a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

From the King James version of the Bible.

John 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Originally posted by adjensen

Once again you've created a god who is hostage to a book.

Incorrect. I teach a God who knows that it does nothing to baptize for the remission of sins when at that time, there was not yet any remission of sins.

Originally posted by adjensen

And, elsewhere in scripture, we see that it does not:

The Scriptures you bring up occur before New Testament salvation.

Again, before the crucifixion, there was no remittance of sins.

Hebrews 9:22(KJV)
22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

reply to post by colbe


I noticed you left off my words "for the remission of sins" from your underline.

The baptizing done by Jesus was unto repentance, not for the remission of sins. Again, there was no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.

reply to post by truejew

Again, before the crucifixion, there was no remittance of sins.

That's just silly brother...

Matthew 6:14
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by truejew

 

Again, before the crucifixion, there was no remittance of sins.

That's just silly brother...

Matthew 6:14
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

Forgiveness is not exactly the same as remission. Otherwise the crucifixion would not have been necessary.

Hebrews 9:22-23 (KJV)
22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

reply to post by truejew


Nonsense...

remission

a. Release, as from a debt, penalty, or obligation.
b. Forgiveness; pardon.

28 Verily I say unto you, ALL sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

reply to post by Akragon


So you think that Christ died for nothing?

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Akragon

 

So you think that Christ died for nothing?

No he had his purpose...

What you said didn't make any sense according to HIS words... and you can't counter his words with anyone elses writing from the bible... because Jesus is a Trump card

What say you?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Akragon

 

So you think that Christ died for nothing?

No he had his purpose...

What you said didn't make any sense according to HIS words... and you can't counter his words with anyone elses writing from the bible... because Jesus is a Trump card

What say you?

edit on 7-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

If someone could receive remission of sins before the crucifixion, what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Akragon

 

So you think that Christ died for nothing?

No he had his purpose...

What you said didn't make any sense according to HIS words... and you can't counter his words with anyone elses writing from the bible... because Jesus is a Trump card

What say you?

edit on 7-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

If someone could receive remission of sins before the crucifixion, what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

To execute him for his sins according to Judaic law...

To make him dead... Let him return home...

Etc etc...

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Akragon

 

So you think that Christ died for nothing?

No he had his purpose...

What you said didn't make any sense according to HIS words... and you can't counter his words with anyone elses writing from the bible... because Jesus is a Trump card

What say you?

edit on 7-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

If someone could receive remission of sins before the crucifixion, what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

To execute him for his sins according to Judaic law...

To make him dead... Let him return home...

Etc etc...

I can not help someone who rejects the essential doctrine of remission of sins through the shedding of the blood of Christ.

In addition the time given to me for this thread is up. Any further posts here will not be answered.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Akragon

 

So you think that Christ died for nothing?

No he had his purpose...

What you said didn't make any sense according to HIS words... and you can't counter his words with anyone elses writing from the bible... because Jesus is a Trump card

What say you?

edit on 7-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

If someone could receive remission of sins before the crucifixion, what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

To execute him for his sins according to Judaic law...

To make him dead... Let him return home...

Etc etc...

I can not help someone who rejects the essential doctrine of remission of sins through the shedding of the blood of Christ.

In addition the time given to me for this thread is up. Any further posts here will not be answered.

Help?

Lol...

Dude I follow all of your arguments with Adjensen...

You're not helping anyone...

you're denying the basics... the lords prayer man!!

:shk:

Im not even Christian... but that should be obvious to any sunday school child...

Good luck my friend...

I would run too

Originally posted by truejew
In addition the time given to me for this thread is up. Any further posts here will not be answered.

Darn, 'cause you're going to miss a dandy of a theological butt whipping now, lol.

Let's look at what you've said, as regards your pedophile Apostolic minister and his embezzling father, the Apostolic Pastor:

Regarding Mr. Young... he is not Apostolic. Just because someone claims to be one of us, doesn't make him one of us. To be one of us, a person must walk in the Spirit and have the fruit of the Spirit.

He was not in the five-fold ministry and therefore did not have authority to baptize even if he was not a pedophile. So yes, if he was allowed to baptize, they would need to be rebaptized.

Speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism, not water baptism. If they spoke in tongues, I was not there to know if it was fake or not.

Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied, if the situation you brought up were to occur, I am sure God would protect the person at least until they had the opportunity to be baptized.

So, what we have here is a bit of a conundrum. Said pedophile is not a "true" Apostolic. One assumes his father, who allowed such abuses, is painted with the same brush. You don't know if anyone baptized by these clowns was faking the "speaking in tongues" bit (implying that you think some people do, but we'll get back to that at another time,) so some may well have been genuine.

You also say that their baptisms were invalid, but are required for salvation, so God will keep those with "Holy Spirit Baptisms" alive until they can be "really" water baptized. Now, one assumes that he won't do such forever for those who are well aware that they need to be re-baptized, but what about someone baptized by a secretly pedophile Apostolic Pastor, who takes that secret to the grave? By your logic, he can't baptize anyone, because as a pedophile, he's not authorized to do so, but no one knows that he's a pedophile, so they don't know that they need be re-baptized, even after their genuine "speaking with tongues" Holy Spirit baptism.

As a result, God is required to keep them alive forever... they'll just go on and on, never knowing that the reason they don't die is because they need to be re-baptized.

You've discovered the key to immortality, friend!


Silliness aside, the reality is that, once again, you've demonstrated the illegitimacy of your claims -- they are not Biblical, neither are they logical.

If an Apostolic Pastor is a pedophile (reference the "No True Scotsman fallacy",) but a person goes to him to be baptized, not being aware of this, and that the person is genuine in their desire, if that person is not saved, which you claim, then one of the three following statements must be true:

1. God is not omniscient, because he doesn't know that the person being baptized is genuine in their desire
2. God is a petty tyrant, because he knows that person is genuine (point #1) and doesn't care
3. God is handicapped by improper use of magic words, because he knows that person is genuine (point #1), cares about them and wants to help (point #2) but is unable to, because the baptizer is not "authorized" to baptize anyone

Badda-bing, badda-boom -- refute that one without resorting to your emotional grumblings.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by colbe

 

I noticed you left off my words "for the remission of sins" from your underline.

The baptizing done by Jesus was unto repentance, not for the remission of sins. Again, there was no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.

I addressed your error of Jesus did not have the opportunity to baptize, I underlined it and gave you John 3:22.
You have no authority, the authority was given to the Church by God to interpret Scripture, the reason for your error.. I"ll comment on the rest of your sentence now.

First, repentance is about the forgiveness of sins! Jesus went out with the Apostles and baptized. It is
you who deny there is no remission of sins in Baptism. truejew, Baptism is the first, the means for God
entering our soul. Everyone is born with Original Sin. Water Baptism removes Original sin and if one is the age of reason when baptized, water baptism removes all your sins.

After Baptism, God's means to remove mortal sin is Confession. Jesus said in John 20:23..."whose sins you shall forgive." You have to hear someone's sins to forgive them. Jesus was speaking to the Apostles and disciples, the first priests.

The Catechism explains Baptism much better:

For the forgiveness of sins . . .

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

"A new creature"

1265 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,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

truejew, read the Early Church Fathers, their quotes on Baptism and the meaning of "born again."

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
In addition the time given to me for this thread is up. Any further posts here will not be answered.

Darn, 'cause you're going to miss a dandy of a theological butt whipping now, lol.

Let's look at what you've said, as regards your pedophile Apostolic minister and his embezzling father, the Apostolic Pastor:

Regarding Mr. Young... he is not Apostolic. Just because someone claims to be one of us, doesn't make him one of us. To be one of us, a person must walk in the Spirit and have the fruit of the Spirit.

He was not in the five-fold ministry and therefore did not have authority to baptize even if he was not a pedophile. So yes, if he was allowed to baptize, they would need to be rebaptized.

Speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism, not water baptism. If they spoke in tongues, I was not there to know if it was fake or not.

Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied, if the situation you brought up were to occur, I am sure God would protect the person at least until they had the opportunity to be baptized.

So, what we have here is a bit of a conundrum. Said pedophile is not a "true" Apostolic. One assumes his father, who allowed such abuses, is painted with the same brush. You don't know if anyone baptized by these clowns was faking the "speaking in tongues" bit (implying that you think some people do, but we'll get back to that at another time,) so some may well have been genuine.

You also say that their baptisms were invalid, but are required for salvation, so God will keep those with "Holy Spirit Baptisms" alive until they can be "really" water baptized. Now, one assumes that he won't do such forever for those who are well aware that they need to be re-baptized, but what about someone baptized by a secretly pedophile Apostolic Pastor, who takes that secret to the grave? By your logic, he can't baptize anyone, because as a pedophile, he's not authorized to do so, but no one knows that he's a pedophile, so they don't know that they need be re-baptized, even after their genuine "speaking with tongues" Holy Spirit baptism.

As a result, God is required to keep them alive forever... they'll just go on and on, never knowing that the reason they don't die is because they need to be re-baptized.

You've discovered the key to immortality, friend!

 

Silliness aside, the reality is that, once again, you've demonstrated the illegitimacy of your claims -- they are not Biblical, neither are they logical.

If an Apostolic Pastor is a pedophile (reference the "No True Scotsman fallacy",) but a person goes to him to be baptized, not being aware of this, and that the person is genuine in their desire, if that person is not saved, which you claim, then one of the three following statements must be true:

1. God is not omniscient, because he doesn't know that the person being baptized is genuine in their desire
2. God is a petty tyrant, because he knows that person is genuine (point #1) and doesn't care
3. God is handicapped by improper use of magic words, because he knows that person is genuine (point #1), cares about them and wants to help (point #2) but is unable to, because the baptizer is not "authorized" to baptize anyone

Badda-bing, badda-boom -- refute that one without resorting to your emotional grumblings.

edit on 7-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Logic goes out the window for those who attack or don't know the faith. They should study Catholic writing.

Jesus' authority given to His ministerial priests to confer His grace is not dependent on the state of their
soul.

And the priest scandal concerned 1 percent of the priesthood. This 1 percent are accused, not all are proved guilty. What about the rest of the priests?

The priest scandal was homosexual not pedophile. And more states approved of sodomy in the last Presidential election! The "act" is just fine with the "world" now. It's no grave sin, it's a right.