Refuting Reformed Theology on "2 Corinthians 5:21"

[po18guy]

What refutes reformed theology is its name. There can be no re-form without first having a form. Only when man’s ego leads him to reject the form does re-form enter the picture. Re-form asserts that the form was defective, or at lest incomplete. But Christ said quite the opposite.

By what authority did the father/inventor of re-formed theology conjure up his ideas, and by what authority did he foist it upon the world? :dts:

The timing condemns it, as well. It appeared exactly nowhere on earth until 1,500 years after Christ founded his indefectible Church. Huge problem. :yup:

 

[steve_b]

By what authority did the father/inventor of re-formed theology conjure up his ideas, and by what authority did he foist it upon the world? :dts:

The timing condemns it, as well. It appeared exactly nowhere on earth until 1,500 years after Christ founded his indefectible Church. Huge problem. :yup:

as Newman stated over 170 years ago, after he added it all up for himself,

“To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”

 

[steve_b]

Hi, Steve – thank you for your time.

[snip for space]

You already have my answer to your post #[257 (https://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14762061&postcount=257)

I wanted to add

I didn’t have a chance to answer you in a previous conversation that was closed.

In that conversation you said

“Hello, Steve. I appreciate your enthusiasm. I don’t want to “go to war” with you – I understand the position of “infallibility”. Yet, that does not accurately reflect history, does it? At one time the Church sold indulgences.”

Gadgeteer,

• I don’t go “to war” with you or anyone over a conversation, so put your mind at ease We’re just talking.

Besides, I’ve said this many times. I’m giving information properly referenced. As you know by now, I quote copiously. I’ve always taken the position, What a person does with that, is up to them. So technically unless I say IMV or something like that, then if one takes exception at what I write, it’s technically not me they take exception to, it’s my references they are really objecting to.
Re: Infallibility and selling Indulgences.

• I didn’t refer to either…Yet. But If you want to deal with those subjects, start a thread. PM me in advance, so I don’t miss it

 

[jcrichton]

:tiphat:

He’s talking to a single audience; some of whom (presumably) are “carnal”.

So then it’s “believers” (who are laboring and seeking), and those who are not believers at all.

Well, they are the Antinomianist OSAS’ers. All of the “Eternal Security” and all of the “Reformed Theology” folks with whom I’ve conversed say they reject “willful sin”.

Very — WELL DONE! That is exactly what it’s about — “do not reject Jesus’ grace”, “embrace the faith”. Be saved.

Actually, a prominent misunderstanding is that it asserts some kind of “cannot return” – no, the clear meaning is it is impossible/powerless/unable to restore them to repentance BECAUSE (and while!) they are focused on willful sin. But it is as you said “only the apostate can return” — the message is "Don’t waste your time preaching repentance to those who don’t wanna…"

Actually, it is fully “BE SAVED”. And most do think Paul wrote it, though some see mannerisms of Luke…

The theme continues throughout the chapter; “choose whether to be a fruitful field and be blessed, or a thorny field and be cursed and burned”. And “you need diligence so that you not imitate the sluggish but those who by faith and patience inherit the promises…”

It’s consistent with the whole letter; verses 10:26-29 teach the exact same thing. I think I listed verses from the whole letter warning “be saved”…

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…right, though I would say that while St. Paul is addressing one single audience, he is attempting to persuade Believers to not follow after those who have left the Faith; he warns his audience that they must follow the Teaching of the Church and not give in to the temptation of returning to sin. He further clarifies that Believers must not become complaisant in rudimentary understanding and Fellowship–that they must, as with any human experience, strive to become perfected. (This is also Taught throughout the Epistles–it is not about a once in, just hold on to the Lord’s garments and you will coast into eternity thing.)

…and yes, it is not about God denying man’s Salvation (Ezekiel 18); it is about man’s choice to turn away from God–these people, which include Catholic clergy and religious, cannot be persuaded by man nor Convicted again by the Holy Spirit about the Truth.

They Knew the Truth (Christ) and they willfully rejected it; just as it is not possible to un-see an experience, it is impossible to un-know God’s Revelation.

Coincidentally, St. Paul is separating the non-Believers from the Believers who leave the Faith (Romans 6:4-6)–which is also another reason why the 'were not really from the Fold (“believers” or “saved”) does not work–to be an apostate of the Faith a person must first uphold the tenets of the Faith.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Actually, the organization fighting for the children, was the “ACLJ” — American Center for Law and Justice. Headed by Kieth Fornier and Jay Sekulow. Very Christian legal firm. Jay is now on Trump’s staff…

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…yeah… I kind of got sidetracked–when I looked it up the reference it seemed to be offered with a side dish of ostentation and contempt; so I was kind of fuming a little as I thought it ironic that Christian would need a defender against a freedom of liberties defender.

It’s a Christian movie – staring Gavin McCloud (“Love Boat”, “Mary Tyler Moore”) and Hal Linden (“Barney Miller”). Can’t remember who the main character was who actually time-traveled.

…sorry, again; from your previous post, I thought that the premise of the movie was that man’s quest to rid himself of God went awry; but it seems that it was the summation that without God man’s machinations will never lead to the longed-for utopia.

Okay (warning, a non-Catholic is about to tell a Catholic joke on a Catholic board!)

A high-school student was doing poorly, especially in math. Parents put him in a Catholic school. First night, he went right upstairs and studied – Mom and Dad looked at each other and frowned. Second night, third night, every night the same. At mid-terms he was making “A’s”, even in math! They sat him down and asked “what was the difference?”

He said, "Well, public school let us slack off. But when I went to CATHOLIC school, and walked into math class, and saw that poor guy up there on the wall nailed to a plus sign, I knew they meant BUSINESS…

"
…yeah, familiarity with “vocabulary” tends to place the right dot on the “i” and the right cross on the “t.”

…I apologize for not being able to reciprocate–the closest one I know is the one about the bunch of money found on the road by a Catholic Priest, a rabbi, and a protestant pastor (don’t know if you guys capitalize the terms… I don’t think that the Jews do)… and I think everyone knows this one!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

Hello, brother.

…the problem lies not in Scriptures or God’s Revelation but in man’s quest for short cuts!

…did you noticed what took place right after the Holy Spirit demonstrated in Acts 10?

…were they all welcomed into the Fold and did the Apostles packed up and all left, each to their own homes?

No! St. Peter brought up the condition of merit: ‘they have Received the Holy Spirit’ (even though they are pagans/gentiles); ‘can anyone here deny them (the right) Baptism?’

…the very next thing that happened was that they were ushered into the Faith by Water Baptism!

That’s correct. And – there was a measurable time between their being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (something that the unsaved simply cannot be), and their being waterbaptized. I’m going to do a dedicated post on “waterbaptism” in a moment, will comment further…

…ever noticed how cartoonish most programs/films are… things fall into the Goldilocks’ phenomenon: “juuuust right!”

…too many times Believers demand such thing from Scriptures… while I could counter you with Jesus’ Own Word (“not all who Call Me Lord…”), I rather take you back to Pentecost:

The process is clear:

• Baptism

• Reception of the Holy Spirit

…except in Acts10:47, they received the Spirit before being waterbaptized. And Acts8:16, they were waterbaptized measurably before receiving the Spirit. So to embrace “no-Spirit-without-waterbaptism”, we would have to think these two were “special cases”, and/or they were not saved the same as the Apostles and/or we are. Again, more on this in a moment…

…so, is St. Peter’s Teaching different from St. Paul’s or is St. Peter limiting God’s Functions or the Holy Spirit’s Gift?

No, and No!

There’s One Baptism, One Gospel, One Faith, One Body, One Lord, One God.

I think you are thinking of Eph4:5 — “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”

Scriptures are God’s Revelation to man; Scriptures are not a script which Binds God to a specific Form, Pattern or Behavior/Function.

There was a very specific reason why the event in Acts 10 took place–it was not to offer several versions of Reception of the Holy Spirit; it was to Teach the Believers (who at that time were mostly Jews) that Yahweh God had also Called to Salvation the Gentiles/Pagans:

…right after Cephas’ Pronouncement the Holy Spirit Acted amongst them Blessing the Gentiles with His Grace and Power:

…the rest is Baptism history!

I hope you look forward to my subsequent post. You know that I understand how important waterbaptism is to Catholics, and that my focus is to be completely respectful and honorable.

For you and me, we both have been waterbaptized; and we both agree that one who refuses the water does not have a spirit compatible with “being fully submitted to and united with Jesus”. So while we may not come to agreement on everything until Jesus returns (well, duh!) — you and I can remain brothers, united in our commitment to love and encourage brothers and sisters and to share Jesus to a lost and dying world.

 

[Gadgeteer]

What refutes reformed theology is its name. There can be no re-form without first having a form.

You know, there’s a lot of truth in what you just said. The idea of “sovereign-predestined-salvation” simply did not exist until Calvin invented it, although Augustine whom he quoted did seem to espouse the idea to some level. But the others did not. I’ve looked at ECF’s, they do not teach “Predestined Election”, but rather affirm Scripture’s warning against apostasy of believers.

Only when man’s ego leads him to reject the form does re-form enter the picture. Re-form asserts that the form was defective, or at lest incomplete. But Christ said quite the opposite.

By what authority did the father/inventor of re-formed theology conjure up his ideas, and by what authority did he foist it upon the world? :dts:

Supposedly “by the authority of Scriptures” – but as we’ve been discussing (and I hope I’ve had things of value to add to Catholics’ repertoire), the Scriptures do not teach it.

The timing condemns it, as well. It appeared exactly nowhere on earth until 1,500 years after Christ founded his indefectible Church. Huge problem. :yup:

You are completely right. But perhaps a bigger problem is the causality of which it accuses God — Jesus was truly furious at the implication God was complicit in evil in Matt12:25-31, is there any way that Reformed Theology does not do exactly the same thing? RT’s do find the idea distasteful; that’s why “Compatibilism” exists, a sub-doctrine trying to insulate God from His “ordaining-of-wickedness”. As if that would keep Him from getting His hands dirty.

If God ordains everything, and ordains who is elect, then He absolutely ordains and causes wickedness — no matter claiming He doesn’t do it directly, He still suffers from causality. And His nature cannot.

Listen to Calvinistic preachers — they preach as though we can affect people’s salvation – while their doctrine teaches we CANNOT. “Save others, snatching them from the fire!” Were they in danger of fire, who can be snatched into life? RT vehemently denies it.

“You shut off the kingdom of heaven from men — not only are you unwilling to enter in, those who are entering in YOU STOP – you search the world seeking whom you may proselytize, and when you find him you make him twice a child of Hell.” Matt23:13-15

Everywhere we turn Scripture screams that God does not determine anyone’s eternity; each carries the blame or the choice of eternal life himself.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Putting this in today’s terms, The son is still the son, and a son can lose his salvation.

Hello again Steve.

If you will tolerate me being a little bit stubborn — Rom9:8 says: “…it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”

So established is that “a child of God, is a child by adoption, it is a second birth or begottenness”. Per Heb12:7-9 especially, IF we submit to God then He regards us AS sons. But if such a once-submitted son ceases to submit, then he is not a son but illegitimate (the words “no longer” absolutely implied). The passage finishes with a choice “Shall we not rather be subject to (God), and live?” Shall we not continue in salvation? It’s echoed twice again in the same chapter; “don’t fall short of God’s grace” in verse 15, and “we shall not escape who turn away from God” in verse 25.

So, no, a person who has “left the house of God and is carousing/drunk/fornicating/etcetera” is not still a child of God. Which is what Jesus was trying to communicate with the Prodigal Son…

The verses are plain, Heb12 especially — how much clearer would it need to be for Reformed people to accept it?

 

[Gadgeteer]

You’re covering a big area

While baptism is a permanent sacrament, the grace given is NOT permanent. It can be lost through mortal (deadly) sin. And thus so can one’s salvation. Not all sin is (deadly) mortal as John says, but there is mortal sin. While a soul is in mortal sin, sanctifying grace then, present from baptism, is gone. If one dies in that state they go to hell.

I agree with that completely; although what I view as “mortal” is any sin which is not accompanied by a spirit of confession (1Jn1:8-9), and “non-mortal” is any sin which does drive a true believer to his feet before God asking forgiveness AND power to resist the next time (1Cor10:13).

The way to restore that lost grace is sacramental confession.

In principle you and I agree; I perceive that Catholics view “sacramental confession” the same as confessing directly to God.

Since space / post is limited, for space I’ll add this link

Bet ya didn’t think so much could be said about baptism

Thank you! I have the page loaded up…

Finish the thought

Acts 10:
47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized

Just above I said I’m going to do a post dedicated to the idea of “Baptism” – intending to be fully respectful and honorable of the Catholic view.

Jesus said

“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5

THAT is baptism

Actually, that verse has nothing to do with waterbaptism. Please hear me out…

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John3:3-6

Scripture often uses a “double-narrative”, repeating a point for emphasis. This occurs several times in Jesus’ words:

• Born of water and (born of) the Spirit
• born of the flesh and born of the Spirit

So “water”, uses the Greek “hydor” – water-as-the-fundamental-element, reflecting the physical (birth). Which Jesus contrasts with spiritual birth.

I consulted A.T.Robertson, he struggles over whether Jesus meant “waterbaptism”, arguing "if water is essential as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus ( Luke 3 5 7 )? He also acknowledges a view that “water referred to physical birth”.

Consider:

Nicodemus: “How can a man …enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus: “I tell you, unless a man is WATERBAPTIZED and BORN OF THE SPIRIT he cannot enter…”

That would make Jesus’ comment, “unless one is born of the Spirit AND born of the Spirit” — that does not make sense.

But it makes perfect sense if Jesus meant “physical birth”:

Nicodemus: “How can a man …enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus: “I tell you, unless a man is born physically and ALSO BORN OF THE SPIRIT he cannot enter…”

From your link:

“Since according to the Gospel teaching, a man must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, those are not to be considered validly baptized who have been baptized with beer” (cervisia).

Obviously I disagree with Pope Gregory IX; not “lifting my opinion over his”, but based on the above comparison “Unless one is born of the Spirit (waterbaptized) and born of the Spirit” — that does not make sense. Because the Catholic position of waterbaptism, is absolutely when a person becomes “born-of-the-Spirit”.

The only sensible meaning is “water-as-the-physical-element”, which would make verse six repeat verse 3, harmonizing perfectly.

1. Waterbaptism:
   “Unless one is waterbaptized-born-of-the-Spirit, and born-of-the-Spirit…
   That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is Spirit is spirit.”
2. Physical:
   “Unless one is born physically (flesh), and (also) born of the Spirit…
   That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is Spirit is spirit.”

Why would #1 be the more credible meaning than #2?

May I suggest, looking over the link I gave on Baptism, up the page aways

I did, and I will make a following post on “waterbaptism”. I look forward to your thoughts especially on John3:3. Note well that John3:3 is one of the “Secondaries” that RT’s are sure prove predestination, because they take “idein” to mean PERCEIVE/KNOW (which is what the other form “oida” would mean). Unless one is ZAPPED with a new heart FIRST, he cannot UNDERSTAND salvation. No, it is “idein”, which in all thirty-nine occurrences means “behold/participate”. Again the repetitive narrative is used, “cannot ENTER” is the exact same thought as “cannot see/behold”. Verse 5 repeats verse 3, it does not teach Calvinism.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Several people have been wanting to discuss “waterbaptism”, and how essential it is to salvation. My perception is that one who refuses to be waterbaptized, is not saved; what reason would one have to not participate in such a central thing that Jesus and all the Apostles enjoyed? That would not be a heart embracing Jesus and His Gospel!

This being a Catholic board, I will not argue waterbaptism at all; neither “part-of-salvation”, nor “not-part-of-salvation”. There is a saying, "Opinions are like noses; everybody has one, and not all smell good." It would not be productive to “trade opinions” (“I think”, “he thinks”, etc.) — would it be possible to invite Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and even Jesus here to speak for themselves, in the words they have left us? This then is the goal, that there is no argument from “Catholics”, or from “non-Catholics”, or from anyone else. Therefore I would like to throw out some verses and maybe some comments, but not make any conclusions. Each person makes his or her own conclusions.

-WARNING-

A bit of a warning is appropriate here — the presumption is that we are all saved, whether Catholic or Protestant or other denomination. That we will have differences, but can overcome our differences and celebrate what we have in common – that is, Jesus, and eternity with Him and with each other as true family. Whatever anyone brings away from any of these discussions, let it not be with anger or resentment, and let it not be cause for charging into any body (Catholic or not) with an argumentative dissentious combative attitude. How badly we all will have failed if we cause “factions disputes and dissensions”, which Paul condemns in places like Gal5! Let us be open to God’s leading, and mature enough to allow differences, confident that our Savior is powerful enough to lead each of us to Himself if we keep seeking Him and the Spirit.

Betting there will be no disagreement on that…

 

[Gadgeteer]

How many “baptisms” are there in Scripture? Matthew3:11-12 speaks of three:

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
“His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Steve b graciously provided a link to a Catholic discussion on waterbaptism. From that page:

”Those who have held that “water” in the Gospel text is to be taken metaphoric-ally, appeal to the words of the Precursor (Matt., iii), “He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire”. As “fire” must certainly be only a figure of speech here, so must “water” in the other texts.

But verse 12 states “fire”, burns the chaff, sinners. In no way is it “only a figure of speech”. John writes of “baptism-of-water-for-repentance”, then a second baptism of “the Spirit”, then he writes of “baptism-of-fire — the chaff will burn with unquenchable fire”.

In the letter written by Luke, Jesus was baptized (verse 3:21). Let’s look at verse 12:50:

"But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!”

In no way was Jesus ever baptized-by-water twice; this is referring to His crucifixion. See now Mark10:38-39:

But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.”

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus referred to His death as “this cup” Lk22:42. This is the cup we are to drink, this is the baptism we are to be baptized with; His death and resurrection.

”For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him…” 2Tim2:11

(So far we are only reading Jesus’ and John’s words, there is no personal opinion here – everyone agree?)

Now we come to Romans6. Reading verses 1-7:

Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
for he who has died is freed from sin.

Five words — “died”, “immersed”, “buried”, “united”, “crucified”. Four of those words reflect a union with Jesus; some take the fifth word “baptismo” (immerse!) to simply mean “united-with-Jesus” (united with Him through His death and resurrection), others take it to mean “baptized-in-WATER-into-death”.

It was established in Luke12:50 and Mark10:38-39 that THE BAPTISM, was Jesus’ crucifixion, in those verses water was nowhere in view.

So each person reading this now has to make a choice — did Paul mean in Rom6:3-4 “immersed/united in Jesus through death” as Jesus said in Mark10:38-39, or was Paul referring to waterbaptism?

 

[Gadgeteer]

Let’s read from Ephesians4:4-6

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Again, each reader must decide — did Paul mean “one-waterdipping”, or was he referring to what Jesus said “The baptism, THE cup”? If it is “one waterbaptism-as-repentance”, how does that relate to Mark10:38-39?

In a previous post Jcrichton said:

jcrichton:

I take you back to Pentecost:
The process is clear:

• Baptism
• Reception of the Holy Spirit

But as we read in Acts10:47, Cornelius and family had the Holy Spirit but were not waterbaptized. JCR said:

jcrichton:

…the very next thing that happened was that they were ushered into the Faith by Water Baptism!

True; but — they had the Spirit well before being waterbaptized, how were they not fully “in the Faith”?

We might consider that this was a “special case, it doesn’t work the same for us”. But Peter says:

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” Acts11:15-17

Cornelius & family received the Spirit exactly the same as the Apostles had; but Cornelius’ group received the Spirit before the water. What are the possible understandings?

1. We are saved differently than Cornelius, Peter and the Apostles. (Anyone believe that?)
2. Peter misspoke, they had NOT received the Spirit before the water.
3. They received the Spirit apart from waterbaptism, and then they were waterbaptized.

If we read Acts8:16, another group had been waterbaptized, but THEN the Apostles laid hands on them to “receive the Spirit”.

Note that in Acts11:16 Peter also conspicuously separates “waterbaptism” from “baptism-in-the-Spirit”, just as John did in Matt3:11.

Can anyone deny that these two passages clearly state “they received the Spirit apart from waterbaptism”? One group received the Spirit before the water, the other after. But Peter said “they received the Spirit THE SAME AS WE DID”. If the Spirit cannot be received apart from waterbaptism, how do you make these verses work?

Again, I’m making no conclusions here, only posting verses and asking for each of your understandings. All thoughts and additional verses are very welcome!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Now the other verses that have been cited:

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Mark16:16

“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” Acts22:16

“…having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Col2:12

“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” 1Pet3:21

The Mark16 reference does not say “he who is not waterbaptized is condemned”.

The Acts22 reference — is it actually the water that washes away sins, or the “calling-on-His-name”?

”Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom10:13

“but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1Cor6:11

If it’s the water that washes away sins, do we have to keep getting waterbaptized whenever we sin? 1Jn1:8-9 says only that “if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves …if we confess our sins (repent!) He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. Isn’t it just Jesus’ name that saves, and cleanses us from sins?

Colossians2:12 — what did each of you decide on Rom6:3-4? Are we “buried-with-Him-in-WATER”, or did Paul say “immersion-into-His-DEATH” as Jesus said in Luke12:50, and in Mark10:38-39? In no sense can anyone claim Lk12:50 or Mk10:39 refers to water; on what grounds must Rom6:3-4 or Col2:12 be about water?

Peter’s words in 1:3:21 indisputably refers to water; but is water part of “appealing-to-God-for-clear-conscience”? Or is Peter saying, ”Waterbaptism saves you, if it is accompanied BY repentance”?

Cornelius and family had the Holy Spirit, could only have been “fully saved” by any definition of salvation, but had not yet been waterbapized. They called on Jesus’ name and repented and believed; what part did the water play in that?

Years ago in college my roommate was Church of Christ; who believe that “unless one actually enters the water, he/she cannot receive the Spirit or be saved”. He read these verses with interest. Where does each of your interests lead? Did Rom10:13 imply “…and-be-waterbaptized”? Are we saved differently than Cornelius & family, and the Apostles? Are Rom6:4-6 and Eph4:5 necessarily about waterbaptism, in the face of Jesus’ words from Lk12:50 and Mark10:38-39? If so — why?

I look forward to everybody’s thoughts, and am pleased NOT to fight or cause harm over this issue. As I said to “JCR” — at this point, likely everyone posting has been waterbaptized, so it’s really not an issue. But to a new believer — we tell him “you are saved as a gift of God, who then does good works through you; you don’t have to live in terror hoping to do enough good works for God to accept you!”

…and he replies, “Isn’t waterbaptism a work?”

And we say to him — what?

 

[James248]

1. Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
   Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
   Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
   Call on the name of the “Lord” to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
   Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
   Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
   Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24. Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
   By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
   By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
   Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
   Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

None of these are contradictions. These are all things that are necessary to be saved. The only way one could think these are contradictions is by interpreting them in a minimalist way; “Hope and nothing but hope saved,”; the Bible never speaks this way. There is no one simple thing to do to “get saved.” Being saved requires turning one’s whole life over to God, and all of these things are aspects of that. They are all necessary.

1. Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
   Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
   Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
   Call on the name of the “Lord” to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
   Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
   Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
   Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24. Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
   By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
   By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
   Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
   Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

None of these are contradictions. These are all things that are necessary to be saved. The only way one could think these are contradictions is by interpreting them in a minimalist way; “Hope and nothing but hope saved,”; the Bible never speaks this way. There is no one simple thing to do to “get saved.” Being saved requires turning one’s whole life over to God, and all of these things are aspects of that. They are all necessary.

1. Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
   Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
   Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
   Call on the name of the “Lord” to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
   Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
   Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
   Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24. Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
   By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
   By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
   Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
   Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

None of these are contradictions. These are all things that are necessary to be saved. The only way one could think these are contradictions is by interpreting them in a minimalist way; “Hope and nothing but hope saved,”; the Bible never speaks this way. There is no one simple thing to do to “get saved.” Being saved requires turning one’s whole life over to God, and all of these things are aspects of that. They are all necessary.

If you want more answers read the links:
unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2013/06/biblical-contradiction-and-more-on-usc.html?m=1
unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/84-contra-atheism/337-contradictions-in-the-bible.html

 

[Gadgeteer]

1. Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
   Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.

James, did you see my post 269?
Gadget:

Actually, that verse has nothing to do with waterbaptism. Please hear me out…

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John3:3-6

Scripture often uses a “double-narrative”, repeating a point for emphasis. This occurs several times in Jesus’ words:

• Born of water and (born of) the Spirit
• born of the flesh and born of the Spirit

So “water”, uses the Greek “hydor” – water-as-the-fundamental-element, reflecting the physical (birth). Which Jesus contrasts with spiritual birth.

I consulted A.T.Robertson, he struggles over whether Jesus meant “waterbaptism”, arguing "if water is essential as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus ( Luke 3 5 7 )? He also acknowledges a view that “water referred to physical birth”.

Consider:

Nicodemus: “How can a man …enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus: “I tell you, unless a man is WATERBAPTIZED and BORN OF THE SPIRIT he cannot enter…”

That would make Jesus’ comment, “unless one is born of the Spirit AND born of the Spirit” — that does not make sense.

But it makes perfect sense if Jesus meant “physical birth”:

Nicodemus: “How can a man …enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus: “I tell you, unless a man is born physically and ALSO BORN OF THE SPIRIT he cannot enter…”

Obviously I disagree with Pope Gregory IX; not “lifting my opinion over his”, but based on the above comparison “Unless one is born of the Spirit (waterbaptized) and born of the Spirit” — that does not make sense. Because the Catholic position of waterbaptism, is absolutely when a person becomes “born-of-the-Spirit”.

The only sensible meaning is “water-as-the-physical-element”, which would make verse six repeat verse 3, harmonizing perfectly.

1. Waterbaptism:
   “Unless one is waterbaptized-born-of-the-Spirit, and born-of-the-Spirit…
   That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is Spirit is spirit.”
2. Physical:
   “Unless one is born physically (flesh), and (also) born of the Spirit…
   That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is Spirit is spirit.”

Why would #1 be the more credible meaning than #2?

Do you still think Jesus was inserting a “water-baptism” clause in John3:5?

   Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
  Call on the name of the "Lord" to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
   Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
  Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
  Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24. Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
  By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
  By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
  Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
  Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

None of these are contradictions. These are all things that are necessary to be saved. The only way one could think these are contradictions is by interpreting them in a minimalist way; “Hope and nothing but hope saved,”; the Bible never speaks this way. There is no one simple thing to do to “get saved.” Being saved requires turning one’s whole life over to God, and all of these things are aspects of that. They are all necessary.

Where does “the union between believer and Jesus”, fit in?

John says in 1:5:11-13, “He who has Jesus has eternal life; you may know you have eternal life.”

What do you think he meant?

 

[jcrichton]

Hello, brother.

That’s correct. And – there was a measurable time between their being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (something that the unsaved simply cannot be), and their being waterbaptized.

I’m going to do a dedicated post on “waterbaptism” in a moment, will comment further… **

 

[jcrichton]

How many “baptisms” are there in Scripture? Matthew3:11-12 speaks of three:

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
“His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Steve b graciously provided a link to a Catholic discussion on waterbaptism. From that page:

But verse 12 states “fire”, burns the chaff, sinners. In no way is it “only a figure of speech”. John writes of “baptism-of-water-for-repentance”, then a second baptism of “the Spirit”, then he writes of “baptism-of-fire — the chaff will burn with unquenchable fire”.

In the letter written by Luke, Jesus was baptized (verse 3:21). Let’s look at verse 12:50:

"But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!”

In no way was Jesus ever baptized-by-water twice; this is referring to His crucifixion. See now Mark10:38-39:

But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.”

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus referred to His death as “this cup” Lk22:42. This is the cup we are to drink, this is the baptism we are to be baptized with; His death and resurrection.

”For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him…” 2Tim2:11

(So far we are only reading Jesus’ and John’s words, there is no personal opinion here – everyone agree?)

Now we come to Romans6. Reading verses 1-7:

Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?..

knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
for he who has died is freed from sin.

Five words — “died”, “immersed”, “buried”, “united”, “crucified”. Four of those words reflect a union with Jesus; some take the fifth word “baptismo” (immerse!) to simply mean “united-with-Jesus” (united with Him through His death and resurrection), others take it to mean “baptized-in-WATER-into-death”.

It was established in Luke12:50 and Mark10:38-39 that THE BAPTISM, was Jesus’ crucifixion, in those verses water was nowhere in view.

So each person reading this now has to make a choice — did Paul mean in Rom6:3-4 “immersed/united in Jesus through death” as Jesus said in Mark10:38-39, or was Paul referring to waterbaptism?

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…the problem lies in interpretation… while it does seems that you are presenting Scriptural text as the “proof” of your argument (presentation); you are also including your personal summation:

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus referred to His death as “this cup” Lk22:42. This is the cup we are to drink, this is the baptism we are to be baptized with; His death and resurrection.

…by making this connection/summation, you then afford the following:

[indent**]”For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him…” 2Tim2:11

[/indent]
…I suspect that by this rendering you are presupposing that water Baptism is not the Baptism which binds Christians to Christ and allows us to be part of His Death and Resurrection.

…there are two elements which you seem to miss (omit/ignore):

• in order to take part of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection, a person must be Baptized in water
• not all Christians are given Christ’s cup to drink

…well, the Apostles certainly did; many of the early Church Followers also did; millions throughout the world, at various periods of Christian persecution and oppression, have drank of this cup; yet, for your assertion to be correct all Christians, at all times, must suffer oppression, persecution and even martyrdom. This, consequently, brings us to one particular act which every Christian must partake: Water Baptism.

This is the Birth into the Body:

2:38 ‘You must repent,’ Peter answered ‘**and every one of you must be baptised **in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

…before the first word of the New Testament was Written the Oral Teaching made it clear: ‘every Believer must be Baptized!’

…and if one is confused about it (’…well, but this passage is not explicit about water Baptism, it could well be that St. Peter meant, as Christ said to Nicodemus, Baptism in the Holy Spirit…’), here’s actual Revelation from Sacred Scriptures:

8:36 Further along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘Look, there is some water here; is there anything to stop me being baptised?’ (Acts 8:26-39)

…the Ethiopian did not become part of the Body of Christ by having firsthand knowledge of Sacred Scriptures or by being familiar with Sacred Writings or by being Taught by an Apostle… his knowledge was raised and his awareness compelled him to seek Baptism–water Baptism!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, brother!

…correct, I was attempting to align the event involving Baptism–the Apostles did not Teach random practices and divergent Gospels/Practices… while certain events did take place, there was the introduction of Doctrine–which further developed and got refined as the Church grew (both in number and geography).

It is wrong to take passages of Scriptures to refute/form/reform Apostolic Teaching–once that happens…

Who was doing that?

…take the event of Philip and the Ethiopian… would all Baptism of foreigners require a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit or would it be only of dignitary foreigners? …would the Baptism of the novices, as the Ethiopian, be followed by a Divine demonstration of Power? …and, while on this path… why is it that Baptisms are not followed by a semi-Pentecost as it happened in Acts 10?

…it is man’s longing/grasping that causes him to embrace confusion and complication where there’s none.

Water Baptism is not just important but it is indispensable; why all Christians cannot see this is beyond my understanding–specially when they have such high regards for the Word.

Clearly “waterbaptism” is a command. I’m just not seeing it as part of salvation, but evidence of being saved.

…if we would spend (Christians) less time looking to embrace “knowledge” and the various ego-trips, can you imagine the strides we would make in God’s Salvific Plan? Yet, we are creatures of habit… and as Adam and Eve needed to go on their own, too many times Christians seek “liberty” rather than the Liberator!

How different would the world be if we would Obey Christ’s Commands?:

May the Holy Spirit Convict the Believers to Fellowship with and in Christ!

Amen.

 

[Gadgeteer]

…the problem lies in interpretation… while it does seems that you are presenting Scriptural text as the “proof” of your argument (presentation); you are also including your personal summation:
Gadget:

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus referred to His death as “this cup” Lk22:42. This is the cup we are to drink, this is the baptism we are to be baptized with; His death and resurrection.

…by making this connection/summation, you then afford the following:

”For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him…” 2Tim2:11

…I suspect that by this rendering you are presupposing that water Baptism is not the Baptism which binds Christians to Christ and allows us to be part of His Death and Resurrection.

In Mark10:38-39, Jesus equates “His baptism”, with “this cup” — doesn’t He? Is that not the same cup to which He referred in Gethsemane?

…there are two elements which you seem to miss (omit/ignore):

• in order to take part of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection, a person must be Baptized in water

Where do you get that? Does anyone deny that Luke12:50 and Mark10:38-39, cannot be about “waterbaptism”?

If you perceive that from Rom6:3-4 — if “His cup” is “His baptism”, which in Lk12:50 (and Mk10:38) don’t have anything to do with water, then why does Rom6:3-4 have to be about water? Not being contentious, just trying to understand why Lk12:50, and Mk10:38-39, and Rom6:3-4 are not all talking about Jesus’ Crucifixion and Resurrection?

• not all Christians are given Christ’s cup to drink

Huh? Which ones are not?

…well, the Apostles certainly did; many of the early Church Followers also did; millions throughout the world, at various periods of Christian persecution and oppression, have drank of this cup; yet, for your assertion to be correct all Christians, at all times, must suffer oppression, persecution and even martyrdom.

Ohhh – maybe I begin to understand your meaning of “not all Christians are given Christ’s cup to drink”. You take it that they would have to die physically.

I read Matt16:25:

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.”

That seems to convey a level of commitment; a willingness to die for Him. We are warned “they will hate you and persecute you for My namesake, and some of you will die.” But he who loves life more than God, is not worthy of Him.

In that we are commanded “to die”, that is spiritually to sin; as Paul says over and over (see Rom6:1) “we have died to sin”. Spiritual death is the only real death; he who is spiritually alive can never die, for to be absent from the body is to be (alive) present with Christ.

This, consequently, brings us to one particular act which every Christian must partake: Water Baptism.

I agree that “every Christian must partake”; it is issued as a command.

This is the Birth into the Body:

Again, is it the actual water, or Jesus’ name which imparts the Spirit? I don’t see how anyone can avoid Acts10:47 “filled with the Spirit but not yet waterbaptized”. Couldn’t be a “special circumstance”. Yes waterbaptism immediately followed; but they had the Spirit before.

I agree with you that, as Peter said in 1:3:21, waterbaptism now saves us as an appeal to God for a clear conscience (if it is accompanied by repentance). I know you agree with this; that’s much more agreement than disagreement…

…before the first word of the New Testament was Written the Oral Teaching made it clear: ‘every Believer must be Baptized!’

…and if one is confused about it (’…well, but this passage is not explicit about water Baptism, it could well be that St. Peter meant, as Christ said to Nicodemus, Baptism in the Holy Spirit…’), here’s actual Revelation from Sacred Scriptures:

…the Ethiopian did not become part of the Body of Christ by having firsthand knowledge of Sacred Scriptures or by being familiar with Sacred Writings or by being Taught by an Apostle… his knowledge was raised and his awareness compelled him to seek Baptism–water Baptism!

In the movie, “The Hiding Place”, true account of Corrie Tenboom, many of her prison sisters received Jesus; but there was no opportunity for them to be waterbaptized! Would God honor their “heart’s intent”? I’m sure every Catholic person reading this will say, “Of course”.

And they and I would be in complete agreement…

 

[jcrichton]

Let’s read from Ephesians4:4-6

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Again, each reader must decide — did Paul mean “one-waterdipping”, or was he referring to what Jesus said “The baptism, THE cup”? If it is “one waterbaptism-as-repentance”, how does that relate to Mark10:38-39?

In a previous post Jcrichton said:

But as we read in Acts10:47, Cornelius and family had the Holy Spirit but were not waterbaptized. JCR said:

True; but — they had the Spirit well before being waterbaptized, how were they not fully “in the Faith”?

We might consider that this was a “special case, it doesn’t work the same for us”. But Peter says:

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” Acts11:15-17

Cornelius & family received the Spirit exactly the same as the Apostles had; but Cornelius’ group received the Spirit before the water. What are the possible understandings?

1. We are saved differently than Cornelius, Peter and the Apostles. (Anyone believe that?)
2. Peter misspoke, they had NOT received the Spirit before the water.
3. They received the Spirit apart from waterbaptism, and then they were waterbaptized.

If we read Acts8:16, another group had been waterbaptized, but THEN the Apostles laid hands on them to “receive the Spirit”.

Note that in Acts11:16 Peter also conspicuously separates “waterbaptism” from “baptism-in-the-Spirit”, just as John did in Matt3:11.

Can anyone deny that these two passages clearly state “they received the Spirit apart from waterbaptism”? One group received the Spirit before the water, the other after. But Peter said “they received the Spirit THE SAME AS WE DID”. If the Spirit cannot be received apart from waterbaptism, how do you make these verses work?

Again, I’m making no conclusions here, only posting verses and asking for each of your understandings. All thoughts and additional verses are very welcome!

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…again, the problem does not lie with Scriptures; it lies with man’s understanding as he concludes through exegesis or eisegesis…

…what does Scriptures say about water Baptism?:

21:32 For John came to you, a pattern of true righteousness, but you did not believe him, and yet the tax collectors and prostitutes did. Even after seeing that, you refused to think better of it and believe in him.

(St. Matthew 21:32)

29 All the people who heard him, and the tax collectors too, acknowledged God’s plan by accepting baptism from John; 30 but by refusing baptism from him the Pharisees and the lawyers had thwarted what God had in mind for them. (St. Luke 7:29-30)
…consider too how many times did Jesus Teach about Baptism of the Holy Spirit?–to my recollection He only Taught it once–to Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law.

The emphasis of Baptism other than water comes later as the Holy Spirit Unfolds the Truth Revealed by Christ; yet, not once is there ever a Revelation to repel water Baptism nor that drinking Christ’s cup or Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the means to bring anyone into the Fold.

…the One Baptism is that of water Baptism:

21 That water is a type of the baptism which saves you now, and which is not the washing off of physical dirt but a pledge made to God from a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(1 St. Peter 3:21)
…the Holy Spirit reaches out and uses the water of the flood to Baptize the world into Salvation. The deluge is a type of the water Baptism which the Believers must receive.

…again, Scriptural Revelation is not a format which binds God (as the various constructs of pagan mystical gods); God can and has acted outside of the “prescribed” methodology (Ezekiel 37:1-14; Genesis 40+; Revelation 12):

9 and do not presume to tell yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father”, because, I tell you, God can raise children for Abraham from these stones.

(St. Matthew 3:9)

4 Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?’ 35 ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you’ the angel answered ‘and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God. 36 Know this too: your kinswoman Elizabeth has, in her old age, herself conceived a son, and she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month, 37 for nothing is impossible to God’

41 Now as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 She gave a loud cry and said, ‘Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 Why should I be honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord? 44 For the moment your greeting reached my ears, the child in my womb leapt for joy.(St. Luke 1:34-37, 41-44)
Maran atha!