Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

What? I'm not COC. I'm Baptist.

DHK, these COC folks I am referring to consider sincere Baptists to be born again. And they view us that way knowing full well that we hold to faith alone.

So how can you say they deny it?

 

Are you saying that true salvation does not have to harmonize with what the Scriptures teach must characterize true salvation? Are you saying the Bible can TEACH one way of salvation but God actual saves people by another way of salvation? If so, then there is no such thing as "another gospel" and no one can know what salvation is much less what the true gospel is.

If you are saved, it is because you are saved in accordance with God's Word rather than contrary to His Word. Those whose experience and profession do not harmonize with God's Word about salvation and the gospel are not saved but among the vast majority of false professors (Mt. 13:38; 1 Jn. 2:19; Mt. 7:21-23; etc.).

 

It is one thing to make your claim but can you back it up? I can back up my position by the immediate context and by the use of these scriptures by New Testament writers.

1. The messianic prophecy of Immanuel is the overall context in which Isaiah 8:12-20 is found (Isa. 7:14- 9:6).

2. The historical witness that they are to bind and seal is the gospel of Immanuel as the refuge for Israel rather than running to Egypt to form a confederation to face their enemies (Isa. 8:9-18).

3. The prophetical witness that is to be bound and sealed is the gospel witness of Immanuel by the apostles (Heb. 2:1-13; Jn. 16:13-15; Jn. 17:20; Rev. 1:3; etc.) as the spirit of prophecy in all scripture is Jesus (Rev. 19:10). The next revelation by God after this testimony is bound and sealed is the coming of Christ from heaven (Isa. 8:17; Rev. 22:20).


4. "My disciples" (Isa. 8:16-18) are prophetically identified as the apostles of Christ in Hebrews 12:13 in the New Testament congregation (v. 12) who were given to Israel for "signs" and "wonders" to confirm the gospel of Immanuel (Heb. 4:1-4).

If you can demonstrate that any of the above is ahistorical or aprophetical then please do.

 

Shouldnt they close this baby after 30 pages?

 

You haven't answered my question.

Can someone be saved without a studied correct theological understanding of the Scriptures?

 

There has to be comprehension of gospel basics in order for a person to be saved. People who do not consider themselves to be sinners and/or do not repent of sin cannot be saved (Lk. 13:3,6). People who consciously believe in another god cannot be saved (Jn. 17:3). People who do not believe in God's promise of salvation through simple faith in the declared Christ provision for salvation as sufficient for salvation cannot be saved (Gal. 1:8-9). People who are trying to obtain eternal life by works cannot be saved (Gal. 1:16-3:11).

This means that in order for a person to be saved they must not reject/deny the God of the Scriptures and by faith must embrace the promise of salvation found in the gospel that declares Jesus as the Savior from sins and the gift of eternal life through faith in the Christ provision as sufficient for their salvation.

 

Well, that's a relief.

But you sure wouldn't know it from all your theological/Scriptural gymanstics.

 

My "theological/Scriptural gymnastics" were at all times defining the second paragraph while defending it against the errors listed in the first paragraph.

 

what was St. Peter's answer recorded in Acts to those on Pentecost when asked what they must do to be saved?

In XC
-

 

Repent and those who repent, be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Here the battle ground is the preposition "for" and the design of baptism in regard to remission of sins. The preposition "for" can mean "because of" as in Revelation where "they gnawed their tongues FOR pain" or "in reference to" or "in regard to" or "unto" or "in order to" or a number of other things.

Even if we go with the idea of "in order to" obtain remission of sins, does it mean obtain them figuratively as the same Peter uses the term "figure" with baptism in 1 Pet. 3:21 or does it meant literally, which contradicts the overal Biblical design and intent for every external divine ordinance God ever instituted (Heb. 11:1-4) and which the same Peter in Acts 10:43 totally ommitted in regard to what one must do to obtain "remission of sins."

You have resorted to the famous "proof text" hermeneutic that is used by those who pit scripture against scripture when the overall context, explicit precepts and unambigous clear teaching of scripture completely exposes baptismal regeneration as obvious error.

 

Don't you mean Hebrews 10:1-4?

 

Yes, my typo. Thanks

 

You have no basis to affirm or state that unless you can point out where it is ahistorical, or offer a viable alternative, none of which you have done. What you have offered therefore is a baseless criticism which has no value; only unprofitable opinion.

 

Then you should know how Baptist doctrine differs from COC.

Any person that believes that baptism is a requirement for salvation is not within the realm of Biblical Christianity, any longer. They have accepted one of the earliest errors of Christianity--baptismal regeneration, which puts them outside of Christianity for they now no longer believe that salvation is by grace by faith, but rather by the work of baptism--a heresy.

 

Yes, that would be a good idea at this point.