Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

There is no argument there at all. That verse doesn't even come close to teaching baptismal regeneration.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
--Speaking of "the like figure" means that it is symblolic (a figure), and that it refers to the picture in the verses that precede it.
In the verses that precede Peter speaks of Noah and the "eight souls were saved by water.} (vs. 20). But they weren't saved by water. Everything was destroyed by water. Water was the agent of destruction not salvation. What saved them was the ark, the symbol of Christ, the only way of salvation, the only way to heaven. One cannot be saved by water; cannot be saved by baptism. Water is a destroying agent in this picutre.
So what does verse 21 mean. </font>[/QUOTE]&lt;shrug&gt; That's your personal interpretation - fine. Mine and the Church's is different.

Well glory be! Ireneaus for example believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. Are we to believe all the strange doctrines of these men. That is why we have a Bible, which is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Hyppolytus:
There is a lot of heresy in that above quote. Can I trust you to find it for yourself, or need I point it out to you?
Did Jesus become an infant for infants? I think not!
Was he dipped 7 times in the Jordan for Naaman?
Was Namaan baptized?
I think not.
The entire post is so allegorical it is ridiculous.

There is no precedent for this in Scripture. Where is there any precedent in Scripture for:
1. Children to be baptized, and
2. Parents to speak for children that are being baptized. These are man-made doctrines. that go against what the Bible teaches.

and Cyprian of Carthage:

More heresy. No where does it teach infant baptism in the Bible. It teaches believe and be baptized. An infant cannot be baptized. The above teaching is heresy. The advice here is not to follow the teachings of the early church fathers.

Again here is the advocacy of infant baptism, a heresy of the early church, not found in the Bible, not taught by the Apostles. </font>[/QUOTE]The point here is is that all these 'heresies' were taught by your beloved 'early churches' well before Constantine, according to your world-view, "founded the Catholic Church"

But paedo-baptism was also practised, again by your 'early churches'. Find me a quote from either Scripture or early church writings which expressly prohibits it

 

Historical revisionism prompted by theological need: Jesus said, "On this Rock I will build my Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against Her." Mt. 16:18. See also: Rev. 17:1-18--the Mother of Harlots.

Have you tried the infallible source of information?

Sola Scriptura,

Bro. James

[ April 07, 2006, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

The challenge remains, Bro James; we're still waiting for your primary source documentation...&lt;drums fingers on desk&gt;...

 

The history is written in blood, Sir. See Rev. 17:5--which is also the primary source. What is there to gain by "revising" history in such a way? There is nothing to gain monetarily--why would these folks conjure such a story? Certainly not for the accolades of the powers that be.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Um...except that Revelation was written prior to 100AD and therefore isn't a primary contemporary source document for the period under discussion, for which we are all still waiting...&lt;cleans fingernails&gt;...

 

"Repent and be baptized" -- precludes infants.

"Baptism...NOT the touching of magical sacramental waters to the flesh but the appeal to God for a clean conscience" 1 Peter 3 -- precludes infants.

RCC sources ADMIT that the NT church did NOT baptize infants...

RC Historians SHOW that it evolved over time...

(All this has been posted before).

Early church fathers SHOW that the practice was to baptize adults in fact it grew into quite an ordeal before it started turning to the error of infant baptism.

(all this has been posted before ... let me know if you want me to "let you have it" again.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Neither of those verses prohibit the baptism of infants; I'm looking for somebody to come up with a verse that says eg: "And I forbid women to speak and for infants to be baptised; that is the practice in all the churches" etc

The two-stage soteriology of Acts 2:38 (and indeed Mark 16:16) can be viewed as much disjunctively as conjunctively, BTW.

So, close, but no cigar, Bob...

 

Since you admit that these are crimes against humanity - and you admit that your "sources" for condemning the victims of those crimes is primarily the "criminal himself" one has to wonder just how objective you are in your insistence that "the criminal is accurate and objective in his mischaracterization of his victims".

That says a lot -- about you. I have found Mioque to be 95% imagination 5% fact.

The point being - you remain admant about condemning the Albigensis based on .... 'nothing'. You have given "no source at all"!!

You only admit that your "easiest source" is the criminal organization that you "claim" to have committed the crimes against humanity.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Spain and Portugal are still today primarily Catholic thanks to the legacy of the dark ages.

#2. The eastern orthodox Catholic church is as much a division of the Catholic church around 1000 AD as the Roman Catholic church. The division was over power and leadership. By contrast the "protesting Catholics" of the 16th century were largely protesting over doctrinal questions. "Truth vs error". The need to gloss over that detail is apparent for the RCC - why do you do it?

The pagan Roman Empire did not include Russia. My point was about Europe and the Roman Empire that replaced the pagan Roman Empire.

All major Christian splits in history were born in Catholicism - usually as attempts to dump RC doctrinal error.

The RCC is know for its adoption of paganism - even within the realm of RC historians. (As has already been posted)

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Matt Black:
1. There's a strong argument for saying that baptismal regeneration is taught in the Bible - I Peter 3:21 springs to mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a good text showing that "pope Peter" explicitly rejects the holy sacramental waters idea for Baptism and confines it to the "APPEAL TO GOD FOR A CLEAN CONSCIENCE" on the part of the one being Baptized!!

Little Bible "details" like that are what the RCC needs to avoid -- why do you do it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

And you have given no source to support the Albigenses. You also haven't acknowledged the Ritual de Lyon. Your theory is based on pure speculation and you have adduced no evidence to support it.TRY THIS LINK and THIS ONE

I have a great deal of respect for Mioque and it ill-behoves you to besmirch her good name in this way.

[cp with two further posts from you]

 

...which of course can also be used to favour baptismal regeneration/ cleansing from sin; it depends how you argue it.

 

Matt,

As I'm sure you've noticed, it's pretty difficult arguing with those who take the ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand approach to history; and who dismiss, using anachronistic circular reasoning, early church fathers as "heretics" (simply for disagreeing with dismissers' novel interpretations!) even when those fathers are expressing the consensus on a certain doctrine; or who dismiss, using pure ad hominem attacks, scholars and historians as "Catholic propagandists" or "modernistic unbelievers" simply because they don't agree with their conclusions. I'm going to take a break for a while, but keep fighting the good fight. I may chime in from time to time but there comes a time I guess to observe Proverbs 26:4 (at least for the remainder of Lent).

Peace.

DT

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Matt Black:
1. There's a strong argument for saying that baptismal regeneration is taught in the Bible - I Peter 3:21 springs to mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a good text showing that "pope Peter" explicitly rejects the holy sacramental waters idea for Baptism and confines it to the "APPEAL TO GOD FOR A CLEAN CONSCIENCE" on the part of the one being Baptized!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with all doctrinal error you would have to "Carefully ignore the details in the text" to make that point.

If on the other hand you "paid attention" to the text you would see "Corresponding to that Baptism now saves you" and you would not then CLOSE THE BOOK! By "reading" what "pope" Peter says NEXT you would see that the "APPEAL TO GOD FOR A CLEAN CONSCIENCE" is the "Baptism that saves" and is perfectly consistent with what Paul says in Romans 10 about BELIEVING WITH THE HEART resulting in salvation.

By turning a blind eye to the "details of the text" and simply stopping with "Corresponding to that Baptism now saves you" -- you can get to the error you are suggesting.

But that careful avoidance of scripture is not the exegetical model of many Bible-believing non-Catholics. Rather it is the eisegetical model of man-made-tradition being inserted INTO the text.

See?

In Christ,

Bob

 

While it is true that the errors that Paul "predicted" in Acts 20 to come into the church "after his departure" DID come in and even came in with some of the post-NT church fathers -- it is not true that they always butchered history as they did it.

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article. Article by Bill Dodds begins on page 42 and is titled “Baptism Comes Full Circle”. (Page 42 is just a picture of an infant being sprinkled – so no actual words on that page).

Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and councils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy Saturday ceremony"

&lt;&gt;
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Didache on BELIEVER’s Baptism by Immersion:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FE The Faith Explained (RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican ii).

difference whether a man be washed in a sea or a pool, a stream or a fount, a lake or a trough; nor is there any distinction between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber, unless withal the eunuch whom Philip baptized in the midst of his journeys with chance water, derived (therefrom) more or less of salvation than others.

Tertullian
CHAP. IV.--THE PRIMEVAL HOVERING OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD OVER THE WATERS TYPICAL OFBAPTISM. – 671
TERTULLIAN “ON BAPTISM. “ [TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL.]
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian21.html
[/quote]

Tetullian – repentance comes before water Baptism – and before remission. So “believer’s Baptism”.

 

So what of those who turn a blind eye to this history that is confessed EVEN by RC sources. History documented by the ECFs themselves?

What excuse do they have for ignoring both the Bible AND These historic sources?

None!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
Just a few helpful hints:
(1) Yes, the Didache witnesses to bapstism by immersion--which of course I agree with--but it says nothing specifically about "believer's" (or adult-only) baptism. I know, I've read the entire Didache thrice.

(2)Yes, for adults there must be repentence expressed before baptism (and afterwards for that matter), but infants don't need yet to repent. Christ said we must repent and become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven, and obviously infants are already little children--they are innocent of personal sin. Historically the evidence of infant baptism is overwhelming.

(3)Finally, though Tertullian favored delaying baptism, it wasn't because he believed it was only a symbol. He did indeed believe in baptismal regeneration (as can be documented amply in his other writings); he was a rigorist who took a very dim view of the possibility of forgiveness after baptism (which is why others would sometimes delay their baptsim to the end of their lives; not because they didn't believe in baptismal regeneration.)

Anyway, I'll let Matt take it from here...

 

The cloak of skepticism is very transparent in light of the Scripture. We will answer to The Word, not the writings and traditions of depraved mankind.

This argument is kind of like reasoning with a theistic evolutionist--someone has to be given to strong delusion.

The Bible is still the only standard to compare the traditions of men, which will always be found lacking. Perhaps that is why those who translated were killed and their books burned, along with the believers thereof.

The Mother of Harlots is still on her throne. God is still on His. Who do you think will win? The victory was made at Calvary. Satan has yet to receive his sentence.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

But the Bible interpreted by whom?
The Calvinists? The Arminians? The COCers? The SDAers? The Episcopals? The Southern Baptists? The Lutherans? the Charismatics? The JWs? Who?