Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew
Again, the thief died before baptism for the remission of sins.

Then why did John the Baptist, as well as the Apostles (and maybe Jesus) baptize people before the crucifixion?

And Jesus died before the thief did.

Calling people "idiots" is not very Christian.

According to you, I'm not a Christian.

But apologies for calling you an idiot, anyway.

Originally posted by adjensen
Then why did John the Baptist, as well as the Apostles (and maybe Jesus) baptize people before the crucifixion?

Baptism unto repentance is a different baptism than baptism for the remission of sins.

That is why those baptized only by John's baptism, unto repentance, had to be rebaptized for the remission of sins.

Originally posted by truejew
That is why those baptized only by John's baptism, unto repentance, had to be rebaptized for the remission of sins.

When did that ever happen? Is there an instance in the Bible of someone being re-baptized? Where, for example, is documented the re-baptism of Peter?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
That is why those baptized only by John's baptism, unto repentance, had to be rebaptized for the remission of sins.

When did that ever happen? Is there an instance in the Bible of someone being re-baptized? Where, for example, is documented the re-baptism of Peter?

Acts 19:1-6 (KJV)
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
That is why those baptized only by John's baptism, unto repentance, had to be rebaptized for the remission of sins.

When did that ever happen? Is there an instance in the Bible of someone being re-baptized? Where, for example, is documented the re-baptism of Peter?

Acts 19:1-6 (KJV)
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Point taken.

So, a Jewish ritual washing, baptism, isn't the same thing as a Christian one, I guess that we can agree on that. But, again, where is there indication that the Apostles were re-baptized? And what was the baptism that they were practicing before the resurrection?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Why are you asking a loaded question?

Sorry, but, how is this a loaded question?

Originally posted by adjensen

But, again, where is there indication that the Apostles were re-baptized?

We are not told in Scripture, however, I think it is safe to say that they followed what they preached.

Originally posted by adjensen

And what was the baptism that they were practicing before the resurrection?

Before the crucifixion, it would have been John's baptism. If any baptizing took place between the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost, it would have been John's baptism.

Baptism for the remission of sins was not preached until Peter preached it on the day of Pentecost. Therefore it could not be done in faith until then.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Why are you asking a loaded question?

Sorry, but, how is this a loaded question?

Because he asked for a specific that he knew didn't appear in the wording he used.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

But, again, where is there indication that the Apostles were re-baptized?

We are not told in Scripture, however, I think it is safe to say that they followed what they preached.

But they didn't preach re-baptism, and there is no indication that they practiced it, either. That bits in Acts is of Paul re-baptizing someone. We all know what Paul's feelings about Jewish ceremony was, and that it was not fully held by the other Apostles. It may not even have been that big of a deal for Paul, either, given that he never wrote about it, but it's not a stretch to assume that he believed Jewish baptisms were invalid, for the same reasons that he thought circumcision, Temple sacrifices and dietary law were invalid.

I don't see any evidence that the Apostles, apart from Paul, taught that John's baptism was invalid, or that any of them were rebaptized. While we can agree that Christian and Jewish baptism are different things, you seem to be basing that on your previously noted flawed "salvation by works", where if the words aren't exactly right, the magic doesn't happen.

Christ saves. Baths and ritual incantations do not.

By the way, on your previous statement that Christians should not call others "idiots", you might want to reveal that to your buddy Reckart. Among his crazy rants on his site are numerous instances of him referring to others as "idiot":

Some years back when I first began my research, I was told by a Oneness minister I was trying to be Catholic. One idiot said I was a secret Jesuit infiltrator. (Source)

Can a trinitarian who was never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ baptize a person in the name of Jesus Christ? Some claim it is not the spiritual condition of the baptizer, it is the faith of the baptismal candidate here. One idiot had the audacity to say that even a drunk could baptise in Jesus Christ name and the person's baptism would be valid. The same idiot said the baptism of a homosexual pastor was valid if he did it in the name of Jesus Christ. (Source)

For a "good man", he sure has a lot of vileness in him.

Oh, and he has a whopping logical error in that last paragraph. I'll leave that as a lesson to the reader, though.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

Among my many faults is a tendency to get bristly when I think my integrity is being questioned. I have accomplished enough in my time to satisfy nearly anybody, and have no desire to "win at any cost." Basically, I've won everything I've ever wanted except for true holiness (the struggle continues).

So, I don't mind losing arguments, in fact I like it because it teaches me something. I'm less excited about winning arguments, and I abhor the idea of winning arguments through deception. I refuse to do it.

So, now that I've finished with the autobiographical section, let's return to the "loaded question" discussion. Please refer to this earlier post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
All of the quoted words are yours. I think they provide honest support for each of the parts of my question. Indeed, my only purpose in wording my question as I did was to summarize and condense your points.

Please let me know where, if anywhere, I went wrong. If I did not make a significant error, I think your answer to the question would be enlightening.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by adjensen

But they didn't preach re-baptism, and there is no indication that they practiced it, either.

They, all of the apostles, preached remission of sins in His name from the day of Pentecost and beyond.

Originally posted by adjensen

While we can agree that Christian and Jewish baptism are different things, you seem to be basing that on your previously noted flawed "salvation by works", where if the words aren't exactly right, the magic doesn't happen.

Again, I teach salvation by grace through true faith. You teach salvation by grace through dead faith. Also, I don't teach magic.

Now for your justification of calling others idiots...

I do not agree with Pastor Reckart on everything. He is a good man, not a perfect man.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

But they didn't preach re-baptism, and there is no indication that they practiced it, either.

They, all of the apostles, preached remission of sins in His name from the day of Pentecost and beyond.

Except that there is no evidence for them re-baptizing anyone, or for they themselves having been re-baptized. Since that's the cornerstone of your faith, what you claim is the "true Christianity", don't you think it would be a lot clearer?

Now for your justification of calling others idiots...

I do not agree with Pastor Reckart on everything. He is a good man, not a perfect man.

Oh, I wasn't citing it as justification for myself -- I have zero respect for the man, so I don't use him as a moral guide. I just figured you might want to bring the behaviour that you call "unChristian" to his attention. Based on how he treats others who disagree with him, you shouldn't be surprised to be called an idiot, a liar and a secret Trinitarian as a result, lol.

Originally posted by adjensen

Except that there is no evidence for them re-baptizing anyone, or for they themselves having been re-baptized. Since that's the cornerstone of your faith, what you claim is the "true Christianity", don't you think it would be a lot clearer?

I posted evidence of re-baptism.


You are very obsessed with Pastor Reckart.

reply to post by charles1952


I didn't question your integrity. There isn't any verses that state that the Bible is the only source or authority. Andagain, sola scriptura isn't a doctrine, it's just an approach to the Christian life.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Except that there is no evidence for them re-baptizing anyone, or for they themselves having been re-baptized. Since that's the cornerstone of your faith, what you claim is the "true Christianity", don't you think it would be a lot clearer?

I posted evidence of re-baptism.

You posted evidence of Paul re-baptizing someone, and it is reasonable to think that he may have been unique among the Apostles in his belief that Jewish baptism was invalid, because he thought that the rest of Jewish rites were also invalid. But there is no evidence that Peter or the other Apostles was re-baptized, or that they re-baptized anyone, so I think it's an open question.

You are very obsessed with Pastor Reckart.

I care about ya, pal. If I can show you that you're following a deceptive person who does not exemplify Christian behaviour, maybe you'll start thinking critically about what you're being told by him.

reply to post by adjensen


So you think that Paul was alone in preaching remission of sins in the name of Christ?

reply to post by Snsoc


I haven't got time to do all the points but here are some.

1.) Infant baptism
Fact is did Jesus or his disciples baptise babies? No they only baptised those who learned the word of God and knew what it entailed before accepting it. How can a baby do that? The roots of Infant baptism dates from the 2nd or 3rd century and what rights did the person that started it have to change the way Jesus set down?



4.) (Supposed) worship of Mary, images, popes, etc.
" As Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying: “Rise; I myself am also a man."- Acts 10:25, 26

Peter did not want anything to detract from worship to God.


" Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6, 14 see also 1 Tim. 2:5

So we can see that all worship should directed to God through Jesus and ONLY Jesus it says this in quite clear terms. No one should pray through or too a saint as it goes explicitly against what the above scriptures say.

As for Idol it is Irrelevant what they are used for they are condemned in a number of scriptures!
Jer. 10:14, 15,
Ezek. 14:6,
Ezek. 7:20,
1 John 5:21,
Ezek. 37:23,
And tons of others!
It pretty clear Idols are bad!

5.) The Rosary
Same with Idols

7.) Purgatory
Please tell me where in the Bible this teaching is stated? Because I cant find a scripture that even fits it.

"So, at times, the Catholic Church relies on tradition for authority; tradition that was at first verbal, and then became written."


“I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll."- Rev 22:18
It can be assumed that by this time all the information that was needed for true worship was written down otherwise why was this written?

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

So you think that Paul was alone in preaching remission of sins in the name of Christ?

No, I think Paul was alone in believing that some people needed to be re-baptized. There is no indication that anyone else thought that, did that, or had it done to them.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

So you think that Paul was alone in preaching remission of sins in the name of Christ?

No, I think Paul was alone in believing that some people needed to be re-baptized. There is no indication that anyone else thought that, did that, or had it done to them.

I think all of the apostles taught remission of sins in His name as commanded by Christ. It would then make sense that all of the apostles would have baptized for the remission of sins even if the one being baptized had been baptized unto repentance. All apostles would have been together on this.

reply to post by JW2002


On your question about purgatory I will agree you will not find it in a Protestant bible. Mere inference to it was enough to have Luther remove that verse from the Bible. I am referring to specifically to 2 Maccabees 12:46. The Protestant bible ends at verse 45.

2 Maccabees 12:46 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

or in the New American translation:

2 Maccabees 12:46

Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

There is no doubt that both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians (e.g., Greek and Russian Orthodox) have much in common regarding the whole matter of purgatory and prayers for the departed. For example, both see a foundation for such prayers in Holy Scripture. In 2 Maccabees 12:42-46, for example, the Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus ordered sacrifices to be offered in the Temple for the souls of his soldiers killed in battle, that their sins might be forgiven: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins" (verse 46). Obviously, if they could be "loosed" from their sins after their death by the prayers of the living, they must be in some kind of post-mortem state in which cleansing from sin is possible. This seems to have been a common Jewish belief in the century before Christ. [Note: The common Protestant contention that the Catholic Church only added the two books of Maccabees to the Scriptures in 1546, at the Council of Trent, to counter Martin Luther's claim that prayers for the departed were not scriptural, is demonstrably false. The Maccabean corpus was accepted at Rome as canonical Scripture as early as 496 A.D., in the Decree of Pope Gelasius. The books were also listed as canonical Scripture by the ecumenical Council of Florence (1439-1443) long before the Reformation. The decree on the scriptural canon at the Council of Trent only clarified the uncertainties about the Old Testament books because a few other books in the so-called Apocrypha were still in dispute.

www.prayforsouls.org...