Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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.

DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2. These matters to which you refer were taught by the early church; Irenaeus, for example, writes:

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.

"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]). "‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. 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 newborn 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’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

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.

"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]).

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:

"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]).

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.

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

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"

Believer's baptism was taught all through the Bible. Take the Ethiopian eunuch. They both went down into the water and they both came up out of the water. They were baptized in that particular spot because there was much water there. The very Greek word, "baptidzo" means "immerse." Most church historians readily admit that immersion was the mode of baptism practiced by all churches until just recently. Even the Catholic Church practices immersion in many places.
DHK

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

 

[Bro. James]

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 ]

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[Matt Black]

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;...

 

[BobRyan]

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

"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

 

[Matt Black]

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...

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Bob, I am quite prepared to call a spade a spade here: the crimes of the Inquisition were crimes, in some cases eg: the Albigenses arguably genocide (the Tolosanian Troubadour culture was exterminated as part and parcel of the 13th century 'crusade'; plus there was a lot of politics involved - the Capetian monarchs of France wanted to extend their power to cover what is now south-west France and they jumped on the crusading bandwagon for that cynical purpose).

But all of the above does not turn the Cathars into some kind of Christian group. To argue so would be tantamount to saying that because Saladin had the Third Crusade launched against him by those nasty Catholics he and his followers were some kind of Christian group likewise.

You ask about character witnesses. Yes, I agree that history was largely 'written by the victors' ie: the Catholic Church

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".

Mioque is far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am and I will defer to her superior wisdom;

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

 

[BobRyan]

Finally, it is not correct that the Catholic Church dominated all of Europe in the period under examination here. For a start, what is now Spain and Portugal were ruled by Muslims;

and of course you ignore the Orthodox Church, which was established in Russia and the Balkans.

#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

 

[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!!

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

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

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]

 

[Matt Black]

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!!

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

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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

 

[BobRyan]

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

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!!


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

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

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

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
[QB] 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"

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.

Page 43
"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".


Pg 44
"go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"



pg 45
"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protégé until the baptism"

&lt;&gt;

"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms. (daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."

"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congregation)."

&lt;&gt;

"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off, they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following Sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"

&lt;&gt;
"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"


"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (Catholic) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fifth century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point
(read change),
baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"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]

 

[BobRyan]

Didache on BELIEVER’s Baptism by Immersion:

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
]
Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

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

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

"baptism is the means devised by Jesus to apply to each individual soul, the atonement which he made on the cross for original sin. (for all sin?). Jesus will
not force his gift upon us, the gift of supernatural life for which he paid. He holds the gift out to us hopefully, but each of us must freely accept
it. We make that acceptance by receiving (willingly) the sacrament of baptism" pg302

"whether it is the passive acceptance of the infant or the explicit acceptance of the adult - when the sacrament is administered the spiritual vacuum
which we call original sin - disappears as God becomes present in the soul" pg 302

"by baptism we are rescued from the spiritual death into which we were plunged by the sin of Adam. In baptism God united our soul to himself.
God's love-- the Holy Spirit -- poured into our soul to fill the spiritual vacuum that was the result of the original sin. As result of this intimate union with god,
our soul was elevated to a new kind of life, a supernatural life, a sharing in god's own life.

From then on it becomes our duty to preserve this divine life.(we call it 'sanctifying grace') within us; not only to preserve it, but to
deepen and intensify it. Pg 62

after baptism the only way we can be separated from God is our own deliberate rejection of God. That happens when in full consciousness
of what we are doing, deliberately and of our free choice we refuse God our obedience in a serious matter. Pg 62 – 63

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

Tertullian on Baptism by emersion

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”.

for in that John used to preach "baptism for the remission of sins," the declaration was made with reference to future remission; if it be true, (as it is,) that repentance is antecedent, remission subsequent; and this is "preparing the way."

Ibid. CHAP. X.--OF JOHN'S BAPTISM.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian21.html


They who are about to enter baptism ought to pray with repeated prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the night through, and with the confession of all by 679

Ibid. CHAP. XX.--OF PREPARATION FOR, AND CONDUCT AFTER, THE RECEPTION OF BAPTISM.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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...

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
[QB] 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.

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?