Sound Doctrine

[Marymog]

It would be nice to know how H2O can wash away sins.

Bible study.....LOVE IT!

It would be nice to know why scripture instructs us to use oil on sick people (James 5:14, Mark 6:13). After all, can oil really wash away the virus/bacteria that is making us sick? Did spit and dirt really heal the eyes of the blind man? I say no, for it is just oil, spit and dirt!! Surely handkerchiefs or aprons can't heal the sick or cause evil spirits to get out of a person? But scripture, the word of God, says that is what they used!!!

God is so weird to use all those things to heal us. Surely God didn't really mean that he wanted us to use something as simple as water to wash away sins? Well, Enoch didn't believe what scripture says. And @Nancy liked what Enoch111 had to say.

Why do you tarriest Enoch111 and Nancy? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. (Acts 22:16) But Enoch and Nancy were stuborn and wouldn't believe what scripture said so God reminded Enoch and Nancy of His other words in the NT, that baptism is not a removal of dirt from the body (1Peter 3:21) but that baptism is done for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Bible Study Mary

 

[Enoch111]

Bible study.....LOVE IT!

Explain this Mary: For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD. (Jer 2:22).

"WASH AWAY THY SINS" - HOW? MUST ONE BE BAPTIZED?
by Ed Stevens

Multitudes have believed that the ceremony of water baptism washed away all their sins. It is a common fault among men to search for and cling to some particular verse of Scripture as a standard for preconceived ideas and cherished notions, as though one verse sufficiently contains all that Scripture has to say on a certain subject and withal, failing to carefully note just what said verse actually teaches. Without question the Bible does not contradict itself. Let us read some verses that speak of washing and sin.

". . . I know that thou wilt not hold me innocent. If I WASH myself with snow water and make my hands never so clean; yet thou shalt plunge me into the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me" (Job 9:28,30,31).

"For though thou WASH thee with nitre and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God" (Jer. 2:22).

"O Jerusalem, WASH THINE HEART from wickedness that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy VAIN THOUGHTS lodge within thee?" (Jer. 4:14).

"For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of an heifer (with water, Numbers 19:17-21) SPRINKLING the unclean (one of Israel's 'diverse baptisms') sanctifieth to t h e purifying (cleansing) of THE FLESH, how much more shall the BLOOD OF CHRIST, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your CONSCIENCE from dead works to serve the living God? For the L A W (and its ceremonies) made NOTHING perfect, but the bringing in of a BETTER HOPE DID; by the which we draw nigh unto God . . .without the shedding of BLOOD is NO REMISSION" (of sins, Heb. 9:13,14;7:19; 9:22).

Jesus Christ "loved us and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD" (Rev.1:5).

"NOT BY WORKS of righteousness which WE have done but according to His MERCY He saved us, by the WASHING OF REGENERATION (being born again) and renewing of the Holy Spirit which He shed (poured) upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:5).

God hath made us accepted IN THE BELOVED (Christ — not water); in whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephes. 1:7).

In writing to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul, after mentioning some of the vile sins of the unsaved said of believers, "And such were some of you, but ye ARE WASHED, but ye are sanctified (set apart as pure), but ye are justified (declared innocent) IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, and BY THE SPIRIT of our God" (I Cor. 6:11). Notice, please, that the WASHING here could not be mere water baptism as done by man because it was performed "BY the Spirit of our God", just as was the sanctification and justification. It was concerning such SPIRITUAL WASHING that the Lord Jesus spoke as recorded in John 13:10—"He that is WASHED NEEDETH NOT save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit". He said this as He illustrated through washing His disciples' feet with water, both the virtue of being willing to humbly be as servants one to another and, by this object lesson the believers' need of repeated spiritual cleansing (by "the washing of water by the Word", Eph. 5:26) because some defilement will inevitably take place while they walk in this sinful world. Positionally before God, however, they continually remain "clean every whit". There is no hint in John 13 that Christ instituted a foot washing ceremony to be observed by His church.

In Acts 22 we read Paul's account of his conversion. Note this verse:

"And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

The account in Acts 9:1-22 describes Paul's conversion in detail. Examining the record shows that Paul suddenly realized that the Christ of the cross was the Messiah in heaven. Then during his three days of blindness in Damascus the matter of his soul's salvation must have filled his mind as he reflected on the O.T. scriptures plus the preaching of "this way" which he had persecuted. Thus when Ananias arrived he must have been quite ready to confess saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Like all the first JEWISH believers, Paul (then called Saul) had TWO BAPTISMS—water and Spirit.

As to the word "baptized" found in Acts 9:18 and 22:16, THE ELEMENT (as in many other cases in Acts) is not designated. By "rightly dividing" and comparing scriptures we can know that Ananias was sent to Saul that he "might receive sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit" (9:17). So it happened that with laying on of hands Saul received sight, and, please note here, to be "FILLED with the Spirit" there must of necessity have taken place the SPIRITUAL BAPTISM which was later explained in Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-5; I Cor. 12:13. Saul was thus spiritually "baptized into Christ" and "into one body", the Church which is Christ's body.

We can also know that Saul, being a Pharisee, had "rejected the counsel of God" against Israel being not baptized with John's WATER baptism (Luke 7:30). Therefore we can know that Saul now must have humbly submitted to this Jewish symbolic rite which Ananias, "a devout man ACCORDING TO THE LAW" (22:12) must have insisted be performed. The exact time of both these baptisms is problematical.

NEVER has water baptism been demanded in the promise of sins being washed away by "calling on the name of the Lord". See Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13; and Luke 18:13, 14. This SPIRITUAL WASHING is performed only by the Lord, not by man in the "works" of water baptism (see above quotations). "By WORKS of the LAW shall NO FLESH be justified" (Gal. 2:16); neither by adding works to faith, as is much taught today (see Gal. 2:21; 3:21; I Cor. 15:1-5).

Through "rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15), we see that until the close of the Acts period God had not told Israel to cease the Mosaic ceremonial law with its "divers washings and carnal ordinances imposed ON THEM until the time of reformation" or setting things straight (Heb. 9:10). The apostle Paul was chosen to set things straight in his inspired epistles.

Wash Away Thy Sins, How? by Ed Stevens

 

[Marymog]

Explain this Mary: For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD. (Jer 2:22).

"WASH AWAY THY SINS" - HOW? MUST ONE BE BAPTIZED?
by Ed Stevens

Wash Away Thy Sins, How? by Ed Stevens

Thank you Enoch. I see you like the writings of Ed Stevens who lived in the 20th century. I choose the clearly written words of Scripture: baptism doth also now save us and baptism is not a removal of dirt from the body (1Peter 3:21) but that baptism is done for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

I also choose to listen to Irenaeus who lived in the 2nd century: “'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.'" (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).

I choose the Epistle of Barnabas: "This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.” Baptism is here described as immediately removing sins and producing immediate fruit in the heart. The notion that baptism bears immediate fruit in the heart implies that baptism regenerates the baptized person.

St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, (who hung out with Polycarp as a student of the Apostle John) wrote a letter to the Church at Ephesus:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. (Epistle to the Ephesians, 18)

This notion that Christ purified the waters is found in other Church Fathers as well. Since Christ was not purified by being baptized, for he was already pure, rather in His baptism the waters were purified for our sake, that when we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we are purified, not by the removal of dirt from the body, but by the forgiveness of sin and the reception of the Life of God within us.

How about Justin Martyr: They then are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. . . . The reason for this we have received from the Apostles.” (Chapter 61)

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. (Chapter 66)

I could go on and on with MULTIPLE quotes from men who are true giants of Christian history. Much greater than the unknown man you quoted from. You can have your 20th century theologian. I choose the men who walked and talked with the Apostles or lived VERY CLOSE to the times of the Apostles. They agree with scripture and I agree with them.

You can keep your Ed Stevens

Mary

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Thank you. I forgot about that passage.

I hope you can see that I am not disagreeing with you. What I am trying to make clear to you is that one scripture passage does not cancel out the other. Would you agree with that?

Or to put it differently: We shouldn't go shopping for passages that bolster what we believe and throw out any that doesn't fit our belief.

Mary

Mary, I think your remarks are a bit disingenuous. While it's true that we must consider the whole counsel of God (i.e. the whole Bible), YOU don't consider the Bible as being sufficient. Your church leaders add to the Bible the "Tradition" supposedly handed down from the apostles. Of course, the complete "Tradition" has never been recorded in writing for all to see. You just have to take the Catholic Church's word for what this "Tradition" allegedly says. And, worst of all, this "Tradition" is given equal footing with (if not preferential treatment to) the Bible.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 80 and 82:

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.”

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”​

 

[bbyrd009]

"when you dance with the devil, the devil don't change; the devil changes you"

 

[Marymog]

Mary, I think your remarks are a bit disingenuous. While it's true that we must consider the whole counsel of God (i.e. the whole Bible), YOU don't consider the Bible as being sufficient. Your church leaders add to the Bible the "Tradition" supposedly handed down from the apostles. Of course, the complete "Tradition" has never been recorded in writing for all to see. You just have to take the Catholic Church's word for what this "Tradition" allegedly says. And, worst of all, this "Tradition" is given equal footing with (if not preferential treatment to) the Bible.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 80 and 82:

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.”

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”​

Thank you. I am not sure what I am being disingenuous about. It is a simple question: Would you agree that one scripture passage does not cancel out the other? I sure would love an answer.....

Maybe you can get some help from @Nancy or @Bygrace to answer the following questions since they "like" your response

The RCC teaches what scripture says: that we are to hold fast to our traditions whether they be passed down in the written form or given to us orally. (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6) Well, to make sure that those Traditions would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this one passage Paul refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession: Paul to Timothy to the men he teaches and then to the men they teach.

1st: Are you, Prayer Warrior, saying that after that 4th generation of "apostolic succession" the early Christians failed Paul by NOT keeping what was taught to them? Either orally or in written form? If that is what you are saying, where is your evidence?

2nd: You have indicated on a different thread that you hold to the teachings of some Protestant theologians, teachers, preachers etc.! Why is it ok for you to hold to those 500 year old teachings (interpretations of Scripture) but a Catholic, such as myself, can't hold to a 2,000 year old traditional teaching of scripture? Or to ask it another way: From where did you "derive YOUR certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures"?

3rd: Since Scripture does not contain a table of contents, from where did you get your 66 OR 73 books (whichever one you have accepted)?

Curious Mary​

 

[bbyrd009]

I am not sure what I am being disingenuous about.

everything

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Thank you. I am not sure what I am being disingenuous about. It is a simple question: Would you agree that one scripture passage does not cancel out the other? I sure would love an answer.....

Maybe you can get some help from @Nancy or @Bygrace to answer the following questions since they "like" your response

The RCC teaches what scripture says: that we are to hold fast to our traditions whether they be passed down in the written form or given to us orally. (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6) Well, to make sure that those Traditions would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this one passage Paul refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession: Paul to Timothy to the men he teaches and then to the men they teach.

1st: Are you, Prayer Warrior, saying that after that 4th generation of "apostolic succession" the early Christians failed Paul by NOT keeping what was taught to them? Either orally or in written form? If that is what you are saying, where is your evidence?

2nd: You have indicated on a different thread that you hold to the teachings of some Protestant theologians, teachers, preachers etc.! Why is it ok for you to hold to those 500 year old teachings (interpretations of Scripture) but a Catholic, such as myself, can't hold to a 2,000 year old traditional teaching of scripture? Or to ask it another way: From where did you "derive YOUR certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures"?

3rd: Since Scripture does not contain a table of contents, from where did you get your 66 OR 73 books (whichever one you have accepted)?

Curious Mary​

So, you’re back to “Curious Mary”? Since you and I have already had a lengthy discussion, I’m just going to cut to the chase. Show me the teachings of the apostles supposedly handed down to the Catholic Church called the “Tradition” in the CCC. It’s important that we SEE all of these “teachings” so that we can compare them with the Bible since the Catholic Church claims they have equal authority with the Bible.

Are the following Catholic doctrines suported in these unbiblical mystery teachings?
—Immaculate conception
—Transubstantiation
—Supreme papal authority and infallibility
—Maybe Indulgences?

 

[Marymog]

So, you’re back to “Curious Mary”? Since you and I have already had a lengthy discussion, I’m just going to cut to the chase. Show me the teachings of the apostles supposedly handed down to the Catholic Church called the “Tradition” in the CCC. It’s important that we SEE all of these “teachings” so that we can compare them with the Bible.

Hi PW....Yup, back to Curious Mary. I was curious if you would be able to or even try to answer my legitamate questions. Now I have an answer.....your not even going to TRY and answer ANY of my points OR my question about scripture cancelling each other out

I was hoping for a good, fact filled, backed up by scripture and Christian History discussion with you.

Mary (Peter 3:15)

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Hi PW....Yup, back to Curious Mary. I was curious if you would be able to or even try to answer my legitamate questions. Now I have an answer.....your not even going to TRY and answer ANY of my points OR my question about scripture cancelling each other out

I was hoping for a good, fact filled, backed up by scripture and Christian History discussion with you.

Mary (Peter 3:15)

Like I said, been there, done that. Several of us answered your questions in the “Books of the Bible” thread. But maybe some others on this thread have the time to answer them again.

Edit: So, I assume you’re not going to answer my question about where we can read the “Tradition” of the Catholic Church.

Edit: Actually, we can see the unbiblical CC doctrines that came from this fictitious “Tradition,” so I guess that’s all we need to see.

 

[Enoch111]

Edit: So, I assume you’re not going to answer my question about where we can read the “Tradition” of the Catholic Church.

You would have to visit the library at the Vatican after you have polished up your Latin. And don't forget all the ECF on CCEL.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

You would have to visit the library at the Vatican after you have polished up your Latin. And don't forget all the ECF on CCEL.

So, EVERY WORD that the apostles ever spoke is in writing at the Vatican???

 

[bbyrd009]

for reasons that will soon become apparent.

hey Epi, i was kinda looking for this part, did you get to it yet?

 

[Marymog]

Edit: Actually, we can see the unbiblical CC doctrines that came from this fictitious “Tradition,” so I guess that’s all we need to see.

Hmmmm.....Scripture is fictitious? (2Thesselonians 2:15) Who decides what is unbiblical?? You?

Are the traditions that the Protestant Churches hold fictitious?

Same questions....different day

Patient Mary

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Hmmmm.....Scripture is fictitious? (2Thesselonians 2:15) Who decides what is unbiblical?? You?

Are the traditions that the Protestant Churches hold fictitious?

Same questions....different day

Patient Mary

Oh boy! Here we go again—round and round and round....

Fed-up Freda

 

[Marymog]

Like I said, been there, done that. Several of us answered your questions in the “Books of the Bible” thread. But maybe some others on this thread have the time to answer them again.

Oh.....good. My questions have already been answered in the Books of the Bible thread.

It would be lovely if you could just give me the post# on those so no one has to repeat themselves. I can't find the post that you speak of. Thank You.

Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Oh boy! Here we go again—round and round and round....

Fed-up Freda

ha a couple weeks ago the theme seemed to be "confusion," she was bouncing around to various threads claiming everyone was confused, not realizing the confusion left when she did. The diff was even profound, i thought about trying to point out some examples, but they would be taken as being mean, so i guess you had to be there. Pretty much like right now tho

 

[Marymog]

So, I assume you’re not going to answer my question about where we can read the “Tradition” of the Catholic Church.

Hi PW,

You assume incorrectly.....The Didache, the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers......

Where can I read about the traditions of the Protestant Churches or your personal traditions?

Now dear friend....Will you be answering my questions? My guess is........No

Mary

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Hi PW,

You assume incorrectly.....The Didache, the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers......

Where can I read about the traditions of the Protestant Churches or your personal traditions?

Now dear friend....Will you be answering my questions? My guess is........No

Mary

You’re telling me that EVERYTHING the apostles ever said are written in those documents? Everything?

 

[bbyrd009]

Oh.....good. My questions have already been answered in the Books of the Bible thread.

It would be lovely if you could just give me the post# on those so no one has to repeat themselves. I can't find the post that you speak of. Thank You.

Mary

no offense Mary but it would be pointless, like Quoting a Scripture verse to you that denies your pantheon, or etc. they just can't be seen by you right now. Why do you subject yourself to the comments of Christians, i gotta wonder?

Why aren't you on a Catholic site where you would be accepted?
Do you really expect to turn anyone Catholic here?