Catholics Visiting The Baptist Forum Part 2

[mailmandan]

mailmandan doesn't know Greek or Hebrew, and so, doesn't read academic commentaries on specific biblical books.

Your slanderous remarks are not helping your case.

Consequently, he simply refuses to recognize the objective fact that in both Hebrew ("amunah") and Greek ("pistis") the word for "faith" also means "faithfulness." Period.

Once again, from post #5: Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Although faith results in multiple acts of obedience/works, faith is not defined as multiple acts of obedience/works. So faithfulness "in regards to accomplishing multiple acts of obedience/works" (as you imply) is not built into the essence of faith. Period. But rather, ongoing and persistent faith. Bottom line: works are not the essence of faith.

4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity. The word "amunah" which means firmness, steadfastness, fidelity also supports my argument and not your argument that erroneously attempts to "shoe horn" works "into" salvation through faith with the end result being salvation by faith + works. Works salvation is no salvation at all.

Nor can he escape the implication in Romans 1:28 that "adokimos" means both "disqualified" and "reprobate" and hence "unsaved."

Romans 1:28 is not the only verse in the Bible that uses "adokimos" so there is nothing to escape, yet you simply give this word a "broad brushed definition" of "unsaved" based on one verse in order to accommodate your biased church doctrine. Disqualified (Greek adokimos, “not approved, not standing the test”) in the context of 1 Corinthians 9:27 means "disqualified for the prize" (NIV) and not disqualified from salvation, as I already explained to you in post #5.

Nor can he duck the same implication for "adokimos" in 1 Cor. 9:27.

It's not the same implication in 1 Corinthians 9:27 so there is nothing to duck. Works-salvationists are good at giving words a "broad brushed" application and do not sufficiently consider the context of how that word is used. The word "justified" for example in James 2:24 is interpreted by works-salvationists to mean that man is "saved" by works, yet James is not using the word "justified" to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3). *You need to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching your conclusion on doctrine.

No distinction is made in 9:23, 27 between reward and salvation.

Absolutely false. In context, Paul is talking about being disqualified for the prize (NIV). What is the prize before Paul? Is it that reward of which he spoke in verse 1 Corinthians 9:18? In context, we see "reward, wreath, prize." Salvation is a gift, not a prize. A prize is something that you work for and earn where a gift is something that you freely accept without merit. Prize (brabeion) - the prize awarded to a victor, the reward (recognition) that follows triumph. That is not the same as a free gift (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8). 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 mentions - If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, (of reward) though he himself will be saved.

Thus, in his magisterial commentary on 1 Corinthians Hans Conzelmann speaks for the scholarly consensus when he says, "By behaving thus, Paul secures his own personal salvation (p. 161)."

Well that's one opinion. There are numerous other theologians who would disagree with that opinion. - 1 Corinthians 9:27 Commentary | Precept Austin

In the context of the Greek games the idea of "disqualified" implies that there was a judge who made the assessment that the runner (boxer, etc) did not deserve either to compete or did not deserve the prize. The parallel of course is the great judgment by the Righteous Judge at the believer's bema seat at which time Paul might be deemed unworthy of receiving the prize.

The bema [word study] was the stand on which the judges stood to observe and evaluate the actions of athletes in the Olympic contests. If any athlete broke a rule, one or more of the judges (referees or umpires) would point to him and cry, “Adokimos!" (that is, “Disqualified!”). And thus he missed the prize (victor’s wreath -- see discussion of stephanos [word study]) regardless of the place he finished in the race or contest (see discussion of the necessity for athletes to compete according to the rules in 2Ti 2:5-note). Likewise, when an event was completed, the contestants stood before the bema to hear the judges’ announcement of the results, and to receive such reward as might properly be theirs. This is a uniquely fitting illustration to make clear to us the fact that service and life are to be evaluated by our Lord, with possible reward (cf Lk 16:2). The fear of the possibility happening at the end of his race, served as a strong negative motivator in Paul's life. - 1 Corinthians 9:27 Commentary | Precept Austin

Nor can mailmandan duck the scholarly consensus that James' rhetorical question, in 2:14 "If a man says he has faith but not works, can faith save him?" expects a resounding No that puts the final nail in the OSAS coffin.

James 2:14 is not about OSAS or maintaining salvation by works. As I already explained in post #3, In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims *(key word)* he has faith but has no works (to validate his claim). That is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. *So James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!

Of course, "works" then are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for grace-based salvation and thus works manifest the faithfulness that makes faith true faith.

Man is saved by grace through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9) You teach the opposite by trying to "sneak works into the back door of salvation through faith." Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is evidenced by works (James 2:14-26).

*Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works.*

It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-26). *Perfect Harmony*

Learn Greek, my friend and you may learn correct doctrine.

I'm not a Greek scholar, but I already have a sufficient understanding of the Greek to understand the truth here. Learn what it means to place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation/believe the gospel without trying to "add" works to the gospel.

 

[Particular]

Even so , some found it odd that if you eat a forbidden fruit that looked good enough to eat that God would depart his grace upon you.

He didn't depart his grace on Adam and Eve. Sin required atonement. Grace was extended to Adam and Eve when they merited none.

 

[Particular]

Colosians 2

11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The Circumcision of Christ is Baptism. Circumcisions are done at 8 days old.

Infant baptism is a greater example of someone entering by GOD's CHOICE rather then self-proclaiming by your OWN CHOICE.

Nothing about infant baptism in those verses.

 

[Particular]

John 3
12“If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

If you can't believe the earthly things Jesus tells you, how will you believe the heavenly things?

This isn't about spiritual mechanics and mysticism. This is about TRUST.

If God declares all your sins forgiven by eating a hot dog, it is what it is he calls the shots on existence and the laws of it.

The reason we are in the pickle in first place is because two folks had the bright idea that maybe God was just kidding about something physical having spiritual consequences.

Think about this Particular if we GOT RID of baptism what do you lose? NOTHING. Your theology would still work.

IF baptism was never mentioned in the bible nor life, what is lost? It is absolutely pointless.


It has been a continuous theme throughout scripture of our sense of reliability vs trusting God.

Where do you get off stating baptism doesn't do anything? It comes from YOUR sense reliability and leaning on your understanding.

You can make a clear instruction book in a matter of minutes. Would you forget to add by the way folks Baptism doesn't actually do anything, its just symbolic.

That was not hard to write at all. But according to your LOGIC God was too STUPID to mention that obviously important particular.

Look if I say YOU are saved by faith alone. Am I DIVINE AUTHOR because I could pull off in seconds something only an idiot would neglect to mention in forty thousand words! ?


The way you believe things could have easily been written out, EVEN YOU could have done a better Job.

That's a plain objective FACT, If you can scribble in the bible you could have it all clear up PERFECTLY.

So whats the conclusion? For me to buy into your theology I HAVE TO BELIEVE, REQUIRED to BELIEVE, the author of scripture is a complete idiot. And you BELIEVE it too, which is why we REQUIRE your explanation for everything.

OR. Maybe you are WRONG and we should just believe what it says.

Trust God that he has switched his law and now wants people to eat human flesh and drink human blood?
Face it. Roman Catholicism has it wrong.

 

[37818]

Doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether you don’t “consider” yourself a Protestant.

There are THREE types of Christians:
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant

That’s it. If you ain’t one of them – you ain’t a Christian.

I have been a Christian since 1962. I know God. Do you?
I know I am going to Heaven. Do you? New Testament Christianity has existed since the 1st century. So called Catholic and so called Orthodox are not New Testament Christianity. Protestants rediscovered the New Testament authority over the churches. The Orhtodox actualy practice immersion (baptism). For the most part Catholics are not baptized. Many Protestants are not baptized. Calling non-immersion immersion is nonsense.

 

[37818]

That's funny - the ONLY Church we read about from the end of the first century on is the CATHOLIC Church.
We don't hear about the Baptist sect until the beginning of the 17th century.

STUDY your history . . .

Not true. Cardinal Hosius, wrote,
Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante
mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut
audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus
Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

Translation of Quote:
For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who,
so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment.
He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing. (by Carolinne White,
Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin)

Source:
Tracing the Cardinal Hosius “Baptist” Quote
By Ben Townsend

 

[MarysSon]

The extant letters of Ignatius all date as hundreds of years after his life. We have only a small sample of extant documents (quite unlike the thousands of scriptural documents). To say that what we have available may not be what Ignatius actually wrote is a fair statement. Yet, you seem to think they should be canonized.

Not at all.

The letters of Ignatius give us a front seat view at the 1st century Church. That’s why they are important. NOBODY is claiming that they are Scripture. They are a witness to history and 1st century Church doctrinal practice.

I was merely pointing out that YOU are conflating other spurious letters attributed to Ignatius with his genuine letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor.

 

[MarysSon]

Funny, how all the Apostles and early church members had believers baptism, yet you seem to care less about scripture than about your preferred Western Civilization documents of choice that have little to do with scripture.

That is absolutely FALSE.

Besides – Peter baptized the ENTIRE household of Cornelius. Paul Baptized the ENTIRE households of Stephanas and the Philippian Jailer. “ENTIRE” households had people of ALL ages – from elderly people to small children and infants.

Besides - the Early Church Fathers state unequivocally that the practice if Infant Baptism is a Sacred Tradition handed down by the APOSTLES themselves . . .

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

 

[MarysSon]

I have been a Christian since 1962. I know God. Do you?
I know I am going to Heaven. Do you? New Testament Christianity has existed since the 1st century. So called Catholic and so called Orthodox are not New Testament Christianity. Protestants rediscovered the New Testament authority over the churches. The Orhtodox actualy practice immersion (baptism). For the most part Catholics are not baptized. Many Protestants are not baptized. Calling non-immersion immersion is nonsense.

Nonsense.

Baptism has been practiced by immersion and pouring since the time of the Apostles in the FIRST century. Do I have Scriptural proof for this? NOPE – but neither do YOU have Scriptural proof of full immersion.
We get the details from history and documents like The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) – written while MOST of them were still alive. Scripture NEVER gives the details of a single Baptism. The Didache DOES:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19) in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

So, YOUR objections to anything other than FULL Immersion are baseless - in BOTH Scripture AND History . . .

 

[MarysSon]

Not true. Cardinal Hosius, wrote,
Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante
mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut
audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus
Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

Translation of Quote:
For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who,
so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment.
He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing. (by Carolinne White,
Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin)

Source:
Tracing the Cardinal Hosius “Baptist” Quote
By Ben Townsend

Ummmmm, the Anabaptists or “RE-Baptizers” were a heretical sect.,

If you want to align yourself with THEM – be my guest. However – YOUR Baptist sect can only trace its origins back to John Smyth in 1606. Besides – the Anabaptists denied Sola Fide

Just because the word “baptist” can be gleaned from the longer word “Anabaptist” – doesn’t mean the Baptist sect goes back that far. The nonsense you’re trying to push here originated in the 20th century book, Trail of Blood by Baptist pastor James M. Carroll.

Nice try, though . . .

 

[Particular]

Not at all.

The letters of Ignatius give us a front seat view at the 1st century Church. That’s why they are important. NOBODY is claiming that they are Scripture. They are a witness to history and 1st century Church doctrinal practice.

I was merely pointing out that YOU are conflating other spurious letters attributed to Ignatius with his genuine letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor.

Yet, you also admit that the extant copies we have come centuries after Ignatius lived. And, the number of documents is very small. The opportunity for the documents to be the actual words Ignatius wrote are therefore quite small.
While we can attempt to discern information that may be from the 2nd Century, during Ignatius lifetime, we can also be aware that much of what we have may be something a faux author added at a later time.
Thus, don't build your doctrine on what you think Ignatius may have said. He may, in fact, have never said what you are reading.

 

[Particular]

Ummmmm, the Anabaptists or “RE-Baptizers” were a heretical sect.,

If you want to align yourself with THEM – be my guest. However – YOUR Baptist sect can only trace its origins back to John Smyth in 1606. Besides – the Anabaptists denied Sola Fide

Just because the word “baptist” can be gleaned from the longer word “Anabaptist” – doesn’t mean the Baptist sect goes back that far. The nonsense you’re trying to push here originated in the 20th century book, Trail of Blood by Baptist pastor James M. Carroll.

Nice try, though . . .

Of course your State Controlled Church calls others heretical. The Pharisees and Saducees called Christianity a heretical sect because their system was all about power politics, not the Kingdom of God.

Believers baptism is the only form of baptism we read about in the Bible. Therefore, Baptists practice what was practiced in scripture. We don't add traditions that have no root in scripture. This cannot be said for the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[MarysSon]

Yet, you also admit that the extant copies we have come centuries after Ignatius lived. And, the number of documents is very small. The opportunity for the documents to be the actual words Ignatius wrote are therefore quite small.
While we can attempt to discern information that may be from the 2nd Century, during Ignatius lifetime, we can also be aware that much of what we have may be something a faux author added at a later time.
Thus, don't build your doctrine on what you think Ignatius may have said. He may, in fact, have never said what you are reading.

NONSENSE.

We don’t have ANY extant copies of the original autographs Books of Scripture – not ONE. Yet you trust that THEY are genuine.

We don’t have ONE single extant original autograph of Homer or Socrates – yet nobody calls them into question. The original autograph of the Edict of Milan doesn’t exist – yet I hear Protestants refer to that document ALL the time.

Just because we don’t have original autographs of these documents does NOT mean that they didn’t exist. This is the worst argument I’ve ever heard for trying to debunk the authenticity of an historical document . . .

 

[Particular]

NONSENSE.

We don’t have ANY extant copies of the original autographs Books of Scripture – not ONE. Yet you trust that THEY are genuine.

We don’t have ONE single extant original autograph of Homer or Socrates – yet nobody calls them into question. The original autograph of the Edict of Milan doesn’t exist – yet I hear Protestants refer to that document ALL the time.

Just because we don’t have original autographs of these documents does NOT mean that they didn’t exist. This is the worst argument I’ve ever heard for trying to debunk the authenticity of an historical document . . .

Of course we don't have any of the original documents. But we have a tree of more than 20,000 documents by which we can be 99.9% certain that what we have is accurate to what the writers wrote. There is no series of ancient documents that even come close. Pretty amazing.
With Ignatius we have less than ten documents in existence and they all date centuries after he wrote. The certainty that he wrote what we have is below 50%. That's significant and thus you should be wary of leaning too hard on what Ignatius may or may not have said.

 

[MarysSon]

Of course your State Controlled Church calls others heretical. The Pharisees and Saducees called Christianity a heretical sect because their system was all about power politics, not the Kingdom of God.

Believers baptism is the only form of baptism we read about in the Bible. Therefore, Baptists practice what was practiced in scripture. We don't add traditions that have no root in scripture. This cannot be said for the Roman Catholic Church.

Baptists may believe this but the “RE-Baptizers” would RE-baptize anybody who Baptism they didn’t accept. Re-Baptizing people is heresy. The only thing that happens in a “RE-Baptism” is that you get wet.

You keep foolishly eferring to the “State-controlled” Church.
Which state “controls” the Church??

 

[MarysSon]

Of course we don't have any of the original documents. But we have a tree of more than 20,000 documents by which we can be 99.9% certain that what we have is accurate to what the writers wrote. There is no series of ancient documents that even come close. Pretty amazing.
With Ignatius we have less than ten documents in existence and they all date centuries after he wrote. The certainty that he wrote what we have is below 50%. That's significant and thus you should be wary of leaning too hard on what Ignatius may or may not have said.

Funny that the Catholic Church you trusted to accurately copy and preserve the Books of Scripture is the SAME Church you don’t trust to have copied and preserved the Letters of Ignatius.

Your hypocrisy is matched only by your woeful-ignorance of history . . .

 

[Particular]

Baptists may believe this but the “RE-Baptizers” would RE-baptize anybody who Baptism they didn’t accept. Re-Baptizing people is heresy. The only thing that happens in a “RE-Baptism” is that you get wet.

You keep foolishly eferring to the “State-controlled” Church.
Which state “controls” the Church??

There is zero evidence for infant baptism in the Bible. Therefore it is infants who are merely getting wet. God does not confer salvation upon them because parents perform a ritual baptism.
Since so many people in Germany had an illegitimate baptism as infants, it was incumbent upon Christians to baptize the individuals when they actually came to faith. Baptizing a spiritually dead in their trespasses and sins person is just giving them a quick bath.
The church in the Bible never did infant baptism. That is, once again, a heretical practice of your State Controlled Church.

 

[Particular]

Funny that the Catholic Church you trusted to accurately copy and preserve the Books of Scripture is the SAME Church you don’t trust to have copied and preserved the Letters of Ignatius.

Your hypocrisy is matched only by your woeful-ignorance of history . . .

Funny how people who could read Greek found monks burning the Bible because they were too ignorant to know what was written on the pages.
God has kept his word for us. No thanks to Rome.

 

[robycop3]

Then do us a favor and produce ONE SINGLE Early Church teaching to that effect.

Show me ONE writing from the Early Church that agrees with the Protestant assertion that the Eucharist was merely symbolic.

Do that - and I will leave the Catholic Church today and join YOUR sect.

I already DID-where Jesus introduced Communion, He picked up some bread & some drink that was already there, & called them His flesh & blood-while they remained bread & drink, with Jesus having no wounds, missing flesh, etc. And, He said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me."

 

[Deadworm]

I already DID-where Jesus introduced Communion, He picked up some bread & some drink that was already there, & called them His flesh & blood-while they remained bread & drink, with Jesus having no wounds, missing flesh, etc. And, He said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me."

You just committed the fallacy of the argument from silence. your fallacy is fatal to you case because it is reinforced by the explicitly stated consensus of the early church that is not countered by a single early church interpretation explicitly teaching teaching that Communion is a merely symbolic act. And of course, your claim is also decisively refuted by John 6:55-57

"For my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL DRINK. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them....whoever EATS ME shall live because of me."

Here are the 4 points your bias prevents you from getting:
(1) Jesus commands His disciples not to eat the bread but to "eat me."
(2) Jesus teaches not that Communion bread and wine are real food and drink, but that his flesh and blood are real food and drink.
(3) Jesus teaches that if you "eat me," you will live (by implication eternally). It is the Real Presence of Christ in the act of consumption, not the nutritional value of the bread, that guarantees eternal life!
(4) The mass exodus of His disciples occurs not because of Jesus' messianic sacrifice, but because the offended disciples recognize that Jesus is teaching what for them is the grotesque doctrine of Real Presence in the sacramental act! If Communion was a merely symbolic act for Jesus, He would have been clear about that so that he could retain all those offended disciples and not mislead all those early Church Fathers who assume that He said what He meant and meant what He said!