women priests excommunicated/thoughts?

So now we have Carson, Ed and LaRae on the Catholic side.

Carson, Ed and La Rae>>. I posted the RCC position on baby baptism for all so we can now resume the debate. After reading "most" of it, I still see no bibical support for y'all. At the best, it says in general " But it doesn't actually say babies aren't supposed to be baptised". That's a lame duch excuse rather than scriptural support. Why did no one answer my queasion as to how sprinkling for baptism became a Catholic tradition? You read the definitation, I assume????

On the baby issue, I will attempt a little scenario: A baby is baptised and his parents(Catholics) are both killed and the baby is adopted and grows with parents who are Athiests and he/she also believes as they. What good was the baby baptism OR does this baptism of an un-knowing baby , save it's soul forever. IF this infant baptism is only in case the baby dies , to insure that it is Heaven bound, then you are implying that God would send babies to Hell if not baptised as a baby. Doesn't make sense, does it? The God I beleive in would never send anyone to hell that hasn't reached a level of knowledge to understand what it is all about........actually not the whole Bible, but the part on salvation. So, to me, Catholics stray from the scriptures with the Rosary, baptism by sprinkling water, baby baptism, infallible leaders, and much more. You clain to be the first church but no where do y'all compare to the seven churches in Revelations which was a cross section of ALL the churches that existed then. So we go on..........

God Bless............Alex

 

That's a lame duch excuse rather than scriptural support.

I gave you scriptural support. YOU don't want to even consider it because you have a severe case of presuppositional blindness.

All mankind is born in a state of separation from God which is called "death". We were brought into this state of death by Adam's sin (Romans 5:12). This has NOTHING to do with the intellect. A baby does not have to make up its mind to sin and leave God. It is born in a state of separation from God because of its fleshly tie to our father Adam. Therefore, the baby must be brought into the kingdom.

Getting into the kingdom is like getting aboard a ship. Would a baby have to be able to question the captain of a ship, chart navigational courses, know how the engines of the ship work, etc? Of course not. But this is the Protestant paradigm for salvation. KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge is NOT salvation. The demons KNOW GOD intimately. They know all about Him. But they are not saved.

No, salvation is like the parents carrying the infant aboard the ship. The child must be taken out of its union with Adam, which is separation and death, and placed in Christ. The parents bring the child to Jesus and by baptism, he/she is placed in Christ (Romans 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Knowledge on the child's part has nothing to do with it. Faith on the parent's part is that which places the child in the New Covenant.

Why did no one answer my queasion as to how sprinkling for baptism became a Catholic tradition?

We IMMERSE our children. What the Romans do is their business and they may defend it as needed.

God does not send people to hell. God is love. He desires that all come to Him and live with Him eternally. Human beings send themselves to hell by choosing sin over God. God gives us exactly what we want in the afterlife. If we want nothing to do with Him, He honors that and we suffer eternally.

Read THIS ARTICLE to get more proper view of the afterlife. I believe that this concept is far superior to the Augustinian thinking regarding Judgment and hell.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Ed:

All mankind is born in a state of separation from God which is called "death". We were brought into this state of death by Adam's sin (Romans 5:12). This has NOTHING to do with the intellect. A baby does not have to make up its mind to sin and leave God. It is born in a state of separation from God because of its fleshly tie to our father Adam. Therefore, the baby must be brought into the kingdom.

Now we are getting somewhere. You are now saying, indirectly, that works gets you to Heaven as baptism is WORKS not salvation via the grace of Jesus. Baptism has nothing to do with the process of salvation, so again, a fruitless case. NNE is ever put on the same level as God meaning sinless. Salvation is the acceptance of Jesus as your Lord and Savior, which a baby cannot do and no one can do it for the baby. We all die IN SEPARATION FROM GOD! We are only forgiven of our earthly sins and will only be sin free when we get to Heaven. This is where Catholics are missing the boat, to believe baptism, in itself, saves you, or at least a baby. Not bibically sound! You will go to Heaven after accepting Jesus if you are never baptised although it would be a proper thing to do at some point in your life. You are ALIVE in Christ, not baptism! I've been baptised twice.....BOY...I really must be saved! No pun intended.

God Bless..........Alex

 

You are now saying, indirectly, that works gets you to Heaven as baptism is WORKS not salvation via the grace of Jesus. Baptism has nothing to do with the process of salvation, so again, a fruitless case.

Just because YOU think that obeying God and doing what He commanded us is works, doesn't make it so.
Your distortion of baptism does not change the fact that the Early Church taught that it is necessary and they learned this from the apostles themselves. You have no case otherwise. There is no proof in history of so-called "believer's baptism" ever being taught until invented in the Middle Ages.

Salvation is the acceptance of Jesus as your Lord and Savior, which a baby cannot do and no one can do it for the baby.

Wrong again. Salvation has nothing to do with having nice ideas about Jesus. Salvation is about entering into union with Him. By being united with Him as a bride to a groom (remember the analogy) we are one with Him and safe in Him.

One may put oneself into this relationship by making an act of faith in obedience to be baptized, or one may be brought in by others if unable to decide for himself.

We all die IN SEPARATION FROM GOD! We are only forgiven of our earthly sins and will only be sin free when we get to Heaven. This is where Catholics are missing the boat, to believe baptism, in itself, saves you, or at least a baby. Not bibically sound!

Very biblically sound. That is why the Church taught it for 2000 years. That is why the apostles urged their listeners to be baptised for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). What is not biblically sound is YOUR private interpretation of the Scriptures. This is exactly the reason our Lord gave us the Church as the "pillar and gound of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)

You are ALIVE in Christ, not baptism!

Scripture says that you are baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3 and Gal. 3:27) THAT (being IN CHRIST) is salvation, not some mental gymnastic called "asseptin' Jaaaaaaayzuz"

I've been baptised twice.....BOY...I really must be saved!

Well, actually what you are is really, really confused.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

13 In Him, you also, after listening to (35) the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were (36) sealed in Him with (37) the Holy Spirit of promise, - Ephesians 1:13 NASB

We are sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit by trusting in what He has done for us on the cross. Baptism does not put us in Christ, faith in Christ does and not only does it put us in Christ the Father seals us in Christ with His Holy Spirit.

Baptism is the outward likeness of the inward really. A person is immersed in water because they have been immersed in Christ by trusting in Him alone.

 

Brother Ed:

Do you see in the following where baptism is refered to as a need to be saved OR does it imply expressing your FAITH in Jesus publically? What is your thoughts on this pase, in general? Does any match the Catholic doctrine?

Act 2:37-41 - From the first delivery of that Divine message, it appeared that there was Divine power going with it; and thousands were brought to the obedience of faith. But neither Peter's words, nor the miracle they witnessed, could have produced such effects, had not the Holy Spirit been given. Sinners, when their eyes are opened, cannot but be pricked to the heart for sin, cannot but feel an inward uneasiness. The apostle exhorted them to repent of their sins, and openly to avow their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, by being baptized in his name. Thus professing their faith in Him, they would receive remission of their sins, and partake of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. To separate from wicked people, is the only way to save ourselves from them. Those who repent of their sins, and give up themselves to Jesus Christ, must prove their sincerity by breaking off from the wicked. We must save ourselves from them; which denotes avoiding them with dread and holy fear. By God's grace three thousand persons accepted the gospel invitation. There can be no doubt that the gift of the Holy Ghost, which they all received, and from which no true believer has ever been shut out, was that Spirit of adoption, that converting, guiding, sanctifying grace, which is bestowed upon all the members of the family of our heavenly Father. Repentance and remission of sins are still preached to the chief of sinners, in the Redeemer's name; still the Holy Spirit seals the blessing on the believer's heart; still the encouraging promises are to us and our children; and still the blessings are offered to all that are afar off. >>>Matthew Henry's Concordance<<<

God Bless.............Alex

 

Great Post!!!! I have been saying that about Baptism for months and months.

-Brian

 

The Catholics don't seem to have or use this concordance or another, it seems. You, myself, DHK and others have said this all along but they will, or should, have a rebutal to this. Now it is wait and see!

God Bless.............Alex

 

I like to plan ahead. The Ethiopian eunuch openly to avowed his belief to Philip who baptized him. Philip was witness to the eunuch's confession of trust in Christ.

 

That's great as long as it is bibcally sound. Some people feel secure in cults, such as the Mormon's. We all need to be careful that satan isn't leading us away from the scriptures as many churches have already started to do. As far as baby baptism........to those who believe they can save them with only baptism, then go for it. I and others simply say it is now within the scriptures and uncalled for. The Mormons believe that a person who has died as a lost person(hell bound), can be saved by a substitute person accepting Christ or whom ever they believe in. Another foolish thing. Get saved while you are still breathing!!! I guess the next debate will be on Purgatory........another non-bibical tradition.

God Bless............Alex

 

Well, Alex, I guess one can have one's choice of "non-biblical" traditions, right?

You can choose between purgatory and imputed righteousness. Neither one is mentioned in the Bible.

Of course, if you come to understand what is being said in the Greek in Romans 3 and 4 about the word "imputation" you will realize that you have to believe in some sort of cleansing of your sins after death.

Since "imputed righteousness" is not taught in the Bible the way Evangelicals teach it, I guess we are left with needing our sins purged after death.

Brother Ed

 

RE: Matthew Henry's Concordance.

That's not what is being said in Acts.

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

And in the Greek:

petros de efh pros autous metanohsate kai baptisqhtw ekastos umwn epi tw onomati ihsou xristou eis afesin amartiwn kai lhyesqe thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos

Notice the word "eis". It is mistranslated. The verse should read thusly:

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Baptized INTO the remission of sin. Baptism remits sins. Mr. Henry, being a Protestant, wouldn't admit that if a gun was placed to his head. That is called "dishonest exegesis" and "presuppositional blindness".

And if you doubt this, ask any LUTHERAN or EPISCOPALIAN pastor.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

Yes, and the Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Catholics are all objective, and never come to the table without any "presuppositional blindness" whatsoever? NOT!
It is only the presuppositions of the Catholics and Lutherans that cause them to give the verse the translation that they do. "eis" does have more than one meaning, does not have to be translated "into" as you suggest, but can have the meaning "because of." It is your presuppositional blindness that determines your translation, and your translation happens to disagree with the rest of Scripture. When it does not harmonize with the rest of Scripture then you know that it is wrong.
DHK

 

Best not to use the term "any" unless you really mean it. My roommate is gone for the summer (not home, he plays the piano on a cruise ship) but I am confident based on his beliefs that the pastor at his Lutheran church at home would disagree with you. I'd also wouldn't be surpised if some Episcopalian churches are evangelical just as many of the Anglican churches in Montreal are evangelical and therefore the pastors there would not agree with you either.

 

Lutherans and Episcopalians believe that baptism is regenerational and removes sin.

Or rather, I should say that their denominations teach that as official teaching. As you pointed out, there are probably those in these denominations who don't believe much of anything.

Brother Ed

 

With your usual brilliant lack of clarity regarding the historical beliefs of the Church, you wrote:

It is only the presuppositions of the Catholics and Lutherans that cause them to give the verse the translation that they do.

No, my mixed up friend. It is because the Church taught this from the beginning. The evidence, as I have said NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE, which you don't care about, is the fact that the Early Fathers, as early as the 2nd century, were teaching this WITHOUT CONFLICT!! There was NTHER TEACHING despite your bizarre insistence that your belief on baptism was out there ..... "somewhere"

You still haven't a shred of proof that anything else but baptismal regeneration and baptism for the forgiveness of sins was taught by anyone else in the Church. But noooooooo.....history isn't as important as YOUR INTERPRETATION. Nevermind what does and does not exist in historical writings. We are supposed to believe yer version.

Sorry.....I go with the Church. They've been around about 2000 years longer than you have.

Nice try, though.

Brother Ed

 

Having thus found the model of the New Testament Church, the question is forced upon us: Whether or not this pattern is retained in any of the Churches of the regent day? Without casting ungenerous reflections upon any Christian body whatever, it may be said that as to substance and form, the most accurate resemblance to this picture of the Apostolic Churches, is now found in the Baptist Churches of Europe and America. Dr. Duncan reports: ?That when Gesenius, the great German Hebraist and Biblical critic, first learned what Baptist Churches were, he exclaimed: ?How exactly like the Primitive Churches!' [Hist. of Baptists, p. 71] So Ypeig, late Professor of Theology in the University of Groningen, and Dermout, Chaplain to the King of Holland, who, together, prepared a History of the Netherland's Reformed Church for that government, have the same principles in view when they say:
"We have now seen that the Baptists who in former times were called Anabaptists, and at a later period Mennonites, were originally Waldenses, who, in the history of the Church, even from the most ancient times, have received such a well-deserved homage. On this account the Baptists may be considered, as of old, THE ONLY RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY WHICH HAS CONTINUED FROM THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES; as a Christian Society which has kept pure through all ages the evangelical doctrines of religion. The uncorrupted inward and outward condition of the Baptist community affords proof of the truth contested by the Romish Church, of the great necessity of a reformation of religion such as that which took place in the sixteenth century, and also a refutation of the erroneous notion of the Roman Catholics that their denomination is the most ancient.' [Origin Dutch Baptists, Breda, 1819]"

According to the estimate of Sharon Turner there were at the close of the first century already about 500,000 Christians in the world, and the Scriptures show that they cherished the sacred principles here set forth. These doctrines are still as fresh as ever, and are as soundly reproduced in the Baptists of the nineteenth century as in those of the first. It will now be our business to show how and where they have lived in the intervening centuries, when not an Apostle was left to expound or defend them, but only the Word of God in which they abide, and must live forever. Yet, the question is constantly arising why all Christians do not earnestly strive to go back to the pattern of the Apostolic Churches? Beck forcefully answers this inquiry thus:
"It is quietly assumed that the original arrangements of the Church were only possible at that time, and that in later ages they have become impracticabe and unsuitable. People have got into the habit of regarding this Scriptural pattern as an ideal that cannot be carried out in practice. But why can we not realize it? Is the cause to be found in the fanatical character of the first period of Christianity, or does it lie in the fact, that the latter progress has proved untrue to the ideal to which the First Age remained
true? The latter is the case. The Scriptural Church constitution takes for granted, a society which grows and develops from within by the free faith of those who compose it, and which separates itself from the rest of the community. If doctrine and sacrament must be founded on the divine word, in order to represent and promote true Christianity, this is no less essential also for the constitution and discipline of the Church. The two things cannot be separated, as the history of the great Churches shows, without entailing increasing evil and injury on the Church. The union between doctrine and constitution must take place in accordance with what the divine word represents to have been the rule and the practice from the beginning. This is the only right way to improvement" [Pastoral Theology, p. 313] Thomas Armitage, "A History of the Baptists"
DHK

 

DHK --

Again, let's think this thing through.

As early as in the book of Acts we see that there was a question which arose concerning circumcision and becoming a Christian. This was no small question, for it brought into play foundational principles of the Old and New Covenant. The Church's response, as this teaching began to take root and be questioned by many, was to call a council to come up with an answer.

The answer: circumcision NOT NECESSARY to become a Christian.

Now, regarding baptism, there is a very WIDE difference between the beliefs of the Church and the beliefs of the Anabaptists. The Church has always taught that baptism is regenerational and salvational. Baptism has been considered a necessity for salvation from the earliest times. The earliest writings we have on this date all the way back to the second century. Therefore, we have historical record that the Church believed and taught the NECESSITY of baptism.

Anabaptistry, on the other hand, teaches that baptism is just a mere symbol which accomplishes nothing, and is, quite frankly, NOT ESSENTIAL to salvation.

Now logically speaking, knowing that every time there was a SERIOUS DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCE in the teachings of the Church, it was resolved by a council, I have to ask you to show me WHERE IS THE COUNCIL WHICH ADDRESSED BAPTISM?????

Surely, if these two belief systems were being taught side by side, it would not have taken long for there to have been a major conflict and a need for such a council. Yet we find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in history. No council was ever called to discuss the issue of whether baptism is salvational or merely a sign of faith.

Therefore I must insist that the above mentioned quote comes from source which is highly prejudiced to the Anabaptist idea of history. He probably has his own autographed copy of THE TRAIL OF BLOOD in his library.

Until you can show me the council at which baptism was the major theme of discussion, I must insist, given that we DO have written record of the Catholic understanding from the Early Fathers, and have NO WRITTEN RECORD of any Anabaptist understanding, that your quote is just so much prejudicial fluff trying to pass itself off as scholarship.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

As circumcision was not necessary to salvation, neither is baptism.

"The church has always taught that baptism is regenerational and salvational." That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But I dare say you cannot prove it, in fact I know you cannot.
"Therefore we have a historical record..." based on what? Your opinion?

Is it not ironic that you want me to prove my point using your Catholic councils, your Catholic authors, etc., but you will not accept documents that are written by Baptists. Are not being a prejudicial here? We continue today only to uncover in history what the Catholic Church has tried for ages to cover from the rest of the world. That includes everything from recent sex scandal to facts about the Spanish Inquisition, and other atrocities carried out in the name of the Catholic Church. Given that kind of track record give me one good reason why I should trust anything that the Catholic Church writes?
DHK

 

We can also add to that, claiming that the Jews should not be evangelized even though both scripture and even tradition support the practice.