Church of Christ and Baptism

[DHK]

Errr . . . . no. He has never visited my profile. I don't know why he would assume I'm a Baptist.

Not that it matters much, but I don't know how you would have access to that kind of information. For example, I only know the names of the last ten that have visited my profile, and then it tells me that over 18 thousand others have visited. So how would I know if he has or hasn't?

 

[Walter]

Not that it matters much, but I don't know how you would have access to that kind of information. For example, I only know the names of the last ten that have visited my profile, and then it tells me that over 18 thousand others have visited. So how would I know if he has or hasn't?

Because, 'Thinkingstuff' was one of the last ten that visited my profile page. He hasn't visited by profile page since I asked him to and that was before Jordan ever began posting here.

And it really doesn't matter much except you are really quick to defend anyone who is anti-Catholic. 'Any enemy of my enemy is my friend!'

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Salty...

Did you ever get your question answered? I married into the CoC some years ago and I have a bit of information about what they believe (or believed in about 1983, anyway).

Or did the ensuing free for all bury your question?

 

[Zenas]

Did Salty have a question? I must have missed it.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Humpf?

Did Salty have a question? I must have missed it.

That's why I asked.

 

[The Biblicist]

Then to show a parallel practice, he says, "Some were placed inside a hollowed out tree and then sawed in half."

You quoted the things that immediately precede this statement but you don't quote what he said immediatetly following this statement. His following remarks demonstrate he is merely quoting Hebrews to show the brutality of Satan not Rome upon the people of God. You need to go back and listen to it again and you will see he is not claiming that Hebrews is referring to post-Biblical events but merely quoting it to support Satan's cruelty to the people of God.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

When you say things like that it leaves no doubt in my mind what they put in your head at that that KJVO unaccredited bible college that doesn’t let students play cards, go to movies or dances, or even get married during the school term.

Walter made a very balanced and insightful observation, and you call him brainwashed? I realize it's an inconvenient truth for you but there is only one church that was established by Jesus Christ, the OHCAC.

I didn't realize state accreditation validates something as being trustworthy or true.
Now I realize why you seem to be so sympathetic to the Catholic Church.

Yes I go to an unaccredited bible KJVO bible college that has standards, You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

When you say things like that it leaves no doubt in my mind what they put in your head at that that KJVO unaccredited bible college that doesn’t let students play cards, go to movies or dances, or even get married during the school term.

Walter made a very balanced and insightful observation, and you call him brainwashed? I realize it's an inconvenient truth for you but there is only one church that was established by Jesus Christ, the OHCAC.

Yes there is only one church established by Jesus Christ, and it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Zenas]

I didn't realize state accreditation validates something as being trustworthy or true.
Now I realize why you seem to be so sympathetic to the Catholic Church.

Yes I go to an unaccredited bible KJVO bible college that has standards, You say that like it's a bad thing.

Not bad, just lacking in credibility to all but KJVO fundamentalists. I agree that standards are good. Stupid standards, however, are just that.

I'm sympathetic to the truth wherever I find it, and I've found a lot of it in the Catholic Church. Let me suggest a book that may give you a balanced perspective on the subject: Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. If you can't handle reading something written by a Catholic, try Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly, which is actually more scholarly. Either one will demonstrate to you that your view of the Bible is only one of many, and not necessarily the correct view.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Not bad, just lacking in credibility to all but KJVO fundamentalists. I agree that standards are good. Stupid standards, however, are just that.

I'm sympathetic to the truth wherever I find it, and I've found a lot of it in the Catholic Church. Let me suggest a book that may give you a balanced perspective on the subject: Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. If you can't handle reading something written by a Catholic, try Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly, which is actually more scholarly. Either one will demonstrate to you that your view of the Bible is only one of many, and not necessarily the correct view.

The Catholic Church is full of falsehood.

Salvation by sacraments..
setting up of a clergy/ priesthood that ignores the bible doctrine of the universal priesthood of believer..
Papal Infallibility...
Indulgences...
Purgatory..

There's so much distortion of truth in the Catholic Church.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Not bad, just lacking in credibility to all but KJVO fundamentalists. I agree that standards are good. Stupid standards, however, are just that.

I'm sympathetic to the truth wherever I find it, and I've found a lot of it in the Catholic Church. Let me suggest a book that may give you a balanced perspective on the subject: Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. If you can't handle reading something written by a Catholic, try Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly, which is actually more scholarly. Either one will demonstrate to you that your view of the Bible is only one of many, and not necessarily the correct view.

Found this review on the book you recommended.

The book itself has some really spiteful and sarcastic overtones at times that plague this type of apologetics. Not only are his arguments weak on the scriptural side, but Keating manages to habitually use verses out of context as well as having a frequent habit of referencing the "early church writers" to prove his points with a suprising amount of historical irresponsibility. Now, in case some aren't aware, he makes mention of writers such as Origen and Justin Martyr to prove his points. Origen was a neo-platonist with gnostic tendancies who allegorized away the resurrection and denied hell as well as several other major Christian doctrines. Justin Martyr was a self proclaimed gnostic in his writings. The fact that he's allowed men with heretical beliefs into the mix should be quite disturbing to anyone--seeing as how you should always check the background qualifications of your references.

He also selectively uses writings from Ignatius and Irenaeus which conform to his arguments--but will omit the fact that both writers (more Irenaeus than Ignatius) also refute many of the dominant doctrines of Catholicism today, such as the authority of tradition (such as Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, c. XXXIII, sec. 8; and also Book I, c. X, sec. 2 written in 180 A.D.) or the fact that Irenaeus, in 180 AD, declares that Peter and Paul ordained Linus as bishop of Rome and then left the city: "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church [in Rome], committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy." (Adversus haereses, Book III, c. III, sec. 3). In case anyone misses the significance, Catholic tradition places Linus as the second "Pope" after Peter's martyrdom. Ignatius further reveals the Linus was Paul's disciple; Peter's disciple, Clement, came afterwards (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, c. VII, first century AD). Irenaeus also refutes, in no uncertain terms, the notion that the bible cannot be interpreted by anyone but the Catholic Church and its clergy, "...therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them." (St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, Book I, c. XXVII, sec. 2). These are just a couple of small things, to say the least.

I could go on for a very long time, right on down the list of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers." The fact is, you can pretty much try and prove whatever you want as far as early church doctrines go if you look far enough into the early church writers. There's something there for everything. Heck, even the Jehovah's Witnesses can find stuff in there to prove they're "right." To be quite honest, you can prove or disprove aspects of the Catholic theology by using the same writers. St. Augustine (who's really good at debunking Mary doctrine, but has some really good quotes that can be used out of context to sound like he supports it--I've seen it done), St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (also good at debunking Mary doctrine--who, by the way, was a montanist--another heretical group). Depending on the chapters or passages you use and how out of context you use them, it's really hit and miss. The question is just who to pick and what to pick them for. They varied so wildly in their doctrines that you can't really trust any of them for the "definitive truth". I say all of this with a little bit of fecesiousness because it's rediculous to trust in these men for anything. Believe me, I've read them! They veered with every wind of doctrine, and agreed only to disagree.

 

[Walter]

Found this review on the book you recommended.

The book itself has some really spiteful and sarcastic overtones at times that plague this type of apologetics. Not only are his arguments weak on the scriptural side, but Keating manages to habitually use verses out of context as well as having a frequent habit of referencing the "early church writers" to prove his points with a suprising amount of historical irresponsibility. Now, in case some aren't aware, he makes mention of writers such as Origen and Justin Martyr to prove his points. Origen was a neo-platonist with gnostic tendancies who allegorized away the resurrection and denied hell as well as several other major Christian doctrines. Justin Martyr was a self proclaimed gnostic in his writings. The fact that he's allowed men with heretical beliefs into the mix should be quite disturbing to anyone--seeing as how you should always check the background qualifications of your references.

He also selectively uses writings from Ignatius and Irenaeus which conform to his arguments--but will omit the fact that both writers (more Irenaeus than Ignatius) also refute many of the dominant doctrines of Catholicism today, such as the authority of tradition (such as Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, c. XXXIII, sec. 8; and also Book I, c. X, sec. 2 written in 180 A.D.) or the fact that Irenaeus, in 180 AD, declares that Peter and Paul ordained Linus as bishop of Rome and then left the city: "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church [in Rome], committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy." (Adversus haereses, Book III, c. III, sec. 3). In case anyone misses the significance, Catholic tradition places Linus as the second "Pope" after Peter's martyrdom. Ignatius further reveals the Linus was Paul's disciple; Peter's disciple, Clement, came afterwards (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, c. VII, first century AD). Irenaeus also refutes, in no uncertain terms, the notion that the bible cannot be interpreted by anyone but the Catholic Church and its clergy, "...therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them." (St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, Book I, c. XXVII, sec. 2). These are just a couple of small things, to say the least.

I could go on for a very long time, right on down the list of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers." The fact is, you can pretty much try and prove whatever you want as far as early church doctrines go if you look far enough into the early church writers. There's something there for everything. Heck, even the Jehovah's Witnesses can find stuff in there to prove they're "right." To be quite honest, you can prove or disprove aspects of the Catholic theology by using the same writers. St. Augustine (who's really good at debunking Mary doctrine, but has some really good quotes that can be used out of context to sound like he supports it--I've seen it done), St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (also good at debunking Mary doctrine--who, by the way, was a montanist--another heretical group). Depending on the chapters or passages you use and how out of context you use them, it's really hit and miss. The question is just who to pick and what to pick them for. They varied so wildly in their doctrines that you can't really trust any of them for the "definitive truth". I say all of this with a little bit of fecesiousness because it's rediculous to trust in these men for anything. Believe me, I've read them! They veered with every wind of doctrine, and agreed only to disagree.

The book that had a great influence on me becoming a Catholic was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born again Catholic' by David Currie. I mentioned it one other time on this board and was told it inappropriate to spread 'Catholic propaganda' on this board. Anyway, David Currie was raised in a devout Christian family whose father was a fundamentalist preacher and both parents teachers at Moody Bible Institute. Currie's whole upbringing was immersed in the life of fundamentalist Protestantism - theology professors, seminary presidents and founders of evangelical mission agencies were frequent guests at his family dinner table. Currie received a degree from Trinity International University and studied in the Masters of Divinity program.

This book was written as an explanation to his fundamentalist and evangelical friends and family about why he became a Roman Catholic.
I want to say that I have read both Catholic and anti-Catholic positions and came to my belief that the Catholic Church is biblical Christianity through that study. Reading the great Catholic debates (before Catholics were banned from the board) in the archives of the Baptist Board had a big influence as well.

I would ask you to consider studying BOTH sides and not just anti-Catholic material and anti-Catholic book reviews. I actually went about my study expecting to easily find the errors of Catholicism and to be able to dismiss the Church as a cult. When I began I was VERY anti-Catholic, now I 'R' one.

BTW, I'm in no way attempting to 'proselytize' on this board. I mention the above book because I believe that it does clear up many misconceptions about Catholicism. Whether a person accepts or rejects Currie's positions I believe he presents them by way of a scriptural basis and therefore should be of interest to those who want to know what the Church ACTUALLY teaches (besides just reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church).

 

[DHK]

Whether a person accepts or rejects Currie's positions I believe he presents them by way of a scriptural basis and therefore should be of interest to those who want to know what the Church ACTUALLY teaches (besides just reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Concerning the false teachers and false doctrine, Jesus said:
"By their fruits you shall know them." When he said that he was specifically referring to the doctrine and practices of the false teachers.

Not even the UN would consider the RCC as the true church.
Evaluate the RCC from their perspective:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/un-slams-vatican-39-cover-sex-abusers-posing-185400019.html
UN Slams Vatican

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/...wed-priests-to-rape-children-un-report-says-1
Vatican Policies

 

[The Biblicist]

Baptism is a command of God but it is not a work of God any more than tithing or circumcision is a work of God.

Indeed, the Roman Catholic Catechism regards baptism in the New Testament as equally parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament and I quote:

CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism....was a sign of the covenant between God and His people Israel and prefigured the rite of Christian Baptism...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 871

527 Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day after his birth....This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism." Ibid. p. 133

Therefore, to understand the relationship of circumcision to the Old Tesament believer is to understand the relationship of Baptism to the New Testament believer according to Catholic dogma.

Thus, simply replace the words "circumcision" or "circumcise" with the words "baptized" or "baptism" in Paul's treatise in Romans 4:9-13 and you have this clear and explicit view of baptism in the mind of Paul. I have replaced the words for circumcision with the words of baptism in the following quotation to merely illustrate my point:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in baptism, or in unbaptism? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Conclusion:

1. The blessing of justification occurs NOT IN BAPTISM - vv. 9-10

2. Baptism is only an external sign and thus visible "seal" that does not communicate justification but justification occured before the sign and seal of baptism.

3. Imputed righteousness is not conferred in baptism but through faith and the unbaptized believer is imputed righteousness.

Hence, baptism like circumcision is but a "sign" or "figure" and as a sign and figure it provides an external "seal" or confimation of justification that was received while IN UNBAPTISM.

Again, there is no dispute that baptism saves and washes away sin. However, there is dispute HOW baptism does that? Literally or figuratively? The above admission by Rome that circumcision under the Old Covenant is to be understood in a parallel fashion to baptism under the New Covenant in regard to sacramentalism completey destroys the whole Roman soteriological framework. Our Roman Catholic friends will not make any comments (although this is the third time I have posted this) because they cannot provide an honest and exegetical basis from Romans 4 to support sacramentalism.

 

[Walter]

Bumped a thread you started regarding this passage with TS's response to your position. I really don't know how to import individual posts or I would have done so.

 

[The Biblicist]

Bumped a thread you started regarding this passage with TS's response to your position. I really don't know how to import individual posts or I would have done so.

TS did not have a solid based exegetical response! It was flawed and I pointed out those flaws and he never responded.

No Roman Catholic Scholar can successfully deny on exegetical grounds that:

1. Romans 4:6-8 describes the two aspects that make up justification - remission of sins/imputation of righteousness
2. Romans 4:9 - these two aspects are the "blessing" that makes the justified man "blessed"
3. Romans 4:9-12 - justification as defined by these two aspects did not occur "IN circumcison" and thus circumcision as a "sign" or "seal" played no literal part in obtaining these blessings of justification or else that would repudiate Paul's words that justification DID NOT OCCUR "IN circumcision but IN uncircumcision."
4. Any interpretation of Romans 4:6-13 that depends upon justification having any literal connection with circumcision is repudiated by Paul's words - "not IN circucumcision but IN uncirucmision."

These exegetical contextual based facts repudiates the whole sacramental system of Romanism and thus repudiates their whole soteriology and condemns it as "another gospel" and thus "accursed."

 

[Yeshua1]

The book that had a great influence on me becoming a Catholic was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born again Catholic' by David Currie. I mentioned it one other time on this board and was told it inappropriate to spread 'Catholic propaganda' on this board. Anyway, David Currie was raised in a devout Christian family whose father was a fundamentalist preacher and both parents teachers at Moody Bible Institute. Currie's whole upbringing was immersed in the life of fundamentalist Protestantism - theology professors, seminary presidents and founders of evangelical mission agencies were frequent guests at his family dinner table. Currie received a degree from Trinity International University and studied in the Masters of Divinity program.

This book was written as an explanation to his fundamentalist and evangelical friends and family about why he became a Roman Catholic.
I want to say that I have read both Catholic and anti-Catholic positions and came to my belief that the Catholic Church is biblical Christianity through that study. Reading the great Catholic debates (before Catholics were banned from the board) in the archives of the Baptist Board had a big influence as well.

I would ask you to consider studying BOTH sides and not just anti-Catholic material and anti-Catholic book reviews. I actually went about my study expecting to easily find the errors of Catholicism and to be able to dismiss the Church as a cult. When I began I was VERY anti-Catholic, now I 'R' one.

BTW, I'm in no way attempting to 'proselytize' on this board. I mention the above book because I believe that it does clear up many misconceptions about Catholicism. Whether a person accepts or rejects Currie's positions I believe he presents them by way of a scriptural basis and therefore should be of interest to those who want to know what the Church ACTUALLY teaches (besides just reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Rome teaches a different/false Gospel, has sacramentalism, wrong views on priesthood, revelation, canon, faith alone grace alone, idol worship of mary/Mass

RCC NOT a Christian church!

there are saved catholics despite their teachings, but rome is a false church/apostate!

 

[Yeshua1]

TS did not have a solid based exegetical response! It was flawed and I pointed out those flaws and he never responded.

No Roman Catholic Scholar can successfully deny on exegetical grounds that:

1. Romans 4:6-8 describes the two aspects that make up justification - remission of sins/imputation of righteousness
2. Romans 4:9 - these two aspects are the "blessing" that makes the justified man "blessed"
3. Romans 4:9-12 - justification as defined by these two aspects did not occur "IN circumcison" and thus circumcision as a "sign" or "seal" played no literal part in obtaining these blessings of justification or else that would repudiate Paul's words that justification DID NOT OCCUR "IN circumcision but IN uncircumcision."
4. Any interpretation of Romans 4:6-13 that depends upon justification having any literal connection with circumcision is repudiated by Paul's words - "not IN circucumcision but IN uncirucmision."

These exegetical contextual based facts repudiates the whole sacramental system of Romanism and thus repudiates their whole soteriology and condemns it as "another gospel" and thus "accursed."

IF water baptism actually saved us, why did paul mention that he was glad that he didi not baptise many, but instead preached the Gospel instead?

 

[Zenas]

IF water baptism actually saved us, why did paul mention that he was glad that he didi not baptise many, but instead preached the Gospel instead?

That's easy. The Corinthians were not a acting in a Christ-like way as baptized individuals should have been acting. In effect Paul was saying, "I'm glad it wasn't me who baptized you because it doesn't seem to have made any difference in your lives."

Of course as soon as Paul wrote this, he backpedaled a little and acknowledged a couple of individuals he had baptized as well as the household of Stephanus. In fact everywhere Paul went he baptized. The Philippian jailer and his household; Lydia and her household; the Ephesian disciples who had received the baptism of John and who had to be rebaptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

There is not a single instance in the New Testament church of anyone coming to Christ without being baptized. Consider the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. He was baptized immediately, while he was still on the road. There was no one around but him and Phiip. If baptism were meant to be a public demonstration of one's belief, he would have waited until there were other people around.

 

[DHK]

Of course as soon as Paul wrote this, he backpedaled a little and acknowledged a couple of individuals he had baptized as well as the household of Stephanus. In fact everywhere Paul went he baptized. The Philippian jailer and his household; Lydia and her household; the Ephesian disciples who had received the baptism of John and who had to be rebaptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

You are wrong in your assessment.
1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

There were very few in the church at Corinth that were baptized by Paul.
In other places it was not his habit to baptize others. God did not send him to baptize as he clearly states. There are occasions where he does. But that is not his practice.