Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope

turbosixx

New member
Baptism is imputed, but is not salvific. It is simply augmenting the soul, and requires no will or an authoritative decision from a catholic priest. They recognize that.

The bible says baptism saves.

1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
The bible says baptism saves.

1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The apostles supposed in their time that anyone who would undergo a baptism would live up to the belief of Christ.. people back then didn't just do such things in a spur of the moment, or under a hunch. To get a baptism in those times was to ultimately be marked for death if you were discovered with a belief contrary to Rome's paganism.
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
Jim Jones, a false prophet and murderer of over 900 people was baptized.

That pretty much disproves any salvific notion of baptism.
 

RevTestament

New member
A lot of those things deal with figures of speech - not doctrines and such. For example, to use this:
"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool."
To allege that Jesus couldn't have gone to any other Israelite tribes after His ascension is really ridiculous. Obviously, Jesus' enemies are not going to be his literal footstool. It's a figure of speech.

Another is the OT prophets talking about being sinful since birth. That is a figure of speech.
"Do children sin?
Yes according to Psa 51:5;
Rom 3:23) but the BOM says no (Moroni 8:8)."
Obviously to sin one must break a commandment. A newborn baby not only doesn't know commandments, but is incapable of breaking them since all they can do is breath, cry, eat, etc.

Probably the only good argument there is that the BOM does not describe how the Nephites ended up with a priesthood. The presentation seems to assume that Nephi had authority to build a temple and ordain priests.
If the Lord gave Aaron the authority over the Aaronic priesthood, why can't he give authority to others? Where do Catholic priests allege their authority comes from? Obviously they aren't "Levites."

To insist things like Melchisedek had no Father based on Heb 7:3, is clearly a matter of interpretation. I understand Heb 7:3 to mean that in his priesthood Melchizedek became like unto the Son of God, being without father, mother, or beginning of days. It is not saying that Melchizedek was miraculously born of a virgin like Jesus, or for that matter appeared upon the earth somehow without parents.

Here is another quibble: "Where was Jesus born?
Bethlehem Mat 2:1, 8,
but Alma 7:10 says Jerusalem."

Actually Alma says "the land of Jerusalem" - a very strange phrase which would be unknown to Joseph Smith. But exiles might use that phrase to refer to their homeland rather than "Judah" since they were not of Judah.

There are several complaints about modern words which show up in the BOM. One must remember that the BOM is a modern translation meant for modern readers. Perhaps these critics forget that basically no English words existed at the time the BOM was written so it is strange for them to complain that words like etcetera are used. Yes, the BOM has a few non-English words that were popular, and are still well known. I'm sure the Lord knows every language of the hundreds on the earth.

When Jesus died, the sky was darkened for 3
hours or 3 days?
Luke 23:44 says 3 hours, but
Helaman 14:17-27 says 3 days.

What do you know, a different land, and a different miraculous sign. How could that possibly be? Perhaps the thick mist spoken of?

I can go on, but maybe you get the point? None of these things are proofs that the BOM conflicts with the Bible. They are nitpicks by people who do not want to believe it.
 

Cruciform

New member
Jim Jones, a false prophet and murderer of over 900 people was baptized. That pretty much disproves any salvific notion of baptism.
Not at all, since one must possess a proper inner disposition (faith) in baptism in order to be regenerated. Also, one who is saved may certainly at some point choose to violate his baptismal grace through serious sin, as many have done.
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
Not at all, since one must possess a proper inner disposition (faith) in baptism in order to be regenerated. Also, one who is saved may certainly at some point choose to violate his baptismal grace through serious sin, as many have done.

Have you listened to the tape of Jim Jones during the poisoning of his laity?

It is absolutely desensitizing and gut wrenching, the most horrible thing I've ever listened to. It's when you start hearing the babies cry, you see..
That man is in Hell, and that is that.

And proves salvific baptism false.
 

Ben Masada

New member
Baptism is imputed, but is not salvific. It is simply augmenting the soul, and requires no will or an authoritative decision from a catholic priest. They recognize that.

There is nothing salvific in baptism. If you want to search for something salvific, you must look for it in the Law as Jesus himself declared that the only way to escape hell-fire is by listening to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:21)
 

turbosixx

New member
Already decisively answered (Post #338). Thanks for nicely proving my points.


Decisively answered for someone who, by their own admission, can't understand the bible so they believe what they are told. For someone who understands the bible, NO.

If I were trusting MY soul to these men, I personally, would want to find and be able to prove what they are telling me in scripture.

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

If it doesn't agree with the bible, how can it be from God?
 
Last edited:

turbosixx

New member
The apostles supposed in their time that anyone who would undergo a baptism would live up to the belief of Christ.. people back then didn't just do such things in a spur of the moment, or under a hunch. To get a baptism in those times was to ultimately be marked for death if you were discovered with a belief contrary to Rome's paganism.

It's apparent that they viewed it necessary for salvation, as the bible states, to risk death.
 

turbosixx

New member
J
That pretty much disproves any salvific notion of baptism.

Why would I look to men for proof in understanding the bible?

The idea that baptism can not save you is from man, not scripture. When man reads 1 Pt. 3:21 they have a problem.
1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

It doesn't fit their understanding of truth, so they look at other passages to try and find ones that will disprove what 1 Pt. 3:21 says. I think it's wiser to look at other passage to try and understand why 1 Pt. 3:21 says what it says. Here is what I find.

It's how one becomes a Christian:
Matt. 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

It's how we die and are resurrected with Christ:
Rom. 6:3...all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death......5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. Resurrection just as 1 Pt. 3:21 states.

It's how we put on Christ:
Gal. 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

It's how we access the blood for the forgiveness of sins:
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’


It's how we become God's people (spiritual Jews):
Gal. 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ....29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Col. 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism,

It's an appeal to God:
1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

When men try to discredit baptism, they will not use scriptures about baptism. That isn't wise and doesn't make sense when the bible contains passage that teach us about baptism.
 

Cruciform

New member
Have you listened to the tape of Jim Jones during the poisoning of his laity? It is absolutely desensitizing and gut wrenching, the most horrible thing I've ever listened to. It's when you start hearing the babies cry, you see..That man is in Hell, and that is that. And proves salvific baptism false.
Your conclusion here merely engages in a Non Sequitur Fallacy, as has already been shown in Post #347 above.
 

Cruciform

New member
Decisively answered for someone who, by their own admission, can't understand the bible so they believe what they are told.
Already answered and corrected (Post #338).

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Addressed here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Cruciform

New member
Do infants posses this?

Faith is a necessary part of the Sacrament of Baptism. Opponents of infant Baptism typically argue that infants
have not reached the age of reason and therefore cannot make a faith decision to enter the Church (1 Jn. 5:10-15). However, just as the Israelite children did not choose to belong to the faith community, so the children of Christians need not choose to belong. In both cases, the children are incorporated into God’s family through the faith of their parents. In addition, The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1253). We should not overemphasize our response to God versus his gracious gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). This would mistakenly make our works seem more important than God’s gift. After all, We love, because He first loved us (1 Jn. 4:19), and this scriptural truth is especially true for infants. Any believer who prays for an unbeliever is also using his own faith to stand in for the faith of someone who lacks the capacity or disposition to believe (1 Cor. 7:12-16). We know that such prayer is not only licit, but encouraged. Infant Baptism reflects and deepens that truth.

Faith must continue to grow after Baptism because none of us, whether baptized as a child or adult, was baptized with a full and mature faith. Baptism is the source, the start, from which God’s graces become available and begin to flow to us (Catechism, no. 1254). While Christ said Baptism is essential for salvation, He did not say it guaranteed one salvation. An infant who grows up must, like any other believing Christian, persevere in faith and charity to be saved (Mt. 10:22).

http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/baptbabe.pdf


Also, see this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

turbosixx

New member
Faith is a necessary part of the Sacrament of Baptism. Opponents of infant Baptism typically argue that infants
have not reached the age of reason and therefore cannot make a faith decision to enter the Church (1 Jn. 5:10-15). However, just as the Israelite children did not choose to belong to the faith community, so the children of Christians need not choose to belong. In both cases, the children are incorporated into God’s family through the faith of their
parents. In addition, The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1253). We should not overemphasize our response to God versus his gracious gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). This would mistakenly make our works seem more important than God’s gift. After all, We love, because He first loved us (1 Jn. 4:19), and this scriptural truth is especially true for infants. Any believer who prays for an unbeliever is also using his own faith to stand in for the faith of someone who lacks the capacity or disposition to believe (1 Cor. 7:12-16). We know that such prayer is not only licit, but encouraged. Infant Baptism reflects and deepens that truth.

Faith must continue to grow after Baptism because none of us, whether baptized as a child or adult, was baptized with a full and mature faith. Baptism is the source, the start, from which God’s graces become available and begin to flow to us (Catechism, no. 1254). While Christ said Baptism is essential for salvation, He did not say it guaranteed one salvation. An infant who grows up must, like any other believing Christian, persevere in faith and charity to be saved (Mt. 10:22).

http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/baptbabe.pdf


Also, see this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Thanks for your explanation, I will read it and get back to you but I will not read the links. I've read them before and disagree with them. I would rather take a point and debate it with you.
 
Top