No Eternal Security = No Salvation?
- Thread starter PennEd
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hey Breno
I think what your describing is battling walking in the flesh
I think all of us struggle with this at times
I know for me , getting into Gods word can help , but its a battle we will face until the day we die
Paul talks alot about walking in the flesh vs walking in the spirit
I think what your describing is battling walking in the flesh
I think all of us struggle with this at times
I know for me , getting into Gods word can help , but its a battle we will face until the day we die
Paul talks alot about walking in the flesh vs walking in the spirit
-
1
- Show all
Sorry, but the above is garbled and not easy to decipher. 
Hold your horses my friend, you're being both inconsistent and disingenuous. Certainly there are many who say that one is not saved unless they have the gift of tongues. You know this to be true. Now now, don't dismiss that and make an excuse, what's fair for the goose...
You weren't attacked, you're out of control with that accusation or assertion as it is absolutely false and baseless.
Indistinguishable comment...sorry
I never said meaningless, you're adding that in. The non sequitur was clear and I'm not going over it again.
BINGO!!! That was my entire point, tongues debate is of the same ilk.
I really don't care either way, but don't assume your points outweigh those of others.
Hold your horses my friend, you're being both inconsistent and disingenuous. Certainly there are many who say that one is not saved unless they have the gift of tongues. You know this to be true. Now now, don't dismiss that and make an excuse, what's fair for the goose...
You weren't attacked, you're out of control with that accusation or assertion as it is absolutely false and baseless.
Indistinguishable comment...sorry
I never said meaningless, you're adding that in. The non sequitur was clear and I'm not going over it again.
BINGO!!! That was my entire point, tongues debate is of the same ilk.
I really don't care either way, but don't assume your points outweigh those of others.
Sorry, but the above is garbled and not easy to decipher.
Hold your horses my friend, you're being both inconsistent and disingenuous. Certainly there are many who say that one is not saved unless they have the gift of tongues. You know this to be true. Now now, don't dismiss that and make an excuse, what's fair for the goose...
You weren't attacked, you're out of control with that accusation or assertion as it is absolutely false and baseless.
Indistinguishable comment...sorry
I never said meaningless, you're adding that in. The non sequitur was clear and I'm not going over it again.
BINGO!!! That was my entire point, tongues debate is of the same ilk.
I really don't care either way, but don't assume your points outweigh those of others.
Hold your horses my friend, you're being both inconsistent and disingenuous. Certainly there are many who say that one is not saved unless they have the gift of tongues. You know this to be true. Now now, don't dismiss that and make an excuse, what's fair for the goose...
You weren't attacked, you're out of control with that accusation or assertion as it is absolutely false and baseless.
Indistinguishable comment...sorry
I never said meaningless, you're adding that in. The non sequitur was clear and I'm not going over it again.
BINGO!!! That was my entire point, tongues debate is of the same ilk.
I really don't care either way, but don't assume your points outweigh those of others.
NO sir,
OK, now I'm a liar huh? Using a PC word to say that, and I'm out of control huh? Can you show me one person That I have banned because they disagree with my Biblical Positions? you insult me then apologize for doing so. Got you.
were done after all that you agree to ban both topics thank you.
that's 2 for banning any others?
None of the above ever happened, I never called you a liar, your accusation was baseless, as I never attacked you as you stated -- I merely made a point. Also, I never accused you of banning anyone as you also now assert which is also baseless. And you think you were assaulted? Wow! I'm not going to even act like any of the baseless accusations had such an effect -- I'll live above it.
There are many Christian sites which go down this road, and they are pathetic. It has a snowball effect on ALL TOPICS eventually and the banning and witch hunts are out of control.
But go ahead...carry on.
There are many Christian sites which go down this road, and they are pathetic. It has a snowball effect on ALL TOPICS eventually and the banning and witch hunts are out of control.
But go ahead...carry on.
E
No I never said that now did I.
People go back to what they truly have faith in,
Once you go back, You will never return, because if you tried it out and faith never took hold. And returned, You will never try it again.
Thats why the author said hold fast, and do not fall back (fall back to what?)
And he also said WE ARE NOT OF THOSE WHO FALL BACK.
You keep ignoring the context..
People go back to what they truly have faith in,
Once you go back, You will never return, because if you tried it out and faith never took hold. And returned, You will never try it again.
Thats why the author said hold fast, and do not fall back (fall back to what?)
And he also said WE ARE NOT OF THOSE WHO FALL BACK.
You keep ignoring the context..
You refuse to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching your conclusion on doctrine.
There was a general consensus among the church fathers that baptism was the instrument of regeneration and washing away of sin. That settles the question for the Roman Catholic, who is amazed that Evangelical Christians have the audacity to disagree with the Fathers on this matter. It may come as a surprise that Roman Catholics too do not follow the practice of the early church Fathers in the administration of baptism.
For example it was common practice that the candidate was immersed three times, whereas the modern Catholic rite consists of pouring water on the head. Before baptism, the candidate was anointed with "oil of exorcism" while the presbyter prayed, "Let all spirits flee far away from you." Apart from the fact that there is no scriptural warrant for this anointing, they were also mistaken in their belief that this oil served for the remission of sins even before baptism:
I find it interesting that Roman Catholics use similar your similar logic to support their doctrines and I've heard Roman Catholics say that prior to the reformation that NOBODY taught FAITH ALONE. To the contrary, we find below:
Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).
Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).
Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).
Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."
Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."
Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."
Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."
Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not."
Chrysostom: "Again, they said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to faith alone, is blessed."
Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."
Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."
Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin."
Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God."
*It's either faith alone or faith plus baptism/works. You can't have it both ways and neither can Roman Catholics or the church Fathers.
There was a general consensus among the church fathers that baptism was the instrument of regeneration and washing away of sin. That settles the question for the Roman Catholic, who is amazed that Evangelical Christians have the audacity to disagree with the Fathers on this matter. It may come as a surprise that Roman Catholics too do not follow the practice of the early church Fathers in the administration of baptism.
For example it was common practice that the candidate was immersed three times, whereas the modern Catholic rite consists of pouring water on the head. Before baptism, the candidate was anointed with "oil of exorcism" while the presbyter prayed, "Let all spirits flee far away from you." Apart from the fact that there is no scriptural warrant for this anointing, they were also mistaken in their belief that this oil served for the remission of sins even before baptism:
Now this is blessed by the high priest for the remission of sins, and the first preparation for baptism. For he calls thus upon the unbegotten God, the Father of Christ, the King of all sensible and intelligible natures, that He would sanctify the oil in the name of the Lord Jesus, and impart to it spiritual grace and efficacious strength, the remission of sins, and the first preparation for the confession of baptism, that so the candidate for baptism, when he is anointed may be freed from all ungodliness, and may become worthy of initiation, according to the command of the Only-begotten (Apostolic Constitutions, XLII)
During baptism, the candidates had to remove their clothing and stand naked in the water. The newly baptized was not allowed to take a bath for a whole week. I do not feel obliged to follow the Fathers in their unscriptural inventions, changing the simple ordinance of Christ into a superstition, not to mention their disregard for public decency. (See Tertullian, The Crown; St Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition). These are the same people who insisted on baptismal regeneration. I find it interesting that Roman Catholics use similar your similar logic to support their doctrines and I've heard Roman Catholics say that prior to the reformation that NOBODY taught FAITH ALONE. To the contrary, we find below:
Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).
Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).
Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).
Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."
Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."
Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."
Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."
Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not."
Chrysostom: "Again, they said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to faith alone, is blessed."
Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."
Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."
Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin."
Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God."
*It's either faith alone or faith plus baptism/works. You can't have it both ways and neither can Roman Catholics or the church Fathers.
Excuse me maybe in your own personal understanding you
don’t think of the term "disingenuous", or suggesting one is sequitur (fyi you should use “ill” instead of “un”- unlogical ) as being called a liar or not able to make a point .
You are saying I am such for informing you about meaningless or pointless discussion about OSAS from your own opinion. You are only right in your own understanding. No I am not assaulted but I did take your comments as an insult. As I am sure, you would too. Again, we will move with banning both topics so the climate here will be better. Thank you for your input greatly appreciated.
don’t think of the term "disingenuous", or suggesting one is sequitur (fyi you should use “ill” instead of “un”- unlogical ) as being called a liar or not able to make a point .
You are saying I am such for informing you about meaningless or pointless discussion about OSAS from your own opinion. You are only right in your own understanding. No I am not assaulted but I did take your comments as an insult. As I am sure, you would too. Again, we will move with banning both topics so the climate here will be better. Thank you for your input greatly appreciated.
Have you considered living water in John 3:5? Jesus said, "born of water and the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Scripture interprets itself. *Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. *Did you see that? If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.
In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit.
***HERMENEUTICS.***
Peter tells us that "baptism now saves you," yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).
*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
Not many more, but there are many verses in the Bible that man is saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-7; 3:26; Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
There are a handful of verses in the Bible that works-salvationists try to use as proof texts that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, yet a careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, though they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, these texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.
In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit.
***HERMENEUTICS.***
Peter tells us that "baptism now saves you," yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).
*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
Not many more, but there are many verses in the Bible that man is saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-7; 3:26; Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
There are a handful of verses in the Bible that works-salvationists try to use as proof texts that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, yet a careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, though they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, these texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.
-
1
- Show all
Roman Catholics will argue that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation." Do you believe that INFANT baptism is scriptural? The Roman Catholic church even quotes the church Fathers to back up their claim:
120-205 AD IRENAEUS "As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Irenaeus, "Fragments From Lost Writings", no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574).
*Question: Do NEWBORN INFANTS repent and believe the gospel? Are they candidates for water baptism? Answer: NO and NO. Do you agree or disagree?
Origen - "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
*Do you agree with Origen about infant baptism?
John Chrysostom - "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine - "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
*Does that sound apostolic to you or does that sound Roman Catholic?
"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412].
Council of Mileum II - "Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
*Fresh infants from their mothers' wombs should be baptized? Yeah right! Do you believe this nonsense? *So much for these fallible writings of fallible men!
I was reading an article in "The Ex-Catholic Journal" that says some of the writings attributed to the church Fathers have been found to be forgeries, while others have been taken out of context. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the papacy, infant baptism, purgatory and transubstantiation are alleged to be supported in these early writings. I hear Roman Catholics quote the church Fathers a lot to support their doctrines. The article went on to say that most of the copies of copies of copies of the church Fathers that we possess today were copied during the time that the Roman Catholic church controlled the flow of literature in Europe. That would explain a lot! We do not have any original copies of their writings, only copies of copies of copies. God promised to preserve HIS WORD, the Bible, but not the fallible writings of these fallible men.
120-205 AD IRENAEUS "As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Irenaeus, "Fragments From Lost Writings", no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574).
*Question: Do NEWBORN INFANTS repent and believe the gospel? Are they candidates for water baptism? Answer: NO and NO. Do you agree or disagree?
Origen - "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
*Do you agree with Origen about infant baptism?
John Chrysostom - "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine - "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
*Does that sound apostolic to you or does that sound Roman Catholic?
"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412].
Council of Mileum II - "Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
*Fresh infants from their mothers' wombs should be baptized? Yeah right! Do you believe this nonsense? *So much for these fallible writings of fallible men!
I was reading an article in "The Ex-Catholic Journal" that says some of the writings attributed to the church Fathers have been found to be forgeries, while others have been taken out of context. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the papacy, infant baptism, purgatory and transubstantiation are alleged to be supported in these early writings. I hear Roman Catholics quote the church Fathers a lot to support their doctrines. The article went on to say that most of the copies of copies of copies of the church Fathers that we possess today were copied during the time that the Roman Catholic church controlled the flow of literature in Europe. That would explain a lot! We do not have any original copies of their writings, only copies of copies of copies. God promised to preserve HIS WORD, the Bible, but not the fallible writings of these fallible men.
-
1
- Show all
there is no resolution with debate. That is why were told not to do debate. Proper understanding in this Setting is not what is being sought. it is agree with me or you are unsaved, unbiblical, have a devil or demon possessed. The endless insults are very taxing. Many here have been trolled and did not even know it, I could be a very strong supporter of osas or armenians. But when I see those on each side insult each other I come in and make a comment to see what they will say then I will push the point to see what will happen. They don’t care if it is a mod or not “ They are right and doing what God has called them to do". So if they will attack a mod what do you think they do to the norm new believer? They attack them , scoff them , and ridicule their biblical understanding or lack thereof. And it is all right here for all to see on this thread and others like it. Eough is enough . Those do will be banned.
-
1
- Show all
Because disingenuous does not mean that, it doesn't mean to lie. Have you bothered to look the word up? Non sequitur has not one thing to do with lying either, stop assuming meanings. It means what you said doesn't logically follow.
All made points are lost on you, I don't think you read or actually care to understand what was REALLY said.
I was in agreement with you when all this started, and you've managed to turn it into a brawl, accusing, asserting, and stating I've said things never stated. You really need to slow down and actually read what was said. Maybe you should go back and read it again. All I did was make a point, and you've been on a tirade ever since.
Furthermore, you used the word "unlogical" not me. This shows me you really aren't taking the time to read or comprehend what was said...
Should I now stoop and say you are lying because of this?
lolzzzz...
Of course, be a victim. I never assaulted you, not even close, but you've accused me of such and in today's world all one need do is accuse and magically it has to be true. Congrats!
That would explain a lot of the problem: you assume way too much then come up with baseless accusations, like saying I called you a liar &c &c &c &c &c...ad nauseam.
Sure, go ahead, start the snowball effect, then you'll be banning another thing, then another topic, then someone's orthodox theological stance including the persons, then the place will be politically correct, cultural marxism pretending to be christianity. Yes, it goes right down that road and many of us have witnessed this on other christian sites.
All made points are lost on you, I don't think you read or actually care to understand what was REALLY said.
I was in agreement with you when all this started, and you've managed to turn it into a brawl, accusing, asserting, and stating I've said things never stated. You really need to slow down and actually read what was said. Maybe you should go back and read it again. All I did was make a point, and you've been on a tirade ever since.
Furthermore, you used the word "unlogical" not me. This shows me you really aren't taking the time to read or comprehend what was said...
Should I now stoop and say you are lying because of this?
lolzzzz...
Of course, be a victim. I never assaulted you, not even close, but you've accused me of such and in today's world all one need do is accuse and magically it has to be true. Congrats!
That would explain a lot of the problem: you assume way too much then come up with baseless accusations, like saying I called you a liar &c &c &c &c &c...ad nauseam.
Sure, go ahead, start the snowball effect, then you'll be banning another thing, then another topic, then someone's orthodox theological stance including the persons, then the place will be politically correct, cultural marxism pretending to be christianity. Yes, it goes right down that road and many of us have witnessed this on other christian sites.
Why does there have to be resolution? Apologetics need to be done, there need be no rules or expectations added in order to validate or invalidate its necessity. There are instances in Scripture where debating happened and should have happened. Defending the Christian faith and ones stance is necessary and has taken place historically since the beggining of the church age.
We are told "not to do debate" where exactly?
We are told "not to do debate" where exactly?