Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

BearWithMe said:

---

To someone outside the faith, I am a bit confused by this perspective. Isn't baptism essentially a symbolic gesture? A proclamation of faith to the world that you have been reborn in Christ?

I'd wager that the majority of those here believe that the penitent thief received salvation and clearly he was not baptized before his earthly demise. So, baptism in this specific case is not necessary? If baptism is not always 100% required in all situations for salvation, then by definition it is not required.

Perhaps though this is due to my misinterpretation of the scriptures.

---

Baptism is a sacrament. As St Augustine put it, a sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace". The Latin sacramentum developed from the Greek mysterion meaning hidden or secret. In English, a mystery. I think of baptism as a signifier and reminder of something inward that has already been attained.

https://rcdow.org.uk/att/files/faith/catechesis/baptism/sacraments.pdf

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

Mark 2:10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."

---

Can you explain how it does not apply to us today, and where you came up with this belief? Why could Jesus only do this while he was alive on earth in his physical, corruptible body, but he can't today while he is still alive in Spirit and in his glorified, resurrection body? Where did his authority to forgive sins go? Didn't Jesus say after his resurrection that "ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to me"? Why would he lose the authority to forgive sins AFTER his glorification?

---

I "came up with this belief" from the verse I just quoted.

We could not be united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3,4) before He had died, been buried, and resurrected, something that happens at baptism.

curtpenn said:

---

Baptism is a sacrament. As St Augustine put it, a sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace".

---

The Bible never describes baptism as a sacrament or symbol of anything. The purposes of baptism given in the New Testament are to be united with Christ and for the remission of sin.

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

Mark 2:10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."

---

Can you explain how it does not apply to us today, and where you came up with this belief? Why could Jesus only do this while he was alive on earth in his physical, corruptible body, but he can't today while he is still alive in Spirit and in his glorified, resurrection body? Where did his authority to forgive sins go? Didn't Jesus say after his resurrection that "ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to me"? Why would he lose the authority to forgive sins AFTER his glorification?

---

I "came up with this belief" from the verse I just quoted.

We could not be united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3,4) before He had died, been buried, and resurrected, something that happens at baptism.

---

Actually, in John 20:21-23, Jesus gives his apostles the ability to forgive sins. This has been passed on to the Bishops and Priests in the Catholic and Orthodox Church thru Apostolic Succession:

21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

saabing bear said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Baptism is a sacrament. As St Augustine put it, a sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace".

---

The Bible never describes baptism as a sacrament or symbol of anything. The purposes of baptism given in the New Testament are to be united with Christ and for the remission of sin.

---

The Bible makes it clear that Water Baptism is not what saves a soul, it is by Faith Alone without work by believing the Gospel. Paul said he was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel and that it is the Gospel that saves. Paul also said he was glad that he baptized none of those who were with him save 2 others.

Baptism and Good Works are things we do AFTER Salvation, NOT so that we can be saved.

Coke Bear said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

Mark 2:10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."

---

Can you explain how it does not apply to us today, and where you came up with this belief? Why could Jesus only do this while he was alive on earth in his physical, corruptible body, but he can't today while he is still alive in Spirit and in his glorified, resurrection body? Where did his authority to forgive sins go? Didn't Jesus say after his resurrection that "ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to me"? Why would he lose the authority to forgive sins AFTER his glorification?

---

I "came up with this belief" from the verse I just quoted.

We could not be united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3,4) before He had died, been buried, and resurrected, something that happens at baptism.

---

Actually, in John 20:21-23, Jesus gives his apostles the ability to forgive sins. This has been passed on to the Bishops and Priests in the Catholic and Orthodox Church thru Apostolic Succession:

21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

---

No where was the ability to forgive sins given to Bishops and Catholic Priests. The 12 were Ministers to the Jews who were still practicing Law. Paul was a Minister to the Gentiles under Grace. You err in that you are trying to abide by the revelation given to the Jews under Law rather than the Gospel of Grace given to Paul.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

No where was the ability to forgive sins given to Bishops and Catholic Priests. The 12 were Ministers to the Jews who were still practicing Law. Paul was a Minister to the Gentiles under Grace. You err in that you are trying to abide by the revelation given to the Jews under Law rather than the Gospel of Grace given to Paul.

---

I have asked politely twice for you to reveal where you learned about this duelistic theology of Christ's messages to the apostles and Paul's being solely for the Gentiles.

I'll ask for a third and final time because there is no need for me to discuss your misunderstanding of the Church's ability to forgive sins until you've answered.

From where or whom did you learn this theology? Where did they get it? When was it first taught in the history of Christianity? I can't find a historical theologian that taught this same message.

saabing bear said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Baptism is a sacrament. As St Augustine put it, a sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace".

---

The Bible never describes baptism as a sacrament or symbol of anything. The purposes of baptism given in the New Testament are to be united with Christ and for the remission of sin.

---

It is exactly this union with Christ and his church as well as the remission of sin that are the mysterion of baptism. Same thing applies to the Lord's Supper.

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

Mark 2:10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."

---

Can you explain how it does not apply to us today, and where you came up with this belief? Why could Jesus only do this while he was alive on earth in his physical, corruptible body, but he can't today while he is still alive in Spirit and in his glorified, resurrection body? Where did his authority to forgive sins go? Didn't Jesus say after his resurrection that "ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to me"? Why would he lose the authority to forgive sins AFTER his glorification?

---

I "came up with this belief" from the verse I just quoted.

We could not be united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3,4) before He had died, been buried, and resurrected, something that happens at baptism.

---

The verse you quoted says nothing about Jesus not being able to forgive sins today. And how can you reconcile that interpretation with Jesus' declaration after his resurrection that "ALL authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me"?

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

No where was the ability to forgive sins given to Bishops and Catholic Priests. The 12 were Ministers to the Jews who were still practicing Law. Paul was a Minister to the Gentiles under Grace. You err in that you are trying to abide by the revelation given to the Jews under Law rather than the Gospel of Grace given to Paul.

---

I have asked politely twice for you to reveal where you learned about this duelistic theology of Christ's messages to the apostles and Paul's being solely for the Gentiles.

I'll ask for a third and final time because there is no need for me to discuss your misunderstanding of the Church's ability to forgive sins until you've answered.

From where or whom did you learn this theology? Where did they get it? When was it first taught in the history of Christianity? I can't find a historical theologian that taught this same message.

---

It's called Dispensationalism and your Theology is Catholic improper Theology. The Church doesn't have the power to forgive sins. Dispensationalism is correct Theology.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It's called Dispensationalism and your Theology is Catholic improper Theology. The Church doesn't have the power to forgive sins. Dispensationalism is correct Theology.

---

Thank you for answering the question and providing us with a names and framework of your beliefs.

I have heard of Dispensationalism; however, I am struggling to find data on your two-message theory in a deeper dive of Dispensationalism. I'm not trying to label your belief pejoratively. I just don't know what to call it.

Having said that, it does appear that Dispensationalism came onto the scene around 1830 and has had three major periods with some distinctions.

I guess my question to you now is how did the Catholic Church get it wrong for 1800 years and Protestants also get it wrong for 300 years until the Dispensationalists "got it right" in the 1800's?

Some of the greatest minds on earth lived and studied 600 to 1400+ years (Augustine, Athanasius, Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, and John Henry Newman) before the Dispensationalists arrived.

I'll throw in Calvin and Luther. How did these guys get it wrong for nearly two millennia, but Dispensationalist "get it right"?

Matthew 16:18 -

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

If the Church got it wrong, then Jesus was wrong. That's not possible.

I've been out of this thread for some time so, take these thoughts with a grain of salt (uneducated salt)

As a People, the Hebrews were wrong many times and then had to repeatedly be corrected.

As an apostle, Peter was wrong many times and then had to repeatedly be corrected.

Is the RC church different from the Hebrew people and Peter?

Are Protestants different than the Hebrew people and Peter?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is the RC church different from the Hebrew people and Peter?

---

I will strongly agree that PEOPLE (lay persons, priests, nuns, bishops, and even about 10 or so Popes) in the Catholic Church have been not acted in accordance in what the Church teaches.

Her doctrines and dogma have been consistent from the beginning. How or what has the Church taught that is sinful or wrong?

EDIT - I'll add the same Matthew 16:18 comment from my previous post. If the Catholic fails, the Jesus was wrong.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

No where was the ability to forgive sins given to Bishops and Catholic Priests. The 12 were Ministers to the Jews who were still practicing Law. Paul was a Minister to the Gentiles under Grace. You err in that you are trying to abide by the revelation given to the Jews under Law rather than the Gospel of Grace given to Paul.

---

I have asked politely twice for you to reveal where you learned about this duelistic theology of Christ's messages to the apostles and Paul's being solely for the Gentiles.

I'll ask for a third and final time because there is no need for me to discuss your misunderstanding of the Church's ability to forgive sins until you've answered.

From where or whom did you learn this theology? Where did they get it? When was it first taught in the history of Christianity? I can't find a historical theologian that taught this same message.

---

It's called Dispensationalism and your Theology is Catholic improper Theology. The Church doesn't have the power to forgive sins. Dispensationalism is correct Theology.

---

Dispensationalism has a certain fascination to it, but it's really unnecessary. And I say this as someone who spent a lot of time in my Schofield Reference Bible back in the '70s and '80s.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It's called Dispensationalism and your Theology is Catholic improper Theology. The Church doesn't have the power to forgive sins. Dispensationalism is correct Theology.

---

Thank you for answering the question and providing us with a names and framework of your beliefs.

I have heard of Dispensationalism; however, I am struggling to find data on your two-message theory in a deeper dive of Dispensationalism. I'm not trying to label your belief pejoratively. I just don't know what to call it.

Having said that, it does appear that Dispensationalism came onto the scene around 1830 and has had three major periods with some distinctions.

I guess my question to you now is how did the Catholic Church get it wrong for 1800 years and Protestants also get it wrong for 300 years until the Dispensationalists "got it right" in the 1800's?

Some of the greatest minds on earth lived and studied 600 to 1400+ years (Augustine, Athanasius, Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, and John Henry Newman) before the Dispensationalists arrived.

I'll throw in Calvin and Luther. How did these guys get it wrong for nearly two millennia, but Dispensationalist "get it right"?

Matthew 16:18 -

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

If the Church got it wrong, then Jesus was wrong. That's not possible.

---

I can tell you how...Read the Book Fox's Book Of Martyrs. It details the persecution of the Saints down through history, beginning with Christ and the 12 Disciples. It explains how the Roman Dictators persucuted the Church and then when Constantine came on the Scene, he "Converted" tp Christianity,and began the Catholic Church. He mixed his Paganism with Christianity and formed the Catholic Church. Through history, the Catholic church murdered untold numbers of Christians for disagreeing with their false Doctrines. It drove the true Church underground for Centuries. The Catholic Church also forbid anyone but Priests to read the bible for themselves out of fear that they might discover how false their Doctrine was. Many essential Doctrines were lost as a result of the persecution until Martin Luther realized the falsehood of Catholic Doctrine. He started the Protestant Reformation in the 1600s. Then yes in the 1800s Dispensational Theology was re discovered and then later developed by the Brilliant Theologian, Dr Lewis Sperry Chafer. He has written multiple Systematic Theology Books.

Through the Bible with Les Feldick is a great program on TV or you can listen to him on the internet as well. He starts in the Beginning of the Bible and goes all the way through it.

I never said going to CHURCH was wrong, but Doctrine matters. You should go to a Church that teaches sound Doctrine.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

I can tell you how...Read the Book Fox's Book Of Martyrs. It details the persecution of the Saints down through history, beginning with Christ and the 12 Disciples.

---

While I have never read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, I am familiar with it. Foxe, who was extremely anti-Catholic, mixes some historic truths with a great deal of exaggeration and fabrication. No serious ecclesial historian takes it seriously.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It explains how the Roman Dictators persucuted the Church and then when Constantine came on the Scene, he "Converted" tp Christianity,and began the Catholic Church. He mixed his Paganism with Christianity and formed the Catholic Church.

---

Did the Catholic Church ever kill anyone? This is a loaded question. Only secular authorities had/have the right/authority to kill. Did Protestants and others die under Queen Mary? Yes. Did Catholic priests and lay people lose their churches and land and die under Queen Elizabeth? Yes. Both sides committed atrocities in the name of God and country. We are all broken people.

I really want to listen (read) your story, but when an individual repeats a claim that "Constantine started the Catholic Church" they really have lost ALL credibility. This is very tired sophomoric, Anti-Catholic trope. I don't blame you. Nor am I upset with hearing it. You were probably taught this by someone you respected. It's not your fault. Please note that Constantine did NOT start the Catholic Church.

Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which that "permanently established religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire". In 325 he invited all 1800 bishops from the East and the West to settle the Arian heresy those who denied the Divinity of Jesus. He did this to maintain unity and peace within the Roman empire. He opened the Council with an address but handed all authority to those there.

318 bishops went to the Council of Nicaea. The Pope did not attend, but he sent two envoys, IIRC. Christ divinity was heroically defended buy a humble monk, Athanasius. The vote was nearly unanimous, and the Council yielded the beginnings of the Nicaean Creed. It also gave us the word, homoousion that Father and the Son are "of the same substance."

How would have Constantine "start" the Church if it already had 1800+ living bishops? How does the Church record 35 Popes (of which, the first 30 were martyred) BEFORE Constantine became emperor?

Constantine did not officially become Christian until he was baptized on his death bed in May of 337.

An amazing book about this period is called The Apostacy That Wasn't: The Extraordinary Story of the Unbreakable Early Church by historian Rod Bennett. It reads more like a story than a history book.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Through history, the Catholic church murdered untold numbers of Christians for disagreeing with their false Doctrines. It drove the true Church underground for Centuries. The Catholic Church also forbid anyone but Priests to read the bible for themselves out of fear that they might discover how false their Doctrine was.

---

These are two more examples of tired, Anti-Catholic claims without ANY historical evidence. Please produce one document that was preserved by this "underground" church. Please provide one Catholic document that instructs priest to not allow lay people to read the bible.

The truth is that less than 20% of the world was illiterate in the 1600's. The invention of the printing press exponentially increased the literacy rate. The fact of the matter is that the people KNEW the scriptures because the listed to them in mass. When Luther tried to add one word to the bible, it nearly caused a riot.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Many essential Doctrines were lost as a result of the persecution until Martin Luther realized the falsehood of Catholic Doctrine. He started the Protestant Reformation in the 1600s.

---

This too, is false. Martin Luther did start the Protestant Revolt. He was a Catholic priest that struggled with extreme scrupulosity. He did have VALID complaints about some of the abuses that were happening in the Church. Sadly, he became an obstinate heretic with no desire to reform the issues. The pope gave him many changes to repent, but Luther refused to listen. He, therefore, started his own sect.

Because of revolt, many others have split from him. He was actually shocked when Calvin split from him, and it was Katy bar the door. Smyth spilt, and then Wesley, then Joseph Smith, and then it gets crazier with Russell and EG White, and the countless other thru history. These splits still happen today. When a preacher doesn't like the direction of a church, they split and start a new church with new set of beliefs.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Then yes in the 1800s Dispensational Theology was re discovered and then later developed by the Brilliant Theologian, Dr Lewis Sperry Chafer. He has written multiple Systematic Theology Books.

---

Dispensationalism isn't a "rediscovery of the true church". It's just another denomination that someone made up that split from an already fractured branch. It is further way from the original Church that Christ started than Luther.

If you want to criticize true sinful or scandalous behaviors of people (religious or lay persons) in the Catholic Church … Go for it. I'll be there to back you up.

If you want to challenge or question doctrines of the Catholic Church that you don't agree or understand … let's discuss them.

If you want to accuse the Catholic Church of something that you think happened in history, please do neutral research before bringing it here. Or, at least ask a question about it for understand, before making claims that are commonly known to be false.

Finally, late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said,

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

I can tell you how...Read the Book Fox's Book Of Martyrs. It details the persecution of the Saints down through history, beginning with Christ and the 12 Disciples.

---

While I have never read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, I am familiar with it. Foxe, who was extremely anti-Catholic, mixes some historic truths with a great deal of exaggeration and fabrication. No serious ecclesial historian takes it seriously.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It explains how the Roman Dictators persucuted the Church and then when Constantine came on the Scene, he "Converted" tp Christianity,and began the Catholic Church. He mixed his Paganism with Christianity and formed the Catholic Church.

---

Did the Catholic Church ever kill anyone? This is a loaded question. Only secular authorities had/have the right/authority to kill. Did Protestants and others die under Queen Mary? Yes. Did Catholic priests and lay people lose their churches and land and die under Queen Elizabeth? Yes. Both sides committed atrocities in the name of God and country. We are all broken people.

I really want to listen (read) your story, but when an individual repeats a claim that "Constantine started the Catholic Church" they really have lost ALL credibility. This is very tired sophomoric, Anti-Catholic trope. I don't blame you. Nor am I upset with hearing it. You were probably taught this by someone you respected. It's not your fault. Please note that Constantine did NOT start the Catholic Church.

Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which that "permanently established religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire". In 325 he invited all 1800 bishops from the East and the West to settle the Arian heresy those who denied the Divinity of Jesus. He did this to maintain unity and peace within the Roman empire. He opened the Council with an address but handed all authority to those there.

318 bishops went to the Council of Nicaea. The Pope did not attend, but he sent two envoys, IIRC. Christ divinity was heroically defended buy a humble monk, Athanasius. The vote was nearly unanimous, and the Council yielded the beginnings of the Nicaean Creed. It also gave us the word, homoousion that Father and the Son are "of the same substance."

How would have Constantine "start" the Church if it already had 1800+ living bishops? How does the Church record 35 Popes (of which, the first 30 were martyred) BEFORE Constantine became emperor?

Constantine did not officially become Christian until he was baptized on his death bed in May of 337.

An amazing book about this period is called The Apostacy That Wasn't: The Extraordinary Story of the Unbreakable Early Church by historian Rod Bennett. It reads more like a story than a history book.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Through history, the Catholic church murdered untold numbers of Christians for disagreeing with their false Doctrines. It drove the true Church underground for Centuries. The Catholic Church also forbid anyone but Priests to read the bible for themselves out of fear that they might discover how false their Doctrine was.

---

These are two more examples of tired, Anti-Catholic claims without ANY historical evidence. Please produce one document that was preserved by this "underground" church. Please provide one Catholic document that instructs priest to not allow lay people to read the bible.

The truth is that less than 20% of the world was illiterate in the 1600's. The invention of the printing press exponentially increased the literacy rate. The fact of the matter is that the people KNEW the scriptures because the listed to them in mass. When Luther tried to add one word to the bible, it nearly caused a riot.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Many essential Doctrines were lost as a result of the persecution until Martin Luther realized the falsehood of Catholic Doctrine. He started the Protestant Reformation in the 1600s.

---

This too, is false. Martin Luther did start the Protestant Revolt. He was a Catholic priest that struggled with extreme scrupulosity. He did have VALID complaints about some of the abuses that were happening in the Church. Sadly, he became an obstinate heretic with no desire to reform the issues. The pope gave him many changes to repent, but Luther refused to listen. He, therefore, started his own sect.

Because of revolt, many others have split from him. He was actually shocked when Calvin split from him, and it was Katy bar the door. Smyth spilt, and then Wesley, then Joseph Smith, and then it gets crazier with Russell and EG White, and the countless other thru history. These splits still happen today. When a preacher doesn't like the direction of a church, they split and start a new church with new set of beliefs.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Then yes in the 1800s Dispensational Theology was re discovered and then later developed by the Brilliant Theologian, Dr Lewis Sperry Chafer. He has written multiple Systematic Theology Books.

---

Dispensationalism isn't a "rediscovery of the true church". It's just another denomination that someone made up that split from an already fractured branch. It is further way from the original Church that Christ started than Luther.

If you want to criticize true sinful or scandalous behaviors of people (religious or lay persons) in the Catholic Church … Go for it. I'll be there to back you up.

If you want to challenge or question doctrines of the Catholic Church that you don't agree or understand … let's discuss them.

If you want to accuse the Catholic Church of something that you think happened in history, please do neutral research before bringing it here. Or, at least ask a question about it for understand, before making claims that are commonly known to be false.

Finally, late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said,

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

---

Here Are Two Shows About The History Of The Church & The True Catholic Church History Side By Side. They are actually a 2 Part Series.


A Lamp In The Dark (Part 1):




Tare Among The Wheat (Part 2)

Difficult to take anything you say/post very seriously when you're off on Martin Luther by a century and fail to mention John Nelson Darby's contributions to Dispensationalism. At least get the basics right. Disclosure: raised Southern Baptist but self identify as AngloCatholic (Episcopalian) and not Roman Catholic.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Bible makes it clear that Water Baptism is not what saves a soul, it is by Faith Alone without work by believing the Gospel. Paul said he was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel and that it is the Gospel that saves. Paul also said he was glad that he baptized none of those who were with him save 2 others.

Baptism and Good Works are things we do AFTER Salvation, NOT so that we can be saved.

---

The Bible makes it clear that we are saved by God's free grace, through our faith in Jesus, when we believe and confess our faith, repent of our sins, and are baptized into Christ for the remission of our sins. How can we be saved before we are united with Christ (Romans 6: 3,4) and still guilty of our sins (Acts 2: 38)?

Paul's comments were in response to those who were bragging about who baptized them. Who baptizes someone is not important, only the faith of the one being baptized.

curtpenn said:

---

Difficult to take anything you say/post very seriously when you're off on Martin Luther by a century and fail to mention John Nelson Darby's contributions to Dispensationalism. At least get the basics right. Disclosure: raised Southern Baptist but self identify as AngloCatholic (Episcopalian) and not Roman Catholic.

---

It was the 16th Century. My mistake. I don't put a lot of stock in Martin Luther. He was better than the Catholics, but he was still incorrect in his Theology. Yes I know about Darby. He is known as the Father of modern Dispensationalism. But I credit men like Dr Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dr Ironside, Dr James Vernon Mcghee more than Darby for developing it. I have read all of Dr Chafer's Theology books. I don't study Church History like the Catholics do. I study Theology. I was raised in the Independent Baptist Church and then Southern Baptist. It's too bad that you went off track and went to the Catholic, Episcopalian Doctrine.

saabing bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Bible makes it clear that Water Baptism is not what saves a soul, it is by Faith Alone without work by believing the Gospel. Paul said he was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel and that it is the Gospel that saves. Paul also said he was glad that he baptized none of those who were with him save 2 others.

Baptism and Good Works are things we do AFTER Salvation, NOT so that we can be saved.

---

The Bible makes it clear that we are saved by God's free grace, through our faith in Jesus, when we believe and confess our faith, repent of our sins, and are baptized into Christ for the remission of our sins. How can we be saved before we are united with Christ (Romans 6: 3,4) and still guilty of our sins (Acts 2: 38)?

Paul's comments were in response to those who were bragging about who baptized them. Who baptizes someone is not important, only the faith of the one being baptized.

---

Yes we are saved by Grace through Faith alone, NOT water Baptism. We are Baptized into Christ through the Holy Spirit not water. The water is a Physical symbol of a Spiritual reality.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. {Gentiles: Gr. Greeks}

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Paul said that that he wasn't sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. {words: or, speech} (KJV)


It's the Gospel that saves, not water Baptism:

Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.


What is the Gospel?

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. {keep...: or, hold fast} {what: Gr. by what speech}
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. {one...: or, an abortive}
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.


Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation....

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Not one mention of Water Baptism in the Gospel. Water Baptism is a symbol of the Spiritual Birth that occurs once we place our Faith in Jesus Christ to save us, believing that He died and rose again as a Sacrifice for our sins.

Yes, it's obvious you don't study church history. There's your problem. That and your recency bias are showing. You don't think seriously intelligent people haven't thought deeply about Holy Scripture for almost 2,000 years? It's a shame you abandon centuries of faith because of your ill formed and only partial knowledge of the Roman Church.

I would be the first to tell you that the Episcopal Church had lost its way, but that does nothing to negate the orthodox understanding of the Anglican via media which continues to offer a comprehensive and beautiful view of the fullness of the Christian faith as expressed through Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. You have much to learn and probably much to
unlearn.

For your consideration:

https://www.equip.org/articles/dispensationalism-indispensable/

saabing bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Bible makes it clear that Water Baptism is not what saves a soul, it is by Faith Alone without work by believing the Gospel. Paul said he was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel and that it is the Gospel that saves. Paul also said he was glad that he baptized none of those who were with him save 2 others.

Baptism and Good Works are things we do AFTER Salvation, NOT so that we can be saved.

---

The Bible makes it clear that we are saved by God's free grace, through our faith in Jesus, when we believe and confess our faith, repent of our sins, and are baptized into Christ for the remission of our sins. How can we be saved before we are united with Christ (Romans 6: 3,4) and still guilty of our sins (Acts 2: 38)?

Paul's comments were in response to those who were bragging about who baptized them. Who baptizes someone is not important, only the faith of the one being baptized.

---

In Matthew 3:11-17, John the Baptist said:

"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Was Paul's reference to "baptism" water baptism or Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit? Why the need for Jesus to baptize with the Holy Spirit if water baptism is what saves?

And if you're relying on the authority of Paul when you quote Romans 6, what about Paul in Romans 6:9? "that if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." If you also needed to be water baptized to be saved, then why would Paul leave out such a critical element? We're talking about an eternity in heaven or hell that's on the line, after all.

The belief that without water baptism you won't be saved, and you'll go to hell, is fraught with logistical problems. Dying before begin baptized, scarcity of water, no other person available to do the baptism, etc. But more importantly, it is saying that salvation depends on YOUR EFFORT. That clearly isn't what the bible teaches about salvation. Moreover, the belief that without water baptism you are not saved falsifies Jesus' words about salvation in addition to Paul's. For if somebody hears the gospel, believes in Jesus with all his heart, and trusts in Jesus for his salvation- but dies before baptism, or fails to get baptized for any other reason - if that person is NOT saved but rather is in hell, then Jesus is wrong when he said "whoever believes in him shall have eternal life" because this is somebody who DID believe in him but did NOT inherit eternal life. It would also falsify Paul's words above in Romans 6. In fact, it would falsify all the 30+ references to salvation in the bible that DON'T mention anything about having to be water baptized.

If you truly believe that without water baptism you won't be saved, then in any scenario where someone truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for their salvation, but fails to get baptized, you MUST then believe that person is in hell if you're gonna be consistent in your belief. So ask yourself - does that sound right? Does that sound like what Jesus would do? Throw someone into hell even though that person believed and trusted in him, because they didn't, or couldn't, dunk their bodies in water? What about his baptism with the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist told us about? What did that achieve, then? And would the Holy Spirit be wrong by not clearly spelling out in the bible that without water baptism, a belief in Jesus with all one's heart is completely nullified, and you'll still go to hell?

That is why those of you who believe that without water baptism you aren't saved have so much trouble answering the scenario about dying before baptism. Apparently, the Catholic Church can't even keep it straight about what they believe on that, saying on the one hand that it is necessary for salvation, then on the other saying that it's not. You can't have it both ways - if water baptism is necessary for salvation, then that person is in hell, period. You can't hedge on that. Is that what you believe the true gospel to be?

Sometimes the Southern Baptists take the 'dry' concept a bit far ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sometimes the Southern Baptists take the 'dry' concept a bit far ...

---

And when it comes to the view of water baptism in relation to salvation, you're all wet.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sometimes the Southern Baptists take the 'dry' concept a bit far ...

---

And when it comes to the view of water baptism in relation to salvation, you're all wet.

---

Show me you ignore what I actually post without using those words ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sometimes the Southern Baptists take the 'dry' concept a bit far ...

---

And when it comes to the view of water baptism in relation to salvation, you're all wet.

---

Show me you ignore what I actually post without using those words ...

---

Why wouldn't I ignore it? I'm not a Southern Baptist.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sometimes the Southern Baptists take the 'dry' concept a bit far ...

---

And when it comes to the view of water baptism in relation to salvation, you're all wet.

---

Show me you ignore what I actually post without using those words ...

---

Why wouldn't I ignore it? I'm not a Southern Baptist.

---

So you admit you ignore anything that doesn't come from someone with the same opinions as you.

Wow.

Speaking for myself, I am not a Roman Catholic but I read what they post and judge it by its merits. Same for Methodists and even non-Christians like Atheists, Muslims and Mormons.

If nothing else, that broadens my horizon of experience and challenges my own assumptions.

I will admit I don't much cotton to the people who practice drive-by evangelism, who pop off something on the internet and imagine they have done something to make a difference.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That is why those of you who believe that without water baptism you aren't saved have so much trouble answering the scenario about dying before baptism. Apparently, the Catholic Church can't even keep it straight about what they believe on that, saying on the one hand that it is necessary for salvation, then on the other saying that it's not. You can't have it both ways - if water baptism is necessary for salvation, then that person is in hell, period. You can't hedge on that. Is that what you believe the true gospel to be?

---

This false. I've provided biblical proof that Jesus required baptism for salvation. I've given the Catholic position on baptism by water, blood, and desire.

Please let me know if you need for me to explain the position again. I may not have laid it out as clearly as I should have.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sometimes the Southern Baptists take the 'dry' concept a bit far ...

---

And when it comes to the view of water baptism in relation to salvation, you're all wet.

---

Show me you ignore what I actually post without using those words ...

---

Why wouldn't I ignore it? I'm not a Southern Baptist.

---

So you admit you ignore anything that doesn't come from someone with the same opinions as you.

Wow.

---

Wait..if YOU believe the same, that water baptism is not required for salvation, then doesn't your comment include YOU too?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That is why those of you who believe that without water baptism you aren't saved have so much trouble answering the scenario about dying before baptism. Apparently, the Catholic Church can't even keep it straight about what they believe on that, saying on the one hand that it is necessary for salvation, then on the other saying that it's not. You can't have it both ways - if water baptism is necessary for salvation, then that person is in hell, period. You can't hedge on that. Is that what you believe the true gospel to be?

---

This false. I've provided biblical proof that Jesus required baptism for salvation. I've given the Catholic position on baptism by water, blood, and desire.

Please let me know if you need for me to explain the position again. I may not have laid it out as clearly as I should have.

---

You don't seem to understand the equivocating nature of the Catholic position that you've explained.

You've explained that according to Catholicism a person who did not get water baptized can still be saved if they desired baptism, or that they would have desired baptism if they knew it was required. So isn't this saying that it ISN'T required? How can it be required and not required at the same time?

I asked you at least twice about this contradiction, but didn't receive an answer both times.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sometimes the Southern Baptists take the 'dry' concept a bit far ...

---

And when it comes to the view of water baptism in relation to salvation, you're all wet.

---

Show me you ignore what I actually post without using those words ...

---

Why wouldn't I ignore it? I'm not a Southern Baptist.

---

So you admit you ignore anything that doesn't come from someone with the same opinions as you.

Wow.

---

Wait..if YOU believe the same, that water baptism is not required for salvation, then doesn't your comment include YOU too?

---

Nope. I have not rejected any on-topic discussions, just the attacks on people for asking valid questions.

You should try it, it's amazing what an open mind does for broadening perspective.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Bible makes it clear that Water Baptism is not what saves a soul, it is by Faith Alone without work by believing the Gospel. Paul said he was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel and that it is the Gospel that saves. Paul also said he was glad that he baptized none of those who were with him save 2 others.

Baptism and Good Works are things we do AFTER Salvation, NOT so that we can be saved.

---

The Bible makes it clear that we are saved by God's free grace, through our faith in Jesus, when we believe and confess our faith, repent of our sins, and are baptized into Christ for the remission of our sins. How can we be saved before we are united with Christ (Romans 6: 3,4) and still guilty of our sins (Acts 2: 38)?

Paul's comments were in response to those who were bragging about who baptized them. Who baptizes someone is not important, only the faith of the one being baptized.

---

In Matthew 3:11-17, John the Baptist said:

"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Was Paul's reference to "baptism" water baptism or Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit? Why the need for Jesus to baptize with the Holy Spirit if water baptism is what saves?

And if you're relying on the authority of Paul when you quote Romans 6, what about Paul in Romans 6:9? "that if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." If you also needed to be water baptized to be saved, then why would Paul leave out such a critical element? We're talking about an eternity in heaven or hell that's on the line, after all.

The belief that without water baptism you won't be saved, and you'll go to hell, is fraught with logistical problems. Dying before begin baptized, scarcity of water, no other person available to do the baptism, etc. But more importantly, it is saying that salvation depends on YOUR EFFORT. That clearly isn't what the bible teaches about salvation. Moreover, the belief that without water baptism you are not saved falsifies Jesus' words about salvation in addition to Paul's. For if somebody hears the gospel, believes in Jesus with all his heart, and trusts in Jesus for his salvation- but dies before baptism, or fails to get baptized for any other reason - if that person is NOT saved but rather is in hell, then Jesus is wrong when he said "whoever believes in him shall have eternal life" because this is somebody who DID believe in him but did NOT inherit eternal life. It would also falsify Paul's words above in Romans 6. In fact, it would falsify all the 30+ references to salvation in the bible that DON'T mention anything about having to be water baptized.

If you truly believe that without water baptism you won't be saved, then in any scenario where someone truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for their salvation, but fails to get baptized, you MUST then believe that person is in hell if you're gonna be consistent in your belief. So ask yourself - does that sound right? Does that sound like what Jesus would do? Throw someone into hell even though that person believed and trusted in him, because they didn't, or couldn't, dunk their bodies in water? What about his baptism with the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist told us about? What did that achieve, then? And would the Holy Spirit be wrong by not clearly spelling out in the bible that without water baptism, a belief in Jesus with all one's heart is completely nullified, and you'll still go to hell?

That is why those of you who believe that without water baptism you aren't saved have so much trouble answering the scenario about dying before baptism. Apparently, the Catholic Church can't even keep it straight about what they believe on that, saying on the one hand that it is necessary for salvation, then on the other saying that it's not. You can't have it both ways - if water baptism is necessary for salvation, then that person is in hell, period. You can't hedge on that. Is that what you believe the true gospel to be?

---

Good points.