Debate with a Protestant on Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter CollegeKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm! Has this thread died now?

I’ve had a few more thoughts and I don’t want to waste them, so here they are anyway.

One problem with this biblejim guy is that he starts in the wrong place, and if you start there along with him you get sucked into his way of thinking. By that I mean he starts with Eph 4: ****one Lord, one faith, one baptism. ****His argument is to put is very crudely: - there can only be one type of baptism, so one of them (with water or with the Holy Spirit) has to go. He wants to dump baptism by water so he rubbishes it in various ways.
  1. It’s old covenant and therefore outdated.
  2. Philip’s baptism of the eunuch - Spirit baptism was not available for non-Jews at the time. Well that statement could do with some justifying
  3. Peter & Cornelius - Peter was mistaken **… Or could Peter have fallen back into his old ways like he did in: Galatians 2:11-12-13. Matthew 17:4 Matthew 16:22-23
    **Only a rhetorical question for biblejim. Pretty outrageous!
Whereas if you start with the Church’s teaching on the meaning of baptism from the Catechism you can then really understand what baptism with water is about and then understand Paul’s statement “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” in a different way.

There is also 1 Corinthians 15:29 where Paul, talking about the resurrection says “Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptised for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptised for them?” A good question Paul, and another one for biblejim is what kind of baptism would be any good for the dead if it was not one for the forgiveness of sins, for regeneration and renewal, for incorporation into the body of Christ?
He omits to mention this passage -presumably too inconvenient for him.
 
I use to attend bible study at a non-denominational church. Its Pastor’s name was Ron. He was big on explaining how being born again of water and spirit actually meant “…of the word and spirit.”

I asked him… “When you were Baptised, did they use water?”
He said, “Yes.”

I told him that was all I needed to know.

He just smiled.

Thal59
 
Tell your friend to examine just what early church writers had to say about what baptism did or what it was for. They ALL said it was a “washing”, for remission of sins and constituted being born again. Not just a few church fathers stated this, but they ALL wrote the same message. The evidence is overwhelming. 🙂
 
40.png
captaincoog:
Sorry for the delay in replying to the two requests for a summary of authority. I have been away from the computer for a few days.

Don’t worry, I am recovering from it!

Going back to the issue of authority, the starting place to begin is the NT canon. Both sides agree on the 27 books that make it up. Beyond that, there is a world of opinion, as you know. Apart from all of our reasoning etc, prayer for the person is needed. They will have built up a hardness of heart against the Church and her teachings.

I would think it is best to simply ask tough questions and wait for a reply. This may be better than telling them the “right” answers yourself.

For example:

Where did the NT canon came from?

Who decided it?

Is it an inerrant canon?

Was the Church infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit when the council was in session?

Am I bound today by a declaration made 1700 years ago by church leaders?

Going by scripture alone, how do you know the answers to any of these questions?

Questions similar to this are great ways to get the other person to think it out for themselves. They all have the same direction to them, that is, “Who has authority?”.

The point is, that if the Church had authority to declare the canon and it became binding, and was guided by the Holy Spirit back then, then this same Church must be the same one that our Lord promised the gates of hell would not prevail against. It must be the same Church He promised to send the Holy Spirit to in order to guide them into all truth. It must be the same one He promised to be with until the end of the world. It must have been a highly visible church, since all the Christian world at the time submitted to the canon it decided, and the church was identifiable in her beliefs and practices. Debate over the canon was finished. It must be something that could be found easily to day, in order for all of Christ’s prophetic promises to be fulfilled in her.

Who else qualifies?

Once this has been sorted out, then all the various opinions on this verse and that verse become insignificant. The only thing to find out is “what does the Church teach on this subject?”

Hope this is helpful.

CC
Click to expand...
Thanks, that is very helpful
 
I wrote this a while ago during a debate with an evangelical maybe it will help:

Baptism

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Nicene:
I wrote this a while ago during a debate with an evangelical maybe it will help:

Baptism

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
Excellent. I have been writing up some notes for my own reference, but I think you have laid it out much better.

Another post to file - I must get more organised on this!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top