Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity

[DHK]

Says you! Third and fourth Maccabees are expanded books of Maccabees which the Catholic Church has never said our are not inspired but are not part of the Latin Rite lectionary. 'Unity does not necessarily mean uniformity'. Again, do all IFB churches have the same 'worship style'? No, I know full well you don't. Using your reasoning, you have no unity. Again, you say Eastern Catholics 'don't believe in'. Once again, you show your ignorance about Catholic Christians. It isn't a matter of 'not believing in' styles of prayer or worship but preferences. But, hey, you used to insists there were no such thing as married priests within the Catholic Church and accused me of lying when I told you were wrong.

Pope Gregory the Great, writing at the end of the 6th century states that the book of 1 Maccabees is NOT canonical.
Cardinal Cajetan, the leading scholar in the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation affirms that the Church of his day followed the authority of Jerome and he suggests that there were 2 concepts of the term canon.

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

The above statements by Catejan are a fair summary of the overall view of the Church in both the East and West from the time of Athanasius and Jerome up through the 16th Century. Jerome's opinion completely dominated that of the ensuing centuries in the Western Church as is seen in the testimony of Cajetan.

 

[Don]

5,R6=&\"÷_UZ Yq 6y.

 

[Don]

-5J ģ n #?..

 

[DHK]

Yes, it was the Protestants like yourselves, who had brought this symbolic gesture out. It was not the first Reformers since many of them, even Luther, accepted the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The problem with Protestants (Baptists and others) was later on they wanted to distant themselves from Catholic teachings, so the real presence is one area where they started to change. For me the teaching is very simple, if you will understand these important principals. When we receive the Lord Jesus in the Sacrament of His Body and Blood the Lord gives us another gift to be imparted into us. He gives to us another Deposit of the Holy Spirit so that at every reception of the Holy Eucharist the presence of the Holy Spirit actually increases in you. I have personally experienced it.

And this is the crux of the matter.
First, early believers did not change anything that Christ and the apostles had already taught them.
Second, Reformers protested against the corruption of the RCC. Remember Luther's testimony of what he saw in Rome, and then his 95 theses?
Third, there is nothing present in a piece of bread but carbohydrates: carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, all of which breaks down into glucose, C6H12O6. There is nothing divine, sacramental or special about that. It is bread and that is all. Wine breaks down to ethyl alcohol in its simplest form: CH3CH2OH. There you have your three basic chemicals again: carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. So this is what you are worshiping in transubstantiation when you say "This is my body; this is my blood"; carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

Early believers took these elements, the bread and wine and symbolically remembered them as the Lord commanded them to:
1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
--It is a memorial to be done in remembrance of the death of Christ, and to look forward to his coming.
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
It is symbolic. "you do 'show' or symbolize the Lord's death until he comes or His Coming.

(ESV) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
His death is proclaimed, (not changed) until he comes.

You experienced nothing. You were emotional. I was a Catholic for 20 years as I have reminded you many times. There is nothing special that happens here. Don't be deceived.
This statement of yours:

t the presence of the Holy Spirit actually increases in you. I have personally experienced it.

It is just bunk.
We don't determine doctrine on our emotional experiences.
How did you feel this morning? What did you experience? My experience was that since it is Saturday I didn't want to get out of bed, but I did anyway. I don't spend my life according to my feelings or emotions, and that is not how I determine my doctrine.

There is no presence of the Holy Spirit in bread and wine; only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[Walter]

And this is the crux of the matter.
First, early believers did not change anything that Christ and the apostles had already taught them.
Second, Reformers protested against the corruption of the RCC. Remember Luther's testimony of what he saw in Rome, and then his 95 theses?
Third, there is nothing present in a piece of bread but carbohydrates: carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, all of which breaks down into glucose, C6H12O6. There is nothing divine, sacramental or special about that. It is bread and that is all. Wine breaks down to ethyl alcohol in its simplest form: CH3CH2OH. There you have your three basic chemicals again: carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. So this is what you are worshiping in transubstantiation when you say "This is my body; this is my blood"; carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

Early believers took these elements, the bread and wine and symbolically remembered them as the Lord commanded them to:
1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
--It is a memorial to be done in remembrance of the death of Christ, and to look forward to his coming.
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
It is symbolic. "you do 'show' or symbolize the Lord's death until he comes or His Coming.

(ESV) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
His death is proclaimed, (not changed) until he comes.

You experienced nothing. You were emotional. I was a Catholic for 20 years as I have reminded you many times. There is nothing special that happens here. Don't be deceived.
This statement of yours:

It is just bunk.
We don't determine doctrine on our emotional experiences.
How did you feel this morning? What did you experience? My experience was that since it is Saturday I didn't want to get out of bed, but I did anyway. I don't spend my life according to my feelings or emotions, and that is not how I determine my doctrine.

There is no presence of the Holy Spirit in bread and wine; only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

Early believers made it clear (like Paul) that they did indeed believe the bread & wine were His body & blood, not to mention all the ECF references to that fact, not to mention Jesus' explicit statement. How big is your God, DHK? My God is not only able to accomplish the Real Presence in the Eucharist but also is big enough to begin the salvation process through the waters of baptism. You mentioned that anyone who believed in baptismal regeneration were not a real Christian. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Methodists, etc believe in baptismal regeneration. No believers in those churches either, DHK? Was your own wife not a Christian as a Presbyterian? Before you say Presbyterian's don't believe that, lets take a look at the WCF

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the foundational theological document of Presbyterianism, explicitly extends a saving efficacy to baptism. Notice how it reads (chapter 28 of the Confession, sections 1 and 6:

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his in-grafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.
That is, baptism is a "sign and seal" of salvation. The language is not of symbol but of "sign and seal." What did the Westminster authors intend by this language?

Notice the language of section 6.

6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Notice, the Confession teaches that the "efficacy" of baptism is not necessarily attached to the time of its administration — it may become effective later. But that raises a deeper question: How and why would they speak in terms of "efficacy" at all? This is nothing short of baptismal regeneration. Notice again, "by the right use of this ordinance" saving grace is "promised" and "not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost." Now, DHK, I know you realize your wife was a Christian as a Presbie, now how can we explain this language of the "efficacy" of baptism except in terms of baptismal regeneration? The plain statement is that saving grace is actually conveyed in the waters of baptism.

 

[DHK]

Early believers made it clear (like Paul) that they did indeed believe the bread & wine were His body & blood, not to mention all the ECF references to that fact, not to mention Jesus' explicit statement. How big is your God, DHK?

Not big enough to believe in superstitions,
Nor to go against his own truths as stated in the Word of God,
Nor to agree with the traditions of men as stated in man's own Creeds whether right or wrong.
Nor to go against anything that is against his nature, His Word, or His promises.

He could have created us all with our own spaceships so that we could explore the universe on our own, but he didn't. How great is your God? You speak foolishness. God does not believe in the superstitions of man, but rather condemns them.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(and bread and wine as well). He calls them fools.

My God is not only able to accomplish the Real Presence in the Eucharist but also is big enough to begin the salvation process through the waters of baptism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(and water also). He calls them fools.

You mentioned that anyone who believed in baptismal regeneration were not a real Christian. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Methodists, etc believe in baptismal regeneration. No believers in those churches either, DHK?

I didn't say no one. I said if a person believes they are saved by their baptism (that is baptismal regeneration) they cannot be saved. Baptism cannot save. Not all in those churches believe that. Not all Presbyterians believe that.

Was your own wife not a Christian as a Presbyterian? Before you say Presbyterian's don't believe that, lets take a look at the WCF

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the foundational theological document of Presbyterianism, explicitly extends a saving efficacy to baptism. Notice how it reads (chapter 28 of the Confession, sections 1 and 6:

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his in-grafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.
That is, baptism is a "sign and seal" of salvation. The language is not of symbol but of "sign and seal." What did the Westminster authors intend by this language?

It is a SIGN. A sign is a symbol. Obviously you don't understand their theology.

Notice the language of section 6.

6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Notice, the Confession teaches that the "efficacy" of baptism is not necessarily attached to the time of its administration — it may become effective later. But that raises a deeper question: How and why would they speak in terms of "efficacy" at all? This is nothing short of baptismal regeneration. Notice again, "by the right use of this ordinance" saving grace is "promised" and "not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost." Now, DHK, I know you realize your wife was a Christian as a Presbie, now how can we explain this language of the "efficacy" of baptism except in terms of baptismal regeneration? The plain statement is that saving grace is actually conveyed in the waters of baptism.[/QUOTE]
The Old English that it is written in is evidently difficult for you to understand. Baptism took the place of circumcision according to the Presbyterians. It was a covenantal relationship. As circumcision was the door to the nation of Israel, so baptism is the door to the Presbyterian church and their family. It was still obligatory for them (those of them that are evangelical) to make a profession of faith when they came to be to the age of understanding. Their baptism did not save them. That is not what it teaches.

God is not so foolish. Furthermore, neither I nor my wife are Presbyterians, and could care less what this Confession says. My guide is the Bible. I am not here to defend other religions. I really don't care what the Westminster Confession of faith says. Baptism doesn't save.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
There is no other way.

 

[Walter]

Not big enough to believe in superstitions,
Nor to go against his own truths as stated in the Word of God,
Nor to agree with the traditions of men as stated in man's own Creeds whether right or wrong.
Nor to go against anything that is against his nature, His Word, or His promises.

He could have created us all with our own spaceships so that we could explore the universe on our own, but he didn't. How great is your God? You speak foolishness. God does not believe in the superstitions of man, but rather condemns them.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(and bread and wine as well). He calls them fools.


Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(and water also). He calls them fools.

I didn't say no one. I said if a person believes they are saved by their baptism (that is baptismal regeneration) they cannot be saved. Baptism cannot save. Not all in those churches believe that. Not all Presbyterians believe that.

It is a SIGN. A sign is a symbol. Obviously you don't understand their theology.

Notice the language of section 6.

6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Notice, the Confession teaches that the "efficacy" of baptism is not necessarily attached to the time of its administration — it may become effective later. But that raises a deeper question: How and why would they speak in terms of "efficacy" at all? This is nothing short of baptismal regeneration. Notice again, "by the right use of this ordinance" saving grace is "promised" and "not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost." Now, DHK, I know you realize your wife was a Christian as a Presbie, now how can we explain this language of the "efficacy" of baptism except in terms of baptismal regeneration? The plain statement is that saving grace is actually conveyed in the waters of baptism.

The Old English that it is written in is evidently difficult for you to understand. Baptism took the place of circumcision according to the Presbyterians. It was a covenantal relationship. As circumcision was the door to the nation of Israel, so baptism is the door to the Presbyterian church and their family. It was still obligatory for them (those of them that are evangelical) to make a profession of faith when they came to be to the age of understanding. Their baptism did not save them. That is not what it teaches.

God is not so foolish. Furthermore, neither I nor my wife are Presbyterians, and could care less what this Confession says. My guide is the Bible. I am not here to defend other religions. I really don't care what the Westminster Confession of faith says. Baptism doesn't save.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
There is no other way.[/QUOTE]

You have clearly tried to double-talk your way around Presbyterian theology before when you admitted to me that your wife was a Presbie at one time. Please point out the Old English that I'm having difficulty understanding. Maybe Martin might assist you? Yes, baptism is a sign & a SEAL. Again, the WCF IS clear when they speak as to the EFFICACY of baptism. You answered NONE of the questions or points I raised. BTW, Catholics also must make a profession of faith when they reach the age of understanding as well. So do Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Reformed, etc.

 

[DHK]

The Old English that it is written in is evidently difficult for you to understand. Baptism took the place of circumcision according to the Presbyterians. It was a covenantal relationship. As circumcision was the door to the nation of Israel, so baptism is the door to the Presbyterian church and their family. It was still obligatory for them (those of them that are evangelical) to make a profession of faith when they came to be to the age of understanding. Their baptism did not save them. That is not what it teaches.

God is not so foolish. Furthermore, neither I nor my wife are Presbyterians, and could care less what this Confession says. My guide is the Bible. I am not here to defend other religions. I really don't care what the Westminster Confession of faith says. Baptism doesn't save.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
There is no other way.

You have clearly tried to double-talk your way around Presbyterian theology before when you admitted to me that your wife was a Presbie at one time. Please point out the Old English that I'm having difficulty understanding. Maybe Martin might assist you? Yes, baptism is a sign & a SEAL. Again, the WCF IS clear when they speak as to the EFFICACY of baptism. You answered NONE of the questions or points I raised. BTW, Catholics also must make a profession of faith when they reach the age of understanding as well. So do Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Reformed, etc.

Many of the Baptists on this Board are of the Reformed Baptists or Calvinists. Most of them adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They can explain something they have studied far better than I have hardly read. You should ask them. But this one thing I know: There is not a single Baptist on this board that believes in the heresy of Baptismal regeneration: Reformed Baptist or otherwise. They all with one accord will tell you it is a heresy. In fact, even Reformed Baptists, along with any other Baptists were murdered by the Catholic Church and some others simply for the act of baptizing believers who by faith had trusted Christ as their Savior. Baptists in particular were singled out and executed by the RCC.

Now back to the W.C. of F. I am not sure you have even quoted it properly.
Here is an on-line version I found:

http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WCFScriptureProofs.pdf

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
--Any question here?

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,l but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
--Straight forward?

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,n yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;o or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
Let's break this one down.
a. It is a great sin to despise or neglect the ordinance of baptism.
b. Baptism is closely related to salvation
c. ...salvation is not so joined to baptism that a person cannot be saved without it.
--Don't let the double negatives here confuse you. IOW a person can be saved without the baptism.
d. All that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. Of course. We would never baptize someone who is not regenerated. It is not teaching baptismal regeneration. It is teaching that they baptize only regenerated believers.

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;q yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.
--God works outside of time. Thus when he looks down from heaven any such "efficacy" is not at the point of baptism, but rather at the actual point of conversion when one asks Christ to be their Savior. It is "in God's appointed time."

That is the best I can do; I am sure others can do better. It does not teach baptismal regeneration.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the foundational theological document of Presbyterianism, explicitly extends a saving efficacy to baptism. Notice how it reads (chapter 28 of the Confession, sections 1 and 6:

May I remind you that you are on the Baptist Board? If you wish to discuss Confessions, you need to get to grips with the Baptist 1689 Confession, which describes baptism as an 'ordinance.' The Particular Baptists were the ones who moved the Reformation onwards by getting rid of the last remnant of Romanism, infant 'baptism.'

1689 Confession 29:1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27) in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16); and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).

29:2. Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8).

As to baptism being a 'seal,' plainly it isn't. The N.T. is very clear that the Holy Spirit is the seal of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; 4:40)

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

I don't think DHK has read this bit quite correctly. The last part is saying that baptism is not so 'inseparably annexed' to salvation that everyone who is baptized is unquestionably saved.

If you ask a Reformed Presbyterian, he will be astounded and disgusted by the suggestion that the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration, and will no doubt explain to you what the Confession is saying; but I am not disposed to defend Presbyterianism on a Baptist discussion board.

 

[DHK]

Thanks Martin,
As an aside, my wife's previous association (she is a fundamental Baptist now) with Presbyterianism was loosely associated with church whose statement of faith is posted here:

http://www.freepresbyterian.org/beliefs/

Note the one article of faith:

Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honour in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.

 

[TCassidy]

The Old English that it is written in is evidently difficult for you to understand.

Old English? Nobody has posted anything in Old English. Old English was English spoken/written between 500 and 1100 AD. What was posted is Modern English (1500-Present).

Here is an example of Old English:

 

[DHK]

Old English? Nobody has posted anything in Old English. Old English was English spoken/written between 500 and 1100 AD. What was posted is Modern English (1500-Present).

Here is an example of Old English:

View attachment 423

I stand corrected. "Older" English then. We don't speak Shakespearean or Elizabethean English either. Our KJV was written over 400 years ago, and I just don't hear people speaking like that any more.

 

[TCassidy]

The term you were looking for is "Early Modern English."

 

[Walter]

Old English? Nobody has posted anything in Old English. Old English was English spoken/written between 500 and 1100 AD. What was posted is Modern English (1500-Present).

Here is an example of Old English:

View attachment 423

I completely agree with you. DHK is the one that said I was not understanding the Old English of the WCF. I think it is quite clear and is, as you said, written in Modern English.

 

[DHK]

I completely agree with you. DHK is the one that said I was not understanding the Old English of the WCF. I think it is quite clear and is, as you said, written in Modern English.

And do you agree with this Presbyterian statement of faith since you are the one castigating them:
http://www.freepresbyterian.org/beliefs/

 

[Walter]

And do you agree with this Presbyterian statement of faith since you are the one castigating them:
http://www.freepresbyterian.org/beliefs/

I'm not 'castigating' anyone. A tiny sect of a few dozen congregations in Northern Ireland is hardly representative of what most Presbyterians believe. Words have meaning, and the WCF clearly states what baptism is all about. That is all I have to say on the subject. I don't care what Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith says. That is not what I was discussing. And I will remind Martin this may be a Baptist Board, but this is the 'Other Christian Denominations Forum'. Therefore, I should think I would be free to ask questions about or discuss other Christian faiths.

 

[DHK]

I'm not 'castigating' anyone. A tiny sect of a few dozen congregations in Northern Ireland is hardly representative of what most Presbyterians believe. Words have meaning, and the WCF clearly states what baptism is all about. That is all I have to say on the subject. I don't care what Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith says. That is not what I was discussing. And I will remind Martin this may be a Baptist Board, but this is the 'Other Christian Denominations Forum'. Therefore, I should think I would be free to ask questions about or discuss other Christian faiths.

First it is not a tiny sect.
Second, you associated "Presbyterianism" with my wife, drawing her into this conversation.
Third, "this tiny sect" is the "sect" of Presbyterianism that she was involved in commonly known as the "Bible Presbyterian Church," in America and throughout the world. So you got what you asked for.
Fourth, as Martin clearly and concisely said: If you ask a Reformed Presbyterian, he will be astounded and disgusted by the suggestion that the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration.
Fifth, As previously stated, this is a Baptist Board. I am not here to defend other religions. It really doesn't matter to me anymore what the Presbyterians believe. If my wife had been a Muslm, so what! She is not now, and that is what counts. Why was she even brought into this discussion?

The Bible is our final authority.
The Bible itself teaches that salvation through baptisms is heresy. I learned along time ago that truth is not according to majority. Often the majority is wrong. If it is only one person standing on the truth and all the rest of the world is in error, then one person is still right and the rest of the world is wrong. Truth is truth no matter what the world says.

 

[utilyan]

First it is not a tiny sect.
Second, you associated "Presbyterianism" with my wife, drawing her into this conversation.
Third, "this tiny sect" is the "sect" of Presbyterianism that she was involved in commonly known as the "Bible Presbyterian Church," in America and throughout the world. So you got what you asked for.
Fourth, as Martin clearly and concisely said: If you ask a Reformed Presbyterian, he will be astounded and disgusted by the suggestion that the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration.
Fifth, As previously stated, this is a Baptist Board. I am not here to defend other religions. It really doesn't matter to me anymore what the Presbyterians believe. If my wife had been a Muslm, so what! She is not now, and that is what counts. Why was she even brought into this discussion?

The Bible is our final authority.
The Bible itself teaches that salvation through baptisms is heresy. I learned along time ago that truth is not according to majority. Often the majority is wrong. If it is only one person standing on the truth and all the rest of the world is in error, then one person is still right and the rest of the world is wrong. Truth is truth no matter what the world says.

Baptism......oh I love this. Its one of those easy to debate subjects.


God almighty is our final authority.

"The Bible itself teaches that salvation through baptisms is heresy." LOL

1 Peter 3

13Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. 17For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. 18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding 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, 22who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

John 3
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

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



Aside from MERE Salvation. Jesus said to baptize. The bigger fish to fry is Jesus said DO IT. They can change the rule that you get thrown in hell for baptizing.....Jesus says do it I AM GOING TO DO IT.

Folk always PRIORITIZING on their selfish paradise, wants, desires, heaven, legalism, avoid suffering.
No sir the command of God is PRIME.

Every command of God you folks only legalistically ponder WELL what is in it for ME!? that's pathetic.


Matthew 28
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,





Early Church Fathers:

Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).
"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).

In my experience the best defense of Baptism is the one Jesus gave himself.

Mark 11

30“Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? Answer Me.”



Answer Jesus DHK. ^

 

[BobRyan]

Well, here's the thing: it's our beliefs that are different, not our faith.

I've met quite a few catholics, and I'd have to say a few of them are saved. Even had a catholic priest pull me to the side and whisper, "ya know, you baptists are right about that infant baptism thing." But they remain in their church, until such a time as God moves them; not of their own will, because apparently God has them there for a reason.

Oh, and you mis-used "whom" again. Re-phrase your sentence to "her son him is becoming a member"; that's the equivalent of how "whom" is used.

Indeed - the error one finds in the RCC does not mean that all Catholics are lost.

 

[BobRyan]

"The Bible itself teaches that salvation through baptisms is heresy." LOL

1 Peter 3

13Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. 17For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. 18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding 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, 22who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

As you quoted --
not the removal of dirt from the flesh (via the touch of sacramental waters), but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


And it is the "APPEAL to God for a good conscience" that an infant -- cannot do.