Are Catholics Born Again?

[Michael_Francis]

Why don’t you start one? And commence with your arguments.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Use the forum search tools and you’ll find plenty of threads on Sola Scriptura. I suggest that anyone interested peruse them before opening yet another one.
Michael Francis

 

[John_Henry]

When a person receives the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation, they are already sanctifed… it is a one time event. I don’t agree with the charismatic understanding of “anointing”, that it is a “feeling” of the presence of God. When one is saved and receives the Holy Spirit, they have been sanctified as God’s child, and consecrated for a particlar service to God… whether they are aware of it or not

By Protestants, I suppose I meant Calvinists. They are the ones I am most familiar with, as I once was one. They would say that one is justified at the moment of faith, followed by a life-long process of sanctification, of course, beginning at a specific moment in time. I suppose Catholics have more in common with Calvinists on that one.

Indeed the things you are arguing are a different breed from your run-of-the mill Calvinist and non-denominational (I was one of those too!).

Anyway, no concessions either. But thanks for being charitable.

 

[Zooey]

Continued

This is why I oppose the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration”. It is a work (or repentance of sin), to attempt to gain justification.

Baptism a work??? Oy vay!! I really have to get on my pastor about this one!! I had no idea that all those poor little babies he baptizes were having to slave away when he takes them in his arms…
From someone who demands “believer’s baptism”–a work if ever I saw one–this is really rich!! Sheesh!!!
And what were you doing when you prayed for forgiveness of sins (which I assume you have done?)?? Was that not at least as much of a ‘work’ as being carried to the front of the church in your mother’s arms???

I understand that by concluding my argument in this manner I have opened up a “can of worms” by introucing the doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration, and Replacement Theology, but I am fully prepared to debate these subjects also (on another thread of course).

Ah, but will it be a debate? Or just more of the same-old, same-old that we have been seeing here? How do you debate someone who never, ever, answers a single question, & who insists on throwing false allegations into the ring???

What I proposed in the beginning of this debate was not a “straw-man” at all,

Ah, but it was!! (A classic, in fact…)

but completely founded according to the Word of God.

John
www.gideonsword.net Gideon’s Sword Ministries

Ah, but it wasn’t; it was founded on the ravings of Lorraine Boettner & his kin.

Hey, what do I know??? I spend my time reading the Bible, not thehttp://bestsmileys.com/puking/6.gif garbage of a bitter, prejudiced writer who re-imagined the whole history of the world, in order to excuse his hatred of Catholics.

But that’s just me.

 

[mozart-250]

Perhaps your claim is that this is the point at which salvation begins, a point with which I can agree, with one condition: that you recognize that at this point, no internal, organic change has happened to the human: he is still in his sins, he is still not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I condition my agreement by these points because the Bible clearly states that baptism is the point at which a person’s sins are washed away, the point at which the Holy Spirit first indwells a person.

I am going to quibble this point because it contradicts how God seems to have worked in my life.

And remember as a Wesleyan type, one of the lenses that I sanity check any interpretation of the Bible is experience (what has God done in my life).

You see I still remember the day that I became a believer. It was in a college dorm in the month of November many years ago. I was praying with a fellow believer who had come to faith in Christ a couple of weeks earlier.

Since that point my life was radically changed. Things that I used to do, I no longer did. I began to be very interested in God and the Bible. I became involved in a local Charismatic church and received the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” and started doing things like speaking in other tongues and other gifts of the spirit.

The problem was that my local church was in the state of Maine and they did baptisms at a nearby stream. Now it gets rather cold in Maine in winter, and even when I was baptised in May 6 months later that brook was still mighty cold.

I understand that scriptures exist that could point to Baptismal regeneration (while others exist that could point the other way). My problem is that I have never able to fit Baptismal Regeneration with what I know God has done in my life.

I know my sins were washed away and that I received the Holy Spirit much earlier than my water baptism.

 

[jemfinch]

I know my sins were washed away and that I received the Holy Spirit much earlier than my water baptism.

You know that? Do you have some special sort of glasses to be able to see such spiritual things? Is your heart not deceitful above all else, just like everyone else’s hearts?

You felt your sins were washed away before baptism. You have no evidence or biblical warrant for saying that you know they were washed away.

Jeremy

 

[mozart-250]

You know that? Do you have some special sort of glasses to be able to see such spiritual things? Is your heart not deceitful above all else, just like everyone else’s hearts?

You felt your sins were washed away before baptism. You have no evidence or biblical warrant for saying that you know they were washed away.

Jeremy

Let’s reason in reverse then.

If my sins were not forgiven when I was converted in November, then the obvious change that happened in the weeks immediately after would have no sensible explanation. I would still be a sinner, lost in my sins.

The only explanation I have that makes any sort of sense given what I know happend in my life is that Christ came into my life, forgave my sins, and changed the whole course of my life in Novemember when I was converted, not in May when I was baptized. Otherwise my life would not make sense.

You are welcome to try to come up with a theological explanation within your theology that makes sense of my life, but it has to make sense with the facts as I know them to be.

 

[jemfinch]

The Apostle Paul, when he saw Peter testifying by his actions that his own personal justification came by obedience to the law, rebuked Peter…

Funny, I don’t remember any of that discussed in Galatians. As far as I could tell, Peter had just erred in refusing to eat with Gentiles.

This is why I oppose the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration”. It is a work (or repentance of sin), to attempt to gain justification.

No more than your sinner’s prayer, or “repentance of will,” or any other method by which you tell a person he or she can be saved. It’s highly inconsistent of you to say that baptism is a work, but conscious decision to “turn the will” is not. Why would a work of the body be any more a work than a work of the mind?

It’s as arbitrary as if you had said that making a request of God in English was a work, but making a request of God in Chinese wasn’t. If I make a request of God with my body, I’m trying to gain salvation by working, but if I make a request of God with my mind, I’m not. That’s an arbitrary and false distinction. Indeed, it isn’t I, but God, who determines what language I should make requests of Him in. And according to 1 Peter 3, the “words” I use to request a good conscience (i.e., a clear conscience; a justified conscience) from God is the language of baptism. Many people today say that I can request that God “save” me by saying a prayer: this is effectively what you’re doing, when you say “he makes a conscious assertion that to move toward God will save him from divine judgement.” But neither you nor these people have biblical warrant for saying such a thing. The Bible makes very clear how to ask God for a good conscience, and the way to do that is baptism.

I understand that by concluding my argument in this manner I have opened up a “can of worms” by introucing the doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration,

Uh, that’s what we’ve been talking about practically this whole entire time.

I realized (while reviewing your posts looking for the quote above) that I missed a direct reply of yours to me. I’ll post my reply to that after this post.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Let’s reason in reverse then.

Let’s.

If my sins were not forgiven when I was converted in November, then the obvious change that happened in the weeks immediately after would have no sensible explanation.

Sure it would. You could have simply decided to be a better person.

I would still be a sinner, lost in my sins.

I know lots of sinners, lost in their sins, who’ve cleaned up their lives and are living more in accordance with God’s will. but who haven’t given a second thought to God or Jesus. This doesn’t prove they’re regenerate or that their sins are washed away. It just proves they’ve got willpower and a desire to better their lives.

A girl might stop being promiscuous because she found Jesus, or because she gained a greater measure of self-respect. A guy might stop sleeping around because he found Jesus, or because he can’t find any willing partners. A man might stop stealing from the elderly because he found Jesus, or because he has enough money and doesn’t want to risk getting caught. A man might stop beating his wife because he found Jesus, or because he realized that her bruises make him look bad in front of his friends.

The only explanation I have that makes any sort of sense given what I know happend in my life is that Christ came into my life, forgave my sins, and changed the whole course of my life in Novemember when I was converted, not in May when I was baptized. Otherwise my life would not make sense.

Maybe you’re just not creative enough I mean, sheesh – I can think of any number of reasons why you might have cleaned up your life. And let’s not forget two things: the Pharisees honestly thought they were serving God, but we know now (by divine revelation) that they were only seeking to serve themselves; likewise, Jeremiah tells us that the heart, above all other things, is deceitful. If we can’t even see into our own hearts to know our true motives, how can you claim to know at what point your sins were actually washed away? Especially when the Bible clearly teaches that sins are washed away in baptism, and the point you’re claiming isn’t your baptism?

You are welcome to try to come up with a theological explanation within your theology that makes sense of my life, but it has to make sense with the facts as I know them to be.

I don’t need a theological explanation to make sense of your life. I’m not even arguing with you about when you were justified. God might have made an exception in your case: He has that right. Baptism is only the ordinary means of dispensing the grace of justification, and your case may have been extraordinary. Maybe God said, “That guy lives in Maine and won’t be able to be baptized during the winter, I’ll go ahead and justify him now just in case.”

My issue isn’t when you were justified. My issue is your claim that you know your sins were forgiven at a particular point. Heck, even Paul didn’t know that: “I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.”

You might feel that your sins were forgiven at a particular point. You might believe that your sins were forgiven at a particular point. But you can’t and don’t know it.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

jemfinch
Are you stating that a person who is justified is actually sinless?

I don’t know what else it could mean to have one’s sins “washed away.”

I would like to direct you to Romans chapter 7…

Written quite some time after Paul was baptized, wouldn’t you agree?

Paul was justified by God, and sanctified by God, and he was obviously transformed becuase in the previous verse he said he delights in the law of God after the inward man. But he in no way considered himself to BE a righteous man… in fact he said “O wretched man that I am”.

And yet, when pressed, he couldn’t think of anything he’d done wrong (1 Corinthians 4). Even the righteous man falls seven times a day. The vehemence of Paul’s self-condemnation in Romans 7 is not evidence that he’s unrighteous, in fact, but that he’s righteous, and being made more righteous by God, day by day. If only I could be hard on myself when I stumble!

As far as your “repudiation of infant baptism,” I don’t see how it’s relevant. We’ve been talking almost entirely about an adult believer being baptized here, not about infants. If you want to discuss the biblical and historical support for infant baptism, start a new thread

Jeremy

 

[bibleapologist]

Zooey, you replied to my statement that Baptismal regeneration is a work…

And what were you doing when you prayed for forgiveness of sins (which I assume you have done?)?? Was that not at least as much of a ‘work’ as being carried to the front of the church in your mother’s arms???

jemfinch replied a bit more elaborately with…

No more than your sinner’s prayer, or “repentance of will,” or any other method by which you tell a person he or she can be saved. It’s highly inconsistent of you to say that baptism is a work, but conscious decision to “turn the will” is not. Why would a work of the body be any more a work than a work of the mind?

The repentance required to be saved is not an ACTION or an attempt to please God by circumventing the atoning Blood of Christ. The repentance required to be saved is nothing more than the exercision of our God-given ability to freely choose…Free will.
God Himself exercised this ability of free-will in Genesis 6:6 when it repented Him that He made man.

The other type of repentance that is more commonly referred to; could also be called “reform”. This is repentance of sin, and this is expected of Christians AFTER they have first repented by exercising their free-will to choose Christ and accept the atoning sacrifice. Otherwise you are nothing more than a Pharisee in the eyes of God.

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

For a person who is not saved by grace, even their good works are an abomination and render them reprobate.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags…

Our righteousness without Christ nothing.

Isa 1:11 To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Isa 1:12 When ye come to appear before me, **who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? **Isa 1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

God takes it very seriously that we come to Him with respect, He calls it an abomination and iniquity to “tread His courts” irresponsibly.

Baptism, as the Catholic Church teaches, is a designated act of reform, designed to attempt to please God by obedience… the only problem is that God does not want your obedience… there is NO AMOUNT OF GOOD you can do to make up for all the sins you have accrued in your life. We don’t have any clue to the magnitude of the debt we owe to God for the sins we have committed, so how could we be so arrogant to think that we could even attempt to make restitution on our own.

Your only option is to have the sin debt forgiven. That is why Christ died… to pay YOUR sin debt. Again, to attempt to do right (such as submit to the Catholic Church’s baptism) is to circumvent the gift of God… the Blood of Christ.

Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

I have already explained this thoroughly in post #59, please read it completely.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[mozart-250]

Sure it would. You could have simply decided to be a better person.

But that does not jive with the facts of the case. The facts of the case are that one night in November in a dormitory room, I prayed with a fellow Christian. I asked Jesus to forgive me of my sins and to come into my life.

I know lots of sinners, lost in their sins, who’ve cleaned up their lives and are living more in accordance with God’s will. but who haven’t given a second thought to God or Jesus. This doesn’t prove they’re regenerate or that their sins are washed away. It just proves they’ve got willpower and a desire to better their lives.

But again that does not jive with the facts of the case. The facts are that since that night, I have had a tremendous interest in serving Christ to the best of my ability, while prior to that time I could have cared less about God or Jesus. I started going to church. I started praying. I started reading my Bible. I received the Pentecostal Baptism of the Spirit (please don’t hijact the thread in that direction because on that one I have a few doubts). All prior to my water baptism. If nothing happened that night, then this was all fake and phony.

Maybe you’re just not creative enough I mean, sheesh – I can think of any number of reasons why you might have cleaned up your life.

But is was not just cleaning up my life. At the same time there was an interest in God and the things of God that just was not there prior to that one point in time.

Especially when the Bible clearly teaches that sins are washed away in baptism, and the point you’re claiming isn’t your baptism?

I would dispute the word clearly. If something is “clearly” taught in the Bible I should not be able to open the Bible and find scriptures that appear to say the opposite. In this case there are a whole body of scriptures that indicate God forgives sin the moment we come to him in true repentance.

My issue isn’t when you were justified. My issue is your claim that you know your sins were forgiven at a particular point. Heck, even Paul didn’t know that: “I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.”

The book of Acts recounts how the apostle Paul had a very dramatic conversion experience, and the New Testament has several references to Paul remembering and testifying of his conversion experience in his letters. So to the extent that Paul knew that God through Christ had radically transformed his life that time, I can do the same.

One thing that I have observed reading the book of Acts is that baptisms generally are not deferred. The earliest believers seemed to experience coming to Christ in faith and repentance and water baptism almost as one package. I sometimes wonder whether we lose something in deferring Baptisms. Then again sometimes I think too much.

Still the reality remains that we do defer baptisms. In that case I really have my doubts that when a sinner comes to God in prayer, asks God to forgive his sins in repentance, and asks God to come into his life via the Holy Spirit that the answer from God is “No!”.

 

[Zooey]

Zooey, you replied to my statement that Baptismal regeneration is a work…

Yes, & you completely missed the point.

The repentance required to be saved is not an ACTION or an attempt to please God by circumventing the atoning Blood of
Baptism, as the Catholic Church teaches, is a designated act of reform, designed to attempt to please God by obedience…

No, no, my dear man, that is what you are trying to tell us. You insist that we all come over to your church & be immersed, in order to “obey”. (See, I really did look at your site…It was a http://bestsmileys.com/bored/2.gifwaste of time & energy, but I did it.

the only problem is that God does not want your obedience…

WHAT??? You mean I can go rob the bank after all??? And it’s all OK…ummmm…:nope: Nope; don’t think so.

there is NO AMOUNT OF GOOD you can do to make up for all the sins you have accrued in your life. We don’t have any clue to the magnitude of the debt we owe to God for the sins we have committed, so how could we be so arrogant to think that we could even attempt to make restitution on our own.

I do believe you may have lost track of your own argument here…This is what comes of not finding out what folks actually believe before you start in…

Your only option is to have the sin debt forgiven. That is why Christ died… to pay YOUR sin debt. Again, to attempt to do right (such as submit to the Catholic Church’s baptism) is to circumvent the gift of God… the Blood of Christ.

Again, baptism is not a matter of “doing right”; that is your argument. Baptism is the sacramental means by which sin is washed away, & by which one receives the grace necessary to live the Christian life.
Though, being human, one can, as John Wesley so wisely pointed out time & again, “sin [that grace] away”.

I have already explained this thoroughly in post #59, please read it completely.

John
www.gideonsword.net

No, no, please, http://bestsmileys.com/crying/13.gif anything but that!! http://bestsmileys.com/signs9/2.gif!!! I have read it!!!
Sheesh!! Have a little mercy, would you???http://bestsmileys.com/crying/13.gif

 

[jemfinch]

The facts of the case are that one night in November in a dormitory room, I prayed with a fellow Christian. I asked Jesus to forgive me of my sins and to come into my life.

I’m not disputing those facts. I don’t even doubt that Christ responds to such prayers. But why couldn’t God have started working in your life, but still have chosen not to forgive you of your sins until you asked Him in the way He declared you should? Why is this interpretation of the facts not an option? Certainly God works in the lives of people who are sinful, doesn’t He? Otherwise why would Paul urge Timothy to pray for (non-Christian) leaders?

But again that does not jive with the facts of the case.

You say “that does not jive with the facts of the case” but given all the facts; what I know about your life, what I know about the Bible, and what I know from my own experience, the situation I presented above seems to “jive with the facts of the case” at least a little bit better than your explanation.

The facts are that since that night, I have had a tremendous interest in serving Christ to the best of my ability, while prior to that time I could have cared less about God or Jesus. I started going to church. I started praying. I started reading my Bible.

And I have no doubt that was the work of God! I don’t mind at all that you attribute such changes to God – by all means, that’s the way I like it! Sola Deo Gloria! My only problem is with you saying that such changes necessitate the forgiveness of your sins, such that you know you were forgiven on account of those changes. I don’t think you have logical or biblical warrant for such a claim.

All prior to my water baptism. If nothing happened that night, then this was all fake and phony.

Not at all. It just means that God was even more gracious, in that while you were still in your sins (in large part because you didn’t know how to properly ask Him to forgive your sins) He helped you clean up your life. At least, that’s a possibility, and one that’s at least as probably as your explanation; more so, I would say, given the biblical evidence.

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

I would dispute the word clearly. If something is “clearly” taught in the Bible I should not be able to open the Bible and find scriptures that appear to say the opposite.

1500 years of Church history don’t dispute the word clearly. 1500 years of Christians, including the ones taught by the Apostles themselves, affirm the understanding of baptism I and the other Catholics here espouse. For a millennium and a half, all Christians believed that baptism was regenerative.

In this case there are a whole body of scriptures that indicate God forgives sin the moment we come to him in true repentance.

Where? Perhaps a good scriptural summary of your position would be good – I’m having trouble thinking of any scriptures which say, “Repent and your sins will be forgiven.”

The book of Acts recounts how the apostle Paul had a very dramatic conversion experience,

Absolutely! And yet after three days of fasting, three days after calling Christ “Lord” (the Greek word used to translate the tetragrammaton, incidentally), Ananias still told him, “Get up, be baptized, and wash your sins away.” Paul’s sins were not washed away until he was baptized.

So to the extent that Paul knew that God through Christ had radically transformed his life that time, I can do the same.

A radical transformation of a life is not synonymous with the forgiveness of sins! This is a presupposition for which you have no biblical warrant! That’s the point I’m trying to make!

One thing that I have observed reading the book of Acts is that baptisms generally are not deferred. The earliest believers seemed to experience coming to Christ in faith and repentance and water baptism almost as one package.

That should tell you something

I sometimes wonder whether we lose something in deferring Baptisms.

I wonder that as well. I’ve never been a huge fan of deferred adult baptism. I think the main point is to give proper catechesis so people really know what they’re getting into. Whether to defer baptism or not seems to me to be a decision of prudence.

Then again sometimes I think too much.

Nah. It’s good to meditate on the things of God, even if you’re wrong some of the time.

Still the reality remains that we do defer baptisms. In that case I really have my doubts that when a sinner comes to God in prayer, asks God to forgive his sins in repentance, and asks God to come into his life via the Holy Spirit that the answer from God is “No!”.

Perhaps the answer from God is, “I’ll come into your life now in order that I may lead to you ask me in baptism for the forgiveness of your sins.” God is amazingly gracious, and doesn’t turn away people who authentically seek Him. But there’s no reason He couldn’t come into a person’s life in order to lead that person to ask Him properly (in the way that He has decided to be asked) for the forgiveness of sins.

We worship a God, a sovereign God, who has shown us how He wishes to be worshipped, how He wishes to be prayed to, how He wishes to be asked for a clear conscience, the forgiveness of sins. Just as we don’t believe “There are many paths to God,” instead preaching that Jesus Christ is the Way, we ought not believe, “We can ask God for a clear conscience any way we want,” but instead to preach, as Peter did, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins.” That’s all that the Bible and history (Tradition) gives us warrant to do.

Jeremy

 

[bibleapologist]

Zooey…

It is obvious that any future dialog beween the two of us will end in fruitlessness. I had concluded my arguments with John_Henry and fully intended to stop posting on this thread, but your comments showed me that you still didn’t have a complete understanding of repentance. Although my discernment warned me not to proceed any discussion with anyone else on this thread, I thought I could help you by my last post. I should not have posted anymore on the subject, I apologize for that.

I will not continue in any further discussion on this subject since I already gave my closing arguments… I will pray that you will be convinced, and that since the truth was given to you, the Word of God will not return unto Him void.

Mozart-250, I thank God for your testimony, I love to hear about people being saved.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[mozart-250]

I tried responding twice and got kicked out. I think it was because of too long of a post

This time I will try to break it up…and respond to only selected parts.

I’m not disputing those facts. I don’t even doubt that Christ responds to such prayers. But why couldn’t God have started working in your life, but still have chosen not to forgive you of your sins until you asked Him in the way He declared you should? Why is this interpretation of the facts not an option? Certainly God works in the lives of people who are sinful, doesn’t He? Otherwise why would Paul urge Timothy to pray for (non-Christian) leaders?

If the facts in my life have the explanation that you provide, there are several additional things I would must believe about my life that would be …er… very troubling.

• I would still have beens in my sins between November and May and had I died I would end up in hell.
• The experience I had of being filled with the Holy Spirit was a sham and a counterfeit.
• My testimony of saying I once was lost but had found Christ would have been a blatant lie. I would still have been in my sins.
• God would have answered “No” when I asked him to forgive my sins (and I would have difficulty squaring this with 1 John 1;9…if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
• God would have answered “No” when I asked Him to come into my life (and I would have difficulty squaring this with Luke 11:13…if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.
• Any change in my life would have been the result of self-effort only, and not because of the Holy Spirit working in my life upon receiving him…(and this doesn’t square because I tried self-effort before…it did not work).

I would have to believe all of this simply because I changed my theology to believe that you are regenerated on the point of Baptism. If the Bible were absolutely clear on this point, that would be one thing. I must change my thinking no matter what. God’s word trumps my personal experience.

However, the Bible at best is ambiguous on this issue. But that will be my next post.

 

[mozart-250]

1500 years of Church history don’t dispute the word clearly. 1500 years of Christians, including the ones taught by the Apostles themselves, affirm the understanding of baptism I and the other Catholics here espouse. For a millennium and a half, all Christians believed that baptism was regenerative.

Hmm…I was going to get into Scripture…but something about Church history interests me here…

Bear in mind I am not a Church history expert. My knowledge is very armchair level.

When I looked back and read the book of Acts, I noticed something I really never noticed before.

In the book of Acts, all baptisms recorded were almost simultaneous at the point of initial conversion. (I thought that was a trend only, but looking back the trend is unaminous). Now I am sure that logistically it took some time for 3,000 souls to be baptized in Acts 2:31. Still the experience to the convert of Faith in Christ/Baptism was very likely one experience.

The deferred baptism I had would have been an anomaly back then. They did not wait for the convert to be properly taught (or catechised). It was “Do you believe…yes…bang…you are baptized”. Read the Ethipian Eunuch (of course the Bible was not set in Maine during winter).

(I wonder how the apostles would have handled cold climates. I wonder if they would have delayed baptism so I could be properly dunked or if they would have just poured warm water over me…eh my musings).

But anyway…at some point the church must have gotten a reality check. People were getting martyred before getting baptized. Other people were dying of natural caused before getting baptized. (Obviously by then they must be like us and having deferred baptisms). So they begin to ask the logical question about the eternal destiny of these folks. It would be an absurdity to thing the martyr would not have his sins forgiven (and be in hell) because the church logistically had not gotten to his baptism.

So the answer to that question becomes “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood”. In other words the martyr and the person with the premature death were forgiven their sins (and had the Holy Spirit) because as converts to Christ, they naturally would have desired baptism.

To you “Baptism of Desire” might look like a small loophole; but I perceive this “Baptism of Desire” as a major hole in the wall. Is it not an implicit acknowledgement that in the case of a deferred baptism you really receive the Holy Spirit and have your sins forgiven upon conversion.

Scripture next

 

[mozart-250]

Where? Perhaps a good scriptural summary of your position would be good – I’m having trouble thinking of any scriptures which say, “Repent and your sins will be forgiven.”

I’ll make this short. Of course you quote Acts 2:38, Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I have found three specific commands by the apostles in the book of Acts instructing their respective audience how to respond to the gospel message. The other two are:

• Acts 3:19. Peter again. Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the Lord (isn’t this repent and your sins will be forgiven)
• Acts 16:31. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household

There is also an instance in the book of Acts (Acts 10:44-47) where the Holy Spirit fell upon the audience in the middle of the message before Peter even got to the part of instructing them what to do. Peter then figures out, how can we refuse the water for those who received the Holy Spirit as we did.

Go figure. God pretty much does as He pleases. That is His perogative, being deity.

There might be others…the point being there is not one magic formula consistently recorded in Scripture. The second and third instances in Scripture do not mention baptism.

This is what I mean by clearly versus ambiguity. Both sides can open their Bibles and with some degree of credibility anyway begin to make their cases.

As far as sins being forgiven by prayer and repentance there is precedent. What sticks out off the top of my head…
(1) 1 John 1:9. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and rightous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrightousness
(2) The parable of the Pharasee and the Publican where the Publican went home forgiven while the Pharisee did not.

And this is off the top of my head. I’m quite sure there is more (although I am beginning to get tired).

 

[PepeRoni]

From that article:

Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope’s title: “VICARIVS FILII DEI.” – V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l – Total, 666.

The list is quite goofy

“Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized - 788”

Wasn’t aware we worship them. Of course, we are to believe from the anti-Catholics that this is the first time veneration of images was ever done, and this so called “Authorization” simply infallibly taught it was permissible to venerate images directing veneration to their subjects.

“Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council”

Again, we are to believe that this is the first time confession of sin was ever done, when this simply said Confession (which was always done in the Church) had to be done at least once a year (unless Protestants think people can be sinless that long)

“The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia”

Sure maybe Wyclif’s Bible, or a Cathar bible, makes perfect sense that they are forbidden. I’m sure Southern Baptists aren’t allowed to own an Ignatious Catholic Bible (or even worse, Douay Rheims!)

“In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools”

I do that today. So what?

My favorite is “The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance”

Strange a protestant would have a problem with this. If I believe protestant doctrine, the Church is simply forbidding red wine (or grape juice) to the laity. They also forget, Paul said that anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup profanes the body AND blood (so body and blood exist in both parts of communion) and the Church teaches this, so they aren’t being denied anything…unless they have a drinking problem

 

[PepeRoni]

Why don’t you start one? And commence with your arguments.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Why start one? I’d be preaching to the choir. Although if you have a list of church synods, councils, Bishops etc who taught Bible Alone for example (especially prior to the acceptance of the books of the bible by the 4th century) the world would love to hear it.

In fact, the world would be interested in the existance of a church that preached bible alone/faith alone anywhere in antiquity. There are, unfortunately, a ton of bishops/synods/councils that write endlessly on;

Real Presence
Authority within the Church
Sacraments
Baptism as necesity for salvation

Take your pick of Catholic (and Orthodox) beliefs. Other than the forgotten heresies of centuries past and an occasional kooke, this Church (the remnant church as you guys sometimes call it) left behind pretty scant evidence of their existance…until the reformation of course.

I can buy someone arguing the point that for 1500 years the church was in some sort of dark age and Protestant’s recovered orthodoxy and then laid out what they believe. At least that is an arguement. But to say that Protestant beliefs were taught in any wide or consistant manner is simply contrary to every extant document giving us the history of the faith.