The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[OzSpen]

And apparently you think you're the only one that knows how to do historical investigations and assess documents from history?

Nowhere have I ever suggested that. That's your invention about me. Please quit your perpetrating falsehood abou

 

[OzSpen]

And apparently you think you're the only one that knows how to do historical investigations and assess documents from history?

I supplied the link in the post you commented on and apparently you didn't read it. The church, not to be confused with the RCC, taught from scripture, so if you want to call that oral tradition, that's up to you, but it wasn't man's tradition it was God's word that they preached and taught. Despite your efforts to take my post out of context, it was directed at someone who was talking about the present day RCC and how it is divine and infallible in it's teachings. For someone who keeps on telling me they're not going to address me anymore and put me on ignore, you sure have a bad habit of coming in and interjecting where you're not wanted. Do me a favor put me on permanent ignore.

I'll do whatever my freewill wants me to do.

 

[StanJ]

I'll do whatever my freewill wants me to do.

Well that would indicate you don't understand or don't want to follow the rules here. I suggest you educate yourself.

 

[StanJ]

Nowhere have I ever suggested that. That's your invention about me. Please quit your perpetrating falsehood abou

Your posted words that do indeed suggest that, no invention was necessary.

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

Again you refused to address what I wrote. It's another red herring fallacy. We can't have a logical conversation when you continue to do this.

I was not bragging about my accomplishments. I was correcting your falsehood about me. When will you get it?

Oz

I did indeed address what you wrote but you just don't like it. I don't think you would know a red herring fallacy if it bit you in the nose. You're absolutely right we can't have a logical conversation when you continue to post illogical content.
Well I guess bragging is all in the eye of the beholder right. Nothing false about my impression of you, so when will you get it?

 

[tom55]

I've since check with the family and was told that for the last 3 years of his life (he suffered cancer for 12 years) he was in high care in a Roman Catholic nursing home. The RC priest brought him communion once a week. What happened at the funeral was organised by his wife and his family didn't know that the holy water and incense practice was going to be performed.

Where in the NT are the sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice?

Oz

OZ,

There is nothing that I can find in the NT concerning "sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice".

Where in the NT does it say to display a cross in a church or home?
Where in the NT does it say to build a building and call it a church if "the people" are the church?
Where in the NT does it say that Jesus birthday is on December 25th?
Where in the NT does it say Christians should build a church and have bands in it with spotlights, guitars, drums etc. etc
Where in the NT does it say HOW to perform a funeral or wedding ceremony?

There are lot's of things that various Christian Churches practice that are not in the NT! Does that make their Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture wrong?

 

[tom55]

Tom,

‘Believe first, baptism second’, as you state, does not confirm baptismal regeneration.
I am not avoiding Scripture regarding baptism and salvation.
Take 1 Peter 3:21 (ESV) as an example. This exposition proves other than what you are trying to promote: Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? (GotQuestions?org)
Then you want to bring in John 3:5 (ESV) and Nicodemus’s misundersting, to confirm born of ‘water’ (baptism) and the Spirit. You have not attempted to deal with the many different interpretations of the meaning of this verse. Yes, there are many who find in ‘water’ a reference to baptism but there are also many exegetes who see in ‘water’ a reference to other than baptism. D A Carson’s commentary on John 3:5 deals with the various issues raised and concludes:


Therefore, Carson (a sound evangelical exegete) concludes that the meaning of John 3:5 is that ‘born of water and spirit (the article and the capital ‘S’ in the NIV should be dropped: the focus is on the impartation of God’s nature as ‘spirit’ [cf. 4:24], not on the Holy Spirit as such) signals a new begetting, a new birth that cleanses and renews, the eschatological cleansing and renewal promised by the Old Testament prophets’ (Carson 1991:195).

For someone like myself who is a long-term evangelical Christian with a long history of studying Scripture in depth, I find that your comment, 'As you know there are a considerable number of NT verses that contradict what you believe and the two you mentioned', is wide of the mark. My interpretation is different from yours, but it DOES NOT contradict the rest of Scripture. It is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, but not your interpretation of Scripture.

Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

OZ,


John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

...there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is"

Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this (baptism) to fulfill all righteousness.” (Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?)

In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also".

Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us in which where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And for this rite (baptism) we have learned from the apostles....and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe

'And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this 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.'"

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none.

It (baptism) was always held to convey the remission of sins...

Doctrinally, baptism very early came to be understood as a means of grace or a sacrament, in the sense of an instrumental means of regeneration

Works consulted and quoted: 1 Corinthians (55 AD) Gospel of Mark (70 AD), Shepard of Hermas (80 AD), Gospel of Matthew (80 AD), Epistle of Peter (90 AD), Acts (90 AD), John (90AD), Justin Martyr (AD151), St. Irenaeus of Lyons (190 AD), Fragment 34, Tertullian (AD 203), Nicene Creed (325 AD), J.N.D Kelly (mid 1900's) , JD Douglas (1978)

Since you and I disagree on this issue shouldn't we do as Scripture (Matthew 18:17) says to settle our differences? I believe your Salvation is in jeopardy if you don't accept the truth of scripture that I have given you.

Which Church do you choose to settle our differences?

I asked this question before and didn't get an answer so I ask it again: Since there are passages that support "faith alone" do those passages negate salvation thru baptism passages? If so, wouldn't it be logical to say that the salvation thru baptism passages would negate the faith alone passages? (The only time the words "faith alone" are together in the bible is James 2:24.)

Respectfully......Tom

 

[OzSpen]

OZ,


John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

...there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is"

Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this (baptism) to fulfill all righteousness.” (Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?)

In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also".

Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us in which where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And for this rite (baptism) we have learned from the apostles....and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe

'And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this 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.'"

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none.

It (baptism) was always held to convey the remission of sins...

Doctrinally, baptism very early came to be understood as a means of grace or a sacrament, in the sense of an instrumental means of regeneration

Works consulted and quoted: 1 Corinthians (55 AD) Gospel of Mark (70 AD), Shepard of Hermas (80 AD), Gospel of Matthew (80 AD), Epistle of Peter (90 AD), Acts (90 AD), John (90AD), Justin Martyr (AD151), St. Irenaeus of Lyons (190 AD), Fragment 34, Tertullian (AD 203), Nicene Creed (325 AD), J.N.D Kelly (mid 1900's) , JD Douglas (1978)

Since you and I disagree on this issue shouldn't we do as Scripture (Matthew 18:17) says to settle our differences? I believe your Salvation is in jeopardy if you don't accept the truth of scripture that I have given you.

Which Church do you choose to settle our differences?

I asked this question before and didn't get an answer so I ask it again: Since there are passages that support "faith alone" do those passages negate salvation thru baptism passages? If so, wouldn't it be logical to say that the salvation thru baptism passages would negate the faith alone passages? (The only time the words "faith alone" are together in the bible is James 2:24.)

Respectfully......Tom

Tom,

You did not address the issues of exegesis that I raised in my post, so your response here is a red herring.

You state: 'Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'. That's from Mark 16:16 and it is NOT in the earliest manuscripts so it should not be in the New Testament. It is not legitimate to appeal to this verse when it is a contested verse for even being in the NT.

You can believe baptismal regeneration if you want, but the biblical evidence I presented refutes such a view.

You ask:

Since there are passages that support "faith alone" do those passages negate salvation thru baptism passages? If so, wouldn't it be logical to say that the salvation thru baptism passages would negate the faith alone passages? (The only time the words "faith alone" are together in the bible is James 2:24.)

That's the wrong question in my view. You should be asking: Since there are verses that could possibly have an interpretation of baptism + faith for salvation, how do we resolve these hermeneutical difficulties?

As for James 2:24 being the only verse that uses 'faith alone', this is not a legitimate call as the noun, pistis, is not the only demonstration of faith alone. The Greek verb pisteuo (which comes from the same stem as pistis) also demonstrates 'believe' (i.e. have faith) as the only necessary prerequisite for becoming a Christian. Verses such as that given to the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31) demonstrate that 'believe' is all one needs to do to be to be saved.

You erected a straw man when you searched the entire Bible for verses that contain 'faith alone' and you only found one.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

OZ,

There is nothing that I can find in the NT concerning "sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice".

Where in the NT does it say to display a cross in a church or home?
Where in the NT does it say to build a building and call it a church if "the people" are the church?
Where in the NT does it say that Jesus birthday is on December 25th?
Where in the NT does it say Christians should build a church and have bands in it with spotlights, guitars, drums etc. etc
Where in the NT does it say HOW to perform a funeral or wedding ceremony?

There are lot's of things that various Christian Churches practice that are not in the NT! Does that make their Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture wrong?

Tom,

When will you learn to deal with the question I raised instead of running off with questions as your tangent? My question was: 'Where in the NT are the sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice?' You have used a red herring fallacy AGAIN.

Not once in your reply did you attempt to address my question.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

When will you learn to deal with the question I raised instead of running off with questions as your tangent? My question was: 'Where in the NT are the sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice?' You have used a red herring fallacy AGAIN.

Not once in your reply did you attempt to address my question.

Oz

So this isn't an answer:
There is nothing that I can find in the NT concerning "sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice".

 

[tom55]

Tom,

You did not address the issues of exegesis that I raised in my post, so your response here is a red herring.

You state: 'Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'. That's from Mark 16:16 and it is NOT in the earliest manuscripts so it should not be in the New Testament. It is not legitimate to appeal to this verse when it is a contested verse for even being in the NT.

You can believe baptismal regeneration if you want, but the biblical evidence I presented refutes such a view.

You ask:


That's the wrong question in my view. You should be asking: Since there are verses that could possibly have an interpretation of baptism + faith for salvation, how do we resolve these hermeneutical difficulties?

As for James 2:24 being the only verse that uses 'faith alone', this is not a legitimate call as the noun, pistis, is not the only demonstration of faith alone. The Greek verb pisteuo (which comes from the same stem as pistis) also demonstrates 'believe' (i.e. have faith) as the only necessary prerequisite for becoming a Christian. Verses such as that given to the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31) demonstrate that 'believe' is all one needs to do to be to be saved.

You erected a straw man when you searched the entire Bible for verses that contain 'faith alone' and you only found one.

Oz

Since you and I disagree on this issue shouldn't we do as Scripture (Matthew 18:17) says to settle our differences? I believe your Salvation is in jeopardy if you don't accept the truth of scripture that I have given you.

Which Church do you choose to settle our differences?

 

[ScaliaFan]

You are free to believe that your Pope is "another God on earth" and "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of flesh" and that his mediation is necessary for salvation, but I'll stick with Scripture which says, "There is ONE God and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5 KJV

thanks 4 telling me what i believe, as you anticatholics always do. You are so presumptuous

you have no clue where i am at spiritually... would take 2 bible sized book to explain and even then you would resist...

 

[tom55]

Tom,

You did not address the issues of exegesis that I raised in my post, so your response here is a red herring.

You state: 'Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'. That's from Mark 16:16 and it is NOT in the earliest manuscripts so it should not be in the New Testament. It is not legitimate to appeal to this verse when it is a contested verse for even being in the NT.

So you have issue with one of the fourteen quotes that I posted and that means I am wrong? Fascinating!!

You can believe baptismal regeneration if you want, but the biblical evidence I presented refutes such a view.

Does that mean the biblical evidence I presented along with the historical writings and writings from the multiple (you only provided one) Christian theologians I presented DOESN'T refute your view?


(I apologize. I can't figure out that multi-quote function and this is the only way I know how to address each point separately)

 

[OzSpen]

Tom,

You did not address the issues of exegesis that I raised in my post, so your response here is a red herring.

You state: 'Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'. That's from Mark 16:16 and it is NOT in the earliest manuscripts so it should not be in the New Testament. It is not legitimate to appeal to this verse when it is a contested verse for even being in the NT.

So you have issue with one of the fourteen quotes that I posted and that means I am wrong? Fascinating!!

You can believe baptismal regeneration if you want, but the biblical evidence I presented refutes such a view.

Does that mean the biblical evidence I presented along with the historical writings and writings from the multiple (you only provided one) Christian theologians I presented DOESN'T refute your view?


(I apologize. I can't figure out that multi-quote function and this is the only way I know how to address each point separately)

Tom,

You've missed it again, giving me another red herring fallacy of a response. We can't have a logical discussion when you continue to do this. Don't you understand what you do when you engage in fallacious reasoning?

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

You did not address the issues of exegesis that I raised in my post, so your response here is a red herring.

You state: 'Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'. That's from Mark 16:16 and it is NOT in the earliest manuscripts so it should not be in the New Testament. It is not legitimate to appeal to this verse when it is a contested verse for even being in the NT.

So you have issue with one of the fourteen quotes that I posted and that means I am wrong? Fascinating!!

You can believe baptismal regeneration if you want, but the biblical evidence I presented refutes such a view.

Does that mean the biblical evidence I presented along with the historical writings and writings from the multiple (you only provided one) Christian theologians I presented DOESN'T refute your view?


(I apologize. I can't figure out that multi-quote function and this is the only way I know how to address each point separately)

Tom,

You've missed it again, giving me another red herring fallacy of a response. We can't have a logical discussion when you continue to do this. Don't you understand what you do when you engage in fallacious reasoning?

Oz

Got it! You can't answer my questions, refute my facts or give valid, logical reasons for your belief therefore you fall back to your red herring safety net.

I ain't mad at ya'

I figured this would be your response to me; either red herring or logical fallacy. Sadly I was right.

 

[OzSpen]

Got it! You can't answer my questions, refute my facts or give valid, logical reasons for your belief therefore you fall back to your red herring safety net.

I ain't mad at ya'

I figured this would be your response to me; either red herring or logical fallacy. Sadly I was right.

Tom,

That is not what you first wrote to me and the email notification I received was that you stated this:

I ain't mad at ya'

Via a private message from someone else on CB I was told this would be your response to me; either red herring or logical fallacy. I bet them $5 you wouldn't.....

That is flaming me and I've reported you for it.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So this isn't an answer:
There is nothing that I can find in the NT concerning "sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice".

Thanks, Tom, for drawing that to my attention. I did overlook what you wrote with that statement. For that I apologise.

I agree that there are many things we practice in the church (as you stated) that are not directly stated in the Bible.

Sincerely,
Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

That is not what you first wrote to me and the email notification I received was that you stated this:


That is flaming me and I've reported you for it.

Oz

Guilty as charged. After I posted that I realized I probably shouldn't include what a fellow member sent to me in private since they didn't give me their permission. I then decided to place the burden upon my shoulders by editing my response to reveal to you what I thought you might do before you did it. I had faith that you wouldn't respond the way you did, sadly I was wrong. It makes me sad that we couldn't continue the discussion due to you shutting it down with your standard responses.You always fall back on those two excuses when you are unable to answer tough questions.

Like I said...I ain't mad at ya' (I have a brother that does this and I still have a close relationship with him). It seems to be your way of handling tough conversations and your inability to answer legitimate questions. I have my faults also.

Thank you for reporting me. Hopefully I will hear from someone soon to let me know if I did or did not violate any CB rules. I hope I didn't. I am comfortable with the way I responded to you. In my edited response I attempted not to draw someone else into this which I feel was the right thing to do.

With love and respect...Tom

 

[tom55]

Thanks, Tom, for drawing that to my attention. I did overlook what you wrote with that statement. For that I apologise.

I agree that there are many things we practice in the church (as you stated) that are not directly stated in the Bible.

Sincerely,
Oz

Your welcome. Thank you for responding and your apology. Some on this site have a problem with apologizing.

For me that leads to a question (in my own little head) that you may be able to help me answer:

There are lot's of things that various Christian Churches practice that are not in the NT! Does that make their Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture wrong?

For me to answer the doctrine question I always fall back to my first love; History! (early church father writings)

 

[OzSpen]

Guilty as charged. After I posted that I realized I probably shouldn't include what a fellow member sent to me in private since they didn't give me their permission. I then decided to place the burden upon my shoulders by editing my response to reveal to you what I thought you might do before you did it. I had faith that you wouldn't respond the way you did, sadly I was wrong. It makes me sad that we couldn't continue the discussion due to you shutting it down with your standard responses.You always fall back on those two excuses when you are unable to answer tough questions.

Like I said...I ain't mad at ya' (I have a brother that does this and I still have a close relationship with him). It seems to be your way of handling tough conversations and your inability to answer legitimate questions. I have my faults also.

Thank you for reporting me. Hopefully I will hear from someone soon to let me know if I did or did not violate any CB rules. I hope I didn't. I am comfortable with the way I responded to you. In my edited response I attempted not to draw someone else into this which I feel was the right thing to do.

With love and respect...Tom

Tom,

This is a false accusation against me. Your statement, 'You always fall back on those two excuses when you are unable to answer tough questions' is baloney about my responses. You don't have a clue about how I respond. Your problem is that you continue to use logical fallacies and don't seem to know you use them. When I call you for these, you come forth with this wrong statement (straw man) that I'm not able to answer. I do not hold back from discussing any theological topic, but when you use fallacious reasoning, we can't have a logical conversation.

Here you state against me, 'It seems to be your way of handling tough conversations and your inability to answer legitimate questions'. This is another straw man fallacy. Tom, do you understand what it means for a writer like yourself to use a straw man? If you do, please quit it so that we can have a logical discussion of the real issues and what I actually believe - instead of your inventing what I do not believe or state.

Your unedited response to me was still flaming me. Do you understand how you flamed me? When you flame me it takes the discussion off track.When any of us use logical fallacies, they also cause the discussion of a given topic to be diverted to what the poster wants and not to what the topic is about.

Oz