Baptism...

[RobNY]

TheOpenTheist:

Paul’s statement that he “was NOT sent to baptize [as in water baptism from the immediate context], but to preach the gospel” shows that water baptism is at the very least NOT a part of the Gospel of the Uncircumcision that was committed to Paul (Gal 2:7). Water baptism for the remission of sins, though, clearly IS part of the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to Peter (Acts 2:38; Gal 2:8).

What’s this about multiple gospels? Gal 1:6-9

6 5 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! 7
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed

Paul seems to be talking of “the gospel of Christ.” Of course there isn’t another. There is only one gospel.

The Corinthians passage, I think, is being ripped severely out of context.

10 4 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. 12I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to 5 Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Kephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 136 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

This precedes it. Of course you weren’t baptized in the name of Paul. His rhetorical question refers back to the end of Matthew: they were baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Keeping in mind the call to not be divided, we continue: You said:

Yes he did. He did not do it for salvation or the remission of sins as Peter did we find out from what he wrote in his epistles concerning salvation. Paul realizes that water baptism is not a part of the gospel. In fact, he thanks God that he baptized no one else. If Paul’s message included water baptism for the remission of sins then there is no way that he could “thank God” for not having a part in helping people remit their sins.

But in context as we go further, I can’t help but think that’s a shallow read.

14 I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.

Because, referring back to the previous verses, people were making factions out of who baptized who. He is grieved by the divison these people are sowing by claming allegience to Paul or to other disciples, when they are united in Christ and baptized in the Trinitarian formula. He thanks God that he didn’t baptize them because they were forming a cult of devotion around the person who was baptizing, and causing divison to the body of Christ, depsite the fact that there is no divison in the Body of Christ. As Jesus prayed that they all may be one, wounding the unity of the Church is a grevious assault on Christ’s body. He gives thanks that he bapitzed none of them *because then none can say they were baptized in his name. *The second verse is vital to the first one, and it is part of the same sentence! Not only out of context, but severely so.

16(I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 7 8 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.

And this is the only verse that really presents a problem. In context it doesn’t invalid Christ’s words in the least. Remember, he’s talking about not causing division. “Christ did not send me to baptize…” referring back to how these people were taking the individual who baptized as being more important that the baptism, which is entry into the Body of Christ which suffers no disunity.

 

[RobNY]

Yes, he did indeed correct them. If water baptism were part of the gospel that Paul preached, which you claim is the case in contradiction to what Paul says about not being sent to baptize, then he could have easily wrote about how their thinking was flawed without saying “I was NOT sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”

Doesn’t the Bible also say “There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1) Oh gnoes!!!

I don’t “wrench” any verses out of context. If you believe that I do, then demonstrate that I do so. If you can’t show it don’t assert it. Read those passages in Numbers and Ezekiel. They are commands given by God to Israel to baptize with water. Water baptism is a work of the law. At the very least, you must say that water baptism is a work of some sort that you believe is essential to obtaining salvation in the “Catholic Church”. Do you deny that water baptism is a work??

Having not read those passages, I’ll offer this. Perhaps those baptisms were works of the law. But this baptism isn’t the same baptism as the old baptism. Unless you claim they are the same thing. As John the Baptist notes in Matt 3:11 (also see Luke 3:16)

11 I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. 8

That sounds like a mighty different baptism. The Spirit and fire, naturally evokes the image of purification. This baptism isn’t merely going to be water, it is also going to be purifying, actually and really purifying.

EDIT:
An image of fire refining… Malachi 3:2-3

2 But who will endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears? For he is like the refiner’s fire, or like the fuller’s lye. 3 He will sit refining and purifying (silver), and he will purify the sons of Levi, Refining them like gold or like silver that they may offer due sacrifice to the LORD.

And this Ezekiel verse, perhaps this is what you were referring to? Ezekiel 36:25-27

25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. 27 I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

CARose said

if one would like an assurance of God’s grace, why not follow the form given to us by Christ himself?

I a following what Christ gave to the Body of Christ through Paul. I have much more than assurance. There is no need for me to perform any work to increase my assurance because I am secure in Christ. I am sealed until the Day of Redemption (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:14). I am complete in Him (Col 2:10) once I have accepted the gospel. No work I do can add or improve my standing with God.

you claimed

It’s like the difference between standing at an ATM and a slot machine. Both can give you the $20 you need to go to the movies, but one is a given, the other a gamble.

That comparison is horrible. I rebuke you in the name of the Lord. What God tells us through Paul’s epistles is enough for anyone to be secure and know that they are justified by faith apart from any works, including the work of water baptism. Believing what God has said about those of us in the body of Christ is not a “gamble” in any way. Its blasphemous to compare the certainty of God’s promises made to the Body to a slot machine. God is faithful to His promise that those who believe the gospel are baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) and are sealed until the Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30) EVERY time. Not every once in a great while like a slot machine.

you go on

Even so, once we receive the $20 (or the grace from God), we can either use it wisely or we can fritter it away.

Grace is not a “thing” that you use. Grace is simply God showing man His favor apart from any merit on man’s part. God shows grace to those who do not deserve it, which is everyone.

you claimed

It is in this way that one can lose their salvation, by turning their back on God, through sin.

Even if I get angry at God, say through some bad philosophy or theology (like a determinist view of God which says that God ordains every evil act that ever occurs) or for other reasons, God’s grace will still have its desired effect - to seal me until the Day of Redemption.

you claimed

No-one, nothing can seperate us from God, for He is all-powerful and all loving. If Satan himself has designs on us, all his power amounts to nothing if we merely turn to God for assistance in our struggle.

However, if we turn away from God, and leave Him of our own accord through the acts of sin, we can condemn ourselves to an eternity of seperation if we die without repenting our sins.

You say one thing and then you immediately say another thing. Which is it? Is God true to his Word and will seal us until the Day of Redemption? Do you really believe that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ? Or do you believe contrary to those statements that if we sin bad enough or do not confess all of our sins before death (and also before the Day of Redemption) that we can become separated from the love of God? That we can sin bad enough to lose our salvation and go to Hell?

For those of us in the Body of Christ, this membership is the only one that truly counts for salvation, not membership in the Roman Catholic Church. We in the Body we are forgiven of ALL sins past, present and future (Eph 4:32). Since we are no longer under the law (Rom 3:19-26) we can no longer be identified by God as liars, adulterers, thiefs, idolators etc. For “where there is no law, there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15). God identifies us as innocent, just as His Son is, when we are in Christ.

you claimed

And the graces given during baptism assist us in living a life in closer accord with Christ. Wouldn’t it be a better world if we used these gifts more fully?]

Water baptism does no such thing. The gifts that God gives His Body so that we can grow up into the perfect man, that we can grow into maturity, are the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11-13). If you want a better world then believe the promises Christ gave to Paul for us and identify the prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in your area so that they can all work together to make the Body of Christ better. This is the way we can create “a better world”.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

RobNY said

What’s this about multiple gospels? Gal 1:6-9

Paul seems to be talking of “the gospel of Christ.” Of course there isn’t another. There is only one gospel.

Yes, there is only ONE gospel in effect at any time, one gospel that is to be preached and believed. The gospel that Christ committed to Paul (Gal 2:7) was the one in effect during the time Paul wrote Galatians. The gospel that Christ committed to Peter (Gal 2:8) was no longer in effect. James, Peter and John understood this, as did many of the Circumcision Believers, but some of them did not want to accept that God was taking a different route with different “house rules” in order to save the lost world. These people were the judaizers and also referred to as “men from James” in Gal 2. They told the Gentile members of the Body that they must circumcise and obey the Law of Moses, which is not a requirement for the Body of Christ.

you said

The Corinthians passage, I think, is being ripped severely out of context.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

Concerning 1 Cor 1:17 where Paul proclaims that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel you said

this is the only verse that really presents a problem. In context it doesn’t invalid Christ’s words in the least.

Hmmmmmmm…let’s see whether or not this statement Paul makes is contrary to the gospel that Christ committed to Peter.

Peter proclaims the Gospel of the Circumcision saying “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” Paul proclaims the Gospel of the Uncircumcision saying “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel”. Yep, there’s no difference there! Its just that Peter’s message requires water baptism for the remission of sins and Paul’s message does not require water baptism.

you said

Remember, he’s talking about not causing division.

Not in 1 Cor 1:17 he isn’t! Paul could have made just as good an argument against factions without including 1 Cor 1:17. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 1:17 what Christ sent him to do, which is to preach the gospel committed to him which does not include water baptism.

“Christ did not send me to baptize…” referring back to how these people were taking the individual who baptized as being more important that the baptism

The fact that Paul tells us that Christ did not send him to baptize does much more than refer back to what he was just talking about. It informs us that the gospel that Christ committed to him does not include water baptism as part of its content. And I am thankful that he did say this because it helps to point out another significant difference between the gospel committed to him and the gospel committed to Peter.

you finished by saying

which is entry into the Body of Christ which suffers no disunity.

Being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body is what makes us members of the Body of Christ. Not water baptism. 1 Cor 12:13 points this out.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free – and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[Shlemele]

DISCLAMER: PROTESTANT JOKE!!!

So in your church do they sprinkle, pour, or hold you under untill you REALLY repent?

Congrats on the baptism!

 

[TheOpenTheist]

RobNY said

Doesn’t the Bible also say “There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1) Oh gnoes!!!

Ps 14:1 says The fool has said in his heart “There is no God”…

I am not talking about what fools say we are to believe. I am talking about what Christ revealed to Paul for us to believe and follow.

you claimed

Having not read those passages, I’ll offer this. Perhaps those baptisms were works of the law. But this baptism isn’t the same baptism as the old baptism. Unless you claim they are the same thing.

They are works. Thats all the similarities needed in order to demonstrate that water baptism is not a requirement for the Body of Christ.

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called [us] with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Titus 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us

Our works have no place in our justification according to the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. The Gospel of the Circumcision that Peter preached did include works as part of their being justified (Jam 2:24).

you said

As John the Baptist notes in Matt 3:11 (also see Luke 3:16)
That sounds like a mighty different baptism. The Spirit and fire, naturally evokes the image of purification. This baptism isn’t merely going to be water, it is also going to be purifying, actually and really purifying.

The fire that Christ baptizes with mentioned in Matt 3:11 is not referring to the purification of the believing Jew. It is referring to the destruction of the unbelieving Jews. Just prior to this passage John the Baptist calls the Pharisees and Sadducees a “brood of vipers” and then gives the warning which includes the destruction of the chaff by fire mentioned.

Matthew 3:11-12 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 “His winnowing fan [is] in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

you said

And this Ezekiel verse, perhaps this is what you were referring to? Ezekiel 36:25-27

Yes, that was the passage I was referring to. It shows that water baptism is a work that Israel was commanded to perform for purification.

 

[pnewton]

TheOpenTheist:

The reason why is because

1. 
   *]God’s inspired Word informs us that Christ committed to Peter the Gospel of the Circumcision and committed to Paul the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gal 2:7-8).

1. 
   I will quote this verse to show the difference between it, and what you said,
   
   "7.On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, *
   8. for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, *9. and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, 8 who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. "
   This verse does not say what you claimed above, that is merely your interpretation of it (and you had to change the wording to get that).
   
   As to me trying to understand your position, of course I am not. Being Catholic I look to teaching to those who have authority. The above is a good example as to how a few word changes can lead one on a rather bizarre tangent.
   
   Another good example is when you said
   

   What you ignored in my response is the fact that Paul proclaimed to the Corinthians that he “was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel.” This shows that Paul’s gospel does not include water baptism.

   No it does not show that. You are making another assumption. All it shows is that he was not sent to baptize. A carpenter may say that he came not to pour a foundation but to frame the house. This would not imply that pouring the foundation has no part in home-building.
   
   I do not question the gospel of Paul and I do not see any absolute contradictions between him and the words of Christ.
   
   BTW - If you can not refer by my correct user name, please do not use short contractions. I value my good name.

 

[Mickey]

For since man is of twofold nature soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God. having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body washed with pure water. When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both thou canst not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He saith, Except a man be born anew (and He adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Neither doth he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who hath declared it: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and alms-deeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture saith that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith, the body also might by the water partake of the grace.

But if any one wishes to know why the grace is given by water and not by a different element, let him take up the Divine Scriptures and he shall learn. For water is a grand thing, and the noblest of the four visible elements of the world. Heaven is the dwelling-place of Angels, but the heavens are from the waters: the earth is the place of men, but the earth is from the waters: and before the whole six days’ formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world, and Jordan the beginning of the Gospel tidings: for Israel deliverance from Pharaoh was through the sea, and for the world deliverance from sins by the was of water with the word of God. Where a covenant is made with any, there is water also. After the flood, a covenant was made with Noah: a covenant for Israel from Mount Sinai, but with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop. Elias is taken up, but not apart from water: for first he crosses the Jordan, then in a chariot mounts the heaven. The high-priest is first washed, then offers incense; for Aaron first washed, then was made high-priest: for how could one who had not yet been purified by water pray for the rest? Also as a symbol of Baptism there was a layer set apart within the Tabernacle. Baptism is the end of the Old Testament, and beginning of the New. For its author was John, than whom was none greater among them that are born of women. The end he was of the Prophets: for all the Prophets and the law were until John: but of the Gospel history he was the first-fruit. For it saith, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, &c.: John came baptising in the wilderness. You may mention Elias the Tishbite who was taken up into heaven, yet he is not greater than John: Enoch was translated, but he is not greater than John: Moses was a very great lawgiver, and all the Prophets were admirable, but not greater than John. It is not I that dare to compare Prophets with Prophets: but their Master and ours, the Lord Jesus, declared it: Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John: He saith not “among them that are born of virgins,” but of women. The comparison is between the great servant and his fellow-servants: but the pre-eminence and the grace of the Son is beyond comparison with servants. Seest thou how great a man God chose as the first minister of this grace?–a man possessing nothing, and a lover of the desert, yet no hater of mankind: who ate locusts, and winged his soul for heaven: feeding upon honey, and speaking things both sweeter and more salutary than honey: clothed with a garment of camel’s hair, and shewing in himself the pattern of the ascetic life; who also was sanctified by the Holy Ghost while yet he was carried in his mother’s womb. Jeremiah was sanctified, but did not prophesy, in the womb: John alone while carried in the womb leaped for joy, and though he saw not with the eyes of flesh, knew his Master by the Spirit: for since the grace of Baptism was great, it required greatness in its founder also.

St Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lecture 3:4-6)

 

[NonDenom]

Just so that you do not get confused. No one is born again or saved by baptism. People will throw verses at you and say that proves it. The first verse is John 3:5 and says “born of water”
The other is Titus 3:5 which says " the washing of regeneration" Neither one means baptism.
I want you to see that Heb.4:12 says "for the word of God is alive and active. Read now Ephesians 5;25-26. Notice how God Sanctifys and cleanses his church (individual people) “by the washing of the water of the Word”. It is the Word of God that is alive and active that changes a heart so that they become born again. Titus 3:5 also says he saved us , not the works that we have done.

God Bless

Hi
Read 1 Peter 3:20-21
Thanks

 

[LSK]

Blackstone goes against every early Church Father and every Christian from the time of Jesus Himself when he says that those Holy Scripture passages did not refer to Baptism.

Singing Beauty, if your Baptism is in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit and prescribed in the Holy Scriptures you will be reborn and regenerated, cleansed of the original sin you inherited from Adam and Eve and you will begin to walk in the sunlight of the spirit. Congratulations, my sister in Christ. I have no doubt you are on your way to someday sitting with all your Catholic Christian Brothers and Sisters and enjoying the entire banquet offered by the Bride of Christ.

 

[RobNY]

TheOpenTheist:

Yes, there is only ONE gospel in effect at any time, one gospel that is to be preached and believed.

It merely says there is one gospel, not one gospel in effect at any time.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

Obviously. That was why I proceeded to argue for it.

Peter proclaims the Gospel of the Circumcision saying “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” Paul proclaims the Gospel of the Uncircumcision saying “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel”. Yep, there’s no difference there! Its just that Peter’s message requires water baptism for the remission of sins and Paul’s message does not require water baptism.

Saying “Christ did not send me to baptize,” isn’t a repudiation of baptism. Indeed, Christ didn’t send him to baptize, he sent all the Apostles to baptize (contrast this with Paul’s specific position as “apostle of the gentiles”). Keeping in the context of the entire passage, Paul’s baptism is no more meritorious than Kepha’s baptism, or Apollos’ baptism because they all baptize to the same end. Because Paul wasn’t sent personally to baptize, there is no reason for him to insist that he baptize the people there, especially since they were causing division because of it. Obviously Apollos and Kepha were already baptizing, so he isn’t depriving them of baptism, they could be baptized by other people. He was just putting a stop to the division and disunity.

You are making an arbitrary distinction about “The Gospel of Circumcision” and “The Gospel of Uncircumcision.” But do you listen to Paul’s own words? "I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to 5 Paul… or “I belong to Kephas,”” but we don’t belong to either of them, and we shouldn’t be making divisons and rivalries between the supposedly separate gospels of Paul and Peter. Not that there is another.

Being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body is what makes us members of the Body of Christ. Not water baptism. 1 Cor 12:13 points this out.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free – and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

It seems to me that you are making an arbitrary separation between water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit-- they’re the same thing. When we are baptized with water, in the Trinitarian formula, it is a sacrament-- a visible sign that confers actual grace. This single verse doesn’t say anything that contradicts Catholic teaching…

Ps 14:1 says The fool has said in his heart “There is no God”…

I am not talking about what fools say we are to believe. I am talking about what Christ revealed to Paul for us to believe and follow.

Did you miss my point? I apologize if my tongue in cheek joke was inappropriate.

I can pull out a verse or a part of a verse from its context, as in the 14th Psalm, and claim that it contradicts the Bible elsewhere. I believe that you are likewise pulling these verses out of context.

 

[RobNY]

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

In context, someone who works of their own strength (i.e., without the grace of God), accomplishes nothing, while someone who doesn’t rely on works of his own strength.

Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Specifically, a man is not justified by circumcision. Duh. Baptism is like circumcision only in that it is a prerequiste for salvation. It is not like circumcision because its effectiveness is not based on following the law, but on the grace of the Holy Spirit which is conferred on the receiver by baptism. Circumcision, in this regard, was devoid of actual purification. Baptism, in this regard, cleanses and purifies the soul.

1Peter 3:21

21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Baptism doesn’t have its effectiveness because it cleans the flesh (much in the way that circumcision only effected the flesh), but it has its effectiveness because it purges the soul from sin.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

And in baptism we are saved by the grace of the Holy Spirit. What’s your point? “Not from works…” not of ourselves, but of God. I agree. This still doesn’t contradict anything.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called [us] with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Again… this is becoming exasperating. Obviously God didn’t decide to save us and call us based on our works, because prior to faith our works are meaningless as they aren’t of the grace of God.

Titus 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us

Again… same thing here.

Our works have no place in our justification according to the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. The Gospel of the Circumcision that Peter preached did include works as part of their being justified (Jam 2:24).

Faith apart from works is dead. Obviously. Works without faith are empty, but with faith are fruitful. Why do you attempt to find contradictions where none exist?

 

[E.E.N.S]

NonDenom:

Hi
Read 1 Peter 3:20-21
Thanks

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

pnewton said

I will quote this verse [Gal 2:7-8] to show the difference between it, and what you said,

"7.On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised,
8. for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, 9. and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. "
This verse does not say what you claimed above, that is merely your interpretation of it (and you had to change the wording to get that).

I am using the correct translation of the passage, which is gospel of. Its in the genitive case.

Concerning the word Gospel followed or preceded by a genitive (e.g. gospel of the Kingdom, gospel of the grace of God, word of the gospel, …).

In every case, unless Gal. 2:7 be the exception, the genitive is understood as the genitive of description (see any Greek concordance), which is in fact the primary use of the genitive in Koine Greek [Dana & Mantey, ß85, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament]. Thus “gospel of the uncircumcision” MUST be taken as “the uncircumcision gospel”, and “gospel of the circumcision” MUST be taken as “the circumcision gospel”, unless the context forces otherwise. There is such a thing as the accusative genitive (e.g. worship of God = worship toward God), gospel with the genitive never occurs that way elsewhere, and the normative hermeneutic stiplulates that the burden of proof is always on the exceptional usage, which burden must then be borne by the context. If the context fails to provide that burden, e.g. if the context is merely neutral, then the exceptional usage MUST be rejected. EVERY aspect of usage AND context reinforces this genitive of description in this passage. The inescapable conclusion is that TWO gospel contents are in view here: the circumcision gospel, that gospel to both Jew and Gentile in which the Jew is distinguished, i.e. in which circumcision and the ceremonies have a place; and the uncircumcision gospel, that gospel to both Jew and Gentile in which the Jew is not distinguished, i.e. in which circumcision and the ceremonies have no place, and therefore a gospel in which the Jew is just another nation, i.e. another “Gentile”.

POINT. In the very context Paul says “truth of the gospel” (Verse 5): does this mean “truth to or toward the gospel” or “gospel truth”. Clearly it is the latter, i.e. a particular kind of truth.

you said

As to me trying to understand your position, of course I am not. Being Catholic I look to teaching to those who have authority. The above is a good example as to how a few word changes can lead one on a rather bizarre tangent.

The reality is, as has been experienced by and attested by many, is that the Catholic bishops and priests and popes have no more teaching authority than any other serious student of God’s Word and theological history. If a priest or bishop or pope claims that Gal 2:7-8 is not rightly translated “gospel of the uncircumcision” and “gospel of the circumcision” then they are ignoring the rules of Greek grammar and have disqualified themselves from being taken seriously.

you said

No [1 Cor 1:17] does not show that [Paul’s gospel does not include water baptism]. You are making another assumption. All it shows is that he was not sent to baptize. A carpenter may say that he came not to pour a foundation but to frame the house. This would not imply that pouring the foundation has no part in home-building.

Thats a bad analogy. We know that Peter’s gospel contained the promise of the remission of sins through repentance and water baptism. Part of the content of Peter’s Gospel of the Circumcision was “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). That being the case, Peter could not have said truthfully that he was not sent to water baptize, but to preach the gospel as Paul said in 1 Cor 1:17. If water baptism is part of the good news that Paul preached then it would be untrue that Christ did not send him to baptize with water.

you said

I do not question the gospel of Paul and I do not see any absolute contradictions between him and the words of Christ.

Well, of course you don’t! Because you have already concluded beforehand that there are no significant differences between the gospel Christ committed to Peter and the gospel Christ committed to Paul you will not recognize any differences when you come upon them.

 

[RyanL]

Let’s take a look at St. Paul’s “unique” gospel concerning Baptism…

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.

Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized (“baptizo”) in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, “baptizo” does not mean immersed in these verses.

Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.

Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.

Much thanks to www.scripturecatholic.com

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[pnewton]

TheOpenTheist:

I am using the correct translation of the passage, which is gospel of. Its in the genitive case.

The correct translation? Which one do you think is divinely ordained? I also checked the NASB which gave it the same genitive use I quoted. The truth is that the genitive/ablative can have a myriad of nuances, one of which is yours. I would just not discount the words of my Savior based on such one such choice in one translation of one passage. But then that is why Christ had to leave behind a church to steer away from wuch heresy as this dual gospel stuff.

Thats a bad analogy. …Peter could not have said truthfully that he was not sent to water baptize, but to preach the gospel as Paul said in 1 Cor 1:17. If water baptism is part of the good news that Paul preached then it would be untrue that Christ did not send him to baptize with water.

You believe that because you continue assume that if Paul preached the gospel and that included baptism, he would also be baptizing. If you are so intent on it being bad, why, grammatically speaking is it?

Well, of course you don’t! Because you have already concluded beforehand that there are no significant differences between the gospel Christ committed to Peter and the gospel Christ committed to Paul.

Yes, I have concluded, based on reading the Bible for years before I became Catholic. I believed the Bible to be the sole source of truth at the time. I agreed with Paul that in salvation there is no difference between Jew or Greek. I refuse to discount the teaching of Jesus in some bizarre mini-dispensationlistic spout of theology. If I were to go that far, why not just dicount the teaching of Paul as being for those specific churches to which he wrote?

 

[Mickey]

TheOpenTheist:

The result of infant baptism is a wet baby, and nothing more than that.

**
Tertullian
**[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 A.D. 203]).

**

Hippolytus
**

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).

**

Recognitions of Clement
**
But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: “Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 A.D. 221]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 A.D. 248]).

**

Cyprian
**[l]t behooves those to be baptized . . . so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God . . . because it is written “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (*Epistles *72 [73]: 21 A.D. 252]).

As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253]).

 

[Mickey]

TheOpenTheist:

The reality is, as has been experienced by and attested by many, is that the Catholic bishops and priests and popes have no more teaching authority than any other serious student of God’s Word and theological history.

Here is the reality.

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church.

(St Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[bookgirl]

They are works. Thats all the similarities needed in order to demonstrate that water baptism is not a requirement for the Body of Christ.

Actually, the person being baptised is not doing anything at all. The person doing the baptising is “acting”, yes, but just as a physical tool by which the grace flows through. Just as a carpenter making a chair would use a hammer. “Being saved” by “declaring Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Saviour” is an action you yourself make. So in essence, the baptised person is not actually doing ANYTHING, not even knowingly receiving the saving grace. If you say that they need to know they are receiving that grace in order for it to be valid, then that is an action that you are requiring of the person being saved in order for God’s grace to work. In all actuality, the Catholic view of being saved - baptism - requires absolutely zero works, it is freely given by God. Yours on the other hand, requires an action – a WORK – from you before the grace can be received, which is actually a contradiction with your “no works” philosophy.

 

[Mickey]

TheOpenTheist:

Being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body is what makes us members of the Body of Christ. Not water baptism.

The priest has to ask God to send the grace of the Holy Spirit on the water to make it the womb of a sacramental birth. For Christ said to Nicodemus, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. Just as in human birth the mother’s womb receives a seed, but the hand of God fashions it, so in baptism the water becomes a womb for the one who is being born but the grace of the Spirit fashions the baptized in a second birth.

(Theodore of Mopsuestia Catechetical Homilies)