The Truth about the RCC

[mes228]

Rcc

DKK, you of course, are correct about using the word "liar". However, it is standard procedure for Eliayhu to misrepresent what has been said. Most here let him slide and don't take the time to answer (not that it does any good). Also, no one, and certainly not I, believe that anything in the catacombs or pictures over ride scripture.
If you are a Minister you owe it to your congregation to read the positions of other denominations on baptism (especially Catholic Apologetics). Please do not read Baptist Seminary materials, nor Commentaries, nor others opinions, go direct to the source. I believe it impossible to be open minded, truthful, and not conclude they have at least as sound a scriptural basis for their belief. They have more scriptures on their side that do not require that you "infer" a conclusion - both in the Old and New Testament. All baptize by immersion at times, all agree it's a valid method, all disagree that it's the "only" method scripturally or historically.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The Bible leaves no room for any other method of baptism but immerison. The very word Baptidzo means immersion.

This is one of the many reasons I left the Baptist Church, too much bickering over really non-essential matters, one being the mode of baptism.

I really don’t understand what the fuss is about; if baptism is nothing more than another type of symbol and has no effect regarding our salvation, then why should Baptist or whomever really care what mode is used?

What is important is that Baptism is a Sacrament established by Christ and therefore is more than a symbol in which case as St. Paul states is for the remission of sins. In addition how the Sacrament is administered is just as important…for example water and the person being baptized is done so in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Back to the mode, Holy Scripture doesn’t detail how each and every baptism was performed. I’m sure many were immersed and just as likely many were unlikely to have been.

Those that point to the Greek word baptizo, fail to understand that words don’t often obey dictionary definitions. For example, when a new idea related to an old one comes along, people will often take an old word and use it in a new way. Take link for example, 10 years ago, link would have been understood as a, part of a chain. Now, people first think of link as that of a computer code that takes you from one website to another. And baptizo means to wash or immerse.

We see the above example played out in the Didache written in Greek about 80AD and interestingly, uses the word baptizo to describe baptism by infusion or pouring:

But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Granted the Didache isn’t Holy Scripture, but we can determine by this document that the native Greek speakers could and did use the word baptizo to mean something besides immersion in water.

The Greek Orthodox baptizes by immersion to this day. I wonder why?

And also the Eastern Church dunks the participant three (3) times as well and thus does the Western Church pours three (3) times in response to the Trinitarian formula.

Per the Catechism, both immersion and pouring, as well as sprinkling are acceptable modes, but water has to be the element and done so in the Trinitarian formula.
-

 

[Eliyahu]

DKK, you of course, are correct about using the word "liar". However, it is standard procedure for Eliayhu to misrepresent what has been said. Most here let him slide and don't take the time to answer (not that it does any good). Also, no one, and certainly not I, believe that anything in the catacombs or pictures over ride scripture.
If you are a Minister you owe it to your congregation to read the positions of other denominations on baptism (especially Catholic Apologetics). Please do not read Baptist Seminary materials, nor Commentaries, nor others opinions, go direct to the source. I believe it impossible to be open minded, truthful, and not conclude they have at least as sound a scriptural basis for their belief. They have more scriptures on their side that do not require that you "infer" a conclusion - both in the Old and New Testament. All baptize by immersion at times, all agree it's a valid method, all disagree that it's the "only" method scripturally or historically.

Mes228,

I would kindly advise you to re-consider all the issues and matters of faith from every possible angle on this occasion as you have encountered the serious challenges and objections. Such re-evaluation must be based on the Bible only as the Bible itself is sufficient to teach you all the truth. If you read the Bible wholeheartedly, you can find what is right about the various doctrines and teachings.

Papal Infallibility is not the one for anyone to advocate. That's what Jesus Christ hates ( Rev 2:6, 15). Ex Cathedra is another idolatry which was the result of backing-off from their former arrogant stance to wiggle out of the ridiculous contradictions.

Transubstantiation is absolutely against the Truth as it is supported neither by medical laboratory tests, nor by Biblical truth and Jesus sacrificed Himself based on the truth of Leviticus which prohibits the drinking of Blood.

The Believers Baptism by total immersion is the only way and mode of Baptism which teaches the death and the resurrection along with Jesus Christ.

Obligatory Celibacy is not supported as I showed you the Bible verses.

You said you disagree with the Baptist History and with the London Baptist Confession 1689. You may do so if you find anything wrong with them from the viewpoint of Bible.

However, you have not brought any single Biblical argument to support your idea so far on this discussion.

Please don't resort to the number of the people or sizes of the denominations when you choose the beliefs.
If you judge the people based on the number of people, you would find yourself as follows:

If you had lived the era of Ahab-Elijah, you would have followed the hundreds, thousands of Idol worshippers against Elijah. You may have condemned Elijah as a cult.

If you had lived the end times of Ahab and Jezebel, you would have followed Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah against Micaiah. You may condemned Micaiah as a cult. ( 1 Kings 22)
Though Micaiah was thrown into a dungeon, his prophecy came true when Ahab died. Where were the absolute majority then?

If you had lived the era of Jesus Christ, you may have followed the Orthodox Jews, Pharisees or Saducees. You may have moved from Pharisees to Saducees, from Saducees to Pharisees, condemning Jesus as the ringleader of the Nazareth Cult.

If you had lived the era of Paul and the Early Church, you would have condemned Paul as a leader of Nazareth Cult.

If you had lived the era of Fabian, Novatian, Cornelius around 251 AD, after the death of Fabian, you would have followed Cornelius who led the majority accepting the apostates who yielded to the Idolatry, condmning Novatian as a cult.

Your life is so much precious and valuable, the best way to follow the correct doctrines is to discern the teachings based on the Bible.

Mes228, finally I have conceived no hatred against you. If you disagree with me, it is fine, but I wish you will choose the best and correct choice of teachings and faith in Jesus Christ. I don't force any of them upon you, it is your choice.

 

[Eliyahu]

Per the Catechism, both immersion and pouring, as well as sprinkling are acceptable modes, but water has to be the element and done so in the Trinitarian formula.
-

That's your religion based on the human tradition, and you can be quite correct as long as you can invent a new mode of Salvation other than the way of believing in the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ and as long as the sprinkling can teach the death and resurrection instead of just human washing.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Please do not read Baptist Seminary materials, nor Commentaries, nor others opinions, go direct to the source. I believe it impossible to be open minded, truthful, and not conclude they have at least as sound a scriptural basis for their belief.

Mess228, as G.K. Chesterton once said, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘the Church (meaning the Catholic Church) is like that of a mansion with many entrances. No two men enter at exactly the same angle.’

My particular angle is made up of a number of reasons and my particular journey, the first phase anyway, when completed will have taken me the better part of 5 years to complete.

My goal in the beginning was to discover the New Testament Church and in the process, stay as far away from the Catholic Church, which made that claim. After all I was indoctrinated in what I perceived to be what they believed.

This journey hasn’t been easy, sometimes I feel like “giving up” on “religion” altogether, just dropping out, but God won’t let me go. God has to have a plan for me, due to the fact that through His grace, He’s kept me strong for these last 4 years, though all the negativity, the threats that I’m damning my soul to Hell and how my journey may affect my marriage and my relationship with my immediate family, whom are all fundamental Baptist and I have a list of Baptist preachers in my family tree that date back beyond the Civil War.

During my early journey, I tried a Lutheran Church, but settled on a United Methodist (mainly b/c my wife was raised Methodist) and it was a good place to study and collect my bearings and this introduced me to John Wesley and a whole new world of theology was opened to me…and it was all partly making sense…finally…I was no longer hearing the “political motivated sermon” with a little bit of the Gospel mixed in. I was back to worshipping God as one with the congregation through our liturgy and our communion once a month was very intimate and personal and it was approaching the altar and receiving the elements where I truly felt the presence of God and all the host of Heaven.

At this point I ventured into the History of the Early Church, started reading the Fathers, some of the early Councils and considered maybe the Greek Orthodox Church, but in doing so, I had to objectively study Roman Catholicism, basically I needed to cover all my bases, no matter how long it took.

But in any event I feel that this journey has opened my eyes to more than one reality, one being to the person I once was…full of hatred of anyone who disagreed with the biblical position I was taught and held, without even once considering that maybe I’m the one that’s wrong. After all, my pastor in the pulpit was my little infallible pope and what he said was the truth.

My main goal here on the BB is not to “convert” anyone, but to instead present the other side of the debate, one that is founded firmly in Holy Scripture and is backed up with Fathers of the early Church…the same Fathers who gave their very lives so that I as a former Baptist could be Orthodox in my beliefs such as the Trinity. Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of the world and to protect her from “teaching” error. With today’s Protestant Churches, all of which is a market place of competing doctrines, how can one ever be certain what’s being taught is truth?

Blessings
-

 

[BobRyan]

to DHK DKK,
If you are a Minister you owe it to your congregation to read the positions of other denominations on baptism (especially Catholic Apologetics). Please do not read Baptist Seminary materials, nor Commentaries, nor others opinions, go direct to the source. I believe it impossible to be open minded, truthful, and not conclude they have at least as sound a scriptural basis for their belief. They have more scriptures on their side that do not require that you "infer" a conclusion - both in the Old and New Testament. All baptize by immersion at times, all agree it's a valid method, all disagree that it's the "only" method scripturally or historically.

I feel a NEW THREAD subject coming back again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

DKK, you of course, are correct about using the word "liar". However, it is standard procedure for Eliayhu to misrepresent what has been said. Most here let him slide and don't take the time to answer (not that it does any good). Also, no one, and certainly not I, believe that anything in the catacombs or pictures over ride scripture.
If you are a Minister you owe it to your congregation to read the positions of other denominations on baptism (especially Catholic Apologetics).

Do I owe it to my science class to teach that the flat earth society is a viable organization, still in existence today, teaching an alternative view of science which they can believe if they are a bit open minded.
Do I owe it my science class that the physicians during George Washington's time were not entirely wrong when they believed sickness was in the blood, and therefore by letting out the blood of Washington they were draining his sickness. They just let too much blood out and killed him. But that is an alternative method of science that you can still practice today.
Do we teach error when we know it to be false?
Do I owe it to my congregation to teach heresy?
I teach the Bible; the truth of God's Word. I have no need of teaching man's ideas, man's heresies. The Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. If you can't prove your doctrine from the Bible then there is a mighty good chance it is wrong and heretical.

Please do not read Baptist Seminary materials, nor Commentaries, nor others opinions, go direct to the source.

For the most part I don't need to go to commentaries any longer. I do go right to the source--the Bible. Sometimes I consult source material, especially on the meaning of a word in the original language. I am not fluent in Greek and Hebrew. Are you?

I believe it impossible to be open minded, truthful, and not conclude they have at least as sound a scriptural basis for their belief.

If the Bible is my guide, yes it is absolutely possible. That is why I left the Catholic Church. After I was saved I studied the Bible. I compared Catholic doctrine with what the Bible said. I saw the error of the RCC. I knew that I had to make a decision: either follow the errors of the RCC or follow the teachings of Christ as set forth in the Word of God. Thank God I chose the latter. One cannot follow two opposing systems of doctrine. It is my belief that one cannot be a true Christian and a Catholic at the same time if he knows full well and understands what both teach.

They have more scriptures on their side that do not require that you "infer" a conclusion - both in the Old and New Testament. All baptize by immersion at times, all agree it's a valid method, all disagree that it's the "only" method scripturally or historically.

If "they" have more Scriptures on their side, let them prove it. I don't infer a conclusion; I teach it from the Scriptures. Baptism by immersion is the only Scriptural method of immersion. If it isn't show me that it isn't from the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Agnus-dei
But in any event I feel that this journey has opened my eyes to more than one reality, one being to the person I once was…full of hatred of anyone who disagreed with the biblical position I was taught and held, without even once considering that maybe I’m the one that’s wrong. After all, my pastor in the pulpit was my little infallible pope and what he said was the truth.

As an outsider to your new faith looking in on how you post in some cases it appears to me that you found "a new little pope" and that you went from one position of "no longer being open to objective reality in scripture" to another one.

It would have been a bit more impressive if having started with the Methodist church you dug deep into methodist doctrines and then either said "I found them all to be rock solid" or " I found a Bible problem with some so I began to search for a church that had a better doctrinal view --- one that fit the Bible even better".

Instead you focus on the liturgy pomp and circumstance of the Methodist church and you appear to imply that if THAT is your focus then the RCC has them beat in triplicate -- which of course we can all agree to

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

My main goal here on the BB is not to “convert” anyone, but to instead present the other side of the debate, one that is founded firmly in Holy Scripture

Wonderful! you may begin.

Agnus Dei

nd is backed up with Fathers of the early Church…the same Fathers who gave their very lives so that I as a former Baptist could be Orthodox in my beliefs such as the Trinity.

Is it your wild extreme position that Baptists make new converts by telling them "See here is what the ECF's said to believe so this is why we believe it -- if you agree with us then you can come and be a Baptist"??

There are A FEW denominations "(the RCC being one)" that make that kind of argument for their doctrines-based-on tradition -- but the Baptists are NOT one of them.

Funny that you should pull THAt one out of the air sir?

You have unwittingly exposed the chief flaw in your new denominational stance.

Agnus-Dei
Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of the world and to protect her from “teaching” error.

So THAT is the source of made up doctrines like purgatory, prayers to the dead, EXTERMINATING the saints (Lateran IV) the dark ages etc?

An RCC that is perfectly free from doctrinal error teaches it's followers to kill fellow catholics who are aligned with opposing Popes calling them all antichrist??

With today’s Protestant Churches, all of which is a market place of competing doctrines, how can one ever be certain what’s being taught is truth?

Simple - each one can have it's Pope tell them what to think just like the RCC does. That should solve the problem. They just need to go to their own church leadership and ask them what they are supposed to believe.

And try to kindly remember NOT to exterminate those who differ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mes228]

Rcc

Eliyahu, here we go again. I do not advocate Papal Infalibility, nor Celibecy, nor Transubstanation. I feel that if you or others are going to attack other Christians you owe them at least to be accurate with what they really teach. I believe I've been accurate with what is actually believed and taught. Most here are not. They spew half truths and things read from polemic Protestant writings from hundreds of years ago.

What I said was I no longer bash "them" with "blood and body" beliefs. You bash perhaps millions of Christians that died "in the faith" with that belief. I do not care if you believe otherwise. The Christians that believe this are not ignorant oafs that cannot read the Bible. They also have Theologians, Linguist, Scientist, and sincereity for the most part.

As for Baptist History I said that maybe a 1,000 other groups use the same history and I didn't know which came first. Who ripped off who. Believe it if you wish, but you should be aware that it's not unique to Baptist. Connecting the "dots" to these various groups is common. I believe these groups lived and sufferred. I do not necessarily believe they were the direct progenitors of the Baptist denomination. I believe some of these groups are mis-represented in the way Protestants generally portray them. They were not all really great Christian groups. Look outside the box you've put God in and read something other than
the materials you read.

As for Baptism by immersion. I prefer immersion. I was immersed. However, I do not believe that any honest, sincere, person can casually throw away the arguements the "other" side has. They are as valid as "immersion only" and have as much or more scriptural support. And far more historical support. All agree that immersion is valid and immerse people every day. Also "God hates those that stirreth up strife among brethren". So why do it? Your "proofs" are seriously flawed,limited, and do not edify Christ or other Christians. They divide and accuse.

Bottom line is this. None of us have anymore understanding than what God gives us. All are limited by the "vein" we have mined or the path we have followed. The greatest gift I've been given is "repentance" for the harshness, cultic beliefs, and ignorance I've believed. I had all the answers and knowledge and was quick to impart it, "apt to teach" so to speak. We have way too many teachers and not enough Christians within Christianity. I do apologize for calling you a "liar". I am deeply disturbed when encounter fanaticism cultic stubborness (stubborness is as witchcraft) and "know it all's" as I've been there and done that.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu, here we go again. I do not advocate Papal Infalibility, nor Celibecy, nor Transubstanation.

I knew and know that you are not fully advocating them or that you don't stand on their side. You just brought the other aspects of such dictrines which you may have thought that I do not know as many people misunderstand about them or have the limited knowledge about them. However, in my case, I knew that even such excuses or the other aspects of Catholicism are also very much absurd and groundless based on the paganisms rather than on the Bible.
I knew the papal Infallibility was re-condtioned as Ex Cathedra and therefore I pointed out the ridiculous absurdity of it, I knew the Celibacy is a kind of good will and dedication, but when I pointed out " Obligatory" it is a different story, and even so-called the First Pope Peter was not celibate. In their logic, the First Pope had to resign or cancel the marriage which is untrue when we read 1 Cor 9:5. As for the Transubstantiation, I already pointed out that it is against the Law upon which Jesus sacrificed Himself on behalf of us, which is the most fundamental Truth.
The atttitude that you showed on this board when the Biblical arguments were presented was not agreeing to the Biblical truth but continuously "Bashing" the posters who brought the Biblical truth and references. That makes me enough to think you are not standing on the right ground.
If you don't support them, why do you continue to bring the arguments against the Biblical Truth? You may have to check about your own spirit.

I feel that if you or others are going to attack other Christians you owe them at least to be accurate with what they really teach. I believe I've been accurate with what is actually believed and taught. Most here are not. They spew half truths and things read from polemic Protestant writings from hundreds of years ago.

I already told you that I owe nothing to Catholics, and I have been much more accurate in my refutation than you are claiming now. You were not accurate, Sir. I am not following the most Protestant Reformers like Luther Calvin, Zwingli, etc. but used to trace back to the history of the Biblical churches. However my fundamenatl bases are simply the Bible.

What I said was I no longer bash "them" with "blood and body" beliefs. You bash perhaps millions of Christians that died "in the faith" with that belief.

You may be standing on the side of the killers, the Roman Catholic, while I am standing on the other side of the victims who died in the faith of Sola Scriptura.

I do not care if you believe otherwise. The Christians that believe this are not ignorant oafs that cannot read the Bible. They also have Theologians, Linguist, Scientist, and sincereity for the most part.

Then they have to follow the Scriptures, not the human traditions.

As for Baptist History I said that maybe a 1,000 other groups use the same history and I didn't know which came first. Who ripped off who. Believe it if you wish, but you should be aware that it's not unique to Baptist. Connecting the "dots" to these various groups is common. I believe these groups lived and sufferred. I do not necessarily believe they were the direct progenitors of the Baptist denomination. I believe some of these groups are mis-represented in the way Protestants generally portray them. They were not all really great Christian groups.

they were at least better than the Mary worshippers, Idol worshippers, Purgatory believers, subordinates of the papacy.

Look outside the box you've put God in and read something other than
the materials you read.

No, Sir, the Words of God is enough for me. I have already looked outside enough.

As for Baptism by immersion. I prefer immersion. I was immersed. However, I do not believe that any honest, sincere, person can casually throw away the arguements the "other" side has. They are as valid as "immersion only" and have as much or more scriptural support. And far more historical support. All agree that immersion is valid and immerse people every day. Also "God hates those that stirreth up strife among brethren". So why do it? Your "proofs" are seriously flawed,limited, and do not edify Christ or other Christians. They divide and accuse.

The way how the Satan could bring the heresies with the multitude of fake Believers into the church was exactly your logic. " You may be right, but there is another side of the truth" " Did God say so indeed?" that kind of stuff. Please don't be cheated by such pluralism.

Bottom line is this. None of us have anymore understanding than what God gives us. All are limited by the "vein" we have mined or the path we have followed. The greatest gift I've been given is "repentance" for the harshness, cultic beliefs, and ignorance I've believed.

That kind of kind words is the way how the Satan brings the untruth. Read this:

Galatians
2:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

I had all the answers and knowledge and was quick to impart it, "apt to teach" so to speak. We have way too many teachers and not enough Christians within Christianity. I do apologize for calling you a "liar". I am deeply disturbed when encounter fanaticism cultic stubborness (stubborness is as witchcraft) and "know it all's" as I've been there and done that.

thanks, but please bring any Biblical arguments, because in other discussion, we can hardly find the common languages to speak in, but the Bible is the Judge which is the Word of God.

Again, if we depart from the Bible, you are very much correct because we must be reasonable and should not be exclusive to others and other teachings. However, God doesn't allow us to think about other than His Own teachings. If we can treat the Words of God with other doctrines and thoughts equally, it may look very reasonable to others, but not to God.
The person with whom God is, even though he may be alone, is the absolute majority on this world. Jesus dared to argue against the then current Orthodox, Pharisees and Saduccees, He was not compromising with them. And Paul was the same as Jesus in that aspect:
Gal 2:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

This is quite sad situation, because 1.3 billions of RCC people and some more among the Protestants are very much cheated by wrong teachings and paganism.

 

[Chemnitz]

Then you don't realize why thousands or millions people died for the Baptism. You may be blaming them for the useless death, as Zwingli or many reformers did. But you have to realize what was the reason why they were eager to obey the Baptism at the risk of their lives.

No offense but this is probably the worst defense of immersion only I have ever seen. Just because a whole bunch of people died for what they believe in doesn't make them right. Think about it, millions of Muslims have died for their belief in Muhammed does that make them right?

You are very wrong with your conclusion, Sir. You couldn't answer why John the Baptist had to baptize the people in Salim where the water is much if he could sprinkle them. You are the one who cannot back up your claim.

Nothing in the scriptures says that he had to be there. Only that he was there because there was plenty of water. The need for plenty of water could be explained just by the shear numbers of people he was baptizing.

All the prepositions have many meanings. For example, eis has the meaning of "Until in time", or "as far as", or "in order to", and you cannot divert the issue into others by mentioning other usage.
Also, ek can be translated as " by means of" or "thru", etc. But when we combine those words with Huidor or Huidatos you can find no other way to translate it otherwise than "into the water and out of the water". Also you must read it along with Katebesan and Anebesan which mean went down and came up. Then the translation is very clear that they went down into the water and came up out of the water. There is no other way to translate it than that meaning. Check with any other specialists in Greek.

Tell me do you actually know greek or are you regurgitating other people's work? I read the greek as part of my devotions, I am very familiar with the Greek Grammar. What you say is not true. According to my Greek resources which include BDAG (a big well reckognized lexicon) and Wallace (Greek Grammar), amongst others, those uses of the prepositions are entirely possible.

You don't understand what the OT teachings mean about the Leprosy. We were all sinners like the Lepers and they were sprinkled with the Ash-Water first which symbolized the Blood and Death of Jesus, then were baptized in the Mikveh. That's the origin of the Baptism. Read the OT and try to interpret it for yourself.

I did many times. It said to wash. Baptism means to wash. It does not necesitate immersion.

You are working very hard to prove that you are ignorant about the Bible Truth and disobedient to God, denouncing what the earlier Baptist Christians believed.

Why must you always result to insults? I am trying to treat you with respect, but I must admit it is very hard to do so because of your actions.

Can I help it if the Baptists are wrong?

 

[BobRyan]

Eliyahu, here we go again. I do not advocate Papal Infalibility, nor Celibecy, nor Transubstanation. I feel that if you or others are going to attack other Christians you owe them at least to be accurate with what they really teach. I believe I've been accurate with what is actually believed and taught. Most here are not. They spew half truths and things read from polemic Protestant writings

The point you raise boils down to avoiding two errors ..

1. Attacking other Christians. Ignoring the facts of history and the truth of the Bible -- to simply slander other Christians.
2. Turning a blind eye to the truth and to historic details and calling accuracy in either history or the Bible and calling any accuracy in history or doctrine "attacking other Christians".

As an example - we may have great Roman Catholic friends (and I do) and we may attend RC services to earn first hand what they teach (and I do). We should not ignore history or the Bible and we should not attack Catholic Christians.

But in all cases we have to present a clear factual view of the Bible. If we know some fact in scripture - understand it and can share it - then we should even if someone is steeped in tradition and that fact of scripture does not "please them". But what we should not do is resort to name calling and slander of the other person.

In the case of the RCC I am very interested in historic fact and in Bible truth. But I have no interest in merely attacking a Catholic poster because he/she does not agree with my POV.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mes228]

Rcc

Eliayhu, I guess the bottom line is this. I do not believe that scripture is as "clear cut" anymore as I once did. There are beliefs and teachings that have support either way in scripture. An example would be the ex head of the Anglican Church (I believe "Stoddard" but don't trust my memory) would not take a firm position on the fate of the evil dead. Some scriptures speak of them being ashes etc. etc.
some otherwise. His position was "God knows" but scripture can legitimately be understood both ways. I'm pretty sure "Bob Ryan" on this board, being SDA, has distinct views from either of us. I would not beat up on him as I know where and how he would get the basis for believing this (if he does) and the sleep of the dead. The point is the SDA are not ignorant, nor incapable of reading their Bibles, or understanding Greek. God has not personally made me infallible or spoken to me directly. All I have is scripture that is not so clear cut as I believe you believe.
Mainly, I trust in the grace and mercy of God, to forgive and correct my misunderstandings. I simply don't know it all anymore. At the very least, the Catholics have every belief very concisely laid out with precisely their understanding of scripture. Certainly, many other groups do not, and teaching is pretty much the "opinion" and/or fruit of whatever seminary they attended.

 

[BobRyan]

We can all agree on one thing... "it can not be BOTH ways".

Inventing something like Purgatory is either right and supported by the Bible - or it is wrong. It can not be both.

Prayers to the dead is either supported in scripture entirely - or it is forbidden in scripture. But it can not be both.

On the surface the Bible may give some reason for people to believe in "immortal souls" and "the living dead" - or it may give some reason to believe in the fact that "man is mortal" and that "Those that have fallen asleep in Christ" are called the "Dead in Christ" and in fact being "people".

But in the end - when you read beyond one or two texts it really CAN only say it one way and still be the infallible Word of God.

So given that it only fully sports one view on a given doctrine - why are there so many conflicting views that prevail in Christianity? Answer "man made tradition" is being inserted and accepted AS IF it were scripture!

Attending the seminaries of the Papacy certainly gives them the bias and interepration of the Papacy when reading scripture. We could argue the same is true of non-RC seminaries. But what we don't have is objective Bible reading in those cases. We have massively filtered glasses. How do we step away from that? The thread on "What must it be like to find that you are wrong" speaks to that question on this area of the Board.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

No offense but this is probably the worst defense of immersion only I have ever seen. Just because a whole bunch of people died for what they believe in doesn't make them right. Think about it, millions of Muslims have died for their belief in Muhammed does that make them right?

It has the historical meanings. The people would not die for what they are lying about. Muslims are for very much external issues.

Nothing in the scriptures says that he had to be there. Only that he was there because there was plenty of water. The need for plenty of water could be explained just by the shear numbers of people he was baptizing.

John 3:23
And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

The bilble apparently connects the location with the quantity of the water there. Thousands of people do not need much water as long as they are in any part of the river. You are defending the Sprinkling, not the Washing. For the dropping of few drops of water on the foreheads of thousands of people, one would require only a few litres of water. You are the first one who deny this. I would doubt about your math capacity.

Tell me do you actually know greek or are you regurgitating other people's work? I read the greek as part of my devotions, I am very familiar with the Greek Grammar. What you say is not true. According to my Greek resources which include BDAG (a big well reckognized lexicon) and Wallace (Greek Grammar), amongst others, those uses of the prepositions are entirely possible.

I have read the entire NT in Greek many times, Sir. I have my own translation of the entire Greek NT. I trust TR, Sir. I may not be behind you in Greek, Sir. You are denying the plain truth of the Greek. You are the one of few people who are denying the meaning of eis and ek. You have to respect the primary meanings of them first, even though there are extra meanings of them. I know what you are talkiing about the Lexicons, I use Mounce, Barclays Newman, etc, but the main problem is that most of the Lexicons are based on the Alexandrian texts and therefore there are many words which are not shown in the Lexicon but are in the TR. I already pointed out this problem to Zondervan and posted the lists of those words at the Thread of Bible Version and Translation, Sir. If you know a lot of Greek, you can help me, Sir. You can make a good money too, by publishing them if you know so much about those words.
When you connect the eis and ek with the movement of someone and with water, you can not find any other combination other than " went down into the water and came up out of the water" If you are claiming other than that meaning, please show your own translation of Acts 8:37-39

I did many times. It said to wash. Baptism means to wash. It does not necesitate immersion.

When it is connected with Ritual Bath, it involves always the immersion which came from Rahtats in Hebrew. You must admit that the Sprinkling is different from Washing. I have never seen any Pastor who is not immersing washes the body of the believers. Do they really wash them? Do they use soaps or shampoo? Why don't you use Shampoo and Soaps so that you can wash them more effectively? Baptism is NOT Washing but the Burial and Resurrection, Sir.

Why must you always result to insults? I am trying to treat you with respect, but I must admit it is very hard to do so because of your actions.

Can I help it if the Baptists are wrong?

Which of my words are insulting you? Maybe your arrogance have converted them into Insulting in your heart.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliayhu, I guess the bottom line is this. I do not believe that scripture is as "clear cut" any more as I once did.

I like your honest confession on this, which can be a good starting point for the discussion. As for me, I believe the Sola Scriptura and the absolute sovereignty of the Words of God, and believe that God is the Word, and the Bible is the Words of God, and that the ignorance of Words of God means Ignorance of God. However, as you said, if we accept a certain tolerance in the beliefs and the doctrines, you are quite right. Many of the arguments can be acceptable if we allow certain tolerance. The problem is that the past history has been all the time fierce, and when we exmine why the other flexibility in the belief occurred, all the time we can find no good reason to deviate from the Bible, and such Broad concept of the belief persecuted those fundamental believers, while the vice-versa didn't occur. So, I want to be careful about that and just want to be faithful with the teachings of the Bible.

There are beliefs and teachings that have support either way in scripture. An example would be the ex head of the Anglican Church (I believe "Stoddard" but don't trust my memory) would not take a firm position on the fate of the evil dead. Some scriptures speak of them being ashes etc. etc.
some otherwise. His position was "God knows" but scripture can legitimately be understood both ways. I'm pretty sure "Bob Ryan" on this board, being SDA, has distinct views from either of us. I would not beat up on him as I know where and how he would get the basis for believing this (if he does) and the sleep of the dead. The point is the SDA are not ignorant, nor incapable of reading their Bibles, or understanding Greek. God has not personally made me infallible or spoken to me directly. All I have is scripture that is not so clear cut as I believe you believe.

In almost all the doctrines I have the same belief as the mainstream majority believers. The main differences are in how to practice the faith, such as Lord Supper, Baptism, Elders and Deacons, calling the Believers(We don't call anyone Pastor or Elder, but just Brothers and Sisters). We practice the Lord Supper every week. Based on such understanding, there are not so much areas of the beliefs which are ambiguous, but they are quite lucid as long as we try to obey the teachings. However, from time to time, people bring some other ideas and modes which can cause the arguments. I do understand even the fundamental churches are not faithfully following all the Bible teachings even though they may be OK with the most of them. A church may have a problem with Pastor-hood B church with Infant Baptism, C church with Sprinkling, D church with Baptismal Regeneration, E church with Loose Discipline, etc. But the ultimate criterion which we have to return to is the Bible, I believe.

Mainly, I trust in the grace and mercy of God, to forgive and correct my misunderstandings. I simply don't know it all anymore. At the very least, the Catholics have every belief very concisely laid out with precisely their understanding of scripture. Certainly, many other groups do not, and teaching is pretty much the "opinion" and/or fruit of whatever seminary they attended.

As long as you rely on God, I believe God will help you find the right path any way and surely He will show you the mercy and grace.
However, almost every bit of Catholic teachings are quite different from Bible teachings though they are often reasonable from the human viewpoint. The Truth of God is quite above the human thoughts. Catholic dogmas are quite well organized, but our doctrines are found nowhere, because we believe that the Bible itself is the book of our doctrines.
If we produce something like " The Institutes of Christian Religion" by JOhn Calvin, there will be a lot of errors to be found in the future. So, we don't have any doctrine, but we haven't encountered any confusion very much even though we have had some splits. They are mostly the similar each other. I listed more than 30 kinds of RCC teachings and I believe that none of them are correct from the Biblical point of view. For example I posted about the Extreme Unction after Death here, but none of the members here could defend it. Immaculate Conception cannot be supported by the Bible either, or we find nobody in the Bible calling Mary as Mother of God, neither Assumption of Mary, nor Perpetual Virgin Mary is found in the Bible though Apostle John must have outlived mary but never mention anything like that in his epistles. You may feel I am quite allergic to the Catholicism, but I would defend that we have to shun various paganism, which becomes more evident when we stick to Bible teachings ( without tolerance!). God has blessed so-called Plymouth Brethren as we notice many great believers during the short period of 150 years, such as John Nelson Darby ( Bible Translator), George Mueller ( Father of Orphanage), Hudson Taylor ( China Inland Missionary), Eric Sauer ( Dawn of World Redemption, Principal of Wiedenist Bible School), David Livingstone( African Missionary, Explorer), Harry Ironside, Joe Scrivener ( song: What a friend we have in Jesus!), and there are hundreds of great believers among them more.

 

[Chemnitz]

It has the historical meanings. The people would not die for what they are lying about. Muslims are for very much external issues.

It has no meaning in regards to the truth. One can be sincere in their beliefs and completely wrong.

John 3:23
And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

The bilble apparently connects the location with the quantity of the water there. Thousands of people do not need much water as long as they are in any part of the river. You are defending the Sprinkling, not the Washing. For the dropping of few drops of water on the foreheads of thousands of people, one would require only a few litres of water. You are the first one who deny this. I would doubt about your math capacity.

I doubt my own math abilities, but that is neither here nor there, a passage merely mentioning a supply of water is not a proscriptive passage. At best it is descriptive and then only of the events at the time. It does not equal a mandate. It is just as likely it is because it is a ready source of water in the wilderness, not because it is a must to have lots of water.

I have read the entire NT in Greek many times, Sir. I have my own translation of the entire Greek NT. I trust TR, Sir. I may not be behind you in Greek, Sir. You are denying the plain truth of the Greek. You are the one of few people who are denying the meaning of eis and ek. You have to respect the primary meanings of them first, even though there are extra meanings of them. I know what you are talkiing about the Lexicons, I use Mounce, Barclays Newman, etc, but the main problem is that most of the Lexicons are based on the Alexandrian texts and therefore there are many words which are not shown in the Lexicon but are in the TR. I already pointed out this problem to Zondervan and posted the lists of those words at the Thread of Bible Version and Translation, Sir. If you know a lot of Greek, you can help me, Sir. You can make a good money too, by publishing them if you know so much about those words.
When you connect the eis and ek with the movement of someone and with water, you can not find any other combination other than " went down into the water and came up out of the water" If you are claiming other than that meaning, please show your own translation of Acts 8:37-39

Ah, now the truth comes out. They do not meet your theological presuppositions so you discount the legitimate work of others.

I am not discounting the primary meaning. I quoted verbatim from the lexicons. I am not even saying your translation is illegitimate. I am saying that is not the only legitimate translation. "Going down towards" and "Going down into" are both legitimate translations.

When it is connected with Ritual Bath, it involves always the immersion which came from Rahtats in Hebrew. You must admit that the Sprinkling is different from Washing. I have never seen any Pastor who is not immersing washes the body of the believers. Do they really wash them? Do they use soaps or shampoo? Why don't you use Shampoo and Soaps so that you can wash them more effectively? Baptism is NOT Washing but the Burial and Resurrection, Sir.

Where are you getting your information. No where does it say they must immerse, they must wash.
It is a connection to the death and resurrection Rms 6 and a washing 1 Pt 3.
In addition, it is not the pastors doing the washing it is the Holy Spirit doing the washing, for God alone can do such a work.

Which of my words are insulting you? Maybe your arrogance have converted them into Insulting in your heart.

Let see the reference to "charlatain pastors" and the one I quoted.

 

[Eliyahu]

It has no meaning in regards to the truth. One can be sincere in their beliefs and completely wrong.

I doubt my own math abilities, but that is neither here nor there, a passage merely mentioning a supply of water is not a proscriptive passage. At best it is descriptive and then only of the events at the time. It does not equal a mandate. It is just as likely it is because it is a ready source of water in the wilderness, not because it is a must to have lots of water.

Ah, now the truth comes out. They do not meet your theological presuppositions so you discount the legitimate work of others.

I am not discounting the primary meaning. I quoted verbatim from the lexicons. I am not even saying your translation is illegitimate. I am saying that is not the only legitimate translation. "Going down towards" and "Going down into" are both legitimate translations.

Where are you getting your information. No where does it say they must immerse, they must wash.
It is a connection to the death and resurrection Rms 6 and a washing 1 Pt 3.
In addition, it is not the pastors doing the washing it is the Holy Spirit doing the washing, for God alone can do such a work.


Let see the reference to "charlatain pastors" and the one I quoted.

I am not going to argue with you in detail.
The main thing that you have to clarify is whether you are washing the people or dropping a few drops of water onto the foreheads.
You brought the argument that Baptizo means Washing, then do you really wash the people at the baptism? You must be very honest on this question. Do you shower them with Shampoos or soaps?
Bringing "Wash" for the Baptism is nothing but a ridiculous excuse for the disobedience to the Words of God. Even children can understand this.

As for Charlatan, I didn' point it to anyone specifically. If anyone works for the hireling, departing from the Bible and from the consicence, that is charlatan. It was not aimed at you at all, sorry.

Washing someone from the sins requires Death and Resurrection toward the newness, and the Washing of the sins in the Bible cannot be done by the water spray, but only by the Death and Resurrection which was done by Jesus Christ. The Baptism is just the declaration of such Crucifixion of the person with Jesus Christ. Sprinkling or Dropping Water cannot implement this truth, nor can be found in the Bible anywhere.

As for the Greek, in your previous post, you behaved as if you were the exceptional expert in Greek, and you asked me "Tell me do you actually know greek or are you regurgitating other people's work" and claimed that the translation of "Went down into Water and Came up out of the water " is wrong.

But you must know that the primary interpretation of it is the best translation unless we find any contradiction in the contexts. "Went down toward the water and came up from the side of the water" can be understood as nothing but a ridiculous distortion of the words to evade the lucid truth of immersion. Often the knowledge is abused for the distortion of the truth, which is the case with you on this.

The death of many martyrs who refused the Idolatry, Purgatory, Papacy are meaningful and the Baptist martyrs who performed the Believers Baptism by Immersion are mostly such and cannot be compared to the Muslim martyrs.

As for the source of Baptism in OT, I have read it personally when I read OT in Hebrew, in Numbers and Leviticus. Rahats and Mikveh.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Theologically speaking Chemnitz, Eliyahu ‘s not going to be able to defend his position. You pretty much cornered him and now his only defense, which is a weak one at that, is going to be this Do you shower them with soaps and shampoo’s? What a ridiculous and silly question.

Remember Eliyahu was theologically beaten in the Communion thread and his last defense was asking to conduct DNA tests on the elements?

You’d almost think that you’re debating an atheist with his type of questions.
-