I think the Catholic Church teaches that all those baptized in the name of the Trinity are Christian.I understand why orthodox are Christians because they have valid sacraments
I understand why lds and jw’s are not Christians based on their understanding of who Jesus is.
But what is the line is it the trinity what is the line with calling a group Christians
I do have some sympathy with that position, and there are indeed people who have been baptised who do not appear to follow Christ, and in some cases actively reject him.My belief is that when someone surrenders their life to Christ and place their faith and trust in Him, they are a Christian. Becoming a Christian is done through repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, being justified by grace through faith, man becomes an heir of God, according to the hope of eternal life.
That is how we are Christians in my belief.
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit Tit. 3:5,I do have some sympathy with that position, and there are indeed people who have been baptised who do not appear to follow Christ, and in some cases actively reject him.
Yet Christ told us to baptise others into the Church in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so that would also be a pre-requisite (there is of course also baptism by desire).
Baptism is not a type of individual Pentecost. That was a completely seperate event and could be equated to what you are talking about, but that is very different from baptism.
The bottom line is that Jesus said that we ought to be baptised into his Church, so it is necessary.
That’s weird the Church has always held that baptism in water is necessary and if you have ever studied how it was done (particularly post VATII) it was in reality a mini exorcism. With the basic collapse of mainline Protestantism and a rise in evangelical communities who reject not only Catholicism but mainline Protestantism baptism is becoming less and less a standard. So both biblically and historically baptism is a required salvific act…not baptizing is a modern novelty.Baptism is not a charm or a magic spell. The Apostle Paul writes, referring to the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision:
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
- Rom. 2:28-29
The same is true of baptism. There are many baptized outwardly and properly, with water, and in the name of the Trinity, who nevertheless have uncircumcised hearts - because they have no true saving faith in Christ. The Jews were commanded by God to circumcise their hearts (Deut. 10:16) but they proved themselves utterly unable to do so. Part of God’s wonderful New Covenant promise is that he will intervene to circumcise his people’s hearts (Deut. 30:6).
Our church, lamentably, sees many babies brought to the font, baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and yet, as evidenced by their subsequent lives of unbelief and sin, their hearts remain uncircumcised: they remain unregenerate, and the children of wrath.
We do not reject Catholic or a mainline Protestant’s baptism. That comment is simply false. Maybe a certain Pastor make take issue but not Evangelical as a whole.That’s weird the Church has always held that baptism in water is necessary and if you have ever studied how it was done (particularly post VATII) it was in reality a mini exorcism. With the basic collapse of mainline Protestantism and a rise in evangelical communities who reject not only Catholicism but mainline Protestantism baptism is becoming less and less a standard. So both biblically and historically baptism is a required salvific act…not baptizing is a modern novelty.
I’m not quite sure what you mean to say here. Does what you say have any relation to my post, which you quoted?That’s weird the Church has always held that baptism in water is necessary and if you have ever studied how it was done (particularly post VATII) it was in reality a mini exorcism. With the basic collapse of mainline Protestantism and a rise in evangelical communities who reject not only Catholicism but mainline Protestantism baptism is becoming less and less a standard. So both biblically and historically baptism is a required salvific act…not baptizing is a modern novelty.
there is no evangelical as a “whole” do many differences to say that.We do not reject Catholic or a mainline Protestant’s baptism. That comment is simply false. Maybe a certain Pastor make take issue but not Evangelical as a whole.
We completely deny that it saves you but do not deny that the baptism is valid. We believe in believer’s baptism and not infant but that does not void the baptism.there is no evangelical as a “whole” do many differences to say that.
Well you basically said it holds no special chrism or something of that sort. If renouncing Satan and being brought into the body of Christ while washing away original sin isn’t something special I don’t know what is? Its simply what Christians have always done. If you were not baptized in water and receiving the Eucharist in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd… century you were not Christian.I’m not quite sure what you mean to say here. Does what you say have any relation to my post, which you quoted?