Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Bible Highlighter]

Spirit baptism happens the moment one places their trust in Jesus and His death and physical resurrection. One cannot be a believer unless they have been baptized into the body of Christ by the Spirit.

Water baptism comes afterward and is also called believers baptism. It is simple obedience to jesus and is a public declaration of our commitment to follow HIm.

I agree. No argument with what you said here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This post is filled with so much ignorant nonsense and historical revisionism, it’s difficult to know just where to begin.
Here goes . . .

The Catholic Church never “banned” the reading of Scripture. What you fail to understand is that during the centuries that YOU listed – up to EIGHTY-FIVE PER CENT (85%) of the general population was functionally illiterate. This is WHY there were so many works of religious art commissioned by the Church during this time – to help TEACH the masses that couldn’t read.

Secondly – during this same time period – ALL BOOKS, including Bibles, were HAND-WRITTEN. They were extremely expensive to transcribe and took years to complete a single copy. For this reason, Bibles were chained to pulpits to keep them from being stolen.

Because of this, many UNAUTHORIZED copies and translations were transcribed and paid for by rich people who hired scribes who were NOT qualified Biblical scholars. The result was confusion caused by incorrect transcriptions and spurious translations that perverted the Gospel message. As the guardian of the Holy Deposit of the faith – the Church took action by banning the ownership of these spurious bibles.

In effect – the ONLY genuine copies came from authorized Church scribes. Since the MAJORITY of the general public was functionally illiterate anyway, this didn’t have much of an effect on MOST people since virtually the ENTIRE Bible is read aloud during Mass in a 3-year cycle.

With the advent of the printing press in the 15th century and the looming Protestant Revolt in the 16th century, the Bible would up taking a beating when Martin Luther, John Calvin and others took it upon themselves to EDIT the Scriptures and deleted 7 OT Books, along with parts of Daniel and Esther. Men like Luther also wanted to remove a few Books from the NT , including Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation because they did not conform with some of his teachings. Had it not been for the influence of some of his contemporaries like Philip Melanchton – YOUR Protestant Bible would be A LOT thinner . . .

Those are the historical FACTS.
I suggest you do some homework next time before you post . . .

Don't worry. Lord willing: I will start a thread in the future on the Catholic church and why it is unbiblical and just a man made religion. I will try and cite educational sources, and use the Bible. Be patient. It may take a long while to get to that point (Where I may be able to do this). I am still fleshing out my points with adding more sources and photos to my thread on the false JW religion. I will attempt to make my case after this in a new thread as to why I believe the Bible destroys the RCC religion. Once the thread is created: Any time you attempt to chime in on a thread of mine or if you reply to me, I will just refer others to that thread to let people know about all of what you guys believe that's crazy wacky.

Sorry, no offense. I love you in Jesus Christ, I just don't love your religion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Don't worry. Lord willing: I will start a thread in the future on the Catholic church and why it is unbiblical and just a man made religion. I will try and cite educational sources, and use the Bible. Be patient. It may take a long while to get to that point (Where I may be able to do this). I am still fleshing out my points with adding more sources and photos to my thread on the false JW religion. I will attempt to make my case after this in a new thread as to why I believe the Bible destroys the RCC religion. Once the thread is created: Any time you attempt to chime in on a thread of mine or if you reply to me, I will just refer others to that thread to let people know about all of what you guys believe that's crazy wacky.

Sorry, no offense. I love you in Jesus Christ, I just don't love your religion.

This just strikes me as a massive dodge.

Whether or not you like the Catholic Church is NOT the issue.
The problem I had with your post are the LIES and historical revisionism you engaged in.

It makes NO difference to me if you don’t agree with Catholic doctrine.
What DOES matter to me is having to go around forums like this to debunk these types of falsehoods by people like YOU who just perpetuate the same, tired nonsense because you didn’t do your homework.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This just strikes me as a massive dodge.

Whether or not you like the Catholic Church is NOT the issue.
The problem I had with your post are the LIES and historical revisionism you engaged in.

It makes NO difference to me if you don’t agree with Catholic doctrine.
What DOES matter to me is having to go around forums like this to debunk these types of falsehoods by people like YOU who just perpetuate the same, tired nonsense because you didn’t do your homework.

Not a dodge. Merely a postponement. One evidence alone is not enough. One must piece together all the links in the chain to make a good case. One link in the chain alone is not sufficient.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not a dodge. Merely a postponement. One evidence alone is not enough. One must piece together all the links in the chain to make a good case. One link in the chain alone is not sufficient.

Not only is it not “sufficient” – it’s not true.
It’s a blatant LIE.

Like I said – I have NO problem with those who disagree with Catholic doctrine. Even people like YOU, who believe it to be false. You are entitled to your own opinions.
You are NOT entitled to your own FACTS . . .

 

[theefaith]

Of course it is real. I never said otherwise!

you said it only an obedience?

not baptismal regeneration???

 

[theefaith]

With that response, we may have to pause and define "real" for those who think that "real" is limited to the things of this world.

Anyway...there is no mention of water here:

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
​

So, it is as I said, water baptism only points to the baptism of Christ (which is the only "real" baptism into the kingdom of God).

real as opposed to symbolic

The Christian sacrament of baptismal regeneration is water baptism
Mk 16:15
Jn 3:5
Proof Jn 3:22 “immediately” they went to the river ( water water everywhere) and baptized!!!


Acts 2:38
Acts 8:38
1 pet 3:21
Titus 3:5
Baptismal regeneration

 

[ScottA]

real as opposed to symbolic

The Christian sacrament of baptismal regeneration is water baptism
Mk 16:15
Jn 3:5
Proof Jn 3:22 “immediately” they went to the river ( water water everywhere) and baptized!!!


Acts 2:38
Acts 8:38
1 pet 3:21
Titus 3:5
Baptismal regeneration

That certainly is taught by many. That, however, is all mere "religion." But all of it only points to that which is not seen by the world, not actually the real thing--but only that which points to the real thing.

Likewise, the Temple is not that "real" Temple of stone. For that Temple that is thought of as being "real" by many, also only pointed to Christ and the Temple of His body.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not only is it not “sufficient” – it’s not true.
It’s a blatant LIE.

Like I said – I have NO problem with those who disagree with Catholic doctrine. Even people like YOU, who believe it to be false. You are entitled to your own opinions.
You are NOT entitled to your own FACTS . . .

Patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit. Be patient. The exposing of truth about the RCC will happen here (Lord willing).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit. Be patient. The exposing of truth about the RCC will happen here (Lord willing).

You’re missing the point – and dodging the issue.

I don’t care if you want to post a diatribe against the Catholic Church.
MY concern is that you LIED about many things - and I exposed your lies in post #198.

You have YET to address this – and instead keep ranting on about some “future” post about how you disagree with the Catholic Church.

How about addressing the LIES and historical revisionism that I exposed in your post, hmmmm?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The men that taught you that not everyone receives the Holy Spirit at water baptism did not tell you about Mark 1:10 and Acts 2:38.

Cornelius and his family, and countless testimonies since then, show us that God does not categorically and without exception give the Holy Spirit at water baptism. And before you discredit Cornelius's experience make sure you have the scriptures that say what you're going to say about it. Thank you in advance.

And besides, I was talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit in power, not the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit in salvation. There is a difference. A BIG difference. Sometimes that happens at the same time a person receives the Spirit in salvation. Most of the time it does not. It usually happens later when that person purposely seeks it.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

You should read the bible for yourself sometime and stop relying on the elders of your church

No, YOU should read the Bible for yourself sometime and stop relying on the elders of your church, lol! Did you forget that I'M the one advocating personal Bible reading and not blindly following the elders of the church? I find it quite hilarious that you're telling me to do the exact thing YOU and every Catholic needs to do, lol!

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

When John the Baptist was doing such it was for good reason, but not the only reason, as he said about Christ Jesus ?
So one must be first water baptised in fact and then hope that you become born again of the Holy Spirit. that's why you were water baptised in the first place !
The Water baptism sets one up so as to receive Christ Jesus and for repentance for your Sins.
Water Baptism makes one worthy of your partaking in the Church, but such are not Saved.
The Body of Christ is of the born again who are truly worthy in him, such are Saved.

The two on the Cross and the one who Jesus said will be in Paradise ? had faith in Jesus, most likely could of been water baptised and that's why he had faith in Jesus. Such was an act of Charity towards Jesus and as we all know that Charity covereth all Sin.
Faith, Hope and Charity, the greatest is Charity !
Christian Charity is not humanitarianism or such carnal nonsense. it is truly defined in the RCC doctrine what true Charity is.
Without Christian Charity the Soul is not connected to Christ Jesus at all.
Without Charity as primacy among all other fruits of the Spirit others are not worthy virtues in Christ Jesus.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, YOU should read the Bible for yourself sometime and stop relying on the elders of the your church, lol! Did you forget that I'M the one advocating personal Bible reading and not blindly following the elders of the church? I find it quite hilarious that you're telling me to do the exact thing YOU and every Catholic needs to do, lol!

Another asinine charge from yet another ignorant Cathlic-hater.

We Catholics DO read the Bible for ourselves and are free to come to our own understandingson MUCH of Scripture. Contrary to the lies YOU were weened on about Catholics - the majority of Scripture is not officially interpreted. The Church, in her wisfom realized from the beginning that MANY things can be gleaned from each passage of Scripture - even if SOME verses are to be singularly understood.

But, since the it was the Church who wrotem dompiled and declared the Canon of Scripturue - why WOULDN'T she have that God-ordained wisdom . . ..

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You’re missing the point – and dodging the issue.

I don’t care if you want to post a diatribe against the Catholic Church.
MY concern is that you LIED about many things - and I exposed your lies in post #198.

You have YET to address this – and instead keep ranting on about some “future” post about how you disagree with the Catholic Church.

How about addressing the LIES and historical revisionism that I exposed in your post, hmmmm?

Nope. Not lying. Check out this article here that is really extensive of which provides sources. The Catholic church persecuted the Bible and many times people also died as a result of their having those Bibles by the hands of the RCC.

Rome's Persecution of the Bible

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Another asinine charge from yet another ignorant Cathlic-hater.

We Catholics DO read the Bible for ourselves and are free to come to our own understandingson MUCH of Scripture. Contrary to the lies YOU were weened on about Catholics - the majority of Scripture is not officially interpreted. The Church, in her wisfom realized from the beginning that MANY things can be gleaned from each passage of Scripture - even if SOME verses are to be singularly understood.

But, since the it was the Church who wrotem dompiled and declared the Canon of Scripturue - why WOULDN'T she have that God-ordained wisdom . . ..

I remember a Catholic on another forum telling me I shouldn't read and study the Bible on my own and that I should only just stick to the Catholic priest's and their understanding. They were saying this as if nobody but the priests or the higher ups can understand the Bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nope. Not lying. Check out this article here that is really extensive of which provides sources. The Catholic church persecuted the Bible and many times people also died as a result of their having those Bibles by the hands of the RCC.
Rome's Persecution of the Bible

HOGWASH.
The opening paragraph is FILLED with lies – so, WHY would I trust the rest??

“During the period when the Roman Catholic Church was in power, she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages, even though most people could not read the official Catholic Bible because it was in Latin, a language known only to the highly educated.“

Lie #1- “Roman Catholic Church”
This term was created during the reign of Henry VIII, who called it the “Roman” Catholic Church to differentiate it from his newly invented Catholic Church of England. It is simply called, “The Catholic Church”. “Roman” simply refers to one of about TWENTY Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church. Melkites, Maronites, Byzantines, Coptic, etc. are NOT “Roman” Catholics.

Lie #2 – “she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people”
As I already educated you – the Catholic Church did NOT try to keep the Bible out of the hands of the Public. They were extremely expensive and took YEARS to make a single copy.

Lie #3 – “It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages”
This is another blatant LIE. The Church had already translated MANY books of the Bible into SEVERAL languages before the Middle Ages. The Church outlawed UNAUTHORIZED copies to be made by unqualified interpreters, I already explained this to you – and your article mentions NONE of this.

Lie #4 - "most people could not read the official Catholic Bible because it was in Latin, a language known only to the highly educated"
This is a lie of omission. Your article NEVER mentions the historical fact that prior to the 19th century – the vast majority was ILLITERATE so this wouldn’t have been an issue. Up to 85% in most places.

This entire article is just another bucket of LIES that can ONLY be found here.
That SHOULD have been your FIRST clue . . .

Do your HOMEWORK instead of posting all of this anti-historical nonsense.
The stupidity is overwhelming . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I remember a Catholic on another forum telling me I shouldn't read and study the Bible on my own and that I should only just stick to the Catholic priest's and their understanding. They were saying this as if nobody but the priests or the higher ups can understand the Bible.

Let's see - with YOUR track record of blatant LIES so far,hould I believe you?
NAHH . . .

Your reputation precedes you.

Rev. 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and ALL LIARS, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Let's see - with YOUR track record of blatant LIES so far,hould I believe you?
NAHH . . .

Your reputation precedes you.

Rev. 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and ALL LIARS, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Well, first, I am not a Protestant Belief Alone Salvationist who believes that they can sin and still be saved. I am a Non-Denominational Bible Alone believing Christian. If I lied, I believe my soul would be abiding in spiritual death and I would need to confess of that sin to the Lord Jesus Christ to be forgiven of that sin, and then I would need to make an apology with you and seek to never lie again.

Second, this statement by this Catholic was made at ChristianForums. I expressed what I believed happened based on my memory of the event (Which to me seems like a long time ago). I tried searching for the post, but I cannot remember which Catholic user it was. As of today's date: I posted 39,861 posts at ChristianForums and took an undetermined break there due to a continued suppression of a lack of freedom of speech involving the Bible. So trying to find the post is not as easy as I hoped. But I remember to the best of my memory of what they told me and relayed that event to you.

But all I have to do to prove my point is quote a Catholic source that says a similar thing.

“That is why Catholics need Mother Church as the guardian and interpreter of the Bible. Alas, Protestants have sown much confusion in the domain of Bible translations and Bible Studies, and in our own time their errors have been renewed by the pseudo-Catholics known as modernists. With the simplicity and clarity of a Catholic Catechism, this "Catechism of the Bible" re-establishes the mind of the Catholic Church on many a vexed point. May it help many Catholics graze safely in the divine pastures of Holy Scripture.”​

While this is mother church (the really higher up people), and not the priests exactly, this merely shows that you need to go to the church in order to properly understand the Bible.

Source:
* A Catechism Of The Bible

But here is another Catholic quote:

”What I am saying is that priests are not needed to interpret the Bible for us. Many of my Catholic brothers believe that only the priest can interpret the Bible for them.”​

Source:
If the Christian has the Holy Spirit to guide him, why are priests needed to interpret the Bible?

Here is another Catholic quote:

“Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.”​

Source:
Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

So yeah. The RCC hid the truth from the simple people until 1943.

But again, I don't think this change of the average Catholic being encouraged to study the Bible on their own happened overnight.

I still believe that there are Catholics who hold the view that they need their priest to understand the Bible. I know because I ran into one!

I think there was a shift of how things were in the recent past (possibly 1990's?) vs. now (the present). Catholics are more open to letting their their people read the Bible now because of the digital information age has exploded involving the internet, and the appearance of Amazon echoes, voice search on smartphones, smartwatches, etcetera.

At one point in time, if you encouraged a Catholic to read the Bible, they may decline. One young Catholic lady told a soul winner: ”If I read the Bible, I may interpret it wrong. If I have a problem, I go to my priest and follow his council and I am okay."

So any time you want to apologize for falsely accusing me of lying to you would be nice. If you want to persist down your road of delusion that is simply your own choice (of course).

May God bless you even if you may disagree.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

HOGWASH.
The opening paragraph is FILLED with lies – so, WHY would I trust the rest??

“During the period when the Roman Catholic Church was in power, she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages, even though most people could not read the official Catholic Bible because it was in Latin, a language known only to the highly educated.“

Lie #1- “Roman Catholic Church”
This term was created during the reign of Henry VIII, who called it the “Roman” Catholic Church to differentiate it from his newly invented Catholic Church of England. It is simply called, “The Catholic Church”. “Roman” simply refers to one of about TWENTY Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church. Melkites, Maronites, Byzantines, Coptic, etc. are NOT “Roman” Catholics.

Lie #2 – “she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people”
As I already educated you – the Catholic Church did NOT try to keep the Bible out of the hands of the Public. They were extremely expensive and took YEARS to make a single copy.

Lie #3 – “It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages”
This is another blatant LIE. The Church had already translated MANY books of the Bible into SEVERAL languages before the Middle Ages. The Church outlawed UNAUTHORIZED copies to be made by unqualified interpreters, I already explained this to you – and your article mentions NONE of this.

Lie #4 - "most people could not read the official Catholic Bible because it was in Latin, a language known only to the highly educated"
This is a lie of omission. Your article NEVER mentions the historical fact that prior to the 19th century – the vast majority was ILLITERATE so this wouldn’t have been an issue. Up to 85% in most places.

This entire article is just another bucket of LIES that can ONLY be found here.
That SHOULD have been your FIRST clue . . .

Do your HOMEWORK instead of posting all of this anti-historical nonsense.
The stupidity is overwhelming . . .

Well, it's the Protestant's word against the Catholic's word, right?
I am sure we would need a time machine to really know.
However, I tend to trust my sources more. Why? Well, your own pope apologized for killing Protestants (See here). In addition, there is the whole long list of several different characteristics of the whore of Babylon lining up with the Catholic church (and their being drunk with the blood of the saints). For the Bible does not agree with the extra biblical practices of Catholicism, and that is one truth you cannot discount or cast aside (without altering the text).

Anyways, this is actually off topic of the OP discussion.
Please stop and respect other people's thread discussions.
The topic is asking if you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism.

Thank you and may God bless you.

Side Note:

Oh, and Friendly tip:
Please ease up on the caps lock key and bolded lettering and large font.
By such methods, it sounds like you are upset and or shouting which never seems to go over too well with persuading other people.