ECT The Gospel Proper

[Rosenritter]

It was a lie.

0. No, and you should retract that.

Sure you've asked me leading questions that I didn't answer but your implication was that I was being evasive and avoided dealing with issues or was in some other way the problem. My offer to spend my own money to help you understand my doctrine is proof that I was not the problem and that you know it.

1. You have avoided answering basic questions and friendly questions.

2. In addition to refusing to answer questions, your proposal was that I should spend money on someone else's book. I haven't done that before and I am not planning to do that now. I read and shared the free chapter which I found and offered to read any chapters you would share and be willing to discuss. That wasn't enough for you.

You also might want to remember that you're not the only one with those emails, the very existence of which was started based on a lie, if you ask me. You're no more interested in understanding my theological paradigm, as you claimed, than is Hillary Clinton. It was an excuse to bait me into giving you an opportunity to debate dispensationalism, which is clearly a pet pieve of yours. Practically every syllable that I attempted to even start down a path with, you disputed to the point that it was impossible to make any progress at all.

3. You would to well to stop accusing and assigning false motives.

4. There were multiple things I wanted to ask, one of which was to understand your perspective. You wouldn't explain yourself because you said you were afraid of being mocked... then you began an argument that there must be something wrong with me unless I believed the scriptures contradicted themselves. You expressed upset when there was no recognized contradiction.

Perhaps we could have found the root issue if you had been willing to return the courtesy of answering questions.

You have now permanently destroyed your reputation in this regard and have proven yourself to be agressively hostile to anything that could hope to be productive on a web forum. A certifide waste of time.

Good bye Rosenritter. I sure hope you're proud of yourself.

Clete

"Aggressively hostile?" You are using character accusations, but you refer to basic questions as "aggressively hostile?" Treat that question as rhetorical...

 

[Rosenritter]

But again, even if we disagree on infant baptism, Catholic babies are baptized as infants, and then, when they've reached the age of reason, they are asked to confess the Christian creed before receiving the Confirmation chrism anointing, which confirms them as being in full communion with the Church. So these people were baptized, and confessed Christian faith, and doesn't that, eventually, satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:16 KJV?

How does a Catholic know they were baptized as an infant? Do they remember? Were they baptized or was the baptism done to them?

 

[Rosenritter]

That's the reaction to the gospel that God wants....

Romans 1:16 KJV
(16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 

[Rosenritter]

For clarification, can you concur with these two statements? (or explain why not?)

1. Jesus did not come to set up a physical kingdom on the earth that coexisted with other physical kingdoms: "My kingdom is not of this world."

2. The establishment of that kingdom over this earth is neither hindered nor prevented by whether the Jewish nation accepts Him.

I can't say I agree with either statement.

This is Jesus' response when He was about to be delivered up for His death on the cross.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.​

Can you explain why you disagree with each statement?

 

[Rosenritter]

Let's just get this straight. YOU got my words mixed up when you "reworded" what I said.

What "mission" are you talking about?

Yet you were unable to explain WHY the restatement differed in any significant aspect. The gospels themselves use different words to restart the same events... and you delayed so long that it is very difficult to find the original posts.

Would you answer a related question?

True / False: Jesus came to establish a physical kingdom on the earth but did not replace the Romans because the Jews rejected him.

 

[Idolater]

How does a Catholic know they were baptized as an infant? Do they remember? Were they baptized or was the baptism done to them?

Their parents and godparents. Church records. They don't remember. Baptism is always passive. You can't baptize yourself.

 

[Idolater]

What is the purpose of baptism? Is it about the relationship of the one being baptized with Christ, or is it about others?

Both.

 

[Idolater]

The best news this world ever heard was from outside a grave in Jerusalem and that news is "he is not here, he is risen."

Agreed. See Post #2.

 

[Rosenritter]

That is an entirely different context.

We are talking about post DBR.

DBR
https://www.dbr-school.org/
Design Build Research Institute, Vancouver BC Canada.
ABOUT — DBR

https://www.dbr-school.org/about/
OUR VISION. DBR | Design Build Research is a non-profit institute founded to offer a new model for design education and research. Our school is dedicated to ...

Urban Dictionary: dbr
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dbr
Damaged Beyond Repair, used to designate a person so lacking in common sense, compassion, and regard for others that he/she is unworthy of consideration ...

DBR - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBR
DBR may refer to: Daniel Bernard Roumain, composer and violinist. DBR Class of diesel locomotive, New Zealand.


What language are you speaking?

 

[steko]

DBR
https://www.dbr-school.org/
Design Build Research Institute, Vancouver BC Canada.
ABOUT — DBR

https://www.dbr-school.org/about/
OUR VISION. DBR | Design Build Research is a non-profit institute founded to offer a new model for design education and research. Our school is dedicated to ...

Urban Dictionary: dbr
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dbr
Damaged Beyond Repair, used to designate a person so lacking in common sense, compassion, and regard for others that he/she is unworthy of consideration ...

DBR - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBR
DBR may refer to: Daniel Bernard Roumain, composer and violinist. DBR Class of diesel locomotive, New Zealand.


What language are you speaking?

The 'DBR' stands for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. It is referred to in this way countless times in this forum.

 

[Rosenritter]

Their parents and godparents. Church records. They don't remember. Baptism is always passive. You can't baptize yourself.

I think that's the root of what I am trying to get at here. Baptism isn't passive. If you look at our more concrete detailed examples (like Christ and the Ethiopian) you will see that they require an active faith and participation on the behalf of the recipient. That willing and active bit is part of the whole symbolism... just as faith and belief aren't passive.

 

[Rosenritter]

Both.

I don't think that baptism is about others. We cannot be baptized for someone else, either on their behalf, and our reason should be in response to faith and belief in Christ (not for other reasons or for the satisfaction of others.)

 

[Idolater]

Yeah, I'd say way too many details.

Fair enough.

Besides, what Abraham believed was that his wife would give birth to a son. His belief was credited to him as righteousness. The process for us is similar but the object of faith is quite different. Abraham, for example, had no concept whatsoever of God dying for his sins, nor about the Messiah rising from the dead nor was he required to have any idea about it. We today, on the other hand, understand that these concepts are entirely indespecible aspects of the gospel.

Abraham said, "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering" Ge22:8KJV, which many Christians---idk about Dispensationalists---regard as a prophecy of Christ, the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world. Additionally, the Scripture tells us Hebrews 11:19 KJV, that Abraham believed God raises the dead, and that Abraham was promised Christ as his "seed" Ga3:16KJV. So it's not as specific as we know now, but there is certainly the 'seed' of the whole Gospel in Abraham's faith, which comports with Galatians 3:9 KJV and John 8:56 KJV.

What you're proposing would alter the discussion from "What must one believe to get saved?" to "What did people in the past have to believe to get saved?". That's a decidedly different question.

Clete

Fair enough.

 

[Idolater]

you lied.

No I didn't.

No, you just lied, as you do not "they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

I didn't lie.

He admits that the bible is not "all written to the Church."


Thus, dispensationalists, including myself, have the same interpretive right to say the same. Mark 16 ff. is not written to the boc.


QED.

We all have the right to religious liberty. Something the Catholic bishops also teach.

 

[Idolater]

It looks like it does but I would suggest it's a perversion. For example, why not baptize them once they do believe just as instructed? We see Paul baptizing someone that had already been baptized. Which brings up the question. Why are infants baptized at all since there are no commandments nor examples?

Even today, to say nothing of the ancient world, with their ancient medicine, kids can sadly, tragically die young, before they even reach the age of reason. If for no other reason, why not permit Christian parents to baptize their infant children, based only on this horrible potentiality?

 

[Idolater]

I think that's the root of what I am trying to get at here. Baptism isn't passive. If you look at our more concrete detailed examples (like Christ and the Ethiopian) you will see that they require an active faith and participation on the behalf of the recipient. That willing and active bit is part of the whole symbolism... just as faith and belief aren't passive.

You can't baptize yourself, is what I meant by 'passive.' Conversion to the Christian faith requires believing the Christian faith, I don't think anybody's disputing that.

 

[Idolater]

I don't think that baptism is about others. We cannot be baptized for someone else, either on their behalf, and our reason should be in response to faith and belief in Christ (not for other reasons or for the satisfaction of others.)

Submission to public baptism is a visible sign of becoming a Christian, and joining the one Church, the Body of Christ.

Also, what are your thoughts in 1st Corinthians 15:29 KJV, what do you think that Paul was talking about there?

 

[Right Divider]

Even today, to say nothing of the ancient world, with their ancient medicine, kids can sadly, tragically die young, before they even reach the age of reason. If for no other reason, why not permit Christian parents to baptize their infant children, based only on this horrible potentiality?

What a pagan idea.

 

[john w]

No I didn't.
I didn't lie.
We all have the right to religious liberty. Something the Catholic bishops also teach.

Yes, you did. Face you...defiled, seared conscience, and all.

 

[Right Divider]

Submission to public baptism is a visible sign of becoming a Christian, and joining the one Church, the Body of Christ.

So the myth goes.