An exclusively Catholic doctrine on justification? Not on TOL

[oatmeal]

Uh . . only Creator God possesses resurrection powers. To believe in God is to believe He raises sinners from death to life, and to believe in rescue from death to life, is to believe in God.

You are narrowing faith to an action of God, while denying faith in the Person of God who does the resurrecting.

Kinda unnecessary parameters, limiting the description of saving faith, I say . . .

And your disgusting and obscene belly avatar, further reduces your attempts to define the holy and Christian faith, IMO.

What do you mean by resurrection powers?

How is resurrecting different from raising someone from the dead?

Thanks ahead of time for defining your terms.

 

[musterion]

Most [ALMOST ALL] new believers are taught that water baptism is necessary for Salvation

Exactly, which is why the OP is true.

but in God's eyes the only baptism that is necessary is the baptism OF the Holy Spirit.

No, baptism BY the Holy Spirit INTO the Body of Christ is what saves.

 

[musterion]

Don't let the Reformed fool you with their blather about salvation by grace through faith alone without works. They may say they believe it but in practice they don't. The Reformed believe that their version of water baptism has replaced circumcision and so is necessary for becoming right with God.

 

[Nang]

Don't let the Reformed fool you with their blather about salvation by grace through faith alone without works. They may say they believe it but in practice they don't. The Reformed believe that their version of water baptism has replaced circumcision and so is necessary for becoming right with God.

You don't know what you are posting about. Reformers do not believe water baptism is salvific at all.

 

[Nick M]

Terminology varies but this is the essence of what many non-Catholics here believe...that one cannot be justified by God without works (usually camouflaged by calling it obedience) because justification is not an act of God alone based on the work of Christ alone, but a PROCESS in which a person must cooperate with Christ by works, or at least "bear the fruit" of participating (which still amounts to works), or be lost.

That is faith plus works. As told in the red letters. Don't be too harsh. Just let them know they have been set free.

 

[Nang]

That is faith plus works. As told in the red letters. Don't be too harsh. Just let them know they have been set free.

Reformers are monergistic. Musty describes erroneous synergistic human works supposedly necessary to achieve justification with God. :nono:

Justification was worked by the Incarnate Christ, alone.

The only place I have heard the teachings Musty is accusing Reformers as holding, is in Dispensational churches. THEY are the ones who propose water baptism has replaced circumcision. That is a DISPIE error.

 

[musterion]

They don't want to believe that they've been freed. They believe that claiming you are free is evil.

 

[musterion]

Reformers are monergistic. Musty describes erroneous synergistic human works supposedly necessary to achieve justification with God. :nono:

Can a new believer reject water baptism and get to Heaven?

The only place I have heard the teachings Musty is accusing Reformers as holding, is in Dispensational churches. THEY are the ones who propose water baptism has replaced circumcision. That is a DISPIE error.

You lie because you are too well read not to know better.

The main reason that this great Reformed tradition endorses the baptism of infants of believers is that there appears to be in the New Testament a correspondence between circumcision and baptism. Just as circumcision was given as a sign to the "children of the covenant" in the Old Testament, so baptism—the new sign of the covenant—should be given to the "children of the covenant" today.

-- John Piper, Calvinist, not a dispie

Today’s passage links baptism and circumcision, showing us that new covenant baptism is a proximate fulfillment of the sign of circumcision . . . Baptism confirms that those who have trusted in Christ alone are cleansed of sin and set apart for life eternal.

-- R.C. Sproul, Calvinist, not a dispie

Mr/Mrs. Nang really hates me right now.

 

[Nang]

Can a new believer reject water baptism and get to Heaven?

Sure. The new believer gains access to heaven through the resurrected Christ. Only.

You lie because you are too well read not to know better.

I do not lie. The DISPIES (and the RCC) teach that baptism is a required work.

The teaching of the Reformer is that baptism is a blessed sacrament. A provision of grace from God.

Big difference.

[FONT=&]-- [/FONT]John Piper, Calvinist, not a dispie[FONT=&]

[/FONT]
-- R.C. Sproul, Calvinist, not a dispie

Mr/Mrs. Nang really hates me right now.

I don't hate you. I just do not like when you misrepresent my beliefs and accuse me of wrong thinking.

I am no fan of Piper and disagree with Sproul about baptism being a "fulfillment" of the sign of circumcision.

Baptism was ordained by Jesus Christ as a witness to the believer being spiritually ingrafted into Christ and His visible church body, under His Covenant of Grace.

It is not a requirement, nor is it a "work unto righteousness," nor is it a "proximate fulfillment" (whatever that means!) of the sign of circumcision.

 

[Epoisses]

Don't let the Reformed fool you with their blather about salvation by grace through faith alone without works. They may say they believe it but in practice they don't. The Reformed believe that their version of water baptism has replaced circumcision and so is necessary for becoming right with God.

says the tard who trusts in his works of merit.

Save me works of my hands, save me!

 

[Epoisses]

No, baptism BY the Holy Spirit INTO the Body of Christ is what saves.

The body of dispensational rejects is not the body of Christ.

 

[musterion]

Sure. The new believer gains access to heaven through the resurrected Christ. Only.

So it isn't required.

Baptism was ordained by Jesus Christ as a witness to the believer being spiritually ingrafted into Christ and His visible church body, under His Covenant of Grace.

So it's an ordinance from the Lord, which makes it a requirement.

It is not a requirement

Ordinance = required.

Do you enjoy talking out of all sides of your mouth at one time? The perversity of it is amazing to watch.

 

[Nihilo]

Uh . . only Creator God possesses resurrection powers.

What censored is quote-unquote creator god, and please provide bible verse for "resurrection powers," as I'm unfamiliar with both terms. Is this from "Star Treks?"

To believe in God is to believe He raises sinners from death to life, and to believe in rescue from death to life, is to believe in God.

You're a moron. There are probably hundreds of millions of real human beings who right now, today, quote-unquote believe in quote-unquote God, and who do not believe that the Lord Jesus is risen from the dead. There may be billions. Wait a minute, there definitely are billions. Of people, who "believe in "God"" and not the RESURRECTION.

You are narrowing faith to an action of God, while denying faith in the Person of God who does the resurrecting.

Kinda unnecessary parameters, limiting the description of saving faith, I say . . .

The public display of your intellectual deficit is now completed. Pay attention: Watch how easy this is.

if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

You are narrowing faith to an action of God, while denying faith in the Person of God who does the resurrecting.

Kinda unnecessary parameters, limiting the description of saving faith, I say . . .

Complete idiot.

And your disgusting and obscene belly avatar, further reduces your attempts to define the holy and Christian faith, IMO.

At least I have an excuse.

 

[Lon]

Can a new believer reject water baptism and get to Heaven?



You lie because you are too well read not to know better.


-- John Piper, Calvinist, not a dispie

:nono: He's dispensational.

-- R.C. Sproul, Calvinist, not a dispie

Mr/Mrs. Nang really hates me right now.

Agree, but he doesn't believe in baptism for salvation, nor obedience 'for salvation' either.


Any talk of obedience, is about a bit complicated but not 'for' salvation. Well, perhaps it isn't that complicated, but it can be when we don't see things quite the same way.

Briefly, the Reformed believe that a new creation will new-naturally follow Christ Ephesians 2:10 Philippians 2:13 2 Corinthians 5:17
As I understand MAD, the belief is the same. I'm not really familiar enough with MAD to make blanketed statements, but I think across board, MADists believe we must be new creations which does, in fact, mean obedience because a new nature 'follows' the Spirit. To me, rather, it seems that 'obedience' is seen as a separate thing "I" do, especially from cults. Reformed people very much believe
obedience is something God does in and through us. Philippians 2:13. I agree with you there are misplaced sermons about obedience out there in Reformed circles and one would wonder why, given that we are complete monergists. In a sense, MADists would at least become complete monergists after salvation is initiated. That, to me, is an important point in this discussion as well. A complete reliance upon the work of Christ alone IS monergism (nothing to do with us), and several theology camps claiming monergism in this sense as well as ascribing synergism to the other.
Some in MAD, may presume upon grace without understanding themselves as new creations, perhaps, at least by speculation: If one comes to God but is not a new creation, they may be MAD (again theoretically) but not a new creation. Only God can make Christians, we can't save ourselves. A trust in God without becoming a new creation, isn't 'saved' by itself. A lot of anti-Christians/unbelievers will say they believed, it didn't make them Christians and they are offended when I call them on this. ONLY God can make a Christian. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says so.

The Body of Christ, across most every theology platform, is made up ONLY of new creations, wherever they may be found and they will have a new nature of obedience. Galatians 5:16

 

[Lon]

So it's an ordinance from the Lord, which makes it a requirement.

Ordinance = required.

Do you enjoy talking out of all sides of your mouth at one time? The perversity of it is amazing to watch.

Baptism is the way the rest of the church understands following God in His scriptures. I realize we may have gotten this part wrong, according to MAD. Here is a question: In Galatians, were the Judaizers unsaved? Or just Judaized?

Perhaps I can make this clearer: Does trust in God alone necessitate that I will not get caught up in works/obedience? For instance, in MAD churches, do some members just not get this right away? that obedience is monergism instead of synergism? What I'm driving at, is do you tell someone in a MAD church, that they need to get saved or that they need to come to a better understanding of God's grace?

My intention here is to ask if Baptists are in the Body of Christ according to MAD: Are we brothers in error or is this doctrine so important that it might actually point to one not being a believer in your minds? (Probably good for another thread: "MADists, Am I, a NonMAD, saved??")
I've asked that in other threads, but perhaps an actually thread specifically on that, would spur more of this kind of dialogue (hopefully meaningful).

In Him -Lon

 

[Zeke]

What censored is quote-unquote creator god, and please provide bible verse for "resurrection powers," as I'm unfamiliar with both terms. Is this from "Star Treks?"
You're a moron. There are probably hundreds of millions of real human beings who right now, today, quote-unquote believe in quote-unquote God, and who do not believe that the Lord Jesus is risen from the dead. There may be billions. Wait a minute, there definitely are billions. Of people, who "believe in "God"" and not the RESURRECTION.
The public display of your intellectual deficit is now completed. Pay attention: Watch how easy this is.

​

Complete idiot.
At least I have an excuse.

Can you do the whistling belly button trick? TOL is just like this movie.

 

[Nang]

So it isn't required.



So it's an ordinance from the Lord, which makes it a requirement.

God ordains (decrees and orders) all things. His decrees establish all events. Not all events prove to be requirements unto salvation, right?

What I find odd, is you (as a MADist) do not believe in or practice baptism, and yet you present argument claiming Christ ordained baptism, and you conclude it is therefore an ordinance and requirement that others of different faiths, must so believe, practice, and defend.

While you do not . . .

Can you explain yourself?

 

[musterion]

:nono: He's dispensational.

No sir, not really.

John Piper’s position

John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.

Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.

In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.

Lest anyone think some dispie made that up...

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles...m-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology

 

[musterion]

Baptism is the way the rest of the church understands following God in His scriptures. I realize we may have gotten this part wrong, according to MAD. Here is a question: In Galatians, were the Judaizers unsaved? Or just Judaized?

Perhaps I can make this clearer: Does trust in God alone necessitate that I will not get caught up in works/obedience? For instance, in MAD churches, do some members just not get this right away? that obedience is monergism instead of synergism? What I'm driving at, is do you tell someone in a MAD church, that they need to get saved or that they need to come to a better understanding of God's grace?

My intention here is to ask if Baptists are in the Body of Christ according to MAD: Are we brothers in error or is this doctrine so important that it might actually point to one not being a believer in your minds? (Probably good for another thread: "MADists, Am I, a NonMAD, saved??")
I've asked that in other threads, but perhaps an actually thread specifically on that, would spur more of this kind of dialogue (hopefully meaningful).

In Him -Lon

Water baptism was Israel's. Not yours.

 

[Lon]

No sir, not really.



Lest anyone think some dispie made that up...

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles...m-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology

Sorry, I read "MacArthur." My eyesight isn't what it used to be.