Exodus 20:16

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Are you still afraid that the Catholic Church just may be full of "baptized pagans?"

The noun pagan designates a heathen, and the sacrament of baptism changes one from a heathen to a christ. Your suggestion is a logical fallacy, that is, if you hold to the apostolic faith.

"For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"(Irenaeus, Fragment 34 {A.D. 190})

"Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." (Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2:16 {A.D. 181})

" When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life' " (Tertullian, On Baptism 12:1 {A.D. 203})

"But give me now your best attention, I pray you, for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing. The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism." (Hippolytus of Rome, Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 {A.D. 217})

God bless,

Carson Weber

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:


DHK, interesting statement: "When I believe that I have heard the truth I state it."

So "truth" has no relationship to reality, but is a product of your belief? How do you tell a truth and bear true witness to it, if you do not have knowledge of it?

Let us take the example of your publicly published witness concerning a supposed statement made by Mr. Hahn. You do not have knowledge that he made such a statement. After admitting this, you still stand on your utterance as "truth"? How, pray tell, is this possible?

When you make a statement about the words or actions of another, you give witness. That witness is either true or false. If you have no knowledge as to the truth of that witness, your witness if false.

Could other Baptists weigh in on this subject? Is this position staked out by DHK generally held by Baptists?

From what I gather, if someone says something about another and you believe it, you may repeat it without violating the commandment against false witness, even if what you are saying is untrue?

Hearing + believing = truth regardless of reality?

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truth isn't subjective T2U, if you are telling a lie, than you are telling a lie. Regardless. A lie is a lie is a lie.

Here is a question for you: What is reality? Is your version of reality the only reality? Does each person have a correct version of reality? Is there absolute Truth? Are their any absolutes? Is there any chance that anything that you believe is truth is not truth?

UNP
Adam

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Are you still afraid that the Catholic Church just may be full of "baptized pagans?"

"For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"(Irenaeus, Fragment 34 {A.D. 190})
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jer.13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

I guess poor old Irenaeus never heard of the book of Jeremiah. Then may ye also do good that are accustomed to doing evil. The answer to that question is the same as the first two, which I hope you have figured out to be in the negative. Just in case you missed one of my previous, let me tell you what else Jeremiah has to say:

Jer.2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
---Kinda does away with the baptism doesn't it? The water in John 3:5 obviously doesn't mean baptism. Your childish belief about water, H20, having the magical power to wash away sins is ridiculous. Even Jeremiah knew that! There is a lot of heresy in your post, but I won't get into all that now, save to let you know that water has nothing to do with ones salvation. Water gets you wet. What do you expect it do?
DHK

 

I think this link is the best example of a Christian spreading falsehoods unknowingly about the Catholic Church, and when he finds out that what he is presenting as “Truth” turns out to be proven false, admits his errors and tries to set the record straight. http://users.clarkston.com./rcorson/2babylons.htm

Taking responsibility for what we say is very important. This man is the successful author of Babylon Mystery Religion and based his book on The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop . It was repeatedly shown and pointed out to him that his own book, based on Hislop’s, was “misrepresenting the truth” to make the point that Catholicm is based on paganism. He had to re-evaluate his own work and made the decision to pull his book from print even though it was selling very well.

He doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church, but is publicly acknowledging that through his book he was unknowingly spreading falsehoods. When we find out that we have said something that is untrue we should set the record straight. I think this is something all Christians are expected by God to do. Unfortunately, some believe all is fair in trying to discredit Catholicism, even to the extent of not caring if something is true or not.

It makes it very hard to find Christ in these Christians and makes a bad witness for Christ. I find it strange that other Christians who see this going on don't call these people on what they are doing. This goes against Scripture. The idea of truth being "relative" for each of us is a cancer in our society and is not taught in Scripture.

God Bless

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Disciple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.
dhk, I'll stick with the Bible, thank you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There is a matter of grammar here to contend with. Peter said unto them, “Repent, for the remission of sins.” He said unto them, “Repent, (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins,” The clause, according to Walvoord and Zuck is parenthetical. They note that the verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb “repent” is plural and so is the pronoun “your” in the clause “so that your sins may be forgiven (lit. “unto the remission of sins&#8221 . Therefore the verb “repent” must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins. On the other hand the imperative “be baptized” is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence. This is also in accordance with Acts 10:43, where the same expression is used: “sins may be forgiven.” It is granted on the basis of faith alone according to this verse. In Luke 24:47 and in Acts 5:31 Luke indicates that repentance results in remission of sins, not baptism.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

First we must answer the question of when was Paul saved. Every time Paul gives his testimony, he testifies that he was saved on the way to Damascus, when he saw the Lord, not when he saw Ananias. In verse 8 of this chapter he testifies, “Who art thou ‘Lord?’” In Gal.1:11,12, Paul himself testifies that the Gospel was directly given to him by Christ. Paul had already submitted in faith to Christ (vss. 9,10).
Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
---Paul was already filled with the Spirit before his baptism with water.
The clause “calling on his name,” is in the Greek aorist participle, and therefore could and should be translated “having called on his name.” It is an action that has already been completed.
---The words “wash away your sins,” simply refer to the symbolic picture of baptism. For baptism is a visible picture of salvation: the death, the burial, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ—the One who washed away our sins.

Scripture does not contradict Scripture. The Bible teaches believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It is that easy. But infants cannot believe, and water cannot save!
DHK

 

Typical DHK

Why don't you try quoting the WHOLE VERSE!!

Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Same principle I have told you time and time and time again -- covenantal hierarchy. The faith of the parents is sufficient for the infant child, just as the faith of the parents in the Old Covenant made circumcision work for the infant who was circumcised.

Still don't "get it", do ya?

Oh, and we know that water doesn't save. Water is just the agent which CHRIST USES TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE!!! It is Christ Who does the saving, not the water.

Think you can get that straight for the next time you post?

 

CC,

One persons faith cannot save enother. This notion of the parents trying to will their children into heaven doesn't work.

"...And thy house. We learn from the next verse that "his house" could listen the word of the Lord, hence were not infants." People's New Testament Commentary

(http://bible.christiansunite.com/pnt.cgi?0517)


T2U,

"Yes, we can only determine what is true or not true by gathering as much evidence as possible and making a judgement call."

How do you know the evidence you have gathered is correct and has not lead you into the wrong direction? Your "judgement call" may not in actuality be reality.

"I am sure that many things which I believe to be true, (not talking only about matters of faith but in general)"

Is the Catholic churches doctrine inerrant? Perfect? Truth? Is the Catholic churches Tradition inerrant? Perfect? Truth?

"What I am saying is that we must have a reasonable and reliable basis for believing that the witness that we bear is true. The further we are from a perfect understanding of the truth of what we are bearing witness to, the greater our obligation to qualify our witness"

For now, I will grant you that.

"False witness is more than simply telling a lie."

They are synmonomous. You cannot be bearing false witness and conveying the truth.

If I say "The Catholic church believes you will be saved if you jump up and down 100 times a day" I would be bearing false witness.

If I research the Catholic churches teaches on and come to the conclusion and tell others "The Catholic church believes you have to jump up and down 100 times a day to be saved." I am still bearing false witness (not to mention I would have horrible research skills )

However, if I say "Well, from the little I know about the Catholic church, I think they believe you have to jump up and down 100 times daily to be saved, but I don't know, I would check into it yourself." I am not bearing false witness. I'm telling the person what I know, but I'm saying very clearly that I don't know if its true or not, that it may very well not be true and telling the person to seek out a better source that could give them an accurate answer.

UNP
Adam

 

Adam --

If you are going to play the "Bible only" card, then you are going to have to play by those rules also. There is no Biblical evidence to the statement made that all in the house were old enough to hear and respond. That is a mere supposition made by those who do not want to admit to the paedobaptismal position. You can no more claim the baptism of adults is a Biblical doctrine with clear proof than we can claim that the baptism is infants is.

What we DO HAVE, however, that you DO NOT HAVE, is the witness of history which proves that the understanding of the Early Church was decidedly covenantal and in favor of infant baptism, for as early as the 2nd century, we see in the writings of the Fathers, instructions on baptizing, including the baptizing of infants.

Now, since these people were not even 100 years from the time that Christ walked the earth, WHERE do you suppose such information came from?

And to belabor a point I have made before, since the Church AVOWED SOLEMNLY that baptism was indeed NECESSARY for salvation, if there had been any other opinion of baptism, such as the Anabaptist position, out there, they would have called a council to discuss this issue. After all, this issue would have been discussing the salvation of believers, which is no small thing. Yet instead of seeing a council, all we see is thunderous silence, which indicates that there was no need for such a council because no such beliefs ever existed in the Early Church, and did not, in fact, exist until the Middle Ages.

There is no Biblical evidence for excluding infants from baptism and the witness of the Church in history shows us that it was done and not objected to by any group existing at that time.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Mark 10:14 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Inscriptions on the markers in the Catacombs of Christian infants show that the early church did not hinder their children from coming to Christ. The babies have no need of repentance, but they do have the need for the saving grace of the merits of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Should Christian families deny their children to come to Christ? No, the children should be baptized, taught the love for the Lord, and be brought up as Christians. And if they should die as small children or babies, they die as Christians. Jesus Himself taught the Kingdom of God belongs to people such as these. The Kingdom of God does not “belong” to unbaptized non-believers. Jesus never taught this.

The Kingdom of God belongs to those who have been cleansed with His blood, die with Him and rise with Him and have become a new creation. Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The Christian Catacombs have Christian babies buried there. Were these babies followers of Christ? Yes, at baptism they became a new creation, an adopted child of God and temples of the Holy Spirit. The seed planted in their heart at baptism is real. Later as they matured and their freewill develops if they choose not to believe, they would not be saved. I don’t see anything in Holy Scripture that teaches Christians are to wait for our children to grow up and hope they find the Lord.

God Bless

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Disciple ]

 

Disciple-

Jesus said do not hinder your children from coming to Him. However, infant baptism has nothing to do with children coming to Jesus. Instead, as we see it, it is the parents bringing the children to God, and as you see it it is God coming to the children. So either way this verse doesn't fit.

UNP
Adam

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: flyfree432 ]

 

"Now, since these people were not even 100 years from the time that Christ walked the earth, WHERE do you suppose such information came from?"

Within a hundred years of Christ's death huh? I hope it came from the first hand witnesses then- the Apostles.

I won't claim to have a great deal of knowledge of early church history (currently working on remedying that), so I look forward to other more learned people have to say.

UNP
Adam

 

Brother Adam --

Thank you for an HONEST answer to my question. I get more than tired and annoyed at those who claim that the Church "ran off the rails" almost before the vapor trails of our Lord's ascension in Acts were gone.

There are a number of good resources online. Take your search engine and type in EARLY FATHERS and you will get a wealth of reading material. Wheaton College Library online has a really nice collection of their writings.

May God continue to bless you in your journey.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Disciple-
Jesus said do not hinder your children from coming to Him. However, infant baptism has nothing to do with children coming to Jesus. Instead, as we see it, it is the parents bringing the children to God, and as you see it it is God coming to the children. So either way this verse doesn't fit.

UNP
Adam <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Mark 10:14 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Baptism of babies has everything to do with them coming to Christ. Christ Himself explains that the kingdom of God belong to such as these. The evidence in the Christian catacombs show that babies were baptized and died Christians. Coming to Christ means being born again and becoming a new creation. Jesus didn’t exclude children.

God Bless

 

Bro. Ed,
It is well known that Acts 16:31 contains the phrase “and thy house.” It is also well known that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that that house contained any infants. If it did please offer the evidence.
You are right, “I still don’t get it.” Because I don’t believe in a covenantal hierarchy. There is no such thing taught in the New Testament. We do not live in the Old Testament. Circumcision and the law were dealt with in Acts chapter 15. They have nothing to do with salvation. Circumcision is a sign or rite for the Jew and only for the Jew. Baptism does not replace circumcision; it never did. We live in an age of grace, not under the law. The one does not continue into the other. Christ came and fulfilled the law.

”Oh, and we know that water doesn't save. Water is just the agent which CHRIST USES TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE!!! It is Christ Who does the saving, not the water.”
--If this were true, then where does Christ use water in the Bible to save people? Please give chapter and verse. If what you say is true, then why is water so necessary in salvation? If it is Christ that saves us why is water necessary at all? Is God so anemic that He has to depend upon an agent like water to save someone? Where is this concept taught in Scripture? This is a man-made doctrine that came into popularity sometime after the death of the Apostles. It is not taught anywhere in the Scriptures.
DHK

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:
Exodus 20:16

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

How does this commandment relate to our obligation as Christians to manifest the new creation which we have put on through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Do we violate the spirit or the letter of this commandment when we:

Repeat rumor?
Quote out of context?
Make rash judgement?
Flatter excessively?
Boast?

If we are guilty of bearing false witness, do we have a duty of reparation?

How would such reparation be manifested?

Is this an important issue in our walk with the Lord?

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so forgive me if this has been dealt with.

To answer the questions:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes, and by restoring what was damaged by any righteous means at one's disposal.