The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Francisco
Jerry,

One time I stooped to your level, when you continuously said 'Catholics believe' something that was not correct. I said something about you not really living in Mexico, just to show you what it was like for someone to make a false statement about you. You went balistic. I felt like an idiot for stooping to your tactics and apologized 3 times. You never even aknowledged my apologies. But just by the fact that I did apologize and explained what I was trying to do, you should know, as I hope everyone at TOL does, that I don't lie and deceive. I don't change words, delete words, manipulate information, or use any other deceptive tactic. I don't need to because the truth has an HONEST answer for everything.

Francisco,

Your own words above demonstrate just what kind of a person you are.You made up a lie about me when you could not defend the ridiculous ideas of the church at Rome.You just flat out made up a lie!

And now you are doing it again.I NEVER made up any lies,but you say that I did.You said that I made up false statements about the teaching of the church at Rome.If I did,you could have refuted them.But since you could NOT,you attacked the "messenger" by making up lies!!!

Now you say that you have "an HONEST answer for everything."

Well,we know by your own words that you ave not always had an HONEST answer for everything,and you continue to make false charges against me.

You say that you "feel like an IDIOT for stooping" to my tactics,but I never used the contemptible tactic of lying about you.

The only thing that you have proven since you have come on TOL is the fact that you will use any tactic,no matter how despicable,in order to defend the teaching of the church at Rome.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Francisco]

My Dear Brother Jerry,

Francisco,

Your own words above demonstrate just what kind of a person you are.You made up a lie about me when you could not defend the ridiculous ideas of the church at Rome.You just flat out made up a lie!

About a year ago now, I did attempt to show you how the Catholics felt about your insistance that we did something, or believed in something, that we did not do or bellieve in. I've tried to find the post so I could remember exactly what it was but can't locate it. You continuously insisted that this falsehood about Catholics was truth.

I stooped to the same tactic in an effort to show you how your insistance upon that falsehood made us feel. The falsehood I created was 'Jerry doesn't really live in Mexico'. I insisted on it several times, so you could understand how your insistance on a falsehood about Catholics made us feel.

As I said above, and a year ago, I felt bad about stooping to the tactics you were using. I apologized not once, but three times. Your reaction was to ask the moderators to ban me. And to this day you have not accepted those apologies.

Here and now, I again offer you an apology for that incident. Please accept this apology Jerry, I shouldn't have done that to you, regardless of the intention and purpose.

And now you are doing it again.I NEVER made up any lies,but you say that I did.You said that I made up false statements about the teaching of the church at Rome.If I did,you could have refuted them.But since you could NOT,you attacked the "messenger" by making up lies!!!

Now you say that you have "an HONEST answer for everything."

Well,we know by your own words that you ave not always had an HONEST answer for everything,and you continue to make false charges against me.

What false charges Jerry??? A couple of posts back, you accused me of making false charges that you didn't say something, blah, blah, blah. So I quoted your very words back to you from the post where you said exactly what I asserted you had said.

You say that you "feel like an IDIOT for stooping" to my tactics,but I never used the contemptible tactic of lying about you.

Jerry, your contempt for Catholic is very apparent. You never say Catholic Church, preferring to insult me and others with your constant 'church at Rome' line. You have continuously spread falsehoods about what catholics believe, how the Mexicans worship Mary rather than God, and have gone so far as to say the Vatican encourages this supposed replacement of God with Mary. That is a lie Jerry, and I can't believe someone with your obvious intelligence doesn't know it's a lie. So, you intentionally lie about Catholics.

The only thing that you have proven since you have come on TOL is the fact that you will use any tactic,no matter how despicable,in order to defend the teaching of the church at Rome.

Jerry, I have defended MY belief's by every legitimate means available. And you lose every debate you enter with me. But let me clarify this is not due to my debating skills which I consider average at best and not as good as yours, but rather because I am defending truth, which is much easier than sitting on the other side of the table. I guess you're tired of getting whipped and that's why you are trying to develop a year-old mistake, for which I have now apologized 4 times, into an excuse to end our current debate on baptism because you are losing again.

I continuously expose your deceitful tactics, parans, dot's, partial quotes, etc... They are all here for the world to see in our responses to each other over the last couple weeks. I will never stoop to your tactics, I made that mistake once and learned my lesson. However, I will expose every deceptive tactic you use every time I see you post something to this board. Count on it, brother. And I do this for the good of the other folks you try to deceive, not for my sake. You never deceive me, and maybe that's what's bothering you now.

So, do you care to continue the debate on baptism? If so, can you explain how the purified water rituals that you pointed to as a 'type' of Christian rebirth resemble your idea of rebirth by hearing the Word of God?

Or maybe you would like to show how these purified water cleansings DON'T resemble my idea of Christian rebirth through the waters of Christian Baptism? The same idea of Christian rebirth held by the earlies Christians back to the first century?

Or maybe you can continue by showing us how baptism is really just a symbolic ritual performed to show other men our faith, rather than the idea Paul's words show that we gain a share in the likeness of Christ's resurrection and the forgiveness of sins through baptism? Maybe you can convince us of this by showing this to be the true ancient belief dating back to the apostolic period.

Give it some thought Jerry, and then proceed however you desire. I'll be waiting.

God Bless You Always,

Francisco

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

You accuse me of making up a lie about the teaching of the church at Rome,but when you went to look for that lie I told you couldn´t find it!!!!!

So after you couldn´t find it,you thought that it would be a good idea to stoop to my level and make up a lie about me!!!!

Now you make up another lie about me.I NEVER said that "the Vatican encourages this supposed repacement of God with Mary."

Instead,I quoted one of your own popes saying that Mary should be worshipped.I never said that the Vatican encourages the replacement of God with Mary.Again,you just made that up.

You only prove that you have no regard for the truth.Even after apologizing again for your previous false accusation against me,you do it again.

And no,I have no intention of calling the church at Rome by the words "the Roman Catholic Church",because the word "catholic" means "pertaining to the whole Christian body or church"("The American College Dictionary").

And I do not think the church at Rome is "catholic" in the least.

Now could I ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth that I never said?

You go from bad to worse.

 

[Francisco]

diversions from questions Jerry can't answer...

diversions from questions Jerry can't answer...

Jerry,

Francisco,

You accuse me of making up a lie about the teaching of the church at Rome,but when you went to look for that lie I told you couldn´t find it!!!!!

So after you couldn´t find it,you thought that it would be a good idea to stoop to my level and make up a lie about me!!!!

Now you make up another lie about me.I NEVER said that those who follow the church at Rome WORSHIP Mary and not God.

I believe the entire thread that the exchange took place on has been deleted. I can't find your comments, my comments, or even my apologies to you.

However, I did find part of a reply to you on one of the many falsehood you have spread about Catholic's beliefs regarding Mary. Do you remember the short series of posts i entitled 'Misrepresentations of the Anti-Catholic Deceptionist'? Fortunately I saved those and will give you one example of a misrepresentation you were spreading:

Misrepresentations of the Anti-Catholic Deceptionist

Foreword - During the many discussions concerning a particular doctrine of the Catholic Church, some members of the online community have misrepresented Catholic doctrine. They then proceed to attack the Church based on their accidental misunderstanding or their intentional misrepresentation of Catholic belief.

When an erroneous assertion is made by these individuals, and they are refuted, most cease to post questions or materials regarding their accidental misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. But others post intentional misrepresentations, and they do it repeatedly. These are the Anti-Catholic Deceptionists.

This post is the first in a series of writings I will post to enlighten the readers of this forum as to the truth of Catholic doctrine. It is not intended to 'evangelize', but merely to illustrate the tactics of deceptions, half-truths and outright lies employed by the Anti-Catholic Deceptionists.

Part I - Mary sits on the Throne of Divine Wisdom

In this part of 'Misrepresentations of the Anti-Catholic Deceptionist,' we will examine a claim recently made in this thread, that 'Even though the church at Rome acknowledges Mary as a creature,besides calling her "the Divine Mother",they also place her in heaven sitting in the "Seat of Divine Wisdom".

This is a classic misrepresentation where the author of that comment selectively changes a few words of the real Catholic doctrine to create an abomination he can attack. In this particular misrepresentation, the anti-Catholic deceptionist wants the reader to believe Catholics 'worship' Mary, deifying her to an equal level with the Holy Trinity. This, of course is not the case.

The first evidence I will show directly refutes the claim Catholics place Mary 'sitting in the Seat of Divine Wisdom.' The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 8, SubSection 4, Heading 2
721 Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time. For the first time in the plan of salvation and because his Spirit had prepared her, the Father found the dwelling place where his Son and his Spirit could dwell among men. In this sense the Church's Tradition has often read the most beautiful texts on wisdom in relation to Mary. Mary is acclaimed and represented in the liturgy as the "Seat of Wisdom."

As we can see from the words of the CCC, Mary is not being deified like the anti-Catholic deceptionist was leading us to believe. In fact, Mary isn't SITTING in the Seat of Divine Wisdom, she IS that seat. Mary has rightful claim to such title by virtue of having carried Our Blessed Lord in her womb, and having been his dwelling place among men. Jesus Christ was the Divine Wisdom, for which Mary became the 'Seat'.

Catholics honor and venerate many humans, mere mortal men and women, who have served the Lord during their life on earth to an exemplary degree, and Mary is above all these. But Mary can in no way ever be elevated to the height of the Holy Trinity. All that Mary did in serving God, came to her by the grace of God, just as it does you and me. The CCC states:

Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 6, SubSection 1, Heading 3
970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."

Mary is a creature who is but a tool for God to work through, but the most blessed and grace-filled tool ever!

The anti-Catholic deceptionist I spoke of here was you Jerry. You're the one that twisted the title given Mary into something it was not, then attacked Catholics with that misrepresentation.

Instead,I quoted one of your own popes saying that Mary should be worshipped.I never said that those who follow the church at Rome do not worship God.Again,you just made that up.

Sure Jerry. What you're good at doing is quoting someone or something out of context that may make it seem like the intention is something that it is not.

So why don't you quote that Pope again, right now, the one that says 'Mary should be worshipped'? Even though the thread has been deleted, the quote you posted can be reposted, and we will be able to see this Pope saying 'Mary should be worshipped'.

You only prove that you have no regard for the truth.Even after apologizing again for your previous false accusation against me,you do it again.

I have the highest regard for the truth Jerry. That's why I'm here, to make sure we all see the words you put in parans to ignore, or cover up with your '...' tactics, or simply exclude by means of partial quotations.

And in regard to my previous apologies, am I to assume you still refuse to accept them?

And no,I have no intention of calling the church at Rome by the words "the Roman Catholic Church",because the word "catholic" means "pertaining to the whole Christian body or church"("The American College Dictionary").

And I do not think the church at Rome is "catholic" in the least.

The words 'Catholic Church' is the proper name of my church. The word 'catholic', small 'c', means universal, or 'pertaining to the whole Christian body or church'. So your excuse here doesn't cut it.

It is obvious from the tone and context of your posts about the 'church at Rome' that you mean it as an insult. So be it. As I told you, I take everyone one of your insults as a blessing and even a compliment. So go for it.

Now could I ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth that I never said.I never said that those who follow the teachings of the church at Rome do NOT worship God.

Jerry, I don't put words in your mouth. You accused me of the same thing just a few posts back. I'm sure I can find that, so let me requote you here, and then requote my response:

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart:
Francisco,

I did say that the gospel was to be preached to every creature.However,I NEVER aid that "Jesus never commanded anything,as you accuse me of saying.

I will give you a chance to back up your words with the evidence.If I said that the Lord "never commanded anything",then I m sure that you can find and QUOTE my words to prove it.

My reply to your accusation:
Earlier today, you complained about the length of my posts in reply to you. One of the reasons my posts are so long when I dialogue with you is that I learned early on when dealing with Jerry Shugart I have to make sure the context of my argument is there so he can't twist my words like he does scripture.

What I was referring to should be obvious to anyone reading the posts. You were arguing that Jesus did not give us any commands that had to be followed to receive salvation. You were arguing that you only had to 'believe'. In the course of your argument you said:

But the "truth" which the sinner must believe says nothing about any "commands" that must be followed.

That is when I showed you 10 verses that support my position that following the commandments is necessary to recieve eternal life. And that is exactly the context of my words that you are now trying to twist.

Exposed again Jerry! I can say one thing for you , you are tenacious. But you'll eventually learn that, as my dear friend Kevin very eloquently stated earlier on this thread, THE TRUTH HAS AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING!

Yes, you are always accusing people of misrepresenting your words, and it's normally a diversionary tactic when you have no answers for the questions posed, just as it is this time.

You go from bad to worse.

If you say so Jerry.

Now that you've deflected the dialogue once again, do you care to get back on topic and finish explaining how the purified water rituals that you pointed to as a 'type' of Christian rebirth resemble your idea of rebirth by hearing the Word of God?

Or how these purified water cleansings DON'T resemble my idea of Christian rebirth through the waters of Christian Baptism? The same idea of Christian rebirth held by the earliest Christians back to the first century? And the same idea that Jesus was surprised that Nicodemus didn't understand?

Or maybe you can continue by showing us how baptism is really just a symbolic ritual performed to show other men our faith, rather than the idea Paul's words show that we gain a share in the likeness of Christ's resurrection and the forgiveness of sins through baptism? Maybe you can convince us of this by showing this to be the true ancient belief dating back to the apostolic period? Or maybe you can show us how your ideas have been held by Christians through all ages?

Or are you going to come back and make accusations that I disregard the truth so you can continue to avoid these baptismal issues you seem to have no answer for?

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

First,you accuse me of "lying" by mis-representing the position of the church at Rome.But then you admit that you attempted to find that "lie",but could not.

So in order to get me back you made up a lie about me.And when you got caught making up lies,you admitted that you did tell a lie about me.

Then,in order to make yourself look a little better,you accuse me of another lie!!!

But now ONCE AGAIN you cannot find that lie you accused me of!!!!

When will it ever end?

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

Francisco,

First,you accuse me of "lying" by mis-representing the position of the church at Rome.But then you admit that you attempted to find that "lie",but could not.

The thread is deleted.

So in order to get me back you made up a lie about me.And when you got caught making up lies,you admitted that you did tell a lie about me.

Not to get you back, but to make you see my point, which was wrong and I have apologized profusely for doing that. You still won't accept my apology.

Then,in order to make yourself look a little better,you accuse me of another lie!!!

But now ONCE AGAIN you cannot find that lie you accused me of!!!!

When will it ever end?

Let's end it here. You can just post the quote from the Pope that says 'Mary should be worshipped' and we'll all know you weren't lying. Remember saying that earlier today?

Now you make up another lie about me.I NEVER said that "the Vatican encourages this supposed repacement of God with Mary."

Instead, I quoted one of your own popes saying that Mary should be worshipped.I never said that the Vatican encourages the replacement of God with Mary.Again,you just made that up.

We're waiting.............................................................................

Francisco

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I quoted the following words from the "Vatican Information Service",dated May 7,1997:

Pope John Paul II:

"At the moment that Jesus entrusts his mother to St.John,'it is possible to understand the authentic meaning of MARIAN WORSHIP in the ecclesial community...which furthermore is based on the will of Christ.' "

These are the words describing the "Vatican Information Service":

"The Vatican Information Service is a news office of the Holy See Press Office.It provides information on the Magisterium and pastoral activities of the Holy Father and the Roman Curia."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

The following is from the "Encyclical of Pope Pius X",Feb.2,1904"

"AD ADIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM":

17. For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. Now these latter can only have one object, which is that we should fully carry out what the divine Son of Mary commands. For if true love alone has the power to unite the wills of men, it is of the first necessity that we should have one will with Mary to serve Jesus our Lord."

Is not Pope Pius X encouraging the "worship" of Mary?

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

LOL. How did I know you would post that, out of context of course???

And you think this is a pope saying 'Mary should be worshipped'?

Let's look at what you want to hide from us Jerry, the context:

GENERAL AUDIENCE: MARY, MOTHER OF ALL THE REDEEMED
VATICAN CITY, MAY 7, 1997 (VIS) - The Holy Father dedicated today's general audience to the Virgin Mary, and commented on the words that Jesus spoke from the Cross to St. John: "'Behold your mother', ... with which he reveals to the Blessed Virgin the pinnacle of her motherhood."

John Paul II expressed his wish that all might discover in these words of Jesus "the invitation to accept Mary as their mother, responding as true children to her motherly love."

So is there where the Pope is saying 'Mary should be worshipped'?

At the moment that Jesus entrusts his mother to St. John, "it is possible to understand the authentic meaning of Marian worship in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ."

"The words 'Behold your mother'," continued the Holy Father, "express Jesus's intention to awaken in his disciples an attitude of love and trust toward Mary, leading them to recognize in her their mother, the mother of all believers. In the Blessed Virgin's school, the disciples learn, as John does, to know the Lord deeply" and to love him.

Is this where the Pope says 'Mary should be worshipped'?

John Paul II underlined that "the history of Christian piety teaches that Mary is the path that leads to Christ, and that FILIAL DEVOTION to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, it increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection."

I still don't see the Pope saying 'Mary should be worshipped'.

The Pope remarked that when the Gospel says that St. John welcomed Mary into his house, this "seems to show his initiative, full of respect and love, ... to live the spiritual life in communion with her."

I still don't see the Pope saying 'Mary should be worshipped'.

He concluded by asking all Christians "to make room (for Mary) in their daily lives, acknowledging her providential role in the path of salvation."

That must be it, right there, where he say 'make room (for Mary) in' our daily lives. 'Make Room' = 'Worship'....

In his greetings in different languages at the end of the audience, the Holy Father reminded the Slovak pilgrims that tomorrow is the liturgical solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord: "The eternal Son of God, who lived for 33 years on Earth to be our Master and Redeemer, went up to heaven to prepare a place for us."

Well, I never saw the Pope say 'Mary should be worshipped' Jerry.

Can you point it out for us, exactly where the Pope says 'Mary should be worshipped'? Remember, that's exactly what you claimed, and I'm sure it's here. I'm most positive it's here because you never lie, twist words, or hide the context of things you quote Jerry.

So please, point it out to us.......

Francisco

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

Francisco,

The following is from the "Encyclical of Pope Pius X",Feb.2,1904"

"AD ADIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM":

17. For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. Now these latter can only have one object, which is that we should fully carry out what the divine Son of Mary commands. For if true love alone has the power to unite the wills of men, it is of the first necessity that we should have one will with Mary to serve Jesus our Lord."

Is not Pope Pius X encouraging the "worship" of Mary?

And what was the definition of 'worship' in 1904???

Were judges in England addressed as 'Your Worship'? Was showing respect and honor to royalty considered 'worship'? Yes!

Of course, that's not what you want us to believe though is it, as evidenced by your hiding the context of John Paul II words about what the true meaning of Marian Worship is. Here they are again Jerry:

At the moment that Jesus entrusts his mother to St. John, "it is possible to understand the authentic meaning of Marian worship in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ."

"The words 'Behold your mother'," continued the Holy Father, "express Jesus's intention to awaken in his disciples an attitude of love and trust toward Mary, leading them to recognize in her their mother, the mother of all believers. In the Blessed Virgin's school, the disciples learn, as John does, to know the Lord deeply" and to love him.

Whether you agree with what the Pope is saying or not, he is not saying 'Mary should be whorshipped' in the sense that we 'worship' God.

He is saying we should accept Mary as our spiritual mother which leads to knowing the Lord more deeply. Of course you didn't post that part, did you?

You have done an outstanding job of proving my point Jerry. Thanks!

Francisco

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

First,you make up a lie about me.You say that you did it because I lied about the doctrines of the church at Rome.But you couldn´t find the post where I mis-represented the position of Rome.So you just made up a lie.

Then after that you misrepresented what I previously said.Then you said that you couldn´t find the thread because it has been deleted.

Then you tell me to prove that I am not a liar,and the only way that I could do that was to post the words of your popes where Mary worship is taught.

I then quoted the words of Pope Paul II where he speaks of "the AUTHENTIC MEANING OF MARIAN WORSHIP in the ecclesial community..."

But NOW you are attempting to say that his words have nothing to do with Mary worship.

I await your answer to the words of Pope Pius X in regard to the correct ay to WORSHIP MARY:

17. For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. Now these latter can only have one object, which is that we should fully carry out what the divine Son of Mary commands. For if true love alone has the power to unite the wills of men, it is of the first necessity that we should have one will with Mary to serve Jesus our Lord."(AD ADIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM;"Encyclical of Pope Pius X";Feb.2,1904).

This is the most pitiful thing that I have ever seen on TheologyOnLine.I am sure that the church at Rome is really proud of you!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Let me add a few words from the same address from Pope Pius X:

"...Those,alas!furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it,who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin.Hapless are they who neglect Mary under the pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ!"(AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM,#15;"Encylical of Pope Pius X",February 2,1904).

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

You already got my answer on the words of Pius X.

100 years ago, worship meant to pay respect to someone or something. Look in an old dictionary. It's obvious. The word meant -
To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. That's a far cry from the meaning of the word as used today.

It's also obvious that you posted only a portion of John Paul II's words and failed to post his explanation about what Marian Worship means.

At the moment that Jesus entrusts his mother to St. John, "it is possible to understand the authentic meaning of Marian worship in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ."

"The words 'Behold your mother'," continued the Holy Father, "express Jesus's intention to awaken in his disciples an attitude of love and trust toward Mary, leading them to recognize in her their mother, the mother of all believers. In the Blessed Virgin's school, the disciples learn, as John does, to know the Lord deeply" and to love him.

And what's most obvious of all is you continue these peripheral attacks to divert the attention of this thread from the baptismal issues you have been proven wrong on.

Francisco

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

I love your partial quotes, where you chop off just enough as to make the quotation mean something entirely different from it's intending meaning:

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart:
Let me add a few words from the same address from Pope Pius X:

"...Those,alas!furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it,who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin.Hapless are they who neglect Mary under the pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ!"(AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM,#15;"Encylical of Pope Pius X",February 2,1904).

Now let me add some words from the same address from Pope Pius X, and the words I will add will give the full paragrah, hence the full meaning will be clear:

These principles laid down, and to return to our design, who will not see that we have with good reason claimed for Mary that - as the constant companion of Jesus from the house at Nazareth to the height of Calvary, as beyond all others initiated to the secrets of his Heart, and as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits, - she is, for all these reasons, a most sure and efficacious assistance to us for arriving at the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ. Those, alas! furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it, who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin. Hapless are they who neglect Mary under pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ! As if the Child could be found elsewhere than with the Mother!

Wow, what a different meaning we can derive from ALL the words, instead of just the words you chopped out of the context.

 

[Francisco]

Now, let us take up the topic of baptism once again.

One claim that has run through this thread very consistently by those who deny baptism has any effect on our salvation is that baptism is no more than a symbolic ritual performed to demonstrate one's faith to our fellow men.

Would anyone care to demonstrate how this idea can coexist with Paul's words in Romans 6?

1 What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! 2 How can we who died to sin yet live in it? 3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. 5 For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin. 7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin. 8 If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. 10 As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God.

 

[Francisco]

bump

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Francisco
Now, let us take up the topic of baptism once again.

One claim that has run through this thread very consistently by those who deny baptism has any effect on our salvation is that baptism is no more than a symbolic ritual performed to demonstrate one's faith to our fellow men.

Would anyone care to demonstrate how this idea can coexist with Paul's words in Romans 6?

1 What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! 2 How can we who died to sin yet live in it? 3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. 5 For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin. 7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin. 8 If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. 10 As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God.

Francisco--

I think you are missing the simple truth of Jesus being sufficent. He is alone God, He alone saves. No need for water to forgive sins. God is able to forgive without the use of water.

Look at the thief on the cross. He was unable to get any water over him yet Jesus promised him eternal life.

 

[Kevin]

Freak,

I think you are missing the simple truth of Jesus being sufficent.

Well of course Jesus is sufficient! So why not do what HE commands us to do for the remission of sins? Do you really think His blood is going to cover the sins of those who do not do what He commanded FOR the remission of sins, which is baptism in His name, as we have perfect example of in Acts 2:38? Why did Christ command baptism? Back it with scripture.

I invite you to take my challenge:

What condition does our Lord Jesus Christ say that must happen for us to make it to heaven? I'll let Him do the talking:

John: 3:3
3) Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

From this we can clearly see that one has to be born again to make it to heaven. Now, in order for one to be born "again", a death must occur. Why? Because:

• Logic demands it. Can one be born again into the Spirit while still living in his previous life of sin? Impossible. A death must occur so that a new life can begin.
  
• We must die with Christ in order to live with Christ (2 Tim. 2:11)

So this bring us to the question of how one dies with Christ. The Bible speaks clearly on this matter:

Romans 6:3-4
3) Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4) Therefore we were buried with Him through BAPTISM into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

There is but ONE way to die with Christ, and I even took the liberty of underlining it: BAPTISM. That's how we die with Christ. I challenge you, or anyone else to show me another Biblical way that we die with Christ. Please back it with scripture, as I have.

We have to die to be reborn. The Bible speaks clearly on how we die so we can be reborn. Being reborn is required for heaven.

To reiterate what 2 Tim 2:11 says, if we want to live with Christ, we must also die with Christ, and the Bible clearly speaks on the matter of how one dies with Christ - Baptism.

Look at the thief on the cross.

This has been explained time and time again on this thread, and it really does show that you don't understand what being baptized into Christ's death is all about.

According to Romans 6:3, when we are baptized, we are baptized into His death. It would have been impossible for the thief on the cross to be baptized into a death that hadn't happened yet. You just don't understand what baptism in the name of the Lord is all about, or you wouldn't try to refute it with the thief on the cross during a time in which baptism into His death would have been IMPOSSIBLE because Christ hadn't died yet. How could the thief die with Christ through Baptism if Christ hadn't died yet?

The thief on the cross was forgiven because Christ had the power to forgive sins on earth (Mark 2:10). After Christ died, He instituted baptism in His name (Matt. 28:19,20) so that people in ALL NATIONS would have means for the remission if their sins by His blood - and that means is BAPTISM in His name, just as commanded, FOR the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38)

 

[RightIdea]

Yes, baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, which I received the moment I accepted Him as my Savior, accepted the work HE did on the cross for the remission of my sins. I am not baptized in water, and I have no plans to change that. I am baptized in the Holy Spirit, and I will be seeing you in Heaven, my brother. But I have a feeling you don't expect to see me there, and that is a bit heartbreaking.

 

[Francisco]

Freak,

I am not arguing that Jesus is insufficient at all. In fact, I believe it is because of His sufficiency that we should be baptized into His death so that we may share in His resurrection as well.

The question I'm trying to get someone to answer is this:

How does your idea that baptism has no effect on our salvation and is no more than a symbolic ritual performed to demonstrate one's faith to our fellow men coexist with Paul's words at Romans 6, where he tells us that by baptism we are joined into Christ's death and therefor into His resurrection.

The point is, this sounds like more than just a symbol for men. Is it?

God Bless,

Francisco