Baptism-only an outward sign?

Curtis,

Check this link out:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

Carson I don't want to check it out. You tell me, in your words. And Chemintz can chime in also.

If God doesn't remove his mark, then how can one lose salvation ?

And if one can lose salvation, what good is baptism ?

 

Peter says "It is NOT the Water" that saves you but "AN APPEAL to God for a Clean conscience" in 1Peter 3.

That makes the WATER merely the "outward" sign since the "appeal" actually happens (according to Romans 10) when the sinner turns to God in belief and confesses.

See? The Bible has the solution.

So "yes" if he wants to follow the Gospel - he must be baptized. But he is saved at the moment he repents and turns to Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I must humbly apologize to Carson. I thought you were answering another question with that link, about the cousin/stepbrother thing, but I see it's another question I asked. My mistake.

However, I'm still interested in the comparison of you & Chemintz posts.

 

And after reading the link, I see the following....

Joseph's death is not recorded, in scripture. An assumption is made that he died before Christ's ministry, and a dogma built from that.

The statement that he had other children in without base, again, assumptions are built off the Protoevangelium of James, which even Catholics admit was written at the earliest, in the second century, and there are some who say the record of Zacharias' death (chs. xxii-xxiv) does not belong, and even some more who seem to hint that Joseph was somehow narrating part of the book (ch. xviii. 2 sqq.) At the time of writing, that would make Joseph about 150 years old. I'm very confused.

Who wrote the Protoevangelium of James, in what original lanhuage ?

 

Curtis,

The doctrine that Mary remained a virgin her entire life is not something that is believed based upon an uninspired writing (e.g. The Protoevangelium of James) or any other speculation. It is based upon what really happened in time and space in Mary's life, and it has been a doctrine since her earthly life throughout the Church.

This isn't a topic that this thread is directed towards.

 

I know that. And I've debated enough about Mary, for now. I'm actually just curious about who wrote the book. I read a book, recently, that delved into the history of the Mormons, and used that book's bibliography to reference the original books of the founders of the Mormon Fundamentalists. (That doesn't look good abbreviated, like IFB, KJVO, RCC, or LDS do. Take my word for it). They consider Joseph Smith's writings inspired scripture. Just like you claim the books that build your faith, are inspired. Just like I say the Bible, is inspired. If you consider the Protoevangelium of James is inspired.

I'm only curious about the authority of this book.

And I'll also add, that we can talk about this, and still be on the topic, as there are probably numerous accounts of baptism in the books that even the newer Bibles versions almost always reject as inspired scripture.

 

"Joseph's death is not recorded, in scripture. An assumption is made that he died before Christ's ministry, and a dogma built from that."

Why do you require this "explicitness of scripture" standard for others that you cannot meet yourself? For instance, there is no verse that says "the Bible is the sole rule of faith". There is no scripture specifying altar calls, which every baptist Church I have been to has. Do you wear a wedding ring? There is no scripture that says we are saved by faith alone. Yes we are saved through faith as scripture says but that is not the same as faith alone. I am saved from death by eating food. It is also highly recommended that I don't jump in front of buses and off cliffs. A glass or two of water a day also is helpful. Of course if you make that faith an active faith then we have another discussion.

Blessings

 

"I am saved from death by eating food. It is also highly recommended that I don't jump in front of buses and off cliffs."

That was an interesting visual. I can see Bro. Curtis saying "I'm not so sure about that one" and pushing Thess in front of a bus, just to make sure. lol

 

Thess, I could apply the same argument with you. Why do you require knowledge that isn't recorded in scripture ? And why build off a theory, and call it truth ? We don't know when Joseph died, and the idea that he was married before meeting Mary has no basis in scripture, or history. In cathecism classes, I never heard that, and I don't believe it is official Catholic teaching.

I'm not a fan of altar calls, myself. I see too many kids going up, and looking around to see who's watching them pray. That has always REALLY bothered me. I don't do altar calls. But I'll tell you, I have been sobbing like an 8 year old girl, just sitting in the chair, listening to a benediction. I think anything that could happen at an altar can happen in a closet, which is where I believe we should be doing that.

The rest of your argument deals with a healthy lifestyle, which if you heed what the Lord said about treating your body as a temple, you would strive to have a healthy body.

 

God doesn't remove His mark, but just like the Israelites of old we can reject Him and his free offer of grace.

 

So how about Solomon ? Am I missing, in scripture, where he repented of his bigamy ? Was he saved ?

Where is he now ?

 

? What does solomon have to do with baptism?

 

A good Arminian POV.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sorry, wrong thread. I think I lost the original question, but it was tied into the argument that baptism regenerates, but mortal sin breaks that. But I can't find where it was.

Anyways, back to the subject.

 

Not really, Arminian would be once saved always saved. This is not once saved always saved.

I should have clarified if you repent and are moved to return to the fold then there is no need to get a new mark. Because God did not remove his mark, even though it would do you no good since you rejected his favor.

 

Emily:
The question of what must I do to be saved is asked three times in the new testament ( Acts 2:37;9:6;16;30). The answer is found in Acts 2:38;16:31-33,22:16. In each case, as well as all the other examples of conversion in the new testament, the sinner is baptized for the remission of sins ( Acts 2:38; 8:12-16; 8:30- 40; 10:48, 16:12-16; 18:8; 19:1-6: 22:16).

Baptism puts one in Christ where all spiritual blessings are located ( Gal. 3:26-29, Eph. 1:3, II Tim. 2:10).
This is in accordance with the command of Christ ( Mat. 28:18-20, Mark 16:16). It is to be practiced until the end of time ( Mat. 28:20).

The thief was not subject to the new testament of Christ. Jesus was still alive and could forgive sins any way he wanted (Mark 2:7-11).
The thief, if he were Jewish, would be subject to the baptism of John ( Mark 1:4, Luke 7:29; 1:77). A testament is only in force upon the death of the testator ( Hebs. 9:15-17). Therefore, using the thief on the cross as an example for those under the new covenant is to assert a false view of salvation under the blood of the new covenant ( Mat. 26:30).

 

Curtis:
No, one who loses his salvation does not need to be re-baptized. The new testament of Christ mandates confesssion, repentance and prayer to be forgiven ( See Acts 8:18-24, James 5:15,16).

 

Actually one of the main points that Calvinists have against the Arminian POV is that it is inconsistent to hold to free will AND to OSAS at the same time. This is in fact the one point that the Calvinist argument makes that is valid.

The Arminian view is only fully consistent when it is promoted without OSAS.

In Christ,

Bob