PreachTony, Catholic youngsters being baptized first then are taught the teachings of Jesus then they have their ''First Communion'' later on usually within a year or two after learning even more on the Teachings of Jesus they make their "Confirmation". Three times accepting Jesus by what you proclaim as 'the circumcision of the heart '.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptismal regeneration
- Thread starter Rebel
- Start date
- Status
PreachTony
Active Member
Do you ever teach these "Catholic youngsters" about working out their own salvation with fear and trembling? I only ask because every Catholic I have ever spoken to, without fail, every single one, has had no knowledge of salvation. They base their entire spiritual future on the fact they were baptized as babies. Or that they make confession, or take communion.
I was saved at the age of ten. If I had never been baptized...if I had never taken communion one time...I would still be bound for God's glory. These "sacraments" are blessings to us, but they are not salvific. The only thing that saves us if God's grace, which comes to us by our faith in Jesus Christ.
PreachTony
Active Member
Don't you ever tell me that I follow a different way than what scripture tells. My pastor did not save me. My parents did not save me. Jesus Christ alone saved me. I didn't get saved through baptism. Unlike what you seem to think is scriptural, my parent's didn't make my profession of faith for me. Everything that happened in my life in regards to salvation happened between the Lord and myself, no one else was involved.
And don't tell me Catholics follow the Bible. I've had way too many personal experiences with Catholics to know that many of them never even crack open a Bible, much less could expound to you its teachings. They rely on a priesthood that has no Biblical standing any longer, seeing as we have now a perfect High Priest who sits on the right hand of the Father and makes intercession for us, and advocate for us. We are allowed to boldly go before the Throne of grace. How many Catholics know that we have that right as Christians?
PreachTony, You do not know my heart, neither do you know the heart of any Catholic. How then can you say Catholics do not have the peace of Christ along with His Teaching method for Salvation ? You don't know their hearts. How then can you say they do not have salvation through Christ? Isn't it arrogant to judge another’s heart, especially when the Word of God itself tells us, “Judge not lest ye be judged?”. If you wish to offer evidence that you are indeed in possession of knowledge regarding the state of each and every Catholic’s heart, please state how you know this ?
Getting back to the Bible on Salvation, with the way you have previously been answering and write your posts I take it that your interpretation of any verse or passages is correct and mine is not.This is a very important question for you to think about and answer: Do you claim to be infallible in your interpretation of Scripture? Yes or No. I ask because, if you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then will you admit that your interpretations could be wrong? Again, this is important because you are telling me that all Catholic interpretations are wrong going by your answers to other Catholics also. Yet, you are not giving me anything other than your own personal opinion for why you think they are wrong. So, I am compelled to ask, since you are relying strictly on your private interpretation of Scripture here on this forum are you infallible? If you claim to be, please give me evidence for such a claim that I may believe. If you are not personally infallible, then what authority do you rely upon to make such claims and can you give me evidence of the infalliblity of this authority that I may believe?
Getting back to the Bible on Salvation, with the way you have previously been answering and write your posts I take it that your interpretation of any verse or passages is correct and mine is not.This is a very important question for you to think about and answer: Do you claim to be infallible in your interpretation of Scripture? Yes or No. I ask because, if you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then will you admit that your interpretations could be wrong? Again, this is important because you are telling me that all Catholic interpretations are wrong going by your answers to other Catholics also. Yet, you are not giving me anything other than your own personal opinion for why you think they are wrong. So, I am compelled to ask, since you are relying strictly on your private interpretation of Scripture here on this forum are you infallible? If you claim to be, please give me evidence for such a claim that I may believe. If you are not personally infallible, then what authority do you rely upon to make such claims and can you give me evidence of the infalliblity of this authority that I may believe?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
No infant baptism in the NT - not even one case of it.
That is not "coincidence" -- it is very telling.
The argument that a family was baptized in Acts 11 does not prove infant baptism.
You need an actual text showing a whole family baptized where there was someone baptized who did not listen to the Gospel, who could not possibly accept the message, who had no possibility of any of the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit, who had no hope of "an appeal to God for a clean conscience" as Peter insists -- and yet was baptized "anyway".
We both know you have no such example from the Bible.
That entire doctrine of infants being baptized in the NT is pure fiction, based on extreme "inference" inserted into the text -- supplying infants even in cases where the details in the text do not allow it!!
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
And so?
A. I went to the store "FOR" ice cream.
B. I went to the store "FOR" my wife.
The translation doesn't have to have "because of" in it. "For" or "Unto" is just fine. It still gives the same meaning. I went to the store "for", "on account of," or "because of" my wife.
As I mentioned this particular preposition, eis, is used 1,773 times and is translated in a variety of different ways.
'
How do you know Titus 3:5 is talking about water baptism?
Where in the word of God does it says that WATER BAPTISM is the Washing of Regeneration? On the other hand there are plenty of references to the blood of Christ washing our sins away.
What you are doing is a perfect example of eisegesis.
Catholic's don't follow the way of salvation and never have.
Are you sure you even know what the way of salvation is?
Can you show me the way of salvation via the RCC and then reconcile it with the Bible?
Go out and read Acts 16:30-31 and ask people if the bible says you must be baptized to be saved....
Or go out and read the passage where God commanded the Jews to stone Sodomites and ask if they think Christians should go around today stoning sodomites according to the bible... of course we shouldn't but when you hide context then you get wrong ideas.
I think you are missing my point. You are the one who said "for" can be taken different ways. I gave you this challenge to show that people who understand English will always understand Acts 2:38 the same way. Of course you know that already and you know that no translation says "because of."
Of course if you're concerned about context you need to include verses 32-34 in that Acts 16 thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
They also know how to say a lot of "hail Mary"!
Your tactics are no different than those of an atheist I engaged a few weeks ago. He argued that it is the Catholic belief that you can do whatever you want to anyone, and get complete forgiveness and a clean conscience by just talking to a priest (misunderstanding and misrepresenting Confession). I demonstrated, from the Church's own documents on the Sacrament of Confession, that this simply wasn't true. But his mind was made up, and he wasn't to be confused by the facts. He looked at those same documents, and read them to mean exactly what he had originally asserted, even though that was plainly not the case. In other words, it didn't matter what evidence was provided or demonstrations were made. Anything that supported his position would be paraded, and anything that did not would be twisted, discredited or ignored. Once we have an entrenched position on a matter, and are unwilling to even be open to the possibility that I might be wrong, or that someone else in the world might know something that I don't, this is often what happens.
PreachTony
Active Member
I never said that Catholics don't have the peace of Christ. I related to you the fact that every single Catholic I have personally spoken to has acted as though they had no knowledge of salvation, but instead were resting their soul's future on their baptism as children.
Again, I said they didn't KNOW about salvation. I'm not condemning them. I'm trying to point out that the RCC method removes the spirituality of salvation (working it out with fear and trembling) and replaces it with a slavish devotion to performing certain sacraments, as though these actions impart saving grace.
You do know how personal experience works, right? It means I can only speak in regards to those I have actually met. If I've never met someone then I cannot speak for the condition of their soul, nor would I presume to. But when you speak to someone who has no knowledge of salvation, is unaware of anything beyond the ritualistic baptism of the Catholic church, and believes that baptism alone will get them into Heaven, then you can begin to make some assumptions...
I know my interpretations could be wrong. Check out the blue line in my signature. I don't know anyone who claims infallibility in any aspect of their life...well, except for one guy...
Quoting you scriptures of why the Catholic tradition of infant baptism is wrong now counts as "personal opinion?" I'm not the one saying the RCC tradition is wrong, lakeside. The Bible is the one condemning that tradition.
Again, lakeside...all I have done is share with you scripture that shows the RCC tradition is flawed.
No! You have peace in sacraments. Putting your trust in other things rather than in Christ alone is the sin of idolatry. The Mass is especially bad, because you are spitting in Christ's face saying His atonement was not good enough.
PreachTony,I could go on and on and on here about Protestants who believe this or that doctrine vs. Protestants who do not believe this or that doctrine. But, suffice it to say, the thousands upon thousands of Protestant churches and denominations exist, in large measure, because of doctrinal differences. But how can that be if their beliefs all come from the Bible? How can all of these differing beliefs, all of these contradictory doctrines, all be coming from the one and same Bible? Well, the answer is, they can’t be. After all, God is not a God of contradiction. Truth cannot contradict truth. Which means, from a purely logical standpoint, that there is, at most - at most! - one Protestant denomination or church that is true. There is, at most, one Protestant denomination or church that could, theoretically, have a completely true Bible-based theological system.
I mean think about it - all these pastors in all these denominations and non-denominational churches - all of them claim to get their beliefs and teachings straight from the Bible. Yet, the beliefs of this denomination conflict with the beliefs of that denomination. The doctrines taught by this pastor conflict with the doctrines taught by that pastor, often even within the same denomination. Which has to mean there is, among Protestantism, at best only one Protestant denomination, or even just one Protestant church within or without a particular denomination, that can have a completely Bible-based theological system. Everyone else who disagrees with that denomination, or that particular church, has to be in error on one or more of its doctrines, and error cannot come from the Bible. If one church - just one - gets it completely right, then every other church has to be wrong at least some of the time. That is just basic logic.
So, theoretically, there is at most one Protestant denomination, or one Protestant church, that does not teach at least some error. All the other churches and denominations have to teach at least some error. There is no way around that. None. However, the fact of the matter is, that the chance of having even one Protestant church or denomination with a completely error-free theological system is pretty much zero. I say that because every Protestant that I’ve ever come across claims that no man is infallible. They all claim that no man is able to infallibly interpret the Bible and no man is able to infallibly teach on faith and morals. (This is, essentially, a reaction to Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pope.) Which means there is not a single Protestant minister who is infallible, you even wrote that, so there is not a single Protestant minister who can be guaranteed to get it right every single time they teach and preach on the Bible. (If I were a Protestant minister, that thought would scare the bejeebees out of me.)
I mean think about it - all these pastors in all these denominations and non-denominational churches - all of them claim to get their beliefs and teachings straight from the Bible. Yet, the beliefs of this denomination conflict with the beliefs of that denomination. The doctrines taught by this pastor conflict with the doctrines taught by that pastor, often even within the same denomination. Which has to mean there is, among Protestantism, at best only one Protestant denomination, or even just one Protestant church within or without a particular denomination, that can have a completely Bible-based theological system. Everyone else who disagrees with that denomination, or that particular church, has to be in error on one or more of its doctrines, and error cannot come from the Bible. If one church - just one - gets it completely right, then every other church has to be wrong at least some of the time. That is just basic logic.
So, theoretically, there is at most one Protestant denomination, or one Protestant church, that does not teach at least some error. All the other churches and denominations have to teach at least some error. There is no way around that. None. However, the fact of the matter is, that the chance of having even one Protestant church or denomination with a completely error-free theological system is pretty much zero. I say that because every Protestant that I’ve ever come across claims that no man is infallible. They all claim that no man is able to infallibly interpret the Bible and no man is able to infallibly teach on faith and morals. (This is, essentially, a reaction to Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pope.) Which means there is not a single Protestant minister who is infallible, you even wrote that, so there is not a single Protestant minister who can be guaranteed to get it right every single time they teach and preach on the Bible. (If I were a Protestant minister, that thought would scare the bejeebees out of me.)
Last edited by a moderator:
The why does your Roman church in their official Encyclopedia preach the opposite of scripture and preach salvation by works?
Salvation is an essential doctrine which we cannot agree to disagree with.
The Roman Catholic cult in their Catechism teaches that we can merit grace necessary for salvation and that eternal life is attained by baptism, sacraments, and keeping the commandments.
1. CCC 2010, "...Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."
2. CCC 2027, "Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."
3. CCC 2068, "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."
This obviously faulty teaching in the CCC is hugely problematic since it contradicts Scripture.
1. Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
2. Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
3. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
4. Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
5. Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
6. Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
We have to ask questions.
1. Why is the RCC teaching that you attain salvation through observing the commandments when the Bible says we are saved apart from the works of the Law (Rom. 3:28-30; 4:5; Gal. 2:16)?
2. Why would the Roman Catholic Church teach that you merit for yourself the grace needed for eternal life when that clearly contradicts Rom 11:6? See also Matt 7:21-23.
There is a great deal wrong with what the RCC teaches. We must look to God's word and not to what the RCC says we must do to be saved. Our salvation is not merited by our keeping the commandments! The Roman Catholic Church needs to repent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which Catholic Church is the "one true church"? The Roman Catholic Church? The Eastern orthodox Church? The Old Catholic Church? The Independent Catholics? Other Eastern Catholics? Who schismed from whom?
- Status