemently deny this message, and by doing so condemn themselves. Salvation is a free gift. A gift cannot be earned. It is not of works. It is not by baptism.
DHK

 

Wow. Two things you say hear have me rather worried for you. By your words you seem to be in this for all the wrong reasons anyhow. What is this "win-win" situation you refer to? I know people who say, "Well, if I'm right then great, but if I'm wrong...no harm done." That, my friend, takes no conviction at all.

Secondly, and more frighteningly, you make the supposition to know a man's heart. Even by your own Sola Scripturayou know that only God knows a man's heart. To assume that the Pope has gone to hell is a leap I fear you are in a very small minority who dares such a thing. For it is not man's job to judge, but God's. And you cannot justify this with your "bear fruits" schpeal because to assume to know the heart of man is to run right past the fruits altogether.

Baptism cleanses you from original sin. everything you screw up after that is your own fault and requires forgiveness. Also, baptism not only is an outward sign of your life's dedication to the Lord, but also a cleansing from original sin. What's your problem with that? I fail to understand the "false religion" in all this.

Except for the special circumstance between you and the Pope...where you KNOW he went to hell. Right?

Hey...let's NOT reword what was written. It was very sufficient on it's own...without your help.
As you will kindly note, "trust" and "faithfully follow" require action, which in turn requires a true commitment from the heart. These two are not just idle lip-service. So I would say this definition is a very good one, indeed. The demons do know Jesus and tremble, but they dis not trust in Him and they do not faithfully follow Him.

Okay. So if someone is "saved" (according to you) but does not get baptized, are they really "saved"? What about Jesus saying that one must be "born again" by water?

 

My conviction is in the Word of God, not in religion. Those that trust in their religion are doomed from the beginning. Religion cannot save. Christ saves, and Him alone. Are you willing to take the chance that your religion will save you? All eternity is at stake.

I never said I know a man's heart. But I do know what the Word of God says. Perhaps you might agree with me if I said that as long as Muslims believe that Jesus is only a prophet, and that Mohammed is greater than Christ, that there is no way that a Muslim can go to Heaven--for they believe not the Christ of the Bible, neither do they believe that Christ is the way of salvation.
Cathlolicism is similar in many ways. Just as Islam cannot save, neither can Catholicism. They are both religions of works. Works cannot save. Salvation is by grace through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast (Eph.2:8,9).
It is not through Catholicism.
I don't have to know the heart; I simply have to know the Bible, and the religion in which one believes in. The Catholic religion leads people to Hell, not to Heaven. Its teachings are diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Bible. They deny justification by faith alone. They deny the simple teaching of Jesus:
"You must be born again."

That may be what your religion teaches you, but that is not what the Bible teaches. Religion doesn't save. Baptism doesn't save. The only thing that baptism does to you is get you wet. You have one of the most superstitious beliefs I know of to think that water can wash away sin. Even Jeremiah mocks at such an idea as that:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

Jeremiah urges you to go ahead jump in that baptistry, take a bath while you are there, use as much water as you can, get completely dunked, use a lot of soap as welll, in fact use the strongest possible soap the world makes (nitre or lye), but this know--your sin will not be washed away.
Water cannot wash away sin.
Only the blood of Christ can.

What's wrong with that? See above. The only thing that can clense from sin is the blood of Christ.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Baptism doesn't wash away sin; the Blood of Christ does.

I cannot say for certain where the Pope's eternal destiny is. If he put his trust in the baptism of the Catholic Church then it won't be in heaven. That is theological fact. It is not a judgement of the heart. It is a fact according to the Word of God. Salvation does not come through baptism but through Christ. If he put his trust in Mary he will not end up in Heaven either, for salvation is in Christ alone. It is important to know what the Bible says, and not to base your life on your emotions.

Water gets you wet; not saved. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved. If I had died within those two years I still would have gone to heaven. You are too superstitious. Water gets people wet; not saved. It can't wash away sins. It is ridiculous to think such a thing. That is what the Hindus think when every year they plunge themselves into the "holy" waters of the Ganges River of India. Is your theology any different than that of Hinduism?

When Jesus said, "You must be born of water and of the Spirit," what did he mean?
Water is obviously symbolic of something. You automatically take it to mean baptism, although baptism is nowhere mentioned in that chapter. It says water, not baptism. What makes you think it should be interpreted baptism? There are much better explanations than baptism. Water, in the New Testament sometimes symbolizes the Word of God, and in this passage may simply mean the water in which an infant is carried in before the infant is born. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which born of the spirit is spirit. It is a parallel to a natural birth in the flesh. But either way it does not refer to baptism. That goes against the context in which Jesus and Nicodemus were speaking. There is nothing in the passage to warrant such an interpretation as baptism, except one's own biased presuppositions.
DHK

 

God does not want his name used in vein but protestants believe that we were instructed by God to baptize in the name of God and that it means absolutely nothing.

It really takes an incredible amount of faith faith in man-made interpretations to believe we are are commanded to use God's name to accomplish absolutely nothing.

Scripture makes it clear again about the purpose of Baptism in 1 Pet 3:21

"Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

[ April 06, 2005, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]

 

If you don't know the Bible and/or the Baptist position then don't make false allegations. Are you suggesting that we use his name in vein? If so, provide evidence. Are you suggesting that we believe baptism means nothing? If so, provide evidence. Don't make false allegations.

Protestants (esp. Baptists) do not believe that baptism "means absolutely nothing." That is absolutely false. Get your facts straight. First remember who we are.
One, we are not protestants; we are Baptists, and there is a difference. We were never involved in the Reformation protesting alongside Luther and Calvin. In fact in many cases we were persecuted by those very individuals as well as the Catholics.
Secondly, just because we believe that baptism has no efficacious effect, does not mean that we don't think it is not important. Think of our name man!! We are the ones called Baptists, and for good reason. We died for that name. The Catholics put us to death for adhering to the principle of baptizing after salvation, instead of at birth. They burnt us at the stake, drowned us, threw our ashes into the river, cursed us, etc. We were hated because of our Scriptural stand on Baptism, and because we deemed it so important to the Christian walk of obedience.

Thirdly the Scriptural teaching on baptism is that it has nothing to do with salvation as the Catholic Church erroneously teaches. It takes place after salvation, after regeneration, after repentance. Thus an infant, of necessity must be excluded from baptism for it is impossible for an infant to repent. Baptism is the first step of obedience in the Christian life. It has absolutely nothing to do with salvation, and cannot wash away sin. It gets you wet. It does not impart grace. It is purely symbolic as Romans 6:3,4 describe--symbolic of a believer's death to his old life to sin, and his new life in Christ.

More ignorance of the Bible and the Baptist position lead to more false allegations. This does get quite tiresome. The ones that have man-made doctrines, as you should rightly know, are the Catholics (the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, transubstantion, baptismal regeneration, confession of sins to a priest, penance, prayers to the dead, repetitive "prayers" of the rosary, to name just a few). And you have the audacity to say we have a man-made interpretation. Incredible!!
What exactly do you mean: "we are are commanded to use God's name to accomplish absolutely nothing."
Where has any Baptist said this? Why are you bent on defaming Baptists? And putting into writing things that they never said? In any other place you could be sued for doing the same.
Baptism according to the Catholic religion, and I emphasize "relgion" is a means of grace. According to the Bible, baptism does not give grace; God does. Baptism is a step of obedience in the Christian faith. It does nothing for you but get you wet. We get baptized in obedience to the command of Christ in the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20. Christ commanded it; we obey it. Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments."
He didn't say his commandments were a means of grace. He didn't make his commandments a superstitious rite that would wash away sin. Only the blood of Christ can wash away sin. I demonstrated that in a previous post. Pleas study your Bible, not your religion. Believe what the Bible says; not what a relgion says. It may change your eternal destiny.

Your understanding of this passage is flawed.
Let's keep a few things in mind when interpreting this Scripture.
First, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Nowhere else in the Scripture does it indicate that baptism saves. Thus the meaning is something else.
Seoondly, When Paul wrote to the Corintians, he said: "God sent me not to baptize, and he thanked God that he baptized very few of them (1Cor.1:14-16). He made it clear that his callig was to preach the gospel and not to baptize. That in itself is an admission that baptism does not save, but the gospel saves. Baptism is not a part of te gospel. It has nothing to do with the gospel. It does not save. Paul was not sent to baptize.
Third, the thief on the cross was never baptized and yet Jesus said he would be in paradise without baptism.
Fourthly, there are about 150 passages in the New Testament that teach that salavation is by faith alone. The Bible does not contradict itself. Obviously this passage has a different meaning.
What then does it mean?

"Baptism ...doth now save us" It does not mean baptism in literal water. It means Christ's baptism unto death and our identification with him in it.
"Not the removal of the filth of the flesh" The ceremonnial worship of the Old Testamet, with which Peter's Jewish Christian readers were familiar, provided a sort of external cleasing that it was a sort of external cleansing, that it was not able to give the priests or the people a clear conscience with regard to sin The baptism of which Peter is speaking is not baptism of which Peter is speaking is not a qestion of physical or even of ritual cleanising from defilement. Water does have the effect of removing dirt from the body, but it cannot provide a good conscience toward God. Only personal association with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection can do that.
"But the answer of a good conscience toward God." The question inevitably arises, "How can I have a righteous standing before God? How can I have a clear conscinece before Him?" The answer is found in the baptism in which Peter has been speaking--Christ's baptism unto death at Calvary and one's personal acceptance of that work. By Christ's death the sin question was settled once for all. (Bible Commentary, William MacDonald)
Again, it is not baptism that saves.
This is made clear also by the introduction to the passage: "The like figure" indicating that it is a symbolic picture. It is not baptism that saves. Peter is painting a picture that we can learn from. It is Christ that saves. He paints a picture of our identification with him in his death, burial and resurrection with him.
DHK

 

Your post is filled with error, it is late so I will just start with your basic premise

Posted by DHK April 6 12:16 am

Posted by DHK less than 2 hours earlier

 

Not all Protestants.

 

Posted by DHK less than 2 hours earlier

</font>[/QUOTE]It is not my problem if you don't understand the Bible. If you are superstitious, then so be it. Water does nothing more than get you wet. It has no magical powers (as the Catholic Church claims it does) to wash away sins. It simply gets you wet. It is not a means of grace. That is heresy. Baptism is a step of obedience in the Christian life, done in obedience to Christ. That is what makes it important. It doesn't do anything for you. It is obedience. Jesus said: "If you love me keep my commandments." If you love Christ you will obey him. But that obedience in this area does not bring salvation. It gets you wet; but it does not bring salvation. Your belief in this respect is no different than the Hindus.
DHK

 

The Catholic Church has nowhere imbued magical powers on water, holy or otherwise.

Magic is a separate religion from Christianity, DHK. You would do well to read some comparative religion materials.

 

The formula in Scrapion's Pontifical is as follows: "We bless these creatures in the Name of Jesus Christ, Thy only Son; we invoke upon this water and this oil the Name of Him Who suffered, Who was crucified, Who arose from the dead, and Who sits at the right of the Uncreated. Grant unto these creatures the power to heal; may all fevers, every evil spirit, and all maladies be put to flight by him who either drinks these beverages or is anointed with them, and may they be a remedy in the Name of Jesus Christ, Thy only Son." As early as the fourth century various writings, the authenticity of which is free from suspicion, mention the use of water sanctified either by the liturgical blessing just referred to, or by the individual blessing of some holy person.

It is known that some of the faithful believed that holy water possessed curative properties for certain diseases, and that this was true in a special manner of baptismal water. In some places it was carefully preserved throughout the year and, by reason of its having been used in baptism, was considered free from all corruption. This belief spread from East to West; and scarcely had baptism been administered, when the people would crown around with all sorts of vessels and take away the water, some keeping it carefully in their homes whilst others watered their fields, vineyards, and gardens with it ("Ordo rom. I", 42, in "Mus. ital.", II, 26).

This water was perhaps blessed in proportion as it was needed, and the custom of the Church may have varied on this point. Balsamon tells us that, in the Greek Church, they "made" holy water at the beginning of each lunar month. It is quite possible that, according to canon 65 of the Council of Constantinople held in 691, this rite was established for the purpose of definitively supplanting the pagan feast of the new moon and causing it to pass into oblivion.

Hincmar of Reims gave directions as follows: "Every Sunday, before the celebration of Mass, the priest shall bless water in his church, and, for this holy purpose, he shall use a clean and suitable vessel. The people, when entering the church, are to be sprinkled with this water, and those who so desire may carry some away in clean vessels so as to sprinkle their houses, fields, vineyards, and cattle, and the provender with which these last are fed, as also to throw over their own food" ("Capitula synodalia", cap. v, in P.L., CXXV, col, 774).

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

It sounds like they believe this "holy water" has special powers to me!

 

DHK

I will be gone for a few days but please go ahead and keep debating with yourself on the importance of Baptism.

Posted by DHK


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing that baptism does to you is get you wet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in summary you believe you are calling n the name of God when you Baptise for the purpose of making the person being Baptized wet.

When you Baptize at your Church do you say "in the name God, I make you wet and thats all" Why would you want to use God's name that way.

Is this what you really believe that Baptism does nothing to the person being Baptized.

So in reading Romans, I take it your interpretation is that "Paul is railing against one form of ritual obediance "circumcision" only to say it must be replaced by a different form of ritual obediance "baptism"." Where do you come up with this stuff?

Instead do think Christ's own Baptism where the Holy Spirit descends on Him, might prefigure our own Baptism or do you believe the waters of the river Jordan were magical that day?

Talk to you in a few days

 

I doubt DHK is the only one on the Baptist Board that believes baptism is important!

 

"Special Powers" and "Magic" are two different things.

 

But it's an argument against itself.

If baptism only gets you wet to one degree or another, then what's the point? If it truly is important, then why?

 

"Holy water" has NO powers, no "special powers", no "magic powers", no "healing powers", etc.

 

OK. The evidence you offer for this assertion is, apparently, too awe-inspiring to share with mere mortals.

Let me ask you: Did Peter and the other Apostles have special powers? What about the "napkins" that people placed on Paul (it might have been Peter as well) which healed people? What about Peter's shadow, which healed people by just alighting on them?

And on the subject of making water "holy:" was it for nothing that the priests of the Temple sanctified the vessels used in their work?

 

Let me ask you: Are you Peter? Are you an Apostle? Do you live in the first century? Does the message that you preach need to be authenticated by signs, miracles, and wonders as it was in the first century--the signs of an apostle?
If it does, would you mind demonstrating? You can do so by walking through a hospital and healing all that are there. If you can't you can stop with the frivilous strawman arguments.

Water doesn't save. Water does't wash away sins. That is what the Hindus believe. If you believe that water washes away sin, then you are just as superstitious in your belief as the Hindus are, and your relgion is no different than theirs. Can I sell you some snake oil?
DHK

 

Let me ask you: Are you Peter? Are you an Apostle? Do you live in the first century? Does the message that you preach need to be authenticated by signs, miracles, and wonders as it was in the first century--the signs of an apostle?
If it does, would you mind demonstrating? You can do so by walking through a hospital and healing all that are there. If you can't you can stop with the frivilous strawman arguments.

Water doesn't save. Water does't wash away sins. That is what the Hindus believe. If you believe that water washes away sin, then you are just as superstitious in your belief as the Hindus are, and your relgion is no different than theirs. Can I sell you some snake oil?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Do you ever just read a post without instantly replying in your smug, self-serving way? Ever???

No, Mister DHK, I ain't Peter, and niether are you. And there are plenty of people, myself included, that fully believe that God still heals through miraculous means. I realize you're convinced we're all Hellbound. That's life, I suppose.

But tell me, O Wiser Than I, what is the deal with baptism, then? Why bother? Care to actually answer a question, instead of staring down your nose into the dirt at us evil unrepentant nonBaptists?

And while I am on the subject, how dare you tell me my religion is no different than Hindus. That is a rank, bitter, judgemental, and completely, vacuously ignorant thing to say.

Here's a news flash, Binky: you don't know me. Only one person on this entire Board does, and you ain't him. Thus you have no idea, and as far as I am concerned will never have any idea, of the depth and quality of my walk with Christ, except to know that because I do not walk lockstep with all the lists and lists pf Pharaisical laws you insist that ever believer hold to to be Really Oh Really saved, I ain't as tight wit' da Big Guy as you.

I will demand an apology, and I realize that you are too stiff-necked to give it.

 

Here is the difference Tragic. I don't claim to be Peter, or any other apostle. Neither do I claim to have any of their spiritual gifts or powers that they were given in the first century and have now ceased. If they were present in this day and age they would be demonstrable. But they are not. I gave you but one example. Show me a person who has the true gift of healing--who can heal ALL that will come to him, or who can go up and down the corridors of a hospital and heal ALL that are there (the modern day equivalent). No one today can do that because no one today has the gift of healing. The spiritual gifts have ceased.

I never said you are Hellbound. Why the false accusation? I was formerly speaking of Catholic theology. I didn't know that you were a Catholic? Are you? Then, why are you so suddenly agreeing with Catholic theology?

I have answered this question many times already. Either you don't like my answer or don't read my posts, or both. We are called Baptists for a reason--baptism is important. That is a given. But it is not important to salvation. Baptism always, always follows salvation; never precedes it, and never is a part of it. It symbolizes the death of the believer to his old life of sin (thus immersion), and his resurrection to a new life with Christ (Rom.6:3,4). A secondary picture is given in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Either way it is a step of obedience (Mat.28:19,20) commanded by Christ, for the believer after salvation. It has nothing to do with salvation. It cannot impart grace. It cannot wash away sin. It only gets you wet. It is an action that is symbolic. It doesn't impart grace; it imparts water--thus my saying, 'It gets you wet.'

Does the truth hurt? I simply point out the similarities between two religions? If you are not a Catholic you have nothing to worry about--unless you like Catholics, also believe in baptismal regeneration. Do you?
Both Hindus and Catholics believe in the same superstition--water washes away sin. That is not only superstition; it is heresy. Only the blood of Christ can wash away your sin. Or do you refuse to believe the Bible on this point?

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

In a previous post I quoted about half a dozen verses on this topic. Didn't you read them? Ignorance of the Word of God, for those who claim to be Christian, is no excuse. And for you to be so ignorant of what the Bible says on this issue and then to attack with such a statement as this:

Is a personal attack that for any other person would be immediately reported to the administration (and still might be). For one who complains so incessantly about the "judgemental" posts of others, your hypocritical posts need to be cleaned up, and you need to take the beam out of your own eye.

Now about that beam in your eye? Have you been to the doctor yet?
I never said I knew you. I never posted to you personally. I was posting to the Catholic position. Are you a Catholic? Do you consider yourself a Catholic? Then why are taking this so personal? You obviously have nothing intelligent to say because all you are presently doing is calling me names. This conversation was purely related to Catholic doctrine vs. Bible doctrine. You jumped in with some red herrings that drew the topic somewhat off course, but that is of your own doing.

You want me to apologize for you calling me names??
I want to answer that according to my flesh, but I will restrain myself
DHK