Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

you continue to promote salvation by works,

Those with faith repented and got baptized.... Those without faith did not.

That's what Peter said. I asked you to show where Jesus commanded that people be baptized in his name for the remission of sins. Chapter and verse.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Jesus said nothing about baptizing for the remission of sins in his name, and you have no way of knowing what the Apostles "understood" or why.

Incorrect. The apostles responded by baptizing in His name as commanded.

Where does Jesus command that people be baptized in his name? Chapter and verse, not "implied", not "understood". Where is it commanded?

Something as key as this cannot be some obscure reference that only some bright boy in the 20th Century could figure out -- it would be spelled out clearly, in a manner that is not open to misunderstanding.

Jesus said... Teach remission of sins in my name.

The apostles responded by baptizing those with faith in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

The apostles obeyed the command of Jesus.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

you continue to promote salvation by works,

Those with faith repented and got baptized.... Those without faith did not.

That's what Peter said. I asked you to show where Jesus commanded that people be baptized in his name for the remission of sins. Chapter and verse.

I was showing that your accusation that I teach salvation by works is not true.

Originally posted by truejew
Jesus said... Teach remission of sins in my name.

The apostles responded by baptizing those with faith in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

The apostles obeyed the command of Jesus.

How is baptizing and teaching the same thing?

"Preach the remission of sins" means teach what remission is, and Christ specifically said that it is the shedding of his blood. Christ never said baptism was teaching the remission of sins, he never said that baptism was for the remission of sins, and he never said that John's baptism was invalid and people needed to be re-baptized.

Either cite the chapter and verse where he commanded baptism for the remission of sin, or just admit that he didn't. Why is that so difficult?

Originally posted by adjensen

How is baptizing and teaching the same thing?

They teach... then they baptize.

Baptism for the remission of sins is taught all through the book of Acts.

I never said John's baptism was invalid, just that it was unto repentance and not for the remission of sins.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

How is baptizing and teaching the same thing?

They teach... then they baptize.

Where does Jesus say "teach... then baptize"? Because we know where he says "teach," but the only thing he has to say about baptism you've erased out of your Bible.

Your inability to show chapter and verse is an indication that you are full aware that he never said that, so you're just making up your own doctrine, by claiming that he did.

Baptism for the remission of sins is taught all through the book of Acts.

If Jesus taught something different, which he did, then your interpretation is wrong. Period.

Regarding baptism, from the tract "Baptismal Grace":

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Despite this wealth of evidence, Protestants are almost equally unanimous in rejecting this truth. In general Protestants regard baptism as something like an ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience, but it is not necessary in any further sense—certainly not for salvation.

This view requires Protestants to explain away all the New Testament passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism itself, they assert, but what baptism represents,that really saves us. Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they cannot even dredge up a couple of "proof-texts" on baptism to support this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages.

There is one text that Protestants occasionally mention. In 1 Corinthians 1:14–17 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and he went on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . ." Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didn’t write, "For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior" (or even "to lead people to faith"). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism.

It continues:

Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry.

In short, Paul’s remark doesn’t remotely support the Protestant view of baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet this is the closest thing to a Protestant proof-text!

The early Fathers were equally unanimous in affirming baptism as a means of grace. They all recognized the Bible’s teaching that "[In the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:20–21, emphasis added).

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).

Believe what you want, through one's own exegesis. The information I have posted is the truth, even if you don't agree with it.

Now, for those folks that don't believe this, through no fault of their own, how does one apply this to their salvation? Then we get into "invincible ignorance," but that's a topic for a different time.

The Church has been attacked since it's inception, and it will prevail. Sure, it's leaders may stumble occasionally, but the fact that it's been darn near 2,000 years and it's still here, and still under attack, should speak on it's own.

I do enjoy threads like this, but I'm afraid it's veered way off course.

Bottom line, I personally bare no ill will or malcontent to my separated brethren, as through our baptism we are all siblings in Christ!

May the Lord bless you all, and keep you always.

I have no doubt in my mind or heart that Catholics are Christians all the same, they simply have a different way of looking at it. Even my father, a pretty conservative Reformed pastor, acknowledges Catholics are Christian and will go to Heaven. This is a man who believes Jews will not, to give you some idea of what his views are.

Can a Catholic adult choose to be baptized even if they were as a baby? Just curious. Is there a provision for adult baptism in the church and if so, how's it done, is it a sprinkling or a full body immersion? Thanks.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Can a Catholic adult choose to be baptized even if they were as a baby? Just curious. Is there a provision for adult baptism in the church and if so, how's it done, is it a sprinkling or a full body immersion? Thanks.

No, unless the first baptism was invalid, a Catholic cannot be baptized twice, because baptism is a sacramental outpouring of God's grace, and that only happens once per sacrament.

An adult can be baptized if they have never been baptized or their first baptism was invalid (eg: they were baptized by a non-Christian religion, like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or truejew's bunch -- in the last case, it isn't the "name of Jesus only" thing that invalidates it, but that they are non-Trinitarians, therefore non-Nicaean Christians, therefore not a Christian baptism, from the Catholic and Protestant viewpoint.)

Catholic baptism is not full immersion, as I recall it is poured over the head, same as in the Methodist church. It is "renewed" during the first four (?) Sundays after Easter with a re-sprinkling of the entire congregation, but that's not re-baptism.

reply to post by adjensen


It is time for me to bring this discussion to an end.

The Bible is clear. Repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit are faith actions and are necessary for salvation.

If you want to ignore what Peter said to do in response to the question, "what shall we do?" After He preached the Gospel, go ahead, but rejecting the teaching of the apostles does not make you Apostolic, Christian, or saved. It leaves you in a faithless counterfeit religion with no salvation.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit are faith actions and are necessary for salvation.

As I have said all along -- you proclaim a non-Biblical salvation by works alone.

If, as you have said is the case, there are two people and the only thing different between the two is that one was "baptized in the name of Jesus" and one was not, or was baptized in another manner, and the first one is saved and the second is not, then the first was saved solely through works and the second was condemned due to lack of works.

That is salvation by works alone, and there is zero support for that in the Bible. None.

You cannot provide scriptural support for it, in any fashion, because it isn't there. Your cult made it up.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

There's more than one way to understand "for" in English. The Greek of that text indicates it's a for that means "because of" not "in order to achieve". An example would be if I said :

"Tommy went to jail for stealing a car."

It was because of Tommy's car theft that he went to jail, not that he went to jail so he could steal a car. English is a very lazy language whereas Greek is extremely rigid and precise.

That is incorrect. It can mean "in order to receive" also. If in the case of baptism, it meant "because of" as you claim, 1 Peter 3:21 would not make sense.

1 Peter 3:21-22 (KJV)
21The 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:

Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that you are correct, that a person isn't saved when they trust in Christ and seek forgiveness for their sins because of His sacrifice on the cross, but only after that and water baptism is their sins truly forgiven, then take a wild guess at this:

Q: How many tens or hundreds of thousands of people since 32 AD died and went to Hell because they had this misfortune of accepting Christ by faith in the fall or winter and died by either sword or natural causes before the nearest body of water thawed sufficiently enough for them to be water baptized?

50,000?
100,000?
500,000?

Is God not powerful enough to provide water when needed?

Do you know of any Christian writings detailing how God miraculously melted the frozen lake, pond, or stream and warmed the water to 65-75 degrees for baptisms to take place in the dead of winter?

Any Christian sources detailing this miracle?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit are faith actions and are necessary for salvation.

As I have said all along -- you proclaim a non-Biblical salvation by works alone.

If, as you have said is the case, there are two people and the only thing different between the two is that one was "baptized in the name of Jesus" and one was not, or was baptized in another manner, and the first one is saved and the second is not, then the first was saved solely through works and the second was condemned due to lack of works.

That is salvation by works alone, and there is zero support for that in the Bible. None.

You cannot provide scriptural support for it, in any fashion, because it isn't there. Your cult made it up.

Does he realize he's teaching witchcraft? That we move the hand of God by incantations or deliberate wording of phrases/prayers?

reply to post by adjensen

If, as you have said is the case, there are two people and the only thing different between the two is that one was "baptized in the name of Jesus" and one was not, or was baptized in another manner, and the first one is saved and the second is not, then the first was saved solely through works and the second was condemned due to lack of works.

Huh?
I had to read this three times before it soaked in, my friend.

Are you saying that 'baptized' is "works"? I was of the impression that 'saved by baptism' as the be-all and end-all was 'Sola Fide', or an off-shoot of 'Sola Scriptura'. I'm confused now.

reply to post by wildtimes


"Works" are things that we do to try and please God. All actions are, effectively, works. Trusting in God, believing in him, accepting his grace, those are not works, they are acts of faith.

There is a basic tension between Catholic and Protestant theologies, regarding works, but neither believes that God is handcuffed by our works, which is what the theology that "truejew" espouses -- God cannot save you unless you do a specific work, in a specific fashion, meaning that God is limited by your actions. As NuT says, it is a form of Christian witchcraft.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

As I have said all along -- you proclaim a non-Biblical salvation by works alone.

No, salvation is by grace through faith. Repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit are by faith.

Luke 13:3 (KJV)
3I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

John 3:5 (KJV)
5Jesus 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.

Originally posted by JW2002
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?

1. Well, again, the Catholic Church baptizes babies to cleanse them from original sin. It's so if a child should happen to die before they "knew the word of God and accepted it," they wouldn't go to Hell.

4. I don't see anyone bowing down before people in the Catholic Church. And I think I pointed out already that a picture of God isn't an idol any more than a picture of your wife is.

5.Asking someone to pray for you is not the same as praying to them.

7. Follow the link in my original post.

As to your verse from Revelations: two parts really stand out to me:

"words of the prophecy"

"of this scroll"


Tradition doesn't add to prophecy, it adds to teaching. And the Bible isn't a scroll, so it's obviously talking only about the Book of Revelation

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Does he realize he's teaching witchcraft? That we move the hand of God by incantations or deliberate wording of

Do you believe you move the hand of God when you have others repeat your incantations or deliberate wording of the "sinner's prayer"?

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

It is time for me to bring this discussion to an end.

The Bible is clear. Repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit are faith actions and are necessary for salvation.

If you want to ignore what Peter said to do in response to the question, "what shall we do?" After He preached the Gospel, go ahead, but rejecting the teaching of the apostles does not make you Apostolic, Christian, or saved. It leaves you in a faithless counterfeit religion with no salvation.

You're not bringing anything to an end. This is my thread, and I'll decide when it ends, unless the mods close it, which could very well happen, since people want to get hot and heavy over a little bit of water. No wonder people don't want to get saved and join a church.