Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

---

What churches are not Bible believing? Or is that code language for something?

---

Liberal Churches are not Bible believing. Also, any Church that gives higher authority to anything above or equal with the Word of God is not a Bible believing Church.

---

Can you name some? How does one conclude if they are in the right pew when even in a group of 10
Protestants one can easily get 10 different interpretations?

---

My friend, the group to which you refer hasn't been protesting anything for several centuries now. Please get caught up.

---

I understand. Its complicated but makes for fun discussion and learning

---

When one understands this truth, one stops using the anachronism "Protestant."

---

How does one describe the new faith that schismed in 1517?

---

Schismed from what? A number of different "Christian" sects claim to be the one true church that's always existed, not just the current iteration of Catholicism. In addition to the Roman Catholics, we have the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East, all of which claim to be the one true Christian church.

If you're referring to the rise of Lutheranism, well, it also has its very distinct set of beliefs from other denominations. Many of them are as far apart in their beliefs as they can be.

---

The True Church is not a Denomination. It is made up of true believers who are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for our sins.

The one true Church Denomination is the one that follows the Bible's Literal truth. Liberal Churches allegorize the Bible and therefore deny the truth therein.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

---

What churches are not Bible believing? Or is that code language for something?

---

Liberal Churches are not Bible believing. Also, any Church that gives higher authority to anything above or equal with the Word of God is not a Bible believing Church.

---

Can you name some? How does one conclude if they are in the right pew when even in a group of 10
Protestants one can easily get 10 different interpretations?

---

My friend, the group to which you refer hasn't been protesting anything for several centuries now. Please get caught up.

---

I understand. Its complicated but makes for fun discussion and learning

---

When one understands this truth, one stops using the anachronism "Protestant."

---

How does one describe the new faith that schismed in 1517?

---

Schismed from what? A number of different "Christian" sects claim to be the one true church that's always existed, not just the current iteration of Catholicism. In addition to the Roman Catholics, we have the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East, all of which claim to be the one true Christian church.

If you're referring to the rise of Lutheranism, well, it also has its very distinct set of beliefs from other denominations. Many of them are as far apart in their beliefs as they can be.

---

The True Church is not a Denomination. It is made up of true believers who are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for our sins.

The one true Church Denomination is the one that follows the Bible's Literal truth. Liberal Churches allegorize the Bible and therefore deny the truth therein.

---

True.

Mothra said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

---

What churches are not Bible believing? Or is that code language for something?

---

Liberal Churches are not Bible believing. Also, any Church that gives higher authority to anything above or equal with the Word of God is not a Bible believing Church.

---

Can you name some? How does one conclude if they are in the right pew when even in a group of 10
Protestants one can easily get 10 different interpretations?

---

My friend, the group to which you refer hasn't been protesting anything for several centuries now. Please get caught up.

---

I understand. Its complicated but makes for fun discussion and learning

---

When one understands this truth, one stops using the anachronism "Protestant."

---

How does one describe the new faith that schismed in 1517?

---

Schismed from what? A number of different "Christian" sects claim to be the one true church that's always existed, not just the current iteration of Catholicism. In addition to the Roman Catholics, we have the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East, all of which claim to be the one true Christian church.

If you're referring to the rise of Lutheranism, well, it also has its very distinct set of beliefs from other denominations. Many of them are as far apart in their beliefs as they can be.

---

The True Church is not a Denomination. It is made up of true believers who are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for our sins.

The one true Church Denomination is the one that follows the Bible's Literal truth. Liberal Churches allegorize the Bible and therefore deny the truth therein.

---

True.

---

Yay. I appreciate your support. This is essential.

Please take the time to read this first post and place your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord unto Salvation

God Bless

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

---

What churches are not Bible believing? Or is that code language for something?

---

Liberal Churches are not Bible believing. Also, any Church that gives higher authority to anything above or equal with the Word of God is not a Bible believing Church.

---

Can you name some? How does one conclude if they are in the right pew when even in a group of 10
Protestants one can easily get 10 different interpretations?

---

Any Church that teaches Catholic Doctrine, Free Methodist, most modern day Presbyterians (the old Presbyterians were good), Missouri Lutherans & many more....any Church that allegorizes the Bible....

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

When it comes to interpretation, the real issue is that scripture can't be separated from hermeneutics.

To say "Scripture is the sole infallible authority" assumes that Scripture is clear enough for believers to interpret correctly without an external magisterium and that the Holy Spirit guides individuals or churches to right understanding.

That's not a neutral claim about authority, it's a claim about how truth is discerned, aka a hermeneutic.

If Sola Scriptura is only a statement on authority, then how do we adjudicate between contradictory interpretations all claiming that same authority?

Ex. "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

Lutherans / Anglicans:
Baptism actually confers grace and regeneration (the Holy Spirit works through the sacrament).

Baptists / Evangelicals:
Baptism is only a symbol of salvation that's already happened by faith, it doesn't save or cleanse.

One group says baptism saves; another says it doesn't. Both appeal to the same verse and claim Scripture alone.

It circles back around: They both act as if their interpretive tradition (Anglican via the Fathers, Baptist via reason) is binding…while simultaneously claiming no tradition is binding

---

Sola scriptura does NOT assume that Scripture is clear and easy to understand for all believers. It's only saying that Scripture is the only infallible authority for all believers. The perspicuity of Scripture is an entirely different concept. Differing interpretations of Scripture does not invalidate the concept of sola scriptura. I don't know how you came to this conclusion.

Yes, an interpretive tradition is a tradition, but Protestantism does not hold that ALL traditions should be shunned. Protestantism holds that only original apostolic tradition should be held as infallible teaching. Why? Because Jesus directly told his apostles: 1) that they would remember everything that he said and did (John 14:26); 2) that everyone who receives their message receives Jesus himself (Matthew 10:40-42), and 3) he said this to no one else (that we know of) but his apostles. This puts Jesus' stamp of infallible authority on ONLY the apostles' message. And the only thing that contains all that we know the apostles said and did is Scripture, and nowhere else. Hence, sola scriptura.

---

I understand what you're saying, but my point isn't about whether Sola Scriptura explicitly claims Scripture is "easy" to understand. It's about what follows from making Scripture the sole infallible authority.

If no external interpretive authority exists, then each believer or denomination must necessarily rely on some combination of their own reason, experience, or inherited interpretive framework to discern truth. That's a hermeneutic, and it's not neutral. If there's no binding mechanism for adjudication beyond personal or denominational conviction, then in practice the authority shifts from Scripture itself to the individual interpreter (or the collective interpretive tradition of their group).

Christ gave authority to the apostles. But if the only record of that authority is written text, you're presupposing that everything the apostles taught was written down. The New Testament itself never claims that. In fact, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2 explicitly affirm both written and oral apostolic traditions.

So the real question isn't, "Is Scripture authoritative?" (of course it is). The question is: How is that authority rightly interpreted and safeguarded from error without an authoritative interpretive body?

It requires extra-biblical assumptions to function. This is why we have radical Calvinism, LGBT, Mormonism etc.

---

Youve hit the nail on the head of what happens 1) when preachers for profit becomes a thing and 2) when everyone is their own pope

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

---

Blood plasma is 90% water. Every martyr for Christ, if they aren't already baptized, brings their own water for baptism with them at the time of their death. This teaching of the Baptism of Blood goes back to the very foundation of the church and is even shared by the 16th century Anabaptists from whom some Baptists say they are descended.

Keep in mind that for the first millenium of Christianity, and even in the oldest confessions today, becoming a Christian didn't happen as the result of a an emotional decision, walking the aisle, and saying a prayer. Barring exceptional circumstances, such as the Ethopian Eunuch and his peers who were familiar with the Old Testament and lived (30 AD) before the New (Acts was written around 60 AD) was written, you first became what was called a "catechumen", someone who spent a period of time that could range from months to years learning the doctrines of the church and praying and purifying your life in preparation for your baptism. The Christianity of the first millenium was very much a Matthew 7:21 faith.

---

Working with Catechumens of the Catholic church today as we speak. Huge class. Months of effort and commitment and catechesis.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

---

What churches are not Bible believing? Or is that code language for something?

---

Liberal Churches are not Bible believing. Also, any Church that gives higher authority to anything above or equal with the Word of God is not a Bible believing Church.

---

Can you name some? How does one conclude if they are in the right pew when even in a group of 10
Protestants one can easily get 10 different interpretations?

---

Any Church that teaches Catholic Doctrine, Free Methodist, most modern day Presbyterians (the old Presbyterians were good), Missouri Lutherans & many more....any Church that allegorizes the Bible....

---

You exist in an echo chamber of nonsense that has been discussed ad nauseum on this here tiny tiny board

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Not one single Protestant here responded to my explanation of paradise and where the thief on the cross went with jesus that day. In fact it immediately ended what was a lively discussion so one could only conclude it was unable to be refuted.

---

Second, you have the declaration of Jesus on the cross: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise". This statement signifies that the thief would immediately enter paradise upon his death, not at some future resurrection or the end of time, but on that very day.

---

No one knows what if anything time means after death. It might only signify that his salvation was accomplished on that earthly day.

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

Who knew that for the babies that were sent to Hell because their parents didn't dunk them in water, God could have easily excused it!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

Who knew that for the babies that were sent to Hell because their parents didn't dunk them in water, God could have easily excused it!

---

Agreed. It's so in line with the nature of God to send a repentant believer to Hell merely because his parents decided not to perform some ministerial act he had no control over when he was an infant.

Please take the time to read this first post

Romans 10:9-10, 13 KJV
[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.

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

Who knew that for the babies that were sent to Hell because their parents didn't dunk them in water, God could have easily excused it!

---

Agreed. It's so in line with the nature of God to send a repentant believer to Hell merely because his parents decided not to perform some ministerial act he had no control over when he was an infant.

---

Water Baptism, works and rituals have zero part in Salvation. Salvation is by Grace through Faith alone in Chriat and what Christ already did for us on the cross.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

Catholic doctrine is the very definition of legalistic. There is a strict adherence to laws, rules, and regulations, often to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, throughout Catholicism. And then when someone brings up an example that refutes such legalism, you claim, well, yeah, I know we teach all that stuff is required, but in this instance, God make an exception.

You believe in a very inconsistent God, which is problematic when you have a works-based faith.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

Catholic doctrine is the very definition of legalistic. There is a strict adherence to laws, rules, and regulations, often to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, throughout Catholicism. And then when someone brings up an example that refutes such legalism, you claim, well, yeah, I know we teach all that stuff is required, but in this instance, God make an exception.

You believe in a very inconsistent God, which is problematic when you have a works-based faith.

---

Yet here I am adhering to the spirit of the sacraments, and here you are crying foul.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

For God's sake, man, you're completely lost as to the real problem - your church can't be "overly legalistic" because it has no choice. It's necessitated by your church's construction of a God who is internally inconsistent and unjust.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

For God's sake, man, you're completely lost as to the real problem - your church can't be "overly legalistic" because it has no choice. It's necessitated by your church's construction of a God who is internally inconsistent and unjust.

---

There was certainly nothing unjust about saving the thief on the cross, even if it doesn't meet your standard of consistency.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

For God's sake, man, you're completely lost as to the real problem - your church can't be "overly legalistic" because it has no choice. It's necessitated by your church's construction of a God who is internally inconsistent and unjust.

---

There was certainly nothing unjust about saving the thief on the cross, even if it doesn't meet your standard of consistency.

---

No one said it was. Your unintelligence strikes again. The inconsistency and injustice, for one, lies in your church's God saving the thief without requiring water baptism, but sending babies to Hell for not being water baptized.

Infant baptism is meaningless.

All babies go to heaven automatically until the age of accountability.

We are all born sinners.

You cannot lose your salvation.

You understand that these four statements are contradictory right?

By definition, if we are all born sinners and yet babies go to heaven automatically until an arbitrary age of accountability then it is possible to lose a salvation they already possessed.

Or, if you cannot lose your salvation and all babies go to heaven automatically then we are not all born sinners.

Or, if we are born sinners and you cannot lose salvation then babies who die before making a profession of faith are damned.

It becomes quite a problem for the baby damnation crowd that rejects Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-41, and 1st Peter 3:21.

So quit trying to reinvent the wheel. Take your babies to a church that will baptize them into the New Covenant like the first 1500 years of Christians who preceded you did.

Realitybites said:

---

Infant baptism is meaningless.

All babies go to heaven automatically until the age of accountability.

We are all born sinners.

You cannot lose your salvation.

You understand that these four statements are contradictory right?

By definition, if we are all born sinners and yet babies go to heaven automatically until an arbitrary age of accountability then it is possible to lose a salvation they already possessed.

Or, if you cannot lose your salvation and all babies go to heaven automatically then we are not all born sinners.

Or, if we are born sinners and you cannot lose salvation then babies who die before making a profession of faith are damned.

It becomes quite a problem for the baby damnation crowd that rejects Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-41, and 1st Peter 3:21.

So quit trying to reinvent the wheel. Take your babies to a church that will baptize them into the New Covenant like the first 1500 years of Christians who preceded you did.

---

You're not solving the inconsistency and injustice on God's part for saving babies to Heaven or sending them to Hell solely based on the decisions and performance of other people. Especially when God did not require such performative actions to save people like the thief.

We don't know exactly what happens to babies when they die. The Bible doesn't explicitly say. But babies are "blind" - they know nothing, they understand nothing. And Jesus said in John 9:41, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin;" So there's reason to believe that yes, even though all humans (including Mary) are born with inherited sin nature, Jesus extends his grace to those who can't spiritually "see" yet, i.e. babies.

Your argument about losing salvation doesn't make sense towards this view. In this view, babies aren't "saved" to begin with, because they aren't destined for Hell. So they have no "salvation" to potentially lose later as an adult.

I hope you all had a great Sunday.

1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

Catholic doctrine is the very definition of legalistic. There is a strict adherence to laws, rules, and regulations, often to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, throughout Catholicism. And then when someone brings up an example that refutes such legalism, you claim, well, yeah, I know we teach all that stuff is required, but in this instance, God make an exception.

You believe in a very inconsistent God, which is problematic when you have a works-based faith.

---

Yet here I am adhering to the spirit of the sacraments, and here you are crying foul.

---

Where does the word Sacrament appear in the Bible?

Quote:

---

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him,

---

...and how is one to know if they have done this, or simply gone shopping for fire insurance?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

Catholic doctrine is the very definition of legalistic. There is a strict adherence to laws, rules, and regulations, often to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, throughout Catholicism. And then when someone brings up an example that refutes such legalism, you claim, well, yeah, I know we teach all that stuff is required, but in this instance, God make an exception.

You believe in a very inconsistent God, which is problematic when you have a works-based faith.

---

Yet here I am adhering to the spirit of the sacraments, and here you are crying foul.

---

Where does the word Sacrament appear in the Bible?

---

Right next to the word "Trinity."

Sam Lowry said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

Catholic doctrine is the very definition of legalistic. There is a strict adherence to laws, rules, and regulations, often to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, throughout Catholicism. And then when someone brings up an example that refutes such legalism, you claim, well, yeah, I know we teach all that stuff is required, but in this instance, God make an exception.

You believe in a very inconsistent God, which is problematic when you have a works-based faith.

---

Yet here I am adhering to the spirit of the sacraments, and here you are crying foul.

---

Where does the word Sacrament appear in the Bible?

---

Right next to the word "Trinity."

---

Yep.

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

Catholic doctrine is the very definition of legalistic. There is a strict adherence to laws, rules, and regulations, often to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, throughout Catholicism. And then when someone brings up an example that refutes such legalism, you claim, well, yeah, I know we teach all that stuff is required, but in this instance, God make an exception.

You believe in a very inconsistent God, which is problematic when you have a works-based faith.

---

Yet here I am adhering to the spirit of the sacraments, and here you are crying foul.

---

Where does the word Sacrament appear in the Bible?

---

Right next to the word "Trinity."

---

Yep.

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

The early church did not determine what canon scripture was by their own authority. It was by God's authority that he provided his church with Scripture; the church's role was only to recognized his authority in those writings and receive them. GOD gave us the canon, not the church.

I ask you this question: when did a writing become the word of God? Was it the moment the pen left the paper, or only when the church decided it was?

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him,

---

...and how is one to know if they have done this, or simply gone shopping for fire insurance?

---

No, by performing a bunch of ministerial acts, like sprinkling water on their heads, saying a number of hail marys and growing long beards.

That's the ticket.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

Catholic doctrine is the very definition of legalistic. There is a strict adherence to laws, rules, and regulations, often to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, throughout Catholicism. And then when someone brings up an example that refutes such legalism, you claim, well, yeah, I know we teach all that stuff is required, but in this instance, God make an exception.

You believe in a very inconsistent God, which is problematic when you have a works-based faith.

---

Yet here I am adhering to the spirit of the sacraments, and here you are crying foul.

---

LOL. It appears you missed the irony of this statement...

I sure hope you "adhere" to enough rules at the right time.