The Catholic Church

[The Biblicist]

Talk about Hocus Pocus

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm

The Minister of the Sacrament of Baptism:

Since the form of baptism requires just the water and the words, the sacrament, like the Sacrament of Marriage, does not require a priest; any baptized person can baptize another. In fact, when the life of a person is in danger, even a non-baptized person—including someone who does not himself believe in Christ—can baptize, provided that the person performing the baptism follows the form of baptism and intends, by the baptism, to do what the Church does—in other words, to bring the person being baptized into the fullness of the Church.

In both cases, a priest may later perform a conditional baptism.


The Effects of the Sacrament of Baptism:

Baptism has six primary effects, which are all supernatural graces:

1. The removal of the guilt of both Original Sin (the sin imparted to all mankind by the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden) and personal sin (the sins that we have committed ourselves).

2. The remission of all punishment that we owe because of sin, both temporal (in this world and in Purgatory) and eternal (the punishment that we would suffer in hell).

3. The infusion of grace in the form of sanctifying grace (the life of God within us); the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; and the three theological virtues.

4. Becoming a part of Christ.

5. Becoming a part of the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

6. Enabling participation in the sacraments, the priesthood of all believers, and the growth in grace.

********************************************************************

If pouring a little water on your head can do all that just think what a good dunkin can do. Better yet the Orthodox Communion and the Grace Brethern Church dunk you three, count them, three times.

Happened to think about it. The Orthodox church says that baptize means immerse. Wouldn't you think the Greeks know Greek better than anyone else?

When the Scriptures are not the final authority for what a person believes, then pandoras door is wide open and every concievable and cultish thing in the world rushes right in. That depicts the history of the Roman Catholic Cult since its inception in the fourth century.

 

[Walter]

Walter here is the difference.
I corrected what I said.
You slandered me and never apologized.
You are acting like a child.
You won't even attempt to answer the questions I posed to you.

Is this how you, as a professed Christian, debate?

Sure haven't found any retraction by you. Did I miss it? If I did, I apologize. The questions you asked, you have asked of me more than once and my answers have not changed. I used to believe the same that you do now about what the passage in John 3:1-17 and what that passage means. I now believe the same as the Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc., etc. The Baptist church I was raised in still teaches that the water referred to in that passage refers to amniotic fluid. There are no examples of that in Greek literature from before the time of Christ or after or any place in scripture that it refers to amniotic fluid. It's a lot of hooey but they would prefer to believe that than to let the obvious be true.

 

[The Biblicist]

I used to believe the same that you do now about what the passage in John 3:1-17 and what that passage means. I now believe the same as the Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc., etc. The Baptist church I was raised in still teaches that the water referred to in that passage refers to amniotic fluid. There are no examples of that in Greek literature from before the time of Christ or after or any place in scripture that it refers to amniotic fluid. It's a lot of hooey but they would prefer to believe that than to let the obvious be true.

That is not the only interpretation among Baptists. Many interpret the conjunction "kai" in John 3:5 to mean "also" or "even" and thus the Master speaking to a Master of Israel - theologion to theologion that water is the symbol of the regenerating life of the Spirit even as Christ asserts in the very next chapter (Jn. 4:10,14; Jn 7; Jn. 13).

However, your greatest problem is that the whole idea of sacramentalism is repudiated clearly in the New Testament in several places (Lk. 5:12-15; Heb. 10:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.) but especially in Romans 4:9-11.

 

[Walter]

That is not the only interpretation among Baptists. Many interpret the conjunction "kai" in John 3:5 to mean "also" or "even" and thus the Master speaking to a Master of Israel - theologion to theologion that water is the symbol of the regenerating life of the Spirit even as Christ asserts in the very next chapter (Jn. 4:10,14; Jn 7; Jn. 13).

However, your greatest problem is that the whole idea of sacramentalism is repudiated clearly in the New Testament in several places (Lk. 5:12-15; Heb. 10:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.) but especially in Romans 4:9-11.

I will do some study on the biblical references you gave. I'm on this board to learn. Thanks!

 

[DHK]

Sure haven't found any retraction by you. Did I miss it? If I did, I apologize. The questions you asked, you have asked of me more than once and my answers have not changed. I used to believe the same that you do now about what the passage in John 3:1-17 and what that passage means. I now believe the same as the Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc., etc. The Baptist church I was raised in still teaches that the water referred to in that passage refers to amniotic fluid. There are no examples of that in Greek literature from before the time of Christ or after or any place in scripture that it refers to amniotic fluid. It's a lot of hooey but they would prefer to believe that than to let the obvious be true.

Granted there are some that believe that it may refer to the amniotic fluid. That is only one view, but not all believe that way. I don't.
Biblicist has a different view. I don't agree with his view. I do believe this however, that both of those views are tenable, that is believable or within the bounds of Scripture. Baptismal regeneration (which the RCC teaches) is one of the first known heresies to enter Christianity.

Perhaps I'll explain my view later, if need be.
But more importantly: whether it is my view, Biblicist's, or your former church's--all acceptable. You must be born again. It is an essential. Either you were born again before when you were a Baptist by the Holy Spirit as Biblicist pointed out.
Or, you were born again by water as the RCC teaches. Both cannot be true. Either you were never a Christian in the first place, having never understood what it means to be born again, and still don't know accepting the RCC apostate view. Or you do know and you must reject the RCC view. Which is it? You can't be schizophrenic and be both.

 

[The Biblicist]

I will do some study on the biblical references you gave. I'm on this board to learn. Thanks!

Your welcome. I think we are all in a progressive learning experience.

 

[milby]

Granted there are some that believe that it may refer to the amniotic fluid. That is only one view, but not all believe that way. I don't.
Biblicist has a different view. I don't agree with his view. I do believe this however, that both of those views are tenable, that is believable or within the bounds of Scripture. Baptismal regeneration (which the RCC teaches) is one of the first known heresies to enter Christianity.

.

That seems to be the problem. There are thousands of different views among Protestants. There is no unity.

Have you got some scripture references to prove that Baptismal regeneration is a heresy, or is that just your opinion?

 

[DHK]

That seems to be the problem. There are thousands of different views among Protestants. There is no unity.

Have you got some scripture references to prove that Baptismal regeneration is a heresy, or is that just your opinion?

Over and over again the Bible teaches that salvation is by faith and faith alone. Even in the gospels, Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me."

Baptism is never the way to heaven. Baptism cannot save. Water simply makes a person wet. It is superstitious to think that H20 can save anyone.

Baptism is the first step of obedience that a believe takes after salvation. It symbolizes a believers death to his old life to sin, and a new life in Christ. (Rom.6:3,4).

Here are some important Scriptures.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

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

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation is by faith, not of works, not of baptism.

 

[OldRegular]

That seems to be the problem. There are thousands of different views among Protestants. There is no unity.

And there are hundreds of heretical teaching in the Roman Catholic Communion.

Have you got some scripture references to prove that Baptismal regeneration is a heresy, or is that just your opinion?

Baptismal regeneration is absolute nonsense. In Scripture regeneration is the New Birth, Salvation. Scripture also teaches the Security of the believer. Yet these groups baptize a baby, say he is regenerate, Born Again by the Holy Spirit, but he has to work incessantly to get to heaven and if he fails to "hell" with him! Absolute nonsense.

Constantine, the unbeliever and first pope, delayed baptism until just before he died to assure his "whatever the papists call it". I assume salvation. That is how ridiculous the idea of baptismal regeneration is,

 

[saturneptune]

Catholic theology in a nutshell put to song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If you ask Catholics the answer is always yes. If you ask Protestants or Baptists then the answer is no.

Honestly, take a look at early history and I dare any Catholic to find any universal Pope mentioned or the term "pope" used for any man above other preachers for the first five hundred years.

Look at the Biblical qualifications to be an apostle of Jesus Christ in Acts 1:21-22 and see if any man beyond Paul could even qualify in perpetuating the apostolic office! Look at 1 Corinthians 15:8 and the Greek term translated "last" (eschatos) and how it is used three times in the very chapter and see if it does not demand that Paul was the "last" of all to be chosen personally by Christ to be one of His apostles. Last, look at the metaphors used of the apostolic office and see if they do not restrict it to the first century (Eph. 2:20 "foundation").

Second, see if you can find ANY NEW TESTAMENT RECORD or any New Testament PRECEPT of any infant baptism? The Roman Catholic church cannot exist apart from infant baptism.

Third, the Roman Catholic church cannot exist apart from sacramentalism. The CCC (Catholic Church Catechism) explicitly states that Old Testament circumcision is parallel with New Testament baptism in regard to sacramentalism. Look at Romans 4:11 and you will see that Paul completely denies that the grace of justification was received "in circumcision" but rather not only Abraham but all who He is the Father of are justified without circumcision (and Abraham was the "father of circumcision"). This is the death of Catholicism because if sacramentalism fails the Biblical test the whole ecclesiology and soteriology of Rome burns and crashes.





Even the preserved records by Rome clearly indicate there were professed Christians who opposed Rome and were persecuted and killed by the Roman Catholic church. By the way, another proof Rome is not the New Testament Church as persecuting and killing others becuase of their religious beliefs are one mark of false religion (see John 16:1-3; Rev. 17:5).

That's true, and so it would also rule out all the Magisterial Reformers, including Calvin whom some Baptists on here defend as not being a persecutor and murderer which he clearly was, as I have documented extensively on this forum.

However, that was then, and this is now. I would only deny a church being a true church if it never held or had abandoned basic NT/early church teachings and traditional morality.

I disagree with the RCC on many things, but I think we had better appreciate them as allies in our battle to uphold traditional morality.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Absolutely. We have done so for many years. There are plenty of threads on it. I only object to the advertisement of Catholic books on this website. It is against the policy of this board.

We can even debate about Mormonism. But I would not allow handbooks on how to become a Mormon.

If you dig deep enough into the Catechism that RCC rejects all who are outside the Catholic Church. They accept only their baptism as valid. Their speech is as honey; their doctrine is as vinegar and vile. One cannot be a Christian and a Catholic at the same time. At least you cannot believe the same doctrines sincerely at the same time. They are at opposite poles of each other. The RCC teaches that one is saved by works. Christianity teaches that one is saved by grace through faith.

I do not believe that. I disagree with the Calvinists as strongly as I do the RCC -- more so in certain areas -- but I would not say that Calvinists cannot be Christians.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Your last two sentences really define the problem with the Roman Catholic communion. They have been in the process of change since Constantine marched his army through the river.

Perhaps the first great error introduced was baptismal regeneration.

The second is described by Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church writes [Volume 2, page 73]:

With Constantine, therefore, the last of the heathen, the first of the Christian, emperors, a new period begins. The church ascends the throne of the Caesars under the banner of the once despised, now honored and triumphant cross, and gives new vigor and lustre to the hoary empire of Rome.[emphasis added]

It is likely that with Constantine the idea of the pope was introduced and then, as justification, the myth that Peter was the first pope.

Other errors are too numerous to mention all but include: the introduction of works based justification/salvation, the concept of Saints, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, the adoration [almost worship] of Mary, prayers to Mary and other Saints, the infallibility of the pope, the elevation of tradition and the teaching magisterium over Scripture, and perhaps worst, the continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ!

Yep, almost as many errors there as in Calvinism.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

One thing that I was told which I thought was a good point was. The Catholic Church is the only Christian "group" that has been consistant in its doctorine from its beginning. How do we explain the thousands of different denominations among the Protestants? It seems that if we are left to interpret the scriptures ourselves, we can't agree on much. So we have baptistc, methodests, etc. among the protestants.

How do we explain this?

Better keep studying. The doctrine of papal infallibility proves that statement wrong -- and that's just one example.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Talk about Hocus Pocus

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm

The Minister of the Sacrament of Baptism:

Since the form of baptism requires just the water and the words, the sacrament, like the Sacrament of Marriage, does not require a priest; any baptized person can baptize another. In fact, when the life of a person is in danger, even a non-baptized person—including someone who does not himself believe in Christ—can baptize, provided that the person performing the baptism follows the form of baptism and intends, by the baptism, to do what the Church does—in other words, to bring the person being baptized into the fullness of the Church.

In both cases, a priest may later perform a conditional baptism.


The Effects of the Sacrament of Baptism:

Baptism has six primary effects, which are all supernatural graces:

1. The removal of the guilt of both Original Sin (the sin imparted to all mankind by the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden) and personal sin (the sins that we have committed ourselves).

2. The remission of all punishment that we owe because of sin, both temporal (in this world and in Purgatory) and eternal (the punishment that we would suffer in hell).

3. The infusion of grace in the form of sanctifying grace (the life of God within us); the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; and the three theological virtues.

4. Becoming a part of Christ.

5. Becoming a part of the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

6. Enabling participation in the sacraments, the priesthood of all believers, and the growth in grace.

********************************************************************

If pouring a little water on your head can do all that just think what a good dunkin can do. Better yet the Orthodox Communion and the Grace Brethern Church dunk you three, count them, three times.

Happened to think about it. The Orthodox church says that baptize means immerse. Wouldn't you think the Greeks know Greek better than anyone else?

Yes, indeed, and the EOC dunks them babies, too!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That is not the only interpretation among Baptists. Many interpret the conjunction "kai" in John 3:5 to mean "also" or "even" and thus the Master speaking to a Master of Israel - theologion to theologion that water is the symbol of the regenerating life of the Spirit even as Christ asserts in the very next chapter (Jn. 4:10,14; Jn 7; Jn. 13).

However, your greatest problem is that the whole idea of sacramentalism is repudiated clearly in the New Testament in several places (Lk. 5:12-15; Heb. 10:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.) but especially in Romans 4:9-11.

I agree with you completely and totally here -- probably a first in my discussions with you.

 

[saturneptune]

Better keep studying. The doctrine of papal infallibility proves that statement wrong -- and that's just one example.

What type of church or churches do you think was preserving the NT church along side the RCC before the Reformation?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What type of church or churches do you think was preserving the NT church along side the RCC before the Reformation?

I think the EOC had preserved much of NT doctrine -- but not ministry, polity, or sacraments.

There were Dissenters all down through the ages who arose and tried to hold to or return to NT teaching and practice -- I won't list them here. Most were persecuted nearly or completely out of existence.

Part of ancient Celtic Christianity, after Rome absorbed much of the Celtic church at the Synod of Whitby, basically went underground and held on to early church teaching.

Essentially, the "NT church" was an underground movement before the Reformation, and the Magisterial part of the Reformation didn't move as far away from Rome as some think.

 

[milby]

Better keep studying. The doctrine of papal infallibility proves that statement wrong -- and that's just one example.

Oh I am, believe me I am.

 

[milby]

Over and over again the Bible teaches that salvation is by faith and faith alone. Even in the gospels, Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me."

Baptism is never the way to heaven. Baptism cannot save. Water simply makes a person wet. It is superstitious to think that H20 can save anyone.

Baptism is the first step of obedience that a believe takes after salvation. It symbolizes a believers death to his old life to sin, and a new life in Christ. (Rom.6:3,4).

Here are some important Scriptures.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

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

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation is by faith, not of works, not of baptism.

I think Catholics agree that salvation is by faith too, just not faith ALONE. You said the bible teaches over and over that you are saved by failth alone. Can you tell me just one place in the bible it says that we are saved by faith ALONE?

How would you explain these verses?

John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”

Acts 2:38: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

Acts 22:16: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”

1 Corinthians 6:11: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

Titus 3:5: “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,”

1 Peter 3:19-21: “in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”