A Baptism Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_W_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In continuation of my last post:

YOU SAID: the jailor in (Acts 16:30) asked Paul that very SAME question, here’s what Paul said, v31 " Believe on the Lord Jesus and you WILL BE SAVED, and your entire household," (no baptism) Paul also says this in (1Cor.15:2-4) " By this gospel you ARE SAVED, if you hold firmly to the word preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. v3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, v4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." That’ it! (no baptism)

MY RESPONSE: First, by believing in Jesus you will be saved by doing what He commands us to do. He commands us to be baptised so we are saved then. Second, we can see that the Jailer and his entire household were baptised straight after Paul told him this in the middle of the night! (v33) They must have really wanted to be saved to be baptised so quickly. 😃
On 1Cor. 15:2-4, Catholics agree we are saved by the gospel because part of that gospel commands us to be baptised. And we also agree that of first importance is that Christ died and was raised again—that’s how we can even enter Heaven. So no problems there. It’s not either/or – it’s both/and. You mentioned Romans 10:9, where St Paul tells us to confess with our lips and believe with our hearts. He doesn’t say there that we have to repent. But you believe we have to repent as well as confess and believe (so do Catholics). We also have to be baptised. Just because it’s not all mentioned at once in one place doesn’t mean some parts are not required. So we all need to be careful about just picking and choosing some verses and not giving due weight to others.

Here’s the answer to your second post:

Yes, I was thinking that what you were saying about receiving and being filled with the Spirit was kind of similar to Confirmation. My question for you now though, is if someone has received the Holy Spirit but has not had the laying on of hands, are they still saved?

Concerning what you say about no Scripture indicating that the way Jesus wishes us to enter into His family is by baptism: I am trying to show why I believe that there is clear Scripture indicating that it is the way. 🙂 On John 1:12, by accepting Jesus and believing in His name we are given the right to become children of God. How do we receive this right? By being baptised, “born again” or “born from above”, as Jesus says in John 3:5.
Another thing I’d like to point out is that in the Old Testament, the way that God wished people to enter His covenant family was by circumcision. In the New Covenant, baptism replaces circumcision. (Col 2:11-12) Something to think about.

On Eph.1:13, yes, part of the ‘word of truth, gospel of your salvation’ would have been baptism, and then once we believe, we are marked in Christ by the seal of the Holy Spirit in baptism.

So you believe that salvation can be lost by rejecting Jesus?

I will continue this in my next post.
 
YOU SAID: in order to better understand what Paul’ is talking about, you’ll have to back up into the 5th chapter. Also just because the word “baptism” is used in v4 doesn’t necessarily mean “water” baptism. (1Cor.12:13) “For we were all baptized by one Siprit into one body.” That is the Holy Spirit. we know from (Mat.3:11) that it’s Jesus who baptizes us with the Holy Spirit. So by believing in Jesus, by implication we die and resurrect to a new life. Nothing to do with water baptism.

MY RESPONSE: We believe that we are baptised by the Holy Spirit—at water baptism. So that’s not really anything against the Catholic Faith.

YOU SAID: but you have no Scripture to support what you believe here. The minute Paul called Jesus Lord, he became a believer, and he received the Holy Spirit per (Gal.3:14b) And Yes, his sins were immediately washed away by Jesus
(2Cor.5:21) "God made Him (Jesus) who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him (Jesus) we might become the righteousness of God. So Paul had no sins to be washed away when He got up and was then baptized. Not only that, but God’s righteousness was also imputed into Paul, and Paul was already FILLED with the Holy Spirit by Ananias’ laying of the hands. One cannot be FILLED with the Holy Spirit and still have sins to be washed away. So once again back to the basic reason for water baptism, that is, to show repentace, (Mat.3:11) and to clear Paul’s conscience per (1Pet.3:21).

MY RESPONSE: Actually, there’s total Scripture support for this because Paul tells everyone in Acts 22:16 that Ananias said to him to be baptised and have his sins washed away. Doesn’t this show that his sins were washed away at baptism? Again, I do not believe that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit at Ananias’ laying on of hands, this was when Paul regained his sight, but he received the Spirit at baptism when his sins were also washed away. The presence of the Holy Spirit is incompatible with the presence of hatred for God. When He indwells a believer he fills our hearts with “agape” / charity / love, and in doing this our sins are washed away. This is why St Paul calls baptism the “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly.”

On Acts 10:48, I’ve already explained the Catholic view of this, and also Acts 19. I definitely think that John’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism were different. Yes, check it out more and let me know what you come up with. 🙂

On direct Scripture indicating at water baptism you receive the Holy Spirit, I think 1Pet.3:21 is very clear.

On the ordination/commission of the Seven, I think that your explanation could be seen as exactly the same as being ‘ordained’—that’s the best way for them to accomplish their job if they have already been ordained deacons. “Laying on of hands”, in this context was the term used for ordination in the early Church.
On what you said about not going to history, the point I was trying to make is that you certainly believe in plenty of things that happened in history, so why would you be suspicious of the early Church? After all, if I remember correctly, you said something about believing that the Church of the first three centuries was like the Protestant churches of today. If that is the case then why would you distrust them? Also, like what was said in my earlier post, you trust the early Church in defining the Canon of the New Testament, why wouldn’t you trust them on other issues as well?
I’m glad you’re enjoying the debate. You have been a pleasure to debate with and I hope we can go on charitably with each other. 🙂

Here is a website that shows what the early Church Fathers taught about baptism: churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/necessity-of-baptism/

God Bless and I hope this is helpful,
Matthew

P.S. Sorry that this was pretty long. :confused:
 
Ummmm, this is a very unusual thread. It seems that some previous conversation mainly between three individuals is being brought to this Forum. At first with the idea that the thread would supply its own moderator (obviously someone without actual admin rights on the Forum, such as Michael Francis (our moderator) has).

I see a reference to “post #332.” That’s a big number.

You are bringing this discussion to this Forum - do you want the rest of us to participate? If so, it might be helpful to give us a quick background (without expecting anyone to slodge through 332+ other posts).

I noticed that the most recent (and only) substantive post omitted any reference to Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40).
See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized? [v36]
Click to expand...
 
David u are correct. This is a previous conversation. Basically A protestant claims baptism is just an symbol. Also that the water in John 3 is water from the birthing process. Basically baptism does nothing. However we as Catholics believe it cleanses our soul from original sin and any actual sins we may have. We would love for any comments u may have.
 
Church_Militant said:
I hope those guys show up. I don’t understand why someone who opposes something the Church teaches and gets a chance to make his case before us Catholics would fail to capitalize upon that opportunity.

I mean…if truth is important then wouldn’t one want to express it and explain and defend it? That’s the definition of apologetics.
Click to expand...
👍😃
 
Robert_W said:
David u are correct. This is a previous conversation. Basically A protestant claims baptism is just an symbol. Also that the water in John 3 is water from the birthing process. Basically baptism does nothing. However we as Catholics believe it cleanses our soul from original sin and any actual sins we may have. We would love for any comments u may have.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Jesus trying to convince Nicodemus that it being born again didn’t have to do with the birthing process? Even I recognize that.
 
narvaez said:
So this thread should only cover “baptism”. Any other discussion should proceed to sites listed, by Catholics and N-Cs.

Thanks:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
***They can remain here, but each different topic requires its own thread as per CAF policy.
 
For some reason he does not want to come and debate the topic. :confused:
He would rather stay and post on the link I posted earlier. :confused:
 
Hmm, since Ed doesn’t seem to be coming here, do you reckon we should go back to posting where we were posting before?
 
Matt_Ignatius said:
Hmm, since Ed doesn’t seem to be coming here, do you reckon we should go back to posting where we were posting before?
Click to expand...
No, it’s not required. But you’ll have a long way if you do that. But it seems you somehow confirmed positively that he is does care with what you say nor consider any discussion relevant to your side.

🤷
 
Matt_Ignatius said:
Hmm, since Ed doesn’t seem to be coming here, do you reckon we should go back to posting where we were posting before?
Click to expand...
It’s not required. But you have a long way if you want too. It seems you somehow positively confirmed that there are persons who do not consider to look in the views of others, it’s not a discussion/ dialogue - it’s a monologue.

🤷
 
Matt_Ignatius said:
Hmm, since Ed doesn’t seem to be coming here, do you reckon we should go back to posting where we were posting before?
Click to expand...
It’s not required. But you have a long way if you want too. It seems you somehow positively confirmed that there are persons who do not consider to look in the views of others, it’s not a discussion/ dialogue - it’s a monologue.

🤷
 
It’s not required. But you have a long way if you want too. It seems you somehow positively confirmed that there are persons who do not consider to look in the views of others, it’s not a discussion/ dialogue - it’s a monologue.

🤷
 
I’ll be watching this thread too to see if this debate comes about (this post will also serve as my proverbial “marker buoy”). I’m hoping it does. These are good discussions to have occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top