Are there Catholics and Orthodox that are practicing and saved?

[Agnus_Dei]

You better be careful. DHK doesn't like dissenters...

Don't use such big words [dissenters]...DHK is having a hard enough time just comprehending the written language, we need to keep these responses simple.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

You’re moving the goal post DHK, yes the article says that baptism is the washing away one’s personal sins, BUT NOT IN REGARD TO INFANTS…you said infants have their sins washed away in Baptism…That’s NOT TRUE.

Re-Read the article and report to the class why the Orthodox Church Baptizes infants…

In XC
-

I don't have to re-read the article. You don't believe what is quoted even when quoted word for word. You seem to be embarrassed now by your own religious beliefs. But to show you that I am not misleading you, I will quote more of the context for your sake.

The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins. However, that is not the only effect of baptism. As Carl Volz has noted for the Lutheran practice of infant baptism,[19] it grafts the baptized person, including infants, onto the Body of Christ and confers the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Please note:
1. The importance of baptism in washing away one's personal sins.
2. ALSO, grafting baptized persons, including infants into the Body of Christ, and
3. confers on them the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Every one of the above are unscriptural, untenable, cannot be demonstrated by Scripture, and therefore heretical. If you have one iota of Biblical authority to stand on, please provide it. Chapter and verse please!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I don't have to re-read the article. You don't believe what is quoted even when quoted word for word. You seem to be embarrassed now by your own religious beliefs. But to show you that I am not misleading you, I will quote more of the context for your sake.

Again DHK, let's review your own quote:

When an infant is baptized that infant's sins are washed away and he is justified. This is heresy See post 250​

The Orthodox says it is through baptism (even infant baptism) See post 251​

The Orthodox Church doesn't teach any of this in regard to infant baptism, the article doesn't say any of this (show us word for word in the article where infants are baptized for the remission of their sins in the Orthodox Church)...recant your statements or be known as a liar...Thou shalt not lie, DHK, Thou shalt not bare false witness, DHK.

What a shame

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Again DHK, let's review your own quote:

When an infant is baptized that infant's sins are washed away and he is justified. This is heresy See post 250​

The Orthodox says it is through baptism (even infant baptism) See post 251​

The Orthodox Church doesn't teach any of this in regard to infant baptism, the article doesn't say any of this (show us word for word in the article where infants are baptized for the remission of their sins in the Orthodox Church)...recant your statements or be known as a liar...Thou shalt not lie, DHK, Thou shalt not bare false witness, DHK.

What a shame

In XC
-

Again I quote:

The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins. However, that is not the only effect of baptism. As Carl Volz has noted for the Lutheran practice of infant baptism,[19] it grafts the baptized person, including infants, onto the Body of Christ and confers the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Your quote; your source; your link.
Please explain your theology which you deny.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinkingstuff....

Well if this is how you view the RCC and the OC then you can't in any fashion believe this...

"That said...I DO agree that it is *possible* for practicing Catholics or Orthodox to possess saving faith and be born of the Spirit. (saved)

Sure I can. No problem at all. Just because one thing is the NORM, doesnt men that there cant be exceptions.
Salvation is a matter of the heart. There can indeed be Catholic and Orthodox who have come to understand the error of all the heresies, blasphemies and wickedness in the group. In thier heart they have cast asise all of it.

But they are staying in the group...physically...for any number of reasons. Maybe to witness from within. Maybe to try and advocate for change. Any number of reasons. They will probably leave in time, as they discern Gods inclining them to "come out of her", but for the time being they are still there.



:godisgood:

 

[Matt Black]

Let's look at it. Right from the horse's mouth:

Summed up: Baptism = justification. When an infant is baptized that infant's sins are washed away and he is justified. This is heresy. It has nothing to do with grace and faith equal to salvation. An infant cannot put their faith in Christ. Baptismal regeneration is one of earliest heresies of the early churches.

Or, rather, it is what the Church has practised and believed from the beginning, and therefore I would question whether it is heresy.

What was said earlier in the document was even more enlightening:

Let's examine what has been said here:
1. "The absence in Eastern Christianity of a soteriology in terms of forensic justification is serious..."
--No truer words could be said.

2."because Orthodoxy believes not only in ecumenism across geographical space, but especially “ecumenism in time”, i.e., the need to be consistent with the theological tradition of the Church from the earliest centuries."
--Note that convenience is more important than the study of the Scriptures. It is more important to be in sync with everyone rather than to be in agreement with the Scriptures.

I wouldn't call it 'convenience', rather a loyalty to the Truth which has been proclaimed from the time of the Apostles onwards

3. "Thus, the traditional Orthodox mind is immediately suspicious of biblical interpretations that have little or no root in the early life and theology of the Church"
--They are suspicious of those who study the Bible because they must be "in sync" with their own elders, never wandering outside of what they believe to be the "true" church, which in reality was never true at all. They would have known that had they studied the Scriptures.

See above; for your theory to work, there would have to be some kind of bifurcation between Scripture and Tradition, which there wasn't in the Early Church; the concept of sola Scriptura was alien to them and thus should be for us today.

4.

this is true in spades of particularly the forensic notion of justification, and of its consequent bifurcation of faith and works.
--Romans 5:1 teaches that a man is justified by faith. Period. Not by works, but by faith. If the Eastern Church had studied their Bibles they would have known that. Eph.2:8,9 is also very clear on this matter.

I'm not sure the Eastern or indeed the Western half of the Church teaches that one is justified by works, any more than Romans 5:1 teaches that one is justified by faith alone...

5.

Sola scriptura means little to the Orthodox, who as opposed to placing Scripture over the Church,
--Again, a study of the Scripture is demeaned. The Bible is not their authority. Rather they have some other authority such as the ECF. It is not the Bible; they have rejected it, as this tenet implies. Sola Scriptures simply teaches that the Bible becomes the final authority for all matters in faith and doctrine. God is the final arbitrator, not man. In the Orthodox Church it is man that makes the decisions, thus the doctrine is man-made doctrine, not necessarily Biblical.

No, not man, but the Church - the Body of Christ - with the aid of the Scriptures

--Note also they have put the "Church" over the Scriptures, meaning that their man-made organization that they call a church, is more important than God's revelation to man--the Scriptures.

I'm most distrubed to see a Christian calling Christ's Body on earth a 'man-made organisation'

6.

have a full sense of Scripture’s crucial but interrelated place within the Church’s continuing life:
--Translation: The Eastern Church has a full sense of Scripture's inferior place within the Church's continuing life, always being subject to the Church. The Bible is inferior.

See above re SS being foreign to the first Christians; it's not that the Bible is 'inferior', but rather that it does not stand alone. Ultimately, as one of my friends once pointed out to me, sola Scriptura is sine Ecclesia: if it just boils down to "me, Jesus and my Bible", then what happens to "wherever two or three are gathered together in My Name, there I am in the midst" and what's the point of it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is an interesting discussion with regard to baptism. Good points all. Just a note. Catholic and Orthodox distinctiveness is reflected very early in Christian history (before Constantine) with regard to baptism. Here let me quote Justin

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”18...And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone

Its clear Justin equates baptism with regeneration and being "born again" and wrote this work around 160 AD. So very early in Christian History. So these distinctiveness were already present with regard to remission of sins and Baptism.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Again I quote:
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Your quote; your source; your link.
Please explain your theology which you deny.

What you don't understand DHK is that you made specific comments about the article that are untrue and misleading.

You tried to connect infant baptism with the remission of sins...the article doesn't state such.

That is a trait you fundamentalist exhibit...you read an article and automatically misrepresent it.

I'm trying to understand your reasoning DHK.

From the article...emphasis mine:

The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins. However, that is not the only effect of baptism. As Carl Volz has noted for the Lutheran practice of infant baptism, it grafts the baptized person, including infants, onto the Body of Christ and confers the gift of the Holy Spirit. This existential, ecclesiological understanding of baptism is clear in Chrysostom’s Third Baptismal Instruction, where he states: ​

Although many men think that the only gift [baptism] confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit. ​

Let me be clear...I'm disagreeing with you in regard to you past statements that Baptism in regard to infants is for the remission of sins...

I am not however disagreeing with the fact that Baptism is for the remission is sins, that is biblical, but the article qualifies the statement with "HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE ONLY EFFECT OF BAPTISM." Then the article goes into how baptism is conferred to infants.

That's my beef with you DHK...I watch what you say like a hawk and when I see you misrepresenting something I am going to call you out on it and clearly here, you are misrepresenting what the article is saying in regard to infants in terms of baptism and washing of sin.

In XC
-

 

[Alive in Christ]

Agnus Dei...

"Yes, I agree, the reason why Orthodoxy is True and has remained True for 2000 years, unlike your protestant denomination is b/c they’ve remained consistent with the theological tradition of the Church…after all DHK, Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all Truth and remind them of all things until the end of the world."

The Orthodox??? Guided into all truth for 2000 years?

Then whats the deal with that goddess worship directed to a counterfiet Mary?

And whats the deal with that condemnation of the gospel of Jesus Christ...justification by faith in Christ alone...and replacing it with a false gospel that will not save...justification by faith + works?

And whats the deal with including tradition as a truth standard along with scripture, while Christ specifically condemned that idea?

 

[Matt Black]

Then if not the Orthodox or Catholics, who else (at least for the first millenium)? They were the only show in town (please, please, no Trail of Blood fiction here!).

Hi Matt, See if this article will answer any questions, as my knowledge of Orthodox soteriology wouldn't do justice.

Beyond Justification: An Orthodox Perspective

In XC
-

Thanks for that - very interesting article but one that doesn't specifically answer my specific question: how, according to Orthodox soteriology, is one saved? There's a lot of dancing around the issue but the nearest it gets to answering it is by acknowledging that, whilst Christ's Incarnation, Cross and Resurrection redeemed all mankind (which tends to point towards some kind of universalism), not all men incline towards God. It doesn't really say how one appropriates that redemption, that theosis. There's no mention, for example, on any role for the sacraments, or belief, or love for God, or indeed faith and, were I to be looking towards the Bosphorus, those are questions I would like answered.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Agnus Dei...



The Orthodox??? Guided into all truth for 2000 years?

Then whats the deal with that goddess worship directed to a counterfiet Mary?

And whats the deal with that condemnation of the gospel of Jesus Christ...justification by faith in Christ alone...and replacing it with a false gospel that will not save...justification by faith + works?

And whats the deal with including tradition as a truth standard along with scripture, while Christ specifically condemned that idea?

What do you mean goddess worship? and Counterfiet Mary? And looking at my quote from Justin Martyr I wonder which Gospel was preached first? You're interpretation of the Scriptures or theirs. Curious.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

They will probably leave in time, as they discern Gods inclining them to "come out of her", but for the time being they are still there.

And what of those that by God's inclining are led out of Protestant denominations, and in my case, are led into the Orthodox Church. Does God lead His children into error? I pray not.

It's not like I woke up one morning and had an epiphany and decided to become Orthodox...this was a 5 year journey, one done out of patience and prayer. Luke 11:9-10:

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, it will be opened.​

Eventually I had to ask the hard questions...some people, be them raised Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or Methodist never want to ask the questions...they're satisfied where they are and are getting what they need or its just what they are accustomed too and never think to ask.

I had to ask the hard questions, I had to look at all the evidence at all the angles and trust that God would lead me the way. I'm confident my Lord did just that as He promised in Luke 11:9-10.

He didn't lead me back to the Baptist Church, or to the Lutheran Church or any of the other Protestant denominations...He didn't lead me into the RCC, although that's where I felt I was heading...God had different plans for me, obviously. And what's even more amazing is my whole family was received into the Orthodox Church and trust me...my wife is very stubborn and independent and not your typical..."whatever you say honey" kind of woman. We both prayed and prayed and came to our conclusions without any influence from the other.

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Then if not the Orthodox or Catholics, who else (at least for the first millenium)? They were the only show in town (please, please, no Trail of Blood fiction here!).Thanks for that - very interesting article but one that doesn't specifically answer my specific question: how, according to Orthodox soteriology, is one saved? There's a lot of dancing around the issue but the nearest it gets to answering it is by acknowledging that, whilst Christ's Incarnation, Cross and Resurrection redeemed all mankind (which tends to point towards some kind of universalism), not all men incline towards God. It doesn't really say how one appropriates that redemption, that theosis. There's no mention, for example, on any role for the sacraments, or belief, or love for God, or indeed faith and, were I to be looking towards the Bosphorus, those are questions I would like answered.

In regards to being saved, short answer look no further than Acts 2:38. In regards to working out of salvation and running the race to the end, then we have to study Theosis in depth and particular the Desert Fathers.

Of course Matt this is a very generic answer as I understand it without moving into the more complex theological thoughts of the Fathers and/or today's Orthodox theologians.

If I'm not mistaken you are a lawyer correct? So I would assume a generic answer, as your post is asking wouldn't be suffice and I would agree. I would assume that you would want to see all the evidence to make an informed decision, which means, we would have to look at a number of things. Like: What was God's plan for mankind before the Fall? What role did the sin of Adam play in that plan? Why did God choose to become man and redeem mankind, what was the purpose? Why did Christ establish a Church? What is the nature of the Church (this is a big question!)? What role does the Trinity play in the Church? What are the Sacraments? What are their role and purpose in the Church and in our salvation. These are just a few brainstorming questions, many others can be added.

Which we can if you like, explore these questions and more, although I would have to be disciplined enough to ignore the attempts to derail me in this forum...we could always do this in private (email)...you, me, thinkingstuff and maybe even DoubtingThomas, But I would hate to deprive others from learning as well.

I enjoy your posts Matt and you bring a lot to the table and would enjoy a dialog with you regarding your questions.

In XC
-

 

[Gup20]

In regards to being saved, short answer look no further than Acts 2:38. In regards to working out of salvation and running the race to the end, then we have to study Theosis in depth and particular the Desert Fathers.

Going my entire life in non-denominational churches - and basing my knowledge of God entirely on the scriptures - I have no idea what Theosis or Desert Fathers are.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
​

Is receiving the Holy Ghost synonymous with Salvation? Is "remission of sins" synonymous with being made righteous? Where is faith or belief here? What is repentance?

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
​

 

[DHK]

What you don't understand DHK is that you made specific comments about the article that are untrue and misleading.

You tried to connect infant baptism with the remission of sins...the article doesn't state such.

That is a trait you fundamentalist exhibit...you read an article and automatically misrepresent it.

I'm trying to understand your reasoning DHK.

From the article...emphasis mine:

The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins. However, that is not the only effect of baptism. As Carl Volz has noted for the Lutheran practice of infant baptism, it grafts the baptized person, including infants, onto the Body of Christ and confers the gift of the Holy Spirit. This existential, ecclesiological understanding of baptism is clear in Chrysostom’s Third Baptismal Instruction, where he states: ​

Although many men think that the only gift [baptism] confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit. ​

Let me be clear...I'm disagreeing with you in regard to you past statements that Baptism in regard to infants is for the remission of sins...

I am not however disagreeing with the fact that Baptism is for the remission is sins, that is biblical, but the article qualifies the statement with "HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE ONLY EFFECT OF BAPTISM." Then the article goes into how baptism is conferred to infants.

That's my beef with you DHK...I watch what you say like a hawk and when I see you misrepresenting something I am going to call you out on it and clearly here, you are misrepresenting what the article is saying in regard to infants in terms of baptism and washing of sin.

In XC
-

Am I at fault because you are weak in grammar, and fail to see the meaning in your own literature? Let me give you an example.

The purpose of prayer is giving praise to God. However that is not the only purpose of prayer. Prayer also has the purpose of giving thanks, intercession, petition, confession, etc.

Your article is written the same way. It is grammatically written the same as I wrote above.

"The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins..."
"However..."
--There is no difference. The article goes on to explain the additional purposes of baptism, in addition to washing away one's personal sins. Why are you so reluctant to believe your own article.

BTW, at what age is an infant (child) not an infant? Six months? One year? one and a half? Two years? Three? Four? At what age are we talking about?

In the General Baptist Forum, I read the testimonies of salvation of various believers. There is one testimony of someone on this board, now a pastor of a church who has a clear testimony of salvation when he was four years old. He can remember being saved at the age of four. He remembers understanding the gospel at that age, and trusting Christ as His Savior at that age. He believes in the eternal security of the believer, and since that time has never lost his salvation. It wasn't gained by baptism. It was by faith alone in the work of Christ alone.
What washed away his sins? Not water; but the shed blood of Christ.

Just because you have a different view on original sin doesn't negate the fact that you still believe the pagan superstition that H2O washes away sin.

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.

 

[Gup20]

DHK, do you know anyone who is gifted in an abundance of Love and Mercy? If so, you should consider submitting to their censorship before posting. Though I agree with much of the content of your posts, one can never agree with the spirit in which you post them. Your posts seem devoid of the love of Christ, my friend.

Jhn 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
​

Have said that, as I wade through the mine field of your post's content, I would have to say that I agree with you on this point: it is faith alone in the work of Christ alone that saves. Water baptism is nothing more than a seal of the belief that has already made you righteous. We can look to the first person made righteous by faith in Christ - Abraham - for an example:

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Genesis 15)

Rom 4:9 [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
​

Note that Abraham was made righteous before he was circumcised... the circumcision not being required for righteousness. So water baptism, like circumcision, is a seal of the righteousness of the faith that one has. Water baptism alone does not have the power to save.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Going my entire life in non-denominational churches - and basing my knowledge of God entirely on the scriptures - I have no idea what Theosis or Desert Fathers are.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
​

Is receiving the Holy Ghost synonymous with Salvation? Is "remission of sins" synonymous with being made righteous? Where is faith or belief here? What is repentance?

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
​

First I think for Agnus Dei to make sence in this sense is that Salvation is not just a one time event. But you are Saved in that God Chose you to be saved and offered you faith. You are Saved in that you accepted to believe in God and accept the Faith given you. That you are being saved in that you live your life according to the teachings of Jesus. And you will be saved when you have percervered to the end and attained heaven. So at once you have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. So from this consept Acts 2:38 is read You've believed now repent and be baptised for the Remission of sins. Which Matches Perfectly with what Justin Martyr says around AD 160

As many as are persuaded and believe that the things we teach and say are true, and undertake to live accordingly...Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again in the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were born again for when they recieve washinig in the water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit...And we have learned from the Apostles this reason for this [rite]...That we may be account4d worthy, having learned the truth, by our deeds also to be found good citizens and guardians of what is commanded so that we may be saved with eternal salvation

Thereby being "born again" is effected at baptism as Jesus told Nicodemus

3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]" How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

And so being baptised in the water at the same time the spirit so in this respect you are only partly saying something true with Agnus Dei's belief. The baptism cleanses you spiritually and the Holy Spirit comes to you as a regenerated man. Or "born again". For the Classical Christian the "sacraments" accomplish what they represent.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Am I at fault because you are weak in grammar, and fail to see the meaning in your own literature?

Great DHK, in other words, you can't link the article with infant baptism in regard to washing their [infants] sins. Thanks for participating...

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Great DHK, in other words, you can't link the article with infant baptism in regard to washing their [infants] sins. Thanks for participating...

In XC
-

The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins.

This is the one heretical statement that I have been quoting.
It goes against the Bible's teaching whether applicable to infants, children, or adults. It is the same pagan belief as the Hindus hold--that water washes away sin. It is not a Christian belief, but a pagan belief. Why anyone would want to be this superstitious is beyond me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins.

This is the one heretical statement that I have been quoting.
It goes against the Bible's teaching whether applicable to infants, children, or adults. It is the same pagan belief as the Hindus hold--that water washes away sin. It is not a Christian belief, but a pagan belief. Why anyone would want to be this superstitious is beyond me.

Are you sure? What if his teaching was taught before yours? That would question heresy would it not? What if there are scripture verse to prove his point? How about what I posted Just before Agnus Dei in post 277?