How to Answer Catholic Apologists About Eary Church "Fathers' " Quotes

I don't think you can rebutt. The Catholic is correct. According to documented Christian history, baptismal regeneration was the accepted view from NT times. Other protestants including Lutherans, Prebyterians and Methodists also hold to the historic doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Some baptists will argue for a persecuted "baptistic line" that was the "true church" who didn't hold to baptismal regeneration but left no documented history because of persecution from the Catholic church. Of course, an argument from a lack of evidence isn't really much of an argument.

A more historically honest and theologically justified position could be that the historical church was wrong in its view of baptismal regeneration. Sola scriptura allows for this type of position.

 

Forget all those commenters. Go straight to The Book. Catholicism is Judaism in new robes ~~ maybe that's why they can't get it right.

 

No. But he is correct in that historically, the understanding of that phrase did include baptism. The separation of the concepts of being born again and baptism was a result of the popularization of the theology of symbolic baptism in baptist/evangelical North American Christianity and is a recent development. Just because a theology is recent doesn't mean it is wrong.

I guess I should add that I was raised baptist and attend a baptist church which teaches symbolic baptism. However, I am sympathetic to historic baptismal regeneration theology because of the following verses that seem to suggest something more than symbolism.

The biblical association of baptism with the forgiveness of sins is undeniable.

NASB - Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

NASB - Acts 2:28 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

NASB - Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.

There are other passages that suggest something more than mere symbolism happening in baptism.

NASB - Romans 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

NASB - Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

NASB - 1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

I've always thought that the strongest argument against baptismal regeneration is that it doesn't work! The western world is crawling with degenerates who were baptized at some point or another.

Unless you believe in regenerate degenerates, which would be a thread on a different topic.

 

That is one possible reply.

Although my answer would probably more sympathetic of the Catholic view than yours would because of my more skeptical position on the theology of symbolic baptism.

 

When I got saved at age 13, I didn't think that walking the aisle saved me. Yet, when my 16 year old sister asked me about getting saved without walking the aisle and embarassing herself, I told her that there was no other way!

It's hard to "just" have faith. You have to do something, even if it's "bow your head and pray this prayer after me."

If true believers were simply exercising their faith by obeying God and being baptized, they were getting saved.

 

Malachi
I've always found it interesting that while the NT is a rather Jewish book, in the sense that all of the symbolism, subject matter, methaphors and even some of the grammar used in it have more to do with 1st century A.D. Judaïsm than with 1st century Greek philosophy, the churchfathers interpret it like it is a Greek philosophy text.

And I agree with Pipedude and Gold Dragon.

 

Malachi, I also wanted to welcome a fellow Canadian to the BB.

 

Oops, wrong button.

 

Malachi
"b) if we cannot rebute them, why aren't we Roman Catholic?"
"
Because we can make a good case that baptism is not intended for babies? Because it says nowhere in Scripture that the bishop of Rome is the seatwarmer of Jezus prior to the 2nd coming?
Because you don't like the smell of incense?

"I have been spending some time on the CAtholics Answers website, their Apologists are very well versed."
"
Actually they aren't. Most apologists (on both sides) who haunt the internet are either amateurs, or hucksters. During my university days I've ran into a few people who could make their case for or against the RCC a lot better than anything I've ever seen on the internet.

 

Malachi
"I canno tbelieve that we do not have any respectuble rebuttal to the early church christians' writtings. This blows my mind."
"
Simple.
-The Churchfathers are not immune to being wrong.
-All of them believed in stuff the RCC disagrees with.
-On a couple of side issues they all agree to disagree with later theologians. A clear case of cultural bias.
Problem is, whose framework is more correct? The Greek philosophers viewpoint of the Churchfathers, or the western civilization viewpoint of later theologians? Both are analyzing a text that is written from a very different worldview to their own.

"How are we suppose to witness to RC. (if need be)"
"
Show the person that he is not yet a born again Christian. In the end, being saved has not all that much to do with your denomination.
A lot of RC parishes however are not conductive for sound Christian living. Spending to much time burning candles in front of statues and playing bingo.
A saved Christian who is a member of such a parish should seriously consider moving on to a more fitting church.

 

The Early Church Fathers quotes and writings have been kept mostly by the Catholic Church, and some are considered to be spurious. They are not equal anyway to the Scriptures that God Himself kept.

They could have easily have altered quotes in order to keep the people under their thumb. They came up with the Donation of Constantine and other forgeries before for this purpose:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html The Donation of Constantine
http://users.aol.com/rcchurch/donate.htm
http://historical.benabraham.com/html/donation_of_constantine.html Painting of DOC at Vatican
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.aspx Decretals of Isidore (forgery)
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.v.lxxiv.htm Catholic forgeries

http://users.aol.com/rcchurch/rcchurch.html False Catholic history
http://www.acts1711.com/forgery.htm Forgeries (Early Fathers, etc.)
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Forgery.html Forged Catholic papers (ECF)

They sold indulgences, and have always wanted to be a sort of exclusive franchise for salvation. That is ample reason for them to deceive their followers. And of course the simple reason is money. How do you think that they came up with all the money to build the Vatican and to collect it's treasures and art work?

Here are some web sites that refute baptismal regeneration:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=joh&chapter=003&verse=005&next=006&prev=004
www.evangelicaloutreach.org/baptism.htm
http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/baptizmalregen.html “
http://www.dokimos.org/immersed.html?origin=main&c “
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcbaptr.htm “
http://www.carm.org/questions/baptnec.htm “
http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcbaptr.htm “
http://users.htcomp.net/gatewaybc/on_line_articles/baptismal_regeneration.htm

I would say to your Catholic friend that you don't find their quotes to be reliable do to the RCC's long established history of forgeries. And even if some quotes are reliable, then they don't square up with the Word of God, and tell him why.

BTW, here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers that claim that Peter is not the Rock, that Jesus Christ is:

http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html

You might want to ask him why the Catholic Church picks and chooses what to belive from their writings. It's always good to the ECF back in their faces. (which should look something like this: )

 

JackRUS
"They could have easily have altered quotes in order to keep the people under their thumb. They came up with the Donation of Constantine and other forgeries before for this purpose:"
"
I'm always surprised about the contempt there is for our own scholars in some circles. By now we know pretty well where the forgeries are among the corpus of ancient Christian texts.

 

Good. Give me a list of them please.