Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread
Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,114 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Luke's Dad
May 24 2011, 12:56 PM
Ok, here we go.

Quote:
 
Baptism is necessary for salvation : Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. (John 3)


John 7:37-38 On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

John 4:14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

These verses show Jesus using water as a metaphor for the knowledge and teachings that Jesus imparts to his followers. It also represents the faith and love in the Lord. Not a true physical water. John 3 seems to state the same thing to me.
Yes, exactly -- Jesus and the apostles use water as a sacramental symbol precisely because of its obvious meaning. These are not in contradiction, but rather support the whole message. Jesus tells the apostles to baptize everyone (Matt 28:16-20) after giving them the authority in his name to forgive sins (John 20:19-23).

The question back to you is how do you reconcile the clear messages in the other passages that baptism does indeed wash us of sin?
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Baptism cleanses us of our sins "Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name " (Acts 22:16)
Because only God can forgive sins : "Who can forgive sins but God alone? " (Mark 2:7) baptism must be an action of God, it is Jesus who forgives sins in baptism.


If baptism and only baptism cleanses us of our sins, wouldn't baptism be necessary on a fairly regular basis? I mean, everybody sins, even after salvation. In Acts 3:19, Peter ties forgiveness to repentance and no mention of baptism.

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

More later.





It is not said that "only baptism cleanses us of our sins" (I have not found that in the bible, anyway). Clearly repentance and confession do as well (The publican who went away forgiven in Luke 18; the woman caught in adultery in john 8, the Good thief in Luke 23; etc.) There are many ways that Christ works to forgive sins, but there are clear and specific ways that he instructed his Apostles to do so. But in reality it is Jesus who forgives sins, whether through the waters of baptism that he ordained, or through the ministry of the apostles that he ordained, or even as a gratuitous action for the sake of the poor person who realizes they have sinned and are truly sorry and repent if they cannot avail themselves of the sacraments of baptism or confession.

Scripture and the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox of course too) teach that there is only one baptism for the remission of sins (Ephesians 4:4-5). Which is why we also have confession, since Christ gave the apostles (and their successors) the authority to forgive sins (John 20).

As a general note, a lot of theology has developed to understand what the real message is -- there are a lot of passages that seem to contradict each other if taken in isolation (prooftexting). We must always read scripture in relation to scripture -- so one passage should interpret the other: you show other applications of the water imagery that Jesus used, which is correct, and which need to be understood also in relation to other passages such as the Baptism of Jesus where the Holy Spirit comes upon him (He who already had the fullness of the Spirit), and by extension that the Holy Spirit comes upon us (we, who do not have the Holy Spirit); the examples of the apostles baptizing for the remission of sins and to incorporate people into the Body of Christ (some of whom already "had the Spirit" evidently such as Acts 10:46-48), etc.
Edited by ivorythumper, May 24 2011, 05:24 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Nobody's Sock
May 24 2011, 01:51 PM
If I were some alien visiting this place who knew nothing of Christianity , Jesus , or the Bible, I'd probably come away, after reading all these scriptures, thinking that this guy Jesus was the biggest con man ever to walk the earth, and that the Bible was a load of garbage with all its contradictions.

I still think it was that Paul guy who was the con.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kluurs
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Come on folks - so close to 20 pages... Do you think Vince Lombardi would let his team stall at the 5 yard line and say "good enough?"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
kluurs
May 24 2011, 05:37 PM
Come on folks - so close to 20 pages... Do you think Vince Lombardi would let his team stall at the 5 yard line and say "good enough?"
Nice sentiment, but totally dependent on how you have your page views set. For me, it's only 8 pages. But, in terms of number of replies, it's climbing well in the "most replied to" hierarchy.

Keep it up.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
Frick, they're trying to be succinct.
Lighten up guys.
Where's your verbosity?
Get typing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
blondie
May 24 2011, 05:43 PM
Frick, they're trying to be succinct.
Lighten up guys.
Where's your verbosity?
Get typing.
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
On my set up this is page 6.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Well, I guess I have to start first since Larry does not seem able to even begin.



I want everyone reading this thread to go back and look at all of my posts, and take note of the fact that I have repeatedly made it clear that it has not been my intention of getting personal, I have at least twice made it clear that I am not mocking the Roman Catholics here, and have made it clear that ones religion is not what will get you to heaven. I have made it clear that I am only interested in having a civil dialogue about our differing theology. I have been met with nothing but sarcasm, smart assed swipes, and a smug air of superiority out of both IT and Dewey. Well, I warned them, and anyone who knows me should know by now that once you get in my face, I'll get right back in yours. If you want to be a smart ass IT, let's go to it.

It isn't a question of my "being able to even begin", guy. This place is a diversion for me, I have a life that I live, with responsibilities and other things that occupy my time. If you see me leave without answering you for a while, put your panties back on and deal with the fact that something more important than putting up with your smart assed attitude might just be taking my time.

Now - the issue of the apocrypha is still not resolved, but I'll come back to that since both you and Dewey have f*cked things up so badly. Luke's Dad has given you some very good arguments using scripture that shows your Catholic interpretation is not the only way to interpret the scripture you use to support your view concerning infant baptism. I'll give you more in a moment.

Right now, I will conclude this ass chewing of you two pricks by reminding you that Catholics and Protestants have different theological views, and the intent was to discuss those differences and in a civil manner show you why Protestants disagree with Catholics. It was NOT to take cheap shots at your theology the way you have taken cheap shots at mine.

As I said before, my views are not "incorrect", they are Protestant. You don't want to be a Protestant? Fine. I don't want to be a Catholic either. So we're even.

Now, I will explain why Protestants disagree with your views, and the way you misinterpret scripture.



Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
As I said before, my views are not "incorrect", they are Protestant.


Actually, your views regarding baptism do not reflect all of Protestantism, but rather, one strand of Protestantism. While IT and I disagree on issues related to the Eucharist, The Roman Catholic understanding of baptism differs only slightly from that of the mainline Protestant traditions. Mainline Protestants would have made the exact same scriptural argument for infant baptism that IT began to lay out. Let me restate that: infant baptism is as solidly a Protestant theological position as is believers' baptism - and that stems from what one's theological understanding of what baptism is and signifies. You have one understanding; many other Protestants have a very different understanding.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I am unaware of any mainline protestant churches who believe that you are saved by being baptized. Is this a belief of the Presbyterian church?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Renauda
May 24 2011, 02:05 PM
Nobody's Sock
May 24 2011, 01:51 PM
If I were some alien visiting this place who knew nothing of Christianity , Jesus , or the Bible, I'd probably come away, after reading all these scriptures, thinking that this guy Jesus was the biggest con man ever to walk the earth, and that the Bible was a load of garbage with all its contradictions.

I still think it was that Paul guy who was the con.
And you thought they managed Elvis' estate well...
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
May 24 2011, 06:22 PM
I am unaware of any mainline protestant churches who believe that you are saved by being baptized. Is this a belief of the Presbyterian church?
Nope. But at the moment, you're only arguing that baptism of infants is incorrect, not what that baptism actually is or signifies. Those are related, but different questions. Mainline Protestants perform infant baptisms because we understand baptism to be something quite different from what those holding to "believers'-only" baptism understand it to mean. You're making a mistake, I believe, by arguing about the former without first clarifying your beliefs about the latter.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Nope. But at the moment, you're only arguing that baptism of infants is incorrect, not what that baptism actually is or signifies. Those are related, but different questions.


I believe I repeatedly asked IT to clarify his view of what baptism actually signifies, and was repeatedly mocked instead of being answered.

I am fully aware of the difference between a symbolic christening and a full blown theological construct where one must baptize a baby in order to save its soul.

And I know of no mainstream protestant denomination who holds that view.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 05:58 PM
Quote:
 
Well, I guess I have to start first since Larry does not seem able to even begin.



I want everyone reading this thread to go back and look at all of my posts, and take note of the fact that I have repeatedly made it clear that it has not been my intention of getting personal, I have at least twice made it clear that I am not mocking the Roman Catholics here, and have made it clear that ones religion is not what will get you to heaven. I have made it clear that I am only interested in having a civil dialogue about our differing theology. I have been met with nothing but sarcasm, smart assed swipes, and a smug air of superiority out of both IT and Dewey. Well, I warned them, and anyone who knows me should know by now that once you get in my face, I'll get right back in yours. If you want to be a smart ass IT, let's go to it.

It isn't a question of my "being able to even begin", guy. This place is a diversion for me, I have a life that I live, with responsibilities and other things that occupy my time. If you see me leave without answering you for a while, put your panties back on and deal with the fact that something more important than putting up with your smart assed attitude might just be taking my time.

Now - the issue of the apocrypha is still not resolved, but I'll come back to that since both you and Dewey have f*cked things up so badly. Luke's Dad has given you some very good arguments using scripture that shows your Catholic interpretation is not the only way to interpret the scripture you use to support your view concerning infant baptism. I'll give you more in a moment.

Right now, I will conclude this ass chewing of you two pricks by reminding you that Catholics and Protestants have different theological views, and the intent was to discuss those differences and in a civil manner show you why Protestants disagree with Catholics. It was NOT to take cheap shots at your theology the way you have taken cheap shots at mine.

As I said before, my views are not "incorrect", they are Protestant. You don't want to be a Protestant? Fine. I don't want to be a Catholic either. So we're even.

Now, I will explain why Protestants disagree with your views, and the way you misinterpret scripture.



Larry, it really doesn't matter what I have to say. I asked you time and again to start and you kept balking and diverting and finding every reason to not begin. So yes, I was chiding you. I assumed you had some sense of humor and grace. You seem to use any excuse to take offense and become belligerent -- it reminds me of another person who used to frequent this place.

You want to get all tough guy and vulgar? Go for it. I don't care -- I am sure your audience is just waiting to show that Christian love you have for everyone. I'll wait for you to PROVE the Catholic Church is wrong -- not that they there is not another way to interpret Scripture, but that they are actually wrong to interpret as they do. That is what you claimed. And I doubt you can do that. But go for it. And be as abusive and vulgar and insulting as you want.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Larry
May 24 2011, 06:50 PM
one must baptize a baby in order to save its soul.
For the Roman Catholics:

I remember being told about "Limbo" when I was going to Catholic elementary school. It was a place unlike heaven, hell, or purgatory (is that in scripture, by the way?) where people without sin (other than "original sin") would go if they were not baptized. Specifically, I was told it was for unbaptized babies.

Does that concept still exist?

What about purgatory?

(just trying to keep the thread going, here)
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 06:50 PM
Quote:
 
Nope. But at the moment, you're only arguing that baptism of infants is incorrect, not what that baptism actually is or signifies. Those are related, but different questions.


I believe I repeatedly asked IT to clarify his view of what baptism actually signifies, and was repeatedly mocked instead of being answered.

I am fully aware of the difference between a symbolic christening and a full blown theological construct where one must baptize a baby in order to save its soul.

And I know of no mainstream protestant denomination who holds that view.

You were not repeatedly mocked. After time and again you refused to actually start the discussion, I laid out for you the Scriptural basis for the apostolic view of infant baptism.

Now its your turn to argue from Scripture that the Catholic Church is wrong.

As I said five or six times now, you can start whenever you're ready.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Yeah, I was taught about Pergatory as well.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
IT, if you will pay attention you'll see that the very reason I asked you to explain the Catholic meaning of baptism was so we could discuss that very thing. You chose to be a prick.

So I'll just ask you straight out - do you agree with the Catholic teaching that baptism saves a baby's soul?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Purgatory's a bit like when you join this place, but they haven't given you posting rights. Then the approving e-mail arrives, and you excitedly click, awaiting entrance through those magical gates into the heaven of full membership, and you make your first post, and.....hang on a minute.....do I smell brimstone?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I am fully aware of the difference between a symbolic christening and a full blown theological construct where one must baptize a baby in order to save its soul.

And I know of no mainstream protestant denomination who holds that view.


Neither do I, since the mainstream Protestant understanding of baptism is neither A nor B of your sentence above, showing once again your lack of understanding of the topic you've chosen to discuss, and showing even further why you really should define/clarify your theology of baptism first, before delving into why infants should or shouldn't be baptized. Without that clarification, no argument for or against infant baptism will make sense. And for the record, when you said that Roman Catholics held to a non-scriptural understanding of baptism, he asked you - several times - to state what you believed Catholics actually did believe about the sacrament, which is something you would have had to know in order to make the claim you did. Your silence was deafening, and as you've done so many times in the past, you tried to cover your being caught in an indefensible position by turning the question back onto the other person and then claiming they had the burden of laying out the information, and that *they* weren't answering *your* question. I'm actually quite surprised that IT let you get away with that tactic, but your inability or unwillingness to put your answer to his question in print spoke volumes. Your latest post here just expands the breadth of your lack of understanding about the very subject you've chosen to pontificate on.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Neither do I, since the mainstream Protestant understanding of baptism is neither A nor B of your sentence above, showing once again your lack of understanding of the topic you've chosen to discuss, and showing even further why you really should define/clarify your theology of baptism first, before delving into why infants should or shouldn't be baptized.


Oh, blow it out your ass. Either it's a symbolic act, or it's seen as more than that. I'm not here to navel gaze with you about all the various nitpicks between the various denominations, my purpose in this discussion was to show why - as you have just stated yourself - no protestant church believes that baptism saves a baby's soul, the bible does not teach that baptism saves a baby's soul, and the Catholic church DOES teach that baptism saves a baby's soul.

Quote:
 
Your silence was deafening, and as you've done so many times in the past, you tried to cover your being caught in an indefensible position by turning the question back onto the other person and then claiming they had the burden of laying out the information, and that *they* weren't answering *your* question. I'm actually quite surprised that IT let you get away with that tactic, but your inability or unwillingness to put your answer to his question in print spoke volumes. Your latest post here just expands the breadth of your lack of understanding about the very subject you've chosen to pontificate on.


Well, one of two things is at play then, Dewey - either I'm just a dumb old redneck from the South who can't find his ass, or the two of you can't think far enough ahead to keep up with me.

I know which it is, but I'm sure that you would disagree with that as well.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
May 24 2011, 06:55 PM
I remember being told about "Limbo" when I was going to Catholic elementary school. It was a place unlike heaven, hell, or purgatory (is that in scripture, by the way?) where people without sin (other than "original sin") would go if they were not baptized. Specifically, I was told it was for unbaptized babies.

Does that concept still exist?

Maybe. Maybe not.

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8792455&t=7339667

It probably doesn't matter anyways. It appears to have been an engineered solution to a problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Let's play a game. Can you tell me what's different about these two sentences?

Quote:
 
I am fully aware of the difference between a symbolic christening and a full blown theological construct where one must baptize a baby in order to save its soul.


Quote:
 
Either it's a symbolic act, or it's seen as more than that.


Now, even without knowing the specifics of mainstream Protestant theology, can you imagine how someone can view baptism as something "much more than" a symbolic act, and yet not "saving a baby's soul." You seem to be having difficulty with that. You seem to think that it is universal Protestant theology that a.) baptizing a child is nothing more than "christening," a symbolic act; stemming from your understanding that b.) Baptism is an outward sign that a person has made a profession of faith to become a follower of Jesus. I can assure you that mainline Protestants do not believe either of those points, and do so by means of scriptural arguments that are almost mirror images of the Roman Catholic argument. That's why you need to clearly explain what you understand baptism to be, before you can argue against or for baptism of infants.

Quote:
 
Well, one of two things is at play then, Dewey - either I'm just a dumb old redneck from the South who can't find his ass, or the two of you can't think far enough ahead to keep up with me.


You really seem to have some kind of touchiness about being Southern; that you think some people think you're automatically uninformed if you're from the South. I saw you make a similar comment to that effect to someone else recently. I can assure you, I really don't care if you're redneck high school dropout or a PhD; and I don't care if you're from the South, the North, or you're my next-door neighbor. What I do care about is when you spout all sorts of indefensible claims about the Christian faith that are flat-out wrong. And as IT pointed out to you in a recent post, you don't even take an approach that different Christians can appeal to scripture and reach different conclusions; you go straight to "if they don't believe the way I do, they aren't paying attention to scripture."

As to whether you can find your own ass, I'll leave that up to you. As to whether IT or I can keep up with your argument, I have no intention of getting into debating your actual argument - assuming you ever get around to actually *making* one.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
And as IT pointed out to you in a recent post, you don't even take an approach that different Christians can appeal to scripture and reach different conclusions;



You're correct. I do not take the approach that different Christians can appeal to scripture and reach different conclusions. I do not subscribe to your notion that the Bible says what I want it to say. It says what it means.

I initially stated that the ROMAN CATHOLIC teaching regarding infant baptism is not scriptural. I did not state that the Methodists, the Baptists, the Lutherans, yada yada teachings were wrong. Or right. I didn't address them at all. I said the ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING regarding infant baptism is not scriptural. To understand that, one must first understand just what the Roman Catholic teaching regarding infant baptism is. What the methodists teach, what the Lutherans teach, what the Presbyterians teach, is not important in this discussion. I was talking about the Roman Catholic teaching.

The Roman Catholic teaching of baptism in general is that it is baptism that saves your soul. That is not what scripture says. I don't care what the presbyterians or the Lutherans think in this discussion, because I am discussing the Roman Catholic teaching. Scripture does not teach that baptism saves your soul. That is the first part regarding the Roman Catholic teaching regarding baptism. Here is the Roman Catholic catechism regarding baptism:

"By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’ God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism ... Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit. ... From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant” (The New Catholic Catechism, 1994, # 1263,1257,1265,1267).

Scripture is quite clear that it was Jesus' death and resurrection that takes away our sins and the punishment for them - not baptism. And if the Roman Catholic church "does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" then I suggest those priests who stand in for God take a little time to study scripture. They'll find that the Bible is quite clear on just what it is that assures entry into "eternal beatitude" - and it isn't baptism.

As for baptizing babies because you think that will save *their* soul, one runs into another problem, which is the baby's lack of ability to make a decision in the matter. Jesus himself said you must repent and be baptized. Scripture must be interpreted in light of other scripture - and the Bible is clear that it is the act of repentance that saves your soul, not being baptized.

Now - you tell me how an infant is going to repent - or are you next going to tell me that you don't think it's necessary to repent of your sins to be saved.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
May 24 2011, 07:04 PM
Purgatory's a bit like when you join this place, but they haven't given you posting rights. Then the approving e-mail arrives, and you excitedly click, awaiting entrance through those magical gates into the heaven of full membership, and you make your first post, and.....hang on a minute.....do I smell brimstone?
Now that's funny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply