-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Biblical Basis for some Catholic Distinctives
- Thread starter Deadworm
- Start date
- Status
Actually, that principle was found in the Scriptures themselves!
1 Corinthians 1:14 Apostle paul did not seem to have baptism as essnetial to saved!
The Bible does not teach Baptism for salvation.
1. People received the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts before salvation, the scriptures teaches in Ephesian that we are sealed by the holy Spirit, and if you read through Acts there are several occasion of people receiving the Holy Spirit BEFORE baptism. The bible teaches that those who have the Spirit of God are children of God, therefore you become a child of God before baptism.
Romans 8:9 KJV
[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV
[13] In whom ye also trusted , after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, [14] Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Acts 10:43-48 KJV
[43] To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. [44] While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
2. The word “for” in Acts 2:38 does not have to mean “In order to receive” in both English and Greek, for example “he goes to the store for his wife” or “he went to jail for stealing”, notice that in the second example the word “for” means because of or on account of. In fact the same Greek word “eis” (for) in Acts 2:38 is also used in Matthew 12:41: KJV
[41] The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at(EIS) the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
They repented because of Jonah’s preaching.
3. Paul said in one of his epistles, I came not baptized, but to preach the Gospel, so obviously there is a separation between Baptism and the Gospel.
1 Corinthians 1:17-18 KJV
[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. [18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
4. note also the example of Abraham in Romans 4:
9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faithwas reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yetbeing 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:
Basically here this is saying that before Abraham was given the rite of circumcision, he was righteous by his FAITH, this righteousness was not given to him through circumcision, but by his FAITH, circumcision was a symbol and testimony of the righteousness he ALREADY had BY FAITH.
We could easily change this to Baptism and Apply it to the Apostle Paul.
Cometh this blessedness upon the baptized only? or upon the unbaptized also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Paul for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was baptized, or unbaptized? Not in baptism, but before baptism. and he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized...
I would also note that the word seal as used above is being used in the sense expressing the genuineness of something.basically the circumcision was a sign and showed the approval Abraham already had with God because of his faith.
Baptism is the same way, Baptism does not provide or apply the atonement of Christ for ANYONE, Faith and Faith alone does that, and this made very clear in TONS of verses in the bible, to make Baptism a means of regeneration requires taking a small handful of text and ignoring their context and reading Baptismal Regeneration into the text.
Galatians 1:7-9 condemns those who would preach a false gospel, The Gospel is described it as the death burial and resurrection of Christ for our sins, no mention of Baptism, but Paul did talk about "receiving the Gospel, by which ye are saved" (1Corinthians 15:1-4)
Salvation is attained the moment you receive the Gospel, Romans 10 says with the heart man believes unto righteousness, salvation happens in one's heart, not in the tub of water.
The Scriptures are clear, you must repent of your false belief in sacraments having any sort of regenerative or atoning power, Faith alone in Christ saves, not faith plus baptism, or faith plus communion, or anything else
Acts 16:31 "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"
Walter, the good thief, Dismas he's called was told by Jesus that "today you will be with me in Paradise." Note, Paradise and Heaven are two different places. Paradise is where Moses and Elijah were when they were seen by Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration. Jesus is the firstborn of the dead, in every way the primacy is His. He hadn't yet Ascended into Heaven and no one could go there until He did, otherwise, He'd not be the firstborn of the dead. He did not send Dismas to Heaven ahead of Himself. It was a full 40 days from His Resurrection to His Ascension. Think about it. God bless. GInnyfree.
PS Walter, in all honesty, if this is what you were told in RCIA class, you weren't given Catholic truth. God bless. Ginnyfree.
Not even sure it originated in RCIA, Ginnyfree. It's been years now so II am not certain about the origins of the material. Thanks for your correction!
"Repent and be baptized...". Can an infant repent before being sprinkled?
"...whom the Lord our God calls to Him." How is the calling of God confirmed and acknowledged by an infant?
Ginnyfree: Although some on this board know my background, you are new and do not. I came here as a Baptist at a time when Catholics were not allowed to join. The only way you could be on this board as a Catholic was if you converted to Catholicism AFTER joining this board. Here is my journey:
I was brought up in a Baptist family, came to Christ (repented of my sins and trusted Christ as my Savior and Lord) at the age of eleven and was taught that if something is Catholic it has to be wrong.
Liturgy is definately part of Catholic worship and so it was to be rejected as ritualistic and repetitive praying. As an evangelical I thought the symbolism and ritual of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran or any high church as devoid of meaning, empty, rote, and mindless. Of course there have been cases or even tendencies at times for people to lose track of the meanings of their religious practices, and to do them without thinking about why they do them– but Baptists do this too– sometimes even with their prayers, devotions, church-going, etc. To say that all symbolic ritual in the Catholic church is rote and thoughtless ritualism is as uncharitable as someone saying that evangelicalism is legalistic unthoughtful literalism which practices bibliolatry with no concern for making a concrete difference in this world. But I digress!
I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant and that became increasingly evident to me as I studied the book of Hebrews. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.
As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!
All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.
Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.
There are many other reasons why I and other former evangelicals convert to Catholicism. One reason is: Certainty
To have certainty and knowledge of truth leads many evangelicals to look elsewhere beyond all the doctrinal differences and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” within evangelical churches. I had the desire for certain knowledge, this is something I could not find within evangelical churches. If I were to ask ten evangelicals what their churches teach about marriage and divorce, how many different answers might I get?
Another reason for conversion is that I wanted to be connected to the ENTIRE history of the Christian Church and not just from the Reformation forward. I do not buy into Baptist successionism as their is a lack of historical evidence for it. Baptists trying to connect themselves to various groups that split from Catholicism prior to the Reformation falls short. Their beliefs and practices were closer to Catholicism than present day Baptists. The Waldenses are an example.
Also, I have issue with the "interpretive diversity” that occurs in evangelicalism, I prefer to accept the authority of the Catholic Church instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of evangelical pastors and theologians. The authority that is found in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has been consistant for two thousand years. The non-ending threads on the BB pitting Christian against Christian over doctrine many times resulting in either board members directly or indirectly questioning each others salvation and the myriad of denominations created because of such squabbling is evidence enough of the dangers of 'interpretive diversity' or 'individual interpretation' of scripture.
I was brought up in a Baptist family, came to Christ (repented of my sins and trusted Christ as my Savior and Lord) at the age of eleven and was taught that if something is Catholic it has to be wrong.
Liturgy is definately part of Catholic worship and so it was to be rejected as ritualistic and repetitive praying. As an evangelical I thought the symbolism and ritual of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran or any high church as devoid of meaning, empty, rote, and mindless. Of course there have been cases or even tendencies at times for people to lose track of the meanings of their religious practices, and to do them without thinking about why they do them– but Baptists do this too– sometimes even with their prayers, devotions, church-going, etc. To say that all symbolic ritual in the Catholic church is rote and thoughtless ritualism is as uncharitable as someone saying that evangelicalism is legalistic unthoughtful literalism which practices bibliolatry with no concern for making a concrete difference in this world. But I digress!
I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant and that became increasingly evident to me as I studied the book of Hebrews. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.
As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!
All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.
Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.
There are many other reasons why I and other former evangelicals convert to Catholicism. One reason is: Certainty
To have certainty and knowledge of truth leads many evangelicals to look elsewhere beyond all the doctrinal differences and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” within evangelical churches. I had the desire for certain knowledge, this is something I could not find within evangelical churches. If I were to ask ten evangelicals what their churches teach about marriage and divorce, how many different answers might I get?
Another reason for conversion is that I wanted to be connected to the ENTIRE history of the Christian Church and not just from the Reformation forward. I do not buy into Baptist successionism as their is a lack of historical evidence for it. Baptists trying to connect themselves to various groups that split from Catholicism prior to the Reformation falls short. Their beliefs and practices were closer to Catholicism than present day Baptists. The Waldenses are an example.
Also, I have issue with the "interpretive diversity” that occurs in evangelicalism, I prefer to accept the authority of the Catholic Church instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of evangelical pastors and theologians. The authority that is found in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has been consistant for two thousand years. The non-ending threads on the BB pitting Christian against Christian over doctrine many times resulting in either board members directly or indirectly questioning each others salvation and the myriad of denominations created because of such squabbling is evidence enough of the dangers of 'interpretive diversity' or 'individual interpretation' of scripture.
I repeat, if Baptism was not necessary, why did God send His Apostles to Baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Did He send them on a fool's errand? When you come up with a good answer for this specific question, let me know. God bless. Ginnyfree.
Have you even bothered to listen to audio by Steve Ray already posted where he clearly covers this? Are you simply dismissing any Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist,, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Anglican, Reformed, UCC, etc. position based on your Baptist tinted glasses? 'Study to show thyself approved . . . ' You might want to try reading something from a non-Baptist perspective like: 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie
Last edited:
Walter, I am stunned by your sharing your faith journey so openly and honestly with me. I'm honored. I too am a convert. I was 36 at the time of my Baptism. I went thru RCIA and was also handed some malarkey to chew on. My mom was raised as a Baptist and my grandpop would read some of the Bible to us grandkids and give us candy if we listened for more then a few minutes. I didn't need the candy as I loved it when he read and always asked for more. I wasn't quite five years old, but one Sunday morning I asked my mom "Can I be Baptised?" She thought I was kidding but I wasn't. I was told I had to wait until I was 16! I found that hard to believe. Jesus had said "Let the little children come to me......," just like I quoted here. I remembered it from my grandpop's Bible. In my mind that meant I was allowed. I had the grown-ups in an uproar. We even played "Baptism" in the neighbor's pool, but my cousins were Baptist too and older and told me I had to wait. One of them was only a few years away and was studying for it. I pestered everyone for a couple of weeks, even asking the Pastor at their church when can I be Baptised? He gave me a pat on the head, and dismissed my questions and told me to ask my dad. So I did. He said he saw no reason why I had to wait so long, if wanted to be Baptised it was okay with him. Yippie! I was all set for the next Sunday. I wasn' allowed to talk to the Pastor or almost anyone. They weren't going to let me even speak. Boy did I get mad. So, I waited till we were all lining up to go home and I marched right up to the Pastor and told him "My daddy says I can be Baptised if I want and he sees no reason why I shouldn't be!" The Pastor got really upset, glared at me and shouted "Well, then. If your Daddy says you can be Baptised, then I guess you can be, but not in MY church!" And he said that last part after bending over and getting about three inches from my face and nearly spitting as he said it. His breath was not sweet either. I was scared to death. And I was being cheated out of Baptism and I knew it. Kicked out of the Baptist church at 5! I wasn't even in kindergarten yet! I told my mom what I thought of the Pastor and all those ladies at the church who wouldn't even let me talk. The last straw was when I asked "Why call it a Baptist Church if they don't even Baptise those who ask for it?" That was the last straw. Mom had heard enough and said so! Ya know what I got for all my innocent conviction? A good spankin'. My first stripes for Jesus. I can laugh about it now, but it did take me quite some time to get Baptised. When I did, I never stopped praying about my parent's denials of the faith and their renunciation of the Great Commission. God bless. Ginnyfree.
PS. You should send your story to the Journey Home.
Easy, because Baptism honors and glorifies God because it is a testimony of us believing the Gospel and it is a sign of the new relationship the believer has with God. Your logic is completely flawed, because Jesus also said “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded”
Matthew 28:19-20 KJV
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
To be consistent are you also going to say that we must observe ALL things Jesus commanded in order to be saved? That’s impossible since none are righteous and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and we cannot be saved by our works. (Romans 3:10,23, Ephesians 2:8-9)
You can come to Jesus without being baptized. For you to equate baptism with coming to Jesus is not biblical. So you can drop the whole “Jesus said not to forbid the children from coming to him” argument. I am currently at a Camp Ministry as a counselor and we have seen many people come to Jesus by faith and receive him as Saviour and we have baptized none of them. They don’t need baptism to come to Jesus.
Yeshua, ever hear of the writings of Hippolytus? no? Here's a quote of his from a work called The Apostolic Tradition
"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" (AT 21:16 [A.D. 215]). It was always part of the Traditions of the Church to Baptise infants and children when their parents asked for it. "For the promise was made to you (the adults hearing Peter) and your children......." Acts 2:39 He didn't exclude the children at all. On the contrary. Whole households were Baptised at the request of a single head of the household Acts 16:33 - "He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once." Now, if the whole family is Baptised at once, do you not think there were any children?
One other point, since you insist that children weren't Baptised, I want you to produce one single Scripture that says withhold the waters of Baptism from children until a certain age. When you do, I'll eat my Bible, ribbons and all. God bless. Ginnyfree.
Requoting for emphasis. What I have presented here is biblical truth that Roman Catholicism cannot answer.
Prove to me from Acts 16 that any of the children of that house were infants and unable to believe.
As for your question about withholding baptism, Acts 8:37-38 clearly shows belief is a requirement for baptism. Which babies cannot do. Any small child that truly understands and believes the Gospel can biblically be baptized.
Jordan, it is possible to do all that is required of the Lord as a Christian, for His yoke is easy and His burden is light. All that He told them to teach, they taught. Look at the word "commanded" in your passage. They took it seriously because He told them to do it. "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...." That is exactly what they did and what we still do and have done for 2,000 years. For "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4-6. "He who loves me keeps my Commandments." Jn. 14:21. The Apostles did, even to the shedding of their blood as Martyrs of God. It is very possible to live a Christian life. God did not ask for the impossible from us, He asked for us to be faithful and even should we fall, there is a way back thru His Blood found in the Sacrament of Penance. Like St. Paul said, where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. Keep in mind the last Words of Christ in the Great Commission, "and I will be with you until the end of the ages." That's how. He is still with us even today. God bless. Ginnyfree.
Last edited:
Well, then who knows where it came from. Not important. I WAS told some whoppers in my RCIA class. When I challenged them, they looked at me funny. I survived. God bless. Ginnyfree.
- Status