What is Catholicism?

[1689Dave]

I have absolutely no problem with people that want to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ (only), or with people that want to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I disagree with ‘Free Will’ (being a Particular Baptist), but do not view those that hold to cooperation in their salvation as ‘antichrists’.
Dispensationalism was popularized by Scofield (who was not a Jesuit) and has some valid scriptural observations about the past dispensations of God’s Grace even as it makes questionable assumptions about eschatology.
Those that use, and those that abstain from “organs, pews, altars and stained glass” both do so according to 1 Corinthians 10:31 and “to the glory of God”, so I am in full support of the body of Christ doing anything to the glory of God.

I even accept YOUR views as your attempt to somehow bring glory to God by abhorring what you believe God abhors; I just cannot see the evil in an organ playing “Amazing Grace” to a room full of people praising Christ that believe that He could snatch them out of this world at any moment and begin pouring the wrath of God on the ungodly.

You are disobeying Jesus baptizing as the Pope says you should. He is the Antichrist afterall. Peter and the others baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.

 

[1689Dave]

You are arguing an interpertation. Bear in mind the interpretation by many Baptists of actually using the words in the "name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is being understood to mean being done in the name of Jesus Christ per His instruction as recorded in Matthew 28:19 too.

It's Peter's understanding of Christ's words. The Papal Antichrist changed it to what you have now. Who will you obey?

 

[atpollard]

You are disobeying Jesus baptizing as the Pope says you should. He is the Antichrist afterall. Peter and the others baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Ha! I was baptized as a Lutheran infant and raised Atheist ... and God was still able to save me with THAT “baptism”. So let that be a lesson on just how long the arm of my God is!

 

[1689Dave]

Ha! I was baptized as a Lutheran infant and raised Atheist ... and God was still able to save me with THAT “baptism”. So let that be a lesson on just how long the arm of my God is!

But the truth should mean more to you than that. When I studied baptism, the first thing I did was to be re-baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Infants are not even baptized. It is for believers by immersion in water, only. So you were never baptized.

 

[atpollard]

He is the Antichrist afterall.

There is no “the Antichrist”.
Show me the Bible verse that talks about “the Antichrist”.

• [1Jo 2:18, 22 KJV] 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. ... 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
  
  
• [1Jo 4:3 KJV] 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
  
  
• [2Jo 1:7 KJV] 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

ἀντίχριστος antíchristos, an-tee'-khris-tos; from G473 and G5547; an opponent of the Messiah:—antichrist

These verses describe any opponent of Christ as “antichrist” and were not capitalized because it is not the title of a single individual. Modern Christians (and especially Dispensational Theologians) have created the boogeyman known as “the Antichrist”.

The Pope is an old Roman Catholic Priest that occasionally says very biblical things and occasionally says some very silly things. He is not Lucifer incarnate.

 

[atpollard]

But the truth should mean more to you than that. When I studied baptism, the first thing I did was to be re-baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Infants are not even baptized. It is for believers by immersion in water, only. So you were never baptized.

... and yet God was able to transform my heart and mind. How can such a thing even be POSSIBLE?

 

[1689Dave]

There is no “the Antichrist”.
Show me the Bible verse that talks about “the Antichrist”.

• [1Jo 2:18, 22 KJV] 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. ... 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
  
  
• [1Jo 4:3 KJV] 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
  
  
• [2Jo 1:7 KJV] 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

ἀντίχριστος antíchristos, an-tee'-khris-tos; from G473 and G5547; an opponent of the Messiah:—antichrist

These verses describe any opponent of Christ as “antichrist” and were not capitalized because it is not the title of a single individual. Modern Christians (and especially Dispensational Theologians) have created the boogeyman known as “the Antichrist”.

The Pope is an old Roman Catholic Priest that occasionally says very biblical things and occasionally says some very silly things. He is not Lucifer incarnate.

Paul's "Man of sin" is the Antichrist John speaks of.

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” 1 John 2:18 (KJV 1900)

Did you know Antichrist = "in place of Christ"? And "Vicar of Christ" = "in place of Christ"?

 

[1689Dave]

... and yet God was able to transform my heart and mind. How can such a thing even be POSSIBLE?

If you have a love of the truth, enough to be baptized in the biblical sense, you would be more convincing.

 

[atpollard]

Did you know Antichrist = "in place of Christ"? And "Vicar of Christ" = "in place of Christ"?

I know

(antí)christos Greek (anti) G437 = opposite = “opposed to” or “in place of” Christ.

vicar = Middle English = Second in command, Deputy

• from vicarius = Latin = “a substitute, deputy, proxy” from the adjective vicarius = “substituted or delegated”.

So antichrist “opposes and takes the place of Christ” while Vicar of Christ is “a delegated representative sitting in for Christ”. While I reject Petrine succession and Papal dominance over the other apostles as unbiblical, it is not accurate to equate the terms “Antichrist” with “Vicar of Christ”.

 

[atpollard]

If you have a love of the truth, enough to be baptized in the biblical sense, you would be more convincing.

So water saves?

I reject the premise.

 

[1689Dave]

So water saves?

I reject the premise.

If you believe, baptism proves it. So far you're all hat and no cattle.

 

[1689Dave]

I know

(antí)christos Greek (anti) G437 = opposite = “opposed to” or “in place of” Christ.

vicar = Middle English = Second in command, Deputy

• from vicarius = Latin = “a substitute, deputy, proxy” from the adjective vicarius = “substituted or delegated”.

So antichrist “opposes and takes the place of Christ” while Vicar of Christ is “a delegated representative sitting in for Christ”. While I reject Petrine succession and Papal dominance over the other apostles as unbiblical, it is not accurate to equate the terms “Antichrist” with “Vicar of Christ”.

Same thing.

 

[AustinC]

But the truth should mean more to you than that. When I studied baptism, the first thing I did was to be re-baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Infants are not even baptized. It is for believers by immersion in water, only. So you were never baptized.

This is your assertion.
Nowhere do we see re-baptism in the Bible. Nowhere do we explicitly see infants being baptized.
The bigger question is whether believers are in a covenantal relationship, which includes their children. If there is a covenant of grace with the church, then baptism would express the covenant of the church to raise these little sinners to know God's gracious redemption.
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox and Anglicans claim this baptism is regenerational in and of itself. Reformed and Presbyterian view it as securing a potential regeneration that must be confirmed.
The issue is whether you believe God has a covenant with his people or whether his relationship is purely individualistic.
For the Reformed and Presbyterian, there is no need for a second baptism after redemption is confirmed. Therefore atpollard would have no reason to be rebaptized since his baptism is confirmed by his faith.

 

[utilyan]

If you have a love of the truth, enough to be baptized in the biblical sense, you would be more convincing.

I bet your great at parties.

 

[atpollard]

Same thing.

Only in the way a coup and an election are both the same thing (change of leadership).

 

[1689Dave]

This is your assertion.
Nowhere do we see re-baptism in the Bible. Nowhere do we explicitly see infants being baptized.
The bigger question is whether believers are in a covenantal relationship, which includes their children. If there is a covenant of grace with the church, then baptism would express the covenant of the church to raise these little sinners to know God's gracious redemption.
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox and Anglicans claim this baptism is regenerational in and of itself. Reformed and Presbyterian view it as securing a potential regeneration that must be confirmed.
The issue is whether you believe God has a covenant with his people or whether his relationship is purely individualistic.
For the Reformed and Presbyterian, there is no need for a second baptism after redemption is confirmed. Therefore atpollard would have no reason to be rebaptized since his baptism is confirmed by his faith.

If you think you were baptized and were not, according to scripture, corrected re-baptism is your only baptism. Many disobey Jesus and follow the Papacy (Antichrist) using his formula instead. Why would I go to all the trouble if I thought I was scripturally baptized the first time? God sends strong delusion to those who have no love for the truth.

 

[37818]

It's Peter's understanding of Christ's words. The Papal Antichrist changed it to what you have now. Who will you obey?

What evidence do you have that the reading of Matthew 28:19 is not original?

 

[1689Dave]

What evidence do you have that the reading of Matthew 28:19 is not original?

It is original, but you did not receive the same revelation about its meaning Peter and the early Church did. You believe the Antichrist Papacy instead.

 

[AustinC]

If you think you were baptized and were not, according to scripture, corrected re-baptism is your only baptism. Many disobey Jesus and follow the Papacy (Antichrist) using his formula instead. Why would I go to all the trouble if I thought I was scripturally baptized the first time? God sends strong delusion to those who have no love for the truth.

Interesting, no scripture provided for your assertion.

 

[37818]

It is original, but you did not receive the same revelation about its meaning Peter and the early Church did. You believe the Antichrist Papacy instead.

Your false accusation is not making any sense. To Peter in Matthew 16:17,". . . for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven," with John 6:44-45, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: . . . It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
Your accusation is problematic. Since all genuine Christians are taught by God.