Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[CadyandZoe]

I'm not repeating dogma, I am using "Bible alone" to prove the reality of deacon, priest, bishop, that you don't accept. You refuse to be reasoned with. Not only that, celibacy is not a dogma or a doctrine. There are plenty of married Catholic clergy, even in the one Latin rite where it is mandated. Your hostility as as bad as your ignorance.

I challenge you to key in any question or topic with one click of the key board. See my signature. Then refute the answers, by using the quote feature, with scripture. But you won't do that because it's too much work. You belong in the sub-group called "The Lazy Anti-Catholic". You follow reformist teaching while denouncing them. It's a kind of schizophrenic spirituality and it ain't healthy.

I've been on forums a long time. You post the same idiotic claims against the CC as do atheists, JW's, SDA's, the poisonous Hislopites and legions of others. You are not aware of the pattern you fit into.

View attachment 31016

Anti-Catholicism (Index Page For Apologist Dave Armstrong)

Collection of papers by Dave Armstrong refuting anti-Catholicism: the absurd, self-defeating notions that Catholicism is not Christianity at all.

www.patheos.com

You are too angry to stay on any topic.

I'm sure JW's and SDA's have apologists also. Big deal. You have a cleaver person who, like the bird in the parable of the sower, is able to eat the seeds of truth we plant. Mr. Armstrong helps you feel comfortable in your error. How tragic for you.

Even so, you resort to name calling, insults and an apparent contempt for me, which is indicative of your insecurity. Subconsciously you know that I am right, which is why you resort to insults.

I am constantly amazed at the profound unfathomable depth of the human capacity for rationalization.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Not two. A release of what is already there is not a baptism. I'll go with what Jesus said, water and spirit. Having a dynamic experience with the HS is a good thing, but it's not "born again" according to Jesus' simple definition. Having a moral turnaround at a church service a good thing, but still it's still not "born again". I'll stick with John 3:5. Jesus is not confused.

For the third time, "Why does the Catholic Church accept most non-Catholic baptisms as valid?" It looks like I will have to answer the question myself, since it seems to scare the critics.

Catholics and the Church of Christ believe you must be water baptized as that Initial Act of saving faith.
They love to use Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 to make their case. But verses cannot be read in a vacuum. One has to look at the whole counsel of God’s Word on the subject to get a more comprehensive picture of a particular topic.

Generally, adherents of these kinds of churches are not unbiased and have something to lose if their church is wrong. Take no offense, but I believe many churches care more about what their church or leader says than what the Scriptures say. Why do I say this? Because I don’t think most of these kinds of church folk indeed went on a quest to study the Bible alone with God alone for a time outside of their church and see if what their church is doing is biblical. The Scriptures are secondary to them, and they can only understand them based on their church being the filter or lens. They want to fit in with their church, so any excuse to interpret the Scriptures to their preferred interpretation will do (as long as they fit in). But what about the apostles? The early church Christians followed what they said. Yes, that was the apostles. Many churches (even your church) do not in any way, sense, or form look like what we read about concerning the early apostles (in the pages of the New Testament).

Acts 10:34-48 is a crucial text showing how Gentile Christians are saved today.
Peter preached the gospel message to Cornelius. Cornelius and his household merely heard the gospel message (basically the same one by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) in that Christ was hanged on a tree (cross), and God raised Him on the third day. While hearing this message from Peter, Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit (the downpayment of their inheritance). Meaning, they were saved. Then afterwards, Peter water baptized them. This means that they were first saved before they were water baptized. They were saved by God’s grace, and not a work.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is the gospel that saves and mentions nothing about water baptism. It merely tells us to believe that Christ died for our sins, he was buried, and risen the third day (Which is a part of how we first get saved and it is the foundational truth we stand upon for salvation).

In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul says, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

If baptism were for the initial point of contact of faith to be saved, Paul would have never said anything like this above (even if it was to correct the misuse of baptism).

Jesus forgave sins on the spot, and He did not need to water baptize them for them to be initially saved.

The thief on the cross was saved without water baptism.


So what about Acts 2:38?

Acts 2:38
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [Greek: εἰς] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Well, the same Greek word "eis" (εἰς) for the English word "for" in Acts 2:38 is the same as meaning "the result of" with the use of the English word "at" in Matthew 12:41.

Matthew 12:41
"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at [as a result of] the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."

See the Greek word "eis" (εἰς) here at BlueLetterBible.

Note: Words in blue brackets above in the above bible verses are my commentaries to the texts.

Even the English word 'for" can be defined as "because" as well.

See definition 14 in the Webster's 1828 at the following link at KingJamesBibleDictionary.com.

King James Bible Dictionary - Reference List - For

For, King James Bible Dictionary

kingjamesbibledictionary.com

So Acts 2:38 is saying this:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [as a result of] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Or it is saying this:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [because of] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

If this is not the case, then we have multiple contradictions in Scripture, and that’s just not possible.


As for Mark 16:16:

Peter says baptism saves us not for the putting away the filth of the flesh in 1 Peter 3:21.
Focus on the words “filth of the flesh” and what that could mean according to the Bible elsewhere.
According to 2 Corinthians 7:1, a similar phrase is clearly about sin, not dirt.
2 Corinthians 7:1 says let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

So Peter is saying baptism saves us not for the putting away of sin, but it saves us to give an answer to having an already clean and good conscience before God (When we first believed the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Paul and Silas told the jailor to believe on Jesus and be saved. They did not say for him to get baptized to be saved. Romans 10:13 says whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” Paul says in Romans 6 that baptism is in the LIKENESS of Christ’s death (See: Romans 6:5). It is symbolic of his death. Baptism represents death, and not life. Yet, the Catholic Church and the Modern Day Church of Christ believes this is how one is regenerated (Born again).

Yes, Christians need to be water baptized as a part of their faith. The just shall live by faith. But Christians are first saved by God’s grace through faith without works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Again, we see this with Cornelius and his household by their receiving of the Spirit (Which is the downpayment of their inheritance). Granted, they must be faithful so as to inherit the Kingdom, but the point you are missing is God’s grace. I mean, stop a moment. How can you honestly read and believe Romans 11:6 with a good conscience or without squirming in your seat? If it is grace, it is no more of works (i.e., Works Alone). This again is not suggestive that works are not needed later. Romans 11:6 was said because of the problem of those who thought they had to be circumcised to be saved. The modern-day Church of Christ (COC) and the Catholic Church have basically done a similar thing by proposing that baptism (a work) is how one first gets saved. The whole point in Romans 4 shows that circumcision is a "work" (and Abraham was saved by believing the promise before being circumcised), and circumcision is representative of baptism today. So baptism is a work. We are not initially saved by works but we are first saved by God’s grace when we first come to the LORD.

Let God’s grace shine!

Note: Unlike most Protestants, I do believe works of faith are necessary as a part of God’s plan of salvation. But this is only AFTER we are saved first by God’s grace without works to begin with.

Believers are saved by…

#1. God’s grace without works (Initial Salvation) (Ephesians 2:8-9).
#2. Sanctification of the Holy Spirit (To live a holy life) (Secondary Aspect of Salvation) (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For the third time, "Why does the Catholic Church accept most non-Catholic baptisms as valid?" It looks like I will have to answer the question myself, since it seems to scare the critics.

The Catholic Church has no validity to me. It means nothing to me. It’s a bunch of hocus pocus. I merely regard what the Bible says because it shows itself to be divine (Whereas the Catholic Church and its practices has not shown itself to be infallible like the Word). So your question is asked from a fictional fantasy world, and not from the Scriptures (of which I regard as truly authoritative and trustworthy). So if you are going to ask a question on the topic of baptism, it has to be rooted in Scripture. If not, it is will just be ignored as absolute insanity or nonsense (Which is what I think of the extra biblical practices of the Catholic Church). No offense of course. It’s just my experience and knowledge of what I know to be true (beyond all shadow of a doubt).

 

[Illuminator]

I'm sure JW's and SDA's have apologists also. Big deal. You have a cleaver person who, like the bird in the parable of the sower, is able to eat the seeds of truth we plant. Mr. Armstrong helps you feel comfortable in your error. How tragic for you.

Mr. Armstrong makes mincemeat out of your best apologists, which is why they refuse to debate him.

Even so, you resort to name calling, insults and an apparent contempt for me, which is indicative of your insecurity. Subconsciously you know that I am right, which is why you resort to insults.

I am constantly amazed at the profound unfathomable depth of the human capacity for rationalization.

You are too angry to stay on any topic.

 

[Illuminator]

The Catholic Church has no validity to me. It means nothing to me. It’s a bunch of hocus pocus. I merely regard what the Bible says because it shows itself to be divine (Whereas the Catholic Church and its practices has not shown itself to be infallible like the Word). So your question is asked from a fictional fantasy world, and not from the Scriptures (of which I regard as truly authoritative and trustworthy). So if you are going to ask a question on the topic of baptism, it has to be rooted in Scripture. If not, it is will just be ignored as absolute insanity or nonsense (Which is what I think of the extra biblical practices of the Catholic Church). No offense of course. It’s just my experience and knowledge of what I know to be true (beyond all shadow of a doubt).

Ok, so you admit you have no answer. Scripture doesn't say all questions must be rooted in scripture. In fact, scripture doesn't say every authentic practice or belief must be explicitly found in scripture. Sola scriptura is unworkable, illogical, divisive, self defeating, unbiblical man made tradition, unheard of for 15 centuries.
All Protestant theology that is true is BORROWED from the Catholic Church, (such as baptism and the Trinity) and plenty of other things we have in common so if we are wrong, so are you.
If you are anti-trinitarian, you are anti-Protestant.
Baptism is the one area where we can find common ground, but you can't even do that much because you must divide, divide, divide and argue about everything.
No offense of course??? You offend yourself, and not even aware of it.
My question, that you have no answer for, is on topic. Your uncharitable rant is not.

Sola scriptura is a derailer for those who will not, or cannot, answer questions. Here's an off topic question for you: where is the diabolical ideology of transgenderism condemned in the Bible? Chapter and verse, please.
Sola scriptura is impotent to face head-on todays moral collapse, just as it was impotent by itself to refute the Arian heresy.

For the 4th time, "Why does the Catholic Church accept most non-Catholic baptisms as valid?" It looks like I will have to answer the question myself, since it seems to scare the ones hell-bent on more division.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

On Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Sacramental Grace

The concept of “baptism in the Spirit” must not be confused with “another act of sacramental grace” as is taught in many Pentecostal charismatic circles.

Fortunately, few Catholics mistake that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” as understood by the charismatic movement, is an act of sacramental grace. The pastors of the Church have, on this point, published its proper definition: that “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not another act of sacramental grace but rather the “personally experienced actualization of grace already sacramentally received, principally in baptism and confirmation.”

Charism gifts building up the Church – BRO IGNATIUS MARY

JULY 26, 2013 Charism gifts building up the Church1 (Excerpt from the Rule of St. Michael) 2004, Order of the Legion of St. Michael, www.saint-mike.org A detailed evaluation and review of the Chari…

ephesians511blog.com

I lean more towards Cessationism (Although I do leave room for some mystery so as not to speak against others and condemn myself).

Here is my write up defending Cessation of the miraculous gifts.

Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.

Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased. (Note: This does not mean miracles have ceased, but it means that the gift of healing or the gift of miraculous gifts and prophecy as seen in the early church has ceased). Important Note: Please keep in mind that I am not...

www.christianforums.com

I seen a rather lengthy documentary (a long while back) on some really crazy unbiblical stuff that goes on in Charismatic and Pentecostal circles. So I won’t be attending any Pentecostal or Charismatic churches in the future any time soon.

Again, if you were to pay attention, I mention how I changed my position and I now believe in water baptism because of what the Scriptures say. Granted, that said, the Bible does teach that there are baptisms that God automatically does for us if we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Baptisms God does upon us after we have received God’s grace through faith:
(According to His Word):

#1. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into Jesus Christ and the church at salvation “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...” (1 Corinthians 12:13). The head of the body is Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:18).

#2. Jesus baptizes us into the Holy Ghost, “he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost..” (Matthew 3:11). This is the downpayment of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:14).

#3. Jesus baptizes us with fire over the whole course of our life (i.e. Jesus tests our faith, and refines us to live a holy life) (Matthew 3:11). I see this as a part of the Sanctification Process over the course of our lives as believers to live a holy life and or as different testings of our faith by the Lord to refine us and to purge the branch to bring forth more fruit. As the silversmith uses fire to purge the dross from the precious metal, so the Lord seeks to remove sin from a believer’s life (Psalms 66:10; Proverbs 17:3). His fire cleanses and refines. “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:” (1 Peter 1:7).

Baptisms that Apply as a Form of Performance or Work in the Christian Life:

#1. Water baptism in the name of Jesus. This is the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5. (Note: Matthew 28:19 is saying to be baptized in the name (singular) that represents all three persons of the Godhead or Trinity; This name is Jesus. For the fulness of the Godhead dwells in the man Christ Jesus - Colossians 2:9, and Jesus is the name above all names - Philippians 2:9. Believers should be baptized in the name of Jesus just as the apostles had done with others. To see the symbolic picture of water baptism check out my post here.

#2. Baptism unto death, “But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.” Matthew 20:22. Luke 12:50 says, “But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” Just as Jesus partook of the baptism of death by dying on the cross for us, we are also to die to ourselves.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ok, so you admit you have no answer.

It’s just not relevant. You might as well be talking about some fantasy character on the back of a cereal box. Just because you indulge in fantasies created by men (i.e., the extra biblical beliefs and practices of the RCC) does not mean I have to give it any kind of credence. Again, no offense. It’s just how I view your church. It’s not personal. It’s what I believe is true in light of my walk with God and the study of His Word. The discussion on the topic of baptism is only relevant based on what Scripture says and not what some group of men (in holy garments) say.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'll go with what Jesus said, water and spirit. Having a dynamic experience with the HS is a good thing, but it's not "born again" according to Jesus' simple definition. Having a moral turnaround at a church service a good thing, but still it's still not "born again". I'll stick with John 3:5. Jesus is not confused.

As for being born of water:

Well, Ephesians 5:25-27 says that Christ gave Himself for the church so that He might sanctify us with the washing of the water of the Word so that He might present to Himself a church who is holy, blameless, without spot, or wrinkle, etc.

25 "...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Jesus says, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3).

"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word." (Psalms 119:9).

So the water = the Word of God (i.e., the Communicated Word like Scripture).

So when a person is said to be born of water, it is not talking about water baptism (as the RCC teaches), or being born physically into this world (as others teach), but it is talking about being born again by the Holy Scriptures.

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23).

What is the context of the words “the word of God” in 1 Peter 1:23? Is it Jesus (the Living Word) or is it the communicated Word of God (Scripture)?

1 Peter 2:1-2 says,
“Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:”

In other words, the Bible has become alive to you and it is no longer a dead book to you anymore if you are truly born again of water.
But if you always need other men to help you to understand it (like your church leaders), then this proof your not born of water.

1 John 2:27
”But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

 

[BreadOfLife]

No one. That's the point. According to Catholic Dogma, it is forbidden for Bishops to marry, which is contrary to Paul's teaching.

WRONG - not the Eastern Rites, as I already showed you . . .

And it's NOT a matter of Dogma - but diccipline.

According to Paul, a celibate man can not become a bishop.

NOWHERE does Paul make this claim.
He simply states that he cannot be married to more than ONE wife.

In the depths of your ignorance of 1st century culture - you don't understand that polygamy was very common - especially among the Gentile pagans that Paul was converting.
I already schooled you on this pont - so you can't claijm ignorance anymore . . .

Voluntarily, yes.

Voluntarily is the ONLY way.

Peter said that we have ALL that we need for godliness.

Which doesn't support the false Protestant inventiojn of Sola Scriptura in the least . . .

The Scriptures don't need to teach what is already true by definition.
I don't need to show it.

That's about the most pathetic excuse for a doctrine that I've ever seen.
Ir's false by admission . .

The RCC is not the church.

Correct.
the Catholic Church is . . .

Ever read the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax collector. What is Jesus point? The Pharisee did NOT go home justified because he believed he was NOT like other men. If I am a little human being so is everyone else.

You don't seem to realize the question at hand during those councils. These men weren't asking "what do we want in our Bible?" They were answering, "what writings has the body of Christ always accepted as scripture?"

We;re ALL little human beings.
YOUR pbolem, as I syayed, is arrogance.

As to what the Body of Christ "always" considererd as Scriptuyre - do your homework.
MANY apocyphal works were read aloud from pulpits as Scripture for centuries. Works such as Shpherd of Herman, the Gospel of Peter, the Protoevalbelium of James and MANY mnore were considered to be "Scripture" by the Body of Cjhrst.

It was the Authority of the Catholic Church, granted by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) that decided on the Canon with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

I don't think this follows from my statement.
I understand, you want to argue that since my Bible was assembled by a council, that I am not relying on scripture alone. I get that. But Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that I am relying on scripture alone; it means what I said it means. The Bible stands above any other claim to authority in the Body of Christ save the Holy Spirit and Jesus himself. THIS the Bible DOES teach.

NO - the Bible doesn't teach this.
Jesus guarnteed that the Holy Spirit woulf huide His Church to ALL TRUTH (John 20:21-23)..
Do you understand what "ALL TRUTH" means? the Bible doesn't even puport to be the source og ALL Truth.

The Bible itsels, which YOU say is our SOLE Authoroity tells us that the Church uis the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
You are misdirected because you've perverted the Scriptures and believe things they do NOT teach.

 

[Jim B]

You are the one who keeps bring up the off topic "sola scriptura".

Consistency of faith is found in PEOPLE. There was no "Bible" as we know it until the 4th century, a fact you can't seem to grasp. Truth is embraced, it cannot be "enforced". Since you can't disprove the consistency of authentic beliefs found in the general consensus of the earliest Christians, you reject it. How convenient.

Because your system of faith has no consensus. Endless division proves that.

Every Christian on the planet accepts Paul as an Apostle, commissioned by Jesus directly. You are some individualized weird offshoot that even the most radical fundamentalists would disagree with.

Incorrect. The basis of priestly celibacy is the celibacy of Jesus, nothing to do with Augustine..

Forbidding marriage was a false doctrine of the Gnostics. Paul recommended celibacy for full time "fellow workers" of the church as he was celibate. Paul is not teaching "forbidding marriage" against himself, so there is something seriously wrong with your private interpretation.

Right. Jesus never married. That is the basis of priestly celibacy that you refuse to understand.

Then you fail to understand why Jesus was celibate.

No, he is not. Widowed bishops are not candidates for the priesthood, they are already priests. "Husband of one wife" rules out re-marriage for widowed bishops. This has always been the case for Catholics and Orthodox, a consistent discipline (not a doctrine) going back to the Paul, as history proves, that you arrogantly deny.

If it were not for general consensus of the first 3 centuries, you would have no Bible in the first place; another fact you arrogantly deny.

The RCC has many people under their spell, which is very tragic. Their denomination has very little in common with what the Bible says or means.

Consider this: who was the ruling power who tried to kill Jesus? ROME!

 

[Jim B]

You are the one who keeps bring up the off topic "sola scriptura".

Consistency of faith is found in PEOPLE. There was no "Bible" as we know it until the 4th century, a fact you can't seem to grasp. Truth is embraced, it cannot be "enforced". Since you can't disprove the consistency of authentic beliefs found in the general consensus of the earliest Christians, you reject it. How convenient.

Because your system of faith has no consensus. Endless division proves that.

Every Christian on the planet accepts Paul as an Apostle, commissioned by Jesus directly. You are some individualized weird offshoot that even the most radical fundamentalists would disagree with.

Incorrect. The basis of priestly celibacy is the celibacy of Jesus, nothing to do with Augustine..

Forbidding marriage was a false doctrine of the Gnostics. Paul recommended celibacy for full time "fellow workers" of the church as he was celibate. Paul is not teaching "forbidding marriage" against himself, so there is something seriously wrong with your private interpretation.

Right. Jesus never married. That is the basis of priestly celibacy that you refuse to understand.

Then you fail to understand why Jesus was celibate.

No, he is not. Widowed bishops are not candidates for the priesthood, they are already priests. "Husband of one wife" rules out re-marriage for widowed bishops. This has always been the case for Catholics and Orthodox, a consistent discipline (not a doctrine) going back to the Paul, as history proves, that you arrogantly deny.

If it were not for general consensus of the first 3 centuries, you would have no Bible in the first place; another fact you arrogantly deny.

What kind of nonsense is this: " There was no "Bible" as we know it until the 4th century". The Bible existed for over a thousand years prior to the 4th Century CE; the New Testament was written about 300 years before the 4th Century CE.

The Christian Bible has two sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the original Hebrew Bible, the sacred scriptures of the Jewish faith, written at different times between about 1200 and 165 BC. The New Testament books were written by Christians in the first century AD.

If you are referring to the canonization of Scripture, you are partially right. The Old Testament canon emerges for the rabbinic Jews in the 2nd century CE and Christians by the 4th century, and the New Testament canon is largely completed by the middle to end of the 4th century CE.

And claiming that "If it were not for general consensus of the first 3 centuries, you would have no Bible in the first place" is insanity.

However, your comments about celibacy are generally correct. You should be careful to write only what you know about.

 

[Illuminator]

As for being born of water:

Well, Ephesians 5:25-27 says that Christ gave Himself for the church so that He might sanctify us with the washing of the water of the Word so that He might present to Himself a church who is holy, blameless, without spot, or wrinkle, etc.

Most translations say "...water with the word". You make a separation, I make a unity. Ephesians 5:25-27 does not cancel out wet, physical water. You are adding to the Bible what isn't there, by trying to have a waterless baptism, which is stupid and absurd. A waterless baptism is a recent invention, less than 10 years old. Jesus in John 3:5 did not say, "Unless a man be born of the word of God and the spirit...", you are trying to correct Jesus and make a fool of yourself.

Ephesians 5:26 - Wives and Husbands

to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,

biblehub.com

25 "...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Jesus says, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3).

"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word." (Psalms 119:9).

So the water = the Word of God (i.e., the Communicated Word like Scripture).

So when a person is said to be born of water, it is not talking about water baptism (as the RCC teaches), or being born physically into this world (as others teach), but it is talking about being born again by the Holy Scriptures.

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23).

What is the context of the words “the word of God” in 1 Peter 1:23? Is it Jesus (the Living Word) or is it the communicated Word of God (Scripture)?

1 Peter 2:1-2 says,
“Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:”

In other words, the Bible has become alive to you and it is no longer a dead book to you anymore if you are truly born again of water.

Now you contradict yourself. Water is always used in baptism or its not baptism. Above, you claim water is secondary or invisible to baptism. You don't make sense.

But if you always need other men to help you to understand it (like your church leaders), then this proof your not born of water.

1 John 2:27
”But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

You keep emphasizing "Word of God". It appears 54 times in the KJV. I can't find any usage of the phrase, to mean the written word of God alone. It always refers to the spoken word of God. Maybe if you look hard enough, you might find ONE. But you won't do that because it requires reading something that conflicts with your agenda.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: "word of god"

www.biblegateway.com

a satire on the anti-biblical premise of sola scriptura.

 

[Jim B]

There is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Not two. A release of what is already there is not a baptism. I'll go with what Jesus said, water and spirit. Having a dynamic experience with the HS is a good thing, but it's not "born again" according to Jesus' simple definition. Having a moral turnaround at a church service a good thing, but still it's still not "born again". I'll stick with John 3:5. Jesus is not confused.

For the third time, "Why does the Catholic Church accept most non-Catholic baptisms as valid?" It looks like I will have to answer the question myself, since it seems to scare the critics.

There is no Catholic church. It is a denomination only, and one filled with many beliefs and practices that have nothing to do with the Bible. It is beyond arrogant to think that a single denomination is the body of Christ, especially one that claims to be the original "church".

 

[Illuminator]

WRONG - not the Eastern Rites, as I already showed you . . .

And it's NOT a matter of Dogma - but diccipline.

NOWHERE does Paul make this claim.
He simply states that he cannot be married to more than ONE wife.

In the depths of your ignorance of 1st century culture - you don't understand that polygamy was very common - especially among the Gentile pagans that Paul was converting.
I already schooled you on this pont - so you can't claijm ignorance anymore . . .

Voluntarily is the ONLY way.

Which doesn't support the false Protestant inventiojn of Sola Scriptura in the least . . .

That's about the most pathetic excuse for a doctrine that I've ever seen.
Ir's false by admission . .

Correct.
the Catholic Church is . . .

We;re ALL little human beings.
YOUR pbolem, as I syayed, is arrogance.

As to what the Body of Christ "always" considererd as Scriptuyre - do your homework.
MANY apocyphal works were read aloud from pulpits as Scripture for centuries. Works such as Shpherd of Herman, the Gospel of Peter, the Protoevalbelium of James and MANY mnore were considered to be "Scripture" by the Body of Cjhrst.

It was the Authority of the Catholic Church, granted by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) that decided on the Canon with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

NO - the Bible doesn't teach this.
Jesus guarnteed that the Holy Spirit woulf huide His Church to ALL TRUTH (John 20:21-23)..
Do you understand what "ALL TRUTH" means? the Bible doesn't even puport to be the source og ALL Truth.

The Bible itsels, which YOU say is our SOLE Authoroity tells us that the Church uis the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
You are misdirected because you've perverted the Scriptures and believe things they do NOT teach.

You can't reason with a brain damaged Hislopite. They need professional deprogrammers. Hislopites are also ant-Protestant. Whether it is admitted or not, C&Z is a Hislopite, who has demonstrated repeatedly, an inability to stay on topic.. Alexander Hislop is the supreme instigator of the pagan influence fallacy.

Is Catholicism Pagan?

Catholic beliefs are not "borrowed" from earlier pagan cults. We clear away the confusion and give you some helpful hints on how to respond to this charge.

www.catholic.com

 

[Jim B]

Blessings Jim B. Thank you for your response. Perhaps praying would help.

Of course. Praying always helps.

 

[Jim B]

Dear Jim B,

You have decided that The Churches teaching is unscriptural. Since you KNOW that what The Church teaches is unscriptural then you must KNOW who's teaching is not unscriptural.

Please tell me who's teaching is Scriptural.

patient Mary

Any teaching that agrees with the Bible, and doesn't add to it nor subtract from it, is scriptural. Clearly, the teaching (and theatre) of the Catholic denomination goes way beyond Scripture.

 

[GTW27]

Of course. Praying always helps.

Blessings Jim B. I have found that in times past, I brought what ever The Lord had me to bring to a person, and it seemed to do nothing, But His words will not come back void. You see, sometime we can give up on some one, but The Lord does give up, like we tend to do, but desires that no soul should perish. Prayer can be just what is needed. especially the prayer of faith.

 

[Jim B]

I wish you would address the obvious mistake in your reasoning. How can the husband of one wife be a celibate?

Did Paul command celibacy or recommend it? He recommended it. And what is the basis for his recommendation?

1Corithians 7:26

I think, then, that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. ​

Please consider the entire context in your own studies.

I guess you are in a double bind then? heh? You can't defend your position without an appeal to the scriptures. [Fascinating.]

Of course, they wouldn't. Even if they did, the argument would be circular. I maintain that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are the sole authority, and that the only inspired witness to what the Father and the Son taught is in the Bible.

My belief is based on the nature of God; he never lies, and he never changes his mind. So then, an evaluation of any writing or tradition must begin and end with prior revelation. No prophet would contradict another prophet and no apostle would contradict another apostle.

Secondly, Peter already said that we have enough teaching to lead a godly life. I might seek the advice of a trusted elder, but if that elder contradicts a prophet or an apostle, I am not obligated to follow the elder's advice.

The same is true of Catholic dogma. If Catholic dogma contradicts Jesus, the apostles or prophets, I am not obligated to obey Catholic dogma.

Sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation.

And yet you can't help yourself. You ask anyway.

You raise a good point.

This may be shocking to you, but if someone like me actually believes in Sola Scriptura, (and I do) then one must also believe that the canon is NOT fixed by decree of an Official Council. If that were true, then it wouldn't be "sola" would it?

I am not about to toss out books of the Bible, yet, but I am free to toss one out if I find evidence that it contradicts revealed, inspired, scripture. If I find that a book isn't likely to be authentic, I am free to ignore that book. Or if I find that another book, outside the official canon IS authentic, I am free to accept that book.

Now, I have not rejected a book inside the canon; or accepted one outside the canon, and this state of affairs is likely not to change. All I'm saying is that my belief in Sola Scriptura doesn't depend on the opinion of a church council. If it did, it wouldn't be "sola."

You might be interested in "A New New Testament, a Bible for the Twenty-First Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts". It is available in paperback and on Kindle (and perhaps elsewhere). It contains "books" that are not in the standard canon, but are relevant to understand the beliefs and practices of the early Christ people.

Another book of interest is "After Jesus Before Christianity: A Historical Exploration of the First Two Centuries of Jesus Movements" by Eric Vearncombe. It is a real eye-opener, based on excellent research, that demonstrates how the early believers lived their lives and practiced their faith.

Personally, I believe there is a lot to be learned about the lives, thinking, and practices of the early Christ followers. The present NT canon was decided by a group of men, not by God. There were many different groups in different locations who were disciples of Christ, for example the Coptic (Egyptian) Christians, that have no mention in the standard canon. The present-day church has constructed a religion that is not the complete picture of how Christianity was practiced by the early adherents.

Perhaps I should start a new thread to discuss this...

 

[Illuminator]

But if you always need other men to help you to understand it (like your church leaders), then this proof your not born of water.1 John 2:27
”But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

Another derailer because exposing your errors about baptism have cranked up your hostility.
1 John 2:27 doesn't mean we don't need teachers, and it is not mean every believer has God on speed dial for direct teaching. It means no man can teach what has been divinely revealed to the Church, as expressed by the spoken and written word of God. They both come from the same divine wellspring.
Sola scriptura presupposes a human, earthly teaching authority (the Magisterium) is not needed, we just need the Bible. For once I'd like to see that in scripture.
Just because oral preaching of the word of God is a different means of transmission does not automatically mean it is inferior to the written word of God. Thus, you are forced to deny that ALL the Apostles taught orally has been preserved. Either the oral preaching of the Apostles vanished at that moment in time, like seeds falling on barren rocks, or it too is one living WRITTEN/SPOKEN Word.

How is "Word of God" used in the Bible? I gave you 54 Bible Alone references to help you out.

But if you always need other men to help you to understand it (like your church leaders),

Because I trust my qualified ordained leaders. You don't need leaders. I suspect you don't have a pastor.

Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."
What is the expiration date of this verse?

then this proof your not born of water.1 John 2:27

I have a certificate signed by witnesses that says I was baptized. Do you???
We call bible clubs that don't keep records "ecclesial communities". We are being polite.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Another derailer because exposing your errors about baptism have cranked up your hostility.

There is no hostility towards you personally. I am only in strong disagreement with the RCC because of it’s dark practices.

1 John 2:27 doesn't mean we don't need teachers, and it is not mean every believer has God on speed dial for direct teaching. It means no man can teach what has been divinely revealed to the Church, as expressed by the spoken and written word of God. They both come from the same divine wellspring.

But your not really explaining how 1 John 2:27 does not mean what it says.
Please give me a word for word commentary and give me the context.

Sola scriptura presupposes a human, earthly teaching authority (the Magisterium) is not needed, we just need the Bible. For once I'd like to see that in scripture.
Just because oral preaching of the word of God is a different means of transmission does not automatically mean it is inferior to the written word of God. Thus, you are forced to deny that ALL the Apostles taught orally has been preserved. Either the oral preaching of the Apostles vanished at that moment in time, like seeds falling on barren rocks, or it too is one living WRITTEN/SPOKEN Word.

When the Bible was completed, there was no more need for any new writings or teachings. There is no other separate line of so-called teachings (like oral traditions). Why would they do that? Oral traditions would just be be changed over time unless they written them down like Scripture. Oh wait. You guys did eventually write your traditions down but your claim that they were passed orally is just silly. No form of communication truly lasts well by that method.

How is "Word of God" used in the Bible? I gave you 54 Bible references to help you out.

I gave verses to defend what I believe the Bible plainly teaches. Why are you not helped out by that?
It’s because it does not agree with your oversized holy club. No offense of course. That’s just how I view it.

Because I trust my qualified ordained leaders. You don't need leaders. I suspect you don't have a pastor.

They are not ordained by God. They only ordain themselves.
Again, I am not impressed by your over-sized holy club.
It actually repulses me.
Some of you guys bring out skulls in your religious services.
You wear pagan fish hats.
And kiss idol statues.
Crazy.
And you want me to truly take you seriously?

Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."
What is the expiration date of this verse?

Do you believe we are in the last days and Jesus is coming soon?

Jesus says, “…when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

So where is the authority if Jesus is not finding faith on the Earth?

I have a certificate signed by witnesses that says I was baptized. Do you???
We call bible clubs that don't keep records "ecclesial communities". We are being polite.

Somebody could photo-shop one of those and make it look real.
I got something better. It’s called photos.
But in either case, I do not see your baptism recognized in the eyes of the Lord.
The point here is that you don’t truly understand how we are initially saved.
God’s grace through faith is how we are initially saved and it is not by works like baptism (See: Ephesians 2:8-9).
Baptism is only done after you are saved by His grace.
So currently your baptism is only among your own holy club and it is not really something God approves of.
A person first has to be saved by His grace in order to be in His Kingdom.