Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: John Leland 1789
It’s hard to get them to say directly that unless we submit to their “baptism” we are hell-bound with the pedel down, but that’s what they believe.

We are, admittedly, pretty thoroughly trained these days to not definitively say that one is going to hell (that's sort of God's job, not ours), but intentional rejection of baptism is a pretty cut and dried situation.

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

If somebody doesn't agree with the above, then, well, he or she will find out if he/she was right come the day of his/her particular judgment.

21 posted on 11/18/2010 7:44:55 PM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: markomalley; smvoice
These statements about baptisms performed by other than Catholic priests, namely

Can. 849; 861 §1,§2; Catechism 1256

. . . are simply meant to be the broad lasso, intended to rope everything under the dictatorial authority of the Vatican (being the ultimate intention). I take all of these to be quite disingenuous.

Not meaning to be personally offensive to you as an individual, but (as per our understanding of the Book of Revelation), these notions would come out of the beasts mouth, rather than a horse's mouth.

We do not believe that any form of water baptism is requisite to the salvation of the soul today.

Further, we are already saved and KNOW that we are children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (1 John 3:1, 2), and are NOT waiting to see whether any form of water baptism, authorized or carried out by ANY earthly church or its ministers has any consequence whatsoever upon our eternal enjoyment of the Savior.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate your posting those citations, totally inconsistent with the Scriptures of Truth. I am printing them for our insititute students, and will use them to illustrate Rome's continuing efforts at using the "broad lasso" in ecumenism.

28 posted on 11/18/2010 8:26:37 PM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley; smvoice
These statements about baptisms performed by other than Catholic priests, namely

Can. 849; 861 §1,§2; Catechism 1256

. . . are simply meant to be the broad lasso, intended to rope everything under the dictatorial authority of the Vatican (being the ultimate intention). I take all of these to be quite disingenuous.

Not meaning to be personally offensive to you as an individual, but (as per our understanding of the Book of Revelation), these notions would come out of the beasts mouth, rather than a horse's mouth.

We do not believe that any form of water baptism is requisite to the salvation of the soul today.

Further, we are already saved and KNOW that we are children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (1 John 3:1, 2), and are NOT waiting to see whether any form of water baptism, authorized or carried out by ANY earthly church or its ministers has any consequence whatsoever upon our eternal enjoyment of the Savior.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate your posting those citations, totally inconsistent with the Scriptures of Truth. I am printing them for our insititute students, and will use them to illustrate Rome's continuing efforts at using the "broad lasso" in ecumenism.

29 posted on 11/18/2010 8:33:43 PM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson