Posted on 02/15/2022 5:49:53 AM PST by kinsman redeemer
The Diocese of Phoenix said 'all of the baptisms he has performed until June 17, 2021, are presumed invalid'
"The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes," Olmsted said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Whether or not Neil Armstrong said “That’s one small step for man” or “That’s one small step for a man”, he still walked on the moon.
And even good ones, because works don’t save.
re:how was the thief next to Christ able to go to heaven? He was not baptized.
First off, how do we know he wasn’t baptized?
Second, how do we reconcile this -
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
Is the Father in paradise? If so, how could the thief be with Christ in paradise “to day” when three days later Christ had not yet ascended to His Father?
Jews did not practice baptism as Catholicism does. There is not a word in Scripture about infant baptism and how could they be baptized for forgiveness of sins BEFORE Jesus reached adulthood Himself?
That’s about the strangest argument about baptism that I have ever seen.
Nonsense. That would require the thief to still be on the cross. It would have been written “Jesus said ON THAT DAY, You will be with Me in Paradise”. Different words in english, different words in greek.
Baptism is the religionists answer to circumcision.
In the OT, the Jews depended on that. After the death of Christ, the religionists and legalists simply substituted baptism for circumcision.
Then explain it to him, and let others comprehend because there are some others on this board who can and do comprehend. Don’t hide behind rhetoric, explain it since you claim you can.
Baptism is not required for NT believers or the Council at Jerusalem screwed up big time. If baptism were a requirement for salvation, then they were beyond negligent to mention that in their letter.
Acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
This entire passage is in keeping with dual action of repent and be baptized
***But not that baptism is necessary for salvation nor that baptism saves. Why are you sidestepping the main point?
*** Baptism REMOVES ORIGINAL SIN, so if you Protestants don’t get Baptized until you are much older, then YOU ALL are living with ORIGINAL SIN!!****
No it doesn’t because there is no such thing even mentioned in Scripture.
This is what is required for forgiveness; the blood of Jesus and we are promised forgiveness for sin when we confess it.
1 John 1:7-9 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Yeah, so people go and baptize.
That doesn’t mean baptism saves people.
As far as obeying the words of Jesus, have y’all Catholics ironed your disobedience to this one out yet?
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Because Peter insisted that they be baptized believing it was necessary
***It does NOT say necessary for salvation. Important, yes. Necessary for salvation, no. Important enough to insist on, yes.
and should net be withheld from them
***Because at the time there was a belief that gentiles could not be saved nor were they to be participating in this jewish religion.
This implies
***No it does not. It implies importance. Period.
Baptism is important that it could be withheld.
***Salvation cannot be withheld and that was demonstrated by the Holy Spirit. You’re attaching entirely too much importance to an act, a work, and we are saved by faith not works.
It implies
***No it does not. It only implies importance.
also that its importance is integral
***You’re just restating your original refuted argument in different words. It’s still a refuted argument.
to what they have been given already.
***What they have been given already is salvation.
There are many kinds of gifts of grace.
***Attempted obfuscation. We are talking about the one gift, salvation. Not other gifts.
But Peter recognized the uiuse should be baptized.
***uiuse?
Later in acts, in council with other disciples he recounted this story as reasoning how baptism shouldn’t be withheld from gentiles which was a practice then.
***Further obfuscation. A side note. Almost an irrelevant side note to the conversation at hand.
Because that isn't an exclusive you keep reading an or where an and should be.
All infant baptism does is get the child wet.
***I think it developed because parents were worried they wouldn’t see their children in heaven so this ritual developed to assuage their fears. The churches I’ve been in are doing an infant dedication service, where we all dedicate ourselves to looking after the spiritual health of that new person. Maybe a couple of millenia from now the believers will look at that kind of approach as hokey, just as we view infant baptism as hokey.
Im not a protestant im actually a baptist
***Baptists are among the protestant delineation. Basically the division is catholic/protestant. There are divisions within catholicism they call ‘orthodox’ or somesuch thing. And there are divisions among protestants we call ‘denominations’ [where non-denominational is one of the denominations].
Good post.
Interestingly, the "community" here, buckshot loaded with daydrinking anti-Catholic trolls and their preening butthurt apostasy, never fails to amuse in these threads. Never.
Jesus commanded us all to do many things. Again with this reasoning failing to do or perform any act he commanded means we do not have salvation.
Jesus stated several times, through the apostles, faith in Christ and the resurrection with repentance is all one needs for salvation. You continue to ignore those scriptures with no attempt to reconcile them to your preferred selection of scriptures.
So if John’s baptism were “good enough” they would not have been required to be baptized in Jesus’ name.
***John pointed to Jesus as the Savior. Paul did not doubt their SALVATION, he was helping them along on their next part of the spiritual journey. Naturally, if they had refused to be baptized in the name of Jesus, there woulda been a great rift of an issue.
Exactly, we are called to do many things for our Lord, non of them confer salvation, all of them are for our benefit, growth, discipline and so forth. I repeat though, NONE of them confer salvation.
It is interesting that you believe and teach others exactly the opposite of what the bible says.
You say that baptism is necessary for salvation.
But the bible says the exact opposite. No where does the bible say that baptism is necessary for salvation, and there are several places which show people who are saved but not baptized.
So why do you believe and teach exactly the opposite of what the bible says? Who taught you exactly the opposite of what it says and how did you come to believe and teach it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.