Baptism... And the True Church

[bibleapologist]

Notworthy,

If the Baptist Church had been around since Jesus, and Catholics sprung from Constantine, then why did the Baptist wait around for Catholics to produce a Bible??? Why didn’t they just produce one of their own?

Funny you should ask… they did. The “Peshito”, and the “Itala Biblia” both compiled in the mid 2nd century…

It also seems to be a somewhat unknown fact among Catholics that both of these translations were used by Jerome when compiling his “Latin Vulgate” in the 4th century.

The existence of these two interpretations are verified by the writings of Augustine, Jerome, and Eusubius.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

Since death is the wages of sin, then for death to be contracted, sin, in some form or another, must also be contracted.

Good point, but there are two distinct “deaths”; spiritual death, and physical death… the context of Romans 6:23 tells us that Paul is referring to “physical death”… so:

1. Infants are born spiritually dead (Romans 5:12a)
2. Because of this state of spiritual death, they become sinners (Romans 5:12b)
3. When they do sin, (and they will), physical death begins to work in their body.

Adam had the spiritual life, and he was still “enabled to sin.”

Without the “spiritual life” though, sin is inevitable.

That’s not what the Bible says. If you’re going to do exegesis, and not eisegesis, you need to be more accurate in reading what the Bible actually says. “For he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.”

I didn’t misinterpret scripture, I used an accurate version… the KJV… You said that verse stated that Levi was “in the loins of Abraham” but that is not how the verse reads… in any version I have seen.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

It does not say “Make disciples, teaching them, then baptizing them.” Heck, it doesn’t even mention teaching until after baptism. If we were to postulate any chronological progression in that passage, it would favor teaching after baptism, rather than before, since teaching is only mentioned after baptism, and not before.

For someone who makes such a strong effort to refute me, it seems odd that you would not make the distinction that we are quoting from different versions… But, you have used that fact in an attempt to discredit me by claiming I cannot interpret scripture… do you not have enough faith in your own arguments?

The King James Version does list teaching before baptism in verse 19, then qualifies what that teaching is to encompass in verse 20.

Joihn
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

I didn’t believe we were trying to make ourselves sound smarter by invoking fields of study that were entirely irrelevant, but apparently I was wrong.

In order to retain the integrity of this forum, I am going to leave that comment alone.

Their spiritual death is the condemnation for their sin. And you still seem to confuse actual sin with original sin. Jacob and Esau had no actual sin, but they had original sin, just like David did: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

You are basing your interpretation of scripture on your preconceived notion of Augustine’s predestination. The Bible never says that Jacob or Esau sinned in the Garden of Eden… or that they are implicated in Adam’s sin… in fact Romans 9:11 tells us the opposite…

Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Jacob and Esau did not exist, even though the potential of thier existence was present in Adam’s loins… Augustine left out the crucial factor of “free-will” in his philosophy of predestination. Had different decisions been made by their forefathers, Jacob and Esau might never had existed. So, if their was a potential for Jacob and Esau to never exist, what reasoning did Augustine have for claiming their implication in Adam’s sin… was Augustine claiming that God judges people that never exist?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

A practice of the Church since the very beginning. Since before the Apostles were dead, and you call it a “perverted doctrine.”

And note that you don’t actually provide any substantive argument against the comment by mikeledes; instead, you call it a “superficial interpretation.” Your skill at ignoring your opponents’ arguments is unsurpassed, John.

Since you are so adamantly against non-substantive arguments, why did you fail to substantiate your claim that infant baptism was a practice of the Church “before the Apostles were dead”. You can’t.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Notworthy,

Funny you should ask… they did. The “Peshito”, and the “Itala Biblia” both compiled in the mid 2nd century…

It also seems to be a somewhat unknown fact among Catholics that both of these translations were used by Jerome when compiling his “Latin Vulgate” in the 4th century.

The existence of these two interpretations are verified by the writings of Augustine, Jerome, and Eusubius.

%between%

What connection are you making between the Syriac version of the New Testament, the Peshitta, and the Baptist religion?

Firstly, the Peshitta does not contain 2 Peter, 2 John, Jude or Revelation.

Further, almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Peshitta gospels are translations of the Greek originals.

The Peshitta is the standard version for the Syriac churches:
Syriac Orthodox, Syrian Catholic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite.

What connection are you trying to make between this Syriac version and the religion of Baptist? I don’t see one.

As far as Catholics not being unaware of unknown facts, it’s very easy to find information about versions of the Bible:

newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

 

[bibleapologist]

mikeledes,

The passage clearly states that it is BAPTISM that now saves you, and this is clearly referring to WATER baptism since this is the ONE BAPTISM (see quote in Ephesians) that is the baptism par excellance and the normative means of regenrerating one’s soul.

That is the interpretation according to the Catholic church. But, that affirmation alone does not prove anything… we all know what the Catholic Church believes.

It is up to you to defend your position more completely and more reasonably than I have.

If we are born without a saving relationship with God, without the Holy Spirit, and without grace, then we are born into a state that requires regeneration.

I won’t argue with you there…

John the Baptist was regenerated in his mother’s womb (he was filled with the Holy Spirit) and he had no choice at all in that.

Just because John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, doesn’t necessarily mean he was regenerated. John the Baptist was a “prophet” such as Jonah, or Balaam. The Old Testament prophets were chosen and used by God, and empowered by the Holy Spirit; but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were regenerated…

Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

John the Baptist was heralding the coming of the Messiah, when Jesus came to him to be baptized, John recognized his need for the spiritual baptism (regeneration).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

What connection are you making between the Syriac version of the New Testament, the Peshitta, and the Baptist religion?

I was asked why the Baptists did not provide their own Bible, but waited for the Catholics to provide one for them.

First, that question assumes that there were Christians in existence before the 4th century that were seperate from the “catholics”.

Secondly, my answer proves that there were two translations well before the 4th century, both apart from the influence of Alexandria.

Thirdly, the Itala Biblia was translated to the Textus Receptus (received text)… again without influence from the school of Alexandria. And the Textus Receptus was translated to the King James Version 1611.

If there existed translations apart from Alexandrian influence, it is very probable that there also existed Christians who would distinctively resemble Baptists of today, and contrast Catholicism today and the Alexandrian version of Christianity.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I was asked why the Baptists did not provide their own Bible, but waited for the Catholics to provide one for them.

First, that question assumes that there were Christians in existence before the 4th century that were seperate from the “catholics”.

Secondly, my answer proves that there were two translations well before the 4th century, both apart from the influence of Alexandria.

Thirdly, the Itala Biblia was translated to the Textus Receptus (received text)… again without influence from the school of Alexandria. And the Textus Receptus was translated to the King James Version 1611.

If there existed translations apart from Alexandrian influence, it is very probable that there also existed Christians who would distinctively resemble Baptists of today, and contrast Catholicism today and the Alexandrian version of Christianity.

John
www.gideonsword.net

We are talking about different language translations, not different belief systems when we discuss the early versions of the Bible.

Look up the beliefs of the Maronite Catholics who still use the Peshitta today, for instance. They are in union with the Pope:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Catholic

They are Eastern Rite Catholics and resemble Baptists even less than Latin Rite (what you would call “Roman” Catholics). I don’t think that most Baptists even know that there are different rites within the Church and that when they use the term “Roman” Catholic, this title does not encompass the entire Catholic Church in union with the Pope.

In any event, the Peshitta was not a precursor to the KJV Bible by any means. Nor is it’s existence evidence that the Baptist church existed since the 1st century but was oppressed by the Catholic Church until 1608.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

Funny you should ask… they did. The “Peshito”, and the “Itala Biblia” both compiled in the mid 2nd century…

It also seems to be a somewhat unknown fact among Catholics that both of these translations were used by Jerome when compiling his “Latin Vulgate” in the 4th century.

The existence of these two interpretations are verified by the writings of Augustine, Jerome, and Eusubius.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Let’s see, the Baptist created the Peshito, and the “Itala Biblia”? And, what was the King James version later translated from?

 

[NotWorthy]

jemfinch,

Since you are so adamantly against non-substantive arguments, why did you fail to substantiate your claim that infant baptism was a practice of the Church “before the Apostles were dead”. You can’t.

John
www.gideonsword.net

***Archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD.

***Incidentally, the web-site for this article is here: You can e-mail the author to find where he has the documentation.

 

[NotWorthy]

Eden,
I was asked why the Baptists did not provide their own Bible, but waited for the Catholics to provide one for them.

First, that question assumes that there were Christians in existence before the 4th century that were seperate from the “catholics”.

Secondly, my answer proves that there were two translations well before the 4th century, both apart from the influence of Alexandria.

Thirdly, the Itala Biblia was translated to the Textus Receptus (received text)… again without influence from the school of Alexandria. And the Textus Receptus was translated to the King James Version 1611.

If there existed translations apart from Alexandrian influence, it is very probable that there also existed Christians who would distinctively resemble Baptists of today, and contrast Catholicism today and the Alexandrian version of Christianity.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I’m a little confused by the underlined part. You stated previously that the Baptist existed since Jesus founded the Baptist Church (correct me, please, if I’m mis-stating your position). This showed that it’s well established that Baptist existed throughout the Christian era. But here you indicate, "it is very probably that there also existed Christians who would distinctively resemble Baptists of today".

 

[jemfinch]

Good point, but there are two distinct “deaths”; spiritual death, and physical death… the context of Romans 6:23 tells us that Paul is referring to “physical death”… so:

1. Infants are born spiritually dead (Romans 5:12a)
2. Because of this state of spiritual death, they become sinners (Romans 5:12b)
3. When they do sin, (and they will), physical death begins to work in their body.

So you interpret the “death” at the beginning of 5:12 to be spiritual death, but the death at the end of 5:12 to be physical death? And you wonder why these contortions do not produce a compelling interpretation of Scripture?

Without the “spiritual life” though, sin is inevitable.

Which is exactly why we Catholics baptize our children. Why deny them the gift of supernatural grace?

I didn’t misinterpret scripture,

No, you did something far more fundamental. You misread Scripture.

I used an accurate version… the KJV…

That’s to be debated.

You said that verse stated that Levi was “in the loins of Abraham” but that is not how the verse reads… in any version I have seen.

Perhaps you should look harder.

KJV: “For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.”
ESV: “for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.”
NASB: “for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.”
NIV: “because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.”

You said that the verse claimed that Levi “came out of” the loins of Abraham. By all means, feel free to refer me to the translations which say that.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

For someone who makes such a strong effort to refute me,

Don’t confuse effort with time.

it seems odd that you would not make the distinction that we are quoting from different versions…

I don’t generally look at the KJV, because it’s not the most accurate translation I have available.

But, you have used that fact in an attempt to discredit me

That’s not an attempt to discredit you, that’s a refutation of your argument. Your argument is an interpretation of Scripture: showing that you can’t, actually, interpret Scripture, and don’t, actually, interact with the arguments presented against your interpretation is highly relevant in refuting your argument.

by claiming I cannot interpret scripture… do you not have enough faith in your own arguments?

I wouldn’t make them if I didn’t have faith in them. What I can’t understand is the relevance of this statement.

The King James Version does list teaching before baptism in verse 19,

No, the KJV says “Teach all the nations,” instead of the more accurate, “make disciples.” The Greek word in for the KJV’s “teach” in verse 19 is completely different than the Greek word for the KJV’s “teaching” in verse 20.

then qualifies what that teaching is to encompass in verse 20.

It’s a different word playing a different grammatical role, and the KJV is a mistranslation.

Furthermore, AS PER YOUR USUAL, you ignored the strongest argument presented: that Matthew 28:19-20 make no temporal or chronological distinction whatsoever.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Since you are so adamantly against non-substantive arguments, why did you fail to substantiate your claim that infant baptism was a practice of the Church “before the Apostles were dead”. You can’t.

Those were already substantiated on the first page of this thread. I suggest you read more closely, since you’ve ignored the vast majority of the arguments presented against yours.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

It is up to you to defend your position more completely and more reasonably than I have.

We could say nothing at all and accomplish that.

Jeremy

 

[mikeledes]

** Bibleapologits**
Just because John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, doesn’t necessarily mean he was regenerated. John the Baptist was a “prophet” such as Jonah, or Balaam

.

Luke 1:15"… and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb

The clear indication of the verse is that John will experience a continuous indwelling of the Holy Spirit, beginning in his mother’s womb. In other words, it’s not just a momentary indwelling, a kind of spiritual hit and run. So a person that is essentially a temple of the Holy Spirit is not regenerated? Is not the Holy Spirit the agent of regeneration?

1 Corinthians 6:11

"…but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God "

So you mean to tell me that an unregenerated sinner can have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

The baptism John is referring to in Matthew 3:14 is the water baptism of repentance, not spiritual baptism. This water baptism, John’s baptism, was a ritual that symbolized the repentance from one’s sins. Although John may have been filled with the Holy Spirit since his mother’s womb, it does not necessarily mean that he did not commit sins that he needed to repent from .

God Bless

 

[mikeledes]

John 3:5

" Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God"

John 3:22 (Right after explaining Born-Again)

“After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and BAPTIZED”

Jesus makes clear that the water he was referring to in John 3:5 was the water of baptism by immediately engaging in a BAPTISMAL ministry. This is the only place in the Gospel of John and in all the other gospels in which Jesus engaged in a baptismal ministry and it is mentioned immediately AFTER he explained that being born again means being born of WATER and the Spirit. Where in the Bible does it ever use water as an image of natural birth?

Titus 3:5
… but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Hmm… by the washing AND the Spirit? That sounds like John 3:5.

Acts 9:17-18:
“… Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.”

So Ananias told Paul that he was going to be healed from his blindness and be filled with the Holy Spirit. The next verse states that he was healed and that he was baptized, and hence equating being filled with the Holy Spirit with water baptism.

Ephesians 4 clearly states that there is ONE BAPTISM. This baptism par exellence is water baptism (Acts 13:38). There is no artificial distinction between spiritual baptism and water baptism. Water is an external sign of an internal spiritual reality that occurs while one is being baptized.

We are not saved BY water baptism. We are saved by Christ THROUGH water baptism. So baptism is not a work by which we are saved. The blind man in John 9:1-7 was not healed by the saliva, clay, and water. He was healed by Christ THROUGH the saliva, clay, and water. Did Christ need these materials to heal the man? No! But he freely chose to use these materials in his healing of the Blind man. Similarly, God chose to use water baptism in the healing our souls.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I just want to add that faith in itself is a gift from God to man (Ephesians 2:8). See also:

John 6:65:

“And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”

Acts 18:27:

"… who, when he was come, he helped them much which had believed through grace

So we do not get grace because of our faith, as if it was some kind of payment.

God Bless

 

[Odell]

What connection are you making between the Syriac version of the New Testament, the Peshitta, and the Baptist religion?

Firstly, the Peshitta does not contain 2 Peter, 2 John, Jude or Revelation.

I wish John would respond to this. Why does his bible have these books? I dont think he can answer that.