Hocus Pocus ????

[mont974x4]

Baptists believe that nothing occurs at baptism, but that regeneration begins when a person 'accepts' Christ.


From the Southern Baptist Statement of Faith:

Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

For the above reasoning, they do not baptize infants. And you SBC's are welcome to correct me if I've misinterpreted that as well.

Baptist churches are independant in command structure. Yes, there are many that hold to what you describe, and exactly what is written in the statement of faith.

Some believe that water baptism does save, and they count the number of dunkings as an indicator of a healthy church.


Baptists are hard to pin to any one statement on a few issues.


Personally, after years of study, I agree with the ideal you posted as the baptist belief in post # 211.

 

[narnia59]

Quote:
Regarding Catholics viewing everybody else as 'wandering around in the dark', is hardly consistent with our belief regarding other Christian churches that 'the Church of Christ is present and operative on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.", and they "are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation".

I


I see. So then, you're now saying that the "30,000 denominations" have an objective standard to rally around? Or are you now saying that we're a legitimate part of the "one true church that Christ founded"?

I never said there were 30,000 denominations. There are around 9000 or some Protestant denominations, and about 30,000 different groups total when you throw in all the Independents who claim no affiliation to anyone else.

And no, I see no objective standard. I find that differences in doctrine abound.

And I'm not saying you're part of the 'church' that Jesus founded.

I am saying we believe that you are members of the mystical body of Christ, and that the works of salvific grace don't stop at our front door (either coming in or going out). And that the grace of Christ has proven to have no limitations based upon correct doctrine. And for this all of us should be most grateful.

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by Uphill Battle
Merry Christmas. Peace to all of you.

Peace to you also...May Christ be lifted up as we gather together and live for Him in our word and deed in this uncertain year we head into..shalom..Kim

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

For those of us who are celebrating the Incarnation of Christ, may we truly be blessed with a peaceful spirit.

And with that, I have to go make a cheese ball.

 

[WarEagle]

And no, I see no objective standard. I find that differences in doctrine abound.

Fine. Name one disagreement about any of the essential doctrines.

And I'm not saying you're part of the 'church' that Jesus founded.

I know you're not. Roman Catholics don't believe we are. They believe that we rebelled against Christ by breaking off from the Unbiblical Roman Catholic church.

And that the grace of Christ has proven to have no limitations based upon correct doctrine. And for this all of us should be most grateful.

Actually, 2 John says otherwise. It tells us that if somebody doesn't have correct doctrine, they're not saved.

 

[WarEagle]

...

 

[mont974x4]

Absolutley, doctrine is important. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many NT warnings against false teaching.

The issue is defining what is essential and what isn't.

 

[lionroar0]

Absolutley, doctrine is important. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many NT warnings against false teaching.

St. Paul talks alot about correct doctrine and how important it is.
Peace

 

[BigNorsk]

Quote:
The Lutherans for example, believe that baptism is necessary for salvation and that regeneration occurs at baptism. This is why they baptism infants. (Any Lutherans, please correct me if I've mis-stated anything -- this would be my understanding of your doctrine).

From the Lutheran confessions:
Article IX of the Large Cathechism – of Baptism
Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ’s command, Matt. 28, 19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered.

Article 3 – Holy Baptism
II. Through Baptism, as the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, God saves us, and works in us such righteousness and cleansing from sins that he who perseveres in this covenant and confidence unto the end is not lost, but has eternal life.

IV. Baptism is the washing of regeneration for the reason that in it we are born anew, and sealed with and graciously [by grace] given the Spirit of adoption.


False and Erroneous Doctrine of the Calvinists --

Concerning Holy Baptism:
I. That Baptism is an outward washing of water, whereby an inner washing [ablution] from sins is only signified.
II. That Baptism neither works nor confers regeneration, faith, the grace of God, and salvation, but only signifies and seals these.
III. That not all who are baptized with water but only the elect, receive therewith the grace of Christ or the gift of faith.
IV. That regeneration occurs not in and at [with] Baptism, but not till afterwards in adult years, and in some [many] not until old age.
V. That salvation depends not upon Baptism, and accordingly emergency baptism [baptism in case of necessity] should not be permitted in the Church, but if the service of the Church [of the ordinary ministry of the Church] cannot be obtained, the child should be allowed to die without Baptism.

I apologize to any Lutherans if my interpretation is not an accurate one, for I understand how people can sometimes pick and choose from the teaching of a church and mis-represent it. So please correct me if my assessment is incorrect.

However WarEagle, unless you can provide something concrete to indicate I am wrong, I stand by my initial assessment of what Lutherans believe regarding Baptism and salvation.

Well, yes, this is what Lutherans believe, but I think you are using to teach what Lutherans do not teach.

No Lutheran theologian has ever held that baptism is absolutely essential.

That is because the gospel is effacious in all it's forms. A person could hear the word of God and believe and he is saved, not part way but totally completely saved. So you have people who do not believe the biblical promises offered in baptism and yet they are saved. This would apply both to our brethren who treat baptism as nothing but a memorial and also to those who treat baptism as a work of man that saves.

Trying to say it rightly gets a bit difficult because we would say baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary.

You are trying to say Lutherans teach it is an essential doctrine, which I would translate into being a fundamental doctrine. Fundamental doctrines are those necessary for and contributing to salvation.

So baptism is classified by Lutherans as a secondary fundamental doctrine. Fundamental because, just as scripture says, it saves. But secondary because it is not required that the gospel be received in faith only through baptism.

I would reference you to Francis Pieper's "Christian Dogmatics" Volume I pg 76-96 for a thorough discussion of fundamental, secondary fundamental, nonfundamental, and areas of freedom or theological difficulties.

Marv

 

[narnia59]

Well, yes, this is what Lutherans believe, but I think you are using to teach what Lutherans do not teach.

No Lutheran theologian has ever held that baptism is absolutely essential.

That is because the gospel is effacious in all it's forms. A person could hear the word of God and believe and he is saved, not part way but totally completely saved. So you have people who do not believe the biblical promises offered in baptism and yet they are saved. This would apply both to our brethren who treat baptism as nothing but a memorial and also to those who treat baptism as a work of man that saves.

Trying to say it rightly gets a bit difficult because we would say baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary.

You are trying to say Lutherans teach it is an essential doctrine, which I would translate into being a fundamental doctrine. Fundamental doctrines are those necessary for and contributing to salvation.

So baptism is classified by Lutherans as a secondary fundamental doctrine. Fundamental because, just as scripture says, it saves. But secondary because it is not required that the gospel be received in faith only through baptism.

I would reference you to Francis Pieper's "Christian Dogmatics" Volume I pg 76-96 for a thorough discussion of fundamental, secondary fundamental, nonfundamental, and areas of freedom or theological difficulties.

Marv

Thank you Mary for the clarification.

Lutheran theology in this area is somewhat similar ito Catholic if I understand you correctly. We too believe that baptism is a sacrament, and confers grace and is directly associated with regeneration or being born again. Thus, infants can receive this free gift of salvation by virtue of baptism.

However, we would say that this is the 'normative' way in which this occurs. It doesn't mean that God is bound to the norm. We therefore recognize what would be considered 'baptism of desire' in which a person has the desire for baptism yet does not have access to the sacrament. We would also recognize a 'baptism of blood' such a martydom for Christ.

So do Lutherans believe in once-saved, always saved? Or do they believe salvation once achieved can be lost?

 

[narnia59]

Absolutley, doctrine is important. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many NT warnings against false teaching.

The issue is defining what is essential and what isn't.

I would never say that doctrine isn't important. I would simply say that it's been my experience that the working of grace in a person's life has never been bound by any definition of 'correct' doctrine, no matter how it's defined.

 

[Tissue]

Get real... and wake up to reality.

Merry Christmas

There's a difference between agreeing with someone and respecting their position. Intellect dictates the former, etiquette dictates the latter.

It's the "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept, applied to an intellectual context. You disagree with someone. That doesn't make their beliefs stupid, or their sincerity inferior to your own. You need to realize that we're all in this life together, one way or another, and we all have our own different experiences.

I am not a Catholic, but I have attended Mass a few times over the last semester, and came away with a new respect for the age-old tradition and their practiced reverence for Christ. They have their struggles. You have your struggles. I have my struggles. This looks like even territory to me. Why the aggression, then?

 

[Gary51]

There's a difference between agreeing with someone and respecting their position. Intellect dictates the former, etiquette dictates the latter.

It's the "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept, applied to an intellectual context. You disagree with someone. That doesn't make their beliefs stupid, or their sincerity inferior to your own. You need to realize that we're all in this life together, one way or another, and we all have our own different experiences.

I am not a Catholic, but I have attended Mass a few times over the last semester, and came away with a new respect for the age-old tradition and their practiced reverence for Christ. They have their struggles. You have your struggles. I have my struggles. This looks like even territory to me. Why the aggression, then?

No aggression here.... But what has been stated is true... but you don't seem to see that. So wake up.

Peace

 

[Tissue]

True according to you. But then, you're not God. I'm not told by Scripture to listen to Gary51 and follow him. I'm told to follow God, and use Scripture as the source. If you were meant to be the tool to properly understand Scripture by, I think God would've said something, or at least included your name in a prophesy.

You think it's true. But the fact that you think something is true is not convincing me. It's not that I need to wake up. It's that you need to be a bit more respectful of other people. We aren't stupid for not agreeing with you. We aren't "asleep". We're different.

Please don't be rude.

 

[BigNorsk]

Thank you Mary for the clarification.

Lutheran theology in this area is somewhat similar ito Catholic if I understand you correctly. We too believe that baptism is a sacrament, and confers grace and is directly associated with regeneration or being born again. Thus, infants can receive this free gift of salvation by virtue of baptism.

However, we would say that this is the 'normative' way in which this occurs. It doesn't mean that God is bound to the norm. We therefore recognize what would be considered 'baptism of desire' in which a person has the desire for baptism yet does not have access to the sacrament. We would also recognize a 'baptism of blood' such a martydom for Christ.

So do Lutherans believe in once-saved, always saved? Or do they believe salvation once achieved can be lost?

Lutherans do not generally hold to the idea of once saved always saved. They hold to the belief that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake alone. If you have faith, you are saved. If later you lose your faith and turn from God and no longer have saving faith, you would not be saved.

Catholic and Lutheran theology on baptism seems to me to be similar in some ways but different in others.

The basic difference is that salvation for Lutherans is like a simple light switch, it is on or off, a yes or a no. Whereas, it seems to me Catholicism treats things as a partially saved by various things. For instance while Catholics would say that sacraments are sources of grace and save us, they generally do not hold that only one sacrament would save, but would require several.

Additionally while a Lutheran would say one's baptism saves him, and he would afterwards live a life of sanctification. A Catholic would more treat baptism as giving the person a spark which enables him to live a life of sanctification to receive salvation at the end.

Lutherans believe baptism is a work of God. I'm not sure if Catholics think it is a work of God or a work of the priest or person doing the baptism or even of the person being baptised.

We do agree that infants rightly receive baptism. The reason might be different though, I'm not sure. The reason for Lutherans is that scripture tells us who to baptise (nations) and gives us examples of households. Both of which in their meaning includes infants. We also see clearly that the old covenant included infants and infants received it's sign. We see no indication that infants are now excluded.

In addition we not only say that salvation is because of Christ alone but actually believe it. Making an age requirement for a person is seen as a violation of the belief of the sufficiency of Christ.

Lutherans also see baptism as a form of gospel. As I understand the Catholic system it is more a law than gospel referring to the sacraments as part of the New Law. One of a set of requirements that one must fulfill in order to receive salvation. But while that seems to be the official teaching, many Catholics I know seem very much to see it as gospel.

Marv

 

[Tyndale]

Lutherans do not generally hold to the idea of once saved always saved. They hold to the belief that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake alone. If you have faith, you are saved. If later you lose your faith and turn from God and no longer have saving faith, you would not be saved.

Interesting Marv, although quite flawed. God's gift isn't given over and over again, that would make his first gift worthless. that belief doesn't support an all-powerful God, it deminishes God's power and gives it to man, Priest.

....while we're at it, do you Lutherans still think your eating Christ's flesh and Blood?

 

[Tissue]

Interesting Marv, although quite flawed. God's gift isn't given over and over again, that would make his first gift worthless. that belief doesn't support an all-powerful God, it deminishes God's power and gives it to man, Priest.

So, once Jesus cleanses you of your sins and makes you absolutely holy, you no longer need Him? After all, if cleansing isn't a continual action, then we really don't need Jesus after that initial act. Amirite?

....while we're at it, do you Lutherans still think your eating Christ's flesh and Blood?

Do you still believe that death gives you life? Do you still believe that blood covers your sins?

 

[narnia59]

Lutherans do not generally hold to the idea of once saved always saved. They hold to the belief that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake alone. If you have faith, you are saved. If later you lose your faith and turn from God and no longer have saving faith, you would not be saved.

Catholic and Lutheran theology on baptism seems to me to be similar in some ways but different in others.

The basic difference is that salvation for Lutherans is like a simple light switch, it is on or off, a yes or a no. Whereas, it seems to me Catholicism treats things as a partially saved by various things. For instance while Catholics would say that sacraments are sources of grace and save us, they generally do not hold that only one sacrament would save, but would require several.

I wouldn't say your view on Catholicism in this is accurate. Baptism saves. However, like you we believe that salvation can be lost. Reconciliation is the sacrament that can restore what was lost. Eucharist, Confirmation, Sacrament of the Sick are sacraments that do not save, but rather help to sanctify and provide the grace that keeps us from falling from the path.

Additionally while a Lutheran would say one's baptism saves him, and he would afterwards live a life of sanctification. A Catholic would more treat baptism as giving the person a spark which enables him to live a life of sanctification to receive salvation at the end.

So do Lutherans then believe they live a holy, sin-free life after baptism? Or do you have a different definition for sanctification?

I would say that Catholics indeed do see Baptism as lighting the flame that enables us to continue to grow in grace to reach sanctification. However, it is not necessary to be totally sanctified for salvation. What we lack, Jesus will make up for.

Lutherans believe baptism is a work of God. I'm not sure if Catholics think it is a work of God or a work of the priest or person doing the baptism or even of the person being baptised.

Catholics would agree that baptism is solely a work of God and has nothing to do with the person doing the baptism at all. In order for the baptism to be valid in the case of an adult, proper intent would certainly have to be present in the person receiving though.

We do agree that infants rightly receive baptism. The reason might be different though, I'm not sure. The reason for Lutherans is that scripture tells us who to baptise (nations) and gives us examples of households. Both of which in their meaning includes infants. We also see clearly that the old covenant included infants and infants received it's sign. We see no indication that infants are now excluded.

In addition we not only say that salvation is because of Christ alone but actually believe it. Making an age requirement for a person is seen as a violation of the belief of the sufficiency of Christ.

We would be in perfect agreement on this.

Lutherans also see baptism as a form of gospel. As I understand the Catholic system it is more a law than gospel referring to the sacraments as part of the New Law. One of a set of requirements that one must fulfill in order to receive salvation. But while that seems to be the official teaching, many Catholics I know seem very much to see it as gospel.

From a Catholic perspective, sacraments are 100% about grace and nothing about law. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that excludes someone from salvation even if they've never received a sacrament. We would believe it would certainly be much more difficult, but not impossible.

Nice chatting with you! I've always been very interested in the Lutheran faith.

 

[TraderJack]

Lourdes is a Holy site and has seen many miracles and convertions to the Lord.

So says Rome.

Jesus warned us of such things:

Matthew 24:24
For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Your walking a dangerous path. Your in danger in commiting the unforgivable sin.

Quite the opposite is the case.

 

[TraderJack]

The pope claims to control a grace bank in which the extra grace of the saints is available to him to give to whomever he may please to give it too.

Strange isn't it that the pope would not in this season of Christmas give grace to the poor and crippled and so on freely through his love? But instead require a pilgramage, one which will result in many people traveling to Rome, flying on his airline, and buying always buying idols and trinkets to worship.

It is much easier to understand if you realize the entire Vatican system is an early Disneyland. With wonders and marvels to see. Huge catheldrals, wonderful pagentry, and so on. Ad on to it that you get forgiveness through the whole indulgence system, set up to fill the coffers with worldly wealth exchanged for supposedly heavenly wealth. Buy a statue, pay for mass, pray a rosary, kiss the pope's ring, take a pilgramage, worship a saint which your purchased on sale at a booth dispensing them by the dozen.

It's the foundation of Rome. The selling of God's grace.

Another fellow thought long ago the blessings of God must be for sale. He was instructed concerning that matter by the apostle Peter. It would be wonderful if the church that claims to have the chair of Peter would listen to his instruction:
Act 8:18-23 Now Simon, when he saw that the Spirit39 was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, offered them money, (19) saying, "Give me this power40 too, so that everyone I place my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit." (20) But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you,41 because you thought you could acquire42 God's gift with money! (21) You have no share or part43 in this matter44 because your heart is not right before God! (22) Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord45 that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart.46(23) For I see that you are bitterly envious47 and in bondage to sin."


Marv

Maybe Rome should change it's name to "Simon Magus", after all, they erected a statue to him and made him a god there.

I don't think it by coincidence that simony has been a longstanding practice in the Roman church.

 

[lionroar0]

Quite the opposite is the case.

No I don't think so. May God forigive you for attributing His work to the deicever.

Peace