The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Thems fighting words, and you haven't proved yourself to possess the mettle to challenge my honesty. You really want to call me out? Son?

I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.

You know Mike, if you actually took time to pay attention to what is going on around you and also spent a bit more time in the Word than pompously pontificating you might begin to make a little sense.

Nothing pompous about calling you out on the fact that you obfuscate the entire concept of baptism as per my explanation and claim I believe a doctrine I detailingly related is not what I believe and why it is not my belief.

You started out on this thread essentially denying that the cross saves us.

See? there you go again. Same thing! I explained over and over that the work of the cross saves, and that anything we have to do is what is done to apply the work of the cross to our lives, which things, in and of themselves, save NO ONE. But you dishonestly sweep that explanation beneath the carpet and continue the false accusation. Sorry, bro. That is the way it is.

Then, after a couple of days you suddenly pop up with 2 or 3 posts with a really nice explanation of justification through faith.

Which is the belief that caused me to say everything I did about baptism and Spirit infilling. And then you claim I =changed beliefs!

AND... you've confused "baptismal regernationists" with paedobaptism. lol.

No, they are involved with each other and baptismal regeneration is done without the need of faith. Seriously, do a study on the details of baptismal regeneration. I did.

It's like the only way you guys can put confidence in your words and make claims about our beliefs is to sweep all we say beneath the carpet and continue to repeat falsehoods about our beliefs that we cleared up as not what we believe at all. Typical. But, brethren, not honest!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.

Okay, Pumpkinhead...

Show me some examples of "baptismal regenerationists" that fit your definition.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Nothing pompous about calling you out on the fact that you obfuscate the entire concept of baptism as per my explanation and claim I believe a doctrine I detailingly related is not what I believe and why it is not my belief.

You have impinged my morals. You support that charge with a sloppy hillbilly "definition" of baptismal regeneration."

Just what do you suppose the "regeneration" part is supposed to mean?

* - A New Birth! Yes!!! With the misapplication of John 3:5 we have baptismal regeneration - REGENERATION = "BORN AGAIN!"

You're just too think and arrogant to understand that.

Originally Posted by mfblume

See? there you go again. Same thing! I explained over and over that the work of the cross saves, and that anything we have to do is what is done to apply the work of the cross to our lives, which things, in and of themselves, save NO ONE. But you dishonestly sweep that explanation beneath the carpet and continue the false accusation. Sorry, bro. That is the way it is.

No. Your opening posts on this thread were this same type of cocky bologna. In time you came around, and I complimented you on it. Now, you're just back to the hillbilly school of arrogance.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Which is the belief that caused me to say everything I did about baptism and Spirit infilling. And then you claim I =changed beliefs!

No, they are involved with each other and baptismal regeneration is done without the need of faith. Seriously, do a study on the details of baptismal regeneration. I did.

It's like the only way you guys can put confidence in your words and make claims about our beliefs is to sweep all we say beneath the carpet and continue to repeat falsehoods about our beliefs that we cleared up as not what we believe at all. Typical. But, brethren, not honest!

You're the one who is false here, Mike. Baptismal regenerationalism goes hand-in-hand with the "Water & Spirit" doctrine a.k.a. "Three Stepper."

Read John 3:5 out loud to yourself right now. How did you say it?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Okay, Pumpkinhead...

You support that charge with a sloppy hillbilly "definition" of baptismal regeneration."

You're just too think and arrogant to understand that.

No. Your opening posts on this thread were this same type of cocky bologna.

Now, you're just back to the hillbilly school of arrogance.

Read John 3:5 out loud to yourself right now. How did you say it?

No need to get childishly personal here, bro.

You falsely accuse me of erring doctrine, and then are taken back when I call you on it, and then resort to juvenile name-calling, as though I started the problem. This is what is always done when one has no actual argument.

Are you going to talk seriously and respectfully, or not? Please do not claim I believe baptismal regeneration when I lay forth a definition of it and prove it is not what I believe. I will garner some reference material again for you to realize your error of this false accusation. But please cease the juvenile name calling.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No need to get childishly personal here, bro.

Just following your lead. I thought it was the theme for today or something.

Originally Posted by mfblume

You falsely accuse me of erring doctrine, and then are taken back when I call you on it, and then resort to juvenile name-calling, as though I started the problem. This is what is always done when one has no actual argument.

Hmmm... I wonder if you have found that post yet? The one where I "falsely accuse [-you-] of erring doctrine...?"

Originally Posted by mfblume

Are you going to talk seriously and respectfully, or not? Please do not claim I believe baptismal regeneration when I lay forth a definition of it and prove it is not what I believe. I will garner some reference material again for you to realize your error of this false accusation. But please cease the juvenile name calling.

You're a real piece of work this morning Mike. You come busting in here calling me a liar. Next you play the pity card and claim that I had been persecuting you as if you were "erring."

Grow up dude. Reread the thread. You look quite silly. Oh, and find that post for me too, will ya?

[mfblume]

WIKIPEDIA:

Baptismal regeneration, the literal meaning of which is "being generated again" (regeneration) "through baptism" (baptismal), is the doctrine within some Christian denominations that holds that salvation is dependent upon, or more precisely, mediated through, the act of baptism; in other words, baptismal regenerationists believe that it is ordinarily necessary for one to be baptized in order to be saved. Not as a denial that faith alone saves, but as a confession of a divinely-ordained means by which the Gospel comes and creates faith. Critics of the concept frequently allege that the concept of baptismal regeneration tends to emphasize form (including the role of water) instead of meaning; supporters of the concept may identify meaning with form and cite biblical passages such as Luke 6:46.[1]

DAVE HUNT'S STUDY ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved-- indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

...

Trent [COUNCIL OF TRENT] anathematizes all who deny that "the merit of Jesus Christ is applied ... to infants by the sacrament of baptism" or who deny that by baptism "the guilt of original sin is remitted,,." (5) Today's Code of Canon Law (Canon 849) declares that those baptized are thereby "freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and .,. incorporated in the Church. "

...

For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration was rejected by Bible-believing Christians, whom the Roman Catholic Church therefore persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the millions. Non-Catholics taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those who had believed the gospel: "teach all nations baptizing them [who have believed]" (Mt 28:19); "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2: 41); "[W]hat doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest [in Christ] with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:35-37). Infants can't believe in Christ.

"Is baptism regenerational" - by Mark Bonocore:

The vast majority of Christians (i.e. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) believe that Baptism is regenerational -- that is to say, that the Sacrament itself transforms the person by "water and the Word," (cf. Eph 5:26) thus adopting that person into the Body of Christ and making that person a participant in the very same Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father (Romans 8:15-17, Galatians 4:6-7).

Those who claim that the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation are actually proposing baptismal regeneration do err. They do not see the all-important issue that such a doctrine believes that baptism in and of itself does a work without the need for faith. When explanations are given about how baptism cannot be done without faith and, therefore, cannot really do anything for anyone, they are ignored such as we have seen on this thread.

It becomes a

Pel, when you can cool down and stop slurring me, and become a bit more objective, let's talk some more.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.

Display it again. Call me "dishonest" again.

You didn't "display" anything the first time. Go back. Google it. Show it to me. Wave it under my nose.

But you HAVE TO ACTUALLY "DISPLAY" SOMETHING!!!

... otherwise, you'll be telling a fib when you say, "I have displayed exactly where you were not honest."

And THAT, is the height of irony.

Look up irony for yourself. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony