Re: [Covenanted Reformation] papist baptisms
- "but as an outright denial of the Gospel."Do me a favor and flee from this "denier of the Gospel."Go and join a group that believes in your "Gospel," please.gmw.----- Original Message -----From: objkofmerseeSent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 2:21 PMSubject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] papist baptisms--- In email@example.com, "Jerry Waybright"
> >There is nothing magical about believing in something called the
> I am not making the Trinity to be magical. I am merely noting that
the command to baptize is to baptize in the Name of the Triune God.
You are not merely noting that, Jerry. You have argued that Roman
Catholic "baptism" is legitimate baptism _because_ they do so in the
name of the Triune God.
> >If you deny the all-sufficient satisfaction of Jesus' once
> >for all atonement, then your 'Jesus' is no more the Son of God than
> >the Jesus of Mormonism or JWism."
> Without a doubt, but what does this have to do with baptism?
It has everything to do with Roman Catholic "baptism" because it
points out that the RC conception of the Son of God is a denial of
the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity. Hence, if you accept
RC "Trinitarian baptism," you do so on the basis of empty words or by
attributing to those words some magic power.
> >What is missing is the authority to baptize. By your view a 5 year
> >old boy could legitimately baptize his 30 year old father."
> Hmm... actually, we hold that the minister must a lawful calling
Since you accept Roman Catholic "baptism" then, on the basis of the
above, I must conclude that you also hold that Roman Catholic priests
are legitimate ministers of the Gospel. I reject this totally, not
only as Biblically unfounded but as an outright denial of the Gospel.
> As the Belgic Confession (Article 34) holds forth:
> "Therefore He has commanded all those who are His to be baptized
> water, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
> thereby signifying to us, that as water washes away the filth of
> when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized when
> upon him, so does the blood of Christ by the power of the Holy
> internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and
> from children of wrath unto children of God.
Is this teaching baptismal regeneration?
> "Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not
> the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn
> baptism of the infants of believers,
I am not an Anabaptist, but I will defend them on this point because
the above is a misrepresentation. They were not discontent "with the
one only baptism they have once received," but they *denied* that
what they had received was baptism at all.
> And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the
> believers than for adult persons;
How about this? Is this not teaching baptismal regeneration? I tell
you the truth, this is no different than Roman Catholicism.
Take care, Jerry.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.