Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

[Dr. Walter]

Anti- what? Oh "TYPE"! Now what could that possibly be????? a FIGURE! (1 Pet. 3:21 "antitupos" translated "figure"). FIGURES don't "convey" they "portray" a truth. Sacraments "convey" but figures "portray." Hebrews 10:4 says "NEVER" took away sin so the language in Leviticus "for his sins" did not "convey" but it "PORTRAYED" the remission sins, while faith in the coming Christ (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2) actually "conveyed" forgiveness of sins.

Romans 6:2 uses the Aorist tense to point back to a completed action in time past - justification as in the case of Abraham BEFORE he submitted to the "sign" of circucmsion (Rom. 4:11) or justification by faith where the beleiver identified with the death of Christ for sin (Romans 4:24-25). Romans 6:4-5 visibly manifests this identification in baptism. Baptism "portrays" ("likeness") what was legally "conveyed" in justification by faith.

Ah, like the Trinity, you mean? Oh dear...
You are familiar with the concept of an antetype, aren't you?

You're being selective with your proof-texting again and coveniently ignoring the passages that point to baptismal regeneration which I quoted - care to engage with them?


Again, you've mangled the typology here - baptism doesn't just portray truth, it conveys it: the believer is buried and resurrected with Christ in baptism - read Romans 6 again.

 

[Matt Black]

It's ante- and it means 'before'; therein lies your clue...

Again, you really don't get this typology thing, do you?

[ETA - Rom 6:2 uses the same aorist tense as vv 3&4 of that chapter, both of which talk of baptism, not in typologocal but in actual terms so what is your point? You conveniently quote just v2 and leave out the rest - the random proof-texter strikes again!]

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Maybe they'll start charging petrol by the gallon rather than the liter and get more for their pound!

I really wanted to know if the Brits still made chocolates there because if I want the Hershey/Kraft stuff I'd buy it domestically. Do I yell at the Belgians for buying Bush? I should since they are not sending the Clydesdales over to the local fairs anymore & whats a farm & horse show without the annual visit from Scottish Draft Horses?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are good at bloviating and make an excellent politician in congress but not very good at dealing with facts. Obviously, you have not read very many theology books. I never hand picked any particular theologion. What I stated is a common tenet in most theology books. Malichi 3:6 does not deny the INVISIBLE God cannot manifest Himself in various visible forms (Theophanies) but it does deny that those attributes which make God to be God, essential characteristics of absolute deity cannot be transferred to created things as that would be the same as creating another God. However, the Scriptures deny that possibility:


Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa. 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

The Word of God tabernacled in flesh, took upon flesh, was clothed with the human nature but did not deify that human nature. Omnipresence is an incommunicable attribute of God that belongs exclusively to the nature of God. Your position concerning the wafer as well as the human nature God tabernacled in would require the deifying of the human nature for the human body to be omnipresent. It would also require physical substance to become God but God "is a spirit" therefore necessitate essential change of deity in regard to divine nature.

You have gone through three institutions and did not study any indepth theology proper???????? Better go back to class.

Where would you get an outrageous idea like that?
I never said it was. Sounds like you hand pick your theologians just like you hand pick your doctrines--without regard to either scripture or reason. All right. The sun also rises in the east and sets in the west. I see your small mind is at work again trying to visualize your small God. I hate to disappoint you but He actually does. He also exists everywhere else but in the minds of fundamentalists. Exactly. Absolute TRUTH, not Dr. Walter's version of "truth." If you would read the rest to Mal. 3 you would see that God changes not in His expectations of man and His judgment of man. It doesn't mean God can't take any form He chooses. He can take the form of a burning bush, a man or a still small voice in the storm. No I don't, so kindly quote me exactly where you thought I did. No I don't have a mutable god, and by making such statements you are demonstrating your own inability to wrap your mind around even the most basic attributes of God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's ante- and it means 'before'; therein lies your clue...

Again, you really don't get this typology thing, do you?

[ETA - Rom 6:2 uses the same aorist tense as vv 3&4 of that chapter, both of which talk of baptism, not in typologocal but in actual terms so what is your point? You conveniently quote just v2 and leave out the rest - the random proof-texter strikes again!]

you know Matt, Its just a matter of time before your called an "Anglo-Catholic" Again.

BTW, does your minister also attend Men's Pub night....what a cool way to let guys just relax & speak candidly.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, he does from time to time. We share about our problems, what God's doing in our lives, and generally 'put the world to rights' as men do in such situations.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Simply because all that has been posted is human opinion, whether it be yours or Dr Walter's, all we have had thus far on this thread is your own personal interpretations of various Scripture passages: your version of the truth, your private interpretation of the Bible. The trouble with that is that you (and I) are fallible human beings and therefore our private interpretations of Scripture and our doctrinal opinions are mere human constructs, ridden with errors.

Thats the standard Catholic response when confronted with Catholicisms heretical doctrines, such as this one.


When you aproach a (((STOP))) sign, do you view it as something that is one persons human opinion, but you disagree?

Or do you understand that "Stop" means....(((STOP!)))?

The issue here is just as clear.

 

[Matt Black]

Right, so that's why we've got so many denominations and interpretations of the Bible, because it's so clear. Riiiiight...Keep taking the pills, mate!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Right, so that's why we've got so many denominations and interpretations of the Bible, because it's so clear. Riiiiight...Keep taking the pills, mate!

The phrase americans use is "go ahead drink the coolaid."

 

[Matt Black]

Isn't that meant to be a prelude to mass suicide, though? (Jimmy Jones, IIRC.) Sounds a bit OTT; my phrase simply means 'keep taking the medication', which IMO is a little more benign, not carrying, as yours does, connotations of wishing the imminent demise of the recipient...:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Christ was foreshadowed ("shadow" versus "not the very image") by sacrifices that "portayed" but did not "convey" the remission of sins as Hebrews 10:4 says they could "NEVER" take away sins. Hence, the sacrifice was the "type" and Christ the "antetype." During the days of Moses the "types" did not "convey" remission of sins (Heb. 10:4) as a "shadow" or "type" or "figure" cannot convey anything but a PICTURE. However, during the days of Moses the same writer of Hebrews tells us what did "convey" remission of sins (Heb. 4:2) faith in the PREACHED gospel of Christ (in those where faith was mixed with the gospel they heard):

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 6 is based upon the legal position of justification in chapters 3:24-5:22 by faith as defined and described in Romans 4:23-25. His life and death was imputed to the believer at the point of faith in the gospel as Abraham was justified BEFORE he submitted to divine ordinances (Rom. 4:11). Baptism is the TYPE that visibly portrays the truth of justification stated in Romans 4:23-25. The justified Christian submits to baptism as a visible expression of justification already in possession before baptism just as Abraham submitted to visible expression of new birth in circumcision as a visible "sign" and "seal" of the justification already in possession before He was circumcised:

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:


In keeping with the legal position of the believer BEFORE GOD (Rom. 4:1) as "dead to sin" and in keeping with the visible expression of that position BEFORE MEN in baptism the believer is to likewise "reckon" himself dead to sin, resist sin and yeild to the Holy Spirit in order to obtain the empowerment to serve righteousness. This is the message of Romans 6 in complete harmony with Romans 3:24-5:22

It's ante- and it means 'before'; therein lies your clue...

Again, you really don't get this typology thing, do you?

[ETA - Rom 6:2 uses the same aorist tense as vv 3&4 of that chapter, both of which talk of baptism, not in typologocal but in actual terms so what is your point? You conveniently quote just v2 and leave out the rest - the random proof-texter strikes again!]

 

[Matt Black]

Oh no, please PLEASE go and learn some Greek. Then you would know that Christ cannot be an antetype, since ante- refers to what has gone before, in this case, Christ and therefore cannot be Christ Himself. The 'types' under the Old Covenant to which you refer are, strictly and theologically-speaking, antetypes, with Christ and His sacrifice being, as it were, the Real Deal.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The phrase americans use is "go ahead drink the coolaid."

Overused In my opinion Laddie! Almost sounds trite & ignorant if I could be sincere.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Oh no, please PLEASE go and learn some Greek. Then you would know that Christ cannot be an antetype, since ante- refers to what has gone before, in this case, Christ and therefore cannot be Christ Himself. The 'types' under the Old Covenant to which you refer are, strictly and theologically-speaking, antetypes, with Christ and His sacrifice being, as it were, the Real Deal.

an·ti·type (nt-tp)n.
1. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antitype

In theology "type" versus "antitype" means exactly what this online dictionary defines them as. That which corresponds to a type or fulfills the type.

However, your just playing the diversion game. Deal with the evidence I placed before you as you are swallowing a camel by tying up a discussion over a gnat.

 

[Dr. Walter]

an·ti·type (nt-tp)n.
1. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antitype

In theology "type" versus "antitype" means exactly what this online dictionary defines them as. That which corresponds to a type or fulfills the type.

Hence, Christ is the true "antitype" to the sacrificial "types" in the Old Testament. The types could "NEVER" take away sins even though the PICTURE accompanied the language of redemption ("for his sins") as it was faith in the antitype (Christ) that literally remitted sins (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2).

Christ was foreshadowed ("shadow" versus "not the very image") by sacrifices that "portayed" but did not "convey" the remission of sins as Hebrews 10:4 says they could "NEVER" take away sins. Hence, the sacrifice was the "type" and Christ the "antetype." During the days of Moses the "types" did not "convey" remission of sins (Heb. 10:4) as a "shadow" or "type" or "figure" cannot convey anything but a PICTURE. However, during the days of Moses the same writer of Hebrews tells us what did "convey" remission of sins (Heb. 4:2) faith in the PREACHED gospel of Christ (in those where faith was mixed with the gospel they heard):

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 6 is based upon the legal position of justification in chapters 3:24-5:22 by faith as defined and described in Romans 4:23-25. His life and death was imputed to the believer at the point of faith in the gospel as Abraham was justified BEFORE he submitted to divine ordinances (Rom. 4:11). Baptism is the TYPE that visibly portrays the truth of justification stated in Romans 4:23-25. The justified Christian submits to baptism as a visible expression of justification already in possession before baptism just as Abraham submitted to visible expression of new birth in circumcision as a visible "sign" and "seal" of the justification already in possession before He was circumcised:

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:


In keeping with the legal position of the believer BEFORE GOD (Rom. 4:1) as "dead to sin" and in keeping with the visible expression of that position BEFORE MEN in baptism the believer is to likewise "reckon" himself dead to sin, resist sin and yeild to the Holy Spirit in order to obtain the empowerment to serve righteousness. This is the message of Romans 6 in complete harmony with Romans 3:24-5:22

 

[Matt Black]

Well, word-games aside, can we at least agree that Christ is the Real Deal as opposed to the earlier sacrifices which preceded and pointed towards Him?

 

[quantumfaith]

The phrase americans use is "go ahead drink the coolaid."

Hey Thinkingstuff, "Kool-aid" goes down way too easily. There always seems to a flavor of the day.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, word-games aside, can we at least agree that Christ is the Real Deal as opposed to the earlier sacrifices which preceded and pointed towards Him?

If you will read my last post that is exactly what I said, have been saying and still am saying. Types can only portray a picture but never convey the reality behind the picture.

 

[Matt Black]

Then can we also agree that, being under the New Covenant, its signs are likewise the Real Deal, as opposed to those under the Old Covenant?

 

[quantumfaith]

an·ti·type (nt-tp)n.
1. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antitype

In theology "type" versus "antitype" means exactly what this online dictionary defines them as. That which corresponds to a type or fulfills the type.

Hence, Christ is the true "antitype" to the sacrificial "types" in the Old Testament. The types could "NEVER" take away sins even though the PICTURE accompanied the language of redemption ("for his sins") as it was faith in the antitype (Christ) that literally remitted sins (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2).

World English Dictionary
antetype (ˈæntɪˌtaɪp)

— n
an earlier form; prototype