Featured Criticizing Roman Catholicism

Indeed, but its the circumcision of the heart that counts!

the water baptism is a sign that describes what has already happened to obne saved by grace!

And you need faith to be saved, where do infants get that from? Lutheryns at least hold for God granting them that gift of faith in the baptism, does RCC?

 

paul did NOT seem to make a"big deal" about that, as his message was to believe on the Lord Jesus FIRST and than get baptised!

remember that Jesus said the ONLY work God requires to get saved is to believe in the name of Him...

paul tells us that we receive the Holy spriit by FAITH, NO works...

The sign of the new Covenant is the seal of the Spirit, placed there by God at moment of FAITH in jesus...

Does the RCC hold that in the water baptism rite we get saved right there as babies?

 

Who is the founder of our faith? Jesus Christ or Paul? Also Paul did make a "big deal" about it in Col 2. He joins it to circumcision. Marcion also had this problem which you entertain which is he relied more on Pauls teaching than the whole of Scripture which lead him into error.

For adults this is true. However, we see in Col 2 that Paul equates baptism to circumcision which was inclusive of infants. Infants cannot have their own faith. Do you suggest they go to hell because they don't have their own faith? Or since they cannot be accountable for their decisions or faith that they are covenant children just as the Children who were circumsized?

You misquote scripture. Jesus didn't say the ONLY work God requires to get saved is to believe in the name of himself. Never once. What did Jesus actually say? What does the text of Scripture say?

Notice Jesus doesn't say ONLY you added that to the text. Also Notice Jesus didn't say belief on my name but in Him. Belief in him presupposes actions taken because of that belief.

The question is do you hold that God doesn't save babies? Because according to you: you cannot be saved unless you have faith in Jesus Christ of your own accord and are only saved at the moment of faith. Logically therefore in your paradigm babies can't enter into a covenant with God because they haven't recieved faith as babies are incapable of having faith, which the next logical step is they can't be saved do to their lack of faith ie Sola Fide. Which follows that according to your soteriology all babies who die go to hell. Is this what you are suggesting?

 

Baby Being Saved

Baby Being Saved

Numbers 15:27-29 points this out.
Quote:
27 ‘And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.

BTW, I think this verse gives insight into the question of infants that die.

Notice the subject, unintentional sin.
Notice the guilt, atonement needed.
Notice the sacrifice, blood offering, ie the Cross.
Notice the GRACE, forgiven him.
Notice to whom this "law" or principle applies, native-born and stranger.

Infants are unintentional sinners.
Unintentional sin needs an atonement.
The atonement is in Jesus Christ alone.
God chooses and extends Grace unto these infants who die.

 

Notice it all happens within context of the covenant for both the infant born and the "stranger" with in the communities. Good passage. And it supports the covenant perspective of baptism and for Children of Christians who wish to baptize their children.

And here is another thought going on with my questioning of Sola Fide as applied which now is shown is not really believed because according to your application of the passage you can be saved by your faith or ignorance of sin. So the question then becomes why preach the gospel as people stand a better chance to be saved by remaining in their ignorance of sin than being told the truth of their situation and purposely rejecting it? Just a thought.

 

Mark 16:15

 

Care to substantiate that bald assertion (particularly in the light of Col 2:11-12)?

 

I know we are commanded to preach the Gospel but it is a question of soteriology. If you are saved because of ignorance of sin then Sola Fide does not exist because now you've obtained two modes of Salvation. Salvation by faith and Salvation by ignorance.

Now following this line of thinking then we question the reason why are we to preach the gospel. As you have stated Jesus commanded us to proclaim the gospel which takes away the ignorance of sin in people and now they are accountable to "get faith". Thus the gospel ceases to be good news because had a person not heard the gospel would not be accountable to it therefore would die in ignorance of his sin and thus would be saved. The purpose of the Gospel then becomes to condemn the world which is not Good News and makes it no different than the law which shows us we are sinners. Which then questions the intention of God by making people hear the Gospel. It is a mode with which to condemn people rather than to set them free. Thus God isn't doing it out of love and isn't expressing a desire that all should be saved. Rather he stacking the deck against humanity.

 

It is a question of OBEDIENCE. We are simply commanded to & this is something you cannot deny because its there in Scriptures.....to preach the Gospel to all nations.

I dont question God's motives but I do believe not all will be saved.

 

Of course I don't deny it!!! I believe we should preach the Gospel and further more I believe it is actually good news. What I'm questioning is the soteriology put forth by Yeshua1 which not only puts into questions God's motives but more pointedly God's character.

God has revealed in scriptures his motives. He loves us and desires that all men might be saved. Which I contrasted against the soteriology presented by Yeshua. I also agree not all will be saved but that is inspite of the fact that God went out of his way and did everything to save us. They of their own free will chose against God. Rather than God using the Gospel as a mode of condemnation to people of ignorance who might have been saved apart from being informed.

 

You have to understand Y1 for a second....he is extremely young in the Sovereign Grace soteriology so he asks many questions & solicits many controversial ideas in order to learn. His background is Charismatic, then he became an Arminian now he is Calvinistic (not Reformed). Reformed would require him to give up Dispy theology & adopt Covenant Theology. Bottom line he asks a ton of questions & proposes a ton of potential situations....thats how he learns

I hope your not implying that I agree with you in your statements. Rather I believe in DoG & Election & Predestination. Still you can always attempt to pursue your agenda, nobody's stopping you...not yet anyway, LOL

 

Ok. But FYI I'm just asking the natural questions to his statements.

I don't think I'm implying you agree with me at all. But I don't think you hold that God's primary point in the gospel is to condemn people rather than save them do you? Also the agreement aspect of my post is dealing with that I agree with you that Not every one will be saved.

By the EWF to what extent do you hold to DoG, Election, and Predestination? Where on the spectrum do you find yourself? Supralapsarian, Infralapsarian, Sublapsarian, or Arminian Lapsarian? This isn't a...what do you call it regarding an agenda. Just curious where you stand with regard to reformed theology. My agenda is to discuss theology or debate hear what you guys have to say. Consider it. Provide my point of view see how you guys respond and think about it. Get new avenues of insight which I can research. And thats pretty much it. Nothing as nefarious as what the term agenda may imply.

 

Wow thats a hard question to answer..... but by process of elimination, right now I would gravitate more to being a Infralapsarian. But I hold no allegiance to Calvinism as an identity.

I really came in here (BB) about 2 years now to learn & grow. Instead I found a holy war waging against Roman Catholics...an unfair one I might add. So I took up arms against those that would trammel those who were in fact RC's but wished to have edifying dialog & commonality with Baptists. What I found was the massacre of anyone holding to RC Theology (most becoming of the Baptists to be sure)

When that was over, the purge began in earnest against the Calvinists. I recall Dr. Bob warning the Board that Calvinists could be Baptists & to therefore leave the Calvinists alone. I asked 3 brothers (quietly in private)to join me in NOT participating in an attack---only you did not.

So here I am .....just really shaking off my RC thinking patterns & BB shows me a reality more deplorable in its hypocrisy than anything I could have ever imagined...& I have to thank the board for that revelation.

In truth, I have no allegiances & never have to either camp, however I do have certain beliefs that are core to me. My problem is that I descend to sentimentality (Ive family that are RC & family that are Calvinistic). But a truly strong man is never sentimental. He never considers others & he never fights for others. He considers & fights only for himself. Everything else is weakness. I will have to remember that for my future endeavors.

 

I think the majority of people who hold to reformed theology hold to an infralapsarian view. I find it curious that there is a war against Calvinist on the baptist board. Now I haven't heard all the points of view regarding the topic but I think I dialogue most with people who leans towards Reformed theology. I know with the Southern Baptist Convention there was some disputes against an infiltration of people who were Calvinistic in their views. But I can certainly see why many influenced by Reformed view points in baptist churches around the country especially when you consider writers like RC Sproul who's books are quite popular. Or an old favorite of mine JI Packer.

 

The truth from the scriptures is that ANY saved in either Old/new covenats were exactly same fashion, by the Grace of God from the Cross, extended towards rthose whom received that provision by faith ALONE!

OT believers were saved by God thru their faith in the coming messiah, we are thru faith in Him who already came...

Infants would be saved by his grace, NOT thruthe instrument of any sacrament, by His grace of the Cross alone!

was EVERY circumcized jew a saved person? No! ONLY those whom confirmed their calling and election from god was real by receiving the promises of god, in like fashion, we who are already saved show that fact of by the water baptism, for as peter said, that act reveals that we have already been saved in the Ark of Christ, for water can remove sins, but the circumcised heart by god shows that have had sins remiited!

 

I am allergic to them all. :laugh:
I would rather discuss what the Bible says.

 

I agree with this so far

And once again scripture Never says graces is extended by Faith ALONE. And the only Place in Scripture where it does say faith ALONE it is preceeded by "Not By". So you are misrepresenting Scripture.

Yes and by acting on it.

Agreed.

Circumcision was the mode of the Covenant which God almost killed Moses for not performing on his son. Think about that.

Agreed

This is consistent with Catholic Teaching you need both water and the Spirit as Jesus said.

 

An awsome missionary friend of mine (non denominational) said when I asked him in my youth which view he held to Calvinism or Armenianism? He replied "I'm a Cal-Minianist!"

 

Born of the water reefers to either the physical birth, or more likely, being washed/renewed by the scriptures, NOT as Rome sees it!

Again, salvation is thru faith alone, by grace of God, NO sacraments or any other acts/works needed!