1. 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!

Featured The Christ of RCC is the Son of Lucifer

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Eliyahu, Apr 13, 2013.

  1. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me add the following to my comment: I don't agree with my fellow Baptist brethren that the reason for being baptized is as an act of obedience. If baptism is not salvific, there must be a reason other than "obedience" to do it. After all, there is more of an explicit command to footwashing than for baptism, and in fact according to the scriptures Jesus Himself didn't baptize at all. So, if, as Baptists believe, baptism is not salvific and doesn't bestow grace, what does it do? I believe it is a compelling picture of salvation, of the gospel message. It demonstrates the Christian faith as in a moving picture. That's why a mode other than immersion is insufficient. I would allow for non-immersion in cases of necessity, but normally I believe immersion should be done.

    In brief, when immersion baptism takes place, the essence of the Gospel is presented for all to see: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is the assurance of those who have faith in Him, that they too will be resurrected.

    To me, this is the significance, reason for, and meaning of baptism.

    So, I am opposed to baptismal regeneration, but obedience is not sufficient reason for water baptism, either.

    P.S. I suppose we have gone off topic, but considering the original topic, well.............
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    What if the case is that water baptism not only is a "Fruit" of Matt 7 - Good trees -- obedience, but also in response to that fruit other events happen related to God's anointing/ministry/mission given to the believer.

    A believer in rebellion is not much use to God.

    So while I do not believe in baptismal regeneration - I do believe in the act as one of obedience and that obedience leads to more usefulness as a believer. I also believe in foot washing as Christ recommended to us.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I believe this is the name of the unfallen angel - in heaven - Lucifer whose name is later changed to Satan - the way Saul's name is changed to Paul.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    If baptism is primarily an act of obedience, why would Jesus command something which He did not practice Himself?

    Also, do you think churches such as the Quakers and Salvation Army are being disobedient? They believe the true baptism is spiritual, and they think it's more important to be obedient in another area: Love your neighbor as yourself.
     
  5. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks for your comment. I do understand you may not have enough time to read all the posts in your area.

    As you said, this matter is very much connected with the translation of Isaiah 14:12. But in that case the supporters for RCC here didn't have to be panic with the statements that I titled OP, because, in that case, it is a matter of translating Isaiah 1412 and the meaning of Lucifer.

    In fact the Lucifer is not mentioned in the original Hebrew verse of Isaiah 14:12 but it is a translation of Halel.
    The problem is that most of the other translations are wrong again in that verse because they render the same word Morning Star to Jesus and to Satan together.

    Also, Son of Morning ( Isaiah 14:12) should be distinguished from Morning Star again.

    What I brought was the Chanting in Latin by the RCC.

    What they could verify is whether such chanting is really performed at Easter Vigil, and its translation is correct or not.

    My opponents objected to me as if I had brought what had not existed.

    But it was found in Wikipedia also. Therefore such Latin original is correct.

    Then the Translation was the question.

    My translation of Christus Filius Tuus was Christ Thy Son, while RCC translation is Christ the Morning Star, hiding and disguising the Lucifer in the prvious verses.


    It is not surprising that RCC modify the original text of the Latin Exultet.

    In fact there are some more doubtful verses in the translation of the Exultet, but I do not raise that issue at the moment.
     
    #125 Eliyahu, Apr 20, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2013
Loading...