E
- Status
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
‘Equally I reject any way of judging and interpreting Holy Scripture which takes no account of the Church’s Tradition, of the analogy of faith and the norms laid down by the Apostolic See; which adheres to the theories of the rationalists, and presumptuously and rashly accepts textual criticism as the only supreme rule’ (Pope St Pius X, Oath against the errors of Modernism, 1910)
‘The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent …has always this purpose in mind that in the Church errors be removed and the purity of the Gospel be preserved’ (The General Council of Trent, 4th Session, Decree on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received, 1546)
‘In faith and morals, affecting the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Holy Mother the Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scriptures. Therefore no one is allowed to interpret the same Sacred Scriptures contrary to this sense, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers’ (The First Vatican General Council, 3rd Session, Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, On the Catholic Faith, 1870)
‘Where the sense of biblical texts has been authoritatively declared, either by the sacred authors themselves under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as in many passages of the New Testament, or by the Church assisted by the same Holy Spirit, whether by means of a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal authority, it should be the special and religious care of the Catholic interpreter to explain them in the same way and to prove by the help which science supplies that it is the only interpretation which can rightly be approved according to the laws of sound exegesis’ (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, 1893)
P
panevino
Guest
When combined with Jesus word “born of water and spirit”
and combined with that guy phillip I think who was baptized clearly in water after declaration of belief In Jesus when they were passing river.
Combined with “holy water” verse inOT and peters words about baptism now saves
then the blood water from Jesus side.
It’s pretty convincng that it’s not symbolic
[/quote]
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
benedictus2 
Regular Member
Forum Supporter Join Date: February 17, 2008
Location: God’s earth.
Posts: 2,999
Religion: Catholic
To All the watchers:
I’m now in a debate with Benedictus 2. Before I comment about what he has posted on 725 which is a reply to my post 701. I would like to remind you that Benedictus2 made some foolish statements and comments.---- ( 1 ) On post 688 he claims that the speaking in tongues is mostly used by evil spirits. HOW does he know that? Did he take a survey?----( 2 ) There was a discussion that the apostles can’t over-ride Jesus’ statements. I sincerely believe that because it makes perfect sense. But when I asked for Scripture confirmation because I was curious if there is one, he had much fun belittling me post 623.----- ( 3 ) All through this thread I’ve asked Nathan show me by Scripture that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, but on post 645 Benedictus2 in essence which contradicts Nathan ,he said infusion is not Catholic theology. In defense of Nathan which I accept, Nathan then presents on post 667 that the word infusion may not be in Scripture but that it IS Catholic theology per the Catechism. I don’t want to belittle Benedictus2 but please judge his comments below accordingly.
His reply on post 725 to my post 701 He states;
“Since you asked here is another reply to this post. I have already replied so had already “challenged” your thinking.”
MY RESPONSE: That’s FALSE. Nowhere between post 701 and 725 does he challenge me
Originally Posted by EdOsiecki
God’s salvation plan for ALL mankind is twofold. (a) Substitutionary death
Wrong. It is not substitutionary death although it could be misinterpreted in that way.
For one thing, please explain how Christ’s dying would cause us to live. I would very much like to hear your take on this one.
MY RESPONSE: He states, “wrong” but does not say why. In his next sentence doesn’t he know that?
Ed’s quote
(b) Blood for atonement (a) Instead of people dying because of sin, in the O. T. animals were substituted.
The blood of the animals were not sacrified as a reparation for sin. The Jews had a very high respect for life. They do not believe in killing even animals.
In Jewish belief, in the blood is the life (spirit) of the creature. So what they do is they drain the blood from the animal and offer that blood (which is its life) back to God.
You misunderstand animal sacrifice completely
MY RESPONSE: He says Jews don’t kill animals. Then in his next sentence they do??? He then tells me that I misunderstand animal sacrifice. Then repeats almost word for word what I told him about animal sacrifice on post 701
Ed’s quote
In the N. T. Jesus is substituted. (b) in the O. T. animal’s blood for atonement, N. T. Jesus’ Blood does so.
AS FOLLOWS: Adam & Eve were re-clothed from leaves to with animal’s skins. WHY? Animals died/blood. From Moses’ time Animals died/blood N. T. Jesus our Lamb died /Blood. Mat. 26:28, Jesus said, ”This is my BLOOD of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the FORGIVENESS of sins.”
I am sorry but this exegesis is so way off the mark I can’t even begin to start…
.
MY RESPONSE: Because he knows very well that what I say here is truth and he has NO answer when it comes to the truth
Ed’s quote
Acts 20:28, “—church of God which He bought with His BLOOD.”----Rom. 3:25, “God presented Him as a sacrifice—through faith in His BLOOD.”----Rom. 5:9, “Since we have now been justified by His BLOOD–.”----Eph. 1:7, “In Him we have redemption through His BLOOD.”---- Eph. 2:13, “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the BLOOD of Christ.”----Col. 1:20, “—by making peace through His BLOOD shed on the cross.“ ----Heb. 9:12, Jesus, “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own BLOOD.”----Heb. 9:22, “Without the shedding of blood there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins.” Heb. 10:19, As a result, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus.”----1 Pet. 1:19, We were not redeemed by silver or gold, “but with the precious BLOOD of Christ, a Lamb without blemish or defect.”----Rev. 1:5, “To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His BLOOD.”----Rev. 7:14, “ These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the BLOOD of the Lamb.”
We have no issue with the verses above.Only with your interpretation of them. Yes indeed we have been washed clean by His blood. We never ever said other wise. We have always said that what enables the water to cleans us is by virtue of death and ressurection.
MY RESPONSE: He says it’s only my interpretation of these verses that he has a problem with but doesn’t tell me his supposedly correct interpretation of them.
Ed’s quote
PLEASE NOTE; Jesus above did not say, “This is my BLOOD and WATER BAPTISM of the new covenant, which is poured out for the FORGIVENESS of sins.---- PLEASE NOTE: the past tense we were bought, redeemed, justified, freed of sins by the BLOOD-
Indeed we have been redeemed, justified and freed from sin by Baptism by the merit of His death and resurrection.
MY RESPONSE: He doesn’t tell me why Jesus never included “water baptism” in his statement if it supposed to forgive sins.
Ed’s quote
In the O. T. they had original sins too, where they baptized? NO! They entered the community by circumcision.
Aaah this is where you are wrong. Circumsion was not meant to remove original sin. Circumcisioin is a sign of God’s covenant but it was never meant to be a forgiveness for sins. Forgiveness of sins came only with Christ.
MY RESPONSE: I very well know that Circumcision was not meant to forgive sins. My point here is, how did the Jews then deal with what the Catholic church claims that “water” baptism forgives original sin, when the Jews never “water” baptized .ED O.
Regular Member
Forum Supporter Join Date: February 17, 2008
Location: God’s earth.
Posts: 2,999
Religion: Catholic
To All the watchers:
I’m now in a debate with Benedictus 2. Before I comment about what he has posted on 725 which is a reply to my post 701. I would like to remind you that Benedictus2 made some foolish statements and comments.---- ( 1 ) On post 688 he claims that the speaking in tongues is mostly used by evil spirits. HOW does he know that? Did he take a survey?----( 2 ) There was a discussion that the apostles can’t over-ride Jesus’ statements. I sincerely believe that because it makes perfect sense. But when I asked for Scripture confirmation because I was curious if there is one, he had much fun belittling me post 623.----- ( 3 ) All through this thread I’ve asked Nathan show me by Scripture that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, but on post 645 Benedictus2 in essence which contradicts Nathan ,he said infusion is not Catholic theology. In defense of Nathan which I accept, Nathan then presents on post 667 that the word infusion may not be in Scripture but that it IS Catholic theology per the Catechism. I don’t want to belittle Benedictus2 but please judge his comments below accordingly.
His reply on post 725 to my post 701 He states;
“Since you asked here is another reply to this post. I have already replied so had already “challenged” your thinking.”
MY RESPONSE: That’s FALSE. Nowhere between post 701 and 725 does he challenge me
Originally Posted by EdOsiecki
God’s salvation plan for ALL mankind is twofold. (a) Substitutionary death
Wrong. It is not substitutionary death although it could be misinterpreted in that way.
For one thing, please explain how Christ’s dying would cause us to live. I would very much like to hear your take on this one.
MY RESPONSE: He states, “wrong” but does not say why. In his next sentence doesn’t he know that?
Ed’s quote
(b) Blood for atonement (a) Instead of people dying because of sin, in the O. T. animals were substituted.
The blood of the animals were not sacrified as a reparation for sin. The Jews had a very high respect for life. They do not believe in killing even animals.
In Jewish belief, in the blood is the life (spirit) of the creature. So what they do is they drain the blood from the animal and offer that blood (which is its life) back to God.
You misunderstand animal sacrifice completely
MY RESPONSE: He says Jews don’t kill animals. Then in his next sentence they do??? He then tells me that I misunderstand animal sacrifice. Then repeats almost word for word what I told him about animal sacrifice on post 701
Ed’s quote
In the N. T. Jesus is substituted. (b) in the O. T. animal’s blood for atonement, N. T. Jesus’ Blood does so.
AS FOLLOWS: Adam & Eve were re-clothed from leaves to with animal’s skins. WHY? Animals died/blood. From Moses’ time Animals died/blood N. T. Jesus our Lamb died /Blood. Mat. 26:28, Jesus said, ”This is my BLOOD of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the FORGIVENESS of sins.”
I am sorry but this exegesis is so way off the mark I can’t even begin to start…
.
MY RESPONSE: Because he knows very well that what I say here is truth and he has NO answer when it comes to the truth
Ed’s quote
Acts 20:28, “—church of God which He bought with His BLOOD.”----Rom. 3:25, “God presented Him as a sacrifice—through faith in His BLOOD.”----Rom. 5:9, “Since we have now been justified by His BLOOD–.”----Eph. 1:7, “In Him we have redemption through His BLOOD.”---- Eph. 2:13, “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the BLOOD of Christ.”----Col. 1:20, “—by making peace through His BLOOD shed on the cross.“ ----Heb. 9:12, Jesus, “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own BLOOD.”----Heb. 9:22, “Without the shedding of blood there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins.” Heb. 10:19, As a result, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus.”----1 Pet. 1:19, We were not redeemed by silver or gold, “but with the precious BLOOD of Christ, a Lamb without blemish or defect.”----Rev. 1:5, “To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His BLOOD.”----Rev. 7:14, “ These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the BLOOD of the Lamb.”
We have no issue with the verses above.Only with your interpretation of them. Yes indeed we have been washed clean by His blood. We never ever said other wise. We have always said that what enables the water to cleans us is by virtue of death and ressurection.
MY RESPONSE: He says it’s only my interpretation of these verses that he has a problem with but doesn’t tell me his supposedly correct interpretation of them.
Ed’s quote
PLEASE NOTE; Jesus above did not say, “This is my BLOOD and WATER BAPTISM of the new covenant, which is poured out for the FORGIVENESS of sins.---- PLEASE NOTE: the past tense we were bought, redeemed, justified, freed of sins by the BLOOD-
Indeed we have been redeemed, justified and freed from sin by Baptism by the merit of His death and resurrection.
MY RESPONSE: He doesn’t tell me why Jesus never included “water baptism” in his statement if it supposed to forgive sins.
Ed’s quote
In the O. T. they had original sins too, where they baptized? NO! They entered the community by circumcision.
Aaah this is where you are wrong. Circumsion was not meant to remove original sin. Circumcisioin is a sign of God’s covenant but it was never meant to be a forgiveness for sins. Forgiveness of sins came only with Christ.
MY RESPONSE: I very well know that Circumcision was not meant to forgive sins. My point here is, how did the Jews then deal with what the Catholic church claims that “water” baptism forgives original sin, when the Jews never “water” baptized .ED O.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Panevino,when Jesus states, “Born of Water” How do you get baptism out of the word water? If Jesus meant “water” baptism , wouldn’t it have been much easier for Him to say, unless a man is baptized and the Spirit. There’s not one Scripture in the Bible that means “water” baptism forgives sins. NOT ONE! Every Scripture has something added to it. Exp.Get up be baptized and wash your sins away,CALLING ON HIS NAME. It’s the calling of his name that washes away the sins
Now John 1:12, "Yet to all who received him, to those who belived in HIS NAME, he gave the right to become children of God. There’s nothing said here about “water” baptism, by believing in His name they became children of God.
When Peter says,"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you (here comes the addition)----but a pledge of good conscience. ( which means repentance)
If “water” baptism saves a person making them born again then Peter would be contradicting himself 1 Pet 1:23 "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed. but of imperishable , through the living and enduring WORD of GOD. He does not say a thing about “water” baptism
To the contrary there are numerous of Scriptures that stand alone nothing added to it that shows that sins are forgiven by the Blood Rev 1;5 “We are freed from our sins by His Blood”. If you read what I posted on 701 God started the Blood for the forgiveness of sins with Adam & Eve, Heb 9:22 very clearly states, “without the shedding of Blood their is no forgiveness of sins”. So then how can “water” baptism forgive sins? ED O.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
John 3:5
“5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” [Douay-Rheims Translation]
There it is, but I guess you would call this a heretical translation, right?
P
panevino
Guest
What about
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
the full verse also says “by the resurection of Christ”
this combined water with the blood the way it was shown to all on the cross
Per my post 709 I say Christian baptism is more than johns as it is made in name of trinity, which I assume invokes the atonement made by Jesus/blood. Along with belief of the recipient.
I still cannot get past what Jesus said
must be born of water and spirit
seperating this the way u do is torturous
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Baptism didn’t exist at that point, as I’m sure you know. The use of this symbol by Peter is that the water destroys sin and saves us. The waters of the flood destroyed all of the sinners and saved Noah and his family from being in sin themselves; this is what Peter means by making this reference.But everyone who was baptized in the water of the flood died…
B
Bob4BVM
Guest
ED-
Yes, even MORE than that, we are ADOPTED by God as His sons & daughters ! We are made family with The Most High !
It’s bigger than our own narrow minds can even grasp.
Amazingly, the great God who needs no praise from us, actually establishes a COVENANT with us. We are BOUND to Him and He is BOUND to us. The nearest corollary I can think of is marriage, but it is far deeper with God.
Don’t you ever wonder why Christ insisted that John baptize Him in the Jordan ?
Christ, God, the Son of the Living God.
Do you think he needed baptism ?
Of course not.
Just like when Jesus established the Holy Eucharist, He was TEACHING us, by His own example, to do something which He wanted us to repeat and practice.
In being baptized Himself, He was showing us what he wanted us to do , by example.
The only times that Jesus would give us such examples by His own actions, was when He knew it was very important for us to follow His example.
Ed, I have to ask WHY is it that you feel a need to even question Baptism ? I have had similar discussions with Evangelical / fundamentalist friends, and they also are very repulsed by the Catholic understanding of Baptism. As they are by the Catholic understanding of Holy Eucharist. But none of them has answered my question - why ?
On either subject.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
‘A wise man hateth not the commandments and justices, and he shall not be dashed in pieces as a ship in a storm’ (Eccl 33:2)
‘Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (Jn 3:5)
‘Wonder not that I said to thee, you must be born again’ (Jn 3:7)
‘Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony’ (Jn 3:11)
‘Happy is the sacrament of our water, in that, by washing away the sins of our earthly blindness, we are set free, (and admitted) into eternal life! …But we, little fishes, after the example of our IXTHUS Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in (that) water’ (Tertullian, c.100 A.D.)
‘A man is dead before he receives the Name of the Son of God, but, when he receives the seal, he puts off death and receives life. The seal, therefore is water. The dead go down into the water and come out of it living’ (The Shepherd of Hermas,c.200 A.D.)
B
Bob4BVM
Guest
Very good question, Zach !The natural causes are contrasted with baptism in John, the natural causes are “of the flesh” while baptism is of “water and the Spirit” which is different from the flesh [Jn 3:5-7].
Baptism is not the source of regeneration? What do you make of this:
Titus 3:5
“5 [H]e saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.”
B
Bob4BVM
Guest
Yeah, most definitely NOT symbolic.
I am so sick of people outside the Church rattling on and on and ON about how none of the Sacraments mean anything, because they are all symbolic…
Jesus did not come among us to bring us a bunch of metaphors and symbols…He came here to show us the extent of the Father’s love for us. And He had no intention of leaving us orphans when He ascended to Heaven either—that is why He establised the Sacraments- outward signs that actually effect (make present) what they represent.
So WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE spend this much time obsessing over a case against Baptism or any of the other Sacraments ???
Could it be because they find themselves in a place where they do not have valid Sacraments ? Then they should ask their church leaders why not ! If their leaders WALKED AWAY FROM the Sacraments - be it 500, 200, 100, or 5 years ago…maybe they are following the wrong leader.
As for the present discussion, I still have to ask- WHY are we having it ? Because all Christian baptism, if done in the name of the Trinity, is valid.
B
Bob4BVM
Guest
Saw this somewhere, thought it applies:
“How much of scripture is man willing to disregard in the search for a faith which is acceptable to him ?”
“How much of scripture is man willing to disregard in the search for a faith which is acceptable to him ?”
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
P
panevino
Guest
Will have to retypehard to do on iPhone
P
panevino
Guest
It’s very easy for me to see water here for baptism, given the following
- Peters clear comparison of water in flood and 8 saved by water. And then immediately saying that it prefigure baptism that now saves.
- That guy that is given a christian baptism in a river they were passing after belief in Jesus ( can’t remeber the verse)
- Jesus being baptized in water
- The words holy water in the OT
5.Moses name meaning “drew from water” stated in the bible
6 blood and water on the cross
Particularly when that interpretation ignores the above “slap in the face” clear spiritual parallels and adopts the versus that describe a mass of people as a sea/river/water (and then bend that to refer to human birth). Your interpretation of John 3:5 is the bigger leap don’t you agree? I can’t see how you could not agree
I agree with nathans interpretation of the word believe and obedience. Otherwise we ignore the need to be born of “water and spirit” together.
Also I do read the above verse to say he gave them the right to become… Not necessarily they became the children of god.
The next scentence says by resurection of Christ. So baptism in water now saves… By resurection of Christ (blood/water combined here clearly to me as shown on the cross along with the word saved)
Jesus says born again to nicodemus and then says This is achieved through being born of water and spirit.
I agree with you about the crucifixion And the atonement made for forgiveness of sins any Christian would.
As Jesus says born of water and spirit
can’t be water alone.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
For adults the baptism of desire can take the place of baptism of water:
‘Nor do I put a catholic catechumen burning with divine love before a baptized heretic…For the centurian Cornelius, not yet baptized, is better than Simon baptized. For he was filled with the Holy Spirit before baptism, but the other, after baptism was filled with the evil spirit’ (St Augustine)
'For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (Jn 3:5), made also an exception in their favour, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father Who is in heaven’ (St Augustine)
‘We have indeed, likewise a second font (itself, that is, one with the former) of blood; concerning which the Lord said, ‘I have to be baptized with a baptism’ (Lk 12:50), when He had had been baptized already. For He had come ‘by means of water and blood’, just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wounds in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who are bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost’ (Tertullian)
‘Nor do I put a catholic catechumen burning with divine love before a baptized heretic…For the centurian Cornelius, not yet baptized, is better than Simon baptized. For he was filled with the Holy Spirit before baptism, but the other, after baptism was filled with the evil spirit’ (St Augustine)
'For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (Jn 3:5), made also an exception in their favour, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father Who is in heaven’ (St Augustine)
‘We have indeed, likewise a second font (itself, that is, one with the former) of blood; concerning which the Lord said, ‘I have to be baptized with a baptism’ (Lk 12:50), when He had had been baptized already. For He had come ‘by means of water and blood’, just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wounds in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who are bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost’ (Tertullian)
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Paul is writing that baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you (not corresponding to those who were destroyed).But everyone who was baptized in the water of the flood died…
- Status