Talk:Infant baptism

• Talk/Infant baptism/Archive 01

Romans 10:9

Romans 10:9 is most often cited that no form of baptism is required for salvation. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:49, 6 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you Rob. The dispute over this issue also includes a requisite follow-up by the believer
according to the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20
and the requirement of Mark 16:15-16 and Acts 8:35-39; Acts 9:17-19; Acts 10:47-48; Acts 19:1-6,
together with the commandment of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
According to 1 Peter 3:21 baptism (in Christ) is what saves us now (as cited in the article).
Infant baptism here includes a list-citation of undeniable Bible references which mention the requirement of baptism for salvation.
John 3:3-5; Matthew 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-39; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:21.
Any preaching that ignores these verses is a good example of confirmation bias and of Cafeteria Christianity.

See also the general article on Baptism.
Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

It's basically the difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant; Protestants say it takes the conscious will of the believer; Catholics say it doesn't. In the Mormon faith they practice intercessionary baptism for the dead, which isn't far removed from infant baptism. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:19, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

The resemblance is only superficial. See the article fallacy of analogy. The differences between Catholic and Mormon theology are profound, not to mention the fact that Catholicism is monotheistic and the Mormon faith posits a multiplicity of separately distinct god-beings comparable to the doctrine of Cosmic Humanism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

Not that far off; the idea of a ceremonial cleansing ritual necessary for salvation for a subject who hasn't given consent is ridiculous. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:23, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

Also, it might be worth noting that several manuscripts and numerous versions of the modern Bible include verse 37 in Acts 8:35-39. The NIV just leaves out this verse:

“

See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” [37] Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” [38] So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

”

This verse makes it clear that the belief is required prior to baptism. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 16:42, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

The issue is salvation. And what is required for salvation. The answer is metanoia - repentance - a change of heart and change of mind. A change of heart and mind in your attitude toward God, sin, and what God says about sin. Ritual cleansing cannot satisfy God.

Here's the Express drive-thru scriptural interpretation:

• Satan defied God and when he said "I will exalt myself..."
• Jesus provided the way for salvation when he said "Father, let this cup pass, nevertheless Thy will, not my will..."
• In the proverb of the Prodigal son, which is a metaphor for all unsaved humanity, the prodigal son said, "I will return to house of my father...." (i.e. metanoia or repentance, a change of heart and mind toward his father) without any ritual cleansing on his part. When he arrived, he was clothed by his father. Only the blood of Jesus saves;.

And I should have included this part up front: remainder of Romans 10:9-10, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. In all three examples above the "I will" part came out of the mouth. Salvation is not dependent upon any action (or "work") by us. "It is finished", as Jesus said. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:20, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

In the body of the article I covered both sides of that point as follows:

This doctrine of "regenerative baptism" which causes an ontological change that actually cleanses and washes away sins, by effecting in the soul a new supernatural life directly infused by the "washing of water with the word", is found by apologists for infant baptism in the following scriptural texts:

Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:25-29a; Jeremiah 24:7; 31:31-33; Titus 3:5-6; 2 Peter 1:9; 1 Peter 3:21; Ephesians 5:25b-27; and Colossians 2:9-14.

They point to these texts as teaching that according to the Bible baptism saves us now by regeneration of the soul unto new life, as a "new creature", and that Jesus sanctifies and cleanses his church with the washing of water with the word as a sign of the cleansing of the soul by his blood, to present the whole church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. They point to the fact that Paul teaches by a typological analogy that baptism replaces circumcision, which is done when a child is only eight days old, which made that baby a genuine member of the people of God, to be raised and taught the way of the Lord in truth, by the priests of the faith.

This doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which includes infant baptism, is repudiated as being totally against the teaching of the Bible. Abraham, our father in faith, was converted, regenerated, forgiven and had righteousness reckoned (imputed) to him by faith (an unborn or newborn child cannot exercise faith), being circumcised in the heart by faith, apart from physical circumcision, baptism, or any other statute, or ordinance. Those who reject infant baptism as regenerative or salvific in any manner accept that the outward symbol of washing of water with the word is an ordinance to be faithfully obeyed, not a sacrament, an outward testimony to faith in the salvation of God through believing in the promises of Jesus Christ alone. They obey His ordained ordinances, including baptism, because by faith in Him they are regenerated, not in order to be regenerated; and as a result of having a new heart, not that they might receive a new heart.

No one can say that I didn't present both sides. The scriptures listed here are the best response I can give to the objections raised here regarding the need for conscious repentance, and the fact that infants unborn and born are incapable of it before they are able to walk. You have clearly articulated the position for credobaptism, reiterating the arguments for it which I was very careful to represent without distortion as more extensively explained in the article. Having been an ardent Conservative Baptist and anti-Catholic in my youth, I know the arguments for it from the inside. See the related article giving both views in Salvation: declarational salvation and ontological salvation. Both cannot be true at the same time. Only one is probably right. Either that, or both are wrong. Meanwhile, look at Revelation 22:11 and Matthew 15:14. It remains a matter of faith and discernment and being "honest to God". In accordance with your own tradition of preaching, be very certain that your position is correct before you die. I cannot fault your obviously genuine sincerity and your passion for scriptural proof in defense of your position. This response above, and the whole of the article itself, is all I have to say to your position that baptism is not required for salvation. As a Bible believer, I cannot ignore the whole of the scriptural context of the Bible. I wish you well. pax vobis. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you. I wasn't intending to get into an argument over the merits of one side or the other. Th Protestant version is quite straight forward - Romans 10:9-10, and Ephesian 2:8 By grace are ye saved...not of works, attributing baptism as a "work" on the believers part, nullifying the work on the cross. In Protestantism, physical baptism is symbolic, and not necessary for salvation. Even in John the Baptist's day, it was symbolic; it wasn't lepers "going out in the wilderness to see," as Jesus said, it was lost sinners to hear the word of God, and be "immersed" or "baptized" in the word. John the Baptist performed a ritual, which was only symbolic, while delivering the word. This is the Protestant teaching in a few words. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:15, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Even in Catholicism, infant baptism is symbolic, because babies are not immersed, only sprinkled. The word baptism means immersed. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:21, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

The regular Catholic rite of baptism is by infusion (pouring), or by immersion (being immersed) or submersion (standing in water, with water poured over the head), not by aspersion. You have been misinformed by sources that cannot be trusted, since it is evident that what they told you about Catholic baptism is not true.
Look at Hebrews 10:22 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts [already] sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." And John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And 1 Peter 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."
According to Catholic doctrine the sacrament of water baptism is an actual application of the blood of Christ directly to the soul through the washing (λουτρόν loutron, not solely immersion βαπτίζω baptizo) of water with the word (both word and water are required). As Moses sprinkled (ραντίσμος rhantismos) the book and all the people with blood, purifying them, "purging them", so also the sprinkling (of the blood of Christ) in baptism purges away sin (Hebrews 9:18-23). "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus [Baptism], By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh [Eucharist]; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts [already] sprinkled (ραντίσμος rhantismos) from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed (λουτρόν loutron) with pure water." The evil conscience is the stain of original sin in the sight of God which makes us aware that we already from the moment of conception fall short of the glory of God, and the additional defilement of an evil conscience by any personal sins committed after birth. Thus infants and babies are cleansed of an evil conscience because of original sin. If they didn't have sin, they could not die (Romans 5:12), but many babies and newborns do die. Baptism saves 1 Peter 3:21 by washing away sins Acts 22:16. Catholic tradition since the time of the catacombs and the imprisonment of converts not yet baptized (the Romans even condemned babies of converts) taught then and teaches now the act of baptism into the blood of Christ unto salvation was held to have been accomplished in emergency with the least droplet of "water with the word" in accordance with the command in Matthew 28:19 to [first] baptize making them disciples, to be followed in Matthew 28:20 by [second] the teaching of the faith of belief, "all that I have commanded you". In the article I listed those several verses which are cited to support regenerative baptism.

The necessity of baptism for salvation is seen by the majority of Christians as divinely revealed by God in the following Bible texts:
John 3:3-5; Matthew 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-39; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:21.

"You are badly misled" Mark 12:27. (James 5:20) —Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

John 4:10, "I will give you living waters" [1], spoken by the same guy who said, "unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit (he said nothing of immersion in either context).

I was baptized Catholic I think at about 10 days old. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:13, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Take a look at the new section presenting a comparative analysis of Faith and Works relating to infant baptism Infant baptism#Faith and works. If this is not balanced, or unfair, please let me know. I hope this helps. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2019 (EDT)

Thanks. And the link to Eternal security (salvation) is a big help. It all comes down to the simple Question of What is Salvation?

From there we ask Why did Christ die?, or What is the work of the cross?

When those questions are answered, then comes the question What is necessary for salvation?, which leads to the question surrounding "baptism", and what does it mean "to be baptized."

IOWs, we sort of started in a reverse order here. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:19, 12 October 2019 (EDT)

Article completed, request that it be locked

I have finally completed the whole article, after carefully reviewing and representing all of the relevant controversial views and sources historical and contemporary both pro and con. Due to the intense controvery and polemic attending this topic that I found still evident online during my researches, I humbly ask that the article be locked to prevent both vandalism and any re-editing by subtle deletions and additions intended to slant it more toward or away from any one particular doctrinal view. "Just the facts, Ma'am." (Det. Sgt. Joe Friday–Dragnet TV series).
Peace be with you. Semper Fi ! --Dataclarifier (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2019 (EDT)

Given that I have a lot to do off wiki, I added a small amount of information, yet the information I did add made very important points.

After all is said and done, I think you knew the article had its shortcomings in terms of not adequately representing views other than your own. And that is why you wanted the article locked. But Conservapedia has a number of conservative Protestant editors, so you cannot expect Conservapedia articles not to adequately cover the Protestant view. If you do this, you will just cause unnecessary edit warring, etc. Wikignome72 (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (EST)

I relied on what I found online at Wikipedia "Infant baptism" and with search "Denominations that practice infant baptism". Both searches provided the statements made in the body of the article re denominations that do not practice infant baptism, for example the "Oneness" groups. I repeated the same information further down, that the credobaptist position condemns to hell the whole specific list of denominations that practice infant baptism. I appreciate what you added and have absolutely no objection to it. However, you seriously misjudged my motive for requesting a lock according to reasons I explained to Andy Schlafly on his talk page regarding the hot-button topic of infant baptism as treated online. He apparently agreed with my reason. The behavior of RobSmith, below, is a perfect example of intrusively prejudicial one-sided editing imbalance that should be kept from a balanced article on such a sensitive doctrinal issue. I wish you well. Thank you, again. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Salvation

Let's go back to John 3:3,5. Jesus first says,

Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.

In verse 5 he says.

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

So, what is the difference between "seeing" the Kingdom of God, and "entering" the Kingdom of God? Moses saw the Promised Land, but did not enter. Was Moses saved? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:25, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

Ok, let's go to the next level, which only the Spirit of God can reveal:

John 1:27 No man hath seen God at any time

Exodus 33:11 The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend

Now, being immersed in the spirit, reconcile for me these two passages, and I'll believe that you are not unskillful in the word of God. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 22:41, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But we have the mind of Christ.

So, to restate: No (natural) man hath seen God at any time... Moses had the mind of Christ enabling him to speak with the Lord face to face.

Exodus 33:13: Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight

Salvation is by grace. You must have the mind of Christ, without which no man can see God (or see the Kingdom of God)

It's pretty simple. It's not rocket science. God never intended it to be a scholarly exercise. It's gotta be simple enough for a child to understand. Just remember, That which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit. Baptism is of the spirit, not of the flesh. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 03:46, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Fundamental Salvation

For the benefit of other readers here, it is evident that you did not read the two links I provided for direct access to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which affirms your last statement above "Baptism is of the spirit, not of the flesh" (1213-1284 and 1987-2029).
It's pretty simple. Baptism saves the soul. A child can understand that.

You asked me to answer the question, "What is salvation?" I gave you my answer from the Bible. The Bible answer to the question "What is salvation?" is set forth fully in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a reiteration of all that the Bible says. The Catechism defines salvation from scripture alone, using abundant citations and quotations from scripture, with literal conclusions from scripture, drawn from the common understanding of the Church Fathers east and west, who based all they said on the literal sense of scripture, the sensus fidelium, sensus plenior and sensus Christianorum of Christianity, faithfully expressing "the mind of Christ", so that what you rejected as "traditions of men" is in fact the teaching of scripture, "and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35; Mark 12:24; 1 Corinthians 15:34).

I can say this because I am primarily and fundamentally a Bible apologist, who just happens to be Catholic. I was raised a Baptist. I know the Bible. I am 72 years old and I have read it cover to cover 82 times since before the age of 12 when I finally "went forward and accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior" and was baptized by full immersion at Grace Baptist Church (Conservative Baptist) in Des Moines, Iowa, in the spring of 1959. Shortly afterward I was appointed by the pastor as one of the "youth conversion counsellors" of newly baptized young teen converts and made one of the leaders of our Youth Group, and actively joined "Youth for Christ". Years later, as an adult, by fervent prayer, and by my knowledge of scripture and history and finding out by careful investigation what Catholicism and Orthodoxy actually teaches (which is not what I had been told they teach), at age 33 the Lord Jesus led me to embrace the Catholic Church as the most biblically faithful Church on the face of the earth. I held to three fundamental scripture passages:

Galatians 1:6-9; 1 John 2:18-19; and John 14:16-17 with John 16:12-14.

I looked for a church that did not come out of another church and teach a doctrine different from the church it came out of. Only one church qualified historically and scripturally. People asked me, "How can you do that?" I said, "Because I believe the Bible. Let me show you." I stand on the firm foundation of the doctrine of the Bible which includes all "authority established by God" (Romans 13:1-10; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17). The established Church has "the mind of Christ".

Rejection of scripture written by men who were sent by the Lord, is rejection of the word of the Lord who was sent by the Father, and rejection of the word of the Lord who was sent by God is rejection of the Lord who sent Him (Luke 10:16; Matthew 10:40; Luke 9:48; John 13:20; 12:48). The full context of the teaching of the Bible itself according to the whole of the first sixteen centuries of consistent Christian understanding of salvation through the blood of Christ alone, poured out by the Holy Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9-11) in baptism with water (1 John 5:6; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Revelation 1:5), was the reason the whole Christian Church, Catholic, Orthodox and mainstream Protestant together, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16 and 26; 16:13-14; Matthew 28:19-20), condemned the credobaptism doctrine of the Anabaptists and Baptists as a doctrine of Satan himself. What they say I say with them. This is my final answer. You will not hear from me again on this page.
Proverbs 28:9 — also 18:1; 20:3; 22:10; 26:12; 27:3; 30:5.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Were any Old Testament figures saved by grace or baptism?

1 Cor. 10:4 all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Exodus 33: And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight

Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:49, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Next question: Was Job saved? Were Zachariah and Elisabeth saved? Were Simeon and Anna (Luke 2) saved? Was David saved? and Solomon (relates to the question of Eternal security, as well)? And a real tuff one, was Manassah saved?

We know Abraham was saved (Gal 3:6, Rom 4:3) long before there ever was a Law of Moses or doctrine of baptisms. We know righteous Abel was saved, as well, because he understood the necessity of a blood sacrifice.

So the gospel of salvation by grace has been preached since the beginning, long before the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ took place in fulfillment of the scriptures. But we see some could not enter in, because of disbelief (lack of faith).

The Law (or "the letter") killeth. Grace gives life. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:51, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

"So the gospel of salvation by grace has been preached since the beginning, long before the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ took place in fulfillment of the scriptures." You say they were already saved before any of this took place.
Either you have done away with the need for Christ by the credobaptist doctrine of salvation by faith alone sola fide, or you have confirmed the doctrine of "baptism of desire" by which all those "spirits in prison" were freed by the preaching of Christ himself because of their hope which waited (they were forced to wait) for his baptism of them in fulfillment of their desire for salvation 1 Peter 3:18-21. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1260

"Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

Hebrews 11:39-40 says most explicitly,

"And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

They had to wait, because they had not yet been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and had not yet been born again of water and the Spirit.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Was Abraham saved?

Rom 4: 1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, etc.

Cite scripture for your response, not church tradition, church doctrine, Catholic catechism, or any other teaching of man. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:12, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

I did cite scripture. My response each time was solidly based on scripture. Church doctrine supports scripture. You reject fundamental parts of the Bible and twist its meaning for the sake of your credobaptist tradition, "a tradition of men", which the vast body of all Christianity in the sixteenth century, solidly based on scripture (on the whole context of the entire Bible), denounced as a Satanic heresy based on violation of the Bible itself. Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts. And I will not reject Christian doctrine based for over sixteen centuries on the whole context of the Bible and the "mind of Christ" in the sensus fidelium, sensus plenior, sensus Christianorum in all of the passages of the Bible I have cited all down through this page. I am heedful of the warning of Peter 1 Peter 3:15-18. However much you press me to do so, I will not deny Christ. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

You haven't answered the question: Was Abraham saved? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:15, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

What have we learned from our father, Abraham?

Abraham was instructed to take his son, thine only son, and kill him. Not wavering in faith, Abraham never doubted that God would resurrect him somehow to fulfill God's promise to multiply Abraham's seed as the stars of the sky. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned (or imputed) unto him as righteousness.

Rom 5: 1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

2 through whom also we have the access by the faith into this grace in which we have stood

Where was Abraham ever baptized? before the law of baptisms was ever was given (Leviticus, and elsewhere)? Abraham was circumcised, but circumcision is of the heart, not of the flesh. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:39, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

I see you've avoided answering this key New Testament question (Romans chapter 4 and Galatians) now for 4 days. Here's the Answer:

Abraham was saved by belief (faith) in the resurrection. He was justified by his faith, and saved from wrath, and saved from the works of the Law. Abraham was a blood washed, born again Christian. We also now by faith have access into this same grace.

Maybe now you can understand the verses referring to before the foundations of the earth were laid, or In the beginning was the word. or from everlasting to everlasting, or I am Alpha and Omega, or predestined and foreordained, or there is no new thing under the sun.

Do not avoid this question - it is foundational to any man of faith.

Faith is quite simple - it is trust. Trust in God. Trust in God's word. Trust in God over our own understanding and reasoned judgements.

To rely on ourselves, rather than accept God, God's word, and God's teaching, is pride - what St. Valentine and the Catholic church call original sin. It was the sin of Lucifer - making himself out to be God. It was the sin of Adam - rejecting God to worship and serve the creature more than the Creator. It is the sin of everyone who rejects the Gospel of Grace in favor of a doctrine of Law, that by welldoing you can earn your standing with God. God see's rejection of the sacrifice of his son as pride. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 08:14, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Exodus chapter 33

1 Cor. 10:4 all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Exodus 33: And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight

Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:49, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

God also told Moses, "My face you shall not see, for no one can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-23). Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up on the mountain, and they did see the God of Israel up on the top of the peak, but only from a distance, not up close (Exodus 24:9-11). Abuse of the statement that Moses talked with God "face to face" has been competently answered by qualified biblical scholars as a Semitic expression of intimate friendship of communion, not a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus face to face, nor a direct visual encounter of the Beatific vision. These scholars also explain that the "gospel" preached to Israel in the wilderness of Sanai was not the Christian revelation, but the good news in the law revealed to Moses explaining the rewards of obedience "if you obey my word". That message included the promise of a Prophet to come.
In answer to the challenge of reconciling Moses and John – Take a look at the commentaries on Deuteronomy 5:4 "The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of fire." Their answer is mine also. Moses beheld the presence of the Lord, and spoke with Him "face to face", but he did not see the face of God. The scholars have explained all this. I agree with them. The challenge to reconcile Moses and John has been met and answered already. Their response is my response as well. This makes me and them "competent to explain" the scriptures according to "the mind of Christ".

That's your response?

• Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:58, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

God didn't mean what he said, or he was too stupid to clarify himself. He needed human scholars and teachers to set it straight, huh? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:59, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

He said, "Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." It is you who make the word of God of no effect through your credobaptist tradition. That is why credobaptists in the sixteenth century were condemned by Protestants and Catholics for abuse of the scriptures. Documented anathemas against credobaptism go all the way back to the 3rd century. And Protestants agreed.

Conservative Christian historians and apologists are mindful of this statement by John Eck addressed to Martin Luther, in the year 1521:

"...there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that Pelagius and Arius maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Word—an eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New Testament—Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage enchained him. When the fathers of the council of Constance condemned this proposition of John Huss—The church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect, they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."

(Compare the article on Hypocrites.) --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Did God speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend (Martin Luther has nothing to do with this question). The answer is a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

The next question is: Are there contradictions in the bible? Is the bible inviolate? (Here, scholars, church teaching, and church tradition can't help you. Your response is entirely dependent on your faith). RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:11, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

The Pentecostal article below is a rebuttal of your position, and is presented here as my response. Jesus saved many people without their faith. That includes babies, Old Testament saints, and all pagans who never had opportunity to hear the Gospel, who would have accepted baptism by water and the Spirit if they had known of its necessity.

"Here, scholars, church teaching, and church tradition can't help you." Devout scholars, church teaching, and church tradition do help. But you refuse to accept it (John 10:25-26). Your refusal is a clear example of classic Confirmation bias. All of the centuries-old consistent understanding of the Bible by all of Christendom based on the Bible is held in contempt by you. Even when presented with an abundance of scripture alone which demolishes the house of credobaptist doctrine as clearly opposed to the Bible, you reject it. Matthew 23:38. I had thought that you were a person of honest Christian integrity dedicated to the truth of the Bible. From the way you worded some of your answers I believe that you actually refused on principle to read the authoritative Bible texts and sources linked for immediate access which contradict credobaptism. Look at the article on Enmity.
Some of the people who read this page when I showed it to them said you were being sarcastic, and are someone who always has to have the "last word" no matter what is said. They told me I was wasting all my time and energy on this page in a pointless exercise of unending futility. They said if you ever change your mind, it won't be because of me. They said just leave it to the Lord and he will deal with you.
I have been patient with you, and firm. I am also grateful. Because of your challenges I have carefully re-read the Bible like the long-ago Beroeans of Acts 17:11, and the fruit of all this is that I have gained a much deeper insight to what it was like for Jesus to debate with the scribes and Sadducees and Pharisees who refused to listen to him even when he cited the scriptures. And I have an even deeper and more loving appreciation of Him as a true man, both fully human and fully God. The result of this research was the abundance of Bible texts cited in context all down this page which clearly support the doctrine of regenerative baptism against credobaptism "salvation by faith alone sola fide". I had constant recourse to the help of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with its Hebrew and Greek dictionaries of the Old and New Testaments. I will have no more to do with you, as Paul advised Titus 3:10. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

So, I'm taking your response to mean (a) the bible has contradictions, and (b) the bible is not inviolate.

Is that correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I never once used the term "credobaptism". The word does not appear anywhere in the bible, as I understand and/or are familiar with it (look it up in Strong's if you don't believe me). It is entirely your invention in this discussion. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:43, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Lastly, your posting below is simply more church doctrine from somewhere irrelevant to this discussion. Spamming the page has not helped any of your arguments; it's more reminiscent of Christ's warnings about other Pharisaical teachings: they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:51, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

'Let your answers be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.' (Matt 5:37) - affirming what is, and what is not, the Word of God. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:38, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

One final comment: God is not an intellectual exercise.

• He catcheth the crafty in their craftiness
• I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

I learned from Catholic catechism that 7 years of age is the "age of reason;" by 10 I had it figured out and left the church. God's teaching must be simple enough for a child to understand.

I can appreciate the teaching of the Catholic church. At the age of 8, as an altar boy, I recall a high mass on Easter Sunday, where me, the priest, and 3 other altar boys sat down at the beginning of the mass. I wanted to rise up and perform the service, but the priest signaled to me to remain seated. The Gospel reading that day was from Hebrews, chapter 10:12 stood out to emphasize the point and symbolism: "when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down". All else is extraneous. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. (Heb 4:10). "It is finished (John 19:39). I'm grateful to the Catholic church for having taught me God's word, but all the calisthenics and hand-washing is extraneous. The message is simple. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 00:45, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Back to Exodus 33 (I love this chapter). So, what is the Gospel? Again, it must be simple enough for a child to understand. For expedience sake, I'm going to thumbnail and encapsulate it in John 15:13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends

Disclaimer: we all know it's much more but for expedience sake I'm using this verse.

Now, we have to back up momentarily to Exodus 32 (verse 10-32 for complete context). Verse 31-32 Moses says Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

This is the Spirit of Christ speaking. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:56, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Gal 1:6-9

• I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

So, you appear to be deserting the gospel of grace. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:56, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

By grace are ye saved, through faith, not of works.

If we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

It ain't rocket science, and spamming the page to hide your embarrassment don't help. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:01, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Like Paul, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.
I was taught as a Baptist to be faithful to the Bible as the Word of God. As a faithful Baptist heeding all the scriptures I have cited above, and based on the Bible alone sola scriptura, I obeyed and accepted that the Catholic Church had to be the one true Church. "Catholic" means universal, for all people of all places in every time to the day of judgment. It was the only Church not founded by people who had disobeyed those over them, and left and went out from them, and taught a doctrine different from the gospel they had been taught by the Church that they left, and denied that the Holy Spirit had remained for ever with the leadership of that Church, saying that Christ who remained to the end of the world had not remained, saying that He had departed and was no longer with that Church. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself as His Bride, remaining with her to the end of the world as the vessel and channel of the grace of God given to the whole world as the body of Christ Himself, sent as He was sent, as the Savior of the world, baptizing. The Church is the "Temple of the Spirit", "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling-place of God in the Spirit" (1 Peter 2:4-5; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:19-22). "He cannot deny himself" (2 Timothy 2:11-13). To depart from the Church is deserting the gospel of grace. The grace of salvation comes from Christ alone through the Catholic Church he founded and sent out into the whole world as "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), "that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 3:10). --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

If you have to work to earn grace, it ain't grace. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:05, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Church membership is not salvation. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:09, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Grace is bestowed by Christ through his body the Church and those baptized into him are saved. The Catholic Church saves as the one sent by God. The Church saves because Jesus is God in her as her head and the Holy Spirit dwells in her as the temple of God and it is he who sanctifies her and is the source of salvation, because God is in her at work in her members as members of the body of Christ himself, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Look, spamming the page with pious sounding rhetoric saves no one. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:19, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

The church saves? I don't think even Catholic doctrine teaches that. You're bordering on speaking anathema. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:21, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Catholic doctrine "teaches that" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 836-837.
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. --Dataclarifier (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I clearly have the power of discernment - of separating the Word of God from the doctrines of men. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:36, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Amputating a few words from Philippians doesn't help you.

Let's look at the context from which you abuse Phillipians:

• 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus

We already discussed what it means to have the mind of Christ - that part you left out. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:39, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Analysis

The argument seems to be:

• The Bible, or Word of God, is not authoritative;
• Salvation is dependent upon church membership;
• While baptism qualifies a person for adoption into God's family, it is no guarantee; salvation still must be earned by good works, or at least the sacrificial death of Jesus is insufficient to cleanse one of certain sins.

.RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 05:57, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

Your citation to Romans 2 here is out of place. Paul is speaking to the unsaved, to those under Law, not under grace. The first seven chapters of Romans is all spoken to those outside the family of God.

What does it mean to be in Christ? (Romans chapter 8 and elsewhere: there is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ. This stands in stark contrast to those under condemnation in Romans 2, he will render to every man according to his works. To be saved means to be saved from the wrath of the Law.

I should leave it at that, however this doctrine is supported by the parable of the householder who went to hire labourers in his field (Matt 20). They all got the same pay, whether they worked one hour or all day. The Kingdom of God is like unto the householder who shortchanged the guys who labored all day and paid the bum stragglers the same amount. So no, those who are saved by grace shall not be repaid according to their works.

"So no, those who are saved by grace shall not be repaid according to their works."

You have just contradicted the Word of God, and condemned yourself.

• For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. Rm 2:6-11
• You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Jm 2:24 (context James 2:12-26.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Dataclarifier (talk)

It's a gospel of grace, not of works. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 22:51, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

I place my comments here because by context they belong here. You've strung together various verses; most are spoken to the people of God. Roman 2:6 is spoken to lost sinners - people apart from God. By removing my post from its proper context, you are preaching a doctrine of men, rendering the word of God to no effect. 07:19, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I place my original response here because by context it belongs here as my original response to your assertion, but you chose to omit it. You've rejected a fundamental statement of the word of God, rendering the word of God to no effect by your tradition. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Let's be clear about who teaches what.
The Catholic Church has utterly condemned the Pelagian "gospel of salvation by works". The Church absolutely condemns the idea that salvation can be earned. It can't. Works make faith complete, just as St. James teaches. "Faith without works is dead. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Anyone who says the Catholic Church teaches that salvation must be earned knows nothing, and is seriously guilty of misrepresenting Catholic doctrine with a gross falsehood against the truth.
Anyone who says that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus does not save by his blood in baptism through the Catholic Church is guilty of seriously misrepresenting Catholic doctrine with a gross falsehood against the truth.
The Catholic Church teaches instead that salvation is
solely by the grace and justification of Jesus Christ alone by the power of the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of baptism ex opere operato.
Proof of this is set forth clearly in the The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three: Life in Christ, Section One: Man's Vocation: Life in the Spirit, Chapter Three: God's Salvation: Law and Grace, Article 2: Grace and Justification, I-IV, numbers 1987-2029 - citing abundant Bible support, Rom 3:22; cf. 6:3-4; Rom 6:8-11; Cf. 1 Cor 12; Jn 15:1-4; Mt 4:17; Rom 3:21-26; Cf. Rom 7:22; Eph 3:16; Rom 6:19, 22; Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4; 1 Cor 2:7-9; Jn 4:14; 7:38-39; 2 Cor 5:17-18; Rom 12:6-8; Mt 7:20; Rom 8:28-30; Mt 5:48; Cf. 2 Tim 4; Rev 21:2; Mt 16:24. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2019 (EST)

You're a day late and dollar short. You're already on record claiming that a work - physical baptism - is necessary for salvation. That's what this whole discussion has been about. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:36, 3 November 2019 (EST)

God does the work of salvation in baptism through the power of the Holy Spirit in sacramental water baptism which He ordained as the ordinary means of salvation ex opere operato, not man.--Dataclarifier (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Secondly, elsewhere on this page you asked, "Where does it say the church can't save?" I responded by saying even the Catholic church does not teach that the church can save. You just dug out church teaching:

The Catholic Church teaches instead that salvation is solely by the grace and justification of Jesus Christ alone by the power of the Holy Spirit through baptism.

To answer your latest posting, you've insisted that the physical work of water baptism is necessary for salvation. Both the Bible and the confused doctrine of men you cite refute you. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:55, 3 November 2019 (EST)

You very cleverly distorted, contradicted and falsified the teaching in CCC 819 "Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation". --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Read your own posting. It says Christ saves, not the church. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:37, 3 November 2019 (EST)

To put it bluntly - baptism does not save. Only the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ saves. All else is another gospel, which is no gospel at all. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:02, 3 November 2019 (EST)

To put it bluntly - "baptism saves you now" 1 Peter 3:21. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2019 (EST)

So which is it? the work of Christ or work of a believer who is baptized that saves? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:33, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Both: Christ and the baptizer in one body. The sanctifying work of Christ through baptism. "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Ephesians 5:25-27. "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the λουτρού water-washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life." Titus 3:5-7. "Except a person be born of water and the Spirit, a person cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Huh? Why is it so difficult to answer a simple question (and for good measure, you toss in washing of water with the word, again). You know good and well that only the shed blood of Jesus and his resurrection brings our salvation. You also know salvation is by the grace of God, and cannot be earned by works. Why can't you just say that? Stop refuting God, and denying God's work, and making the claim that your salvation is dependent on an action on YOUR part. That, is another gospel, which is no gospel at all. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 22:43, 3 November 2019 (EST)

[added later] Why can't you just say that? with the mouth one confesses and is saved. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 08:11, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Three scriptural texts demonstrate that it is Christ himself doing the work of baptism for salvation directly through the members of his Church by what they do in obedience to his will in baptism, which he himself ordained as the ordinary means of salvation.—"Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it." 1 Corinthians 12:27. "for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Philippians 2:13. "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4-6. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world. Matthew 28:19-10.--Dataclarifier (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2019 (EST) (this edit was prepared ready to post just before discovering at the same time an edit conflict by the following edits by RobSmith below)

Here's a good refutation of the 1 Peter 3:21 citation as meaning you need to be baptized to be saved: [2] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2019 (EST)

That is very good. The problem is, it is lost on someone who does not understand what salvation is in the first place.

God does not need our help for anything. God does not need man to interpret what he says. God does not need us to perform a ritual cause Jesus' death and resurrection isn't quite sufficient. God didn't need David to build a house for him. God didn't need Abraham to sleep with Hagar to speed God's promise of a son along. When we do God these 'favors' to help him along, cause God evidently is incapable of performing some tasks, is when we get into trouble.

{inserted later] Another example is Moses: God told him to strike the rock once, but he figured God needed a little help or wasn't clear in his instructions, and in anger gave it a few more whacks.

It is foolishness to speak of baptism when you do not even know what faith, grace, or salvation is. First things first. Let this be a lesson to students. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 23:26, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I was baptized by water and the Spirit, but I didn't do it. Therefore my salvation was not dependent on an action on MY part. You keep insisting that we baptize ourselves and do the work ourselves. No. I did nothing. Jesus did, by washing me with his precious blood in the water of regeneration. Sacramental baptism is done to us and for us by Jesus Christ Himself by water and the Spirit. No Christian, Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic does the work to save himself. None of us baptized ourselves. If you still think baptism is a work I did to myself to be saved you are wrong. I didn't do it. Baptism by water and the Spirit is the supreme grace of God. Pure gift bestowed. No one can earn it for himself, and no one can do it to himself or for himself. It's done to us, not by us. Baptism is not a work of our own salvation. It's the work of Jesus by his blood. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” – Baptism now saves you. John 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21. Plain and simple, easy to understand. But you still just don't get it. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Ok. Very Good. Let's back up now.

Why do we need salvation? (Note: My question is "Why do we need salvation?", not "Why do we need baptism?"). RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 23:48, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Why?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” – Baptism now saves you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Why do we need salvation?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” – Baptism now saves you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Why do we need salvation?
God is not willing that any should perish! 2 Peter 3:9. The promise is to you and to your children. Acts 2:39 --Dataclarifier (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Does sin have anything to do with it? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 00:00, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Ok, so you told me how to enter the Kingdom of God, but you didn't tell me anything about the need to confess my sins (If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins) Why do I need salvation? What am I being saved from? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 00:14, 4 November 2019 (EST)

The Catholic Church can tell you, all based on the Bible. It's all set forth clearly in the The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three: Life in Christ, Section One: Man's Vocation: Life in the Spirit, Chapter Three: God's Salvation: Law and Grace, Article 2: Grace and Justification, I-IV, numbers 1987-2029 - citing abundant Bible support, Rom 3:22; cf. 6:3-4; Rom 6:8-11; Cf. 1 Cor 12; Jn 15:1-4; Mt 4:17; Rom 3:21-26; Cf. Rom 7:22; Eph 3:16; Rom 6:19, 22; Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4; 1 Cor 2:7-9; Jn 4:14; 7:38-39; 2 Cor 5:17-18; Rom 12:6-8; Mt 7:20; Rom 8:28-30; Mt 5:48; Cf. 2 Tim 4; Rev 21:2; Mt 16:24.
If you have a teachable spirit, you will have your answers. “Go thou and learn." 1 Corinthians 8:2
--Dataclarifier (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2019 (EST)
(you weren't willing to wait)

I already told you I know it's in there, somewhere. But God's message of salvation has gotten lost among doctrines of men. Do yourself a favor, don't preach on baptism until you can explain what salvation is and why people need it. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 01:23, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Ok, I'll answer for you (since the answer is one or two words and I don't feel like waiting two hours to see you spam the page again with more irrelevant nonsense).

Sin.

Alternatively, some might say the wrath of God, which is equally correct.

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:10, where this whole discussion began). RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 00:30, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Proverbs 14:7
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
Baptism now saves you.
This grace was given to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery of God who created all things; that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord. Ephesians 3:8-11.
Know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15
Your interminable argument is not with me but with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. [3] [4]
You cannot win. I have helped you all I can, but you still just don't get it. Now I must attend to far more important matters. --Dataclarifier (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Bingo. You got it. My argument is with the Pharisaical traditions of the Catholic church, as Christ's were with the scribes and Pharisees of his day. Making the word of God to no effect, preaching another gospel which is no gospel at all. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 01:47, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Romans 10:9-10, again

if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

• believe in thine heart - faith.
• confess with thy mouth - the only action required on your part.

This is true repentance - i.e. a change of heart and change of mind about (a) sin, (b) what God says about sin, (c) God, (d) what God says about Himself. The moment you confess (i.e. vocalize) these spiritual truths from a sincere heart, you become resurrected from the dead and are spiritually born. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 01:08, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Ok. So you deny the authority of scripture. Now all you have is are the doctrines of men. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 22:21, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

All of my citations of scripture prove that I accept the authority of scripture. It is you who have rejected all the evidence cited from the Bible. You have closed your heart to the word of God. That is my final word. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

True (all are from scripture). Now go back and re-read 1 Corinthians chapter 2. Then answer the question, Was the gospel preached to Israel in the wilderness? (the term "gospel" is a Greek word which does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament Hebrew). Then re-read Exodus 30-33, and see how (1) Moses saw God, (2) Moses had the mind of Christ, (3) Moses offered himself as a sacrifice for the sin of the people but God rejected his offer, (4) Moses was saved by grace.

ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Now, there are carnal Christians (1 Cor 3:3) and baby Christians (I call them milk and cookie Christians 1 Pet 2:2); then there are meat and potato Christians (Heb 5:14 strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil). Carnal Christians and baby Christians are basically the same thing - they still wrestle with the doctrine of salvation by grace versus law keeping. They think faith is a work or a task that they must perform to attain salvation. But I'm getting way ahead of myself here.

Forget baptism, for now. Answer these questions:

• What is faith?
• What is salvation?
• What is God's grace?

Once we have an understanding of these, then we can discuss baptism. Water baptism does not give anyone an understanding of these key concepts. Spiritual baptism can accelerate the process. But dogged pride, study, and learning can get you there, too. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 00:28, 3 November 2019 (EDT)

Answer these questions above; don't spam the page with own comments. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 07:26, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Dataclarifier: Your inability to address these three questions harkens back to Hebrews chapter 3:

They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

This is your gospel of salvation based on baptism, they have not known my ways...some, when they heard [the Word of God] did provoke. And that 's what your gospel of infant baptism produces - people who do not know God's word and could care less, and think they are saved because someone performed some magic abracadabra ritual over them at birth - No different than the chosen who told Jesus We be not born of fornication . We be Abraham seed, in their pride thinking they are legitimate heirs of salvation by birthright. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:04, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Romans was not addressed to those outside the family of God:
"To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Rm 1:7

Clarification: The first seven chapters of Romans refers to those outside the family of God; chapter 8 onwards refers to those who are in Christ. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 07:36, 3 November 2019 (EST)

(RobS) "So no, those who are saved by grace shall not be repaid according to their works."

You have just contradicted the Word of God, and condemned yourself.
(He has since moved the edit in which he made this self-condemning assertion, quoted by me here, but he did not remove my directly relevant response, and thus leaving it without a context for the reader to evaluate properly as making any sense.)--Dataclarifier (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Then explain the meaning of the parable at Matthew chapter 20 (the parable of the householder). RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 07:38, 3 November 2019 (EST)

• For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. Rm 2:6-11

Ok, let's digress momentarily. Paul preached a Universal or Catholic gospel (God shows no partiality). The first century was marked by racism (We be Abraham's seed, not born of fornication). People thought they were entitled to God's grace and salvation based on birth. Others, like Peter, accepted lowlife gentile scum as being equals in Christ (Call not thou unclean what God has made clean) yet still had problems sitting down to eat with them. Even Jesus said in the parable of the Greek woman, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But Paul clarifies, using Johm 3:16, Whosoever, regardless of race sex, national origin, etc.

You're taking what is a primary Catholic doctrine, that those outside the Covenants of Abraham and David, can be grafted in to the family of God, and perverting it into a universal doctrine of Law, which is no gospel at all. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 09:00, 3 November 2019 (EST)

• You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24

This has been debated to death. James says works are evidence of faith. Nowhere does James say you are saved by works. It's basically a discussion of the practical (James) versus the theoretical (Paul). James is rebuking carnal Christians - people who are Christian in name only - and have not fully put their trust in Christ. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 09:07, 3 November 2019 (EST)

• Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. Revelation 22:12.
  --Dataclarifier (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Yep. To those grafted in, salvation from judgement. To those who reject God's grace, judgement. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 09:07, 3 November 2019 (EST)

We've been over this:

Rom. 4:15 the law worketh wrath

Rom. 5:9 having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 07:13, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Wrath vs. grace

This point is crucial and needs revisiting.

Those who are under grace are not under wrath. Those who are saved by grace are saved from wrath. This is the doctrine of salvation. To claim that God shall repay all men "according to their works" is not the gospel of grace. It is preaching a gospel of wrath, which is no gospel at all. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 10:32, 4 November 2019 (EST)

A word on pride

It is pride, the original sin, that hinders us and keeps us from the doctrine of grace. Pride makes us believe that there must be something that we can do to aid God in obtaining our salvation. Rather than accept the finished work of Christ, our pride does not let us humble ourselves before the cross. We insert exceptions, "yes, Jesus saves, contingent upon (insert exception, such as church teaching, water baptism, etc etc etc)", rendering the Word of God to no effect through man made church doctrine, changing the unfettered doctrine of grace, which requires us to humble ourselves and put away pride, into a doctrine of law and bring us again under subjection to God's wrath. This is that other gospel Paul warned of, which is no gospel at all. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 10:36, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Debate: Infant baptism

The rest of the debate has been moved to Debate: Infant baptism.

All additional comments directly pertaining to the structure of the main article here and to the sources of information cited in it are welcome here.

All other general comments on the topic of infant baptism not directly pertaining to the structure of this article and to the sources of information cited in it should be directed to Debate: Infant baptism.

General comments posted here on the topic of infant baptism not directly pertaining to the structure of this article and to the sources of information cited in it will be moved to Debate: Infant baptism.

The doctrinal debate postings below have now been persistently resubmitted verbatim five times, after having been moved four times to the Debate page. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2019 (EST)

More evidence those who are under grace are saved from wrath and judgement

• John 1:12 As many as received him gave he power to become sons of God
• Luke 11:11 Who among you if your child asks for a fish would give him a snake?

Once we are adopted into God's family (Romans 8:15; this is the real meaning of "catholic" - those outside the covenants of Abraham) we are nolonger under God's wrath (Romans 5:9). We are saved by grace. This is the meaning of salvation by grace, we will not be repaid according to our works. Our works are as filthy rags.

Any other gospel that teaches that God's children, i.e. those adopted into his family, will be repaid according to their works, is no gospel at all. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:06, 5 November 2019 (EST)

What happens if you shoot someone on Fifth Avenue? Asking for an orange friend. JohnZ (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Well, if you're a child of God, I suppose the same thing would happen that happened to Moses who killed the Egyptian, David who who killed Uzziah, Jeffrey Dahmer who killed 17 gays, or O.J. Simpson who murdered his wife.

Funny, ever think about that? Why did God choose two murderers, David and Moses, to write substantial portions of the Bible (Pentateuch, Psalms, much of Kings and Chronicles, etc)? Why did God choose two murderers to teach us about himself?

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent

And I thank him and praise him every minute of every hour of every day for doing it. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:43, 5 November 2019 (EST)

I'll spare you my full thoughts on Old Testament God's very stable genius. Seriously, though, are you arguing for:

1. a kind of Calvinist "once saved, always saved", or
2. do you actually believe it's possible to lose your golden ticket to Heaven through sufficiently wicked acts?

JohnZ (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Once saved, always saved. There was a time I was very skeptical of it, but Calvin convinced me. Anything else is a Gospel of Works, rendering the work of Christ to no effect and making God a liar. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:32, 5 November 2019 (EST)

I think King Solomon is one of the best examples, although he probably died miserably and guilt ridden. OTOH, the spirit of God was taken from King Saul, but that was before the spirit without measure was given. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:38, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks for a straightforward answer. JohnZ (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (EST)

This should be easy to resolve.

An easy way to resolve this matter is to have a pro-infant babtism section and an anti-infant baptism section.

Giving both perspectives is essentially what was done in the Petrine Primacy article to resolve the conflict.

Why isn't that being done in this article? It seems like such an easy way to resolve this matter.

It seems to me some diplomacy has to be shown by both sides.

I suggest reading these articles on conflict resolution skills and putting them into practice:

https://blog.hubspot.com/service/conflict-resolution-skills

https://www.eaglesflight.com/blog/top-5-skills-needed-to-successfully-resolve-conflicts-in-the-workplace

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationships-communication/conflict-resolution-skills.htm

I hope this helps. Wikignome72 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Yes and no. The real problem is Salvation. Look at that article. It's a mess. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:48, 5 November 2019 (EST)

It can be resolved. The Petrine Primacy article was resolved. If Wikipedia can have its Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc begin to create an informative article, there is no reason why Conservapedia can't do the same.

It is just a matter of whether the parties geniunely want to resolve the matter.Wikignome72 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Well, looking at the Salvation article, the Intro right now is a big problem - and it's been that way for years evidently. It needs substantial revision. I'm not certain I'm the guy who should begin it (like Peter Strzok, because of my partisan bias). Any help you can give there to get it started would be appreciated. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:53, 5 November 2019 (EST)

I have zero time to work on any articles. I am not sure when I will be free again.Wikignome72 (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Moses, again

God told Noah, whoever sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed before the Mosaic Law. Moses killed the Egyptian, was saved by grace, had the mind of Christ, and saw God.

It's pretty clear those who are saved by grace and have the mind of Christ will not be repaid according to their works. The Law is for those who are not under grace. Any other gospel is no gospel at all. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:31, 6 November 2019 (EST)