However, that "intention" or "will to do as the church does" is completely and totaly repudiated by the intent of Baptists when they administer baptism. They willfuly and intentonally deny baptism is sacramental and so do all those who submit to it.
-
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!
The Catholic Church
- Thread starter milby
- Start date
- Status
However, that "intention" or "will to do as the church does" is completely and totaly repudiated by the intent of Baptists when they administer baptism. They willfuly and intentonally deny baptism is sacramental and so do all those who submit to it.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
There is no spin. I was clear. Baptism is exactly what I said it is. And if you deny that God provides Grace by way of baptism which itself relys on the Merits of Jesus Christ your doctrine is Anathema or denounced. It is not a Catholic teaching and thus you are excommunicated from that Church. You never having been Catholic to begin with are not being cursed but being denounced by Anathema.
That is how this statement is to be understood.
You can deny it all day long but if you administer it using the trinitarian formula ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"), it still confers grace. I can deny that airplanes fly, and even believe I am right in my denial, but that doesn't make it true.
What you are saying is absurd! You are saying just because Rome says something is so makes it so! That is absurd.
Again, the CCC clearly and explicitly states that circumcision of Jesus Christ and Old Testament circumcision is parallel to baptism in regard to sacramental value. Paul repudiates the idea of sacramental value in regard to circucmision thus repudiating the whole Sacramental theory of Rome making it BIBLICALLY not so!
So Rome can claim all day along that baptism conveys saving grace but that does not make it so because the Bible repudiates such a doctrine.
PLEEEEEASE challenge me on this!!!!!
Paul repudiates Rome's spin on baptism in Romans 4:11 and I would love for you to challenge me on that statement.
In Romans 4:1-11 Paul systematically repudiates the whole sacramental system of Roman Catholicism.
1. Abraham a PRE-JEWISH illustration is used so that none can challenge the use of the phrase "deeds" or "works of the law" to have refernce to Moses or Jewishism espeically the term "works" as used in Romans 4:1-6 as that term refers to Abraham's own deeds 430 years before Moses.
2. Circumcision is clearly and explicitly denied to play any role in conveying justifying grace as Paul explicitly and clearly and unambiguously demands that justifying grace; justifying faith "had" already been accomplished "in uncircumcision" and "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION.
3. Roman's CCC explicitly and clearly and unambiguously demands that baptism in regard to its sacramental value as a "sign" and "seal" is parallel with not only "circumcision" but other Old Testament ordinances.
4. Paul admits that circucmison is a "sign" and "seal" of justification but that it played absolutely no part with actual justifying grace but justification by faith was received "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION" so that the same principle of justification by faith would be standardized with those who were circumcised or uncircumcised as circumcision had no part to play in obtaining justufication.
5. So "sign" and "seal" cannot mean the actual conveyance of what is signified as that was conveyed BEFORE circumcision. Hence, ordinances are "signs" and "seals" in that they only convey a PICTURE or SYMBOLISM of what was already "had" before submitting to the ordinance.
6. Hence, the issue is not whether ordinances convey saving grace but HOW they do it! They do it SYMBOLICALLY as a "sign" and "seal" of what was already "had" previous to submission to the ordinance as in the case of Abraham "IN UNCIRUCMCISION."
Last edited by a moderator:
"The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes."
If this is accurate, then Rome is completely inconsistent when accepting Baptist baptism because it is not the "intent" of Baptists "to will do do what" Rome "does when she baptizes" but it is the intent of Baptists "to will to" DENY and REPUDIATE exactly what Romes "does when she baptizes."
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
That just isn't so. Note what Paul says circumcision is the seal and a sign. This by its very nature is Mysterion which by the way is where we get sacrament. You focus on the word Sign and forget seal. Which is a real and palpalble thing. Romans 4 upholds sacramentalism. However, since Jesus Christ established the New Covenant. Circumcision by itself does not guarantee salvation as many Jews relied on their circumcision for salvation. Neither does baptism if done without faith and remaining in Jesus guarantee our Salvation but baptism in faith is the seal of our faith. Note how Paul describes baptism in Col. 2:13
a very clear connection for the NT and sacramentalism.
Don't play the RJP cultic game. Deal with the context. The "sign" and "seal" was of something he already "HAD" while "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" and not of anything he received "IN CIRCUMCISION"! That little contextual fact completely repudiates your RJP of Colossians 2:12 against Rom. 4:11. That little contextual fact completely repudiates your definition of a "sign" and "seal."
Romans 3:24-5:2 is the most comprehensive examination of justification by faith whereas Colossians 2:10-12 is not merely jerked out of context but cannot be used to overthrow the more comprehensive examination and explanation by Paul. I will not follow the cultice RJP routine with you.
R = Run from the context
J = Jump to another context and text
P = Pit that text against the former
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I'm simply expressing my views on the passage and you jump to insults like "cultic games". I don't go around and demean you. You aren't showing the fruits of the spirit by purposely being insulting.
The fact is Paul is speaking to converted Jews who believe they can rely soley on their circumcision. Colossians 2 doesn't contradict Romans 4. What it does do is provide for a fuller understanding of how Paul viewed the subject of baptism. Each letter Paul is pointing out a specific issue that is specific to that church but to get a full understanding of what Paul is saying is you combine all his notes on the subject and thereby come to a fuller understanding of what he meant. It is you who rely soley on Romans to support your position.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Again with your insults. Typically uncharitable diatribe you present. I'm really begining to wonder about you.
1) I didn't run from the context that is just a plain lie. I pointed out a specific point made in that very verse ie seal. I also explained how Paul in that verse was pointing out that Jews by virtue of their circumcision aren't guaranteed salvation and how it relates to baptism without faith.
2) I will repeat what I said above because it wasn't a "Jump". It was a fuller context of Paul's thought. "The fact is Paul is speaking to converted Jews who believe they can rely soley on their circumcision. Colossians 2 doesn't contradict Romans 4. What it does do is provide for a fuller understanding of how Paul viewed the subject of baptism. Each letter Paul is pointing out a specific issue that is specific to that church but to get a full understanding of what Paul is saying is you combine all his notes on the subject and thereby come to a fuller understanding of what he meant. It is you who rely soley on Romans to support your position."
3) And by virtue of what I just said. Nothing was pitted against but used to gain a more clear insite.
I'm sick of your insults. You really need to cut that insulting garbage out because when you do insult not only do you tempt me to anger but you reveal your heart in that you don't wish to dialogue but rather accuse, insult, put down, because ultimately like teenagers who wish to look better in front of their friends will humiliate someone else. You are attempting to use the same tactic. However, people see it for what it is. An angry and uncharitable person who believes they are never wrong about anything. So cut it out. I had thought with the Dr. Walter persona being put on a shelf this nonsense would stop and we could have discussion. However, it is clear you want to continue to engage in insults.
When Baptists baptize, they have the following intentions:
1. They intend to be baptizing, not bathing or playing games.
2. They intend to use the trinitarian formula.
Those are the intentions and that's all that is necessary. It matters not what you believe does or doesn't happen as a result of this procedure. Catholics believe it confers grace, even though the administrator and the subject may not believe that it does. Therefore, they accept Protestant baptisms administered under the trinitarian formula.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
I haven't noticed if anyone pointed this out, but regarding the relationship between 'faith', 'baptism', and 'new birth', look at what Paul said about it in Colossians:
"buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Col 2:12.
Notice Paul states that it is 'in baptism' that we are buried and raised with Christ 'through faith'. This is consistent with Galatians where Paul affirms both that we are made children of God through faith in Christ AND those who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27). It's also consistent with Romans 6:3-5 where Paul affirms that we are buried with Christ in baptism and united with Him in the 'likeness of His death' (ie BAPTISM). Therefore, those who want to set baptism at odds with faith in regards to the new birth will not find support from the Apostle Paul.
"buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Col 2:12.
Notice Paul states that it is 'in baptism' that we are buried and raised with Christ 'through faith'. This is consistent with Galatians where Paul affirms both that we are made children of God through faith in Christ AND those who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27). It's also consistent with Romans 6:3-5 where Paul affirms that we are buried with Christ in baptism and united with Him in the 'likeness of His death' (ie BAPTISM). Therefore, those who want to set baptism at odds with faith in regards to the new birth will not find support from the Apostle Paul.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Very good points made!!! :thumbs:
We are baptised into his death, thru the act of the holy spirit baptising us into jesus and into the Body of Christ at moment of faith in Christ!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
But that is not what those verse say. Its specifically speaking about being baptized when we are water baptized.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
The Romans 6 passage clearly states we are united with Christ in the 'likeness of His death'. What is 'the likeness of His death' if not water baptism? The passage doesn't say 'we are united to Christ the moment we have faith Christ and then later visually demonstrate this by participating in the likeness of His death', which is the convoluted way in which many evangelicals must interpret the passage to fit their doctrinal novelty regarding baptism.
the big problem here is it CANNOT refer to water baptism, as there is NOTHING that can be added to faith alone in jesus allowing God to justify a sinner by basis of the Cross!
DSo however we view it, cannot be in a sacramental sense!
And many DO hold paul as relating to entering into the local assembly of believers through rite of water baptism, but NOT that it is effectual in a spiritual sense to bestow 'saving grace" upon us!
That is not an insult, that is a description of how you approached Romans 4:1-11! You simply avoided the text by running from it, jumping to Colossians and pitting Colossians against Romans. That is precisely how you responded to Romans 4:11 and your later post to Doubting Thomas prove my charge is 100% accurate.
No relationship to Romans 4 whatsoever! Abraham was a believer BEFORE circumcision and therefore still a believer when he was circumcised but Paul's point is that circumcision did not play any part in conveying justifying grace to BELEIVERS and or to the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5).
No, he is not! He begins Romans 3:24-5:2 proving that none can justified under the law (Rom. 3:9-23) and that all are EQUALLY sinners - for "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" is what introduces this section (Rom. 3:23-5:2). This section is dealing with the "ungodly" prior to justification and how the "ungodly" are justified and it is without and apart from divine ordinances.
I never said it does. In fact it was my position it does not. However, that is precisely how you are using it to pit against the plain statement in Romans 4:11 which does contradict YOUR INTERPERETATION of Colossians 2:10-12.
Romans 3:23-5:2 is by design intended to be a systematic presentation of justification by faith in connection with works, divine ordinances and the law. Romans is far more comprehensive in scope and definition than Colossians. The only other comparable scripture is Galatians.
That simply is not true! You used Colossians to directly contradict Romans 4:11 and its explicit denial that divine ordinances convey justifying grace to believers.
Your tactic is not working! No insults at all were stated by me or implied by me. I simply defined exactly and precisely what you are doing regardless of your denial.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status