Baptism... And the True Church

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,
Hey… we agree on something!
:clapping: :bounce: :whacky: :tiphat: :dancing:

John
www.gideonsword.net

As I told AllForHim last week, “Isn’t this the 7th sign?!?”

 

[Eden]

I’m still waiting to find out who amongst the Anabaptists taught that infant baptism is a badge of the Anti-Christ (post #138) and in which post it was proven that Mr. Whitsitt is an erroneous historian (#137).

 

[Eden]

From a Baptist website:

“Most of the early church fathers simply assumed that baptized infants who die in infancy go to heaven, while unbaptized infants do not. These significant Christian leaders and thinkers, including figures such as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo, taught the doctrine of baptismal regeneration – a belief still held by the Roman Catholic Church and most Eastern Orthodox churches.”

sbcbaptistpress.org/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1679

It’s interesting to see a Baptist acknowledge that the Early Church Fathers taught baptismal regeneration and acknowledge that continuity in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and yet, still claim to be teaching Christian truths about baptism as a Baptist.

 

[Eden]

Why only Baptists have the authority to baptize:

**

Water Baptism and Proper Administrator

It is here where many would depart from us upon the truth of baptism. Some would accuse us of hatred for all other denominations. This however, is not true. We feel that the Word of God gives authority only to a Baptist church for the administration of baptism. Please bear with us as we examine the Scriptures.

Authority

For anyone to perform an action of the government, he must be given authority to do so by that government. Not just anyone can perform the action of the Secretary of Defence. This authority is given to someone by the President of the United States. Not just anyone has the right to arrest someone. This belongs to the law enforcement department. So it is with baptism. God appoints whom he would to administer baptism. If you do not believe this you are forced to say that just about anyone can baptize! The drunk on the street; the woman in the house of ill-repute; the Masonic order; the Catholic Church; or just anyone who wishes to do so. Certainly you do not believe this!

Church Authority

To find out who Christ gave this authority, turn with me in your Bible to Matt. 28: 19-20 where we read these words, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Here then is the commandment given to baptize. To whom was it given? When we find this answer we have the authority of baptism. In verse 16 of Matt. 28 we see to whom Jesus was investing the authority of baptism. “then the eleven went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.”

Historical Argument

These eleven composed the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, organized in His ministry (Matt. 16:18 & 18:17). Let us for a minute lay aside prejudice and see which church this was Jesus built. He did not build all the denominations existing today. They all teach different things and God is not the author of confusion. A mere look at history will give us the answer to this question.

History gives a founder for every denomination existing today except a Baptist church. Let us look: 1- The Catholic Church founded in 313 by Constantine; **2- **the Lutheran in 1520 by Martin Luther; 3- the episcopal in 1534 by King Henry VIII; **4- **the Presbyterian in 1536 by John Calvin; **5- **the Methodist in 1740 by John Wesley; 6- the Christian (Church of Christ, Disciples) in 1827 by Alexander Campbell; **7- **the Church of God in 1825 by John Winebrenner; **8- **the First Church of God in 1880 within the churches of God existing and founded by John Winebrenner in 1825. We could go on with every other denomination but we do not have the space.

Alexander Campbell, found-er of the Christian Church says the following of the Baptists: “The Baptists can trace their origin to Apostolic times and can produce unequivocal testimony of their existence in every century down to the present time.” So is the testimony of all honest historians of all denominations. The Baptist churches have no founder this side of Jesus Christ, therefore, it is the church to whom is given the ordinance of baptism:

baptistpillar.com/bd0205.htm **

Breaking news: The thirty-two Popes before Constantine were not Catholic. Miltiades was Pope during the period in which Constantine invented the Catholic Church (313 A.D.). Does anyone know when Pope Miltiades converted to Catholicism?

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

As far as Whitsitt, I said…

What website did you get that information from? If you are quoting from Whitsitt I can tell you that he has been proven to be an erroneous historian.

I have posted an article on my website with many references that disprove Whitsitt’s theory, and prove him to be an erroneous historian. You can read that article here.

As far as the statement about the “badge of the antichrist”…

I am looking for the reference in my books that the Waldensians are recorded as making that statement… until I find it… here are some others…

Thesis Martinainae 1589 Conclusion #89 ; These “oaths” were to promise to have their children baptized; the consequences for disobedience were anything from monetary penalties to public beatings.

It was said by Bishop Hooper in the late 16th century “Faiths of the World, vol. 2, p. 725”

“A Protestants Resolution” 1746 stated that the doctrine of forbidding priests to marry was the “badge of the Antichrist”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

It’s interesting to see a Baptist acknowledge that the Early Church Fathers taught baptismal regeneration and acknowledge that continuity in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and yet, still claim to be teaching Christian truths about baptism as a Baptist.

You are not adding anything to your argument.

To say that Augustine and his cohort Ambrose taught Baptismal Regeneration can be likened to me saying that I believe in Believers Baptism because Elias Keach did… that wouldn’t prove anything for the argument against baptismal regeneration…

Besides, you would only accuse me of being a conformist.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Breaking news: The thirty-two Popes before Constantine were not Catholic. Miltiades was Pope during the period in which Constantine invented the Catholic Church (313 A.D.). Does anyone know when Pope Miltiades converted to Catholicism?

Although the excerpt you quoted from the baptist website was very informative, and truthful… I fail to see the relation between that quote and the one I quoted above referring to the 32 popes… Your point elludes me.

I am assuming that you were intending that quote from the Baptist website to stand alone and mock itself as erroneous… I think it was a pretty good quote And it only reinforces what I have been saying all along on this thread.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Although the excerpt you quoted from the baptist website was very informative, and truthful… I fail to see the relation between that quote and the one I quoted above referring to the 32 popes… Your point elludes me.

I am assuming that you were intending that quote from the Baptist website to stand alone and mock itself as erroneous… I think it was a pretty good quote And it only reinforces what I have been saying all along on this thread.

John
www.gideonsword.net

So, were the 32 Popes before 313 A.D. Catholic?

 

[Eden]

Eden,

As far as Whitsitt, I said…

I have posted an article on my website with many references that disprove Whitsitt’s theory, and prove him to be an erroneous historian. You can read that article here.

As far as the statement about the “badge of the antichrist”…

I am looking for the reference in my books that the Waldensians are recorded as making that statement… until I find it… here are some others…

Thesis Martinainae 1589 Conclusion #89 ; These “oaths” were to promise to have their children baptized; the consequences for disobedience were anything from monetary penalties to public beatings.

It was said by Bishop Hooper in the late 16th century “Faiths of the World, vol. 2, p. 725”

“A Protestants Resolution” 1746 stated that the doctrine of forbidding priests to marry was the “badge of the Antichrist”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

1589? 1746? Do you have anything closer to the time of Christ?

 

[Church_Militant]

**Breaking news: The thirty-two Popes before Constantine were not Catholic. Miltiades was Pope during the period in which Constantine invented the Catholic Church (313 A.D.). Does anyone know when Pope Miltiades converted to Catholicism?

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm**

1- The Catholic Church founded in 313 by Constantine;

That’s revisionist bunk.

Constantine couldn’t found the Catholic Church because he wasn’t even baptised until just before he died, so he was barely Catholic and definitely could not have been Pope. In fact his mother was a Catholic long before he was!

Then of course there is the line of believers all the way back to Our Lord, many of whom gave their lives for the Catholic faith. I guess he would say that Polycarp, (who makes it plain that he was infant baptised in his statement to the Proconsul in his trial) and Ignatius of Antioch, whose letters call the church “the Catholic Church” and make such a huge deal about those not believing in the Eucharist as being heretics to be avoided, were also Baptists, yet modern Baptist doctrine does not align with what these men say they believe…and they were disciples of the apostle John.

I’m grateful to God that as a Catholic, I don’t have to turn off my brain in order to believe. Wonder what seminary this guy got his training in…
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[Eden]

Eden,

You are not adding anything to your argument.

To say that Augustine and his cohort Ambrose taught Baptismal Regeneration can be likened to me saying that I believe in Believers Baptism because Elias Keach did… that wouldn’t prove anything for the argument against baptismal regeneration…

Besides, you would only accuse me of being a conformist.

John
www.gideonsword.net

It is more interesting what you left out, than what you commented on. Please read the paragraph again:

“Most of the early church fathers simply assumed that baptized infants who die in infancy go to heaven, while unbaptized infants do not. These significant Christian leaders and thinkers, including figures such as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo, taught the doctrine of baptismal regeneration – a belief still held by the Roman Catholic Church and most Eastern Orthodox churches.”

 

[Odell]

Originally Posted by bibleapologist
Of course not, but the scripture is clear that faith is required for justification…
John

I Said
never said it wasnt. But what about children. Are you saying that they are going to hell, faith is required. You cant say that they go to hell because they dont have faith. So obviously faith isnt the only means of salvation now is it. Just like baptism is not the only means of salvation. ITs a process

You said

Odell,
Here we have a good example of how the misinterpretation of one doctrine, which seems miniscule… ends up facilitating a whole plethora of doctrinal divergence.

The whole pont of me saying what i said is to show you faith is not the only means of salvation. Do you agree or not?

you believe faith is necesary for salvation.
we believe baptism is necesary.

But we both believe faith and baptism is not the only means. So Just because a baby is not baptised does not mean he is hell bound. And just becasue he has no faith does not mean he is hell bound. We leave it up to the grace of God. But if the baby is baptised we know the baby has the grace of God.

So, a newborn baby is not a sinner… but that baby is born dead spiritually. That baby is not in need of forgiveness at birth, but is in need of a new birth… a spiritual new birth.

John if I told you I was spiritually dead would you think Im on my way to heaven?

You claim that a baby is born spriritually dead. And is in NEED of a new birth. (spriritual new birth) Can you please tell me how the baby is spiritualy reborn is it the babys faith? Catholics sugest it is baptism.

Odell, like I pointed out already, being born of water is your physical birth (from your mother’s womb). Jesus was saying that you must be born again… but first you must be born. Jesus was not referring to baptism.

How could someone be born again if they were not previously born from their mother’s womb?

John
www.gideonsword.net

Jesus “first you must be born of the womb the you must be born again.” Yea I didnt remember reading that. Is that what your bible says. Dosnt the bible say somthing about taking awaying and adding to scripture.

I thought water was water. and womb was womb. I mean why would Jesus make things so complicated why would he not have the word of God say what He GOD really intended. Now we have to figure this out. But John Catholics have a answer Jesus left us a Chruch to figure these things out. He wants us to know what scripture really means so it want be so confusing.

Now Jesus and the deciples they went out baptising right after Jesus explaining this. Thats kind of odd if baptising is not what he was talking about.

 

[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?

 

[jemfinch]

Yes, even children die… and no, I didn’t say that children don’t sin, in fact I said the complete opposite.

I didn’t ignore your post… you failed to realize my answer. Children are not sinless,

Then you believe in original sin?

but thier sin is a result of the state of spiritual death that they were born into… How can a person (child) be expected to do right when they are seperated from God? When that child is born, immediately death begins to work int their members, why? Because sin works death…

Then you believe in original sin? What you’ve stated above is an imprecise description of the Catholic doctrine of original sin.

The “baby” you are referring is the one that is supposedly in Adam’s loins as per Rationes Seminales, that is the one I questioned as “contracting” sin from Adam. It is very clear that “death”, not “sin” that is contracted from Adam.

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

The death that is passed on to all men, is not an actual thing… but the lack thereof. It is the lack of spiritual life… and it is this “lack of” spiritual life that enables the child to sin.

Certainly not. Adam had the spiritual life, and he was still “enabled to sin.”

Hebrews 7:5 doesn’t prove Rationes Seminales by substantiating that Levi existed in the loins of Abraham… that verse says that Levi came “out of the loins of Abraham”.

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.”

This is meant in a figuraltive biological sense, but not as Levi actually existed in Abraham’s loins… Come on jemfinch, you are really twisting the scripture to prove your point now.

You’re not even quoting the Scripture accurately, and you accuse me of twisting Scripture?

You’re right, but when I showed you how you neglected the possiblilty of an alternate understanding of death, you ignored it… in fact, by not taking Romans 5:12 out of text it becomes necessary to take into consideration the verses I showed you…

The two verses above indicate a state of death in a person while he is still alive physically… how do explain that?

How do I need to explain that? I’ve never denied the existence of a spiritual death.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

As I said before, according to Matthew 28:19, 20 a person is required to be taught before baptism…

And as I argued before, in an argument you completely ignored (as per your modus operandi of ignoring arguments you can’t refute), Matthew 28:19 establishes no such requirement. There is no chronological progression in Matthew 28:19-20:

“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.

You have no biblical justification for your interpretation of Matthew 28:19-20.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

I don’t believe we are discussing a matter of congnitive [sic] linguistics here.

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.

From what I can tell, the Catholic Church teaches that an infant is a sinner from conception… because that infant has inherited Adam’s sin.

Not actual sin, but original sin. The Catholic Church teaches that because the Bible teaches that: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” The spread of death to all men was a consequence of their sin in Adam.

What you are describing, (and what I am describing) is not sinfulness (disobedience) at all, we are describing a lack of spiritual wholeness. That is the state that a person is conceived in… spiritual death.

To further prove my point… the Apostle Paul writes concerning Isaac’s sons…

Isaac’s sons were not sinners before they were born, so they could not have inherited Adam’s sin, and neither the condemnation for sin.

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.”

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

It is superficial interpretations of scripture like this one that enables perverted doctrines such as Pedo-baptism.

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.

It is irresponsible to take verses out of text in the first place, but then to interpret them in such an elementary fashion is reckless.

So reckless you couldn’t even post a response, eh? If it’s so superficial and reckless, supporting a perverted doctrine, shouldn’t this be one of the easy posts for you to respond to?

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Although the excerpt you quoted from the baptist website was very informative, and truthful…

Truthful? Baptist successionism is a thoroughly disproven historical theory. It was constructed in the last couple centuries, and claims as predecessors of the baptists a number of groups (such as the Paulicians) that Baptists would anathemize today.

Baptist successionism is just another conspiracy theory like the ones I complained about a hundred posts ago.

Jeremy

 

[Eden]

So, were the 32 Popes before 313 A.D. Catholic?

Yes or no?

 

[mikeledes]

The interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21, Bibleapologist, is the obvious and straightforward one. I did not engage in any word games in order to try to explain away the obvious meaning of this passage. 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. 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. 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.

God Bless,
Michael