J
John_Henry
Guest
Uh, I’m Catholic and making the case for sacramental baptism being scriptural. Did you read the post?
- Status
J
JimO
Guest
Along the lines of my post above, look at your opening statements. No disrespect intended, but why should it matter to me if you, as an individual, don’t think that what Peter said is what he meant? What qualifies you to make that interpretation? You can’t say it’s the Holy Spirit unless you are prepared to say that the Holy Spirit only speaks to people with whom you agree. If God intended for us to interpret Scripture individually through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then there would be far more agreement.
I don’t claim, either, to be able to interpret Scripture, but rely on the Church’s authority, given by Christ, to interpret the very Scripture that the Church was inspired to identify as the Canon in the first place. This system also makes far more sense given that the vast majority of Christians could never have become informed enough to make individual interpretations of Scripture, particularly when one considers that most people couldn’t even read until the last few hundred years.
K
kepha444
Guest
yes i did read the post ,and ya know what???
you sir are a heretic…ya know what that means???
T
tequilamac
Guest
This is true, but Aquinas also cautions that these forms of baptism lack the sacramental character of water baptism.
From the Summa Theologica:
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
newadvent.org/summa/406611.htm
N
Nordar
Guest
Joe Loved your post, I so agree My sentiments exactly, you put into words what I was thinking.
T
tequilamac
Guest
God cannot perform a non action, you see. If Christ Himself was baptised although it was not required of Him, this would tend to indicate that there is something terriby significant about that act. If we couple that with His own words that one cannot enter Heaven unless he be born again of spirit AND water, we then see the extreme importance of baptism. To say that it is simply not necessary for salvation is at worst to call Christ a liar and at best to accuse Christ of performing meaningless non actions.
According to Aquinas, sin is to fall short in an action. Therefore, if you are claiming that Christ performed a non action by having himself baptised by John the Baptist, you are claiming Christ sinned. You are out on a limb here with your proclamation, you see and sawing it off quickly.
J
John_Henry
Guest
Whoa, dude. You need to lay off the bottle. Seriously. Take a deep breath. Maybe put a tic tac in your mouth. Think of a happy place. Then re-read post #16. Now Grand Inquisitor, lay out your charges of heresy… What did I say that was heretical? Remember: you said it. Now you prove it.
M
mercygate
Guest
(Edited) JohnHenry’s explication was spot-on and entirely orthodox.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Yeah Kepha I think you quoted the wrong post. John was defending catholic doctrine. Your profile says that you are catholic so as such I’d assume that means you hold to catholic doctrine.
Now if you presonally do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation then that’s your right but you might want to spell that out and state what you believe and why you think your belief is authoritative.
N
Nordar
Guest
Whoa talk about the Twilight Zone, I love John Henry’s posts, what was Heretic?
J
JimO
Guest
That’s a serious charge and a violation of the forum rules. I hope you were somehow joking.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Seeing on how they were both defending the Catholic position, I think kepha444 must have misread John Henry’s post.
D
deb1
Guest
Kepha is mistaking John Henry for John Williams, a person who posted earlier in this thread. I did the same thing and had to go back and rid both men’s post and double check their names.Seeing on how they were both defending the Catholic position, I think kepha444 must have misread John Henry’s post.
It was probably an honest mistake and I think that it is enough to point this out to kepha.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Okay…several posts are now missing from this thread due to this apparent misunderstanding, and I agree with several posters who pointed out that there is a misunderstanding.
Let it drop.
Get back on topic, avoid ad hominem, and do so in all charity or some folks will racking up some infraction points or worse.
MF
Let it drop.
Get back on topic, avoid ad hominem, and do so in all charity or some folks will racking up some infraction points or worse.
MF
P
Philthy
Guest
Unless, of course, to “believe” meant to also be baptized. How exactly do you know that being baptized wasn’t an implicit part of belief in Christ? You don’t and you never will by simply reading the bible. Is it not obvious to you that the God who wrote Leviticus could have been perfectly explicit in the NT as well regarding all the doctrines which Christians argue about? Your implied premise that you will figure it out by reading the bible is flawed. The proof lies in the fact that we are STILL debating something so basic 2000 years later. Think about it.
OP:
This is foolish and poorly thought out IMHO. Nowhere does it say anyone is saved - those are just your contentions. They received the gift of tongues. The most obvious thing to ponder is WHY Peter felt compelled to have them baptized - ESPECIALLY if what you say is true? Again, think about it. What, exactly was Peter trying to accomplish by baptizing them? You need to come up with a reasonable answer to that, and it has nothing to do with the public: everyone witnessed the gift they had received. What were they lacking that compelled Peter to baptize them?
OP:
Again, this is weak. Take for example Philip and the Eunoch. The two or them are ALONE and the Eunoch asks, “Look, here is water, what is to prevent me from being baptized?” And what does Philip say? “NO! We need a crowd to witness your baptism otherwise its pointless!” Not quite - its just the 2 of them there and there is nothing else missing. No need for crowds and public professions simply the reality of baptism. Also, doesnt it seem just a bit hypocritical of Christ to tell us to pray in private, and not demonstrate our fasting so that others can see it yet at the same time we are to publicly get baptized? It doesnt make any sense.
M
Micael
Guest
Damo,
It was good you left Coc, as they hold to traditions/interpretations of men created well after the establisment of the Church, the** “pillar and foundation of the truth.”** 1 Tim 3:15
However, what makes, your personal interpetations, so much better? as you clearly imply: “i did not agree with it then and i dont agree with it now”.
Have you not read 2 Peter 1:20(NASB), “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”
Do you not understand that Christ left us an oral teaching authority? Not by their personal authority, but by the authority of the one whom provided it to them, Jesus Christ. Through the apostles bishops/overseers, elders/presyters/priest, deacons and other evangelist of the church, all well described in the New Testament as “faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Through these “witnesses” which have heard the words directly from Christ’s lips and have passed down these teachings, not by simply reading and teaching themselves their own interpretations. But by reading, and with the assistance of the oral traditions established by Christ. As exemplified in Acts 8:26-35… **"30Philip (a deacon of the church) ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, 'Do you understand what you are reading?'31And he said, ‘Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. " **
Additional support:
**"Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 1:13
"The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2
**“For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” ** 1 Thess 2:13
In Christ Jesus’ name,
Micael
PS: You also assume that the simple fact that though some have been touched by the Holy Spirit that it implicates that every single one of Cornelius’ family members were also in the Spirit.
Would you assume that Cornelius’ small children were also inspired by the Holy Spirit. No, it is more likely consistent with Catholic teaching. That though these adult Gentiles appeared to be already influenced and believe in Christ (in essence already, baptized in faith- a real concept in Catholic Christianity), the person is still none-the-less baptized- probably more a confirmatory “public identification”(your words). However, that probably did not apply to their small children and thus the essential baptism with water for Cornelius and is entire family which benefited via Cornelius’ core beliefs as head of his household.
Additionally, it is also consistent with Catholic teaching, that Cornelius’ kids were baptized with water through the faith of their parents. They would be baptized, with water(the way provided is irrelevant, whether poured or immersed), and thus saved, with the future personal ‘confirmation’ of thier faith…another sacrement…receiving the spirit as follows:
"When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit(confirmation). " Acts 8:15-17.
Baptism is most obviously extremely important otherwise it would not be integral to the great comission found in Mt 28, but their is more to simply baptism, you must continue to live the Christian way of life, through obeidiance: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, **baptizing them **in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them **to obey everything I have commanded **you.” Mt 28:19-20
It is and ongoing process requiring ongoing belief and and continued placing beliefs into practice. As written:
**"But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand." Mt 7:26
Thus you may be saved, but you must continue to be saved by placing his words into practice, obediance through the love and grace that comes through Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the case of a young one or adolescent. He must confirm his faith-allow the works of Christ work through him/her, recieve the holy spirit, and continue to practice his faith by virtue of the gifts he has received by rebirth, via baptism, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit he receives and utilize those gifts(grace) throughout their lives.
It was good you left Coc, as they hold to traditions/interpretations of men created well after the establisment of the Church, the** “pillar and foundation of the truth.”** 1 Tim 3:15
However, what makes, your personal interpetations, so much better? as you clearly imply: “i did not agree with it then and i dont agree with it now”.
Have you not read 2 Peter 1:20(NASB), “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”
Do you not understand that Christ left us an oral teaching authority? Not by their personal authority, but by the authority of the one whom provided it to them, Jesus Christ. Through the apostles bishops/overseers, elders/presyters/priest, deacons and other evangelist of the church, all well described in the New Testament as “faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Through these “witnesses” which have heard the words directly from Christ’s lips and have passed down these teachings, not by simply reading and teaching themselves their own interpretations. But by reading, and with the assistance of the oral traditions established by Christ. As exemplified in Acts 8:26-35… **"30Philip (a deacon of the church) ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, 'Do you understand what you are reading?'31And he said, ‘Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. " **
Additional support:
**"Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 1:13
"The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2
**“For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” ** 1 Thess 2:13
In Christ Jesus’ name,
Micael
PS: You also assume that the simple fact that though some have been touched by the Holy Spirit that it implicates that every single one of Cornelius’ family members were also in the Spirit.
Would you assume that Cornelius’ small children were also inspired by the Holy Spirit. No, it is more likely consistent with Catholic teaching. That though these adult Gentiles appeared to be already influenced and believe in Christ (in essence already, baptized in faith- a real concept in Catholic Christianity), the person is still none-the-less baptized- probably more a confirmatory “public identification”(your words). However, that probably did not apply to their small children and thus the essential baptism with water for Cornelius and is entire family which benefited via Cornelius’ core beliefs as head of his household.
Additionally, it is also consistent with Catholic teaching, that Cornelius’ kids were baptized with water through the faith of their parents. They would be baptized, with water(the way provided is irrelevant, whether poured or immersed), and thus saved, with the future personal ‘confirmation’ of thier faith…another sacrement…receiving the spirit as follows:
"When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit(confirmation). " Acts 8:15-17.
Baptism is most obviously extremely important otherwise it would not be integral to the great comission found in Mt 28, but their is more to simply baptism, you must continue to live the Christian way of life, through obeidiance: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, **baptizing them **in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them **to obey everything I have commanded **you.” Mt 28:19-20
It is and ongoing process requiring ongoing belief and and continued placing beliefs into practice. As written:
**"But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand." Mt 7:26
Thus you may be saved, but you must continue to be saved by placing his words into practice, obediance through the love and grace that comes through Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the case of a young one or adolescent. He must confirm his faith-allow the works of Christ work through him/her, recieve the holy spirit, and continue to practice his faith by virtue of the gifts he has received by rebirth, via baptism, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit he receives and utilize those gifts(grace) throughout their lives.
C
CatholicGal1977
Guest
jemfinch;1642409You’re picking and choosing your interpretation of Scripture. This is your fatal flaw. [/QUOTE said:
T
tabcom
Guest
**Forgive me all for not spending at least an hour to read each and every post in this thread. Therefore, if what I’m about to post has been discussed earlier, would someone be so kind as to point me to the coresponding post?
I want to address baptism from a chronological prospective. That is, John the Baptist said that “the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel.” John 1:31
Matthew’s account of what John the Baptist said clearly states what the new baptism is: “He will baptize you with Holy Spirit and Fire”. Mat 3:11
Jesus said, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Mat 28:19
I submit two questions . . .
I want to address baptism from a chronological prospective. That is, John the Baptist said that “the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel.” John 1:31
Matthew’s account of what John the Baptist said clearly states what the new baptism is: “He will baptize you with Holy Spirit and Fire”. Mat 3:11
Jesus said, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Mat 28:19
I submit two questions . . .
- Would the Pharisees and the Sadducees Jews have even spoken to Jesus if he did not preform the ritural of water baptism and became a proselyte Jew?
- If baptism is water, why didn’t Jesus say in Mat 28:19, “Go . . . baptizing them in water”?**
K
kepha444
Guest
Code:
First i have to Say that if the Church teaches the nesssessity of baptism(which she does)then whats your problem???Get a copy of the early church Fathers and read ...you will see that from the erliest of church times they believe in the nessity of baptism....check also matt:in the gospels Whats the last thing.Our Lord says to the apostles? I dont have a copy here but i know what it says.."Go therefore and teach all that i have commanded of you..;.Baptising in the name of the father
M
MooCowSteph
Guest
It’s too bad Jesus doesn’t agree with you…
- Status