Should I be rebaptised?

BreadOfLife said:

Hi Deborah -
The problem with what you just said is that it is simply not Biblical.

First of all - NOWHERE does the Bible ever state that the Bible is our sole rule of Faith or our sole Authority. As a matter of fact - the Bible repeatedly assures us that Christ's CHURCH is our Authority on earth (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

When writing to the Thessalonians - Paul puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture - just as it had been with Israel:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT OR BY a LETTER from us."

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit does NOT place the written over the oral. He makes them equal partners.
in the spreading of the Gospel.

As for the Bereans - they searched the Old Testament for proof of what Paul was teaching. They who studied the Scriptures to ensure that Paul's oral teaching (Tradition) was in line with what was written, ultimately believed a truth that was NOT explicitly there:
The fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah.

Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say God is a Trinity either. But we both know He is. Note how Jesus Christ dealt with satan. 'It is written'. (Matt. 4:4,7,10)

Paul wasn't teaching by 'Tradition'. He taught by 'revelation'. Big difference. (Gal. 1:11-12) And by this Gospel, people were people were brought into the Christian faith. (2 Thess 2:14). This is the 'tradition' Paul is speaking of. (2 Thess. 2:15). It is that which he preached and wrote in his epistles. It is that which we have today in his epistles.

It is tradition based on the written revelation by which we can always check and compare by Scripture.

Stranger

BreadOfLife said:

Hi Deborah -
The problem with what you just said is that it is simply not Biblical.

First of all - NOWHERE does the Bible ever state that the Bible is our sole rule of Faith or our sole Authority. As a matter of fact - the Bible repeatedly assures us that Christ's CHURCH is our Authority on earth (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

When writing to the Thessalonians - Paul puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture - just as it had been with Israel:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT OR BY a LETTER from us."

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit does NOT place the written over the oral. He makes them equal partners.
in the spreading of the Gospel.

As for the Bereans - they searched the Old Testament for proof of what Paul was teaching. They who studied the Scriptures to ensure that Paul's oral teaching (Tradition) was in line with what was written, ultimately believed a truth that was NOT explicitly there:
The fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah.

Click to expand...

Agreed - nobody actually follows the Bible as a "sole" authority. The term "sola scriptura" refers to final authority, not only authority (because you still have to take into account tradition and interpretation). And the Bereans, as you yourself point out, checked Paul's teaching against Scripture. If it hadn't been compatible with Scripture, they would have rejected it. That's "sola scriptura" in action.

Oral traditions are fine so long as they don't contradict scripture. But there are problems with traditions: first, how do you know for certain where a tradition originated? The Orthodox and Catholic churches are equally ancient, but have differing traditions - both claiming to go back to apostolic teaching. Second (and a possible explanation), traditions have a habit of evolving over time. A belief or practice that may well have started with the apostles can easily mutate over the generations into something that no apostle would recognise or endorse. But scripture, being written down, remains a witness to first-century belief and practice - and helps us to recognise where the Church may have gone off course and be in need of reformation.

Yes, traditions are scriptural. But the Bible itself warns us to be careful with them and not just follow them blindly.

And bear in mind that the letters to the Thessalonians were among the very first books of the New Testament to be written. So oral teaching was bound to have a higher importance at that point in time.

Stranger said:

Now why would I want to place myself under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, under the authority of the Roman Church, as you have done?

And though you submit to the Roman Rule, you play games with the word 'Roman' so as not to make it appear that you are part of the Roman Church. Just as Rome has distorted the word 'Catholic' in applying it only to themselves, so you distort the word 'Roman'.

Why would anyone want to be part of something that you try so hard not to identify with?

Stranger

Click to expand...

The Pope has EIGHT (8) official titles - and "Roman Pontiff" is not one of them:
- Bishop of Rome
- Vicar of Jesus Christ
- Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
- Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
- Primate of Italy
- Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
- Sovereign of the Vatican City State
- Servant of the servants of God

You see - only TWO of his titles even refer to Rome and neither is "Roman Pontiff".
He is the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. If ANYONE here is playing games with the word "Roman" - it's YOU.

As I've had to remind you about fifty times now - I am Catholic - not "Roman".
That's YOUR obsession . . .

Stranger said:

Nowhere does it say God is a Trinity either. But we both know He is. Note how Jesus Christ dealt with satan. 'It is written'. (Matt. 4:4,7,10)

Paul wasn't teaching by 'Tradition'. He taught by 'revelation'. Big difference. (Gal. 1:11-12) And by this Gospel, people were people were brought into the Christian faith. (2 Thess 2:14). This is the 'tradition' Paul is speaking of. (2 Thess. 2:15). It is that which he preached and wrote in his epistles. It is that which we have today in his epistles.

It is tradition based on the written revelation by which we can always check and compare by Scripture.

Stranger

Click to expand...

That is a LIE and a complete distortion of Scripture.

Paul taught by revelation, yes - but NOT completely from Scripture. Paul's revelation came directly from CHRIST:
Gal. 1:12
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

When Paul told the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they were being taught by ORAL STATEMENT (2 Thess. 2:15) - THIS is what he was talking about - NOT his revelation from the OT.

Deborah_ said:

Agreed - nobody actually follows the Bible as a "sole" authority. The term "sola scriptura" refers to final authority, not only authority (because you still have to take into account tradition and interpretation). And the Bereans, as you yourself point out, checked Paul's teaching against Scripture. If it hadn't been compatible with Scripture, they would have rejected it. That's "sola scriptura" in action.

Oral traditions are fine so long as they don't contradict scripture. But there are problems with traditions: first, how do you know for certain where a tradition originated? The Orthodox and Catholic churches are equally ancient, but have differing traditions - both claiming to go back to apostolic teaching. Second (and a possible explanation), traditions have a habit of evolving over time. A belief or practice that may well have started with the apostles can easily mutate over the generations into something that no apostle would recognise or endorse. But scripture, being written down, remains a witness to first-century belief and practice - and helps us to recognise where the Church may have gone off course and be in need of reformation.

Yes, traditions are scriptural. But the Bible itself warns us to be careful with them and not just follow them blindly.

And bear in mind that the letters to the Thessalonians were among the very first books of the New Testament to be written. So oral teaching was bound to have a higher importance at that point in time.

Click to expand...

No = Oral Tradition has a higher place than Protestants are willing to give it - period.

As for your definition of Sola Scriptura - that's YOUR definition. However, I have debated MANY Protestants over the years whose definitions differ. MOST say that Scripture is our SOLE Authority. Others, like you say that it is one of many, but it is our final Authority. Others define it as only that which is explicitly taught in Scripture. The definitions are almost as varied and splintered as Protestantism itself.

Remember - the Scriptures themselves will tell you that faith does NOT come from what is written - but from HEARING the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Jesus told His Apostles in the Great Commission to "Go out and teach all nations what I have taught you." NOTHING about writing a Book.

The Bible wasn't compiled for hundreds of years - so what about the Church in the first few centuries?? MANY Books that are now considered "Apocrypha" like The Shepherd of Hermas, Epistles of Barnabas, The Gospel of Peter, etc., were read from pulpits for the first few hundred years of the Church- as SCRIPTURE.

Finally - as I mentioned earlier, the Bereans had to accept a fact that could NOT be found in Scripture but ONLY in preaching: The fact that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.

So much for "Sola Scriptura" . . .

BreadOfLife said:

The Pope has EIGHT (8) official titles - and "Roman Pontiff" is not one of them:
- Bishop of Rome
- Vicar of Jesus Christ
- Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
- Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
- Primate of Italy
- Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
- Sovereign of the Vatican City State
- Servant of the servants of God

You see - only TWO of his titles even refer to Rome and neither is "Roman Pontiff".
He is the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. If ANYONE here is playing games with the word "Roman" - it's YOU.

As I've had to remind you about fifty times now - I am Catholic - not "Roman".
That's YOUR obsession . . .

Click to expand...

Read again post # (1083).

I know... you are playing word games again. You say, the 'official' titles of the pope are, etc. etc. Was the Vatican II gathering, unofficial? It states very clearly, "...the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Chruch." (The Documents of Vatican II, p. 43) That is just one instance where they freely use the title of Roman Pontiff for the Pope.

The Roman Pontiff rules over you. Your obedience is to the Roman Pontiff. Yet you say, don't call me Roman.

Perhaps they should have consulted you on the Roman Pontiff's official titles.

Stranger

BreadOfLife said:

No = Oral Tradition has a higher place than Protestants are willing to give it - period.

As for your definition of Sola Scriptura - that's YOUR definition. However, I have debated MANY Protestants over the years whose definitions differ. MOST say that Scripture is our SOLE Authority. Others, like you say that it is one of many, but it is our final Authority. Others define it as only that which is explicitly taught in Scripture. The definitions are almost as varied and splintered as Protestantism itself.

Remember - the Scriptures themselves will tell you that faith does NOT come from what is written - but from HEARING the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Jesus told His Apostles in the Great Commission to "Go out and teach all nations what I have taught you." NOTHING about writing a Book.

The Bible wasn't compiled for hundreds of years - so what about the Church in the first few centuries?? MANY Books that are now considered "Apocrypha" like The Shepherd of Hermas, Epistles of Barnabas, The Gospel of Peter, etc., were read from pulpits for the first few hundred years of the Church- as SCRIPTURE.

Finally - as I mentioned earlier, the Bereans had to accept a fact that could NOT be found in Scripture but ONLY in preaching: The fact that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.

So much for "Sola Scriptura" . . .

Click to expand...

Nice speech. Little substance.

Paul did not speak by tradition. He spoke by revelation. As I said, big difference.

Stranger

Why has this bullsnot dragged on for 61 pages?

Acts 1:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

"But", get it? That sets the two baptisms IN CONTRAST. Water baptism is out. Either you believe God's Word or you make up your own religion. God does not appreciate mixtures.

Wafer said:

Why has this bullsnot dragged on for 61 pages?

Acts 1:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

"But", get it? That sets the two baptisms IN CONTRAST. Water baptism is out. Either you believe God's Word or you make up your own religion. God does not appreciate mixtures.

Click to expand...

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 – John 3:22 – after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 – after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism.
Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

"But", get it? That sets the two baptisms IN CONTRAST. Water baptism is out. Either you believe God's Word or you make up your own religion. God does not appreciate mixtures.

Click to expand...

"...among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter.
-Luther (as well as some “high” Anglicans and Methodists) held to (infant) baptismal regeneration,
-Calvin to symbolic infant baptism.
-Then there is the position of Baptists and some others: adult “believers” symbolic baptism.
-Yet others believe in adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Disciples of Christ and Church[es] of Christ).
-A fifth position is denying the necessity of baptism altogether (even though it is clearly a command in the New Testament). This is held by Quakers and The Salvation Army..."
John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: Proofs for Baptismal Regeneration?

"God does not appreciate mixtures"??? Only ONE religion has not changed her teaching on baptism for 2000 years, and the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

Wafer said:

Why has this bullsnot dragged on for 61 pages?

Acts 1:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

"But", get it? That sets the two baptisms IN CONTRAST. Water baptism is out. Either you believe God's Word or you make up your own religion. God does not appreciate mixtures.

Click to expand...

Haha!! I notice you are 'finding your way' around the Site.
I'm sure you will yet find many more "inspiring" threads to read and 'enjoy'.

Some of you might wonder why I don't argue. Well, it's because it is unbiblical.

Titus 3:8-11 King James Version (KJV)
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

You have been admonished once. If I were to admonish you again, I would have to reject you. So instead I retire from the discussion.

Wafer said:

Why has this bullsnot dragged on for 61 pages?

Acts 1:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

"But", get it? That sets the two baptisms IN CONTRAST. Water baptism is out. Either you believe God's Word or you make up your own religion. God does not appreciate mixtures.

Click to expand...

Who asked you anyway?

You want to throw your opinion out there but reject any one's else opinion.

Stranger

Wafer said:

Some of you might wonder why I don't argue. Well, it's because it is unbiblical.

Titus 3:8-11 King James Version (KJV)
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

You have been admonished once. If I were to admonish you again, I would have to reject you. So instead I retire from the discussion.

Click to expand...

No, I have an idea why you don't argue. Because you have nothing to say.

And if you have nothing to say, then just stay away.

Stranger

Stranger said:

Who asked you anyway?

You want to throw your opinion out there but reject any one's else opinion.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Have I been impolite or something to earn such hateful remarks? I realize I am not a gifted teacher, but I do try to maintain good manners.

Wafer said:

Have I been impolite or something to earn such hateful remarks? I realize I am not a gifted teacher, but I do try to maintain good manners.

Click to expand...

Go back and read your post's. Then if you are blind to it, I will tell you.

Stranger

Stranger said:

Read again post # (1083).

I know... you are playing word games again. You say, the 'official' titles of the pope are, etc. etc. Was the Vatican II gathering, unofficial? It states very clearly, "...the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Chruch." (The Documents of Vatican II, p. 43) That is just one instance where they freely use the title of Roman Pontiff for the Pope.

The Roman Pontiff rules over you. Your obedience is to the Roman Pontiff. Yet you say, don't call me Roman.

Perhaps they should have consulted you on the Roman Pontiff's official titles.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Once again - Jesus rules over me and He was from Nazareth.
Does that make me a Nazarene??

Donald Trump rules over me as President and he is from New York.
Does that make me a New Yorker??

Yours is an idiotic argument . . .

Stranger said:

Nice speech. Little substance.

Paul did not speak by tradition. He spoke by revelation. As I said, big difference.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Yes, but he spoke by DIRECT revelation from Christ.
YOU tried to say that he spoke from revealed Scripture only - which is a complete LIE.

Sola Scriptura is a false, man-made doctrine invented during the 16th century.

BreadOfLife said:

Yes, but he spoke by DIRECT revelation from Christ.
YOU tried to say that he spoke from revealed Scripture only - which is a complete LIE.

Sola Scriptura is a false, man-made doctrine invented during the 16th century.

Click to expand...

Paul spoke and wrote by revelation. He did not speak and write by 'tradition'. Go back and read post #(1201). The tradition Paul speaks of in (2 Thess. 2:15) is that which was given him by revelation from Jesus Christ. (2 Thess. 2:14) (Gal. 1:11)

"It is written" (Matt. 4:4,7,10)

Stranger

BreadOfLife said:

Once again - Jesus rules over me and He was from Nazareth.
Does that make me a Nazarene??

Donald Trump rules over me as President and he is from New York.
Does that make me a New Yorker??

Yours is an idiotic argument . . .

Click to expand...

Your parallels are lame. Again, as I have said many times, we are not talking about cities. We are talking about the 'Roman Church'. The Roman Pontiff rules over the Roman Church. You answer to the Roman Pontiff. That makes you part of the Roman Church.

Take it up with Vatican II as I showed you.

Stranger

Stranger said:

Your parallels are lame. Again, as I have said many times, we are not talking about cities. We are talking about the 'Roman Church'. The Roman Pontiff rules over the Roman Church. You answer to the Roman Pontiff. That makes you part of the Roman Church.

Take it up with Vatican II as I showed you.

Stranger

Click to expand...

No, the Pope is the earthly Shepherd of the Catholic Church. The "Roman" Church is simply the diocese of Rome, of which he is Bishop.

Your argument is born of ignorance and nothing more.