Catholic Deception???

[Dr. Walter]

"Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitai spiritaulis ianua) and the door which gives access to other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers inher mission: 'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." - 1213 - Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church

Is this a true SUMMARY position of what Rome believes as the GENERAL RULE? Would any other position by Rome be regarded as an EXCEPTION to this general rule? Finally, are not such exceptions carefully qualified as ignorant but sincere and devout believers outside the Roman Church?

If the above statement is a true summary position of the general rule embraced by Catholics, then, is it not deception by Roman apologists to argue that Rome believes people can go to heaven without baptism, as though such a belief by Rome is not carefully qualified by exceptions to this general rule?

 

[Melanie]

...so the question you are asking I think, is...can you be saved and not baptised. The ordinary answer is no. However, there are exceptions to the rule...

1) Baptism by desire. This is where a person who is restricted by extraordinary circumstances is desirous of being baptised as a Christian and is prevented (eg. be imprisioned) and dies before having the desired baptism. God sees into our hearts, praise be His name.

2) Baptism by blood. The unbaptised person dies as a martyr for the Faith. This is also a baptism by desire, but the martyrdom is more emphatic, the Church teaches that by martyredom all faults of your past are blotted out by this act.

3) Baptism by a member of the Church not a priest. For example, a baby is born alive but in danger of dying. An ordinary Christian may baptise the baby using ordinary water and blessing the child in the Name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. Should the child live the rite of Baptism can be carried out with the ancillary rites. The child's soul is marked as one of God's so it would be meaningless to rebaptise.

Does this answer the question? :type:

 

[Dr. Walter]

You have just confirmed the point I was making. You confirmed the general rule and have spelled out the explicit exceptions to the rule. Hence, it is misleading and deceptive for Catholic apologists to make the case that Rome believes a person may go to heaven without baptism, as though, that is the general rule, rather than a carefully qualified exception to the general rule.

Thank you for confirming my point!

...so the question you are asking I think, is...can you be saved and not baptised. The ordinary answer is no. However, there are exceptions to the rule...

1) Baptism by desire. This is where a person who is restricted by extraordinary circumstances is desirous of being baptised as a Christian and is prevented (eg. be imprisioned) and dies before having the desired baptism. God sees into our hearts, praise be His name.

2) Baptism by blood. The unbaptised person dies as a martyr for the Faith. This is also a baptism by desire, but the martyrdom is more emphatic, the Church teaches that by martyredom all faults of your past are blotted out by this act.

3) Baptism by a member of the Church not a priest. For example, a baby is born alive but in danger of dying. An ordinary Christian may baptise the baby using ordinary water and blessing the child in the Name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. Should the child live the rite of Baptism can be carried out with the ancillary rites. The child's soul is marked as one of God's so it would be meaningless to rebaptise.

Does this answer the question? :type:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Another false teaching of Rome is that Christ established Peter as the first Pope in Rome. Neither Scripture nor history supports this false teaching:


1. That the name papa was common to all bishops, and signified no pre-eminence in those who bore it.

2. That the Apostolic Sees were all equally accounted matricies of unity, and the roots of other Catholic churches.

3. That, down to the Counsel of nicea,, the whole system of the Church was framed on this principle, and that these were the "ancient customs" which that council ordained to be perpetual.

4. That "because it was the old capital of the empire," and for no other reason (the Petrine idea never once mentioned), the primacy of honour was conceded to Old Rome, and equal honour to New Rome, becaue it was the new capital. It was to be named second on the list of patriarchates, but to be in no wise inferior to Old Rome; while the ancient and all-commanding patriarchate of Alexandria yeilded this credit to the partenu of Byzantium only on the principle of the Gospel "in honour preferring one another" and only because the imperial capital must be the centre of Catholic concourse. - Introductory Notice to the Decretals, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII, p. 602


1. From (A.D. 325) Sylvester to Gregory the Great, and his successor, who lived but one year, the Bishops of Rome were canoinical primates.

2. Boniface III, accepted the court title of "Universal Pope" (A.D. 606) from the Emperor Phocas, but it was not accepted by the Church.

3. From this time to Adrian I. many Bishops of Rome vied with those of Constantinople to augment their honour and power. The establishment of the Western Empire (A.D. 800) made their ambitious claims acceptable to the Latins; and they became primates of all Christendom in Western estimation, with extra-canonical and indefinite cliams as "successors of St. Peter."

4. Nicholas I (A.D. 863), by means of the False Decretals, gave shape to these extra-canonical claims, abroogated the Nicene Constitutions in the West by making these Decretals canon-law, and asserted a supremacy over the old patriarchutes, which they never allowed: hence the schism of the West from the Apotolic Sees of the East, and from the primitive discipline which established the Papacy, as now understood. - Ibid., p. 642

 

[billwald]

>"Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitai spiritaulis ianua) and the door which gives access to other sacraments.

Well, do Baptists permit unbaptized people to participate in communion?

"Saved" has become a meaningless word because some think it refers to regeneration, others, conversion. In Baptist theology only regenerated and converted people may be baptized into the Christian life. Anyway, God can regenerate anyone he wishes according to most every Christian denomination.

 

[DHK]

>"Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitai spiritaulis ianua) and the door which gives access to other sacraments.

Well, do Baptists permit unbaptized people to participate in communion?

"Saved" has become a meaningless word because some think it refers to regeneration, others, conversion. In Baptist theology only regenerated and converted people may be baptized into the Christian life. Anyway, God can regenerate anyone he wishes according to most every Christian denomination.

God cannot and will not act against His Word, or His nature. Thus God "cannot" do anything He wants.
God cannot save anyone who is not willing to be saved.
God cannot save anyone who will not put their faith in the shed blood of Christ.

A Baptist Church generally requires three things before they admit a person to partake of the Lord's Table (and some of them four).
They must be saved.
They must be subsequently baptized as an act of obedience after salvation.
They must come from a church of like faith and order.
Some practice closed communion where only the members of their church may partake of the Lord's Table.

 

[billwald]

Then Satan is more powerful than God?

What is the "baptist" test for a petitioner's regeneration?

 

[DHK]

Then Satan is more powerful than God?

What is the "baptist" test for a petitioner's regeneration?

You tell me. How is a person saved? How would you know?

 

[Melanie]

Another false teaching of Rome is that Christ established Peter as the first Pope in Rome. Neither Scripture nor history supports this false teaching:


1. That the name papa was common to all bishops, and signified no pre-eminence in those who bore it.

2. That the Apostolic Sees were all equally accounted matricies of unity, and the roots of other Catholic churches.

3. That, down to the Counsel of nicea,, the whole system of the Church was framed on this principle, and that these were the "ancient customs" which that council ordained to be perpetual.

4. That "because it was the old capital of the empire," and for no other reason (the Petrine idea never once mentioned), the primacy of honour was conceded to Old Rome, and equal honour to New Rome, becaue it was the new capital. It was to be named second on the list of patriarchates, but to be in no wise inferior to Old Rome; while the ancient and all-commanding patriarchate of Alexandria yeilded this credit to the partenu of Byzantium only on the principle of the Gospel "in honour preferring one another" and only because the imperial capital must be the centre of Catholic concourse. - Introductory Notice to the Decretals, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII, p. 602


1. From (A.D. 325) Sylvester to Gregory the Great, and his successor, who lived but one year, the Bishops of Rome were canoinical primates.

2. Boniface III, accepted the court title of "Universal Pope" (A.D. 606) from the Emperor Phocas, but it was not accepted by the Church.

3. From this time to Adrian I. many Bishops of Rome vied with those of Constantinople to augment their honour and power. The establishment of the Western Empire (A.D. 800) made their ambitious claims acceptable to the Latins; and they became primates of all Christendom in Western estimation, with extra-canonical and indefinite cliams as "successors of St. Peter."

4. Nicholas I (A.D. 863), by means of the False Decretals, gave shape to these extra-canonical claims, abroogated the Nicene Constitutions in the West by making these Decretals canon-law, and asserted a supremacy over the old patriarchutes, which they never allowed: hence the schism of the West from the Apotolic Sees of the East, and from the primitive discipline which established the Papacy, as now understood. - Ibid., p. 642

This is an argument that goes on and on. Jesus Christ established His church on earth with St. Peter his spokesman after the Assension. The popes are the men who have been elected to be the spokesman after Peter, the pontifex maximus if you will. I am not a canon lawyer praise be! :sleeping_2:

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is an argument that goes on and on. Jesus Christ established His church on earth with St. Peter his spokesman after the Assension. The popes are the men who have been elected to be the spokesman after Peter, the pontifex maximus if you will. I am not a canon lawyer praise be! :sleeping_2:

So says Rome! Peter denied being anything more than just another elder (1 Pet. 5:1-3). The keys were given to the church (Mt. 18:17-18 - PLURAL "you").

 

[gekko]

...so the question you are asking I think, is...can you be saved and not baptised. The ordinary answer is no.

well... if you mean baptism of the holy spirit - then i'd agree with you.
but you can be saved and without water baptism.
step of obedience, yes, but not a step towards salvation.
your three points below - the first two i tend to agree with.
this however:

3) Baptism by a member of the Church not a priest. For example, a baby is born alive but in danger of dying. An ordinary Christian may baptise the baby using ordinary water and blessing the child in the Name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. Should the child live the rite of Baptism can be carried out with the ancillary rites. The child's soul is marked as one of God's so it would be meaningless to rebaptise.

water baptism doesn't save a person.
a person gets saved first, then, out of obedience, gets water baptised (none of that sprinkling nonsense either)

becoming saved, or baptised of the holy spirit, same thing.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

well... if you mean baptism of the holy spirit - then i'd agree with you.
but you can be saved and without water baptism.
step of obedience, yes, but not a step towards salvation.
your three points below - the first two i tend to agree with.
this however:


water baptism doesn't save a person.
a person gets saved first, then, out of obedience, gets water baptized (none of that sprinkling nonsense either)

becoming saved, or baptized of the holy spirit, same thing.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Now there is an area that Baptists tend to shy away from but should be taught. I applaud you for raising awareness for Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Good Sabbath

 

[Dr. Walter]

Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Now there is an area that Baptists tend to shy away from but should be taught. I applaud you for raising awareness for Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Good Sabbath

Not a subject that I shy away from! Every text preceding Pentecost anticipates it and every text following Pentecost looks back to it.

The baptism in the Spirit is not individual in application but institutional in application. It is not a progressive work of the Holy Spirit but a historical completed act by the Holy Spirit. The only baptism that remains today after the historical fulfillment of the baptism in Spirit is baptism in water just as the Great Commission demands ("baptizing them....until the end of the world."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not a subject that I shy away from! Every text preceding Pentecost anticipates it and every text following Pentecost looks back to it.

The baptism in the Spirit is not individual in application but institutional in application. It is not a progressive work of the Holy Spirit but a historical completed act by the Holy Spirit. The only baptism that remains today after the historical fulfillment of the baptism in Spirit is baptism in water just as the Great Commission demands ("baptizing them....until the end of the world."

Oh you are very wrong on this subject dear doctor & I proved it to you before in the "Speaking in Tongues" post that I suggest you take some time to review. However I am not encouraging in it today because I have a life & spending it with the family. Perhaps some other time.

Good evening to you

 

[Dr. Walter]

Oh you are very wrong on this subject dear doctor & I proved it to you before in the "Speaking in Tongues" post that I suggest you take some time to review. However I am not encouraging in it today because I have a life & spending it with the family. Perhaps some other time.

Good evening to you

I simply did not have time to respond to your previous post. But I will take the time as this is a very debated subject.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Not a subject that I shy away from!

Accusing Baptist of shying away from things that don't square with scripture is trying to build a straw man in order to justify ignorance.

 

[gekko]

The baptism in the Spirit is not individual in application but institutional in application. It is not a progressive work of the Holy Spirit but a historical completed act by the Holy Spirit. The only baptism that remains today after the historical fulfillment of the baptism in Spirit is baptism in water just as the Great Commission demands ("baptizing them....until the end of the world."

i want to point out John 3.

v.3 Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

v.5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
v.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

water baptism is a representation of new birth.
now, the above scripture talking about "born of water" is not refering to water baptism, but to physically being born, plain and clear there.
it's the "born of the spirit" that i want to focus on.

we have to be "born again" to enter into the kingdom of God (those who want to debate what the kingdom of God is, go start that somewhere else please.)

how can we be born again? through repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Confessing and forsaking our sins, and trust in Jesus alone for our eternal salvation. When we do that we receive spiritual life through the Holy Spirit who comes to live in you. (Jesus living in us same as Holy Spirit living in us.)

so this whole "born again" sequence is basically a "new birth" - means the same thing.

so it's safe to say becoming "born of the Spirit" is the same as "baptism of the Holy Spirit"

see how this is all rolling out now?
once we were dead, we become born again, and we rise a new man (or woman) in Christ, sins washed away. same as what water baptism represents.

which is why i believe water baptism must be a choice presented to a person born again, just as the choice to become born again should be presented to everyone.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Funny how some accuse Baptist of shying away from something that don't square with scripture.

And the horse you rode in on Wandboy:laugh::laugh:

Actually dinner with the relatives. Why dont you try reading the past post first. "Speaking in Tongues. You do know how to reference an archive dont you genius.

 

[DHK]

And the horse you rode in on Wandboy:laugh::laugh:

Actually dinner with the relatives. Why dont you try reading the past post first. "Speaking in Tongues. You do know how to reference an archive dont you genius.

Nah, It's much easier when said poster has the decency and internet etiquette to give the readers the URL to go to instead of bluntly telling them to go and look it up.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The word "baptism" or "baptize" is not even mentioned by Christ. Jesus was speaking to one of the sandredrin, one versed in the ceremonial use of water throughout the clean and unclean PURFICATION laws of Israel which was a symbol of the Spirit of God as Jesus demonstrates in His own use in his very next conversation about water and salvation in the very next chapter:

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Indeed, right after Jesus finishes speaking to Nicodemus the disciples of John got in a dispute with the Jews over the ceremonial rites of purification:

Jn. 3:25 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.

Paul makes it clear that baptism has nothing to do with literally saving anyone or with regneration or the power of God to save:

1 Cor. 1:17 ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

i want to point out John 3.



water baptism is a representation of new birth.
now, the above scripture talking about "born of water" is not refering to water baptism, but to physically being born, plain and clear there.
it's the "born of the spirit" that i want to focus on.

we have to be "born again" to enter into the kingdom of God (those who want to debate what the kingdom of God is, go start that somewhere else please.)

how can we be born again? through repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Confessing and forsaking our sins, and trust in Jesus alone for our eternal salvation. When we do that we receive spiritual life through the Holy Spirit who comes to live in you. (Jesus living in us same as Holy Spirit living in us.)

so this whole "born again" sequence is basically a "new birth" - means the same thing.

so it's safe to say becoming "born of the Spirit" is the same as "baptism of the Holy Spirit"

see how this is all rolling out now?
once we were dead, we become born again, and we rise a new man (or woman) in Christ, sins washed away. same as what water baptism represents.

which is why i believe water baptism must be a choice presented to a person born again, just as the choice to become born again should be presented to everyone.