tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post7033193611798533143..comments2013-11-12T06:21:32.893-05:00Comments on Learning the Faith: Anonymous Challenges :- SalvationCarlus Henryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-18621929199888345212009-05-06T00:16:00.000-04:002009-05-06T00:16:00.000-04:00A couple of typos...it is late, and I am tired.......A couple of typos...it is late, and I am tired....but this is the only time that I have had to respond to this....<br /><br />1.) Baptism is salvific not in and of itself. It is not just a ritual. It is salvific only because of what Jesus Christ did for us.<br /><br />2.) <I>I never said that without the mark of the covenant you can not be in the covenant.</I>. Whoops. I mean that without the mark of baptism..... Without the mark of baptism you can still be in the covenant. This is just under extreme or non normal circumstances....<br /><br />God bless and Good night...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-71072618054558297522009-05-06T00:09:00.000-04:002009-05-06T00:09:00.000-04:00Sean,
As you may have noticed, I have closed the ...Sean,<br /><br />As you may have noticed, I have closed the comments on this specific blog post, because we are talking about baptism and I would like to move all of the baptism conversation to the latest blog entry. However, I do believe that your comment deserves a response.<br /><br /><I>In your next post you have - again - well overstepped your “normative” revision in saying that without the mark of the Covenant one cannot be in the covenant. You are going to – again – need to correct yourself. Excluding deathbed conversions? The thief on the cross?</I>I stand by what I said. It is the normative means of entering the covenant. I never said that without the mark of the covenant you can not be in the covenant. That is the distinction that I have been trying to make all along. That is the difference between normal vs. absolute means. For the theif on the cross, I think that we can both agree that those were not normal circumstances. However, it is evident in scripture that it was <B>normal</B> for the Apostles to baptize new people in the faith.<br /><br /><I>Your case for regenerative baptism hinges necessitously on passages which cannot with any certainty be said to dogmatically teach that.</I><BR><I>There are words which have meaning in this passage, and they draw a starkly exclusionary line in the sand. You don’t have to speak for God, he already did, and it is not at all softly “normative”. It is awfully absolute.</I><BR>You stand in a very opportunistic position. You have the chance to look over all of the discussion that has happened thus far and pick and choose different things that I have said regarding Baptismal Regeneration in response to someone else's comment. You can then construct any argument you feel based off of responses that I have made to others in a completely different context.<br /><br />You are correct, God was absolute when He spoke. He was also showed absolute mercy to the thief on the Cross as well. I am assuming that He was not baptized, but He made exception to his inclusion into the covenant due to the current circumstances that the theif found himself in. In other words, Jesus did not take the theif off of the cross, go and baptize him, and then put him back on the cross. Instead, he showed an act of mercy to the state that the theif was currently in. Now, if Jesus and the theif had met in different circumstances, I think that the "normal" thing that would have occurred, just like Jesus charged in the Great Commission, was to make the theif a disciple and baptize him.<br /><br /><I>Again, you are ignoring your own use of these sources. You use them as supporting material for regenerative baptism, even though you have to this point failed in making a Scriptural case for it. </I><I>How do you assert that they are not partaking in some heresy by teaching baptismal regeneration?</I>This is another aside and has nothing to do with the conversation. But if they were partaking in some heresy, who would have had the authority to define it as a heresy? Which Christian organization was there to show a practice or belief to be heretical? The Church.<br /><br /><I>And we are on topic because you yourself have chosen to use them as a source of authority, or at least an informatively authoritatively source, in the matter...It is a significant facet of the topic because you brought them up. </I><BR>Once again, you are pulling one of my comments that was a response to another commenter. This had nothing to do with the conversation of baptismal regeneration and was instead a response to the accusation that the Catholic Church and Constantine got together and brough pagan practices in order to appease Roman Emperors. So no, I did not bring it up. And no, this is not on topic.<br /><br /><I>Peter is saying something, and it is about baptism…of some sort, but then he pointedly excludes actual water in the comparison, metaphysically speaking. How can that be said to be foundational in a case for baptismal regeneration?</I><BR>You are absolutely right. Peter does say something. Let's look at it again:<br /><br /><B>and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, </B>Points to be made:<br />1.) Water of the flood symbolizes baptism<br />2.) that now saves you also...what now saves the flood? What is the 'that' that Peter is referring to....logically it is baptism.<br />3.) He then goes on to say that it is not the removal of dirt from the body....it is not a bath...<br />4.) but the pledge of good conscience toward God. What pledge....baptism<br />5.) It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.....what is 'It'....baptism<br /><br />The only thing that makes this passage complicated and difficult and requires diagraming, would be a refusal to just accept what it says.<br /><br /><I>Only later did you make revise your position making “normative” part of the plan.<br /></I><BR>Only later did I further expand what I was meaning. If I did not do an adequate job of explaining myself, and I try again, it doesn't mean that I am changing my position. It just means that I am more fully explaining it.<br /><br /><I>So, going on and making your case for sacraments ignores that your case for regenerative baptism lies in tatters at this point.</I>I am not even sure if you even read the post. We are still discussing baptism on the other post. You are more than welcome to join, so long as you stay on topic, and be respectful.<br /><br /><I>I’ll move on, but you gotta know, your next post follow this unsuccessful attempt at making the case for baptismal regeneration.<br /></I><BR>Please, no more unfounded accusations. Please support your claims with evidence appropriate to the topic at hand on the next post.<br /><br />God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-58378945438796190572009-05-05T10:37:00.000-04:002009-05-05T10:37:00.000-04:00Carlus,
First, thanks for the apology on behalf o...Carlus,<br /><br />First, thanks for the apology on behalf of your sponsor. I appreciate it. I will move on to your new post, but I don’t think that your answers measure up to the stark, didactic assertions you made early in the post. Let me explain -<br /><br /><I>My entire case is that Baptism is normative necessary for salvation</I>…which does not in any way authoritatively follow from the passages you have cited, as I believe I have shown. In your next post you have - again - well overstepped your “normative” revision in saying that without the mark of the Covenant one cannot be in the covenant. You are going to – again – need to correct yourself. Excluding deathbed conversions? The thief on the cross? This is just a request – not a demand – but if you would, please go to your next post and “normalize” the language so I don’t have to argue the same point over and over.<br /><br />Your case for regenerative baptism hinges necessitously on passages which cannot with any certainty be said to dogmatically teach that. And again, I am not interested in reading more on the matter. Your case is not substantial enough to uphold your assertion of baptismal regeneration, much less clarifying it by making it “normative”. Presumably neither is the case of the attached article, otherwise I think you would be making it.<br /><br /><I>God is God, I am not.</I>I’m not sure why you suddenly foray into postmodern meaninglessness. This avoids completely all that you have erroneously asserted about these passages. You constructed a clear proposition about the meaning and consequential praxis of what is being taught here, you were shown to be wrong, and then you say, <I>I do not dictate how He extends His mercy towards us</I>. This is not about you or what you say or have said, this is about what God has said, what you have said He means, and what the passage actually means. There are words which have meaning in this passage, and they draw a starkly exclusionary line in the sand. You don’t have to speak for God, he already did, and it is not at all softly “normative”. It is awfully absolute. And, please, stop giving me reading lists – just make the case yourself as you say you are doing.<br /><br /><I>this would not pose a problem since being in the line of succession or being ordained does not diminish one's capacity for sin.</I>Again, you are ignoring your own use of these sources. You use them as supporting material for regenerative baptism, <I>even though you have to this point failed in making a Scriptural case for it.</I> These were great men, but as you say, one’s capacity for sin is not diminished. So why cite them if your case lacks any Scriptural foundation? How do you assert that they are not partaking in some heresy by teaching baptismal regeneration? And we <B>are</B> on topic because you yourself have chosen to use them as a source of authority, or at least an informatively authoritatively source, in the matter. It is a significant facet of the topic <I>because you brought them up</I>. Demonstrating that your sources are suspect, in addition to demonstrating that you presuppositions are false, is part of the process of demonstrating your position on the topic to be false. <br /><br />I wrote <I>Now, if you were to actually use the 1 Peter 3:21 passage as normative, there would be no problem.</I> - <br /><br />to which you replied <I>I am understanding you to say that baptism is the normative means. This is what I have been saying as well. Unless I am misunderstanding your point, I agree with you. It is the normative means as an instrument of a part of salvation.</I>I did not use my words well. What I should have said is that “If you assert that 1 Peter 3:21 teaches that, normatively, baptism is regenerative..,” because you are using that passage as part of the ground-floor foundation that baptism is regenerative. And I am saying that to make a passage that has been found to be incredibly confusing (try diagramming it – it’s almost impossible to figure out what is predicative and what is the main action.) as part of your propositional first salvo is to say that something says something when it cannot be asserted that it does. Peter is saying something, and it is about baptism…of some sort, but then he pointedly excludes actual water in the comparison, metaphysically speaking. How can that be said to be foundational in a case for baptismal regeneration? Only later did you make revise your position making “normative” part of the plan.<br /><br />But your injection of normative <I>presupposes that you have made the case for baptismal regeneration <B>using these two passages as presumptive launching pad for the rest of your points.</B></I> But I have shown this to be either incorrect or a massive syntactial and conceptual overstep. <br /><br />So, going on and making your case for sacraments ignores that your case for regenerative baptism lies in tatters at this point. You are moving on long before you have made a successful case for this central Roman Catholic teaching. <br /><br />I’ll move on, but you gotta know, your next post follow this unsuccessful attempt at making the case for baptismal regeneration.<br /><br />Thanks for engaging,<br /><br />SeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-82214584060242442032009-05-05T09:39:00.000-04:002009-05-05T09:39:00.000-04:00Sean,
My apologies if you were offended by the co...Sean,<br /><br />My apologies if you were offended by the comments that Willison made.<br /><br />God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-18883348466779410102009-05-05T09:37:00.000-04:002009-05-05T09:37:00.000-04:00Anonymous,
Nearly your entire case is built upon ...Anonymous,<br /><br /><I>Nearly your entire case is built upon John 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21, to this point. </I>My entire case is that Baptism is normative necessary for salvation. You can see this further explained <A HREF="http://learningthefaith.blogspot.com/2009/05/sacraments-sacrament-of-baptism.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<br /><br /><I>So either you make it about water baptism, and say that they thief on the cross was not in Christ or, for another instance, Paul on and even after his transformative experience on the Damascus road. Again, if you are going to use the passage you are going to have to figure out how to make “οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν” not able to enter un-absolute. </I>God is God, I am not. I do not dictate how He extends His mercy towards us, He does. If you want to learn more, then you can learn more <A HREF="http://learningthefaith.blogspot.com/2009/05/sacraments-sacrament-of-baptism.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<br /><br /><I>So explain your authoritative citation of Clement and explain away the lack of authority of the false teachers in Thessalonica, and do it without Scripture...since - as you say - it had yet to form.</I><BR>We are not discussing Apostolic Sucession. Of course, if we were, this would not pose a problem since being in the line of succession or being ordained does not diminish one's capacity for sin. But let's stay on topic.<br /><br /><I>Now, if you were to actually use the 1 Peter 3:21 passage as normative, there would be no problem.</I><BR>I am understanding you to say that baptism is the normative means. This is what I have been saying as well. Unless I am misunderstanding your point, I agree with you. It is the normative means as an instrument of a part of salvation.<br /><br /><I>This is not about one passage, Mr. Williston, you are correct. So why does Catholic teaching make it so?</I><BR>I don't think that the position stated is about one passage. For further information, please refer to the follow up post <A HREF="http://learningthefaith.blogspot.com/2009/05/sacraments-sacrament-of-baptism.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<br /><br />Thanks and God Bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-84393224237398315262009-05-05T09:24:00.000-04:002009-05-05T09:24:00.000-04:00Ummmmm......then I think you should start out by c...Ummmmm......then I think you should start out by copying and pasting Sean's last post and addressing what he said...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-28019569795693392252009-05-05T09:02:00.000-04:002009-05-05T09:02:00.000-04:00Everyone,
Since this conversation seems to be foc...Everyone,<br /><br />Since this conversation seems to be focused on the subject of Sacraments and specifically the Sacrament of Baptism, I would like to continue it on the latest post which is specific to that subject. You will find it here <A HREF="http://learningthefaith.blogspot.com/2009/05/sacraments-sacrament-of-baptism.html" REL="nofollow">Sacraments: The Sacrament of Baptism</A>Thanks and God bless....Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-40697414666761023592009-05-04T23:43:00.000-04:002009-05-04T23:43:00.000-04:00Hi Carlus,
Yes, I have been here the whole time, ...Hi Carlus,<br /><br />Yes, I have been here the whole time, just posting one other time other than the last one. <br /><br />Nearly your entire case is built upon John 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21, to this point. John 3:5, again, is a reference to Ezekiel's explanation of the New Covenant, brought to us in Christ. This is an Occam’s Razor moment - to begin to presumptively add any phrase with "baptizw" and superimpose your asserted meaning of John 3:5 over it ignores that there is no way that Ezekiel is talking about water baptism. There was no such thing as proselyte baptism when Ezekiel wrote that. Jesus’ reference to salvation is most easily and yet totally explained by looking to the Ezekiel reference to the New Covenant. But even more problematic is that this passage is completely exclusionary. While your sponsor, Mr. Williston, is certainly right to say that God does not need us to reach a soteriological ecumenical consensus in order for him to save someone, what Mr. Williston – and you – ignore is that in this passage God himself draws a salvific line in the sand, saying that <I>no one</I> who is not born of water and of the Spirit will enter the Kingdom of God. God is saying <I>no one</I>. <br /><br />So follows this moment of unreflective revisionism, <I>Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity</I>. OK. First, if you are going to use John 3:5 as a dogmatic reference to sacramental water baptism, you absolutely cannot relativise in this way. “No one who is not born of water and of the Spirit will see the kingdom of God.” No one means no one. That is absolutist language. So either you make it about water baptism, and say that they thief on the cross was not in Christ or, for another instance, Paul on and even after his transformative experience on the Damascus road. Again, if you are going to use the passage you are going to have to figure out how to make “οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν” <I>not able to enter</I> un-absolute. There are passages that are notably less clear, as with 1 Peter 3:21 – I’ll get to that – but the exclusionary clarity of Jesus’ words excludes totally this passage from being a water baptism reference. <br /><br />So then you say, “In order to have a better understanding on this topic from a Catholic perspective, so you can know what exactly you want to argue against.” This is just weird. Aren’t you the one making the assertions? Isn’t it enough to argue against your own words? If I can use your own words and ideas against you, in a way which demonstrates your own ideas to be incongruent and messy, is it necessary to read an article? I’ll tell you what, when you have really bad ideas I’ll show you. If you cite something else, but can’t explain it in a way that is logical or biblically cohesive, then I’ll presume that you don’t yet know what you are talking about. If you can’t explain it, you don’t understand it.<br /><br />Secondly, you need to know that, though the Church Fathers are certainly helpful in understanding the early church, they have no explanatory nor any inherent didactic primal authority. If you were to say that they have authority because they were given that authority via Apostolic Succession, the only obvious conclusion is that the deaconate and elders in Corinth, Lystra, Iconium, et. al. also had that same authority, because they were given it directly by Paul, Timothy, Titus, etc. But these groups were in error, grave error at times. How does that error not bear the same authority? You cannot help but find yourself in damage control mode over the Colossian heresy, explaining why their teaching did not have authority, and yet why Clement does. You cannot have it both ways. You will need to return to Scripture in order to defend this idea, even though canon had not been ecumenically defined yet. <br /><br />So explain your authoritative citation of Clement and explain away the lack of authority of the false teachers in Thessalonica, and do it without Scripture...since - as you say - it had yet to form.<br /><br />Lastly, 1 Peter 3:21. To absolutize this passage into teaching regenerative water baptism is a considerable overstep. There are a great deal of problems in using this passage in the absolute regenerative manner you are. Firstly, what is the analogous “saving”? Noah was baptised? How does it correspond? Noah did not have a good conscience? Noah was saved through the flood but we are saved by baptism by the death of Jesus? The analogous “correspondence” needs to be established before you can assert that this passage teaches regenerative baptism. This entire pericope is notoriously unclear, and it is irresponsible to say that it is clear as you have said. I don’t believe that you can reconcile the syntactical confusion in the passage. And as much as this passage is unclear, John 3:5 is painfully, awfully clear in its absoluteness, and yet that you choose to make that “normative” but not “absolute”. That is an unfortunate duplicity in your hermeneutics.<br /> <br />Now, if you were to actually use the 1 Peter 3:21 passage as normative, there would be no problem. No right-thinking Protestant would depricate the importance of the sacrament of Baptism in the life of a Christian. But you have used these two passages in an absolute fashion (one completely stripped of its clear Hebraic references and the other being one of the most disputed pericopes in all of the New Testament) when you needed to establish a dogmatic foundation, and then you have attempted to revise and relativise your dogma when clear interpretive problems arise. You lack hermeneutical conviction in the application of these passages – and that is not a bad thing! To engage in hermeneutical retractions indicates that you still understand the considerable problems with the Roman teaching on baptismal regeneration, which is a wonderful thing.<br /><br />This is not about one passage, Mr. Williston, you are correct. So why does Catholic teaching make it so?<br /><br /><I>I am now a Neophyte ;)</I>You said it. Just Kidding! <br /><br />SeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-47570448892666481002009-05-04T22:08:00.000-04:002009-05-04T22:08:00.000-04:00Anonymous (Sean),
yes, but, I think you need to t...Anonymous (Sean),<br /><br /><I>yes, but, I think you need to tell your catechumen, for that is what he is asserting.<br /></I><BR>Just to be clear, I am not a catechumen any longer. I am now a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neophyte" REL="nofollow">Neophyte</A> ;)<br /><br />God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-31200816598670236542009-05-04T20:57:00.000-04:002009-05-04T20:57:00.000-04:00Anonymous (Sean),
I don't know if you are new, or...Anonymous (Sean),<br /><br />I don't know if you are new, or if you have been with us for the whole conversation, but in either case, welcome.<br /><br /><I>Carlus built his entire defense of baptismal regeneration on one acontextual citation. If it's not about one verse, then tell Carlus to use more than one acontextual citation as the entire foundation for baptismal regeneration.</I><BR>Are you saying that I have only used one source of biblical evidence in order to support Baptismal Regeneration? This makes me think that you have not read the entire conversation.<br /><br /><I>the house prooftexter</I><BR>Tempting....so tempting...but nahhh. Stay on topic please.<br /><br />God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-11891238780291253972009-05-04T19:04:00.000-04:002009-05-04T19:04:00.000-04:00"We don't get to define God. We don't get to tell ..."We don't get to define God. We don't get to tell him how he's going to save us."<br /><br />yes, but, I think you need to tell your catechumen, for that is what he is asserting.<br /><br />Catholics believe Scripture when it says:<br />In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"<br />"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:3-5)<br /><br />Then Carlus wrote - <br /><br />Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus, that you must be born again to enter into the kingdom of heaven. When Nicodmeus asks for clarification, Jesus explains to him that being born again means that you must be born of water and the Spirit. This can only mean baptism. Therefore, the Bible does teach Baptismal Regeneration.<br /><br />The passage he quotes is exclusionary, not broadly inclusionary, and Carlus applies it only in physical baptism.<br /><br />Direct your irritation towards Carlus - the house prooftexter -, Willison. Carlus built his entire defense of baptismal regeneration on one acontextual citation. If it's not about one verse, then tell Carlus to use more than one acontextual citation as the entire foundation for baptismal regeneration.<br /><br />SeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-11299428741018441882009-05-04T14:59:00.000-04:002009-05-04T14:59:00.000-04:00Let's not go crazy here. This is NOT about one ve...Let's not go crazy here. This is NOT about one verse. (Interesting how this is the opposite argument anonymous used about prayer, however.) God said we need to be baptised. It's the method he chose. Jesus told the apostles to make disciples of all nations. How? By baptising them. But he's not limited by it. God is almighty. He is not a zero tolerance God. In His mercy he can save the unbaptized if he chooses. Neither I, nor the Catholic Church, will substitute our judgment for His. We are talking about what he has set up and ordained, not any exceptions to the rule His unexpressed Mercy may allow for. God will never be up in Heaevn saying, "I really wanted to save that one, but since he wasn't baptised, I just can't." Can God save a bushman in the jungle somewhere, who has never read the Bible or heard any of the stories in it? Of course he can. But we're not talking about that.<br />We're talking about people who claim to "teach" God's word telling people God's way is optional or just for show. <br />Can that be justified? No. Hypothetical questions about do all people in all places and all times have to be baptised to be saved is really just a logic trick. If you know about baptism to the point that you are discussing it in a blog, and choose to not get it, I have no idea how you would explain that decision and still expect his mercy. We don't get to define God. We don't get to tell him how he's going to save us.Willisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503896410521375450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-81637425172034769782009-05-04T14:50:00.000-04:002009-05-04T14:50:00.000-04:00triednotfried,
"I was just showing that God used ...triednotfried,<br /><br /><I>"I was just showing that God used the Catholic Church in order to compile and protect the scriptures for 1500 years prior to Luther."<br /><br />No,,, HE did not. He used and uses every tongue tribe and nation....</I><BR>When was the first official canon of scripture identified? Who was it that made the official stance on which books were going to be included in Scripture and which ones were not? Why isn't the Didache, Clement's Letter to the Corinthians (which almost made it into the Bible), part of Scripture? Why is the book of Hebrews in the Bible, when to this day, we don't know who authored it? These are just things to ponder, and like you said, this is getting a little off topic.<br /><br /><I>Water is the SYMBOL of cleansing. Compare John 3:5 with Titus 3:5...it is the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings the spiritual life to a dead sinner. It's reinforced in John 3:7.</I><BR>Before going further, I think that it is important that you understand my position better. Do you think that I believe that mere water can wash away sins, and cause an inward transformation? I don't. I believe that the water was blessed when Jesus himself was baptized. From that point on, it is used as a physical means, to give God's grace to his people which causes the inward spiritual transformation. Some of the comments you are making, make it seem as though I may believe that the water, in and of itself, has magical powers. This is not the case. Instead, I believe that the power is all God's, and He chooses to extend His grace through the waters of baptism.<br /><br /><I>Jesus rebuked Nicodemus because he failed to recall and understand one of the key OT passages Jeremiah 31:33. Why would Jesus have rebuked him for not understanding baptism considering that baptism is nowhere mentioned in the OT?"</I><BR>Why do you think that Jesus rebuked Nicodemus based on Jeremiah 31:33? There is nothing in John 3, that can bring you to that conclusion. The more appropriate conclusion is based on the words spoken of our Lord. He rebuked Nicodemus because he did not know that there must be a change brought forth through the use of water and spirit.<br /><br />As a teacher, Nicodemus should have known that whenever God wanted to create something new, he used both Water and Spirit. When God formed the world in Genesis, He used water and spirit. When He saved Moses and his people, baptism was forshadowed in the parting of the Red Sea, once again water and spirit. Isaiah 44:3, Ez 36:25-27, where is it suggested that water is only a symbol in these passages? God gets to decide what He wants to use in order to start the redemptive change in us all. If He wants to use water and spirit, why should we argue?<br /><br />Also, you raised the concern that there are many practices within the Catholic Church that was born out of the legalization of Christianity by Constantine, who also poured into the faith many pagan traditions. If Constantine did in fact influence the Chrisitan faith and forced the adoption of pagan rituals and practices, this would not be one of them. Here is one of our fathers of the faith (ours, as in yours and mine), who helps us to better understand what Jesus means. I am more inclined to trust this man's word, since he was most likely only two or three degrees of separation from the Apostles.<br /><br /><B>" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it 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.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190). </B>God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-56720142036931122222009-05-03T19:48:00.000-04:002009-05-03T19:48:00.000-04:00Anonymous,
Did you miss that I specifically state...Anonymous,<br /><br /><I>Did you miss that I specifically stated that i was not making a personal accusation?</I>Hmmm....here are two quotes from the post that I blocked....<br /><br /><I>Did you flunk basic English in school?</I><BR><I>There is absolutely NO way that an intelligent human being can make the claim you did.</I><BR>Sounds like you are suggesting that I failed basic English (of course this can't be true, since I am authoring a blog, and I am fully capable of reading and writing). Then you are calling me less than intelligent.<br /><br />Now, which spirit do you think would have provoked these comments? One of Christ? When defending and explaining the faith, are these comments anti-biblical....<br /><br /><B>Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,(1 Peter 3:15)</B>Don't worry...even if you did not ask for forgiveness...I still forgive you....<br /><br />God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-76668358311776619512009-05-03T19:33:00.000-04:002009-05-03T19:33:00.000-04:00Did you miss that I specifically stated that i was...Did you miss that I specifically stated that i was not making a personal accusation? That I stated that the issue was in the words spoken and not. I figured you might have been speaking about the 'canon' of scripture and not scripture itself, but you words did not make that distinction. If you are refering to my including the 'rest' of the scripture around the verses you quoted as proving something they do not, there may have been a personal aspect to my comments. After all you did say certain verses 'prove' things they did not, using the same interpreatative skills applied to anything written.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-14960906583617256372009-05-03T18:58:00.000-04:002009-05-03T18:58:00.000-04:00Hi Carlus:
"I was just showing that God used the ...Hi Carlus:<br /><br />"I was just showing that God used the Catholic Church in order to compile and protect the scriptures for 1500 years prior to Luther."<br /><br />No,,, HE did not. He used and uses every tongue tribe and nation....<br /><br />This is just not my area, although I know enough to not acknowledge that your interpretation is correct, I will not argue the point. My brothers who are borderline expertise in this area have more than shown why this is so illogical in incorrect...so I agree, let's go back to this. You have not addressed my former statement...<br /><br />"I'll try again...When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must "be born of water and the Spirit" he was describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth...not literal water. Look at these scriptures, Psalm 51:2,7, Ezekiel 36:25....and John 13:10, 15:3, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Hebrews 10:22....water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought about by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God.<br /><br />Water is the SYMBOL of cleansing. Compare John 3:5 with Titus 3:5...it is the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings the spiritual life to a dead sinner. It's reinforced in John 3:7.<br /><br />Jesus rebuked Nicodemus because he failed to recall and understand one of the key OT passages Jeremiah 31:33. Why would Jesus have rebuked him for not understanding baptism considering that baptism is nowhere mentioned in the OT?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-70958166429228633772009-05-03T17:46:00.000-04:002009-05-03T17:46:00.000-04:00triednotfried,
For the first 280 years of Christi...triednotfried,<br /><br /><I>For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, </I><BR>You are making a great point here. So, in other words, wouldn't it be great to understand our Christian Fathers prior to the legalization of Christianity? Wouldn't it be great to have a good understanding of the practices and beliefs that were held by the early christians prior to Constantine? That is what we call the Fathers of the Church. Their writings are readily available. From them, you can tell whether or not they were Protestant or Catholic in their theology. I would submit that they were Catholic.<br /><br /><I>The supremacy of the Roman bishop was created with the support of the Roman emperors.</I><BR>This is just bad information. Have you ever heard of Clement of Rome? Now tell me, how can a man who was said to be born around 96A.D., possibly baptized by Peter himself, and excercised authority over the Christian Church as the Pope, be the invention of emperor's conspiracy to influence the Church 300 years later? <br /><br />Just read this<br /><A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm" REL="nofollow">Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians</A>Now....let's get back on topic of salvation....God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-19264865448847980972009-05-03T17:38:00.000-04:002009-05-03T17:38:00.000-04:00triednotfried,
what you are saying in that one st...triednotfried,<br /><br /><I>what you are saying in that one statement, is that God can not work through anyone but the Catholic church</I><BR>That is not what I am saying at all. That is how you took it. I do believe that God can work through people outside of the Catholic Church.<br /><br />I was just showing that God used the Catholic Church in order to compile and protect the scriptures for 1500 years prior to Luther. So in a sense, all Christian denominations that base their belief system on the Holy Scriptures, are in essence on some level indebted to the Catholic Church for preserving those Scriptures during that time. That is just a historical fact.<br /><br />And you are right...now we are starting to get way off topic, but I think that it is important for our conversation that you do not misunderstand what I said.<br /><br />God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-36160422072600450022009-05-03T16:19:00.000-04:002009-05-03T16:19:00.000-04:00and as to my previous statement...what you are say...and as to my previous statement...what you are saying in that one statement, is that God can not work through anyone but the Catholic church...that is very wrong to me....God will use, whom He chooses, when He chooses...regardless of who they are. No one has the right to make such a claim...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-89240124563597560192009-05-03T16:16:00.000-04:002009-05-03T16:16:00.000-04:00Carlus: Yes, I am making a point. For the first 2...Carlus: Yes, I am making a point. For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were horribly persecuted. I apologize that this is off topic, but sometimes we have to go back to go forward. Constantine "legalized" Christianity at the Edict of Milan in 313. He envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire but the results were not positive. He refused to fully embrace the Christian faith and continued alot of his pagan beliefs and practices which resulted in a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. He saw that with the Roman Empire being so huge and diverse, that not everyone would forsake their religious beliefs and take on Christianity, so he allowed pagan beliefs.<br /><br />Are you familiar with the Cult of Isis? Mithraism? Henotheists?<br /><br />The supremacy of the Roman bishop was created with the support of the Roman emperors.<br /><br />I know you deny the pagan origin of your beliefs and practices. There is alot of complicated theology that disguises it...it is masked to me, under "church tradition"<br /><br />To me, the origin of the Catholic Church is the compromise of Christianity and pagan religions that surrounded it.<br /><br />Again I apologize that this is so off topic...but I do think it is necessary to get to the root...<br /><br />DebsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-72308425761107528862009-05-03T15:36:00.000-04:002009-05-03T15:36:00.000-04:00triednotfried,
"Were there no Catholic Church, s...triednotfried, <br /><br /><I>"Were there no Catholic Church, scripture would not exist."<br /><br />Ummmm really? So the Catholic Church IS God? </I><BR>Clearly, you don't really believe this is what I meant. I am sure you are just trying to prove a point.<br /><br />Let me explain further what I mean. Where did Luther get his copy of the Bible from? Where did that person get their copy of the Bible? Who was responsible for maintaining the Scriptures 1500 years prior to Martin Luther? How can you even know that you are holding God's Word without it being tampered with? The only answer to this question is the Catholic Church protected the scriptures since day one. Therefore, without the Catholic Church, Scriptures would not be available, period. It is just a historical fact.<br /><br />God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-58933181551391333562009-05-03T15:32:00.000-04:002009-05-03T15:32:00.000-04:00Anonymous,
I rejected your last comment. If you...Anonymous,<br /><br />I rejected your last comment. If you have to resort to personal insults to prove your point, you will get nowhere with me fast.<br /><br />Stick to the subject.<br /><br />God bless...Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-86411906386898586452009-05-03T15:29:00.000-04:002009-05-03T15:29:00.000-04:00"Were there no Catholic Church, scripture would no..."Were there no Catholic Church, scripture would not exist."<br /><br />Ummmm really? So the Catholic Church IS God? Wow, that my friend is heresy...you really do have God in a Catholic box....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-30003517166543366222009-05-03T11:24:00.000-04:002009-05-03T11:24:00.000-04:00Morning Carlus:
You completely ignored the part w...Morning Carlus:<br /><br />You completely ignored the part where in reference to John 3:5 that Proselyte baptism had not yet been instituted. Jesus in John 3:5 could not have been referring to Christian baptism because such did not exist yet. The Lord was not talking about physical water, but spiritual cleansing.<br /><br />I'll try again...When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must "be born of water and the Spirit" he was describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth...not literal water. Look at these scriptures, Psalm 51:2,7, Ezekiel 36:25....and John 13:10, 15:3, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Hebrews 10:22....water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought about by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God.<br /><br />Water is the SYMBOL of cleansing. Compare John 3:5 with Titus 3:5...it is the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings the spiritual life to a dead sinner. It's reinforced in John 3:7. <br /><br />Jesus rebuked Nicodemus because he failed to recall and understand one of the key OT passages Jeremiah 31:33. Why would Jesus have rebuked him for not understanding baptism considering that baptism is nowhere mentioned in the OT?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5542369259513248152.post-68205785481691162042009-05-03T08:05:00.000-04:002009-05-03T08:05:00.000-04:00Anonymous,
Were there no Catholic or Protestant c...Anonymous,<br /><br /><I>Were there no Catholic or Protestant churches, scripture still stands.<br />Were there no Catholic Church, scripture would not exist.</I>But as you said, that is a side issue.Carlus Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118327352251205251noreply@blogger.com