The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

still clinging to the “forgery” myth, huh? LOL!

[boatbums]

orthodox Catholic Faith believed by EVERYONE for 1,500 years is that we are SAVED by baptism, since in it, we have our sins remitted, we receive the Holy Spirit and we are placed into Christ. the Bible is quite clear on this and it is the Faith the Church received from the Apostles.

As a matter of FACT, no, no early church father, nor Apostle, nor anywhere in Scripture teaches that we are saved by baptism - at least not the kind you so strongly insist it MUST be. We are saved by grace THROUGH faith and that not of ourselves, not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:8,9) What you call a "man-made" term of water baptism is NOT a human construction, but is based upon the words of Scripture. John the Baptist, for example, told his followers:

I baptize you with (or IN) water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with (or IN) the Holy Spirit and fire. (Luke 3:16)

Here's a test for you:

When you say the word "baptism", what specifically are you talking about?

Do you mean the ordinance of baptism performed by the "church" that includes the use of water?

If you are speaking of the specific act of a water baptism performed by the "church", then is it THAT act, that ordinance, that you claim "saves"?

Consequentially, if a person is baptized in water by the "church", is that person "saved"?

What place does personal faith have in this act?

Finally, is it the act itself of baptism or the faith of the person being baptized that saves that person?

And, lastly, in anticipation of your answer to the last question, if both faith AND the act of baptism are necessary to "save" a person, then what happens if that person dies after his profession of faith and before his participation in the act of baptism? Is he STILL saved?

[Iscool]

still clinging to the “forgery” myth, huh? LOL!

Fortunately, people can look the information up on the internet and see that there is no myth to it...LOL!

[Iscool]

scoffers can call it a “hobbyhorse”, i call it sound doctrine.

You can call it whatever you want, but there's not a lick of sound doctrine in your entire post

There's a very good reason that you can not find the spiritual baptism of the believer in the scriptures that millions of others see and understand...

[daniel1212]

1. same old, same old. the style seems to be to make up for lack of content with lots of words. well at least there are no 108 word, 10 comma sentences!

The reality is that there is little new in your reply, and as before it mostly consists of ignoring what refutes you and failing to engage such, while basically making the same fallacious assertions.

2.some mistake fidelity to orthodox, historical Christianity as “insolent and arrogant” so be it.

The mistake is supposing Rome is Scripturally orthodox, while “insolent and arrogant” referred primarily to your attempted response.
3. the fact remains that the Protestants in the 16th century removed books from the Bible they received when they were still Catholic. the Church did not add books to the Bible in response to the “Reformers”.

Having been shown it was Rome who added books to the most ancient canon, and which the Protestant canon reflects, you now want to indict the Prots for not going along with Rome's later canon, and who did not even have an indisputable canon, and then you defend Rome by saying they did not add books to the canon of the Reformers!

C. The charge of having no ancient 73 book canon is one that could be leveled against the 4^th century church. In addition to the lack of uniformity and the many churchmen and groups who did not affirm the apocrypha, and that “in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals,” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) the most ancient Christian list we have is that of saint Melito, a Bishop of Smyrna, and esteemed as a prophet by many of the faithful, who in 324 provided a list of canonical books in response to a desire to have “an accurate statement of the ancient books,” and which list was published abroad and recommended by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. Yet Melito's list does not include the apocryphal books (unless Wisdom does not mean Proverbs, as was sometimes the case according to Eusebius, while possibly referring to all our books of the Hebrew canon minus Esther, though Jews sometimes combined this with Ezra, as Ezra and Nehemiah also counted as one book, being sometimes called Esdras (Greek for Ezra), like as Lamentations was with Jeremiah.

4. the fact remains NO 66 BOOK BIBLE EXISTED BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY.

The premise behind your premise has already been demolished, as has the idea that the Protestant canon has no ancient support, but apparently you have a short memory and have to shout repetition in order to convince yourself, or make up for you lack of an argument with volume. "Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. " (Isaiah 1:5)

But i will reiterate what has been said and expand upon it, while the reality is that even if no 66 book list of Scriptural books existed before the Reformation, it would be irrelevant, as the issue for the Reformation is what is most warranted to be the canon Jesus recognized, rather than perpetuate error of Rome no matter how entrenched. And as regards all this, the facts remain,

A. Rome had no had no indisputable canon that would disallow dissent regarding apocryphal books, which dissent continued among Roman scholars right into Trent, while if the Protestant canon corresponds to the ancient Jewish canon, as the CE affirms, along with the ancient New Testament canon, then a 66 canon did essentially exist as in two parts, and had more support from antiquity than Rome's did. In addition, the reason a singular 66 book Bible apparently awaited the 16 century (and it cannot be proved one did not) is because the Reformation — which requires restoration of some things, rather than perpetuate error — had not happened until then!

B. If having a universal binding canon is the critical issue that Roman Catholic apologists want to make it as regards Protestants, then they need to likewise attack their own preTridentine Roman church, as well as the EOs and other Catholic churches who differ from her and each other on the canon.

C. The charge of having no ancient 73 book (or equivalent) canon is one that could be leveled against the early 4^th century church. In addition to the many churchmen and groups who did not affirm the apocrypha as properly Scripture, and that “in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals,” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) the most ancient Christian list we have is that of saint Melito, a Bishop of Smyrna, who was esteemed as a prophet by many of the faithful, who in 324 provided a list of canonical books in response to a desire to have “an accurate statement of the ancient books,” and which list was published abroad and recommended by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. Yet Melito's list does not include the apocrypha (with the possible exception of Wisdom) while containing almost or possibly all those of the Protestant canon. Nor (for whatever it is worth) can it be proved that some did not hold to a 66 book canon, following the rejection of apocryphal book by Jerome and others.

Thus both the 4^th century church and the early Protestant church were not settled on their canons, but it took Rome over 1400 years after the last books was written to provide her finalized indisputable canon (while leaving confusion to as to how many things require full assent of faith). And while Rome ended up following Augustine, the Protestants can be said to have followed Catholics on the canon (who followed antiquity) in rejecting the apocrypha, in judging what Old Testament books Christ held as inspired, and the Prots have the more ancient support.

And again there is the the unresolved problem with whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of early lists (as well as the doubtful character of the Decretum Gelasianum, as regards Rome's 4^th c. list).

St Jerome was a great scholar, but he did not substitute his private judgement for the judgement of the Catholic Church. Christians have always understood the unity of faith that Jesus and Paul commanded.

Besides what Rome holds being irrelevant to us as to canonical certainty, you cannot restrict the canon to what a regional council listed, and if the canon really was universal and or binding, then men like Jerome, who was held in high esteem by Rome, would not have been allowed to dissent.

Moreover, “the judgment of the Catholic Church” affirms many different canons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament), as seen today among different Catholic churches. But you show relatively little concern about that.

5. the unbelieving Jews who have the 39 book OT were not led by the Holy Spirit to all truth. the Church, which did have the Holy Spirit leading it to all truth, had the correct OT canon. why would anyone follow the judgement of those who reject Jesus as opposed to those who proclaim Jesus as Lord?

This also have been refuted.

First, Catholic churches who claim to be “led into all truth,” “are led” into different conclusions, and it took Rome till the year Luther died to be “led into all truth” as regards canonical certainly, while her claim to assuredly infallibility is autocratic presumption.

Second, according to the logic being your polemic, none of what the Jews taught is trustworthy, yet the Lord exhorted general obedience (Mt. 23:2) to the Jewish leaders, and while He reproved their hypocrisy, impenitence and presumption, yet He never criticized their canon, but reproved their doctrinal errors by Scripture. (Mk. 7:3-16) It is also not simply unbelieving Jews who are indicated as holding to the protoProtestant O.T. canon, but the Lord (Luke 11:50-51, cf. Matthew 23:35; 24:44) while N.T. writers are said to have explicitly referenced from all but 6 books (with 275 direct quotes).

The issue then is really Rome's presumption of assured veracity, by which she yet may declare some infallible truths, but which is akin to that of the Jewish leadership, who likewise presumed assured veracity as inheritors of Divine promises, guidance, presence and perpetuation, and as having historical decent, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; cf. Mt. 23:2 etc.) and under which leadership writings were recognized as Scripture and truth preserved.

And thus they rejected the Itinerant Preacher who reproved them by Scripture, and who established His claims thereon, in text and in power.

6.many times more can be gleaned from what is not said, rather than what is said. this is true of your post. no appeal is made to any 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th century non-Catholics. hmmm, why not? why are only Catholic Church Fathers who believed in baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist mentioned? the answer is obvious.

The answer is indeed obvious. Rather then perpetuate accumulated errors, we should no more follow the “tradition of the elders” with its accretions over Scripture any more than the Lord Jesus did. And Rome herself is selective as to which strains of the varied “traditions” she will follow, as are the EOs, with both following “tradition “and both disagreeing. (http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm)

Nor are the so-called church “father's,” whose writings we have relative little of, uniform in doctrine (nor does Rome have its claimed required unanimous consent” of the fathers), of the fathers” and they are to be judged by Scripture. Even in beliefs in which there is the most general unanimity among CFs there are differences with Rome today, as the real authority is Rome, as tradition is whatever she autocratically declare it is, and “she judges them more than she is judged by them”, (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) To which (again) the words of “Most Rev.” Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning attest:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. — The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

And likewise Rome rejects those who reprove them by Scripture, as she has autocratically infallibly declared that she is assuredly infallible.

And this is really the basis for your objections, as your faith assurance of the veracity of Rome rests upon her declaration to be so. However we are not impressed by her claims in the light of Scripture, and of her leading souls into error and to Hell.

7. the post shows throughout it’s 2,000 year history, Catholics have disagreed on various theoligical questions, DUH!!

And which is no less today, and so radical that Catholic sects have resulted that dissent from Vatican Two, which you seem to be part of. And which disunity is contrary to the typical Roman Catholic portrayal of unity, including as regards the canon prior to Trent.

8. you missed the point completely on the eunuch, Philip and SS. there is not any OT verse that Philip could point to that says Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. of course the OT speaks of and points to Jesus, but in types and shadows. Philip was bringing new doctrine to the eunuch not contained in the OT and the eunuch believed it. if he followed SS, he would have rejected this doctrine. none of the Apostles believed or practiced SS, and that’s why the Church has never accepted either.

That is absurd as it rests upon a straw man. Doctrine is based upon texts and SS preachers also deduce meanings from Scriptural exegesis, for what you “miss completely” is that SS does not require explicit statements for doctrine, but that what is necessary is “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, (Westminster Confession) which is why they support they Trinity, etc. as well as SS, as Scripture provides for the establishment of Truth, and abundantly substantiates the supremacy of Scripture as the assured Word of God.

And which Phillip exampled, as did men like Apollos, “shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ,” (Acts 18:28) and Paul, who “reasoned with them out of the scriptures, as we do. Which is why the Lord and His apostles established their claims on Scripture, in text and in power, appealing to human reason to discern truth in the light of Scripture ad or Scriptural attestation.

In contrast, what what is not taught is the assured formulaic infallibility of Rome.

9. if the NT is clear about any doctrine, baptismal regeneration is it. there is a reason no one disputed this doctrine for 1,500 years, the NT teaches we ARE SAVED BY BAPTISM. ( 1 Peter 3:21 ) the NT never speaks of baptism as symbolic ( like the silly Baptist ring analogy )or as a first act of obedience or as an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already. NO SCRIPTURES EXIST SAYING THESE THINGS ABOUT BAPTISM. this is Baptist myth making. the Scriptures say Baptism is for the remission of sins, for being baptized into Christ, for saving us. I guess Baptists don’t realize types and shadows were pointing to Christ, once Christ came, THERE IS NO NEED FOR TYPES AND SHADOWS.

Thus besides rejecting prophecy in which figures typify Christ, you ignore what i said about 1Pt. 3:21, which refers to baptism as a “like figure,” like (using the same word) the holy places on earth were “figures,” (Heb. 9:24) except in this case baptism is not the antitype fulfillment of the flood of Noah, but a “like figure,” representing salvation through Christ, who is the Ark saving souls from the judgment of water which destroyed the wicked. And Scripture affirms that it is the faith which baptism requires and expresses that appropriates this cleansing, despite your desperate attempt to deny that, which comes next:
10. Baptists love to point to two instances in the NT to try and disprove baptismal regeneration. one, the thief on the cross - that is an east one since the thief died before Mattthew 28 where Jesus COMMANDS AND AUTHORIZES THE CHURCH TO BAPTIZE. the second is a little tougher, Acts 10. was Cornelius regenerated before his baptism because he received the Holy Spirit? the first point that must be made is the story a miracle the Holy Spirit performed to show Peter the Gospel is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. o this was an extraordinary event, not to be repeated today. and indeed, the Holy Spirit does not fall on anyone today and give them the gfit of tongues. that said, a careful reading of Acts 10:44 and 11:15 shows the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard Peter. Cornelius and his family and friends did not express faith in Jesus or repent PRIOR to receiving the gift of tongues. this was the very same gift the Apostles received in Acts 2. Cornelius still needed to be baptized for the remission of sins as Luke shows in Acts 2:38 and 22:16. Baptists need to read Acts 10 and 11 carefully instead of reading their preconceived notions into the Scriptures.

Rather, it is you who example superficial and myopic reading and knowledge of Scripture, and of what i showed you, and who needs to read more Scripture more objectively iw/ a Berean-type heart, instead of forcing Scripture to conform to your extremist notions. And the more you try to deny regeneration preceded baptism here then the deeper you bury yourself, and indicate that you are a fringe Catholic.

In order to negate regeneration by faith, you must flatly deny regeneration before baptism, and so you argue that this was merely the Holy Spirit “falling” on Cornelius and company and giving them the gift of tongues, and that these did not believe first, but which is refuted by the relevant texts.

Peter expressly states that these baptismal candidates “have received the Holy Ghost as well as we,” (Acts 10:47) “as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ;" (Acts 11:17) as “God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8,9)

Thus while you demand outward manifestation of repentance and faith, Peter, supposedly your first pope, teaches that because God chose that these Gentile should hear and believe the gospel, thus Peter preached “that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43) And that God knew their heart, and thus gave Cornelius and his pious household the same gift of the Holy Spirit as the apostles, with their hearts being purified by faith, the remission of sins which Peter promised in v.43. Thus Peter asked, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? " (Acts 10:47)

It is obvious that Cornelius and company took Peter at his word and believed and were baptized with the Holy Spirit, even though you will not do so.

In addition, while you must attempt to separate the “falling upon” from regeneration, yet a seen below, Scripture refers to the former as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost promised by the Father, being “baptized with the Holy Ghost,” which the apostles realized, and which “gift” was what was promised in Acts 2:38:

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning [cf. Acts 2:1-4]. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. " (Acts 11:15-16; cf. Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:5)

"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. " (Acts 2:33)

"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. 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. " (Acts 2:38-39)

Peter thus promises to those who will believe, expressed in baptism, the same gift of the Holy Spirit promised by the Father, as that which the apostles realized, and which their audience had seen and heard. And which neither Mt. 10:1 or Jn. 20:22 fulfilled.

And while receiving of the Holy Spirit and baptism with Him was one event in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10, yet in Acts 8:15.17; cf. 19:4-6; Gal. 3:5) this event is post baptism, through the laying on of hands, and is termed having “received the Holy Ghost,” but in every case faith precedes this.

And in Ephesians 1:13 (a doctrinal book), it states "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (KJV) “In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation), in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise.” (DRB)

Thus believing always preceded receiving the promised reception of or baptism with the Holy Spirit. And regeneration clearly preceded baptism in Acts 10.

And again, Rome even allows for this under her “baptism of desire,” even if as an exception to the norm, and for which Acts 10 is invoked by Augustine.

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." — Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized

The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed. (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)" St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? — 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]).

“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) 1917 Code of Canon Law

Of course, if an exception is allowed then it negates the Catholic interpretation of Jn. 3:5 as a literal imperative necessity, as well as the traditional exclusive understanding of EENS statements, and substantiates that one may be justified by faith versus baptism operating ex opere operatos, while the Roman Catholic restriction to those of perfect contrition is subjective. But as i said, baptism can be the occasion for conversion as it requires as well as expressed faith.

You next state “that this does not happen anymore,” as regards the Spirit baptism of Cornelius and speaking in tongues, which indicates that you also deny the Roman Catholic affirmation of the charismatic gifts and theology. Relative to this is, "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? " (Galatians 3:5)

Consistent with such rejection is the denial of baptism of desire, and thus i ask one more time, do you adhere to a sedevacantist or SSPX group or teaching? It makes a difference on how we respond as you all defend a church, not simply a faith.
11.the fruit of SS is a playground for the devil to sow confusion and force the Church to defend 2,000 year old doctrines, rather than exhibiting the ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM AND ONE BREAD THAT JESUS SAID WOULD RESULT IN THE WORLD KNOWING HE WAS SENT BY THE FATHER. what a shame.

In the light of the confusion and dissent among sola ecclesia churches and Catholicism, which you yourself example, and in the face of a widespread common assent to core truths and opposition by SS type churches against the traditions of men propagated by a self-proclaimed elitist church, and which is the church that is most guilty of giving the world reasons for not believing Jesus was sent by the Father, then you are left to more shouting the same old assertions and ignoring or blithely dismissing what refutes you.

As such is your continual modus operandi, then you once again you testify that you cannot allow yourself to think objectively, and which dissuades against expending further labor to respond to your arguments for Roman Catholicism, whichever brand you represent.

May God peradventure give you repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25) Bye.

[Salvation]

Daniel,
Your post is full of your own opinions, right?

Yet, I do not see “I believe that Catholics.......”

You just say “Catholics......”

Why are you afraid to take reponsibility for your own opinion?

Could it be because you know that some of it might be in error? That you are not God? That you cannot judge the Catholic Church and the people in it?

Why don’t you say...”It is my opinion that Catholics....”

[daniel1212]

There is a reason. See above.

The one body is made up of those who believe the one essential faith in the one Lord, and thus are baptized in the one body, which only consists of the born again, Christ in them and they in Christ. (cf. Jn. 17:21,23)

Cornelius and company did not need to know much in order to be so, and “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. “ (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Comprehensive doctrinal unity has never been realized, and (while they point fingers) the one visible body of the Catholic church is also fractured doctrinally, according as they interpret Rome, or formally according as they interpret Tradition, Scripture and history, as is exampled even on FR .

[daniel1212]

It is seldom said because i am not simply giving my opinion of what Catholics believe or hold to, but what a Catholic church has in some approved manner taught, in which i make distinctions usually with substantiation, or what Catholics have expressed.

If you think i have erred then produce the evidence, as i want to know, and failing that or in addition, be sure to note where a Catholic is teaching contrary to your church.

[JCBreckenridge]

“If you think i have erred then produce the evidence, as i want to know, and failing that or in addition, be sure to note where a Catholic is teaching contrary to your church.”

Your assertion that there were no 66 book bibles produced before the 16th century is false.

Codex Amitianis was produced in the 7th century, and we still have it today. So there is actually extant evidence that your assertion is false. Vulgates were published as early as the early 5th century, although we no longer have any from that period.

[boatbums]

Daniel, Your post is full of your own opinions, right? Yet, I do not see “I believe that Catholics.......” You just say “Catholics......” Why are you afraid to take reponsibility for your own opinion? Could it be because you know that some of it might be in error? That you are not God? That you cannot judge the Catholic Church and the people in it? Why don’t you say...”It is my opinion that Catholics....”

Daniel1212 has taken great care to assert provable facts using Roman Catholic sources and unbiased history for many of his points and comparing them to Holy Scripture. I see NO indication that he is simply stating his own opinion on most of these issues but it IS curious that you offer NO such admonition to the Catholic comments to which the last of these posts are addressing which NEVER began a statement with "I believe..." and, instead, repeatedly asserts dogmatically that everyone who doesn't believe the same way, is wrong and who provides negligable documentation to prove it.

By what hubris can you assert that nobody can "judge the Catholic Church and the people in it"? Catholics certainly have no qualms about judging anyone outside of the Roman Catholic Church. We are reminded repeatedly in Scripture TO judge and determine truth BY the Scriptures as well as by the fruit shown in individuals' lives.

I am extremely grateful for the content of Daniel1212's posts here and find them scholarly, fair and informative. He seldom makes statements that are based solely upon his own opinions - unlike many that post on these threads. Perhaps you don't agree with his findings or they make you uncomfortable because they prove to be much more than mere opinions, but trying to discredit his statements with the whiffle-bat of "you are just giving your own opinion", "your opinion could be wrong" and "you aren't God, are you?" only demonstrates to me and others that what he DOES have to say must be irrefutable. I believe that some Catholics cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of their church and they resort to inane retorts such as these rather than refute the statements. If what Daniel1212 has stated is in error, then PROVE it. Show us that what he references and what he says is wrong - and make the better argument. If all you've got is "stop picking on Catholics", then save it for Sunday School where that will work. It doesn't here.

[boatbums]

Daniel, Your post is full of your own opinions, right? Yet, I do not see “I believe that Catholics.......” You just say “Catholics......” Why are you afraid to take reponsibility for your own opinion? Could it be because you know that some of it might be in error? That you are not God? That you cannot judge the Catholic Church and the people in it? Why don’t you say...”It is my opinion that Catholics....”

Daniel1212 has taken great care to assert provable facts using Roman Catholic sources and unbiased history for many of his points and comparing them to Holy Scripture. I see NO indication that he is simply stating his own opinion on most of these issues but it IS curious that you offer NO such admonition to the Catholic comments to which the last of these posts are addressing which NEVER began a statement with "I believe..." and, instead, repeatedly asserts dogmatically that everyone who doesn't believe the same way, is wrong and who provides negligable documentation to prove it.

By what hubris can you assert that nobody can "judge the Catholic Church and the people in it"? Catholics certainly have no qualms about judging anyone outside of the Roman Catholic Church. We are reminded repeatedly in Scripture TO judge and determine truth BY the Scriptures as well as by the fruit shown in individuals' lives.

I am extremely grateful for the content of Daniel1212's posts here and find them scholarly, fair and informative. He seldom makes statements that are based solely upon his own opinions - unlike many that post on these threads. Perhaps you don't agree with his findings or they make you uncomfortable because they prove to be much more than mere opinions, but trying to discredit his statements with the whiffle-bat of "you are just giving your own opinion", "your opinion could be wrong" and "you aren't God, are you?" only demonstrates to me and others that what he DOES have to say must be irrefutable. I believe that some Catholics cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of their church and they resort to inane retorts such as these rather than refute the statements. If what Daniel1212 has stated is in error, then PROVE it. Show us that what he references and what he says is wrong - and make the better argument. If all you've got is "stop picking on Catholics", then save it for Sunday School where that will work. It doesn't here.

[boatbums]

Daniel, Your post is full of your own opinions, right? Yet, I do not see “I believe that Catholics.......” You just say “Catholics......” Why are you afraid to take reponsibility for your own opinion? Could it be because you know that some of it might be in error? That you are not God? That you cannot judge the Catholic Church and the people in it? Why don’t you say...”It is my opinion that Catholics....”

Daniel1212 has taken great care to assert provable facts using Roman Catholic sources and unbiased history for many of his points and comparing them to Holy Scripture. I see NO indication that he is simply stating his own opinion on most of these issues but it IS curious that you offer NO such admonition to the Catholic comments to which the last of these posts are addressing which NEVER began a statement with "I believe..." and, instead, repeatedly asserts dogmatically that everyone who doesn't believe the same way, is wrong and who provides negligable documentation to prove it.

By what hubris can you assert that nobody can "judge the Catholic Church and the people in it"? Catholics certainly have no qualms about judging anyone outside of the Roman Catholic Church. We are reminded repeatedly in Scripture TO judge and determine truth BY the Scriptures as well as by the fruit shown in individuals' lives.

I am extremely grateful for the content of Daniel1212's posts here and find them scholarly, fair and informative. He seldom makes statements that are based solely upon his own opinions - unlike many that post on these threads. Perhaps you don't agree with his findings or they make you uncomfortable because they prove to be much more than mere opinions, but trying to discredit his statements with the whiffle-bat of "you are just giving your own opinion", "your opinion could be wrong" and "you aren't God, are you?" only demonstrates to me and others that what he DOES have to say must be irrefutable. I believe that some Catholics cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of their church and they resort to inane retorts such as these rather than refute the statements. If what Daniel1212 has stated is in error, then PROVE it. Show us that what he references and what he says is wrong - and make the better argument. If all you've got is "stop picking on Catholics", then save it for Sunday School where that will work. It doesn't here.

[boatbums]

Sorry for the triple post.

[daniel1212]

“If you think i have erred then produce the evidence, as i want to know, and failing that or in addition, be sure to note where a Catholic is teaching contrary to your church.”

The issue was i was misrepresenting what is taught within Roman Catholicism, which is not the case.

Your assertion that there were no 66 book bibles produced before the 16th century is false.

Codex Amitianis was produced in the 7th century, and we still have it today. So there is actually extant evidence that your assertion is false. Vulgates were published as early as the early 5th century, although we no longer have any from that period.

Apparently you are not reading this exchange carefully, as that there were no 66 book bible produced before the 16th century was not my assertion, but that of my opponent. Perhaps you are arguing against there being no Bibles produced with the apocrypha before the 16th century, but which is not what i claimed. In addition, historically, what a Bible contains and what the canon consists are not always the same thing.

My position is that the 66 book bible corresponds to the Hebrew Palestinian canon and the ancient 27 book canon, but you need to read my previous responses more fully before jumping in here.

Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

I do comment on the Latin Vulgate (first produced in the 4^th century) in post #940, to which should be added,

Amiatinus is the earliest existent copy of a complete Vulgate, but is from the 8th century, and as it is missing Baruch, it is still not identical to that of Trent, while as the Catholic Encyclopedia (Codex Amiatinus) notes, it also contains the Prologus Galeatus of Jerome and his prefaces to individual books, of which it states,

In his famous "Prologus Galeatus", or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine...

to which it protests,

the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase...(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Other Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical (Prologues of Saint Jerome, Latin text )

“At the end of the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar of his day, to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures.” — Introductory material to the appendix of the Vulgata Clementina, text in Latin

Luther produced his own Bible in 1534 but following ancient precedent he placed the non-Hebrew books into a section called the Apocrypha, and likewise questioned some others. The page to see on Luther as regards his Bible is here Trent also departed from Carthage by including Baruch (it also included the Prayer of Manasseh in an appendix to the Vulgate).

Nor did Trent settle the question as to which version of the varying Vulgate editions it affirmed, thus requiring a thorough revision, as there was no single authoritative edition at that time, and resulting in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate. Correction of its many errors resulted in the first edition of the Clementine Vulgate (official version till 1979) which was presented as a Sixtine edition (with a preface in which Bellarmine charitably attributed the problem of the previous version to being that of copyist errors, rather than being the fault of Sixtus). In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published this revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books, 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses (commonly found in medieval MSS of the Vulgate, immediately after 2Chronicles, and not found in the canon of the Council of Trent) from the Old Testament into an appendix "lest they utterly perish" (ne prorsus interirent). — (http://sacredbible.org/vulgate1861/scans/817-Apocrypha.jpg)

And then there is the confusing and contentious issue of non-canonical Second Esdras (there are two by that name) also known as 3^rd (or Esdras A) or 4^th Esdras (as in the Vulgate), also called Apocalypse of Ezra.

But that there was no indisputable canon before Trent is the main issue.

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

For more on that, and the dissent by Roman Catholic scholars as regards the extra books right into Trent, see my previously referenced page here. And here for a page against the inclusion of the apocrypha

And again if you find before arguing the same things, see my previous responses:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=1867#1867

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2297#2297

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2373#2373

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2866#2866

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2935#2935

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=906#906

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=940#940

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=965#965

[JCBreckenridge]

“My position is that the 66 book bible corresponds to the Hebrew Palestinian canon and the ancient 27 book canon”

Which is entirely your opinion, and contrary to what is contained within the Septuagint, and what Jerome used to compose the Vulgate. There are bibles (Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus), from the 3rd century which have the books of the apocrypha in them. If the ‘ancient canon’ was precisely what you say it was, then why are the only bibles extant from that time testifying just the opposite?

There WAS no official canon prior to Jerome, and the official canon set down by Jerome included all the books of the apocrypha. Full stop.

“Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute.”

A convention dating no earlier than the 19th century. The word was coined then.

Other Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical (Prologues of Saint Jerome, Latin text )

“Luther produced his own Bible in 1534 but following ancient precedent”

He tore out the books that he did not like, and upended 1100 years of biblical manuscripts to produce his own bible.

“But that there was no indisputable canon before Trent is the main issue.”

Which is why Trent corresponds (besides Baruch) with Amitianis, the most ancient Vulgate that we do possess? ;)

Seems to me the evidence is solidly against you that there wasn’t an ‘official canon’. If there was not an official canon after Jerome and the publication, we would expect to see variations in the books included in the ancient Vulgates. Nor would we expect that the most ancient of them to correspond so closely with Trent.

Unfortunately for you, the Vulgates all have the same books in them, dating back to the 8th century that we do have, and evidence abounds demonstrating that the Vulgates from before them all include the ‘apocryphal’ books. At least since Pope Damasus. We have things like the Book of Kells that attest to the canon.

“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation”

Then why does every published Vulgate from the period include them? Clearly they were considered to be Sacred Scripture and were included along with the rest. If there was hesitation, it was insufficient to remove them from the canon. You’ve overstated your case.

“St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus.”

When all the sources discussing their hesitation all quote Jerome, that doesn’t reinforce your argument that their doubts were based on anything other than Jerome’s opinion. Jerome’s opinion, if you go on to read it is because he lacked Hebrew originals for these books.

Some of these books, didn’t even HAVE hebrew originals, because they were originall written in Greek. Just because they were written in the Greek doesn’t make them less reliable. Jerome didn’t know what we know today, that the Greek was the original, and there was no cause to oppose the manuscript evidence available.

If we are to accept Jerome’s opinion, why then do you dismiss Damasus? He was the one who decided on what the Vulgate canon would be in the first place, and he chose to keep the books. If you are arguing for the hesitation, why did the church decide to include them? They didn’t include the Shepherd.

Or better yet, if these books were unreliable, why do they appear in the LXX?

“the dissent by Roman Catholic scholars”

But what does the Church teach? You can find dissent on anything - doesn’t represent what the Catholic church believes.

[daniel1212]

Thanks God for your heart. While i may state my conclusions in the light of evidence, I do endeavor to substantiate my arguments based on research, and from the sources of those whose views i am stating, or arguing against.

And which are stated in the context of an argument, often against arguments by assertion of the claims of Rome, which as seen here, can by variously interpreted by Catholics, and or fail to make the necessary distinction between types of Catholics. Including on the canon of Scripture.

But which arguments opposing Catholicism sometimes do as well, though specifying “Rome” as referring to the church of Rome is censured by some.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

A Defense of Baptismal Regeneration

---

I have planned to put together a piece that puts out the Biblical support for baptismal regeneration. The Bible is clear on the teaching of the saving power of baptism. This is what I hope to set forth in this essay. In presenting a Catholic defense of baptism, I intend to not only show this Biblical support for baptismal regeneration but to take on an attack on this agelong Biblical and Catholic teaching. Those Protestant groups who reject baptismal regeneration attempt to downplay the scriptural support for this. I recently ran into a web site one of whose missions is to ‘expose’ the ‘errors’ of Catholicism, and to lead people away from Catholicism, and into what they proclaim as ‘Biblical Christianity.’ Since the arguments that are used in the site are common for those who argue against baptismal regeneration, I thought it would be helpful to not only put out the support for this Biblical teaching, but to also deal with opposing arguments as well.
Across the web there are numerous attacks on Catholicism that purport to attack Catholicism from a ‘Biblical’ perspective. In all cases I have noticed numerous errors in their analysis of history, scripture and Catholicism. In order to correct all of their errors in these anti-Catholic sites, the amount of time used would be infinite. No one has that time. Often, someone will make a wild statement that is passed on as truth. However, I will just focus on one of these sites as an example of their errors on Catholicism and the bible. Press here to see this piece This site is in reference to the Catholic Catechism and how it supposedly differs from the bible. A former nun ‘Sister Sandy’ and Tracy Broadhurst write this piece supposedly ‘disproving’ the Catholic position of baptismal regeneration. Later on we will see that while trying to refute baptismal regeneration, they actually unwittingly quote verses which not only affirm the Catholic teaching on baptism, but confirm the salvific efficacy of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The reason that I will reference this site is because this site is representative of the Biblical attacks on Catholicism. True examination of the Bible will show Catholic teachings to be biblically founded. I will put in quotes those parts of their site that are quoted.

They start off by quoting on one side the Catechism which shows the Roman Catholic view of the necessity of Baptism. One thing I noticed very quickly is that they neglect to show the numerous scriptural verses that are quoted in the Catechism that show that this view is indeed found in the bible. On the other side they quote Bible verses which supposedly show that Baptism is not salvific.

Using the King James Bible (the only true Bible according to that site, which I believe is ridiculous as the Bible is abridged and cuts out 7 books, but that is another issue), what does scripture actually say about baptism and salvation?

They quote from the Catechism “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.” (Pg.354, #1265)”. Why did they forget that the Bible teaches this? See Mark 1:6, Acts 2:38-39, Gal. 3:27, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11. Perhaps because it proves Catholicism true.

They quote the Catechism again :”Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, and are incorporated into the Church...” (Pg. 342, #1213).” Then on the other side they quotes verses that supposedly disprove this. I ask why they did not quote Gal. 3:26-27, which says through faith AND baptism one becomes a son of God. Perhaps because it proves the Catechism true.

They quote the Catechism again: “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.” (Pg. 353, #1263. see also pg. 279, #985). Then they quote verses along the other side that supposedly disprove this. I ask why they did not quote Col. 2:12-13, Acts. 2:38-39, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Rom 6:1-11, etc? Perhaps because it proves the Catechism true.

Here is a clear scripture that proves baptismal regeneration: John 3:3-5: 3 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

What does the context of John show us? One must be born again, as stated in John 3:3; however, what does that phrase mean? Nowhere does the Bible say what I was taught that in order to be born again, you must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Jesus explained in John 3:5 what he meant in John 3:3. You must be born of water and spirit, that is baptism. How do we know that is what he meant? First, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, who knew the Old Testament background to the meaning of water and spirit. In talking about the New covenant, Ezekiel in 36:23-29, writes about clean water being sprinkled, and God cleansing his people from all filthiness, in tandem with his Spirit being poured out, giving people a new heart, giving people the ability to walk in his statutes. Isaiah 44:3 also talks about the Holy Spirit being poured out with water and many blessings to follow. In John 1:29-34, Jesus is baptized, and the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus. John promises that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. What does Jesus do after he tells Nicodemus in 3:5 about being born of water and spirit? He goes out baptizing in John 3:22. This is the only time that Jesus and the disciples baptize in the gospels, emphasizing even more that being born of water and spirit means baptism (besides John 4, immediately following this). What does John do? He baptizes other people. In the context of baptism, John uses the same term “anothen” in 3:31, as was used in John 3:3 and 3:5. It can interchangeably be translated as “born again” or “begotten from above.” It would strain credulity to say that all this is a coincidence. All Christians until the 16th century thought that born again meant baptism. On the other hand nothing here or anywhere else in the Bible does being born again mean accepting Jesus as Lord in your heart.

Other passages proving baptismal regeneration include: 1 Peter 3:20-21. 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.

Acts 2:38-39 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.

Mark 16:16 He that BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Cor. 12:12-13. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 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.

Colossians 2:11-13 - 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in PUTTING OFF THE BODY OF THE SINS of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Romans 6:3-4. 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.

Galatians 3:26-27. 26 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.

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 Ghost;

There are other references to the necessity and saving power of baptism, but if you take God’s Word seriously, and look at the above verses, you must admit that Baptism has salvific power. Quoting other verses do not cancel out these verses. Nowhere in these scriptures are Spirit baptism separated from water baptism. They are one and the same thing. Even if there was only one scripture (like Baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21) that shows baptism is salvific) it would be enough to settle the issue, but we have proved the point with much scripture. Not only that, but there are numerous other scriptures not even alluded to that likewise proves the saving power of baptism. Trying to explain away verses that are so blatantly Catholic is something that all Protestants must do in order to avoid Catholic truth, but it is dishonest to say one loves the bible, and then ignores what it so plainly teaches. So, unless one blinds him/herself to the plain meaning of scripture, one can only conclude that baptism saves, as the Catholic Church teaches, exactly as scripture and the Catechism states.

BAPTISM CLEANSES FROM SIN
They quote the Church belief that baptism cleanses from original sins, and washes sins away. They again ignore the scriptural foundation for this belief and quote other scriptures that supposedly prove that baptism does not cleanse from sin. Just a few to show that Baptism does wash away sins:

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3-4. 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.

Other references Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:11-13, 1 Cor 6:11, see above for quotation.

In prophesying about the New Covenant, Ezekiel reveals how God is going to cleanse one from sin. Does he write, well, one needs to say a salvation prayer, as long as you really mean it, and make an emotional decision to follow Christ? (Salvation prayers, altar calls, etc. are more manmade, Protestant traditions) nowhere found in the bible. On the contrary, Ezekiel concludes 36:25-27: 25 “Then will I sprinkle CLEAN WATER upon you, and ye shall be CLEAN: FROM ALL YOUR FILTHINESS, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a NEW SPIRIT will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”

We see again that in the New Covenant that one will be cleansed exactly by water (it also mentions sprinkling) and Spirit. They are not separated.

They quote: “Whom [Jesus] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past... Romans 3:25.” So here they say that what provides the remission of sin is Christ’s blood, and since it does this, Christ’s blood is salvific. So what remits sins is the means of salvation. Of course the Catholic church could not agree with them more. So let us see if they are consistent in interpreting the remission of sins as the cause of salvation:

Acts 2:38-39. 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. For more info on why it is Biblical to baptize babies click here

OK, they said that Christ’s blood is salvific because it causes the remission of sins. What does baptism do here? The remission of sins!!!! So I take it then, that they now agree that they were wrong in saying that baptism is not the means of salvation. In order to be consistent, they must admit that baptism is the means of salvation.

We next see that when they mentioned all the verses that show that Christ’s blood is the means of salvation, they thus dig themselves deeper into problems in their attack on Catholic theology by inadvertently proving another Catholic doctrine.

EUCHARIST
They quote several verses that show the efficacy of the blood, and how it brings the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, 1 John 1:7) (as the Bible showed that baptism does as well). I wonder if the Bible says that you get the efficacy of Christ’s blood when you say a ‘salvation prayer’ and accept Jesus into your heart as Lord and Savior.’ Nowhere is that stated in the Bible that they supposedly follow. But yet again, they do a very selective quotation of the New Testament scriptures. I wonder why? Let us look at elsewhere in the New Testament as it relates to blood, and forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:28: For this is my BLOOD of the New Testament, which is shed for many for THE REMISSION OF SINS.

So in the context of instituting the Eucharist, Jesus says that this blood is for the remission of sins. Remember they had written that the remission of sins means salvation. Well, according to Jesus, what effects the remission of sins? His blood in the eucharist!!! I wonder why they did not mention that!!! By the way, no mention of the eucharist as a symbol, (just like no mention of baptism being a symbol).

Mark 14:24 : And he said unto them, This is my BLOOD of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20 : Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD, which is shed for you.

So how do we partake of this blood? Do we partake it by saying a salvation prayer, as long as you really mean it? No? Salvation prayers are nowhere found in the Bible and is another tradition of men. That is a tradition of men begun in the 19th century with no hint of it in the bible. Partaking of this blood is partaking in the eucharist (Mk 14:24, Luke 22:19-20, Mt. 26:27) which he commanded the apostles to do.

John 6:53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his BLOOD, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my BLOOD, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my BLOOD is drink indeed. 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my BLOOD, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

I wonder why this was left out of their description of blood. Jesus says whoever drinks his blood has eternal life. Whoever does not, does not have eternal life. Jesus reiterates the literalness of his flesh and blood despite the disbelief of not only the Jews who rejected him (v. 52) but also the disciples who left him (v. 67). Not once did Jesus say, oh, don’t go away, I was only talking symbolically. BTW, if they try to quote v. 63 which talks of spirit and life, not one time in the Bible does spirit ever mean “what I was talking about was only symbolic.” God is Spirit (John 4:24). Does that mean God is symbolic? Of course not, God is real, just as the eucharist that Christ promised. I choose to stay with following Jesus as Peter did, not as the disciples and disbelieving Jews did. His flesh is true food, his blood is true drink!!! Nowhere does Jesus say, oh well folks, I did not really mean I will give true flesh and true blood.

Only now does Jesus add that we must also drink his blood. Six times in this paragraph Jesus reasserts the necessity to “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, six times! Do you think he was trying to tell us something? Non-Catholics are fond of quoting John 3:3 “Except you be born again..” Why is it that ‘except’ is so important, and this ‘except’ isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, we must be consistent when interpreting Gods’ word.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the BLOOD of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Paul says that the cup is communion of the blood of Christ. I wonder why this was left out of their analysis of blood and salvation.

1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me... 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

The new covenant is in his blood, the eucharist yet again. Does Paul see it as symbolic? Whoever unworthily eats this is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus!!!! How could something symbolic, be guilty of the body and blood of Jesus? And even further, we see that if one partakes of this blood unworthily, one drinks DAMNATION to himself, because they don’t discern the Lord’s body!! This makes absolutely no sense for the Protestant. However, this fits in perfectly with the Catholic view. The eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, as so clearly written by Paul. It is a holy sacrament to be treasured, not blasphemed.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

We have seen what the blood of the covenant (it is the same Greek word, and in King James English covenant has the same meaning as testament) is. It is the eucharist. And their site loves to mock it. In fact, they called it a hated thing. Unless they repent, their punishment is stated very succintly in the above sentence. I pray that they do not mock what Jesus gave to his church.

BACK TO BAPTISM:
They quote Eph. 1:13 saying that the Holy Spirit is the seal, not baptism. Again they make an artificial distinction between the two. Every single person who studied the Bible for 1500 years did not see the seal as being a contest between baptism against the Holy Spirit. Every single one saw the seal being the Holy Spirit given through water baptism. Remember, Jesus said Except you be born of WATER AND SPIRIT. When Jesus was baptized, he was baptized in the water AND Spirit (John 1:34). Baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16). Baptism is how we are sealed by the Spirit (also, compare Romans 4:13 where circumcision is called the seal of faith, with Col. 2:11-13, where baptism is called the new circumcision, thus confirming again that baptism is the seal of the Holy Spirit).

They then quote that Paul did not come to baptize, but to preach (1 Cor. 1:12, 17). The fact that Paul did not baptize everybody refutes what the Bible said earlier about baptismal regeneration? I think not. Yes, Paul did not baptize, but he let other people do the baptisms. Just as Jesus let others baptize (John 4:2) immediately after declaring the necessity of baptism (John 3:5). Paul did not write that baptisms are only valid through him, so the quotations of 1 Cor. 1:17, and 1 Cor. 1:12 are irrelevant. Paul did not write, ‘oh, this cancels out what I taught earlier’ in Gal. 3:26-27, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11, Romans 6:1-4, etc. If he taught baptism was not salvific, as they say, he would contradict himself.

They again quote selective scriptures (they do tend to be quite selective) that show that belief only is the means of salvation. Well, I could quote Acts 22:16 which shows that Paul had his sins washed away not when he believed but when he was baptized. I could quote Matthew 19:16-17 in which Jesus is asked what one must do to enter eternal life. He in fact doesn’t even say you must believe. He says that in order to enter life, one must KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS. So using their logic, since these verses do not mention belief, can I say that belief is not necessary for salvation? Why also would they leave out Matt. 25:31-46, Rom. 2:4-13 and James 2:14-26 which specifically disprove the faith alone idea of salvation? The Catholic church puts all the verses together, and says, that belief, keeping the commandments (that can only be done by God’s grace) baptism, and the Eucharist (as already proven) are the means of salvation. Why quote verses that stress belief but exclude other verses when the very subject of salvation is the issue? What Christ did on the cross must be applied to our lives in a real way.

They write “•Water baptism symbolizes the believers death, burial and resurrection with Christ (Rom 6:12, Col. 2:12), symbolizes washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), and the answer of a good conscience towards God (I Peter 3:21).”

This article could not find one verse that says baptism symbolizes washing away sins. It is unbelievable that they quote those verses because they exactly prove the Catholic Church right again on baptism!!! He said arise, be baptized and wash away sins (Acts 22:16). Not a thing about symbol. In fact, Paul had already believed yet his sins were only washed away by baptism in Acts 22:16. Paul was not told, arise, get baptized to symbolically wash away their sins. He said, arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins. Col. 2 says that the new circumcision, baptism does not symbolically put off the body of sins, but actually does, Col. 2:12-13. A reminder in regards to 1 Peter 3:21, is that baptism does not symbolically save, it says ‘baptism doth now save you’..

Unbelievably they quote Acts 8:36-37 in support supposedly of faith alone, with no need of baptism. The Ethiopian Eunuch incident they say proves that “•Water baptism comes AFTER one believes on Jesus Christ. Water baptism always follows salvation:”

Let us see the context of which they write:

Acts 8:30-39: 30 “And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Actually, their citation of this scene shows two things that disprove their theological view. First, it shows that a person who reads scripture on his own needs an interpreter to explain the meaning. No sola scriptura here. Phillip had been appointed earlier by the apostles Acts 6:5-7. The appointed apostle thus had the authority to teach authoritatively. Thus when the Eunuch came to him, he did not say, ‘well, ask the Holy Spirit and he will guide you into it.’ Phillip had the authority to guide the Eunuch into the truth. He explained the doctrines that had to be believed in order to be saved. By the way, it does not say he became saved only when he believed. Second, notice what it does say. The Eunuch, after hearing this teaching on salvation said take me to the water. It is apparent to anybody reading this story that baptism is absolutely essentially to the process of salvation. First, for adult believers, one must believe (and Catholics also believe that adults must believe before getting baptized). Then, immediately after hearing Philip’s teaching, he gets baptized. If baptism was symbolic, why did the Ethiopian decide that he had to get baptized then and there? The only obvious answer is that Philip had explained that baptism was a part of salvation and the Eunuch had to be baptized in order to be saved. Philip was present, heard Peter’s message that in order to get sins remitted, one must repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38-39). If it was symbolic, and one just did it to show to the world that one had already been saved by just believing, the Eunuch would have been told to wait, until he could demonstrate this to other people. Immediately after the baptism is when the Spirit comes. Now true, it came upon Philip, but it is significant that at the time of baptism is when the Spirit came. He would not have rejoiced unless it was at this point that the Spirit came upon the eunuch as well. This is a fulfillment of Jesus’ saying that one must be baptized of water and Spirit.

Their attempts to separate baptism from salvation fails in another quotation: They write: “In Acts 18:8, Crispus believed and was then baptized, “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, BELIEVED ON THE LORD with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” They again reiterate that one must believe before being baptized. Those who are of age are indeed required to be believed. But also, his whole house (which includes children who are not of the age to believe) gets baptized. Yet again, in the context of salvation, as soon as Crispus believed, he was baptized. So baptism is yet again a part of the salvation process. Their quotation of Acts 16:31-35 is a similar case that again proves this Catholic point. Part of believing is getting baptized. This again refers us back to Christ’s teaching:

Mark 16:16”He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

They then write of Acts 8:12 “Salvation first, THEN water baptism in Acts 8:12:” “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” -Acts 8:12” Here again there is no quotation saying what they wrote. Nothing in Acts 8:12 says, that when they believed they were saved, and only after salvation were they then baptized. Apparently Philip taught that baptism was part of salvation, because as soon as they believed they were baptized. If it was only symbolic, why the rush?

They then write: “•Performing some ritual like water baptism could NEVER save for we can not be justified before God except through saving faith in Jesus. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” -Galatians 2:16

They somehow equate baptism with works of the law. Nevertheless, they do not give one reference in the Bible that equates baptism with the works of the law. This quotation is therefore irrelevant. Works of the Law is another issue, but that is dealing with two things: People who rely on achieving salvation on their own power, circumcision and Old Testament rituals. Paul nowhere alludes to baptism as being of the works of the law. These were the Judaizers who sought to impose the Works of the Law. A good file on Works of the Law is Can be found by clicking here.

They also write that it couldn’t be baptism because it had to be faith. However, it is not faith or baptism, it is faith AND baptism. Remember, in this very chapter Paul writes Galatians 3:26-27. “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.” So in order to put on Christ, one must have faith and baptism. So in other places when Paul talks about putting on Christ and the new self, the background to these verses is baptism (Col. 3:10, Eph. 4:24).

Baptism is seen unanimously by the Church Fathers as the normative necessary means of salvation. The Fathers all read the verses exactly as stated. When they read baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21), that it washes away sins (Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11), and causes the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), they all took it for what it said. There was not one isolated voice for 1500 years that taught against baptismal regeneration. The first person who taught against it was John Calvin and the Ana-Baptists. Why people who claim to follow scripture reject the plain meaning of scripture is because they have decided to follow a man-made tradition, against, Jesus, against Peter, and against Paul.

In sum, the Bible says that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21). They say that baptism does not save. The Bible says that baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16). They say that baptism does not wash away sins. The Bible says that one must be born of water and spirit (John 3:3-5). They say that water is not necessary. The Bible says that baptism causes the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). They say that baptism does not cause the remission of sins. The Bible says that baptism makes us sons of God (Gal. 3:26-27). They say that baptism does not make us sons. The Bible says that baptism makes one put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). They say that baptism does not make us put on Christ. The Bible says by baptism one puts off the body of sins (Col. 2:12-13, Rom. 6:3-4). They say that baptism does not put off the body of sins.

Who really believes in the Bible?

Thus the Catechism is proved to be true again.

There are many other allusions to the salvific power of baptism as well that I did not refer to as well (Mt. 28:19, Mk 1:4-8; Mt. 3:13-17; Jn 1:26-34; 1 Cor. 10:1-4; Eph 4:4-6; Eph 5:25-27;, and others). A good reference for further study of the verses mentioned is found in the book “Crossing the Tiber, Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church,” Ignatius Press, by Stephen Ray, an Evangelical who found the fullness of truth in the Catholic Faith. It can be purchased via Amazon Press at this url Ignatius Press also has a description of the book here and it can also be purchased by calling (800) 651-1531.

There was a critique of this article. Click here to see my response to this critique.

To all Visitors, Grace of Christ to You
Page created by: Matt1618. Send email with questions on this article to Matt matt16182@yahoo.com

---

Return to Matt’s Catholic Apologetics Page

---

Return to Matt’s Baptism Page

posted from matt1618.com

“......nor anywhere in Scripture teaches that we are saved by baptism”

Really? The Scriptures are crystal clear that we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit in BAPTISM, therefore as 1 Peter teaches us, we are SAVED by baptism.
so the above shows what the Apostles in the Scriptures taught about baptism, my next post will show what the Catholic Church Fathers taught.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Born Again : Baptism in the Early Fathers

---

Jesus told Nicodemus, “You must be born again” (John 3:7). What did our Lord mean?

Modern Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians, while agreeing with Catholic Christians that a spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit (or the “new birth”) is necessary for salvation (e.g. John 3:3-8; 2 Cor 5:17; Titus 3:5), generally disagree that the Sacrament (or what some call “ordinance”) of Baptism is the means by which the Holy Spirit regenerates and saves the person, and all sins committed prior to Baptism are forgiven and washed away by the power of Christ (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:1ff; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:27; Eph 5:26f; Col 2:11ff; 1 Peter 3:21; etc). There are exceptions of course (such as Evangelical Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and Church of Christ groups who hold some form of “baptismal regeneration” — and certain of these practice infant Baptism, as do most Reformed or Calvinist Christians).

Many of these modern Fundamentalists and Evangelicals suggest that accepting or “receiving Christ” as one’s “personal Lord and Savior” by faith alone is what our Lord meant in John chapter 3. The Sacrament of Baptism is seen as merely a “symbolic” gesture with no inherent spiritual efficacy.

Catholics, while not denying the importance of the “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ (you cannot get much more personal than receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist) and clearly emphasizing a holy life after Baptism, understand the Gospel text on “born again” as a reference to the Sacrament of Baptism. Catholics note our Lord’s words that one must be “born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT” as clearly equated by Jesus himself with the phrase “born again” (compare verses John 3:3,5,7). The surrounding context of the first four chapters of John’s Gospel also show that by “water and the Spirit” that water BAPTISM is what our Lord meant (cf. John 1:29ff; 3:22ff; 4:1ff), which Sacrament was instituted by Christ himself at the Great Commission where he commanded Baptism in the name of the Blessed Trinity (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). This is shortly followed by St. Peter the Apostle’s command to be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Catholics accept the plain and literal meaning of the biblical texts.

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.

“Justin [Martyr] calls baptism ‘the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,’ and ‘the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.’ “It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: ‘When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.’ ....”From John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation....The effect of baptism...was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament [Procrastinatio baptismi], which Tertullian very earnestly recommends....” (History of the Christian Church, volume 2, page 253ff)

“The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so such a subjective change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ....Some modern divines make a distinction between baptismal regeneration and moral regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a historical statement.” [patristic quotes follow] “In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a -consensus patrum-, than in the doctrine of the Holy Supper.” (History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 481ff, 492)

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. Justin Martyr taught that, to obtain the remission of sins, the name of the Father should be invoked over the one being baptized (1 Apol 61)...Although this concept was not as emphatic among the apostolic Fathers, it became increasingly so in the following centuries. Augustine, for instance, taught that original sin and sins committed before baptism were washed away through baptism. For that reason he advocated baptism for infants.” (The Moody Handbook of Theology [1989], page 415, 427)

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....”

“Speculation about baptism in the third century revolves around its function, universally admitted hitherto, as the medium of the bestowal of the Spirit. Infant baptism was now common, and this fact, together with the rapid expansion of the Church’s numbers, caused the administration of the sacrament to be increasingly delegated by bishops to presbyters....We observe a tendency to limit the effect of baptism itself to the remission of sins and regeneration, and to link the gift of the Spirit with these other rites [Chrismation, Confirmation, and the laying on of hands — detailed analysis from the ante-Nicene Fathers on Baptism follows].....

“From these general considerations we turn to the particular sacraments. Cyril of Jerusalem provides a full, if not always coherent, account of the conception of baptism which commended itself to a fourth-century theologian in Palestine. The name he applies to the rite is ‘baptism’ or ‘bath’ [Greek provided along with references]. It is ‘the bath of regeneration’ in which we are washed both with water and with the Holy Spirit. Its effects can be summarized under three main heads. First, the baptized person receives the remission of sins, i.e. all sins committed prior to baptism. He passes from sin to righteousness, from filth to cleanliness; his restoration is total....Secondly, baptism conveys the positive blessing of sanctification, which Cyril describes as the illumination and deification of the believer’s soul, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the putting on of the new man, spiritual rebirth and salvation, adoption as God’s son by grace, union with Christ in His resurrection as in His suffering and death, the right to a heavenly inheritance....Thirdly, and closely connected with this, baptism impresses a seal [Greek provided] on the believer’s soul. Just as the water cleanses the body, the Holy Spirit seals [Greek] the soul. This sealing takes place at the very moment of baptism....and as a result of it the baptized person enjoys the presence of the Holy Spirit....These ideas are fairly representative of Greek and Latin teaching about baptism in the fourth and fifth centuries.” [detailed analysis from the post-Nicene Fathers on Baptism follows] (Early Christian Doctrines, page 193ff, 207ff, 428ff)

Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran patristic scholar) —

“Although references to the doctrine of baptism are scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second and third centuries, only one extant treatise from the period is devoted exclusively to the subject, that of Tertullian. And the most succinct statement by Tertullian on the doctrine of baptism actually came, not in his treatise on baptism, but in his polemic against Marcion....Tertullian argued that none of the four basic gifts of baptism could be granted if that dualism [of Marcion] were maintained. The four gifts were: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and bestowal of the Holy Spirit...It is noteworthy that Tertullian, regardless of how much a Montanist he may have been at this point, was summarizing what the doctrine of the church was at his time — as well as probably before his time and certainly since his time. Tertullian’s enumeration of the gifts of baptism would be difficult to duplicate in so summary a form from other Christian writers, but those who did speak of baptism also spoke of one or more of these gifts. Baptism brought the remission of sins; the doctrine of baptism was in fact the occasion for many of the references to forgiveness of sins in the literature of these centuries [references to Cyprian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hermas].”

“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].”

“Tertullian’s summary of these four gifts makes it clear ‘that by the end of the second century, if not fifty years earlier, the doctrine of baptism (even without the aid of controversy to give it precision) was so fully developed that subsequent ages down to our own have found nothing significant to add to it’ [citing Evans].” (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 100-600, pages 163ff)

William Webster, a former Catholic turned Evangelical, in his 1995 book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, freely admits the unanimous position of the Church Fathers as to what is called “baptismal regeneration” :

“The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers....From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.” (Webster, page 95-96)

Let us take a look at the writings of the earliest Christians on the Sacrament of Baptism, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism. All the major Church Fathers are covered through the fifth century.

---

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70)

Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of Baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer 22:13; Isa 16:1-2; 33:16-18; Psalm 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, “Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.” Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (11:1-10)

---

THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (c. A.D. 140)

“I have heard, sir,” said I, “from some teachers, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.” He said to me, “You have heard rightly, for so it is.” (The Shepherd 4:3:1-2)

They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For, [he said,] before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive. (ibid 9:16:2-4)

---

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (inter A.D. 148-155)

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.” ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)

---

ST. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (c. A.D. 181)

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 — all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God. (To Autolycus 2:16)

---

ST. IRENAEUS (c. A.D. 190)

“And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan” [2 Kings 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 to 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 new-born 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.” (Fragment 34)

---

TERTULLIAN (inter A.D. 200-206)

A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous.....taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed.....Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. (On Baptism 1:1; 5:6; 7:2)

...no 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.” (On Baptism 12:1)

---

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (ante A.D. 202)

When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal....”and sons all of the Most High” [Psalm 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins; a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted; an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation — that is, by which we see God clearly; and we call that perfection which leaves nothing lacking. Indeed, if a man know God, what more does he need? Certainly it were out of place to call that which is not complete a true gift of God’s grace. Because God is perfect, the gifts He bestows are perfect. (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1)

---

RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT (c. A.D. 221)

But you will perhaps say, “What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?” In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so ...you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: “Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water....he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Recognitions 6:9)

---

ORIGEN (post A.D. 244)

Formerly there was Baptism, in an obscure way....now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God as He Himself says: “My flesh is truly food, and My blood is truly drink” [John 6:55]. (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

---

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)

But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of re-birth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man... Thus it had to be acknowledged that what was of the earth and was born of the flesh and had lived submissive to sins, had now begun to be of God, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit was animating it. (To Donatus 4)

[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.” (Letters 71[72]:1)

[It] behooves those to be baptized...so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only Baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God...because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Letters 72[73]:21)

---

SEVENTH COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (c. A.D. 256)

And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” ...Unless therefore they receive saving Baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.

---

APHRAATES THE PERSION SAGE (inter A.D. 336-345)

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 re-birth; and then they receive the Holy Spirit....in the second birth, that through Baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit. (Treatises 6:14)

---

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. A.D. 350)

If any man does not receive Baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive the kingdom....for the Savior calls martyrdom a Baptism (cf. Mark 10:38) ...Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and come up made alive in righteousness. (Catechetical Lectures 3:10,12)

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....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 says 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.” He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven.

A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.

(Catechetical Lectures 3:4)

---

ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. A.D. 330 - 379)

For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a protector royal, a gift of adoption. (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects: On Baptism 13:5)

This then is what it means to be “born again of water and Spirit” : just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:11-13], 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. (On the Holy Spirit 15:35)

---

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. A.D. 333 - 397)

The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed Himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of Baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins. (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 2:83)

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 2:11-13] 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.” (On Abraham 2:11:79,84)

You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood and the Spirit [1 John 5:8]: and if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for “unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (On the Mysteries 4:20)

---

ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ (c. A.D. 330 - 389)

Baptism is God’s most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God’s Lordship. (Orations on Holy Baptism 40:3-4; PG 36, 361C cited in CCC [1216])

Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified [i.e. baptized] from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal because of the weakness of nature? O what a pusillanimous mother, and of how little faith! ....Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Protector. (Orations on Holy Baptism 40:17)

---

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. A.D. 344 - 407)

Behold, they thoroughly enjoy the peacefulness of freedom who shortly before were held captive. They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in righteousness who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but holy also; not only holy, but righteous too; not only righteous, but sons also; not only sons, but heirs as well; not only heirs, but brothers even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the Spirit.

You see how many are the benefits of Baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated ten honors. For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by sin [or though they do not have personal sins] so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be His members. (Baptismal Catecheses quoted by Augustine in Contra Iulianum 1:6:21)

---

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (c. A.D. 400)

Be ye likewise contented with one Baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:11-13]...he that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, “Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.” And again, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (6:3:15)

---

ST. JEROME (c. A.D. 415)

This much you must know, that Baptism forgives past sins, but it does not safeguard future justice, which is preserved by labor and industry and diligence, and depends always and above all on the mercy of God. (Dialogue Against the Pelagians 3:1)

---

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (c. A.D. 354 - 430)

By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive....gives also the most hidden grace of His Spirit to believers, grace which He secretly infuses even into infants....It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but “salvation” and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else but “life.”

Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.

If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this....The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.

(Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 c. A.D. 412)

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.” 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 one Adam.” (Letters 98:2 c. A.D. 408)

Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ — it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He that said, “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,” made an exception for them in that other statement in which He says no less generally, “Whoever confesses Me before men, I too will confess him before My Father, who is in heaven” [Matt 10:32]. (City of God 13:7 c. A.D. 420)

---

ST. FULGENCE OF RUSPE (c. A.D. 524)

From that time at which our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,” no one can say, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and eternal life. Anyone who receives the sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament...

[But one outside the Church] must, therefore, return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of Baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who...remains estranged from the Catholic Church. (The Rule of Faith 43)

These articles originally appeared in the August 1992 and October 1994 issues of THIS ROCK magazine (under the column “The Fathers Know Best”) with commentary by Church historians edited and added by Phil Porvaznik.

---

Back to Apologetics Articles

Back to Home Page

About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links

posted from philvaz.com

no early church father taught baptismal regeneration? try and find ONE THAT DID NOT!

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

let me try another avenue to show the Baptist position on baptismal regeneration is unscriptural. i will use the unscriptural term “water baptism” as a Baptist would.

1. why did Jesus command “water baptism”?
2. where does the Scripture teach “water baptism” is a “first act of obedience”?
3. where does the Scripture teach “water baptism” is an outward display of what has happened inwardly already?

[boatbums]

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You expect "Matt" or "Steve" to convince me when all you have done is repeat the same old, same old? Why are you ignoring my questions? Can you not answer them of your own free will? Continuing to post reams of what other people say is not acceptable. Until you do, I will ignore the canned Roman Catholic propaganda.