The Baptist Church and it's policy on baptism

[david_ruiz]

Provide some understanding as it regards your understanding of your rules. Even theorems have examples.

.Look, traditions are very hard to break or to overcome in Catholic apologetics ,from a non-catholic perspective. It has to do with the Catholic interpretation of the “Church” being infallible, that she has been right , from the get go. It has to do with tradtion being authoritatively on par with Holy Scripture . It is like the Jew saying the Talmud is equal to the Torah - their traditional writings and commentaries and interpretations (Talmud) being equal to Sacred inspired scriopture (Torah) . Another words, a papl decree can be as authorattive as scripture . In the OT ,a rabbinic interpretation would NOT be equal to inspired scripture. Hence the impossibility of overcoming such a “circular” tradtion from a protetstant dialogue standpoint. …What I do like about the both of us is the idea of absolutism , a gift from God, and a deep Jewish tradition - that there is only one correct main interepretation of a thing - “for the spirit interprets all things” . We just rely on different sources for enlightenment. Your system is safe and confined , set , in fixed position .Ours must be made fresh in every saint directly as the original . It is more dangerous, and apt to more failure and trial by error etc (like Peter , one minute the hero saying boldly “you are the Christ”,the next minute telling Jesus He won’t die , to which Jesus replied -“get behind me Satan” ) . It is an exciting “system” , and definitely makes you dependent on the Shepherd of our souls.

 

[CopticChristian]

.Look, traditions are very hard to break or to overcome in Catholic apologetics ,from a non-catholic perspective. It has to do with the Catholic interpretation of the “Church” being infallible, that she has been right , from the get go. It has to do with tradtion being authoritatively on par with Holy Scripture . It is like the Jew saying the Talmud is equal to the Torah - their traditional writings and commentaries and interpretations (Talmud) being equal to Sacred inspired scriopture (Torah) . Another words, a papl decree can be as authorattive as scripture . In the OT ,a rabbinic interpretation would NOT be equal to inspired scripture. Hence the impossibility of overcoming such a “circular” tradtion from a protetstant dialogue standpoint. …What I do like about the both of us is the idea of absolutism , a gift from God, and a deep Jewish tradition - that there is only one correct main interepretation of a thing - “for the spirit interprets all things” . We just rely on different sources for enlightenment. Your system is safe and confined , set , in fixed position .Ours must be made fresh in every saint directly as the original . It is more dangerous, and apt to more failure and trial by error etc (like Peter , one minute the hero saying boldly “you are the Christ”,the next minute telling Jesus He won’t die , to which Jesus replied -“get behind me Satan” ) . It is an exciting “system” , and definitely makes you dependent on the Shepherd of our souls.

This is an interesting analysis. I see it more like this. What happens in the world can be seen and applied to what we know here. Our maps of the world are distorted and created by us.

Alfred Korzybski wrote The Manhood Of Humanity and later Science and Sanity, not as a relgious text but rather an attempt to demonstrate how we become 'unsane" by our inability to understand. He states that plants bind engergy, animals bind space and energy, and humans bind energy, space and time. Humans bind time and what he meant by that is that we can take the sum of all knowledge and translate it forward so that each generation does not have to invent the wheel.

Thus, Sacred Tradition is the equivalent of Time Binding, and in fact there is in the secular world a journal called The journal of Oral Tradition. What your map does not allow is that the secular world understands how the mind works and your map is archaeic and out of touch with what is known, for what is known about God can be know by looking in the world so that there is no excuse and the wrath of God is brought down on those that suppress the Truth. That is my map.

 

[david_ruiz]

This is an interesting analysis. I see it more like this. What happens in the world can be seen and applied to what we know here. Our maps of the world are distorted and created by us.

Alfred Korzybski wrote The Manhood Of Humanity and later Science and Sanity, not as a relgious text but rather an attempt to demonstrate how we become 'unsane" by our inability to understand. He states that plants bind engergy, animals bind space and energy, and humans bind energy, space and time. Humans bind time and what he meant by that is that we can take the sum of all knowledge and translate it forward so that each generation does not have to invent the wheel.

Thus, Sacred Tradition is the equivalent of Time Binding, and in fact there is in the secular world a journal called The journal of Oral Tradition. What your map does not allow is that the secular world understands how the mind works and your map is archaeic and out of touch with what is known, for what is known about God can be know by looking in the world so that there is no excuse and the wrath of God is brought down on those that suppress the Truth. That is my map.

O.K.Thank-you. With our quick yet full analysis, we could not cover everything , but your point was considered after I wrote it, that of teachers ,pastors and tradition ,and as you say history (time).Both views do not ignore it.It’s just one more thing to be enlightened upon. Maybe the citing of “the spirit discerns all things ’ covers that . Another words first century Christians had to “make hay” ,discern things, with their limited yet powerful history . 500 AD Christians now have more to process and discern, so on and so forth. We do nor reinvent the wheel per say. While we have “time” - history , some things never change .“There is nothing new under the sun” and” He never changes". Actually ,the more we add to history ,the more careful we have to be , and the more challenged we are ,for as Einstein said , the more he learned ,the more he realized how little he knew and how much more there was to know - oh the vanity of our “maps”…And increased knowledge does not evolve us. We are all born in sin and spiritually dead. The remedy is the same. As a matter of fact ,the remedy is eternal .As Catholics have pointed out here(another thread), since before eternity Christ was crucified for us , and we still see that at the end in Revelations. Every human being must learn to walk , for himself -guided by parents. .Every human must go from milk to solid foods .Just like every spiritual person must go from milk to meat (solids) .That is ,milk is predigested food from a cow. The cow is tradition, and pastors , evangelists. They give you what they have been given , by the spirit and digested into there very essence. Meat is when you receive for yourself spiritual food , digest it yourself…So my map indeed calls to discern All things in the world, “for we are to have the mind of Christ ,and discern ALL things,and can know all things.” See, it is actually more fluid than your map. It is not archaic but quite relevant and flexible. And it is wiser for we are to be careful what we build upon, and not take anything for granted, We are admonished to test all things. Paul liked it when the Bereans verified Paul’s words…Basically our maps are the same. We both contain scripture ,history.teachers ,pastors etc.It is just that you are drawn by others to believe it is “His map”, while I would admonish all to ask ,“Lord ,is this your map ?” or “show me your map” for our allegiance is to Him , not the map.

 

[CopticChristian]

O.K.Thank-you. With our quick yet full analysis, we could not cover everything , but your point was considered after I wrote it, that of teachers ,pastors and tradition ,and as you say history (time). to discern All things in the world, “for we are to have the mind of Christ ,and discern ALL things,and can know all things.” See, it is actually more fluid than your map. It is not archaic but quite relevant and flexible. And it is wiser for we are to be careful what we build upon, and not take anything for granted, We are admonished to test all things. Paul liked it when the Bereans verified Paul’s words…Basically our maps are the same. We both contain scripture ,history.teachers ,pastors etc.It is just that you are drawn by others to believe it is “His map”, while I would admonish all to ask ,“Lord ,is this your map ?” or “show me your map” for our allegiance is to Him , not the map.

I believe you are grasping the concept. I understand that as I read writings of the Church including the Bible that there is a consistency. It took time for Paul to be explain what the map was as noted in the book of Romans to the Judaizers. They had a map however discerned it improperly.

Discernment is not the map it is what we reference for discernment.

Now let’s take this one more step. NLP is the study of languaging and communication and excellence. NLP states that we take information in via VAKOG or Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Gustatory, Olfactory, and then reference all of that in what is called a submodality. It is not sub but that is what it is called. So then everyone can agree we see, we hear, we feel, smell touch, move and that is how we get information into our brain. All agree with that. Next.

Think about what you did yesterday from rising to sleeping, everything absolutely everything. If you do this you will observe that you did it and what you did was recall a movie of the day before. This is the submodality or how we put the information together in our brains. Next we have feelings about those submodalities and we can think of what those feelings are. Each time we abstract we are going beyond or meta to the first level. So far so good.

If the map is created by VAKOG and put together in submodalities and if you have a map that is absent hearing, lacking the Oral teachings, then your map is incomplete. It is the map that you reference when you discern. Yes, you got it, we pray for God to open our minds so that our map is his map. Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand or Change your mind for the kingdom of God is at hand.

You got it.

 

[CopticChristian]

sure, his friends faith would have part of the reason, just as we parents have faith that God will save our children, but along the way our children must devolope their own faith, We plant the seed of faith by teach them the Gospel, but it is the Holy Spirit that waters the seed to make it grow.

drywall

The Catholic understanding of Baptism is also the unanimous teaching of the earliest Christians who immediately followed the apostles. Every Christian, all the Church Fathers, bishops, and saints who lived after the apostles (and some while the apostles were still alive) interpreted our Lord’s words in John chapter 3 that to be “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” refers to the Sacrament of Baptism. There are no exceptions. And Protestant scholars frankly admit this fact (note the relevent sections on Baptism in Reformed/Presbyterian scholar Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, and Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition).

Philip Schaff (Presbyterian/Reformed) --"This ordinance [Baptism] was regarded in the ancient church as the sacrament of the new birth or regeneration, and as the solemn rite of initiation into the Christian Church, admitting to all her benefits and committing to all her obligations…Its effect consists in the forgiveness of sins and the communication of the Holy Spirit.

Paul Enns (Dispensational/Baptist, Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary) –
"Justin Martyr suggests Isaiah 1:16-20 refers to Christian baptism, apparently suggesting that this rite produces the new birth (1 Apol 61)…Very early in the Christian church, prominence was given to the rite of baptism so that many, in effect, taught baptismal regeneration.

J.N.D. Kelly (Anglican patristic scholar) –
“From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church; only ‘those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name’ may partake of the eucharist [Didache 9:5]…As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins…the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general…The Spirit is God Himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation…”

Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran patristic scholar) –
“With deliverance from death came a new life and regeneration. The phrase ‘washing of regeneration’ in Titus 3:5 was synonymous with ‘the baptism of regeneration.’ [references to Methodius of Olympus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen].”

 

[david_ruiz]

Discernment is not the map it is what we reference for discernment.

O K.

If the map is created by VAKOG and put together in submodalities and if you have a map that is absent hearing, lacking the Oral teachings, then your map is incomplete.

I understand your point .Unfortunately it also magnifies mine , that you equate oral teachings as authoritative as written teachings ,specifically the written, inspired Word of God. “Faith cometh by hearing, and that by the Word of God”. Oral teachings are not as authoritative as Written “teachings” ,hence they are not as valuable to be put on a map.Notice I said “as valuable” , for they still have value, but limited in comparison . As one church father put it, “It is well that he who learned the judgements of the Lord , as many as have been written , should walk in them “.” Meditate how to save a soul by the Word” (Barnabus)…The other idea is this .What is the purpose of the map ? Certainly a main one is to “apprehend the lord Jesus” as Paul states .Who had/has the best Vakog of Him, to apprehend Him ?.. I have heard it said that from Adam and Abraham , they looked forward to their Savior and we look backward .The central figure, time, and space was around 30 A.D.,when the Lord walked very closely with 12. Those twelve ( Paul the 12th ) gave us our foundation (Revelations ) AND put it in Writing (well the Lord did).The Writings were pure and inspired (good Vakog). I believe the closer you get to them the purer will be your hearing and vision etc. for with which to make your map… The glorious challenge is to sift thru all the stuff that has been added for 2000 years. The temptation would be to rely on that , instead of getting up close and personal with the Savior , as did the twelve. Augustine and other fathers state that" He teaches us" .Revelations says He desires to sup with us" - He sticks closer than a brother. Furthermore they tried adding and detracting form the original blueprint from the beginning, even while the writers were still alive (For he is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, even seeking the Savior himself). How mush more possibility of adding or detracting given 2000 years ? IT is just like interpreting the U.S.Constitution. Most universities today study 200 years Supreme Court interpretations. Very few study the actual original document, to our harm I believe.

 

[CopticChristian]

O K.

I understand your point .

… ve.

Tradition does not contradict Scripture.

Oral teachings are not as authoritative as Written “teachings” ,hence they are not as valuable to be put on a map.Notice
In your opinion.

.What is the purpose of the map .Who had/has the best Vakog of Him, to apprehend Him ?..

True and part of what we need to do is try to discern the best map from those that had it and professed it.

I have heard it said that from Adam and Abraham , they looked forward to their Savior and we look backward . We look forward, backward and are always in the eternal NOW.

The glorious challenge is to sift thru all the stuff that has been added for 2000 years.

The blueprint comes from His Church. The Church, The Body of Christ, The Pillar and Foundation of Truth, The mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known so that even the angels learn renders the blueprint useless in the hands of those that have no precedent to its understanding. An engineer and a blueprint is something. A blueprint without an engineer is nothing but a blueprint.

(For he is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, even seeking the Savior himself). How mush more possibility of adding or detracting given 2000 years ? IT is just like interpreting the U.S.Constitution. Most universities today study 200 years Supreme Court interpretations. Very few study the actual original document, to our harm I believe.

1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;

1The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

The world recognizes that there is an Oral Tradition. For what is known of God is that in the world we can see what God has done and the wrath of God is brought down on those that suppress the truth, for them there is no excuse. The world knows that there is oral tradtion. You argue that there is not. This would be considered something that Korzysbski would say causes “unsane” thinking. I say it causes difficulty communicating and understanding. I know we communicate and understand by Auditory means as does the world. You do not. You have to go through the world with this belief. I do not.

oraltradition.org/, click the tab OT journal, and then scroll down to this.

Oral Tradition Volume 25, Number 1 ( Table of Contents ) March 2010 Oral Tradition in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Your analysis of the constitution illuminates our misunderstanding. The Constitution has been explained and as you say many schools exist to discuss the meaning. This is an organization for the people, by the people and we can disagree, protest, bring arguments and fight the decisions.

The Church is not a democracy. The Body of Christ is a Kingdom. You can deny it, you can attack it, you don’t have to accept it. This is Catholic Answers and it would be my opinion that every Catholic on this site believes that.

You base your map on VKOG
I base my map, as does the Church on VAKOG

Your map is deficient in auditory teachings. I would bet if you go into a submodality, that is to reflect on how you learned what you profess, you did not get it by yourself in a room with a bible. You had Oral teachings in Bible Study, You had Oral preaching in your church meetings reinforcing what you believe, you may have read books, I do not know only you know. What I do know that it was not learned with the Bible Alone, thus by your actions refuting Sola Scriptura. What I know is that what you deny is hard to deny because in your own learning, as you went to grade school you can remember the teacher and a chalk board explaining the book you had at your desk.

In cool hand luke you recall…”what we have here is a failure to communicate”. You have to wrestle with the unbelief of Oral teaching…pray not for your belief rather your unbelief.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Does that mean that we now wait for the jury to decide?

I will never understand the Baptist mind set on this.
I’m engaged in debate with a Baptist friend on this thread topic.
So far it looks like “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”
kinda thing…

Matthew

 

[Holly3278]

The Baptist’s position on baptism is wrong. There is evidence in the Bible and in Sacred Tradition of babies being baptized.

 

[CopticChristian]

I will never understand the Baptist mind set on this.
I’m engaged in debate with a Baptist friend on this thread topic.
So far it looks like “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”
kinda thing…

Matthew

One of the things that is helpful is to discover what type of Baptist you are discussing things with. In my opinion, like Aquinas, you have to know as much or more about what the person you oppose speaks of.

This is one of the weanesses of Protestant argument. They argue from an assumed understanding of what you believe. Here is a secret that I hope no Protestant ever hears.

If I discussed with any Protestant/Baptist, and they could tell me what the Catechism taught based on our Scriptural understanding, Patristics, and Historical content I might listen. Hope they never hear this. When you hear your opponent discuss what they understand of the Catechim, oh boy.

They keep telling me that the Catholic Church has changed teachings. I ask for one and as of yet have not heard them find one for me. That is why I stay where I am.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Baptist’s position on baptism is wrong. There is evidence in the Bible and in Sacred Tradition of babies being baptized.

My youngest daugher is 11 years old. One of the most common causes of death in children is automobile accidents. I know that for years I have told her, look both ways when you cross the street. I know I have told her to be careful in parking lots. I know that I have told her never to chase a ball in the street. I know that she will remmember this when she has kids.

I know that I have written no book to keep my child safe and there will be no book for her to give her children. I know that she will remmember what I taught her and that this teaching will transcend time.

This is similar to the Baptist belief, believing that we cannot transmit information in time without a book. If in the world of Protestant thought there are CredoBaptists and PedoBaptists then we have to consider that there are two Gods. One God wants us to baptize babies and it has meaning and the other God wants us to wait until they believe and it means nothing. We worhip on this hill and you worship on that hill…we worship what we know and you worship what you don’t know.

The Catholic Church has a magesterium and has decided that the scripture and tradition teaches Baptism and we know and practice it.

 

[CopticChristian]

jlhargus;8188910:

JL:

The thief had no opportunity to be baptized. Natural birth is a necessity, but not an absolute necessity, without exceptions. Even natural birth has exceptions. In exceptional cases the physician intervenes birthing by cesarean. In exceptional cases the Great Physician must intervene in our spiritual birth. The Holy Spirit can circumcise the heart of one who desires to do the will of God, by baptism of desire or blood. When the lack, of baptism by water, is thru no deliberate fault of their own, such as the thief on the cross. CONTINUED;

Yes I have heard this before ,that if the thief had a chance ,he would have been baptized.Yes i have heard the intent must be there in case you don’t get baptized before a sudden death. It still is trying to maintain grace with a work -can you have both ways -saved by grace ,yet conditional upon a rite, a work ? But you are right ,given a chance the thief would have been baptized out of love for his savior who gave His life for him,obedience /confession driven by a regenerated heart .Remember, you must be born again to even “see” the kingdom, before you can begin to be sanctified, or even enter thru the pearly gates. My opinion is he saw (was born again) believed already ,This is the case most of the time in NT

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0302clas.asp
Father Leslie Rumble

Here allusion can well be made to the case so often cited—that of the good thief to whom Christ said on Calvary, “This day you shall be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Since that thief had done no good works, how can we explain his salvation, if faith alone is not sufficient? To say that the good thief did no good works is to take far too narrow a view of what good works mean. We must not think only of being good to the poor or of other forms of humanitarianism. After all, the good thief publicly proclaimed the innocence of Christ and equally, with deep humility, acknowledged his own guilt. These were good works.

In any case, that the good thief did not have time to do further good works after his conversion could not affect the principle that good works are necessary, good works that the good thief would certainly have the will to do had he had the opportunity. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “In doing good let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore while we have time let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Gal. 6:9–10).

But even were we to grant that an exception was made in the case of the good thief, the exception proves the rule, and we cannot argue from the special dispensation in his case to what is normally required. Did not Paul tell the Galatians that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?” (Gal. 2:16).

 

[david_ruiz]

Tradition does not contradict Scripture.

Your opinion .The fact is much established tradition came with internal conflict , in part ,debating biblical and other father writings .So one century a pope may declare wrong books that deal with Mary and centuries later another pope declare their ideas good .Some fathers thought the confessional was good others bad -both debating it from biblical and historical -oral -grounds.Just look at us and the forum , we go round and round ,both sides using scripture ,history ,fathers etc.etc. If tradition and scripture were so plainly harmonious ,we wouldn’t be here debating.

True and part of what we need to do is try to discern the best map from those that had it and professed it.

Thank-you but apparently any believer today fits your criteria.The world knows the closer you get to the original, to the source , the better.

I have heard it said that from Adam and Abraham , they looked forward to their Savior and we look backward . We look forward, backward and are always in the eternal NOW.

True , but in our context we look back to what happened at Calvary,and the twelve who founded the Church.The world knows that was around 33 A.D.

The blueprint comes from His Church. The Church, The Body of Christ, The Pillar and Foundation of Truth,

My first reaction is NO ! NO !. The blueprint comes from the Lord , and the Holy Spirit. It was the Spirit that inspired them to write. It was the Spirit that told Paul to go here and there , or not to go there etc. It was the Spirit that told Peter the gentiles are “clean”. It was the Spirit that said this is inspired writing, both when it was written ,AND when it was received by the assemblies. The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ. Revelations is quite clear who Shepherds the Church . …Having said that ,in another sense I totally AGREE. The Church ,They Body of Christ were faithful to the Spirit in preaching/teaching (oral), writing ,and receiving, and disseminating, and copying the Written Word. It was also the Church that discerned and spurned false doctrines and false writings ,and false gospels .And yes, that Church was Catholic, but not ruled from Rome or Constantinople or Antioch or Jerusalem. It was Universal .That a born again person in Spain ,or Palestine or Italy shared the same experience in Christ.They were fellow Pilgrims in “the Way”.

The mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known so that even the angels learn renders the blueprint useless in the hands of those that have no precedent to its understanding.

Absolutely ," I was blind and now I see !" You must be born again to even “see” the kingdom ", for it is spiritually discerned.

An engineer and a blueprint is something. A blueprint without an engineer is nothing but a blueprint.

Yes and the engineer is the Spirit . As Augustine and many early fathers wrote ’ “He teaches us”. Even not the preacher /teacher ,but the Spirit in him and the spirit within the listener. “Do you who granted to him, your servant, to speak these true words, grant that I may understand them”. " Therefore, since we were too weak to find truth by pure reason and for that we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished that both through it You be sought…easy for everyone to read, accessible to all men " -St. Augustine “Confessions” ,a man who loved the Catholic church ,and indeed would later lay a foundation for an improper organizational structure.

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

yes ,this is quoted often .It is silly to think they left out anything pertinent. There are people who use that scripture to push the Davinci code stuff .Indeed they say the Catholic church supressed writings herself. Again ,the Spirit gave us what He gave us ,and I do not think He was derelict in his duties , or that he filled in the blanks with assumed handed down oral tradition.Just my opinion.

The world recognizes that there is an Oral Tradition.

The world better knows there is his written Word, the Bible, the most translated and published book round the world .

The world knows that there is oral tradtion. You argue that there is not.

False .I argue it is not as authoratative as the written Word .The world knows something in writing is better than something oral (unless it is recorded-same idea as writing) .

This would be considered something that Korzysbski would say causes “unsane” thinking

. The Bible says the only insane thing is not to believe in God.

I say it causes difficulty communicating and understanding.

Yes and no .Our difficulty has nothing to do with the methodology of our communicating ideas,for we would disagree either way.For we wrestle not against flesh and blood ,but against the enemy of our souls .The spirit is not limited on how to give us a rhema word .He can do it orally ,writing ,with dew on the sheepskin or not ,thru a jackass, in a dream etc. etc .No, the problem is flesh vs spirit in ourselves.( as you state at the end)

I know we communicate and understand by Auditory means as does the world. You do not.

You are speaking philosophically again ,when this is a spiritual matter .Nevertheless, I do believe in auditory teaching ,just by the Word though for best authority .I do condone auditory reading of the bible, be at church ,or the street corner.

 

[david_ruiz]

Your analysis of the constitution illuminates our misunderstanding. The Constitution has been explained and as you say many schools exist to discuss the meaning. This is an organization for the people, by the people and we can disagree, protest, bring arguments and fight the decisions.

You still miss the point,unless you believe it is a "living "document -a moving target ,by the will of the people. I think that it exactly what the founders did NOT want , for the will of the people is dangerous .There are similarities. Washington allowed prayer in schools ,and now we can’t. The apostles did not pray to Mary and now she is Immaculate and ascended.etc. A moving target is dangerous.

The Church is not a democracy.

Nor is the U.S. It is a republic . We our governed by what is written ,in the constitution.

Your map is deficient in auditory teachings. I would bet if you go into a submodality, that is to reflect on how you learned what you profess, you did not get it by yourself in a room with a bible. You had Oral teachings in Bible Study, You had Oral preaching in your church meetings reinforcing what you believe, you may have read books, I do not know only you know. What I do know that it was not learned with the Bible Alone, thus by your actions refuting Sola Scriptura. What I know is that what you deny is hard to deny because in your own learning, as you went to grade school you can remember the teacher and a chalk board explaining the book you had at your desk.

In

Your analogy is breaking down ,I told you before , tradition and fathers and oral have their place.I just believe they are authoratatively governed by one book. IOh yes I have read other books ,but even the Catholic church knows only one is inspired.This does not contradict Sola Scriptura (that I read say, “Pilgrim’s Progress” or that there is auditory learning) )

cool hand luke you recall…”what we have here is a failure to communicate”.

Oh that famous southern snarl- thank- you for bonding over a mutually seen movie ,and a mutually said quote.

You have to wrestle with the unbelief of Oral teaching…pray not for your belief rather your unbelief.

Yes ,that is our problem, a spiritual one, not a communication one .You couldn’t have communicated any better or more passionately . Thank-you, and yes Lord help us.

 

[CopticChristian]

You still miss the point,unless you believe it is a "living "document -a moving target ,by the will of the people. I think that it exactly what the founders did NOT want , for the will of the people is dangerous .There are similarities. Washington allowed prayer in schools ,and now we can’t. The apostles did not pray to Mary and now she is Immaculate and ascended.etc. A moving target is dangerous.

Nor is the U.S. It is a republic . We our governed by what is written ,in the constitution.

Your analogy is breaking down ,I told you before , tradition and fathers and oral have their place.I just believe they are authoratatively governed by one book. IOh yes I have read other books ,but even the Catholic church knows only one is inspired.This does not contradict Sola Scriptura (that I read say, “Pilgrim’s Progress” or that there is auditory learning) ) Oh that famous southern snarl- thank- you for bonding over a mutually seen movie ,and a mutually said quote. Yes ,that is our problem, a spiritual one, not a communication one .You couldn’t have communicated any better or more passionately . Thank-you, and yes Lord help us.

This is Catholic Answers. The Church we believe to be the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, this Church has interpreted only about 7 passages of Scripture. You can find them here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=68624

This is one of them.

1. John 3:5 “Unless a man is born of water an the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

The Church condemned the denial that the words of Jesus mean that real (natural) water must be used for a valid baptism. At the time, the Anabaptists contended that water baptism was unnecessary because the mention of water was merely a metaphor. Other symbolic meanings in addition to the literal sense of real water can be found in the text, perhaps, but none are acceptable that deny the need for real water at baptism.

While you come to Catholic Answers to argue your scriptural point of view you should understand that there can be no concession. Me and all Catholics that believe as I do must accept this interpretation. All of the attempts to define other than this fall on deaf ears. The Church also teaches that Baptism is regenarative and you choose to offer a debate.

I can understand your not agreeing if that is your issue. I can understand your not liking this understanding. I can appreciate your attempt to reconcile your mind to what you have been taught and the frustration you may feel with an immovable object, but that is what it is. You will, I doubt, convince anyone otherwise. You may choose to take a break and reflect on what it is you are trying to do.

I am trying to catechize you to understand that perhaps that from which you came, Protestant thought, may have led you from a greater good than you have now before you. In my experience Protestants that come to Catholocism or consider Catholocism, see themselves as completed Christians. I have learned more from former Protestants that are now Catholic and I see a passion in you that I could learn from within the confines of teaching according to the teachings of the Church.

Slava Isusu Christu

 

[jlhargus]

Yes I have heard this before ,that if the thief had a chance ,he would have been baptized.Yes i have heard the intent must be there in case you don’t get baptized before a sudden death. It still is trying to maintain grace with a work -can you have both ways -saved by grace ,yet conditional upon a rite, a work ? But you are right ,given a chance the thief would have been baptized out of love for his savior who gave His life for him,obedience /confession driven by a regenerated heart .Remember, you must be born again to even “see” the kingdom, before you can begin to be sanctified, or even enter thru the pearly gates. My opinion is he saw (was born again) believed already ,This is the case most of the time in NT

JL: Your paranoia of the word works is typical of some Protestants. First baptism is God’s work. It’s a grace, a free gift, given to the us by God. [Titus:3:5 **Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY HE SAVED US, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT;] How does scripture tell us we are WASHED, [Act22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and **BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THEY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.]
When does scripture tell us we receive the Holy Spirit? Act2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, AND ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST.

Did Naahman earn his healing of leprosy, by works, because he did as God commanded? Didn’t God do the healing work using water and dipping seven times? Using you tradition, If one answers an altar call. They earn salvation, by works, because they walked to the altar and said the sinners prayer? If one is drawn to go to church and is saved, did they earn salvation by going to church. Works BEFORE salvation have no value. You have been totally unable to show one scripture telling us we are BORN AGAIN and regenerated when we first believe. Nor are you able to post one scripture saying baptism is a confession only. Both of your traditions contradict scripture.

As far as seeing the kingdom see the following link from the Amplified Bible. It puts it pretty well. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:3&version=AMP
I see the kingdom in seed form, on earth, in the Church Christ is building. He gave the keys of that kingdom to Peter. Before I was born again I didn’t see that. I will only see the kingdom of God in full bloom when I’m with the Lord. Tell me when you look around do you see the kingdom in thousands of contradicting denominations? I’m supprized a rapture believer would even think one could see the kingdom on earth at all.

not much time ,if being born again (regeneration) is NOT old testament , why did Jesus bring it up as if Nicodemus was supposed to know ? That would take some time to show OT scriptures …

JL: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8195000&postcount=90 Jesus brought it up because He was preaching the good news of the New Covenant, not the old. Nicodemus should have known OT PROPHESY concerning water baptism by the coming messiah (Christ). Now David, It takes time for lots of posts. You’re making excuses. Because you realize you can’t post one scripture saying how or when OT regeneration came about. Fact is regeneration is NT not OT. Only prophets actually received the gift of the Holy Spirit in the OT.

[Hb11:39 And these all, having **obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.] They had a good report (won divine approval) through faith. Those in the OT BELIVED yet they did not receive the PROMISE. They had God’s approval because of their faith. But that faith did not REGENERATE nor redeem them. Had FAITH ALONE regenerated and redeemed them there would have been no NEED of Christ to die on the cross. [Hb10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.] Water Baptism now saves applying the fruit of Christ’s Blood. Washing away sins and REGENERATING a dead soul with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Just as scripture tells us in

Jn3:5 EXCEPT born of water AND of the Spirit, one cannot ENTER the kingdom. Acts2:38 REPENT, be BAPTIZED, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Titus:3:5 **Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY HE SAVED US, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT;]

 

[jlhargus]

As far as Acts 2 ,you must also look at the several other instances in Acts where people “believe” and even get the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE baptism. Acts 2 lumps it all together while Peter speaks .But if you follow events ,they definitely gladly believed before baptism. Man, throw our formulas out the window. Jesus did not need rituals to make people “see” and know Him and He doesn’t today either.

JL: No Jesus doesn’t need ritual to make people see. Yet he used mud and spit to heal a blind man. Rituals are for man who is both corporal and spiritual. He gave us the sacraments, you use the ritual of baptism and communion. You see them as only symbolic therefore empty rituals. You have a ritual your services follow each Sunday. Should we throw baptism out along with the Holy Spirit. In Acts2:38 did Peter throw out BAPTISM? No he said repent, BE BAPTIZED FOR remission of sins, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. You may throw out the Holy Spirit with the bath water that’s up to you. It’s better to do as God commands than follow traditions of men.

I have looked at other scriptures, they don’t say what you want them to say. Cornelius was given the gift of the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues. A donkey was also given the gift of the Holy Spirit to speak in man’s tongue. Was the donkey saved by the indwelling Holy Spirit? You try to tell us, without scripture, there is a difference in how Gentiles and Jews are saved in Christ. Yet scripture tell us there is no difference, [1Cor12:13 For **BY ONE SPIRIT ARE WE ALL BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY, WHETHER we be JEWS OR GENTILES, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.]. You know those other scriptures don’t say what you say. Otherwise you would have posted those scriptures. It seems your making excuses more to placate your own conscience, rather than expecting anyone to believe your posts. If your traditions, that we receive the Holy Spirit when we first believe and baptism is a confession only were correct. They would contradict other scriptures such as Acts2:38.

[Acts2:37 Now when **THEY HEARD this, they WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, and SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. 39 For THE PROMISE is unto you, AND to your CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.] Acts2:37-39 gives a simple and concise example how people are saved including children.

JL Original post: Quote:"REPENT and be baptized, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost "

JL: Quote: One must believe in order to repent. Hear the Word, believe, repent, be baptized for remission of sins, receive the Holy Spirit. Could you point out in my above original quote where I excluded REPENT? It’s the first word in my above quote in caps.

David Post: Actually you did again somewhat…here is the quote i believe .

JL: Quote:With your tradition when they heard, believed and asked what must we do. Peter should have said, Since you believe you are saved and have received the Holy Spirit. No need to repent. You can now be baptized as a confession of faith.

JL: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8177412&postcount=318 Move down six quotes. There you will find YOUR original post showing you QUOTING me: "REPENT and be baptized, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost "] Now you’re trying to switch the quote to another post of mine.

: Quote:With your tradition when they heard, believed and asked what must we do. Peter should have said, Since you believe you are saved and have received the Holy Spirit. No need to repent. You can now be baptized as a confession of faith.]

 

[jlhargus]

David Post: You left out ,or claim I leave out repent.I explained leaving behind carnal thought and belief (unbelief) and beginning to believe as God commands IS repentance. “This is God’s command ,believe on His Son”. Repentance is" turning around". One must repent of not believing. Jesus does not reject one from entering His kingdom because they were drunkards, or liars, or thieves , but primarily because of unbelief , of not being regenerated, of not knowing Jesus and His saving grace .Hence He says ,"depart from me, I never knew you "…In your statement above you list “believe”, then “repent” .I am saying they are fundamentally the same thing. I believe the Greek word used for this saving “faith” is different than the one used to signify a mere knowing (the devil knows ,believes too,but this is different)

JL: Can you show me a biblical or dictionary definition that BELIEVE means to REPENT or trun around? You seem to make up you own definitions.

JL: Quote: Because they were not ready to make the commitment and chose to remain unbaptized. I can’t read hearts so how would I know. I chose to put off baptism for years, although I believed. Yet I didn’t REPENT because I wanted to continue in sin. I wanted to wait till I was an old man.

David: Yes ,I was baptized an infant but I prayed extra fervently when I came to- "pray for us now AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH. AMEN " in the “Hail Mary”.I had no assurance ,as it was dependent on me , to die in state of grace,and I sensed I would become worldly entering teenage years…Actually I read that it was postponed in early centuries so they could be squeaky clean at the end ,and to avoid public confession ,and it’s penances.Yes ,they had some pretty weird practices.

JL: Well I don’t know what you are trying to say here except for postponed baptism. If you are implying OSAS. I would be glad to debate that with you. If you start another line. Postponing was an individual act and choice. It certainly was not a teaching of the Chruch. Those who postponed their baptism were playing Russian roulette with their souls. Gambling they would have the change to repent and be baptized on their death bed, so ALL their sins would be washed away. It was sort of like having your cake (sins) and eating it (living in sin) I have no doubt what you have read was very weird sounding. Would you tell us your source?

 

[CopticChristian]

David Post: You left out ,or claim I leave out repent.I explained leaving behind carnal thought and belief (unbelief) and beginning to believe as God commands IS repentance. “This is God’s command ,believe on His Son”. Repentance is" turning around". One must repent of not believing. Jesus does not reject one from entering His kingdom because they were drunkards, or liars, or thieves , but primarily because of unbelief , of not being regenerated, of not knowing Jesus and His saving grace .Hence He says ,"depart from me, I never knew you "…In your statement above you list “believe”, then “repent” .I am saying they are fundamentally the same thing. I believe the Greek word used for this saving “faith” is different than the one used to signify a mere knowing (the devil knows ,believes too,but this is different)

JL: Can you show me a biblical or dictionary definition that BELIEVE means to REPENT or trun around? You seem to make up you own definitions.

JL: Quote: Because they were not ready to make the commitment and chose to remain unbaptized. I can’t read hearts so how would I know. I chose to put off baptism for years, although I believed. Yet I didn’t REPENT because I wanted to continue in sin. I wanted to wait till I was an old man.

David: Yes ,I was baptized an infant but I prayed extra fervently when I came to- "pray for us now AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH. AMEN " in the “Hail Mary”.I had no assurance ,as it was dependent on me , to die in state of grace,and I sensed I would become worldly entering teenage years…Actually I read that it was postponed in early centuries so they could be squeaky clean at the end ,and to avoid public confession ,and it’s penances.Yes ,they had some pretty weird practices.

JL: Well I don’t know what you are trying to say here except for postponed baptism. If you are implying OSAS. I would be glad to debate that with you. If you start another line. Postponing was an individual act and choice. It certainly was not a teaching of the Chruch. Those who postponed their baptism were playing Russian roulette with their souls. Gambling they would have the change to repent and be baptized on their death bed, so ALL their sins would be washed away. It was sort of like having your cake (sins) and eating it (living in sin) I have no doubt what you have read was very weird sounding. Would you tell us your source?

You provide excellent food for thought. I believe and I am sure David agrees that the only thing that can change David’s mind is David. He may add led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[CopticChristian]

Because their faith is that they will recieve faith by hearing the Word of God, your faith is that they will receive faith by baptism. the bible never says that we recieve faith by baptism, only by hearing the word of God, Putting baptism before recieving faith is like putting the horse before the cart.
Most every verse in the bible that mentions baptism, mentions repent first, (repent and be baptized) We must first repent of your sins and turn to God before we are baptized. A infant can not repent because they haqve no knowledge of their sins

drywall

So here we have it. You are a hard core Calvinists. You are the elect. God chose you and others like you who heard the word and you were regenerated because you knew his voice. You must be frustrated with all of us who don’t hear that voice and oppose you.

You know John Calvin, as you say you abide as a hardcore Calvinist, taught infant Baptism and that is that.

Now those you oppose believe it is regenerative and those like you believe it is not. Belief. We are not talking facts here. The facts are that there is no changing your mind.

Scripture here, scripture there, everywhere a scritpture. The Westminster confession uses scripture to support infant baptism. The bottom line is that there is a disagreement with the same bible verses and the question is why? There is an answer however the best way to deal with a problem is to ask what to do and how to fix it. One of you guys must be a tax collector, what do we do?

15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector

So now it is easy. Let us just take it to the Church. When you can decide which Church let me know.