The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Don't mind me I am just trying to partake in the monumental thread on TOL.
*whistles away*
*whistles away*
HopeofGlory
New member
Yxboom,
Don't leave, give us your opinion.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
Don't leave, give us your opinion.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
C
cirisme
Guest
Why can't Christ use it as a tool?
Y
Yxboom
Guest
:noid:
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
This thing still going? I agree with Freak on this one. Who would have ever thunk it?
C
cirisme
Guest
He can't or He doesn't?
For with God, all things are possible...
Think carefully.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
interesting distinction.
HopeofGlory
New member
Water baptist is by the obedience of men but the scripture reveals it is by the obedience of One so that the gift may be free.
In Christ
Craig
HopeofGlory
New member
Francisco,
Your early church fathers have no bearing on what I believe. It amazes me how catholics quote these men and hold their doctrine above what the bible says. Heretics with their doctrine bred more heretics.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matt. 23:9 (KJV)
Paul by the Spirit said there is "one baptism".
Paul also said... "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect".
If the so called GREAT COMMISSION is you apostles go water baptize, why is it that Paul was sent NOT to water baptize?
In Christ
Craig
Your early church fathers have no bearing on what I believe. It amazes me how catholics quote these men and hold their doctrine above what the bible says. Heretics with their doctrine bred more heretics.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matt. 23:9 (KJV)
Paul by the Spirit said there is "one baptism".
Paul also said... "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect".
If the so called GREAT COMMISSION is you apostles go water baptize, why is it that Paul was sent NOT to water baptize?
In Christ
Craig
Your lack of interest in the early fathers doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, reading the early fathers, many of whom were discipled by the apostles, would be dangerous to your more modern man-made theology. If you were to read Clement for instance, who was directly discipled by Peter and is mentioned in scripture, you would have to deal with the same views on water baptism, for instance. How would you explain a disciple of St. Peter holding up the doctrine of water baptism for the forgiveness of sin? Did Clement, and all the other early Christians, fall away from the faith they just received that quickly, even after Jesus promised that nothing would prevail against His church?
BTW, the reason us Catholics hold to the doctrines of these early fathers is because these teachings were passed to them from the apostles. Many of these doctrines predate the bible, which the Catholic Church did not finish deciding canon of until almost 400AD. Just as the early Christians did, Catholics today look to these doctrines as being as authoritative as they were the day God revealed them to the apostles, and the apostles passed them on to faithful men who could then teach others. This is what we call sacred tradition. Without sacred tradition, Catholics would be in chaos, continually debating what this verse means, or that doctrine says, much the way the thousands of Protestant denominations, and those who claim no denomination, do today.
You need to read a little deeper here, and have someone who knows Greek explain the meaning of the actual Greek words used here. Paul does not say simply that he wasn't sent to baptize, but rather infers he was not sent just to baptize. In other words, I believe Paul is emphasizing the importance of his calling to preach the gospel to the gentiles. Besides, Paul certainly did baptize, whole families at times, and I'm certain Paul wouldn't have done that if Jesus didn't want him to.
Since you mentioned the 'so called GREAT COMMISSION', why don't you explain what Jesus was commanding the apostles to do, if water baptism is not what He was talking about?
HopeofGlory
New member
In Christ
Craig
First, let me point out that earlier in this extremely long thread, I have quoted the bible in support of my position several times, as have others like Kevin and JustWorks, to name a couple.
Second, your quotation of the bible is more like a misquotation. You interpret scripture based only on your own knowledge with no authority to back you, and as we can see, this method of private interpretation has produced chaos among Protestants, generating thousands of different interpretations and thousands of different denominations
Third, the 'men' I quoted were the leaders of the early church. They were the men who the apostles handed on the apostolic teachings to, long before the Catholic Church decided the canon of the bible. These 'men' predated the bible and were responsible for the doctrine taught to the Christians of the first several centuries. And as I pointed out above, some of these early fathers received their instruction directly from one of the apostles, like Clement of Rome who received instruction from Peter, and many more from a direct disciple of one of the apostles. You would have us believe the opinions of these these mere 'men' were no more valuable than your uneducated theories.
What an utterly stupid idea, to think Clement would have received better instruction from Paul who received his instruction from 'the disciples which were at Damascus', rather than receiving instruction from Peter who was taught directly by Jesus.
This seems to be a flimsy reason to not address my original question; how do you explain a disciple of St. Peter, namely Clement of Rome, holding to the belief that water baptism confers grace and forgives sin? Remember too, that this was in the first century, and I can name several more early fathers, like Ignatius, that held to the same belief in the early Christian church.
Actually, the early fathers were the original defenders of Christian faith. That is the main reason I turn to them. I don't pretend to defend them, but rather hold out their teachings to defend me.
And again, I know you have not read this entire thread and couldn't have known how much scripture I've quoted, but to satisfy your desire for me to quote scripture in defense of my position on water baptism, I will do so at the end of this reply.
This is a perfect description of what you yourself are trying to do, and you don't even know it. Do you claim to know Christ's teachings better than his apostles, or their disciples? YES! Out of your vanity you have deceived yourself, and again out of vanity, you now seek to deceive others. You should humbly consider the teachings of the early Christians since they were much closer to the root of our Christian faith than men that happened along 1500 years later, creating their own TRADITION, rather than the tradition of the apostles that Paul repeatedly exhorts us to follow:
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2, NKJV)
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. ( 2 Thessalonians 3:6, NKJV)
And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2, NKJV)
In your vanity and arrogance, you have consistently rejected the lessons of Christianity's greatest teachers; why would asking a Greek scholar what a word or phrase means be any different? I agree with you that Greek scholars don't all agree on everything, but I'm sure you would be amazed at what they DO agree own, Catholics and Protestants alike. This particular verse is one on which you will find very little disagreement between Catholic, Protestant and non-Christian scholars.
And what, come up with a few thousand more new denominations, each claiming their interpretation is the correct one because 'the bible says so'? It is painfully obvious that your approach does not work, otherwise everyone would come up with the same private interpretations and we would all be in agreement.
LOL. Paul was baptizing at first, then he was sent a second time, 'not to baptize'? LOL. Your eisegesis is laughable.
BTW, do you have any scripture to back your position that Paul was sent again 'at a later date... not to baptize'?
NO! At least not in the sense you are purporting. Paul was addressing contentions within the church at Corinth where divisions were apprearing among the congregation, with some following one apostle or another. Paul said he was glad he had only baptized a few of these Corinthians so that they could not claim they had been baptized in Paul's own name:
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. (1 Cor 1, KJV)
It would be better for you to improve your reading comprehension so you can understand and believe what it really says, rather than reading the words of scripture pulled out of context through the filters that have been ingrained through your instruction in the traditions of men of the 16th century.
I agree, it shouldn't be that hard to understand, but you will continue to have difficulty with this verse if you do not consider the context. Again, look at the verse in context as I quoted it above. Paul is glad he didn't baptize any more of the Corinthians than he did so they cannot claim he baptized them in his own name. It's really very simple, isn't it?
Now for some 'water baptism' scripture, as promised. Consider, what was the baptism of the eunuch in Acts 8?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:35-38, KJV)
It's obvious the eunuch was moved to baptism through Philip's preaching Jesus to him, it's obviously a water baptism, AND the eunuch confessed Jesus Christ is the Son of God just prior to going into the water. The eunuch was baptized by water into Christ.
God Bless,
Francisco
PS - I originally posted several messages regarding this verse about water baptism back in July and August. I know it's a long thread, but before you accuse me of a lack of scriptural basis for my position, you should at least skim through the thread.