Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[guanophore]

You’re right, the idea that baptism replaced circumcision certainly is not Biblical. None of the N.T. writers teach such a notion, for the simple and obvious reason that circumcision never saved anyone, so why then would baptism?

I am always amazed when I read things like this. Why do you think Paul referred to baptism as the “circumcision made without hands”?

Col 2:11-13
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

What is the “circumcision of Christ” if not baptism?

It is true that circumcision, whether that of the covenant of Abraham, or that of the covenant of Christ may not result in salvation. It is an entrance rite into the covenant, and through the covenant, the participant has access to all that supports salvation. If one then chooses to walk away from that covenant, he can still do so. That is why Jesus said “do not presume to say to yourselves, we are children of Abraham”. Beginning is not sufficient. One must persevere in faith, for narrow is the way.

The N.T. is replete with the gospel message and Apostolic doctrine of salvation “by grace through faith” in Jesus Christ alone (yet Catholicism continues to stumble over it). And even in the O.T. it was revealed that God Himself justified men through faith completely apart from works (Gen. 15:6; cf. Rom. 4:5-6).

No, moon, Catholicism does not stumble over salvation by grace through faith. Indeed, the reason you find this in your NT is because it is Catholic teaching. Christ is never “alone”, though. He chose to found a Church, and to make us members of it, and of one another. These elements are not separated from the grace that saves us.

Under the Mosaic Covenant of Law it was those born under that Law (Jews) that were to be, subsequently, circumcised. Similarly, under the N.C. it’s those who are first “born again” through faith in Christ alone that are to be, subsequently, baptized. Both circumcision and baptism are secondary responses - neither save anyone.

We are saved by grace, through faith. It is God who has decided that this salvation will become effective through the waters of baptism.

1 Peter 3:20-22
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.

What saved Noah? It was the grace of God, acting through faith, that brought Noah and his family through the waters. Baptism, which corresponds to this, is the element through which God’s grace works to save us.

The N.T. doctrine on salvation is quite clear indeed, and the simplicity of it is what men continue to stumble over:Eph 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

It seems that you mistakely believe that water baptism is a “work” - perhaps a work of the flesh? Do you think that is what it was when Jesus entered it? Was John the baptist pandering a work of the flesh?

those who seek baptism but have rejected the divine notion of salvation “by grace through faith” in Christ alone. Both are an exercise of futility.

I have difficulty understanding how such a thing could be, however, the Catholic Church is not authorized to baptize anyone without a profession of faith. Baptism cannot be offered to those who reject salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

I agree, though, for those going through the motions without faith, it would seem to be an exercise in futility.

 

[moondweller]

Moon, it seems you’re getting closer and closer to becoming Catholic. Here you agree that God’s Word is both oral* and *written–for surely Adam did not have the Sacred Scriptures to read when “he did not believe God’s Word.”

Actually I am not. Roman Catholics are told to believe God has preserved His Word both orally (RC tradition) and written. I believe the only way God has preserved His Word in this world is through Holy Writ. And this preserving of His Word began with Moses. In fact, the only way you or I know anything about the fall of Adam is through Moses. And when Christ explained His crucifixion and subsequent bodily resurrection to His Disciples He began “with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the SCRIPTURES” (Lk. 24:27). Why? Because it was in these that His Word was preserved. And in Lk. 24:45 it doesn’t say He opened their minds to understand Jewish traditions (and there were plenty at the time), but “the Scriptures.”

 

[guanophore]

That's true according to the teachings that come out of Rome,

The Catholic Teachings are not “Roman”, Moon. They are the same all over the world. They originated in Palestine, not Rome. You seem to think that these teachings are peculiar to “rome” but this is not the case. All recipients of the Apostolic Teaching espouse these views, including those who, like you, have no love lost on “Rome”.

FAITH, not circumcision or baptism, is the way mankind accesses salvation/justification according to the grace (not graces) of God.

The two are not mutually exclusive, Moon. You seem to to think that God’s grace cannot work through elements, but He does. We approach the waters of baptism with a believing heart, and a confession of faith “calling upon His name”. The Apostles did not separate saving faith from baptism.

Acts 22:16
16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

]Therefore, having been justified by faith

, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our access by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.[/indent]The Apostle can’t make it any clearer than that. The only thing that prohibits you from understanding it is unbelief (1 Cor. 2:14).

These are Catholic Scriptures, written by, for, and about Catholics. They are in the NT because the NT was formed by Catholics. There is nothing in the NT that contradicts Catholic teaching. The only contradiction is your interpretation of the verses. In your mind, they are separated from water baptism. The Apostles taught that they are not.

Long before any teachings came out of the church at Rome, there were theopneustos (God-breathed) teachings that were addressed TO the church at Rome. These are the teachings that must be given heed and believed.

Not so long, really. There were only a few years between when Paul wrote to the Roman Church, and then both he and Peter ended up there. It was the teaching of Peter and Paul that built up the faith of that city, so that it became an anchor across the whole empire of orthodox faith. The reputation of “Rome” as a source of teaching emanates from the solid Apostolic foundation laid in that city.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

 

[guanophore]

No. It’s because only those who have believed were to be baptized. If baptism was truly essential then the latter part of the sentence would have included baptism. It does not. The essential is “He who believes…he who does not believe” This doctrine of belief is clearly stated and taught throughout the N.T. Epistles. Jesus Himself distinctly states it in Jn. 3:14-18 and 5:24.

Certainly God is not bound by the commandments He gives to us. He can save whomever He wants, however He likes! He commanded us to be born again of water and spirit (baptism) so when we place our faith in Him, it is incumbent upon us to obey His commandments. If one says they believe in Him, yet refuses to follow His commandments, one has to wonder…

It seems to me arrogant for us to decide which of His commandments are “essential” and which can be dispensed.

 

[moondweller]

Of course faith, not circumcision, was credited to Abraham as righteousness. There WAS NO circumcision for Abraham himself, but for his descendants.

No, my friend, Abraham actually was circumcised. But the point Paul is making in Rom. 4 keeps flying over your head. The circumcision that followed had nothing to with the righteousness that was previously credited to him prior to his circumcision. Reason being, it was credited to him based on faith alone. He was credited righteousness from God through faith even before circumcision was commanded. IOW, Abraham is God’s prime example of the divine gift of righteousness based on faith ALONE:Rom 4:16 "For this reason {it is} by faith, in order that {it may be} in accordance with grace (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor), so that the promise (eternal life) will be guaranteed to all the descendants (of Abraham), not only to those who are of the Law (circumcision/Jews), but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (who have believed)…, (cf. Gal. 3:29).

Abraham’s faith is what ushered in the covenant with Israel

No Steve. The covenant of Law had nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant based on faith alone:Gal 3:11-12 "Now that no one is justified by law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith (i.e., not faith based).In Romans chapter four Paul cites two men by example for righteousness credited on the basis of faith alone, i.e, “apart from works” (Rom. 4:6b). Abraham who was not under the Law, and David who was. Both were credited divine righteousness through FAITH alone.

The covenant of Law was to lead the Jew under it to Christ so that he might be “justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). The Law only defined sin by making sinners transgressors of definite Commandments: “Thou shalt not…”

 

[guanophore]

Actually I am not. Roman Catholics are told to believe God has preserved His Word both orally (RC tradition) and written. I believe the only way God has preserved His Word in this world is through Holy Writ. And this preserving of His Word began with Moses. In fact, the only way you or I know anything about the fall of Adam is through Moses. And when Christ explained His crucifixion and subsequent bodily resurrection to His Disciples He began “with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the SCRIPTURES” (Lk. 24:27). Why? Because it was in these that His Word was preserved. And in Lk. 24:45 it doesn’t say He opened their minds to understand Jewish traditions (and there were plenty at the time), but “the Scriptures.”

Are you suggesting that God is too unconcerned or impotent to protect His Word outside of Scripture? How do you think the stories GOT to Moses? Osmosis?

Actuually, what you have given here is an excellent example of how Sacred Tradtiion works. It is understanding the Holy Scriptures according to the revelaiton of God. You see, the disciples were well acquainted with the Scriptures, they just did not have the right perspective to understand them correctly. This is what Sacred Tradition does. It opens the mind so that the Scripture can be understood properly. Sacred Tradition is like wearing Apostolic lenses while reading.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Human nature was sinless before Adam and Eve sinned. They did not know that they were naked until they sinned. There was no lust until they sinned. Lust is not natural nor necessary for the survival of the species. Sins of the flesh followed the eating of the forbidden fruit. Disobedience has consequences. Lust is the willful misuse of a person’s own sexuality. This lust can lead to the misuse of another person’s sexuality. Sex is for marriage only, and lust even in marriage is also a misuse of sexuality. Love is not self-seeking. Love does not seek self-gratification. Lust does.

If you’re right then god set us up for failure … because everyone lusts, it’s natural.

Greed is evil. Greed deprives others of their rightful share of the earth’s resources. You think greed in capitalism is wonderful. Do all atheists share your sense of injustice and promote unfairness for his fellowman through greed?

I can’t decide whether this is communism or socialism? Obviously all atheists don’t feel like me, since Marx was an atheist

God created man and all creation “good.” Man chose to corrupt good. This corruption is called evil. When man corrupts his own body with sin, this is his own free will choice to do so.

and I don’t believe any of these events really happened?

 

[moondweller]

Are you suggesting that God is too unconcerned or impotent to protect His Word outside of Scripture? How do you think the stories GOT to Moses? Osmosis?

Actuually, what you have given here is an excellent example of how Sacred Tradtiion works. It is understanding the Holy Scriptures according to the revelaiton of God. You see, the disciples were well acquainted with the Scriptures, they just did not have the right perspective to understand them correctly. This is what Sacred Tradition does. It opens the mind so that the Scripture can be understood properly. Sacred Tradition is like wearing Apostolic lenses while reading.

Actually, Eve is a prime example of why God’s Word is not preserved orally. Adam was told by God that he was prohibited from eating the fruit of one of the trees in the garden (Gen. 2:16-17). Obviously after the creation of the woman Adam orally passed this commandment on to Eve. But what does Eve say to the serpent?Gen 3:2-3 "The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die’"She ADDED to God’s Word and, it is recorded, the serpent blatantly contradicted it. We see both of these happening in oral tradition today. For this reason God has preserved His Word in theopneustos Holy Writ. Jesus is the prime example of why God has done so. When tested by Satan He Himself responded with “It is written…” He knew the Scriptures and Satan fled.

 

[JustMe88]

Actually I am not. Roman Catholics are told to believe God has preserved His Word both orally (RC tradition) and written. I believe the only way God has preserved His Word in this world is through Holy Writ. And this preserving of His Word began with Moses. In fact, the only way you or I know anything about the fall of Adam is through Moses. And when Christ explained His crucifixion and subsequent bodily resurrection to His Disciples He began “with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the SCRIPTURES” (Lk. 24:27). Why? Because it was in these that His Word was preserved. And in Lk. 24:45 it doesn’t say He opened their minds to understand Jewish traditions (and there were plenty at the time), but “the Scriptures.”

So for the first 400 years after Christ’s death and resurrection Christian’s read ???

Those Scriptures you hold so dear, as you should, are a product of the Church you deny. It was Catholic Bishops that approved the NT Canon, after sifting through an estimated 2500-3500 letters and documents that claimed apostolic authority, eventually signed off on by the Pope. When we, as protestants, quote the Bible, we pluck fruit from a tree we didn’t plant, to quote Stephen Ray.

Question: How do you build a Church on a book 90% of the populace cannot read? At the time the NT canon was completed only 10% of the poulation could read it, and it wasn’t because it was in Latin, but because 90% of the population was illiterate. No one could afford one, either. It took 900-1000 sheep skins (velum) to produce and three years to copy. Estimates, again, are that it would have cost somewhere around three year’s wages to pay for one. Costs could have been kept down using parchment, but no one would want to waste three years copying onto a medium that would last only 10-20 years at best.

So, Chriatianity via sola scriptura flourished during almost 1500 years of no scriptura. It wasn’t until the Gutenburg press, and the expansion of education in general, that the Bible became widely available.

As to your Luke 24:25 note, any Rabbi will tell you that the Jews have a three pronged spiritual authority: The teaching office of Moses, an oral history, and the Torah. Like a three legged stool, cutting one or more off makes the stool unusable and unstable.

 

[Memaw]

“So old it’s pathetic” was her way of telling me that she heard that joke a long time ago and she was not impressed by it back then either.

Yep, the internet lets all of us show our true ignorance.

Ummm, shouldn’t it be “sharpest ‘tack’ in the toolbox?” Could not resist, but I am not the least bit sorry.

Thanks for your post. It helps make this day a good day for me!

Happy 4th of July “Independence Day”, everyone!

Your right SHW, I heard that joke way back when I was knee high to a grasshopper and I wasn’t impressed with it then and I am not impressed with it now, Catholics who tell stale Catholic jokes may just have to tip-toe by too. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Good point.

Lets all read the new letter coming out from the Pope about Galileo and see what he has to say. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

So for the first 400 years after Christ’s death and resurrection Christian’s read ???

Those Scriptures you hold so dear, as you should, are a product of the Church you deny. It was Catholic Bishops that approved the NT Canon, after sifting through an estimated 2500-3500 letters and documents that claimed apostolic authority, eventually signed off on by the Pope. When we, as protestants, quote the Bible, we pluck fruit from a tree we didn’t plant, to quote Stephen Ray.

Question: How do you build a Church on a book 90% of the populace cannot read? At the time the NT canon was completed only 10% of the poulation could read it, and it wasn’t because it was in Latin, but because 90% of the population was illiterate. No one could afford one, either. It took 900-1000 sheep skins (velum) to produce and three years to copy. Estimates, again, are that it would have cost somewhere around three year’s wages to pay for one. Costs could have been kept down using parchment, but no one would want to waste three years copying onto a medium that would last only 10-20 years at best.

So, Chriatianity via sola scriptura flourished during almost 1500 years of no scriptura. It wasn’t until the Gutenburg press, and the expansion of education in general, that the Bible became widely available.

As to your Luke 24:25 note, any Rabbi will tell you that the Jews have a three pronged spiritual authority: The teaching office of Moses, an oral history, and the Torah. Like a three legged stool, cutting one or more off makes the stool unusable and unstable.

And lets don’t forget that it was because of the Catholic Church that the “expansion of education” took place in the first place, long before protestants came on the horizon. By the way, Gutenberg was a Catholic too. God Bless, Memaw

 

[moondweller]

So for the first 400 years after Christ’s death and resurrection Christian’s read ???

Well, my friend, the Epistles which housed and preserved the doctrines of grace, on which the true Christian faith is based, weren’t written to a bunch of illiterates. From the very beginning those theopneustos Gospel accounts and letters to the churches (only one to Rome), were copied and distributed. The early church writers quoted from them profusely. It was the so-called “clergy” that eventually held the Scriptures from the “layman.” It took the Reformers to get God’s written Word back into the hands of men and the good news of salvation “by grace through faith” in Christ alone was again read by the people - as it was in the early days of the church.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, my friend, the Epistles which housed and preserved the doctrines of grace, on which the true Christian faith is based, weren’t written to a bunch of illiterates. From the very beginning those theopneustos Gospel accounts and letters to the churches (only one to Rome), were copied and distributed. The early church writers quoted from them profusely. It was the so-called “clergy” that eventually held the Scriptures from the “layman.” It took the Reformers to get God’s written Word back into the hands of men and the good news of salvation “by grace through faith” in Christ alone was again read by the people - as it was in the early days of the church.

Really, moon? Do you have any statistics that show how many of those laymen that the Reformers “returned” the written Word to could read??

Also, do you know how many of these laymen actually had Bibles in their households?

 

[SteveGC]

No, my friend, Abraham actually was circumcised. But the point Paul is making in Rom. 4 keeps flying over your head. The circumcision that followed had nothing to with the righteousness that was previously credited to him prior to his circumcision. Reason being, it was credited to him based on faith alone. He was credited righteousness from God through faith even before circumcision was commanded. IOW, Abraham is God’s prime example of the divine gift of righteousness based on faith ALONE:Rom 4:16 "For this reason {it is} by faith, in order that {it may be} in accordance with grace (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor), so that the promise (eternal life) will be guaranteed to all the descendants (of Abraham), not only to those who are of the Law (circumcision/Jews), but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (who have believed)…, (cf. Gal. 3:29).

My mistake, md. Yes, Abraham was circumcised, as an act of obedience. And yes, his faith was credited to him as righteousness, as I agreed earlier. All I’m saying is that today, baptism is now a necessary accompaniment to faith; that nowhere does Romans 4 talk about faith ALONE, although obviously it is an absolute necessity. I’m trying to keep track of your beliefs, I forget if you believe baptism is necessary or not. I think you are part of the camp which says it is an act of obedience only, not necessarily required, because it does nothing efficacious, but to not do it is an act of disobedience. Regardless, I wonder why you fight so hard with us about baptism, when we are telling you over and over that faith is absolutely required, but we believe baptism is required also. Do you think that because we believe baptism is required to seal the Spirit within us, through faith, that we are diminishing the role of faith?

moondweller:

No Steve. The covenant of Law had nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant based on faith alone

Never heard of a “covenant of Law”. God made a covenant with Abraham, which from my understanding, ushered in the promises to God’s people, Israel. Are you referring to the Mosaic covenant? I’m talking about the fact that the sign of the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision…I’m not equating the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. And again, I’m still searching for “faith alone” in anything you’re referencing. Can’t find it.

I’m saying that baptism is the new circumcision, with one difference…baptism is efficacious for our salvation. Faith is still a fundamental necessity, though. Catholics didn’t invent this efficacious role of baptism, md. Christ did.

 

[SHW]

Are you suggesting that God is too unconcerned or impotent to protect His Word outside of Scripture? How do you think the stories GOT to Moses? Osmosis?

Actuually, what you have given here is an excellent example of how Sacred Tradtiion works. It is understanding the Holy Scriptures according to the revelaiton of God. You see, the disciples were well acquainted with the Scriptures, they just did not have the right perspective to understand them correctly. This is what Sacred Tradition does. It opens the mind so that the Scripture can be understood properly. Sacred Tradition is like wearing Apostolic lenses while reading.

 

[moondweller]

Really, moon?

Really PR!

Do you have any statistics that show how many of those laymen that the Reformers “returned” the written Word to could read??

Also, do you know how many of these laymen actually had Bibles in their households?

Such stats are meaningless, much less unobtainable. What mattered was that the Word of God preserved in theopneustos Holy Writ was being published and distributed for the masses to read. And rather than the question, “What does Rome say,” the ancient Christological challenge was again being echoed in the lands:Matt 21:42 Jesus *said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief corner {stone;} this came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes.’?And the “chief corner stone” again began to take His rightful place as the only revealed head of the church.Col 1:18 "He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything."It’s documented history that the majority of the RC priests never read the Scriptures but were merely trained in the traditions of the RCC.

 

[PRmerger]

Really PR! Such stats are meaningless, much less unobtainable. What mattered was that the Word of God preserved in theopneustos Holy Writ was being published and distributed for the masses to read.

For the masses to read?? The illiterate masses you mean?? :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

It’s documented history that the majority of the RC priests never read the Scriptures but were merely trained in the traditions of the RCC.

Of course you know we’re going to ask you to provide proof of this, moon! Cite the documentation, please!

 

[moondweller]

My mistake, md. Yes, Abraham was circumcised, as an act of obedience. And yes, his faith was credited to him as righteousness, as I agreed earlier. All I’m saying is that today, baptism is now a necessary accompaniment to faith; that nowhere does Romans 4 talk about faith ALONE,

Romans four IS all about faith alone. Water baptism is not even mentioned in that chapter. The emphasis is justification through faith, apart from works. That translates to faith alone.

Do you think that because we believe baptism is required to seal the Spirit within us, through faith, that we are diminishing the role of faith?

The Scriptures reveal to us that the true believer is sealed by/in the Holy Spirit as a pledge and a promise for the day of redemption (of our yet unredeemed bodies, 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30). But I don’t read anywhere in the Scriptures that water baptism seals the Spirit within us. This is all based on your extra-biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It’s the non-biblical basis on which you baptize infants and build your non-biblical doctrine of the infusion into the soul of so-called “sanctifying grace.” That infusion through water baptism you equate with initial salvation. Since you appropriate this to infants upon baptism no faith is required by those being baptized. You try to get around it by saying their initial salvation is effected through a surrogate faith - that of the parents. But no such “faith” or salvation is revealed in the theopneustos Scriptures.

I’m saying that baptism is the new circumcision,

Yes you are. But the Scriptures are not.

with one difference…baptism is efficacious for our salvation. Faith is still a fundamental necessity, though. Catholics didn’t invent this efficacious role of baptism, md. Christ did.

No He didn’t (Jn. 3:14-18; 5:24). His message was for an individual to believe in Him for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Col. 1:14) and the free gift of eternal life (Rom. 6:23). This was the message He sent out with His Apostles (Acts 16:30-31). Those who believed were then subsequently baptized. But as with Abraham, it is through one’s belief in Christ that he is credited (reckoned) righteousness from God. This is the whole thrust of Romans chapters three and four:Rom 4:1-6 "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham BELIEVE God, and IT (his belief) was credited to him as righteousness (giftwise, as a favor, from God). Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.But you refuse to believe what God has preserved in Holy Writ.