Speaking in Tongues

[guanophore]

A man is born of water, he is born a living soul when God breathes the breath of life into him. Yet, when he learns the law, sin takes occasion and slays the man, making his spirit dead to God. Yet, if the man is not born again in his spirit, and he suffers physical death, because his spirit/soul is dead in him, his soul is taken to where the dead are reserved until the day of judgement.

You seem to recite this regularly like it is a creed of some sort. However, it is not consistent with any creed that the Apostles used or taugtht. It is a modern fundamentalist creed, derived from people reading and interpreting scripture apart from the Sacred Tradition.

No, everything pertinent to the Christian faith will not be contrary to scripture by adding or taking away from scripture. If a truth is revealed through the Holy Spirit, it will be proven through scripture.

I know this is what you need to believe, so that you can cling to your “bible church” beliefs. However, it is not what the Apostles believed and taught. The Christian faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. It did not become less christian after the NT was written. The Source of the Christian faith is not Scripture, but Jesus.

Your interpretation of being born of water and of spirit is contrary to the Word of God.

Ahhh. Is this not where the root of the problem lies? All who read, or hear, interpret what comes in through the senses. Our understanding of what we read and hear is influenced by our personal experiences and education (or lack of it). If you and I both read the same passage, and interpret it differently, what are we to do? you say that mine is wrong, and I say that yours is wrong. What did Jesus tell us to do if we are having a dispute?

To be born of water is to be born in the flesh.

This is what someone has taught you to believe, but this is not consistent with what the Apsotles believed and taught. You never answered my question, heis. Why did Mary, and every other Jewish mother, offer a sacrifice for purification after childbirth? When you can answer this, you will understand why what you have been taught is wrong.

Proof of this is when Jesus said, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Indeed, this is what he said. And Jews of His time referred to physical birth as having to do with that same sacred element for which Mary offered purification. I will give you a hint. It is NOT water.

Unacceptable works is doing works not because we desire or want to from the love in our hearts, but do it because we feel we have to, not truly wanting to do it, but due it more out of obligation.

This is also an erroneous formulation, but it is also outside the scope of this thread.

Yet, it is by faith alone a man is born again, saved.

Another falsity. Do you know the one place in scripture where the words “faith alone” appear together?

Must have included CHILDREN?

Or at least not EXCLUDE the children. The Jews believed that children were a blessing from God. They brought their children into the covenant with circumcision shortly after birth. When cirucumcision was replaced by baptism as the entrance into the New Covenant, they saw no reason to withhold it from the children.

What is salvation? IT is the forgiveness of our sins.

And much more.

Are children, who are ignorant of the law made guilty without committing the sins. For without the law, does sin exist? Did not the law reveal sin, exposing sin?

No, everyone born into the world is born under the death penalty, because of original sin. Baptism washes this away. If they then sin later, they must go to confession.

 

[heiscominginthe]

=Monica4316;5406550]Hi.

If you are correct, then the Holy Spirit has left the Body of Christ.

TheHoly Spirit was/is always with the church. Yet, by changing traditions which are established in the Word of God, it causes the moment of the Holy Spirit to cease. It is called quenching or stunting the Holy Spirit. This occurs when the Word of God is changed from what is written, to something different from what was written.

it would also mean that all the early Church Fathers and the entire Early Church, and the Church for 1500 years, was wrong about EVERYTHING till the reformers came along. How can this be true?? cause they all had the Catholic understanding.

As I have written in ealier posts, the church was called the christian church for many years before being called the universal/catholic church. To be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint when things changed or men started creating teachings that were contrary to the faith, which I believe resulted in many of the hardships the CC went through does not come obvious until the changing of how the baptisms were to be administered in the church. I believe this one thing is responsible for moving the hearts of men in the wrong direction.

did some people several hundred years ago know better than the Apostles?

God choses who he wants to spread the gospel. I believe that the turmoil of the reformation era could have been allot less damaging had both sides put God first and sought to resolve the differences by letting God resolve the problems seperating the two sects.

I’m not sure why you bring up statues… we don’t worship them, btw. in the Old Testament, God told the people to make statues too - like the decorations for the temple etc.

I don’t think any statues were of men or animals. I believe what was made was like pots and pans and tools used in sacrificing for sin offerings.

we don’t believe the Pope is God. We just honour him as Apostle Peter’s successor.

Let me ask you this. If you were to met the pope, would you bow down to him, or kiss his ring or the hem of his garment?

abuses are one thing, but changing the doctrine? the doctrine that was in place for 1500 years.

I believe it was around the time of 380 AD when the baptisms were changed. This occured changing how the baptisms were adminstered officially. This occured about 1120 years ago. If the scriptures or traditions were not changed, which I agree, why was the interpretation of them changed from what was written?

the Catholic Church IS the Christian Church. If you go back to Pentecost… you would not find any other church… there were no Protestants… no “Bible only Christians”… it was Catholic. And even had Catholic doctrine… this is evident if you study early Church history

As I said before, the church was called only the church on the day of Pentecost. It was not changed to the CC for a very long time, officially.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore

No, everyone born into the world is born under the death penalty, because of original sin. Baptism washes this away. If they then sin later, they must go to confession.

So all the aborted, children, all the unbaptized children are going to hell?

Because of original sin, we will all suffer physical death. Yet, it is personal sin that kills the spirit in a man and that is why he must be born again in his spirit.

 

[CWBetts]

So all the aborted, children, all the unbaptized children are going to hell?

Because of original sin, we will all suffer physical death. Yet, it is personal sin that kills the spirit in a man and that is why he must be born again in his spirit.

Where do you get your delusions? I have never heard any CAtholic say such a thing, yet you claim that is what the Church teaches. We know that God is just, but he is also merciful, and we believe that there is a possiblity for salvation of these souls, though we do not know the details.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Where do you get your delusions? I have never heard any CAtholic say such a thing, yet you claim that is what the Church teaches. We know that God is just, but he is also merciful, and we believe that there is a possiblity for salvation of these souls, though we do not know the details.

Do you think God wants us to be ignorant of his ways? God is a mytery only to those who do not know him. To those who are born again, God reveals himself to the believer only what the believer can handle. Our entire lives on this earth will be spent in learning about our Creator, but this life and hundreds of lifetimes more would not be enough for us to completely know all there is about God. I don’t believe it is possible for us to know all there is about God. Yet, it is not because he is not willing to reveal himself to us. It is mostly because of our lack of faith.

 

[CWBetts]

Do you think God wants us to be ignorant of his ways? God is a mytery only to those who do not know him. To those who are born again, God reveals himself to the believer only what the believer can handle. Our entire lives on this earth will be spent in learning about our Creator, but this life and hundreds of lifetimes more would not be enough for us to completely know all there is about God. I don’t believe it is possible for us to know all there is about God. Yet, it is not because he is not willing to reveal himself to us. It is mostly because of our lack of faith.

Give me a break. GOd does not reveal everything to us, but He does tell us what we need to know. The scriptures say as much. I, for one am tired of your misrepresentations of the Church.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Give me a break. GOd does not reveal everything to us, but He does tell us what we need to know. The scriptures say as much. I, for one am tired of your misrepresentations of the Church.

God is always willing to reveal himself to us. We are the ones not always ready to receive his truth. We build up walls that often times seperate us from his truth by believing things that are contrary to his Word.

Look at Adam and Eve for instance. God told them not to eat the forbidden fruit and that in the day they ate of it, they would die. They chose to believe the lie of the devil over the truth of God’s Word and brought death to all of mankind. And this wall seperated man from God until God sent his Son to tear it down by defeating death.

 

[rtconstant]

We don’t NEED to. It is just OK to do so. I believe that this is a pretty authoritative source, don’t you?nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians13.htm

See when I see that verse all I see is Paul making a point, about how that Love is the ultimate gift and how that any other ability no matter how physically impressive like, prophesy, or speaking like an angel is meaningless if you don’t have the fruit of the Spirit which is Love. I don’t see it as a description of a gift.

The only time in the NT that we see the tongues in action is at Pentecost. Which is a gift that we see in use throughout the history of the Church. The modern view of tongues as introduced by Pentecostals doesn’t really have any precedent other than a couple of verses that could be construed to apply.

 

[guanophore]

The pirit was/is always with the church. Yet, by changing traditions which are established in the Word of God, it causes the moment of the Holy Spirit to cease. It is called quenching or stunting the Holy Spirit. This occurs when the Word of God is changed from what is written, to something different from what was written.

it is true that the hs has always b4een7 with the Church. however, the traditions were established by Jesus and the Apostles before the Bible was ever written. just like the Church has the authority to write and canonize the Scripture, she has the authority to designate how baptism is done. What is written in the new testament reflects what the church believes and teaches but it is not the Source of our faith. jesus is.

on the contrary, heis, what you have done with the error of Sola Scriptura is to stunt and quench the Spirit. No other heresy has produced such a division in the Body.

As I have written in ealier posts, the church was called the christian church for many years before being called the universal/catholic church.

There is no distintion between the Christian Church and the CAtholic. The early Christian Church is Catholic. When you have the courage to read the early fathers, this will become clear to you.

be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint when things changed or men started creating teachings that were contrary to the faith, which I believe resulted in many of the hardships the CC went through does not come obvious until the changing of how the baptisms were to be administeredin the church.

This is what you have been taught, and embracing this somehow justifies you in your mind from being separated from the Church jesus founded. however, it is not supported by history. in fact, the supposed ‘changes’ you reference happened before your Bible was formed, so if the CC was already ‘off the rails’ then you can’t really trust your new testament, either.

I believe this one thing is responsible for moving the hearts of men in the wrong direction.

Truly there are all manner of strange beliefs at work in the world. however, the hearts of Catholics are moved only to Christ. it probable seems like, since we do not accept your modern views, that we do not. it has become clear that you are not trinitarian in your faith either.

God choses who he wants to spread the gospel. I believe that the turmoil of the reformation era could have been allot less damaging had both sides put God first and sought to resolve the differences by letting God resolve the problems seperating the two sects.

This is certainly true. There are faults on both sides, and pride and arrogance always cause sins.

I don’t think any statues were of men or animals. I believe what was made was like pots and pans and tools used in sacrificing for sin offerings.

it seems you have some more reading of your ot to do!

Let me ask you this. If you were to met the pope, would you bow down to him, or kiss his ring or the hem of his garment?

yes these are cultural customs of showing respect and obedience. if i was at the white house, i would greet obama as mr president.

I believe it was around the time of 380 AD when the baptisms were changed. This occured changing how the baptisms were adminstered officially. This occured about 1120 years ago. If the scriptures or traditions were not changed, which I agree, why was the interpretation of them changed from what was written?

no, heis. your theory about baptisms has no histoical support. Besides, you claim this happened before the Bible was formed. if the CC was wrong,then you can’t trust your bible either, since it came from the same source.

As I said before, the church was called only the church on the day of Pentecost. It was not changed to the CC for a very long time, officially.

This is also a falsehood, heis. it has been called the CC since the book of Acts was written.

 

[guanophore]

See when I see that verse all I see is Paul making a point, about how that Love is the ultimate gift and how that any other ability no matter how physically impressive like, prophesy, or speaking like an angel is meaningless if you don’t have the fruit of the Spirit which is Love. I don’t see it as a description of a gift.

There are many descriptors and references to this precious gift. However, I agree with your point. Love is primary. The best benefit of tongues is to bring more love into the life of a person.

The only time in the NT that we see the tongues in action is at Pentecost. Which is a gift that we see in use throughout the history of the Church. The modern view of tongues as introduced by Pentecostals doesn’t really have any precedent other than a couple of verses that could be construed to apply.

There are plenty of references in the NT to “tongues in action”, and the variety used at Pentecost is only one of the many mentioned. The modern 'view" may be Pentecostal, but the Gift has been given to the Catholic Church, and belongs to the Church. The fact that the gift has been abused does not invalidate it’s value.

 

[Ignatius33]

You are very mistaken. For it is written that when a man is baptized in water, it is to be done in the name of Jesus.

It is written that a man is saved by faith alone, not water baptism.

I thought I would just point out that baptismal regeneration was universally followed by the post-Apostolic Church and is still followed by every Church that predates the Protestant Reformation (e.g., Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Roman Catholic Church, etc.). Protestants are the innovaters when they deny the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is clearly taught in Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:20-21) and by the earliest Christians. Here is just a sampling of the earliest Christians and how they understood the meaning of John 3:5…

1. St. Justin Martyr:

“Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [Jn. 3:3] . . . The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. Since we had no awareness of our first birth, but were compelled to be born of the moist seed through the mutual union of our parents, and were raised in bad habits and in evil training, and so that we might not remain as children of necessity and ignorance, but rather of deliberate choice and knowledge, and in order to obtain in the water the remission of past sins, there is invoked over him who wishes to be reborn and who has repented of his sins, the name of God, the Father and Master of all . . . This washing is called illumination, because it enlightens the intelligence of those who learn these things. Furthermore, the one being illuminated is washed also in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who predicted through the prophets everything concerning Jesus” (First Apology [148-155 AD]).

1. St. Irenaeus:

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication for us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” [Jn. 3:5] (Fragment 34 [190 AD]).

1. St. Theophilus of Antioch:

“Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration [Titus 3:5] – all who proceed to the truth are born again and receive a blessing from God” (To Autolycus [ca. 181 AD]).

1. Tertullian:

“[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” [Jn. 3:5] (Baptism [203 AD]).

1. St. Hippolytus of Rome:

“[Following baptism] the bishop, imposing his hand on them [during the sacrament of confirmation], shall make an invocation, saying: ‘O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit’s washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may serve you according to your will: for there is glory to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’” (The Apostolic Tradition [ca. 215 AD]).

1. Origen:

“Formerly there was Baptism, in an obscure way, in the cloud and in the sea; now however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit” (Homilies on Numbers [post 244 AD]).

1. St. Cyprian of Carthage:

“[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’” [Jn. 3:5] (Letters 71[72]:1[253 AD]).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Aphraates the Persian Sage:

“For from Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and He descends and rests upon the waters; and those who are baptized are clothed in Him. For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth; and then they receive the Holy Spirit” (Treatises [inter 336-345 AD]).

1. St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

“Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. Thus, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit and our body washed with pure water [Heb 10:22], we may draw near to God. When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit – he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’” [Jn. 3:5] (Catechetical Lectures [ca. 350 AD]).

1. St. Athanasius:

“[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ are we quickened” (Four Discourses Against the Arians [360 AD]).

1. St. Basil:

“This then is what it means to be born again of water and Spirit [Jn. 3:5]: just as our dying is effected in the water, our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and in an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water but from the Spirit’s presence there” (The Holy Spirit [375 AD]).

1. St. Gregory of Nyssa:

“[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit” (Against Eunomius [382 AD]).

1. St. Gregory Nazianzen:

“Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths” (Oration on Holy Baptism [388 AD]).

1. St. Ambrose of Milan:

“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism . . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’” [Jn. 3:5] (Abraham [387 AD]).

1. St. John Chrysostom:

“[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit [Jn. 3:5] . . . These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of the spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]” (The Priesthood [387 AD]).

1. St. Augustine:

“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [Jn. 3:5]. The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam” (Letters 98:2 [412 AD]). I’ve never seen an early Christian writer interpret the water in John 3:5 to mean amniotic fluid (or something other than the water of Baptism for that matter).

1. St. Thomas Aquinas:

“Our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ . . . By Divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism, which is regeneration unto spiritual life” (Summa Theologica III, Q.66, Art. 3 [1265-1274 AD]).

“Hence it is clear that by Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive oldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism” (id. III, Q.69, Art. 1).

I suppose, in the Protestant view, the earliest Christians, schooled by the Apostles themselves and their apostolic successors, completely misapprehended the Gospel. In other words, right from the getgo, from the Protestant perspective, the entire Church got the meaning of John 3:5 wrong. That just blows my mind. I thought Jesus promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18).

 

[Ignatius33]

What about all the statues in the CC?

Interesting how nobody has a problem with statues of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Babe Ruth, but when statues are made to depict our true heroes – Jesus Christ, Mary, the Apostles and the saints, all of a sudden it is idolotry. People visit and honor Lincoln at the Lincoln monument in droves. Is that idolotry? Of course not. Neither is the Catholic use of statues or the Orthodox veneration of icons.

True, we don’t see statues in Sacred Scripture. But that makes sense. Nascent Christianity was surrounded on all sides by pagans, who used and worshipped idols. It would have been imprudent to introduce icons and statues as aids to reverence in that era. As time went on, however, the dangers of “worshipping” idols disappeared as the pagan religions disappeared. There is nothing inherently idolotrous in making a statue of any Christian figure.

Not sure why I’m jumping into this thread…it seems to have outlived its usefulness (is anybody even talking about tongues anymore?)

 

[heiscominginthe]

Ignatius33;5436177]I thought I would just point out that baptismal regeneration was universally followed by the post-Apostolic Church and is still followed by every Church that predates the Protestant Reformation…

Why did you stop. I want to read what the earliest christians believed on baptism.

1. St. Justin Martyr:

“Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [Jn. 3:3] . . This washing is called illumination, because it enlightens the intelligence of those who learn these things. Furthermore, the one being illuminated is washed also in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who predicted through the prophets everything concerning Jesus” (First Apology [148-155 AD]).

No place is it written that a man fast and pray for remission of sin. Nor does it say washing of regeneration is illumination. Nor is it written that water baptism is to be done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Water baptism was done by the apostles only in the name of Jesus, for no man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

No place does it say water baptism saves man.

1. St. Irenaeus:

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication for us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” [Jn. 3:5] (Fragment 34 [190 AD]).

It is not sacred water that destroys the sins of a man, but it is the blood of the lamb.

1. St. Theophilus of Antioch:

“Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration [Titus 3:5] – all who proceed to the truth are born again and receive a blessing from God” (To Autolycus [ca. 181 AD]).

This is grossly misinterpreted when speaking of regeneration. For regeneration comes by way of faith in believing causing regeneration through the Holy Spirit. Titus was not referring to water baptism, but though salvation by way of faith.

1. Tertullian:

“[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” [Jn. 3:5] (Baptism [203 AD]).

This is not what John says. He does not say that water saves a man. He does not say the man must be baptized in water. Yet, this part of scripture most certainly does pertain to baptism, but this baptism is done without hands. For Christ baptized us through his blood.

1. St. Hippolytus of Rome:

“[Following baptism] the bishop, imposing his hand on them [during the sacrament of confirmation], shall make an invocation, saying: ‘O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit’s washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may serve you according to your will: for there is glory to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’” (The Apostolic Tradition [ca. 215 AD]).

If a man is not circumcised in his heart before he receives water baptism, he will enter the water a sinner and come from the water a sinner. The heart of a man must change and this occurs only by way of faith.

1. Origen:

“Formerly there was Baptism, in an obscure way, in the cloud and in the sea; now however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit” (Homilies on Numbers [post 244 AD]).

Cannot be proven with scripture. Origen attempts to interpret John 3 in that water baptism save, but cannot be supported by scripture.

1. St. Cyprian of Carthage:

“[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’” [Jn. 3:5] (Letters 71[72]:1[253 AD]).

Any man can be baptized. Unless he has a change in heart, unless his heart is circumcised through faith, water baptism does nothing for him.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Interesting how nobody has a problem with statues of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Babe Ruth, but when statues are made to depict our true heroes – Jesus Christ, Mary, the Apostles and the saints, all of a sudden it is idolotry. People visit and honor Lincoln at the Lincoln monument in droves. Is that idolotry? Of course not. Neither is the Catholic use of statues or the Orthodox veneration of icons.

True, we don’t see statues in Sacred Scripture. But that makes sense. Nascent Christianity was surrounded on all sides by pagans, who used and worshipped idols. It would have been imprudent to introduce icons and statues as aids to reverence in that era. As time went on, however, the dangers of “worshipping” idols disappeared as the pagan religions disappeared. There is nothing inherently idolotrous in making a statue of any Christian figure.

Not sure why I’m jumping into this thread…it seems to have outlived its usefulness (is anybody even talking about tongues anymore?)

Let me ask you this. How many catholics pray to statues?

 

[guanophore]

 Why did you stop. I want to read what the earliest christians believed on baptism.

Most of the quotes posted here predate the forming of the Bible. If you cannot accept what the Church believed and taught prior to that time I don’t see how you can accept the Bible, which comes from the same Source.

No place is it written that a man fast and pray for remission of sin. Nor does it say washing of regeneration is illumination. Nor is it written that water baptism is to be done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It is interesting that you would say this, having JUST READ a number of places where these things are written. The early church fathers quoted here demonstrate what they received from the Apostles.

Water baptism was done by the apostles only in the name of Jesus, for no man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

This is what you have been taught to believe, so that you can have some foundation to reject the Church founded by Christ. However, it is not true.

No place does it say water baptism saves man.

The scriptures and the writings have been provided to you, both on this thread, and the one you started on baptism. You have rejected the Apostolic teaching.

I think, though, in your limited concept of "water baptism’, what you are saying is a true statement. You have been taught that “water baptism” is a form of godliness, without power. An empty ritual. So, according to your definition, you have made a true statement.
We are saved by grace, through faith. We are washed clean of our sins by the HS. This is the part of "water baptism’ that you deny. It is clear, however, from the writings of the early fathers, that what they received from the Apsotles is different from what you believe.

It is not sacred water that destroys the sins of a man, but it is the blood of the lamb.

For Christians, these two were joined when the Lamb of God entered the waters of baptism, joining the HS to them. It is that HS that applies the precious blood of the lamb to our souls in the baptismal waters, washing us clean, so that we can appeal to God with a clear conscience. We are baptized for the remission of sins.

This is grossly misinterpreted when speaking of regeneration. For regeneration comes by way of faith in believing causing regeneration through the Holy Spirit. Titus was not referring to water baptism, but though salvation by way of faith.

For the Christian, they are not separated.Paul was referring to water baptism, but not the kind that you accept (empty of spiritual power). Titus accepted that apostolic teaching from Paul that you have rejected, that the baptismal waters cause us to be born again.

This is not what John says. He does not say that water saves a man. He does not say the man must be baptized in water. Yet, this part of scripture most certainly does pertain to baptism, but this baptism is done without hands. For Christ baptized us through his blood.

The water baptism is the manner in which the saving blood of Christ is applied to the individual. This is done by the HS, and not with human hands.

If a man is not circumcised in his heart before he receives water baptism, he will enter the water a sinner and come from the water a sinner. The heart of a man must change and this occurs only by way of faith.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

The Catholic Church does not baptize anyone without a profession of faith. This is why Scripture states “believe in the heart, and confess with the mouth”. This is part of Catholic baptism.

Cannot be proven with scripture. Origen attempts to interpret John 3 in that water baptism save, but cannot be supported by scripture.

This is not a problem for Catholics, whose doctrines do not emanate from Scripture. We received the faith from Jesus Himself, through the Apostles. Scripture, written after the faith was delivered to the Church, reflects what the Church believes and teaches, but is not the Source of that faith. Jesus is our Source.

Those who have been separated from the Source to a greater or lesser extent must form doctrines with all the revelation they have left, which is their own opinons and the Holy Scripture. Once Scripture is separated from the Church to which it was given, all kinds of errors of interpretation result.

Any man can be baptized. Unless he has a change in heart, unless his heart is circumcised through faith, water baptism does nothing for him.

Not in the Catholic Church they cannot. Perhaps, since the baptism you use is devoid of Power, y’all baptize without faith, but this is not consistent with the Apostolic teaching.

 

[guanophore]

Let me ask you this. How many catholics pray to statues?

I have never known of any. How many do you know?

 

[Ignatius33]

Nor is it written that water baptism is to be done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Water baptism was done by the apostles only in the name of Jesus, for no man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

Whoa, are you anti-Trinitarian? Jesus specifically 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” (Matt. 28:19).

 

[Ignatius33]

Let me ask you this. How many catholics pray to statues?

Can’t say I’ve ever heard of anybody “pray to a statue” before.

As St. Thomas More put it, not without a little humor:

“Besides this, take the most simple-minded fool you can choose, and she will tell you that our Lady herself is in heaven. She will also call a statue a statue, and she will tell you a difference between a sculpture of a horse and an actual horse. And then it is quite evident that whatever her words are about her pilgrimage, if by a common manner of speaking she calls the statue of our Lady ‘our Lady,’ as people say, ‘Go to the King’s Head for wine,’ meaning not his actual head but the sign, so she sees in that statue nothing but our Lady’s statue, no matter what she calls it. And if you want clear proof that she takes neither our Lady for that statue nor that statue for our Lady (as both she must take if she takes either one), talk with her about our Lady and she will tell you that our Lady was greeted by Gabriel, and that our Lady fled into Egypt with Joseph, and yet she will not in the telling say that Our Lady of Walsingham or of Ipswich was greeted by Gabriel or fled into Egypt. And if you ask her whether it was Our Lady of Ipswich or Our Lady of Walsingham that stood by the cross during Christ’s Passion, she will, I guarantee you, answer that it was neither” (“Dialogue Concerning Heresies” 266-267).

 

[Ignatius33]

Why did you stop. I want to read what the earliest christians believed on baptism.

Obviously, we disagree on what Sacred Scripture teaches about Baptism. I therefore went to the earliest Christian sources that we have to show what the earliest Christians believed. What I gave you was merely a representative fragment. Clearly they agree with the view followed by all non-Protestant Christians.

Why don’t you try to find some early sources, outside your personal interpretation of Scripture (which obviously I reject, as do the majority of Christians worldwide and just about every Christian up until the 16th century) supporting your view? Or do you not care about any early witnesses because, in your view, the first generation of Christians all clearly understood the Bible as you understand it (even though it didn’t exist yet), but the second generation of Christians somehow all completely messed everything up?