How far can one wander from the original Church and still claim to be Christian?

[John_oxios]

To know what our faith as catholics teachs is to immediatly accept it as Doctrine.

I guess it comes down to accepting the CCC and Dogma and Doctrine on the Church Baptism or not. But I would give it a read and seriously think about it.

God Bless, Gary

Hi Gary

I liked the post, however if you don’t understand all our Dogmas or Doctrine, accepting them is the key to understanding… understanding for some comes in time by praying, by listening, by desiring and mostly by all three.

God bless,
John

 

[Barbkw]

There are many who claim the title “Christian”. I am curious as to how far one can depart from the teachings of the original Church before you would consider them not Christian. Where do we draw the line? Does rejection of the Trinity matter? Does rejection of the true presence in the Eucharist matter? How about Jesus as true God and true man?

I would add more specifically, people who call themselves members of Christ and yet verbally, financially or politically support the continued killing of inconvenient human children in the womb.

Or, those Christians who have revisioned Sacred Scripture and now teach that God blesses man on man and female on female sexual acts.

 

[valentino]

i don’t think there is in actuality an original Church.I know what you are saying when making this statement but the fact is that the Church has constently changed through the centuries to get where is was 100 or 60 yrs. ago.When you say one a person must obey the Church’s teachings which are taught at that particular time in church history.We believe some things today which people in the past didn;t believe and vice versa.The Church is a living church so changes come and go.Church dogma doesn’t change nor do scriptures.Even times if these seem to change I don’t believe they do its just that we get to a clearer understanding of the meanings intended.The Church as are individuals are always trying to get a deeper understanding of Jesus and God.As mortals this will never change.We will never understand God or the Church in this world completely.

 

[elvisman]

i don’t think there is in actuality an original Church.I know what you are saying when making this statement but the fact is that the Church has constently changed through the centuries to get where is was 100 or 60 yrs. ago.When you say one a person must obey the Church’s teachings which are taught at that particular time in church history.We believe some things today which people in the past didn;t believe and vice versa.The Church is a living church so changes come and go.Church dogma doesn’t change nor do scriptures.Even times if these seem to change I don’t believe they do its just that we get to a clearer understanding of the meanings intended.The Church as are individuals are always trying to get a deeper understanding of Jesus and God.As mortals this will never change.We will never understand God or the Church in this world completely.

This is not an accurate way of characterizing the Church.

The fact that the Church has grown from the acorn to the oak does not mean that it is not the original Church. You have grown and changed over the years yet you’re still the original person you always were.

There is only one original Church that Jesus built . . .

 

[John_oxios]

Elvisman, thank you for taking the time to answer my post, but no it is still not clear enough for me. My question is on the merits of baptizing infants and my point is that scripture indicates that first one believes and then one is baptized.

Matt. 28:19-20 does tell us to baptize others, but first make them disciples.

Hi,

Actually “one hears the Word, of God” Once he believes he is moved/ led to Baptism

Disciples aren’t born out of Baptism…
Protestant commentary; David Guzik on Matthew 28 19,20

blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=2&contentID=7893&commInfo=31&topic=Matthew&ar=Mat_28_19

b. Go therefore: Because Jesus has this authority, we are therefore commanded to go. It is His authority that sends us, His authority that guides us, and His authority that empowers us.

c. Make disciples of all the nations: The command is to make disciples, not merely converts or supporters of a cause. The idea behind the word disciple is of a scholar, a learner, or a student.

i. The kind of commitment expected from a disciple is expressed in the command to baptize. A person is totally immersed in water, and total commitment is the goal for a disciple.

d. Of all the nations: In His previous ministry, Jesus deliberately restricted His work to the Jewish people (Matthew 15:24) and previously sent His disciples with the same restriction (Matthew 10:6). Only on rare exceptions did Jesus minister among the Gentiles (Matthew 15:21-28). Now all of that is in the past, and the disciples are commissioned to take the gospel to all the nations. There is no place on earth where the gospel of Jesus should not be preached, and were disciples should not be made.

Have you ever been to an infant baptism? Lutheran’s also baptize infants, why not attend one? And see what it’s all about instead of basing your opinion on what others say about it?

Could you state that infants are unbelievers?

Baptism is becoming ‘New Creations’ We call ourselves God’s children and cannot call our own children ‘children of God’?

Baptism is a divine gift received and celebrated in the context of the community of faith.

Eph 4:22 Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts,
Eph 4:23 and be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
Eph 4:24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

CCC #1213
Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life,** the gateway to life in the Spirit** (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.

do you have children?
As far as infants, As two Baptized Catholics parents,who have children, they/we are children of God, still learning, still growing, still striving to be more like Christ We are part of His/ our Fathers house in Heaven… We are one with the Father through and in Jesus Christ through Baptism… Can you honestly refuse this and God’s graces from your/our children?
At Baptism the Parents and two witnesses (God Parents) [even adults have a sponsor(s) stand up with them] promise to raise and teach the infant the ways of Christ and His Church.

I’m trying to get the actual liturgy from an infant Baptism, it may clear up why and how we do it.

God bless,
John

 

[SteveVH]

i don’t think there is in actuality an original Church.I know what you are saying when making this statement but the fact is that the Church has constently changed through the centuries to get where is was 100 or 60 yrs. ago.When you say one a person must obey the Church’s teachings which are taught at that particular time in church history.We believe some things today which people in the past didn;t believe and vice versa.The Church is a living church so changes come and go.Church dogma doesn’t change nor do scriptures.Even times if these seem to change I don’t believe they do its just that we get to a clearer understanding of the meanings intended.The Church as are individuals are always trying to get a deeper understanding of Jesus and God.As mortals this will never change.We will never understand God or the Church in this world completely.

You seem to be saying two different things here. On one hand you say the Church changes over time and therefore there can be no original Church. On the other hand you say that the dogmas do not change and neither does scripture. So what is it?

The fact that the Church, as a living entity, arrives at deeper meaning over the years does not mean that it has changed. Disciplines, yes, doctrines and beliefs, no. Elvisman has answered more than adequetely and I agree with his comments 100%.

 

[SteveVH]

I would add more specifically, people who call themselves members of Christ and yet verbally, financially or politically support the continued killing of inconvenient human children in the womb.

Or, those Christians who have revisioned Sacred Scripture and now teach that God blesses man on man and female on female sexual acts.

These are great points and very often slide under the radar because these folks claim a religious affiliation that does not, for the most part, claim abortion or same sex unions as permissible. Witness the turmoil that the Episcopalian Church is undergoing as we speak. In practice, however, they do believe this and I would say these individuals will have to answer to God someday.

But your point is well taken and I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[valentino]

This is not an accurate way of characterizing the Church.

The fact that the Church has grown from the acorn to the oak does not mean that it is not the original Church. You have grown and changed over the years yet you’re still the original person you always were.

There is only one original Church that Jesus built . . .

Although I agree their is still just one true CC changes have been made down through the centuries.you don;t believe the TLM is the same as it was when the Church started saying masses do you.The sacrifice is still there but the procedures as to readings and genuflections and singing and many other things have developed over time.Don’t you agree.?

 

[John_oxios]

You seem to be saying two different things here. On one hand you say the Church changes over time and therefore there can be no original Church. On the other hand you say that the dogmas do not change and neither does scripture. So what is it?

The fact that the Church, as a living entity, arrives at deeper meaning over the years does not mean that it has changed. Disciplines, yes, doctrines and beliefs, no. Elvisman has answered more than adequetely and I agree with his comments 100%.

Catholicism is not a religion of the Book, It grows, the Hebrews claim there hasn’t been any revelation of God since approx 350 to 250 b.c… The Church Being ‘new’ Gentile and Jew, Jesus and The Cross, and his revelation of God, left us with lots questions, which the Holy Spirit answers in God’s time. We’re not stuck in the past and still have a future, we’re still growing…i.e Children of the Father, the Catholic Church can trace its bishops all the way to the Apostles.
custom and tradition (Small t)can Change, It doesn’t Change the Mission of Christ Church nor the Gospels, nor the Mass.

God bless,
John

 

[elvisman]

Although I agree their is still just one true CC changes have been made down through the centuries.you don;t believe the TLM is the same as it was when the Church started saying masses do you.The sacrifice is still there but the procedures as to readings and genuflections and singing and many other things have developed over time.Don’t you agree.?

As I stated before - the Church has grown from the acorn to the oak. It has adopted different forms of liturgy and customs but it is the very same Church.

**I even compared the growth of the Church to yourself. You have grown and changed over the years but you are STILL the same original person you were in the womb when God molded you.

As for the TLM being the original mass - who told you that? That is a falsehood. The early Church spoke Aramaic and Greek not Latin.
**You characterization of the Church is inaccurate because you are claiming that she is not the same Church established by Christ - snd she IS. **

The Church may be older and wiser 2000 years later but it is the SAME Church that Jesus built.

 

[Stillchecking]

Elvis man asks of me:
**YOU ought to address the points that prove you wrong - like my response in post #126 instead of brushing them off.
It’s okay to have an opinion about something but look at the facts before giving up and falsely claiming victory **. . .

Elvisman, I don’t mean to brush anything off, as you know it takes time to post a caring thoughtful and hopefully accurate response…and I am definitely guilty of not always doing that. But I am certainly not giving up or falsley claiming victory. One’s salvation is too important.

In your post of #126 you state:
That’s funny. I’ve heard several Protestant interpretations of John 3 and they usually mean EVERYTHING but baptism. There is even one silly interpretation that Jesus is speaking of the amniotic fluid that surrounds the unborn child in the womb.

I’ve never heard a Protestant preacher state that John 3 has nothing to do with baptism. Though I’m not Catholic or Protestant, I would advise anyone who says they believe in Jesus to obey and go and be baptized as instructed. But I wouldn’t tell them their salvation depends on it because it doesn’t. Someone on this thread mentioned that there are 70+ references to baptism. The overriding and overwhelming message throughout all these references is that baptism is for believers in Jesus Christ. That salvation is simple (not easy, but simple) Romans 10:9 & 10. If though will confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Plain and simple, there is no baptism in that passage.
Romans 10:3 Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. Revelation 3:20a "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him. There’s 3 verses of salvation with no baptism. I can cite you dozens more passages on this simple gospel message. And no where is baptism mentioned in the bible that even remotely resembles what the catholic church teaches and practices with infants. Telling people that there is salvation in baby baptism is a lie at best and a possible damnation to those that accept that lie.

In John 3:5 does “water” mean baptism or the word? I don’t know. So much of the word is anologous to water that washes. The best thing I can do to keep from sin is a daily reading of the bible. Those words help wash me and they renew me. **Eph 5 25-27 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word. ** An because I always like to use at least 2 verses to make a point John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

Acts 10:2. We don’t know if it’s inclusive. I have 4 kids, the youngest is 19. There was a time when all were living at home and there were no babies in my home. I brought them up in a small independent bible church. I suppose there are 10s of thousands of such churches across the country with the one most important thing in common is that they stand on the bible, the bible alone. It was my youngest child, when she was about 10, received and accepted Jesus as her savior. With zero pressure from me or my wife, with zero peer pressure, she asked for and was baptized.

Infants and young children can not understand the word. It’s just my belief, but I do think when a baby dies he or she goes to heaven…baptized or not.

Romans 3:12. I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you questioning the validity of this scripture?

As for Acts 2:39… well again, you have to go back and you will see in verse 38 Peter says “repent and be baptized” A young child or infant can’t repent! Only someone who knows they are a sinner can repent. Only a person who knows they are a sinner can understand their need for a savior. As for verse 39, I agree, this same promise is made to us and our children and grandchildren.

As for Acts 16 and 1 Cor, I would say this: When my daughter got baptized, she was telling the world that she believes in Jesus Christ as her savior. If she were to die before me, I can tell you that by her baptism she is in heaven. In heaven, not because she was baptized, but because she believed. So many of these passages on baptism is spoken amongst the believers and yes by their baptism we can know they are in heaven.

As for the Hitler comment I was only rebutting the statement that baptism saves. If it’s the catholic church position that you can lose your salvation, then I would tell you that is wrong. A born again Christian can not lose his or her salvation. Once you accept your separation from God because of your sin, once you accept Jesus’ death on the cross for your redemption, and understand that on your own you are hopeless, you can not lose your salvation. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that what Jesus did was insufficient, that somehow he needs your help, that you need to add works, but our works can not save us. Jesus paid it all.

 

[John_oxios]

Though I’m not Catholic or Protestant, I would advise anyone who says they believe in Jesus to obey and go and be baptized as instructed.
But I wouldn’t tell them their salvation depends on it because it doesn’t. Someone on this thread mentioned that there are 70+ references to baptism.
.

Hi stillcheck,

So let’s look at it this way, I’m guessing your baptized, your children are baptized… and you argue against baptism as necessary for Salvation? We are responsible for every word we utter, so say Baptism does save us… and someone hears you speak against baptism, and refuses baptism… dies would you want to be responsible for his soul? on the other hand it doesn’t hurt to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (does it?) yet you argue against it as necessary even though Jesus told His Church to go out and Baptize all nations"

Stillcheck, Infants and young children can not understand the word. It’s just my belief, but I do think when a baby dies he or she goes to heaven…baptized or not

.
Well where’s the hope in that?? In fact that’s cold! It’s not even simple.

Remember we can be saved by the faith of our parents, baptism brings us that much closer.

what has a baby done? its innocent exception sin of of Adam passed down, why not have that rinsed away?

1 Cor 15:22 “For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,”

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die.

when David’s infant child dies on the seventh day of its life, at the decree of God, Even David aware:

2Sa 12:23 “.`… Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

If you listen and obedient to God’s Word than you don’t argue against his teachings or command.

Baptism now saves you! It’s in the scriptures, Why is John the Greatest man ever born to a woman? Because he was a Herald of the Messiah, and he Baptized to make way for Christ.

God bless,
JOhn

 

[valentino]

You seem to be saying two different things here. On one hand you say the Church changes over time and therefore there can be no original Church. On the other hand you say that the dogmas do not change and neither does scripture. So what is it?

The fact that the Church, as a living entity, arrives at deeper meaning over the years does not mean that it has changed. Disciplines, yes, doctrines and beliefs, no. Elvisman has answered more than adequetely and I agree with his comments 100%.

And I agree with you 100%.You two are just more articulate than me.

 

[valentino]

As I stated before - the Church has grown from the acorn to the oak. It has adopted different forms of liturgy and customs but it is the very same Church.

I even compared the growth of the Church to yourself. You have grown and changed over the years but you are STILL the same *original *person you were in the womb when God molded you.

As for the TLM being the original mass - who told you that? That is a falsehood. The early Church spoke Aramaic and Greek not Latin.
You characterization of the Church is inaccurate because you are claiming that she is not the same Church established by Christ - snd she IS.

The Church may be older and wiser 2000 years later but it is the SAME Church that Jesus built.

I thank you for your answers.Actually I claimed that the Church’s extemporaries(yes,customs will do)have changed.I know that the mass wasn’t like our TLM and I know the didn’t speak Latin at the very start.I’m sorry i can’t articulate as welll as you but I didn’t mean that the one true Catholic Church is not the same at when Jesus founded it as it is today.If its here on earth another 1000yrs.it will still be the 1 true catholic C.no matter what form the Mass might take.

 

[elvisman]

As for the Hitler comment I was only rebutting the statement that baptism saves. If it’s the catholic church position that you can lose your salvation, then I would tell you that is wrong. A born again Christian can not lose his or her salvation. Once you accept your separation from God because of your sin, once you accept Jesus’ death on the cross for your redemption, and understand that on your own you are hopeless, you can not lose your salvation. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that what Jesus did was insufficient, that somehow he needs your help, that you need to add works, but our works can not save us. Jesus paid it all.

**Baptism DOES save – but that salvation can be lost, as was presumably the case with Hitler. **Your denial that salvation cannot be lost flies in the face of Scripture:

---

Rom.11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”
Paul is warning the faithful to REMAIN in God’s favor or they will lose their salvation. How can they lose what they never had?

---

Heb. 10:26-27****
“If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss of our salvation.

---

2 Pet. 2:20-22****
**For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. **
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.
Here, Peter illustrates that those who had a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei) of Christ can fall back into darkness and lose their salvation by their own doing.

---

1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
Paul is saying that he wrestles with his own fleshly desires so that he might not fall back into sin.

---

Matt. 24:13
****"He who endures to the end will be saved"
Jesus is telling us that we will only be saved if we remain faithful.

---

Luke 12:46
**The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. **
Those who do not remain in him will be treated as if they were an unbeliever.

 

[elvisman]

continued . . .

As for the Hitler comment I was only rebutting the statement that baptism saves. If it’s the catholic church position that you can lose your salvation, then I would tell you that is wrong. A born again Christian can not lose his or her salvation. Once you accept your separation from God because of your sin, once you accept Jesus’ death on the cross for your redemption, and understand that on your own you are hopeless, you can not lose your salvation.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest that what Jesus did was insufficient, that somehow he needs your help, that you need to add works, but our works can not save us. Jesus paid it all.
1 Tim. 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
This is a clear warning that people can and WILL abandon their faith by their own will.

Heb. 3:12-14
**See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. **
Here, the writer is talking to “brothers” in Christ and is warning them not to turn away from God because of a hardened heart. He tells them to hold firmly to what they HAD.

2 Pet. 3:17
**Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. **
Peter is warning the faithful not to fall back into sin and lawlessness.

Rev. 3:5
**He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels. **
God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place.

Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
How can God take away somebody’s share of heaven if they never had it to begin with?

 

[elvisman]

I’ve never heard a Protestant preacher state that John 3 has nothing to do with baptism. Though I’m not Catholic or Protestant, I would advise anyone who says they believe in Jesus to obey and go and be baptized as instructed. But I wouldn’t tell them their salvation depends on it because it doesn’t. The overriding and overwhelming message throughout all these references is that baptism is for believers in Jesus Christ. That salvation is simple (not easy, but simple) Romans 10:9 & 10. If though will confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Plain and simple, there is no baptism in that passage.

And no where is baptism mentioned in the bible that even remotely resembles what the catholic church teaches and practices with infants. Telling people that there is salvation in baby baptism is a lie at best and a possible damnation to those that accept that lie.

In John 3:5 does “water” mean baptism or the word? I don’t know. So much of the word is anologous to water that washes. The best thing I can do to keep from sin is a daily reading of the bible. Those words help wash me and they renew me. Eph 5 25-27 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word. An because I always like to use at least 2 verses to make a point John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

Acts 10:2. We don’t know if it’s inclusive. I have 4 kids, the youngest is 19. There was a time when all were living at home and there were no babies in my home. I brought them up in a small independent bible church. I suppose there are 10s of thousands of such churches across the country with the one most important thing in common is that they stand on the bible, the bible alone. It was my youngest child, when she was about 10, received and accepted Jesus as her savior. With zero pressure from me or my wife, with zero peer pressure, she asked for and was baptized.

Infants and young children can not understand the word. It’s just my belief, but I do think when a baby dies he or she goes to heaven…baptized or not.

Romans 3:12. I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you questioning the validity of this scripture?

As for Acts 2:39… well again, you have to go back and you will see in verse 38 Peter says “repent and be baptized” A young child or infant can’t repent! Only someone who knows they are a sinner can repent. Only a person who knows they are a sinner can understand their need for a savior. As for verse 39, I agree, this same promise is made to us and our children and grandchildren.

As for Acts 16 and 1 Cor, I would say this: When my daughter got baptized, she was telling the world that she believes in Jesus Christ as her savior. If she were to die before me, I can tell you that by her baptism she is in heaven. In heaven, not because she was baptized, but because she believed. So many of these passages on baptism is spoken amongst the believers and yes by their baptism we can know they are in heaven.

Baptism is for believers AND their children (Acts 2:39).

In the Old Covenant, Circumcision was required of ALL males as a statement of faith. Tell me something – did they 8-day-old boys do this based on their own faith? I think you know that the answer is “NO”. Just as their parents baptized them and raised them in the faith – the Christian parent is to do the same.

This is why the Early Church did EXACTLY that. The Early Church Fathers unanimously agreed on infant baptism. As a matter of fact – the only thing they disagreed about was whether or not to wait a few days after they were born. They called it the “Tradition of the Apostles”:

Irenaeus
**He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. **
(Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
No one can attain salvation without baptism***, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism* 12:1 A.D. 203]).**

 

[elvisman]

continued . . .

---

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children***, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so.****** Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them***** (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).**

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants***.***
Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, “Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents” or “by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,” but, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 A.D. 408]).

 

[elvisman]

Romans 10:3 Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. Revelation 3:20a "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him. There’s 3 verses of salvation with no baptism. I can cite you dozens more passages on this simple gospel message.

Why do you throw out ALL of the verses in Scripture that tell us what is required of us to be saved?
**Beleive – **YES!
**Open the Door – **YES!
**Call on the name of the Lord – YES!
(I warn you though, that Jesus ALSO said “NOT everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who DOES the will of my Father in heaven.”

---

**First of all - you have fallen into the Calvinist trap that claims we can never fall away from God. As I have shown, the Bible says differently.
You say that we are NOT saved by Baptism. I have shown, the Bible says differently. **

---

**Finally, you say that all we have to do is believe and call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. **MUCH more than “calling on the Lord” or “believing” is required of us in order to attain salvation. In context, the Bible illustrates the requirements:

---

- Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)
- Picking up our cross daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)
- Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)
- Obeying his commandments (John 15:10)
- Doing the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21)
- Dying and being buried with him through Baptism (Rom. 6:1-11)
- We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2)

---

Jesus never said it would be easy to follow him. In fact, as I have shown – he said it would be extremely difficult.

 

[John_oxios]

Again, my point is that baptism does not save us: I defended accurately the verses thrown out there. .

some old notes:

When God parted the red sea, and the Hebrews passed through it, that was a form of baptism, They didn’t get wet, however they went down into the river and came up on the other side. 
That is exactly how John, had baptized, they came in from one side and came out on the other. They had to pass through the waters to reach the promised land. That is why he is a type of Elijah. 
Remember the O.T. prefigures the N.T. 
Egyptians, hittites and Hebrews used waters of purification rituals, (lev 13:8-9).

From ‘Dictionary of Biblical Imagery,’ Leland Ryken, pg 72-3.

Jewish background 
John’s Baptizing in the Jordan and his ministry in the widerness evoke the Exodus- conquest tradition of Israels beginnings as it is seen through the Elijah tradition. John calls Israel back to the wilderness and the Jordan. 

Israel is being prepared for restoration and reconstitution, their repentance being signified by a renewed encounter with the waters crossed by their ancestors. ( the problem for this perspective is that israel originally crossed on dry ground, However, note in Josh 3:15, and 4:18, that the Jordan was at floodstage at the time.) 

 But Josephus tells us that at least one other Jewish prophetic figure, Theudas, thought that the way to signify a moment of deliverance was to take his followers out if the wilderness for an re-enactment of the Jordan crossing and the conquest of the land. 
Elijah parts the waters, and Elisha has the Gentile Naaman wash in the Jordan for his healing. 
 The question put to John the baptist, 
Jhn 1:24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 
Jhn 1:25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?"** 
implies that the religious leaders of the day took seriously the symbolism of the Jordan/ wilderness**, which hearkened back to Elijah and symbolized cataclysmic change 

Images associated with Christian baptism; 

an initiation event. When Jesus commanded disciples to baptize subsequent disciples, he was not just alluding to regular washings from frequent impurities. Jesus like John, was using baptism to signify what once-for-all baptisms normally signified to his Jewish hearers: an act of conversion, A public way of breaking with one’s past life and beginning a new one. baptism was to conversion something like what the engagement ring is to many engaged couples in modern western society: the official public declaration of the commitment. Because this was a specific kind of conversion - not a conversion to any form of Jewish faith but specifically Faith in Christ. 

 Inner transformation and empowerment 

In the case of Spirit baptism the image of an act symbolizing conversion has taken one step further as a declaration of inner transformation and empowerment by the Holy Spirit. 
Because baptism was such a powerful image among John’s and Jesus’ first followers, John the baptist and Jesus could use this image when they recalled earlier prophets’ promises of the Spirit’s coming. 
 Mar 1:8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." 
Act 1:5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." 
Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 

The prophets had already described the Spirit in terms of water in their promises concerning the last days. and Jesus takes up this image - in this case not one of immersion by stepping into water but rather water being poured onto people: