Is this true??!!! :o
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ToffeeClub1929:
waa...like that arhhh
so if on my deathbed, i convert, counted or not arhh??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not so sure lah....
according to them 99.9% all charcoal lah
onli they survive
Taken from
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=155865 -
i think some ppl on death row.... erm....
-
counted.
bt muz b truly repentant. -
So that reply is wrong la....Originally posted by Hello Kitty:counted.
bt muz b truly repentant.
ok, so if we repent we DO get saved
When Jesus was crucified, another robber, crucified beside him, repented and Jesus said to him: (forgot what liaoz...
) sth like you will enter paradise with me. -
not for us to say, only Yahweh knows the heart... ther person has no chance to prove it...
-
what is this topic about? what charcoal?
-
Baptism will be sufficient.
-
wth... no?...
-
It's all about the person heart.
Whether that person really meant it or not... -
then liddat i'll wait till me about to die then repent sua.
-
I think the cleansing of sins comes from the intrinsic nature of Baptism itself - sin goes out and GOD comes in. It is the mechanism that cleanses the person rather than the humans involved in it cleansing each other through a water sprinkling ritual. If a person could himself repent by his own effort - a change of heart - without the need of baptism or any supernatural mechanism, then Christ death was unnecessary since men can save himself with a change of heart. I believe this is a position no modern day Christian will adopt.Originally posted by popikachu:It's all about the person heart.
Whether that person really meant it or not... -
Its still teh heart that is most important.
Baptism is not madatory, esp if one is near dying...
Did the person crucified next to Jesus get baptised?
-
Baptism of DesireOriginally posted by davidche:Its still teh heart that is most important.
Baptism is not madatory, esp if one is near dying...
Did the person crucified next to Jesus get baptised? 
And the Thief didn't get to heaven straight away. He went to Paradise or Sheol. Inevitably, the Good Thief is an exception to the rule rather than the normative. God is not bound to his sacraments.
If the heart is the most important (and hence baptism is not needed), let us examine this situation below -
Premise 1 - Everyone is born with Original Sin
Premise 2 - Only a change in heart - a desire to be justified and faith in Christ can effect a regeneration of the soul
Premise 3: No one without this so-called regeneration can be saved since he is sinful.
a) A Retarded child was born and is incapable of thought
b) The child grows up but is unable to comprehend ideas such as salvation, Christ, Bible.
c) As a result, he is unable to be justified since he has NO DESIRE
d) Since he possesses original Sin, he will be damned in Hell.
This clearly makes no sense. God's grace does not flow from our actions but from the sacraments he left us with. Baptism would have saved that child.
Just to clarify-
Would Baptism be valid if the person is insincere or has no desire to be saved? -
Pedophile pu55ycats not included.
-
dot dot dot
-
what is this? a reductio ad absurdum in disguise?Originally posted by vadermanu89:If the heart is the most important (and hence baptism is not needed), let us examine this situation below -
Premise 1 - Everyone is born with Original Sin
Premise 2 - Only a change in heart - a desire to be justified and faith in Christ can effect a regeneration of the soul
Premise 3: No one without this so-called regeneration can be saved since he is sinful.
a) A Retarded child was born and is incapable of thought
b) The child grows up but is unable to comprehend ideas such as salvation, Christ, Bible.
c) As a result, he is unable to be justified since he has NO DESIRE
d) Since he possesses original Sin, he will be damned in Hell.
I think your reasoning is flawed. You have hidden premises from a to d unsaid. As a result, your conclusion is unsound. -
Precisely. It was meant to be unsound. I was attempting to show that it is unreasonable to use extreme examples (good thief, dying man, retarded child) to disprove or prove Baptismal Regeneration. As a result, in order to disprove Baptismal Regeneration, it is best to use general examples or exegesis of Scripture.Originally posted by Icemoon:what is this? a reductio ad absurdum in disguise?
I think your reasoning is flawed. You have hidden premises from a to d unsaid. As a result, your conclusion is unsound.
Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, Scripture has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.
Augustine of Hippo makes a similiar argument here:
"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.'" Augustine, City of God, 13:7 -
I am Reformed in thinking, so I have to disagree with you here.Originally posted by vadermanu89:Premise 2 - Only a change in heart - a desire to be justified and faith in Christ can effect a regeneration of the soul
I think monergistic regeneration (is there such a term? lol) should come first.
-
But Davidche believes that one must have a change of heart to be cleanse of sinOriginally posted by Icemoon:I am Reformed in thinking, so I have to disagree with you here.
I think monergistic regeneration (is there such a term? lol) should come first. ok, so if we repent we DO get saved
His formula is essentially (I could have misintepretated it)
When Jesus was crucified, another robber, crucified beside him, repented and Jesus said to him: (forgot what liaoz... ) sth like you will enter paradise with me.
i) A Change of Heart + Repentance
ii) This brings about regeneration.
Hence I used his premise.
The common reformed thinking is justification followed by sanctification. The Roman Catholic argues that both are inter-linked and is an on-going process. The Eastern Catholic and EO (neither believe in Original Sin) system - unknown. Please correct me if I am wrong. Salvation Theology is such a tricky area. I personally feel that is all due to semantics and which came first - chicken or the egg fallacy. -
I think dave is not wrong, hopefully i am not wrong.Originally posted by vadermanu89:His formula is essentially (I could have misintepretated it)
i) A Change of Heart + Repentance
ii) This brings about regeneration.
Hence I used his premise.
The common reformed thinking is justification followed by sanctification. The Roman Catholic argues that both are inter-linked and is an on-going process. The Eastern Catholic and EO (neither believe in Original Sin) system - unknown. Please correct me if I am wrong. Salvation Theology is such a tricky area. I personally feel that is all due to semantics and which came first - chicken or the egg fallacy.
The common Reformed thinking is that regeneration precedes faith, so the order of the formula should be reversed.
Soteriology is a tricky area 'cos the whole Christian faith is confusing and sometimes illogical .. oh well. -
Doesn't the RCC teaches the exact same thing - baptismal regeneration preceded by faith?Originally posted by Icemoon:I think dave is not wrong, hopefully i am not wrong.
The common Reformed thinking is that regeneration precedes faith, so the order of the formula should be reversed.
Soteriology is a tricky area 'cos the whole Christian faith is confusing and sometimes illogical .. oh well.
That may explain why the Lutherans and Catholics have recently signed a common understanding of Justification. Technically this would mean the end of 5 centuries worth of division within the Western Churches. -
But we are not talking about baptismal regeneration here. I was referring to a monergistic regeneration by the Holy Spirit. When baptism is involved, it will be synergistic.Originally posted by vadermanu89:Doesn't the RCC teaches the exact same thing - baptismal regeneration preceded by faith?
That may explain why the Lutherans and Catholics have recently signed a common understanding of Justification. Technically this would mean the end of 5 centuries worth of division within the Western Churches.
Justification and regeneration are different processes.