Baptism of babies & infants

[placido]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. I was amazed when I read your rebuttals. Didn’t you absorb what I wrote on post 496. I very clearly explained how you distort Scripture by quoting only a portion of It. And you did it AGAIN! ?!?!?

Okay, let us get down to the job and see whether what you are saying holds water.

( Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and 1Peter 3:21). If 1Pet 3:21 means water baptism by which one get saved,(born again) then pope Peter didn’t know about it because he says in 1Pet 1:23, “For you have been “BORN AGAIN” -----through the living and enduring WORD of God.”

Hallow? Did you break free from that “either/or” cage yet?
Brother, it is not either/or, it is both/and. That is why what Peter says in 1 Peter 1:23 does not contradict what he says in 1 Peter 3:21. You are showing ripe fruits of private interpretation of Scripture Peter warned against.

That’s not water baptism! You asked, Is repentance without baptism enough? According to John in Mat 3:11, baptism IS repentance an outward sign of turning to God.

Confusion becomes the order of the day when you put all the emphasis on a single verse. What about this: “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). You see both (repentance) and (baptism); not either (repentance) or (baptism).
What seems not to have dawned on you yet is the fact that John is talking about two different baptisms: the preparatory, pre-Christian baptism of repentance (not in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) and the Christian baptism that was still to come. You are confused because you prefer John’s preparatory baptism and ignore One Baptism of Christianity.

I already said that you misquote Acts 2:38 “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” but verse 44 is what you fail to quote. Sin is committed against God, He does the forgiving not baptism.-----

My goodness! What has Acts 2:44 to do with this discussion?

“sola Paulus” Come on now placido! let’s not diminish Paul after all he wrote most of the N.T. he was never called “dull” or “Satan” by Jesus as was Peter. ------

Based on Paul alone you concluded baptism is irrelevant. Because Paul did not emphasize baptism, you ignore Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19; Because of Paul you ignore Jesus’s teaching in John 3:5; Because of Paul you ignore Peter’s teaching in Acts 2:38; Because of Paul you ignore Peter’s teaching in 1 Peter 3:21. That is “sola Paulus” my brother.

What’s your understanding about Simon? He got baptized Acts 8:13 but didn’t get born again. Why not?

That is according to your weird understanding of “born again” (based on sola Paulus), and your weird understanding is contrary to what Jesus taught in John 3:5.

Also others got baptized Acts 8:12 but in verse 16 none of them had received the Holy Spirit. Isn’t the Holy Spirit supposed to be received at baptism? ------- Read Mat 25:31-32.

Supposed by you, right? According to the Bible the Holy Spirit is received both at baptism and after baptism (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6). It is both/and, not either/or.

Hi Mickey, welcome to the discussion. I’m afraid that placido didn’t get the job done as you say. I had to correct his comments on post 510. Instead of being on the side line, why don’t you jump in too. Thanks ED O.

Yes, you tried but ended up demonstrating your misunderstanding of Scriptures. That was expected.

placido

 

[Mickey]

Hi Mickey, welcome to the discussion. I’m afraid that placido didn’t get the job done as you say. I had to correct his comments on post 510. Instead of being on the side line, why don’t you jump in too. Thanks ED O.

I have been in this discussion earlier (many times). In fact, I responded to you once or twice but you ignored me.

You are grossly mistaken. Placido is “getting the job done” and I am enjoying his eloquent defense of the apostolic understanding of baptism (adult and infant). It is you who seems confused because you have embraced some strange interpretation of this holy sacrament---------not even the early reformers believed as you do!

 

[placido]

EdOsiecki:

“sola Paulus” Come on now placido! let’s not diminish Paul after all he wrote most of the N.T. he was never called “dull” or “Satan” by Jesus as was Peter. ------

Oh my! Is that now Paul versus Peter (who is “Satan”)? But it seems this “Satan” was trusted both by Jesus and the apostle:

• John 1:42 - “Satan” is named Cephas (Peter) which means rock
• Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds His Church on “Satan” Peter/Rock
• Matthew 16:19 - Jesus gives “Satan” the keys of the kingdom (power to loose and bind)
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus entrusts the care of His sheep to “Satan”
• Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells “Satan” to strengthen his brethren
• Acts 1:15-26 - “Satan” presided over the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas
• Acts 2:14-42 - “Satan” preached the first public sermon (Pentecost)
• Acts 3:6-8 - “Satan” performs the first miracle after Pentecost
• Acts 5:1-11 - “Satan” inflicts the first punishment (Ananias and Saphira)
• Acts 10:9-16 - It is revealed to “Satana” that Gentiles can be admitted into the Church
• Acts 10:44-48 - “Satan” baptizes the first Gentiles
  Are you happy now?
  Now yeah, back to the baptism of babies and infants.

placido

 

[Mickey]

let’s not diminish Paul after all he wrote most of the N.T. he was never called “dull” or “Satan” by Jesus as was Peter.

The Holy Orthodox Church celebrates a great feast every summer dedicated to
Ss Peter and Paul preceded by four weeks of prayer and fasting. Are you saying that one of these apostles is really Satan?!?

 

[Tomster]

Hi Placido, Thanks for your reply. I say this very respectfully, it seems to me that every time a Catholic sees the words “water or washing” to them, it always means water baptism which is far from the truth. That’s exactly what you are doing in Titus 3:5. Contrary to what you have been taught, no one is regenerated by water baptism. The Bible DOES NOT teach that and either does the first pope Peter. This is what he states in 1Pet 1:23 “For you have been “Born Again” ----through the living and enduring WORD of God.” (That’s not water baptism.) Here’s your problem. You quote 1Pet 3:21 ”Baptism now saves you“ But there’s more to that verse. It continues, “not the removal of dirt from your body but the PLEDGE OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARDS GOD” That’s what repentance means, the turning to God. When you quote only one half of a verse, it’s like my telling you that tomorrow you will get a million dollars. (the next day you would be expecting million dollars ) But when I say tomorrow you will get a million dollars, if you have the winning ticket, that makes a big difference, doesn’t it?. So 1Pet 3:21 very clearly means baptism by water is of repentance, otherwise Peter would be contradicting himself in 1:23. You quote Acts 22:16, “Be baptized and wash away your sins” You are making the same error again. There’s more to that verse. It continues with “calling on His (Jesus) name. It’s the calling of His name that saves and washes away the sins. Joel 2:32 “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” as well as Rom 10:13, John 3:16 and many more verses, The jailor in Acts 16:31 got saved by belief in the Lord Jesus. He then got baptized to show repentance. If there’s a Christian Baptism, as you say, that saves and the Holy Spirit is also received, then Jesus didn’t know about it. Acts 1:5, Jesus states, ”For John baptized with water but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." How then can the Holy Spirit be in John’s baptism too? ----- Please note that I haven’t replied to the above John 3:5. That’s the verse that caused all the baptism problems. I’ll deal with it later. ED O.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3444948&page=30

post # 's 436, 437, 440

 

[hosemonkey]

The Holy Orthodox Church celebrates a great feast every summer dedicated to

Ss Peter and Paul preceded by four weeks of prayer and fasting. Are you saying that one of these apostles is really Satan?!?

As I said in a previous post, EdOsiecki is a protestant, which means that he is his own Pope and can decide for himself what the Scriptures REALLY say. He is especially prone to be wrong because he claims to raised a Catholic, which means that his Catholic understanding probably stopped somewhere around his First Communion. He thereupon discovered that protestants had a much better understanding of Scripture than the entire Catholic Church, who merely codified and preserved Holy Scripture for nearly two thousand years. So, even though you guys have brilliantly explained the sacrament of Baptism to him, he still , as Pope to one, doesn’t see the light and chooses to follow his own interpretation. This is why protestantism has 30,000 + “denominations”, all “following the Holy Spirit” and all somehow disagreeing with one another. Satan loves division among Christians and really loves all the little “Popes” who “know” Scripture. Pray that he sees the light.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

By the way what I meant by that was there are more than 3 sacraments in the Catholic Faith.

Greetings rinnie, I find no disagreement in all of what you commented, I agree with your statement about Baptism. I was making an effort to point out that the Eastern Catholic Church do apply all 3 sacraments of initiation at one time during infancy. In the Latin Rite we apply all 3 sacraments to adults, to those who have completed their formation through an R.C.I.A program.

True there are 7 sacraments which apply to each Catholic christians stage in life, beginning at birth, single, married life to death. For each Christian Catholic God has his hand on the sacramental life during all stages in life, coming into the world, sustainment in the world, and leaving the world, God is present to each Christian who lives the sacramental life in Jesus Christ.

 

[rinnie]

Greetings rinnie, I find no disagreement in all of what you commented, I agree with your statement about Baptism. I was making an effort to point out that the Eastern Catholic Church do apply all 3 sacraments of initiation at one time during infancy. In the Latin Rite we apply all 3 sacraments to adults, to those who have completed their formation through an R.C.I.A program.

True there are 7 sacraments which apply to each Catholic christians stage in life, beginning at birth, single, married life to death. For each Christian Catholic God has his hand on the sacramental life during all stages in life, coming into the world, sustainment in the world, and leaving the world, God is present to each Christian who lives the sacramental life in Jesus Christ.

No problem Gabriel, I just need to really point what Baptism is in the RCC.

And yes I know Mickey told me that before. But I wasn’t sure if it was all three at Baptism or Communion and Confirmation were just together. If forgot. BUt I do remember him telling me that.

A little off the subject but when does confession come in? Is it at a certain age, I forgot to ask him that and then It slipped my mind. BUt the main point is we all agree that Baptism is the process of pouring of the HS and rather it is given alone or with the other 3 sacraments it saves us from original sin. Thats all I wanted to point out. Like in my church we didn’t make confirmation until 8th grade. Holy communion and confession was at the same time in about 2nd grade.

Mick if you are out there you can help me with this!

But thanks Gabriel I always enjoy your responses and enjoy talking to you.

 

[Mickey]

Mick if you are out there you can help me with this!

First confession for the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox usually depends on the individual’s spiritual father. But it is usually around the same time as the Roman Catholic first Communion–age eightish.

 

[rinnie]

First confession for the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox usually depends on the individual’s spiritual father. But it is usually around the same time as the Roman Catholic first Communion–age eightish.

Thanks MIck, That would make sense. Because they would be about the right age of knowing right from wrong. Have a wonderful weekend my love!:hug1:

 

[EdOsiecki]

Okay, let us get down to the job and see whether what you are saying holds water.

Hallow? Did you break free from that “either/or” cage yet?
Brother, it is not either/or, it is both/and. That is why what Peter says in 1 Peter 1:23 does not contradict what he says in 1 Peter 3:21. You are showing ripe fruits of private interpretation of Scripture Peter warned against.

Confusion becomes the order of the day when you put all the emphasis on a single verse. What about this: “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). You see both (repentance) and (baptism); not either (repentance) or (baptism).
What seems not to have dawned on you yet is the fact that John is talking about two different baptisms: the preparatory, pre-Christian baptism of repentance (not in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) and the Christian baptism that was still to come. You are confused because you prefer John’s preparatory baptism and ignore One Baptism of Christianity.

My goodness! What has Acts 2:44 to do with this discussion?

Based on Paul alone you concluded baptism is irrelevant. Because Paul did not emphasize baptism, you ignore Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19; Because of Paul you ignore Jesus’s teaching in John 3:5; Because of Paul you ignore Peter’s teaching in Acts 2:38; Because of Paul you ignore Peter’s teaching in 1 Peter 3:21. That is “sola Paulus” my brother.

That is according to your weird understanding of “born again” (based on sola Paulus), and your weird understanding is contrary to what Jesus taught in John 3:5.

Supposed by you, right? According to the Bible the Holy Spirit is received both at baptism and after baptism (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6). It is both/and, not either/or.

Yes, you tried but ended up demonstrating your misunderstanding of Scriptures. That was expected.

placido

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. My rebuttal line (1) It very much holds water. ------Line (2) I’m not in a cage of either/or. I don’t inferred that here and I previously told you that I didn’t. Besides Jesus commands us to be baptized but not for the reason you think. In 1Pet 3:21 He states “that baptism now saves you”.(born again) according to you. In 1Pet 1:23, he states, “you have been born again through the living and enduring WORD of God.” Which is it that saves you, the “born again” in baptism or the “born again” by the Word of God? If you can’t see the contradiction here, you may be trapped in thinking that baptism does something which it does not do. Not my interpretation, it’s in the Bible read it.-------Line (3) Confusion of the day ? Not really! When the truth is presented , I can understand why it hurts so let’s not twist Scripture. Christian baptism hasn’t dawned on me yet? It then hasn’t for Paul either because in Ephesus way way after Pentecost Acts 19:4 , Paul states ”John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance” Wasn’t Christian baptism already then. No Holy Spirit here yet! Until Paul laid hands on them. Peter has a hard time making things clear as evidenced above and now watch this. In Acts 2:38, he says, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” He has you thinking that in baptism sins are forgiven. Right? In Acts 26:17-18, Jesus states,” I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive FORGIVENESS of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” Which is it forgiveness of sins in baptism or in Jesus? --------Line (4) My goodness! What has Acts 2:44 to do with this discussion? You are correct Nothing! It should be Acts 2;41, Sorry about that.-------Line (5) How many times must I tell you, I NEVER NEVER NEVER said that baptism is irrelevant, What I’m saying is that baptism is only a sign of repentance turning to God as it clearly states in Scripture but you claim that baptism makes one born again and sins are washed away, forgiven etc… You arrive at that from the incorrect interpretation of John 3:5 Yes! That Scripture does mention water but not baptism. Read from verse 6 on and you’ll see why it isn’t baptism. If it meant baptism, Jesus would have told Nicodemus to go see John and be baptized that’s how you’ll be born again.------Line (6) Why are you dogging my question about Simon? He was baptized did he received the Holy Spirit or not? Answer Yes! or No!. -------Line (7) Concerning the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:15 Peter and John arrived from Jerusalem to pray for newly BAPTIZED Christians (Acts 8:12) to receive the Holy Spirit. V16 because the Holy Spirit HAD NOT come unto them yet; they were baptized in the name of Jesus v17 Then Peter and John place their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. And my guess is that they spoke in tongues because Simon saw some kind of power that he wanted to buy. When Cornelius’ group received the Holy Spirit they too spoke in tongues as well as did the disciples did in Acts 19:6. ED O

 

[EdOsiecki]

Oh my! Is that now Paul versus Peter (who is “Satan”)? But it seems this “Satan” was trusted both by Jesus and the apostle:

• John 1:42 - “Satan” is named Cephas (Peter) which means rock
• Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds His Church on “Satan” Peter/Rock
• Matthew 16:19 - Jesus gives “Satan” the keys of the kingdom (power to loose and bind)
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus entrusts the care of His sheep to “Satan”
• Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells “Satan” to strengthen his brethren
• Acts 1:15-26 - “Satan” presided over the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas
• Acts 2:14-42 - “Satan” preached the first public sermon (Pentecost)
• Acts 3:6-8 - “Satan” performs the first miracle after Pentecost
• Acts 5:1-11 - “Satan” inflicts the first punishment (Ananias and Saphira)
• Acts 10:9-16 - It is revealed to “Satana” that Gentiles can be admitted into the Church
• Acts 10:44-48 - “Satan” baptizes the first Gentiles
  Are you happy now?
  Now yeah, back to the baptism of babies and infants.

placido

my! Is that now Paul versus Peter (who is “Satan”)? But it seems this “Satan” was trusted both by Jesus and the apostle:

• John 1:42 - “Satan” is named Cephas (Peter) which means rock
  (You are correct and Saul became Paul)
• Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds His Church on “Satan” Peter/Rock
  ( You are wrong read Catholic Catechism # 424)
• Matthew 16:19 - Jesus gives “Satan” the keys of the kingdom (power to loose and bind)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus entrusts the care of His sheep to “Satan”
  (You are correct Peter had sheeps Paul had churches)
• Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells “Satan” to strengthen his brethren
  (You are correct, Jesus prayed to reinstate (strengthen) Peter)
• Acts 1:15-26 - “Satan” presided over the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas
  (You are correct, Peter makes his first mistake, Mat 19:28 twelve judges
  thrones, Rev 21:14 twelve apostles names. Matthias is13? )
• Acts 2:14-42 - “Satan” preached the first public sermon (Pentecost)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 3:6-8 - “Satan” performs the first miracle after Pentecost
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 5:1-11 - “Satan” inflicts the first punishment (Ananias and Saphira)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 10:9-16 - It is revealed to “Satana” that Gentiles can be admitted into the Church
  (You are correct, Jesus personally told Paul the same)
• Acts 10:44-48 - “Satan” baptizes the first Gentiles
  (You are correct, Paul was more concerned about people getting saved)
  Are you happy now?
  (Absolutely not, because of your above tirade, it makes me think that you are
  angry at me and I don’t like that. I want to be your friend.) ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Hi Placido, thanks for your reply. My answer to the above

Oh my! Is that now Paul versus Peter (who is “Satan”)? But it seems this “Satan” was trusted both by Jesus and the apostle:

• John 1:42 - “Satan” is named Cephas (Peter) which means rock
  (You are correct and Saul became Paul)
• Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds His Church on “Satan” Peter/Rock
  ( You are wrong read Catholic Catechism # 424)
• Matthew 16:19 - Jesus gives “Satan” the keys of the kingdom (power to loose and bind)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus entrusts the care of His sheep to “Satan”
  (You are correct Peter had sheeps Paul had churches)
• Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells “Satan” to strengthen his brethren
  (You are correct, Jesus prayed to reinstate (strengthen) Peter)
• Acts 1:15-26 - “Satan” presided over the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas
  (You are correct, Peter makes his first mistake, Mat 19:28 twelve judges
  thrones, Rev 21:14 twelve apostles names. Matthias is13? )
• Acts 2:14-42 - “Satan” preached the first public sermon (Pentecost)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 3:6-8 - “Satan” performs the first miracle after Pentecost
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 5:1-11 - “Satan” inflicts the first punishment (Ananias and Saphira)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 10:9-16 - It is revealed to “Satana” that Gentiles can be admitted into the Church
  (You are correct, Jesus personally told Paul the same)
• Acts 10:44-48 - “Satan” baptizes the first Gentiles
  (You are correct, Paul was more concerned about people getting saved)
  Are you happy now?
  (Absolutely not, because of your above tirade, it makes me think that you are
  angry at me and I don’t like that. I want to be your friend.) ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Okay, let us get down to the job and see whether what you are saying holds water.

Hallow? Did you break free from that “either/or” cage yet?
Brother, it is not either/or, it is both/and. That is why what Peter says in 1 Peter 1:23 does not contradict what he says in 1 Peter 3:21. You are showing ripe fruits of private interpretation of Scripture Peter warned against.

Confusion becomes the order of the day when you put all the emphasis on a single verse. What about this: “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). You see both (repentance) and (baptism); not either (repentance) or (baptism).
What seems not to have dawned on you yet is the fact that John is talking about two different baptisms: the preparatory, pre-Christian baptism of repentance (not in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) and the Christian baptism that was still to come. You are confused because you prefer John’s preparatory baptism and ignore One Baptism of Christianity.

My goodness! What has Acts 2:44 to do with this discussion?

Based on Paul alone you concluded baptism is irrelevant. Because Paul did not emphasize baptism, you ignore Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19; Because of Paul you ignore Jesus’s teaching in John 3:5; Because of Paul you ignore Peter’s teaching in Acts 2:38; Because of Paul you ignore Peter’s teaching in 1 Peter 3:21. That is “sola Paulus” my brother.

That is according to your weird understanding of “born again” (based on sola Paulus), and your weird understanding is contrary to what Jesus taught in John 3:5.

Supposed by you, right? According to the Bible the Holy Spirit is received both at baptism and after baptism (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6). It is both/and, not either/or.

Yes, you tried but ended up demonstrating your misunderstanding of Scriptures. That was expected.

placido

Hi Placido, thanks for your reply and my answer to the above

Oh my! Is that now Paul versus Peter (who is “Satan”)? But it seems this “Satan” was trusted both by Jesus and the apostle:

• John 1:42 - “Satan” is named Cephas (Peter) which means rock
  (You are correct and Saul became Paul)
• Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds His Church on “Satan” Peter/Rock
  ( You are wrong read Catholic Catechism # 424)
• Matthew 16:19 - Jesus gives “Satan” the keys of the kingdom (power to loose and bind)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus entrusts the care of His sheep to “Satan”
  (You are correct Peter had sheeps Paul had churches)
• Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells “Satan” to strengthen his brethren
  (You are correct, Jesus prayed to reinstate (strengthen) Peter)
• Acts 1:15-26 - “Satan” presided over the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas
  (You are correct, Peter makes his first mistake, Mat 19:28 twelve judges
  thrones, Rev 21:14 twelve apostles names. Matthias is13? )
• Acts 2:14-42 - “Satan” preached the first public sermon (Pentecost)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 3:6-8 - “Satan” performs the first miracle after Pentecost
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 5:1-11 - “Satan” inflicts the first punishment (Ananias and Saphira)
  (You are correct, Paul hasn’t arrived yet)
• Acts 10:9-16 - It is revealed to “Satana” that Gentiles can be admitted into the Church
  (You are correct, Jesus personally told Paul the same)
• Acts 10:44-48 - “Satan” baptizes the first Gentiles
  (You are correct, Paul was more concerned about people getting saved)
  Are you happy now?
  (Absolutely not, because of your above tirade, it makes me think that you are
  angry at me and I don’t like that. I want to be your friend.) ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

As I said in a previous post, EdOsiecki is a protestant, which means that he is his own Pope and can decide for himself what the Scriptures REALLY say. He is especially prone to be wrong because he claims to raised a Catholic, which means that his Catholic understanding probably stopped somewhere around his First Communion. He thereupon discovered that protestants had a much better understanding of Scripture than the entire Catholic Church, who merely codified and preserved Holy Scripture for nearly two thousand years. So, even though you guys have brilliantly explained the sacrament of Baptism to him, he still , as Pope to one, doesn’t see the light and chooses to follow his own interpretation. This is why protestantism has 30,000 + “denominations”, all “following the Holy Spirit” and all somehow disagreeing with one another. Satan loves division among Christians and really loves all the little “Popes” who “know” Scripture. Pray that he sees the light.

Hi Hosemonkey, welcome to the discussion. Please don’t take this offensively, on post 437 you praise Rinnie but you add no Scriptures, on post 440 you praise Zundrah for now catching on but you add no Scriptures, on post 465 you praise Mercy Mia but you add no Scriptures. These are worthy and commendable praises, on post 466 I asked you to explain various baptisms, on post 467 you reply saying Pipper is right, but you add no Scriptures, on post 468 I asked you many Scriptural questions, on post 469 you reply that I’m contentious, but you add no Scriptures, on post 471 again, I asked you several Scriptural questions, on post 472 you reply with much to say ??? but you add no Scriptures, you immediately follow up on post 473 advising me to come back to the RC church, but you add no Scriptures and tell me why that I should., on post 487 I took time to explain God’s salvation plan for humanity starting with Adam & Eve all the way through the Bible to the book of Rev., on post 488 you reply advising me to read rinnie’s post on 478, but you add no Scriptures. and now here you are again. My question is this, and I very respectfully ask, can you in a cogent and lucid way explain to me do you ever read the Bible? Because you seem to lack Scripture knowledge. Am I correct? ED O.

 

[pipper]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. My rebuttal line (1) It very much holds water. ------Line (2) I’m not in a cage of either/or. I don’t inferred that here and I previously told you that I didn’t. Besides Jesus commands us to be baptized but not for the reason you think. In 1Pet 3:21 He states “that baptism now saves you”.(born again) according to you. In 1Pet 1:23, he states, “you have been born again through the living and enduring WORD of God.” Which is it that saves you, the “born again” in baptism or the “born again” by the Word of God? If you can’t see the contradiction here, you may be trapped in thinking that baptism does something which it does not do. Not my interpretation, it’s in the Bible read it.-------Line (3) Confusion of the day ? Not really! When the truth is presented , I can understand why it hurts so let’s not twist Scripture. Christian baptism hasn’t dawned on me yet? It then hasn’t for Paul either because in Ephesus way way after Pentecost Acts 19:4 , Paul states ”John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance” Wasn’t Christian baptism already then. No Holy Spirit here yet! Until Paul laid hands on them. Peter has a hard time making things clear as evidenced above and now watch this. In Acts 2:38, he says, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” He has you thinking that in baptism sins are forgiven. Right? In Acts 26:17-18, Jesus states,” I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive FORGIVENESS of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” Which is it forgiveness of sins in baptism or in Jesus? --------Line (4) My goodness! What has Acts 2:44 to do with this discussion? You are correct Nothing! It should be Acts 2;41, Sorry about that.-------Line (5) How many times must I tell you, I NEVER NEVER NEVER said that baptism is irrelevant, What I’m saying is that baptism is only a sign of repentance turning to God as it clearly states in Scripture but you claim that baptism makes one born again and sins are washed away, forgiven etc… You arrive at that from the incorrect interpretation of John 3:5 Yes! That Scripture does mention water but not baptism. Read from verse 6 on and you’ll see why it isn’t baptism. If it meant baptism, Jesus would have told Nicodemus to go see John and be baptized that’s how you’ll be born again.------Line (6) Why are you dogging my question about Simon? He was baptized did he received the Holy Spirit or not? Answer Yes! or No!. -------Line (7) Concerning the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:15 Peter and John arrived from Jerusalem to pray for newly BAPTIZED Christians (Acts 8:12) to receive the Holy Spirit. V16 because the Holy Spirit HAD NOT come unto them yet; they were baptized in the name of Jesus v17 Then Peter and John place their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. And my wguess is that they spoke in tongues because Simon saw some kind of power that he wanted to buy. When Cornelius’ group received the Holy Spirit they too spoke in tongues as well as did the disciples did in Acts 19:6. ED O

Ed you are making a mistake there, the scripture you quoted about “being saved by the Word of God” is not refering to being saved by the bible. It means we are saved by Jesus himself, who is the Word of God. Please read the first chapter of John, where it is made very clear the the Word (Logos) is Jesus, and not the bible which is the word (lower case “w”).

Read it please, the bible is not God, the bible has not existed from the begining etc. Even though you may accuse us Catholics of idolatry, it is you who are the idolator by calling a book “God”.

PS, please explain how the bible can “save” anyone?

 

[pipper]

Hi Hosemonkey, welcome to the discussion. Please don’t take this offensively, on post 437 you praise Rinnie but you add no Scriptures, on post 440 you praise Zundrah for now catching on but you add no Scriptures, on post 465 you praise Mercy Mia but you add no Scriptures. These are worthy and commendable praises, on post 466 I asked you to explain various baptisms, on post 467 you reply saying Pipper is right, but you add no Scriptures, on post 468 I asked you many Scriptural questions, on post 469 you reply that I’m contentious, but you add no Scriptures, on post 471 again, I asked you several Scriptural questions, on post 472 you reply with much to say ??? but you add no Scriptures, you immediately follow up on post 473 advising me to come back to the RC church, but you add no Scriptures and tell me why that I should., on post 487 I took time to explain God’s salvation plan for humanity starting with Adam & Eve all the way through the Bible to the book of Rev., on post 488 you reply advising me to read rinnie’s post on 478, but you add no Scriptures. and now here you are again. My question is this, and I very respectfully ask, can you in a cogent and lucid way explain to me do you ever read the Bible? Because you seem to lack Scripture knowledge. Am I correct? ED O.

Ed why should hosemonkey quote a bible verse with every sentence, every post? He is not a sola scriptura bible worshipper.

 

[placido]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. My rebuttal line (1) It very much holds water. ------Line (2) I’m not in a cage of either/or.

You are and I will tell you why I believe so, in a moment.

I don’t inferred that here and I previously told you that I didn’t. Besides Jesus commands us to be baptized but not for the reason you think.

And you will rather keep the “true” reason secret . why not reveal it here for everybody to know it?

In 1Pet 3:21 He states “that baptism now saves you”.(born again) according to you. In 1Pet 1:23, he states, “you have been born again through the living and enduring WORD of God.” Which is it that saves you, the “born again” in baptism or the “born again” by the Word of God?

You see, you are still the obedient slave of either/or and it seems you are unwilling to break free. According to you it is “either” baptism “or” the Word of God, but for us, baptism can not be separated from the Word of God because it is the Word of God that commands baptism.

placido

 

[placido]

If you can’t see the contradiction here, you may be trapped in thinking that baptism does something which it does not do. Not my interpretation, it’s in the Bible read it.

Okay, I have just done so! Can we continue now?

-------Line (3) Confusion of the day ? Not really! When the truth is presented, I can understand why it hurts so let’s not twist Scripture. Christian baptism hasn’t dawned on me yet? It then hasn’t for Paul either because in Ephesus way way after Pentecost Acts 19:4 , Paul states ”John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance”

Okay, let met try this. Acts 19: 1While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” 3 He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” 4 Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”.
Can’t you see people who were baptized with John’s baptism were re-baptized? Why?
Because John’s baptism was different from Christian baptism.

Wasn’t Christian baptism already then.

Brother, Christian baptism is different from John’s baptism (as already shown above).

No Holy Spirit here yet! Until Paul laid hands on them. Peter has a hard time making things clear as evidenced above and now watch this. In Acts 2:38, he says, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” He has you thinking that in baptism sins are forgiven. Right?

Why are you doing that to me? Can’t you see it says “repent AND be baptized”? It is not “repent or be baptized – it goes together, but you remain the obedient slave of “either/or”.

In Acts 26:17-18, Jesus states,” I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive FORGIVENESS of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” Which is it forgiveness of sins in baptism or in Jesus?

Either Christ or baptism … it gets tiresome sometimes.
Brother, Jesus’ commission of Paul (as recounted in Acts 26:17-18) does not contradict neither does it nullify His commission of the 11 apostles (Matthew 28:19). But you, because of your “sola Paulus”, are trying to create a dichotomy between Jesus (in Acts 26:17-18) and Jesus (in Matthew 28:19).
But I am still hopefull you will eventualy see your error and correct it in time.

placido

 

[placido]

--------Line (4) My goodness! What has Acts 2:44 to do with this discussion? You are correct Nothing! It should be Acts 2;41, Sorry about that.

Apology accepted. The verse shows clearly that receiving the Word has to be followed by baptism because the Word commands baptism. In fact, not to be baptized shows one did not really receive the Word because baptism is part of the Word.

-------Line (5) How many times must I tell you, I NEVER NEVER NEVER said that baptism is irrelevant,

Yes, you never never never said that, but that seems to me, it is what you are implying. Okay, if that is not what you are implying, tell me in what way is baptism useful.

What I’m saying is that baptism is only a sign of repentance turning to God as it clearly states in Scripture but you claim that baptism makes one born again and sins are washed away, forgiven etc.

No, I did not claim that. The Bible says so:
Titus 3:5 - We are saved by the washing of regeneration (regeneration = rebirth = born again).
Acts 22:16 - “Be baptized and wash away your sins”
1 Peter 3:21 - “Baptism now saves you”

You arrive at that from the incorrect interpretation of John 3:5 Yes! That Scripture does mention water but not baptism. Read from verse 6 on and you’ll see why it isn’t baptism. If it meant baptism, Jesus would have told Nicodemus to go see John and be baptized that’s how you’ll be born again.

Your interpretation is tenable only if one isolates John 3:5 from the rest of Scripture.
John 3:5 - You must be born of water and of Spirit to enter the kingdom; Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins; Titus 3:5 - We are saved by the washing of regeneration (regeneration = rebirth = born again); Acts 22:16 - “Be baptized and wash away your sins”; 1 Peter 3:21 - “Baptism now saves you”.

------Line (6) Why are you dogging my question about Simon? He was baptized did he received the Holy Spirit or not? Answer Yes! or No!.

No, I am not dodging. Simon was baptized and did not receive the Holy Spirit – and he was not the only one. Contrary to your private opinion, the Bible says the Holy Spirit can be received during baptism: “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5-6)
AND after baptism: “Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:14-17).

-------Line (7) Concerning the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:15 Peter and John arrived from Jerusalem to pray for newly BAPTIZED Christians (Acts 8:12) to receive the Holy Spirit. V16 because the Holy Spirit HAD NOT come unto them yet; they were baptized in the name of Jesus v17 Then Peter and John place their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. And my guess is that they spoke in tongues because Simon saw some kind of power that he wanted to buy. When Cornelius’ group received the Holy Spirit they too spoke in tongues as well as did the disciples did in Acts 19:6. ED O.

Yes they too spoke in tongues.

placido