The Baptist Church and it's policy on baptism

[david_ruiz]

I have no doubt what you have read was very weird sounding. Would you tell us your source?

“Lives of Popes” by Michael Walsh-a Catholic historian and former Jesuit page 31- Pope Stephen; elected May 254 -validity of baptisms outside the Church,from schismatic sects.“Cyprian and eastern bishops said such baptisms were invalid and had to be repeated to become a member or the true Church; Stephen insisted on the contrary that baptism is always valid, even outside the true Church ,and should never be repeated.He admitted that the Holy Spirit can not be received outside the Church but argued, quaintly, that the rite of baptism forgives sins but does not communicate the Spirit.( It has been suggested that this ruling reflects a previous “gentlemens agreement” in Rome , whereby the rival Christian communities accepted each others baptisms, in order to discourage sinners from transferring from one sect to another in order to seek a rebaptism that would wash away their previous sins without any need of the rigors of penance).Stephen’s ruling is the basis of the later western practice of accepting the validity of baptism conferred by schismatic groups outside the Church;it has the great merit of enabling Christians of different denominations to accept each others baptism.It is ironic that it was based on the wholly unacceptable premise (subsequently abandoned) that baptism does not communicate the Holy Spirit. Bad theology is sometimes providentially useful.” I do not have the other book on church architecture-at my mother’s house- that dealt with church structures having two rooms -baptized and unbaptized and spoke of postponing baptism, and the later acceptance of infant baptism changing church architecture in later centuries-I’ll try to get it.

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

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

O.K.thanks

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Oh boy ,to list a few .Again, there are doctrines and “practices” that can change.# 1-Confession and the confessional ,#2- The Eucharist having to be consecrated by a priest, #3-baptismal practices,#4- obligation of celibacy for clergy, #5- monastic life, #6-doctrines on Mary, #7-allowance or condoning of bible socoieties,vernacular translations, #8- the burning of heretics as justified, # 9- limbo , #10- the bishop of Rome ruling ,or heading the whole church…Again ,most are practices ,but certainly reflecting some doctrinal adjustments .

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh boy ,to list a few .Again, there are doctrines and “practices” that can change.# 1-Confession and the confessional ,#2- The Eucharist having to be consecrated by a priest, #3-baptismal practices,#4- obligation of celibacy for clergy, #5- monastic life, #6-doctrines on Mary, #7-allowance or condoning of bible socoieties,vernacular translations, #8- the burning of heretics as justified, # 9- limbo , #10- the bishop of Rome ruling ,or heading the whole church…Again ,most are practices ,but certainly reflecting some doctrinal adjustments .

Before I engage in a discussion provide me your understanding of what doctrine changed.

 

[david_ruiz]

Posted this on Real Presence forum- ties in a little…"James White had this as footnote to his Council of Nicea article : "For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacle on the altars in their churches, would one think they were in a “Roman Catholic Church” ? Of course not. Yet , the Church of 325 had none of these beliefs,either. Hence ,while they called themselves “Catholics”, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.“www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-”
Reply With Quote

 

[CopticChristian]

Posted this on Real Presence forum- ties in a little…"James White had this as footnote to his Council of Nicea article : "For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacle on the altars in their churches, would one think they were in a “Roman Catholic Church” ? Of course not. Yet , the Church of 325 had none of these beliefs,either. Hence ,while they called themselves “Catholics”, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.“What Really Happened at Nicea? | Christian Research Institute”
Reply With Quote

They had a hierarchy, not yet formally named, they were closer to and understood Mary better than you or I, in fact some were worshiping her and that was condemned, mass was said and communion distributed and they probably did not question terminology, and yet they called themselves Catholic.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1048/Development_of_Doctrine_Vincent_of_Lerins.html

If we were to go the writing of the constitution, there would be no computers, no automobiles, no 7-up, no surfboards, no department of education, no income tax, no department of homeland security and yet with these who could believe that these things could be present and yet we call ourselves Americans. How can this be?

It is because a computer is an extension of writing, reading and communication, 7-up is a beverage, surfboards are fun, government expands and yet we live with the changes that came from the beginning.

I believe you need to convince yourself. James White as a reference is not going to work for me. As many times as he has been corrected as to his misrepresentations he has no credibility and as for you, the dust on my sandles I am about to shake.

 

[david_ruiz]

JL:

Your paranoia of the word works is typical of some Protestants.

 

[david_ruiz]

jlhargus;8215874]JL:

Nor are you able to post one scripture saying baptism is a confession only.

By interpolation yes ,but you did not "see’ it. Rom. 10:10, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (can you be righteous and not born again ?), and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation " Matt 10:32, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men , him will I confess before the father”. Now for the interpolation: Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” So both scriptures have “BELIEVE” , but one then says, “CONFESS” and the other says,“BE BAPTIZED”. Look, when we are baptized we are asked if that is our confession ,that Jesus is our Savoir and Lord , and we proclaim to all who are attending the ceremony, along with any testimony of how we came to faith in Christ. That is how I put Matt and Mark together and say baptism is a confession of what God has already done,with His word,and that He has washed us in regeneration -all before water baptism. That is partly why Paul says,” I came not to baptize but to preach the gospel " 1Cor. 1:17 How could Paul say that if indeed baptism were effectual -making you born again ? Or could it be that he knew by the Word(preaching the gospel) men come to believe and are born again , and that baptism is the outward sign or sealing of that (not effectual , except for a clean conscience of obedience ) ? To throw a monkey wrench in it ,how about this They believed on the lord Jesus and were baptized,and continued with Philip beholding miracles and signs Then Peter and John came down to Samaria,prayed for them ,that they might receive the Holy Ghost for as yet he was fallen upon none of them,only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8 Charismatic movement anyone ?
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

 

[CopticChristian]

jlhargus;8215874]JL: By interpolation yes ,but you did not "see’ it. Rom. 10:10, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (can you be righteous and not born again ?), and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation " Matt 10:32, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men , him will I confess before the father”. Now for the interpolation: Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” So both scriptures have “BELIEVE” , but one then says, “CONFESS” and the other says,“BE BAPTIZED”. Look, when we are baptized we are asked if that is our confession ,that Jesus is our Savoir and Lord , and we proclaim to all who are attending the ceremony, along with any testimony of how we came to faith in Christ. That is how I put Matt and Mark together and say baptism is a confession of what God has already done,with His word,and that He has washed us in regeneration -all before water baptism. That is partly why Paul says,” I came not to baptize but to preach the gospel " 1Cor. 1:17 How could Paul say that if indeed baptism were effectual -making you born again ? Or could it be that he knew by the Word(preaching the gospel) men come to believe and are born again , and that baptism is the outward sign or sealing of that (not effectual , except for a clean conscience of obedience ) ? To throw a monkey wrench in it ,how about this They believed on the lord Jesus and were baptized,and continued with Philip beholding miracles and signs Then Peter and John came down to Samaria,prayed for them ,that they might receive the Holy Ghost for as yet he was fallen upon none of them,only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8 Charismatic movement anyone ?
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

It would appear to me that you are not considering these threads as a means to ask questions that you need answered to satisfy any concerns you have about your beliefs. Those beliefs appear to be well founded and I perceive an intention to satisfy some need to convince others of your beliefs despite numerous responses to what is believed by anyone else. This suggests to me that you should shake the dust from your sandles.

Have you thought of starting your own new religion?

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

You know what ,maybe you are right .Repentance needs a context .The context we have been using has to do with the basic barrier to new life .We are talking about repentance unto salvation . I can repent of smoking cigarettes ,not going to church on Sunday , not tithing or not believing in such and such a doctrine , or not believing that Jesus died for me personally etc. All my examples might be linked to my belief system .So what comes first ,stop believing I am a church unto myself (repent) and start believing I am not to forsake the assembling of myself with believers and go to church next Sunday. Or do I just go to church next Sunday(repent) ,irregardless of reason ? Which is better? You tell me what did Peter mean when he said repent , repent from what ?

 

[david_ruiz]

It would appear to me that you are not considering these threads as a means to ask questions that you need answered to satisfy any concerns you have about your beliefs. Those beliefs appear to be well founded and I perceive an intention to satisfy some need to convince others of your beliefs despite numerous responses to what is believed by anyone else. This suggests to me that you should shake the dust from your sandles.

Have you thought of starting your own new religion?

Thank-you for saying the well-founded appearance . I would think though , you have seen or heard my beliefs before from others .If not , may it be so , in order to see that with no denominational ties, there can be a universality , that is a catholic faith amongst believers. And may they be true and kind.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thank-you for saying the well-founded appearance . I would think though , you have seen or heard my beliefs before from others .If not , may it be so , in order to see that with no denominational ties, there can be a universality , that is a catholic faith amongst believers. And may they be true and kind.

I just opened the NIV, read Romans 10:9, obtained a copy of the Sinners prayer, copyrighted by campus crusade, and poof I am now ready to become an acquitted criminal, use only my bible as a source, rely only on my faith, however for the life of me I cannot figure out how I got it in this paradigm, decided that since it is the bible alone, will talk to no one about it, read nothing else about it and since I am told to attend a bible believing church and find a pastor, kind of like that Benedict guy, he wears funny hats and every sunday this church I go to has a bible. So it shouldn’t matter what church I go to. Arreva derci.

 

[david_ruiz]

I just opened the NIV, read Romans 10:9, obtained a copy of the Sinners prayer, copyrighted by campus crusade, and poof I am now ready to become an acquitted criminal, use only my bible as a source, rely only on my faith, however for the life of me I cannot figure out how I got it in this paradigm, decided that since it is the bible alone, will talk to no one about it, read nothing else about it and since I am told to attend a bible believing church and find a pastor, kind of like that Benedict guy, he wears funny hats and every sunday this church I go to has a bible. So it shouldn’t matter what church I go to. Arreva derci.

Both sides have their stereotypes, weaving in and out of truth. Adios.

 

[jlhargus]

JL: They are not spiritually dead their hearts have been pricked with the seed of God’s Word. Planted by the Holy Spirit when He pricked their heart, conceiving spiritual life. Catechumens are the good soil on which the seed is planted. They will be delivered a, new, BORN AGAIN babe of Christ when they are Baptized.

David: Disagree .Pricked in hearts is has to do with the threefold ministry of the Holy Spirit-conviction of sin ,righteousness and the judgement to come . Indeed the Father draws but that is not regenerative yet.Being convicted is not regenerative yet necessarily…No ,when it says they believed ,are persuaded in the gospel ,that is more than a prick,that is first fruit of already being regenerated.The main thing is the main thing .Jesus loves us and wants to save us(the Cross and Resurrection) .You believe it or not .If you do ,scripture says your regenerated.That you have to learn how to walk it out ,and learn more does not mean you are not born again.

JL: Correct being pricked or periced in the heart is being convicted. It’s definitly NOT regenerative. Could you explain and give me scripture for the threefold ministry of the Holy Spirit you describe. Also post one scripture saying, one is regenerated when they BELIEVE? Were those pricked in their hearts at Pentecost not persuaded (convicted) by the gospel preached to them? Isn’t that why they asked what to do? Did Peter tell non-believers to repent, be baptized, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit?

[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. Yet you reject the clear teaching of scripture to hold a tradition of men not found in scripture. Acts2:37-38 tells us in TWO VERSES. You can’t give evidence, for your traditions, with any amount of scripture, because it’s unbiblical. What happened to those who gladly received the Word?

[Acts2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, **SAVE YOURSELVES **from the untoward generation. 41 Then **THEY that gladly RECEIVED his word WERE BAPTIZED **: and the SAME DAY were **ADDED UNTO THEM **about three thousand souls. 42 And **THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN THE APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREADKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS **.] Notice Peter says SAVE YOURSELVES. How? By being BAPTIZED to receive the Holy Spirit, by which they WERE ADDED to that ONE VISIBLE Apostolic Fellowship the Church.] What did those people do to SAVE THEMSELVES? They were WATER BAPTIZED.

[1Pt3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, **eight souls were SAVED BY WATER. 21 THE LIKE FIGURE whereunto even BAPTISM doth also NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:] Notice SAVED BY WATER, the LIKE FIGURE BAPTISM, now saves us.

RM 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were batptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up FROM THE DEAD by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that OUR OLD MAN is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

[Col2:12 Buried with him **IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of THE OPERATION OF GOD, who hath RAISED him FROM THE DEAD.] Notice thru the operation (action) of God in BAPTISM we are raised FROM THE DEAD.] The soul is regenerated receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit.

[Titus3:5 **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 GHOST; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being JUSTIFIED by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.] Scripture tells us we are WASHED in BAPTISM, Acts22:16 To become a child of God we must be BORN AGAIN. How does scripture tell us we become a child of God and are justified?

1Cor6:11 And such were some of you: but YE ARE WASHED, but ye are SANCTIFIED, but ye are JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus, and **.] Scripture tells us we are washed in baptism, Acts22:16 and receive the Holy Spirit in baptism, Acts2:38 & Acts19:2-5.

[Gal3:25 For YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY** of you AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ have put on Christ.]
[Acts22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and **BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.] Remember Paul had a life changing encounter with Christ, yet he was told to be baptized and wash his sins away. [Mk16:16 whoever believes AND IS baptized WILL BE SAVED, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.] The Holy Spirit is that cleansing agent in water baptism.

 

[jlhargus]

JL: Quote: Peter tells us, 1Pt 1:23 For YOU HAVE BEEN BORN AGAIN, NOT OF PERISHABLE SEED, but of imperishable, THROUGH the LIVING and enduring WORD OF GOD. The word of God would be akin to the SEED of man and the heart the egg, once the word penetrates the heart faith is conceived. INatural life must first be conceived, thru the SEED of man and the EGG of woman. We are not born at that instant but latter we are born of that SEED after we are formed.

David Post: Yes ,and I believe new life begins when you first come to believe- the seed has sprouted.One can know all about Jesus -factually (like one can know all about George Washington-who is dead) , but when one knows Him personally-that is

salvation ,regeneration.“Behold i stand at the door and knock ,and if any man open up ,I will come in and sup with him”. The prick is the knock at the door,that we can graciously perceive with our carnal soul and intellect.

JL: Then please, David, post those scriptures showing we are regenerated when we first believe and baptism is a confession only. We don’t know ALL about Jesus the moment we believe do we? At that point we know next to nothing. As the seed must be planted and die so we must be planted and die. Our old man crucified, that the body of sin might be destroyed in baptism to be raised in newness of life. With the indwelling Holy Spirit. A bron again child of God by water AND of the Spirit.

Rms6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that OUR OLD MAN IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, that the BODY OF SIN might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

When St Paul ran into some disciples at Ephesus and asked them, [Acts19:2 He said unto them, **HAVE YE RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YE BELIEVED? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, UNTO WHAT THEN WERE YE BAPTIZED? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, SAYING unto the people, that they should BELIEVE ON HIM which should come after him, THAT IS, ON CHRIST JESUS. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.] Why ask about baptism and baptize them, if we don’t receive the Holy Spirit, in the Lord baptism? Notice John’s baptism required repentance and faith (believe) in the one to come, Jesus. Yet faith nor John’s baptism saved. They needed the SACRAMENT of Christ’s baptism, BORN AGAIN, by water and of the Spirit, Jn3:3-5, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.]

 

[david_ruiz]

Could you explain and give me scripture for the threefold ministry of the Holy Spirit you describe.

John 16:8 "and when he (Comforter),is come, he will reprove the world of sin , and of righteousness, and of judgement."The Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin ,of the righteousness of Christ and His plan of salvation , and that I would be judged for what I did with His offer.

Also post one scripture saying, one is regenerated when they BELIEVE?

John 5:24- “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life…is passed from death unto life”.

Did Peter tell non-believers to repent, be baptized, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit?

What do you tell non-believers ? That they had to ask what to do is signifying to me they quite had not gotten the good news, that his yolk was easy .Do you see any good news for the killers of Christ in verses14-36 ? They were heavy with conviction. Contrast that to verse 41,“then they gladly received his words”, after they realized , were illumined, to the way out of their predicament (of having rejected ,even crucified their Messiah).

You can’t give evidence,

I did ,book ,chapter and verses.Totally biblical .Why do you deny you can receive the gift of the Holy ghost BEFORE water baptism ? Must you assume that baptism is ALWAYS by water ?

What did those people do to SAVE THEMSELVES? They were WATER BAPTIZED.

They repented first.

Notice SAVED BY WATER, the LIKE FIGURE BAPTISM, now saves us.

AND by faith Noah…and was accounted for righteousness.

WASHING OF REGENERATION

The word washes ,not water

How does scripture tell us we become a child of God and are justified?

By faith.

Scripture tells us we are washed in baptism,

And by his word.

calling on the name of the Lord.

Doesn’t that save you,according to other scriptures ?

Remember Paul had a life changing encounter with Christ, yet he was told to be baptized and wash his sins away.

Assumptions.It says Ananias layed hands on Saul that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. IMMEDIATELY he received his sight …then was baptized .When did he get filled with the Holy Ghost ? It does not say . And we have an example of people receiving Him BEFORE baptism (water). You can not use this example to show Saul did not become Paul until after water baptism.

Mk16:16 whoever believes AND IS baptized WILL BE SAVED, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.]

Again, notice what it takes to be condemned , "believe not’. You can totally skip baptism (water) if you rested on this scripture alone.You are not condemned if you are not “baptized”.

 

[jlhargus]

Posted this on Real Presence forum- ties in a little…"James White had this as footnote to his Council of Nicea article : "For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacle on the altars in their churches, would one think they were in a “Roman Catholic Church” ? Of course not. Yet , the Church of 325 had none of these beliefs,either. Hence ,while they called themselves “Catholics”, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-

JL: The Church of 325 had none of these either, sola scriptura, baptism a confession, receive the Holy Spirit when we first believe, Gentiles saved differently than Jews, OSAS, faith alone, secret rapture, dispensationalism, invisible church, body of Christ made up of thousands of contentious independent denominations, infants can’t be baptized.

All those beliefs mentioned by White were part of the deposit of faith. Although the terms with which they were defined may have been unknown earlier. They had yet to be developed, defined and named. Christians prayed for the dead as seen in the catacombs. It may not have yet been named purgatory. Yet the concept was there in scripture AND practice (Tradition).

The Church in 325 also had no defined canon of the bible. The Trinity was defined with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, promulgated by the Council of Constantinople in 381AD. Does that mean the Church before that time wasn’t the same Church, because they didn’t use the word Trinity or have a canon of the bible? Wasn’t the undeveloped concept of TRINITY found in scripture AND practice (Tradition) already?

Which one of the thousands of contentious faith groups or denominations walked into today would they recognize? If not Catholic or Orthodox then name your faith group, with evidence, which has continued in that one VISIBLE apostolic fellowship from Christ to present, in apostolic succession?

 

[david_ruiz]

JL:

JL:

Then please, David, post those scriptures showing we are regenerated when we first believe and baptism is a confession only

 

[david_ruiz]

JL:

The Church of 325 had none of these either, sola scriptura

 

[jlhargus]

JL: Quote: Your paranoia of the word works is typical of some Protestants.

DAVID: Yes, to some we would have paranoia about good works .Generally though it is because they have come out of doing religious things for spiritual satisfaction without being born again . After being born again, they realize the simplicity of it all , that His yoke is easy. Take Calvin , the extreme view against works , but he came out of a spiritual culture of abuse of indulgences , monasticism , asceticism and much religious activity ,which would be OK IF the people were genuinely born again .He was not while being religious ,and believed many others were not also. So from that background , a proper dose of paranoia of works maybe be healthful .That is , do not assume because one is Catholic , or Lutheran , or religious and holy, that they are born again.

JL: Can one be holy and not born again? Only one who JUDGES everyone else could have a holier than thou, selfrighteous, attitude and lose their salvation. That doesn’t even mean they were not a one time born again. I do not assume, however you seem to assume and judge, everyone, even those you don’t know. Any Adult who has heard the Word, believed, repented, baptized FOR remission of sins and received the gift of the Holy Spirit has been BORN AGAIN. Any baptized infant has been born again. It’s a free gift of God. They may not remain faithful and lose eternal life. Yet they may also sincerely repent, confess their sins and be restored

JL: Quote: Did Naahman earn his healing of leprosy, by works, because he did as God commanded?

DAVID: Actually his faith saved him, first by even going to God’s prophet ,secondly by doing something silly,and faith is a gift of God .That was the whole purpose of that , so that Naahman would know it was not by anything he did , but by the grace of God .If he had done something spiritual or a dignified rite , Naahman may have felt it was the rite he had done that saved him ,and not Jehovah. Baptism ,a rite doesn’t save. Jesus saves.That is Naahman’s message.

JL: I made no comment on Naahman’s salvation, that’s irrelevant. My question was did Naahman EARN HIS HEALING of leprosy, BY WORKS, because HE DID as God commanded? Would he have been HEALED had he not dipped seven times in the Jordan River as commanded? You post Naahman was saved when he went to God’s prophet. Then with the same theology Cornelius had to be saved, born again, regenerated and had the indwelling Holy Spirit WHEN HE SENT FOR PETER. Honestly David your whole theology is shot thru with gaping holes. You contradict yourself, trying to make it fit with the particular situation.

DAVID: Baptism ,a rite doesn’t save. Jesus saves.That is Naahman’s message.

JL: You are contradicting scripture, saying baptism doesn’t save. Yes Jesus saves, but he does so thru faith, repentance and the sacrament of water baptism, FOR remission of sins and receive the Holy Spirit, Acts2:38, which he himself gave us. Faith ALONE doesn’t save either, Jesus saves, thru the faith he himself gives. One can’t EARN faith, or baptism, they are God’s free gift of grace.

You are in disagreement with scripture which tells us water baptism NOW SAVES.
[1Pt3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, **eight souls were SAVED BY WATER. 21 THE LIKE FIGURE whereunto even BAPTISM DOTH also NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:] Isn’t 1 Peter scripture? Doesn’t it clearly say, BAPTISM NOW SAVES US?

[Act2:37 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. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, SAVE YOURSELVES from this untoward generation. 40 Then THEY that gladly received his word WERE BAPTIZED: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.] What did those people do when Peter said SAVE YOURSELVES. They were BAPTIZED.