Salvation - Part 2

[MennoSota]

Menno -

Whom did Christ command/commission to do His Baptizing?

Are we, from these so commanded, Baptized INTO Christ?

You already know the vss of these questions...


Arsenios

The Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ. This is seen in the many verses I have provided.
The ceremonial, water baptism, is a glorious symbol of what the Spirit of God has already done.
If you cannot see this, I cannot make it more clear than God already has done for you.

 

[MennoSota]

What, AGAIN, no Scripture?

From the one who INSISTS all positions must be confirmed by words found in verses and constantly complains about others not quoting a verse to support everything? AGAIN? Hum. Seems to be two contrary standards: one for you and the opposite for everyone else.


How about 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15.
Prove that every member of those households had:
1) Already chose Jesus as their personal savior and gave adequate public proof of such (to substantiate your Credobaptism tradition you DOGMATICALLY mandate),
2) Had already celebrated their Xth birthday (to substantiate the Anti-Paedobaptism tradition you parrot endlessly),
3) We are forbidden to do anything that is not illustrated as having been done in the Bible (like posting on the internet) to substantiate the rubric you demand of all except yourself,
4) If a group of humans is not specifically INCLUDED in a verse, they ergo are dogmatically EXCLUDED and forbidden (to substantiate another rubric you demand of all but you yourself).
5) Every cell of the bodies of all the people in those households were entirely covered by water (to substantiate you immersion mandate)


See post 144






.

Josiah, I have provided over 30 verses for you. If you are unable to read them, then please get a friend to read them for you. The Bible is clear, though you are fuzzy, on the matter.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, I have provided over 30 verses for you.

I missed them. Do this:


1. Quote for us all the verses that state: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday." List all the verses that mandate a mininum age so as to support the Anabaptist invented tradition you promote of "Anti-Paedobaptism (none under the age of X) List quote all the verse you've given that state that.


2. Quote for us all the verses that states: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal savior and given adequate public proof of that." Quote where that prerequisite is stated, to support the Anabaptist denomination tradition you promote of Credobaptism (baptism is prohibited except for believers).


3. Quote for us all the verses that states: "Thou canst do NOTHING unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the Bible." Just quote those verses. Thus to support your mandate and rubric, your constant claim that there were no baptisms of those under the age of X or of those who did not first chant the sinner's prayer in the Bible - and THEREFORE, we are prohibited from doing so. And document for us how 1 Corinthians 16:15 fand Acts 1:16 prove that none under the age of X and no unbelievers were ever baptized. Just quote for us the verses that state your rubric.


4. Quote for us all the verses that state, "If a group of humans is not specifically INCLUDED in something, they ergo are dogmatically excluded" this to substantiat4e your point that while baptize is generally commanded, this cannot include those under the age of X because it doesn't say ".... and this includes those under the age of X."



Friend, you may have quoted random verses but NONE of them REMOTELY indicated what you have been promoting on this topic since you came here.... all you've done is (perfectly, I admit) parrot verbatim the baptism tradition of the Anabaptist denomination. What you should realize is that those wacky Anabaptists had no Scriptures to support their new dogmas (and didn't even claim to!) - it was simply an extension of their radical synergism (which you occasionally parrot to but claim to actually reject).

Friend, you demand that OTHERS be silent about historic, orthodox, ecumenical tradition that goes back to 63 AD but all you do is parrot verbatim the new, wacky tradition of your denomination (albeit, perfectly, I admit). You demand others PROV#E with SCRIPTURE ALONE that children (and blonds and Americans and fat people) ARE permitted while you offer NOTHING that dogmatically states they are prohibited (and yes, the two anabaptist inventions are both are prohibiting two groups: those under the age of X and those who have not first chose Jesus as their personal Savior). Your foundational apologetic is two things YOU YOURSELF REJECT and NEVER FOLLOW - that we can only do what is stated as done in the Bible and if a group of persons is not mentioned as INCLUDED they thus are dogmatically excluded. And you've not stopped with those two SILLY apologetics, you've added that parents are subject to the authority of their infants and children.... and that all households must be void of children and unbelievers becauses YOURS is.

Friend, here's why you have NOTHING to support the denomination tradition you parrot endlessly: The inventors of it never even claimed to have any Scriptural support, it simply was the implication of their radical synergism - and since you are a monergist, you have nothing. The SILLY things you dig up are just.... silly, especially since you yourself don't believe or apply or accept them. IMO, IF you would step back a bit - and READ what you actually are parroting - and THINK - you'd realize how wacky these Anabaptists were on this (and SO many other issues). You might not accept Baptism as a means of grace, but you won't accept the wacky denominational tradition of the Anabaptists either - you might end up with the common Reformed position (which rejects the synergistic foundation and silliness of the Anabaptists on this as much as everyone else does), which doesn't dogmatically accept Baptism as a means of grace but also doesn't accept the wacky, unfounded idea that baptist is prohibited for all under the age of X and who have not first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. And of course, no one accepts the wacky rubrics you promote - not even you.

baptism, is a glorious symbol of what the Spirit of God has already done.If you cannot see this...

Friend the reason why NOT ONE HUMAN BEING on the Planet Earth for over 1500 years ever "saw" that is that it's not there. It's obvious. It's undeniable. Your inability to provide it proves it.


The first to "see" this invisible, never-stated dogma were some wackededoodle German radical synergists in the 16th Century (ask yourself why they were the FIRST EVER to "see" what you claim is so clearly stated!).... and they didn't claim the Bible actually stated it.... they admitted this was a NEW teaching.... they simply stated that the orthodox, ecumenical tradition going back to 63 AD was contrary to their radical synergism and thus must be wrong. Now, IF you were a radical synergist, you'd have a point - imposing your synergism everywhere, including were it doens't exist - but you aren't (you claim- although you like the parrot the Anabaptist point about how those under the age of X can't do their part in the salvation of themselves).



See post 144






.

 

[MennoSota]

I missed them. Do this:


1. Quote for us all the verses that state: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday." List all the verses that mandate a mininum age so as to support the Anabaptist invented tradition you promote of "Anti-Paedobaptism (none under the age of X) List quote all the verse you've given that state that.


2. Quote for us all the verses that states: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal savior and given adequate public proof of that." Quote where that prerequisite is stated, to support the Anabaptist denomination tradition you promote of Credobaptism (baptism is prohibited except for believers).


3. Quote for us all the verses that states: "Thou canst do NOTHING unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the Bible." Just quote those verses. Thus to support your mandate and rubric, your constant claim that there were no baptisms of those under the age of X or of those who did not first chant the sinner's prayer in the Bible - and THEREFORE, we are prohibited from doing so. And document for us how 1 Corinthians 16:15 fand Acts 1:16 prove that none under the age of X and no unbelievers were ever baptized. Just quote for us the verses that state your rubric.


4. Quote for us all the verses that state, "If a group of humans is not specifically INCLUDED in something, they ergo are dogmatically excluded" this to substantiat4e your point that while baptize is generally commanded, this cannot include those under the age of X because it doesn't say ".... and this includes those under the age of X."



Friend, you may have quoted random verses but NONE of them REMOTELY indicated what you have been promoting on this topic since you came here.... all you've done is (perfectly, I admit) parrot verbatim the baptism tradition of the Anabaptist denomination. What you should realize is that those wacky Anabaptists had no Scriptures to support their new dogmas (and didn't even claim to!) - it was simply an extension of their radical synergism (which you occasionally parrot to but claim to actually reject).

Friend, you demand that OTHERS be silent about historic, orthodox, ecumenical tradition that goes back to 63 AD but all you do is parrot verbatim the new, wacky tradition of your denomination (albeit, perfectly, I admit). You demand others PROV#E with SCRIPTURE ALONE that children (and blonds and Americans and fat people) ARE permitted while you offer NOTHING that dogmatically states they are prohibited (and yes, the two anabaptist inventions are both are prohibiting two groups: those under the age of X and those who have not first chose Jesus as their personal Savior). Your foundational apologetic is two things YOU YOURSELF REJECT and NEVER FOLLOW - that we can only do what is stated as done in the Bible and if a group of persons is not mentioned as INCLUDED they thus are dogmatically excluded. And you've not stopped with those two SILLY apologetics, you've added that parents are subject to the authority of their infants and children.... and that all households must be void of children and unbelievers becauses YOURS is.

Friend, here's why you have NOTHING to support the denomination tradition you parrot endlessly: The inventors of it never even claimed to have any Scriptural support, it simply was the implication of their radical synergism - and since you are a monergist, you have nothing. The SILLY things you dig up are just.... silly, especially since you yourself don't believe or apply or accept them. IMO, IF you would step back a bit - and READ what you actually are parroting - and THINK - you'd realize how wacky these Anabaptists were on this (and SO many other issues). You might not accept Baptism as a means of grace, but you won't accept the wacky denominational tradition of the Anabaptists either - you might end up with the common Reformed position (which rejects the synergistic foundation and silliness of the Anabaptists on this as much as everyone else does), which doesn't dogmatically accept Baptism as a means of grace but also doesn't accept the wacky, unfounded idea that baptist is prohibited for all under the age of X and who have not first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. And of course, no one accepts the wacky rubrics you promote - not even you.








Friend the reason why NOT ONE HUMAN BEING on the Planet Earth for over 1500 years ever "saw" that is that it's not there. It's obvious. It's undeniable. Your inability to provide it proves it.


The first to "see" this invisible, never-stated dogma were some wackededoodle German radical synergists in the 16th Century (ask yourself why they were the FIRST EVER to "see" what you claim is so clearly stated!).... and they didn't claim the Bible actually stated it.... they admitted this was a NEW teaching.... they simply stated that the orthodox, ecumenical tradition going back to 63 AD was contrary to their radical synergism and thus must be wrong. Now, IF you were a radical synergist, you'd have a point - imposing your synergism everywhere, including were it doens't exist - but you aren't (you claim- although you like the parrot the Anabaptist point about how those under the age of X can't do their part in the salvation of themselves).



See post 144






.

I have no need to quote them.
If you think you should baptize all humans, without their consent and then teach them they are saved by virtue if their baptism, why don't you go about doing so?
Would you not, by your concept of baptism, be fulfilling the Great Commission and saving millions via the magic of water baptism?
Either explain this or admit your teaching on infant baptism is hocum with no legitimate scriptural support.
What I have shared is the experience directly given to us in scripture. We never see an unregenerate person, in the Bible, being saved because they are water baptized. Not once can we see this happening. If we never see the Apostles and early church doing such a thing, we must ask why they did not do this, yet today people claim salvation by baptism. You must face your problem head on rather than run away from it and beg others to disprove your hocum.

 

[MennoSota]

Which comes first in the ordo salutis (order of salvation)—faith or*regeneration?

I think first of all of what Jesus said in John chapter 3, when he said to Nicodemus that unless you're born from above—which is regeneration—you'll neither be able to see or enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5). And we enter the kingdom of God through faith.

So in that conversation, I think it's very clear that in order to come to faith, first of all, God has to give us a new heart. And that is really what John had said in the prologue to the gospel as well, that those who came to believe in Him were born not of the will of the flesh or the will of man, but born of God (John 1:13).

So when we're thinking about it, we realize that, logically, regeneration grounds our faith. But when we are regenerated, we come to believe.

So there is not a gap that we would be able to detect between being born again and coming to believe. In fact, the way we would recognize that we had been born again was because that came to expression in our trust in Jesus Christ. So they are very intimately related.

This transcript is from a live Ask Ligonier event with Sinclair Ferguson and has been lightly edited for readability. To ask Ligonier a biblical or theological question, just visit*Ask.Ligonier.org*or message us on*Facebook*or*Twitter.

2018 Ligonier Ministries

 

[Josiah]

I have no need to quote them.

Right. Because you totally exempt yourself from what you demand of all others...

Right. Because you have nothing to support your positions.... the Anabaptists had the honesty to admit it and to admit their new dogmas are simply extensions of their synergism, but you keep insisting you have the verses you just "have no need to quote them."

 

[MennoSota]

Right. Because you totally exempt yourself from what you demand of all others...

Right. Because you have nothing to support your positions.... the Anabaptists had the honesty to admit it and to admit their new dogmas are simply extensions of their synergism, but you keep insisting you have the verses you just "have no need to quote them."

Josiah, show me a time where the Apostles baptized an unsaved person. I won't even demand that you show they were saved via the baptism. How much easier can I make it for you?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Menno -

Whom did Christ command/commission to do His Baptizing?

Are we, from these so commanded, Baptized INTO Christ?

You already know the vss of these questions...


Arsenios

The answer to the first question is

Jesus commanded his disciples to go and preach the gospel to all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit​

The answer to the second question is

Christians are baptised into Jesus Christ as saint Paul teaches in Romans 6:1-10 and as he again reiterates in 1 Corinthians 12:12-30​

I hope that MennoSota was able to give a straightforward answer.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, show me a time where the Apostles baptized an unsaved person.

What, AGAIN? No Scripture stating "Thou canst NOT baptize any who hath not FIRST choose Jesus as their personal savior and giveth public proof of such!"? No Scirpture stating, "And NO ONE baptized any who did not first chant the Sinner's Prayer and none other is permitted to do so?"


Friend, you are just parroting the SILLY, ABSURD rubric that you yourself reject, repudiate and don't follow: Thou canst NOT do anything unless it is clearly illustrated as being done in the Bible." How do I know you yourself reject your own foundational apologetic? You post it on the internet!!!! If I went to your church next Sunday, likely 90% of what will be done is not once illustrated as being done in the Bible. It's a silly, absurd rubric THAT YOU YOURSELF REJECT. IF, IF, IF you would step back from just echoing the silliest of Anabaptist denomination tradition, you would see this. Everyone else does.... have you noticed how NO ONE here at CH is coming to your aid? What you are posting is below you and is nonsense.



The Anabaptists invented two Baptism dogmas, created them out of thin air, ADMITTING that they had no Scripture: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism. But they did so as extensions of their radical synergism (which you CLAIM to reject but occasionally echo anyway). You insist no dogma may be embraced without the words of Scripture stating so - but you have not presented one Scripture that teaches either of these (the Anabaptists were honest enough to admit there are none, you won't admit it but you reveal it by not having anything to present). You insist on perfectly parroting Anabaptist denomination tradition with NOTHING to support it (and exempting yourself from needing anything) but insist all others must ignore denomination tradition. Many here at CH are doing what you request: Ignoring your parroting of Anabaptist denominational tradition.


See pots 144




.

 

[MennoSota]

What, AGAIN? No Scripture stating "Thou canst NOT baptize any who hath not FIRST choose Jesus as their personal savior and giveth public proof of such!"? No Scirpture stating, "And NO ONE baptized any who did not first chant the Sinner's Prayer and none other is permitted to do so?"


Friend, you are just parroting the SILLY, ABSURD rubric that you yourself reject, repudiate and don't follow: Thou canst NOT do anything unless it is clearly illustrated as being done in the Bible." How do I know you yourself reject your own foundational apologetic? You post it on the internet!!!! If I went to your church next Sunday, likely 90% of what will be done is not once illustrated as being done in the Bible. It's a silly, absurd rubric THAT YOU YOURSELF REJECT. IF, IF, IF you would step back from just echoing the silliest of Anabaptist denomination tradition, you would see this. Everyone else does.... have you noticed how NO ONE here at CH is coming to your aid? What you are posting is below you and is nonsense.



The Anabaptists invented two Baptism dogmas, created them out of thin air, ADMITTING that they had no Scripture: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism. But they did so as extensions of their radical synergism (which you CLAIM to reject but occasionally echo anyway). You insist no dogma may be embraced without the words of Scripture stating so - but you have not presented one Scripture that teaches either of these (the Anabaptists were honest enough to admit there are none, you won't admit it but you reveal it by not having anything to present). You insist on perfectly parroting Anabaptist denomination tradition with NOTHING to support it (and exempting yourself from needing anything) but insist all others must ignore denomination tradition. Many here at CH are doing what you request: Ignoring your parroting of Anabaptist denominational tradition.


See pots 144




.

Josiah, do humans choose God? Do humans usher in their own salvation via baptism?
We can only go by scripture. Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians baptizing unregenerate person's before God has clearly chosen them. If you can find those verses, please share them and prove me wrong.
I have shared over 30 verses about baptism and I don't see unregenerate person's being baptized, nor do I see infants being baptized. If you have evidence, please share it so I can be set straight.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, do humans choose God?

No. Therefore, they don't have to be over the age of X or have an IQ above the level of X or be able to pass an educational test with a score above X.... there goes all the Anabaptist arguments for the dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism you promote.

No. Therefore, humans don't have to choose Jesus as their personal Savior before God can choose them and give them salvation... there goes all the Anabaptist arguments for their dogma of Credobaptism you promote.

Do humans usher in their own salvation via baptism?

No way! As many of have posted to you over and over and over again, there is only ONE Savior, there is only ONE name under heaven by which any may be saved.... and it's JESUS. JESUS IS THE SAVIOR. Which is why I reject the radical synergism of the Anabaptists, the denominational tradition you parrot perpetually.

BTW, when Billy Graham preaches the Gospel, the receiver may listen to it but neither Billy Graham nor the listener is ushering in the salvation of anyone.... God alone saves. As we state every Sunday, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and GIVER of Life." We believe the Holy Spirit GIVES it (not offers it, no one TAKES it).

We can only go by scripture.

We're still waiting.... have been since you came to this website... waiting and waiting.... patiently waiting.... for those verses; "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday" (to support your dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism), "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath chosen Jesus as their personal savior and given adequate public proof of such!" (To support your dogma of Credobaptism). "Thou canst NOT to anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the Bible!" (to support the silly rubric you are here again insisting upon), "If a group of people are not expressly INCLUDED in a verse then they are dogmatically EXCLUDED" (to support another new dogma of yours) and "Parents are subject to the authority and wishes of their infants and children" (to support another dogma of yours). Where is the Scripture on that? If you can find those verses, please share them

Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians baptizing unregenerate person's before God has clearly chosen them.

1. God chooses them before the foundations of the universe - over 13.7 billion years ago. It is IMPOSSIBLE to baptize someone before God chooses them (you should know that!).


2 Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians forbidding those under the age of X from being baptized (no Anti-Paedobaptism) . Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians demanding that all first choose Jesus as their personal savior before they can be baptized (no Credobaptism). Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians posting on the internet, but here you are..... No where do we see the Apostles or early Christians reading the New Testament but here you are.... No where to do we see the Apostles or early Christians giviing Communion to women but I'm guessing your church does.... Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians passing Communion around pews with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice.... Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians with websites or youth groups ...


3. St. Ignatius was baptized as a baby in 63 AD (the earliest known example of infant baptism). Likely, some Christian baptized him in 63 AD. That's not early enough for you? The first example we have of anyone forbidding baptism to anyone because of they not yet attaining the age of X was 1536.... Which is earlier? 63 or 1536?

I have shared over 30 verses about baptism

And not one of them states ANY of the things about baptism that you do.... not one.... about one. NOTHING about Baptism being limited to those over the age of X..... not one limiting baptism to those who first chose Jesus as their personal Savior and making adequate public proof of that.... not one about how we can only do what we see illustrated as done in the Bible.... not one about how every cell of the human body must be covered by water or its an invalid baptism... not one about how parents are subject to their infants and children an can't do anything for them (such as circumcision) without the child's written permission and full understanding. Yeah, you've listed some Scriptures, just NONE of them says what you do.





.

 

[MennoSota]

No. Therefore, they don't have to be over the age of X or have an IQ above the level of X or be able to pass an educational test with a score above X.... there goes all the Anabaptist arguments for the dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism you promote.

No. Therefore, humans don't have to choose Jesus as their personal Savior before God can choose them and give them salvation... there goes all the Anabaptist arguments for their dogma of Credobaptism you promote.






No way! As many of have posted to you over and over and over again, there is only ONE Savior, there is only ONE name under heaven by which any may be saved.... and it's JESUS. JESUS IS THE SAVIOR. Which is why I reject the radical synergism of the Anabaptists, the denominational tradition you parrot perpetually.

BTW, when Billy Graham preaches the Gospel, the receiver may listen to it but neither Billy Graham nor the listener is ushering in the salvation of anyone.... God alone saves. As we state every Sunday, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and GIVER of Life." We believe the Holy Spirit GIVES it (not offers it, no one TAKES it).







We're still waiting.... have been since you came to this website... waiting and waiting.... patiently waiting.... for those verses; "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday" (to support your dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism), "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath chosen Jesus as their personal savior and given adequate public proof of such!" (To support your dogma of Credobaptism). "Thou canst NOT to anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the Bible!" (to support the silly rubric you are here again insisting upon), "If a group of people are not expressly INCLUDED in a verse then they are dogmatically EXCLUDED" (to support another new dogma of yours) and "Parents are subject to the authority and wishes of their infants and children" (to support another dogma of yours). Where is the Scripture on that? If you can find those verses, please share them







1. God chooses them before the foundations of the universe - over 13.7 billion years ago. It is IMPOSSIBLE to baptize someone before God chooses them (you should know that!).


2 Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians forbidding those under the age of X from being baptized (no Anti-Paedobaptism) . Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians demanding that all first choose Jesus as their personal savior before they can be baptized (no Credobaptism). Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians posting on the internet, but here you are..... No where do we see the Apostles or early Christians reading the New Testament but here you are.... No where to do we see the Apostles or early Christians giviing Communion to women but I'm guessing your church does.... Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians passing Communion around pews with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice.... Nowhere do we see the Apostles or early Christians with websites or youth groups ...


3. St. Ignatius was baptized as a baby in 63 AD (the earliest known example of infant baptism). Likely, some Christian baptized him in 63 AD. That's not early enough for you? The first example we have of anyone forbidding baptism to anyone because of they not yet attaining the age of X was 1536.... Which is earlier? 63 or 1536?







And not one of them states ANY of the things about baptism that you do.... not one.... about one. NOTHING about Baptism being limited to those over the age of X..... not one limiting baptism to those who first chose Jesus as their personal Savior and making adequate public proof of that.... not one about how we can only do what we see illustrated as done in the Bible.... not one about how every cell of the human body must be covered by water or its an invalid baptism... not one about how parents are subject to their infants and children an can't do anything for them (such as circumcision) without the child's written permission and full understanding. Yeah, you've listed some Scriptures, just NONE of them says what you do.





.

You're barking up a tree that no one lives in, Josiah.
[Staff Edit]

 

[MennoSota]

[Staff Edit]


Arsenios

Where has scripture been provided to show the early church water baptizing unregenerate sinners in hopes of saving them, or water baptizing unknowing babies in hopes of saving them?
I have provided over 30 verses.
The closest anyone has come is to infer babies into the word household. No evidence in that word, but apparently it is excellent exegesis to infer whatever you want and then create a dogma around it.
[Staff Edit]

 

[Arsenios]

Where has scripture been provided to show the early church water baptizing unregenerate sinners in hopes of saving them, or water baptizing unknowing babies in hopes of saving them?
I have provided over 30 verses.
The closest anyone has come is to infer babies into the word household. No evidence in that word, but apparently it is excellent exegesis to infer whatever you want and then create a dogma around it.
Arsenios, your faux sensitivity is interesting. It appears when you cannot present a cogent argument.

Thank-you for this much better reply...

I dislike personal attacks in the absence of argument...

Arsenios

 

[Lamb]

It's getting brutal in here...I need to close this thread for a cool down and clean up.

 

[Lamb]

The cool down is complete. No more personal attacks and that includes any ability to comprehend or not. Got it?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The cool down is complete. No more personal attacks and that includes any ability to comprehend or not. Got it?

Personal attacks ought to affect the posts and possibly the poster but not the thread.

That being said.

Baptism is, in the Church's teaching, instrumental in the salvation of souls so it is appropriate to discuss it here in a thread about salvation.

 

[MennoSota]

Personal attacks ought to affect the posts and possibly the poster but not the thread.

That being said.

Baptism is, in the Church's teaching, instrumental in the salvation of souls so it is appropriate to discuss it here in a thread about salvation.

In the RC church, but the RC church isn't the body of Christ, which means the RC church is, as usual, wrong.

 

[MennoSota]

It's getting brutal in here...I need to close this thread for a cool down and clean up.

Lamm, your Lutheran bias is showing.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Individual opinions do not rate very highly but the Church's teaching does rate highly.

Baptism saves. That is the teaching of the holy scriptures. Baptism saves you; this baptism is not a matter of physical cleansing, but of asking God to reconcile us, through the resurrection of Christ Jesus.