Featured IF Water baptism requirement for salvation, another Gospel?

That is your false beliefs of Calvinism.

 

Jesus gave command to the apostles to baptise --- "IN THE NAME" --- not, 'in water / with water'.

Paul says, "ONE baptism" --- the baptism that actually "saves" 1Peter 3:21a --- "not, the putting away of the filth of the flesh" like baptism with or in water.

'The Great Commission' repeated by Peter the apostle of Christ, "Not water can forbid that someone cannot be baptized ... And he commanded them IN THE NAME of the Lord to be baptized."

Who insisted on water to be baptized? One who could not even read or understand what he read, but thought he could prescribe to a deputy apostle how to baptize and with what to baptize.

 

I just want to clarify a few things.

This is true. The Catholic Church believes it is the One Holy and Apostolic Church by which the deposit of faith is passed on to the whole world. The Catholic Church Equates "the Church" and "the Kingdom of God".

This is false. The majority of its teachings comes from Scripture. Tradition is the consistent teaching on 1) how scriptures are to be viewed or understood, and 2) The consistent teaching of the faith passed from the Apostles themselves. Since the Apostles both orally taught and wrote scriptures themselves the Catholic Church looks at both Apostolic forms of teaching as authoritative.

This is also wrong one is not exclusive of the others. Sacraments are not a "work" but a participation in the life of Christ. Sacraments are no more a work than reading scripture.

This is also false. The formal form is that the Catholic Church believes that we are saved by Grace through faith working in love.

This is also not true. The Catholic Church speculates that those who, through no fault of their own, who have never heard the gospel may yet experience the Mercy of God and be saved through Christ as the scriptures says that some men are a "law unto themselves".

Again, it has been suggested to you to actually read Catholic Documents for what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Its pretty clear and that way you can still disagree but actually disagree with something they actually teach rather than heresay about something which they never really taught.

 

In logic, the joining word "AND" makes the entire statement true when, and only when, both statements are true. IE...

condition1 AND condition2

In the above example both condition1 AND condition2 must be true for the whole statement to be true...

THUS: to be saved one must

Believe AND is baptized

WM

 

The nature of this response manifests you are wrong and have no substance to defend yourself and so the only thing you resort to is personal attack. Thank you for admission of error because if you could overturn the evidence I presented you would.

 

However, that does not necessarily demand your interpetation of it is true. If the overall teaching of Scripture is that divine ordinances are merely signs that do not convey grace but symbolize what has already been conveyed by faith prior to submission to the sign as Paul clearly teaches in Romans 4:11 and as Christ clearly teaches in Luke 5:12-17 and as the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches in Hebrews 10:1-4 in regard to the whole ceremonial law and as Peter clearly teaches in 1 Peter 3:21 specifically in regard to baptism then the meaning is obvious different than your conclusion. The meaning is that those who believe in the gospel (Mk. 16:15) and in addition are baptized are saved literally and ceremonially (symbolically) but the one who does not believe is the one who is damned.

 

GE:

"... some men are a "law unto themselves" --- Surest sign if ever there was you're none of Christ's.

 

Quote me in context please. I said the Catholic Church Speculates because of that particular passage. You have no idea whether I'm of Christ or not. If I am elect. There is nothing you say or can do to keep me from Christ. All you can do is speculate.

 

GE:

I have said what I said, "... some men are a "law unto themselves" --- Surest sign if ever there was you're none of Christ's. 'You' - meaning, 'he', 'one', 'any man'.

 

Now, you've confused me. I'm not sure I understand. Maybe its lost in the translation from Afrikaans to English. Can you explain better what you mean? The verse I'm mentioning is in Romans 2

 

GE:

To be saved and to be baptized with the baptism of Christ is to be saved.

A baptism that does not save is as good as washing or bathing filth off one's body.

The baptism that distinguished and signified apostleship was commissioned the only apostles Christianity ever had. To arrogate their baptism is to arrogate their apostleship. The apostolic baptism ended with the apostolic era.

 

Of course, only believers are baptized. What kind of defense is that? However, to say that they already had the Holy Spirit is the ridiculous Calvinism coming into your confused beliefs. If they already had the Holy Spirit, then Paul would not have asked them if they received the Holy Spirit WHEN THEY BELIEVED.
You cannot get around this scripture, you will pretend to, but all who can see can see that you are either blind or just completely in denial. What a wonderful scripture to knock out Calvinism.

The scripture plainly says when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, AND they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

 

Here, I will post the answer to you again, it is worth answering twice to show you the Truth.

Of course, only believers are baptized. What kind of defense is that? However, to say that they already had the Holy Spirit is the ridiculous Calvinism coming into your confused beliefs. If they already had the Holy Spirit, then Paul would not have asked them if they received the Holy Spirit WHEN THEY BELIEVED.
You cannot get around this scripture, you will pretend to, but all who can see can see that you are either blind or just completely in denial. What a wonderful scripture to knock out Calvinism.

The scripture plainly says when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, AND they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

 

I do know what the Catholic Church teaches and it is classic Christianity as can be see by the testimony of the ECF. You still got a few things wrong. Who would know better you a non catholic who doesn't know the first thing about Catholicism or I who am a Catholic and has studied the Catholic Faith reading its documents a lot longer than you have? Lets look at some errors you falsly place on the Catholic Church.

First of all you say wrong to my statement and then follow up with this statement. Pay attention to what I said

How can I be wrong when you say exactly what I said? Either in this case we are both right or we are both wrong it is silly to suggest I'm wrong then say what I've only asserted. The reason the Catholic Church believes it understands the intent of the Apostles is because they hold to both the Oral and written teachings of the Apostles. And to prove my point I will quote the authoritative teaching for the Catholic Church

Lets see what other nonsense you have to say about the Catholic Church.

Here is where you are mistaken. The assumption of Mary is a Tradition believed by Catholics just like Catholics believe in the Assumption of Enoch and the Assumption of Elijah. The latter two are distinctly found in scriptures. What happen to Mary after her last mention in the Acts of the Apostles is not in scripture. It is a Tradition. However, it is not a dogmatic belief determining one's salvation which is the thrust of the Scriptures. As a Catholic whether you believe in a dormition or assumption it doesn't affect ones salvation. So the assumption is not as you say added to Catholic "soteriology" but is a traditional belief. Just like its a traditional prodestant belief that William Carey is the "Plodding Missionary". His mantra repreated by missionaries world wide

. But to believe whether or not he's the plodding missionary or the Father of modern missions is irrelevant to what the bible says about salvation and it doesn't add or take away from scriptures so it is with the Assumption.
What else false things do you say about a faith you know nothing about.

So you are suggesting the Eucharist or Communion cannot be found in the bible, How about Baptism? How about being filled with the Holy Spirit? (confirmation) How about Marriage? How about laying on of hands for ordination? How about healing? Nothing about Healing (extreme unction)? Everyone of these things are in the scripture. Sacraments are not a work but a participation in the life of Christ just as reading scriptures gives you strength and wisdom and knowledge and grace so does participation in the sacraments and the Sacraments are confired by those who believe by Jesus not a priest.

What other misiformation you want to pass on?

again wrong. At baptism catholics believe they are saved ie fully saved. You are confusing atonement with sanctification. You cannot merit heaven.

What then is the responsibility of the Christian who cannot merit heaven?

It is clear God is calling us to Holiness not of our own ability but in the Power of Jesus Christ

Baptism of desire is not for Non-Christians you really need to read the text for that one.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Nothing can added except that, based upon your statement, one can sin in any and all ways and still expect to be "...pardoned in full ' of ALL sins past/present/future." - sort of like a turd being covered in snow. Sounds like a sweet deal to me. Accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and you're in like Flynn.

WM

 

The RCC IS classic Christianity!

WM

 

Haha.

The RCC is an amalgamation of Christianity, paganism/goddess worship, and the ancient Roman state. The teachings of a simple carpenter got swallowed up by that.