The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[Freak]

Francisco,

You said: Freak, you are the one that holds the heretical view, and a view that was nearly non-existent before the 16th century. Not only do folks like myself, JustWorks and Kevin believe water baptism confers sanctifying grace upon us, but so did the early church fathers:

Justification by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:1) is a Biblical doctrine that was in fact existent before the 16th century. So, again you are incorrect in your understanding of dates. In fact, the doctrine of justification by faith has been around a long, long time. One can go back to Genesis 15 to see that Abraham was justified by faith.

Fran, I would urge you to test what the church fathers believed to the Word of God, not the other way around. No wonder your spiritual confusion. We want to help you see the light of Jesus Christ and His truth-and that is one is justified by faith. There are scores of Scriptures that point to this truth.

Jesus who is eternal God is able to save. Instead of trusting in something (in your case-water) the Triune God created, trust in the Creator!

 

[Francisco]

Francisco,

You said: Freak, you are the one that holds the heretical view, and a view that was nearly non-existent before the 16th century. Not only do folks like myself, JustWorks and Kevin believe water baptism confers sanctifying grace upon us, but so did the early church fathers:

Justification by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:1) is a Biblical doctrine that was in fact existent before the 16th century. So, again you are incorrect in your understanding of dates. In fact, the doctrine of justification by faith has been around a long, long time. One can go back to Genesis 15 to see that Abraham was justified by faith.

As a Catholic, I do believe that justification is by the grace of God through our faith in His Son Jesus Christ. What I was addressing is your claim that belief in water baptism is heretical. I merely pointed out that your position against water baptism is the belief that has been considered heretical for almost 2,000 years, as evidenced by the writings of the early christian leadership which I quoted.

And in regard to the 'biblical doctrine' of justification by faith, I'll also remind you that water baptism into Jesus Christ is also a biblical doctrine. As I quoted in a previous post:

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 is obvious the eunuch is WATER BAPTIZED into Jesus Christ by Phillip, one of the twelve apostles, a direct disciple of Jesus, after the eunuch professes his belief in Jesus Christ. This is the application of God's grace, applied THROUGH the eunuchs faith in Jesus Christ.

Fran, I would urge you to test what the church fathers believed to the Word of God, not the other way around. No wonder your spiritual confusion.

This is the core of your error, Freak. You put the bible, whose inspired content was selected and decided by the early fathers, before the early fathers themselves. If you now reject the authority of the early fathers, how then do you not reject the authority of the bible? If the early fathers did not understand how to interpret these scriptures before they selected the canon of the bible, how can you know they were correct in what they determined to be canonical?

This is why Protestants are confused, splintering and fragmenting constantly over their private interpretations of scripture. As I said, this denial of any spiritual authority above your own private interpretation of scripture, is the core reason Protestants are so at odds among themselves as to develop literally tens of thousands of differing interpretations.

We want to help you see the light of Jesus Christ and His truth-and that is one is justified by faith. There are scores of Scriptures that point to this truth.

As I said earlier in this post, I believe justification comes through faith. This is one of the most basic Catholic teachings:

161. "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.[Cf. Mk 16:16 ; Jn 3:36 ; Jn 6:40 ; et al.] 'Since 'without FAITH it is impossible to please (God)' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without FAITH no one has ever attained JUSTIFICATION" (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

I want to help you see the light of Jesus Christ and His truth, not through the filters and colored lenses you've had ingrained in you by the man-made theologies of the 16th century, but through the clear lense of the Christians who were taught directly by Jesus Christ and His apostles.

Jesus who is eternal God is able to save. Instead of trusting in something (in your case-water) the Triune God created, trust in the Creator!

I do trust in God alone to save me. What I don't understand is your obstinate denial that the Almighty God can use a simple substance of his own creation, water, to transmit or confer his saving power to his creatures, us, in a sacrament Jesus said was necessary for salvation, baptism. Reference, Mark 16:16 'He who BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' . Baptism is the sacrament of faith, the faith that is the necessary conduit of the grace that saves. That is why Jesus says 'who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved.'

Consider the case of the blind man to whom Jesus restored sight. Jesus placed the mud upon the man's eyes and instructed him to wash in the pool at Siloam. When the man followed Jesus' instructions and washed the mud from his eyes, his eyes were healed by the grace of God. They were not healed solely by the blind man's belief that Jesus could heal him. They were not healed until the man applied the water to his eyes, as Jesus instructed him to do.

I know that you will argue Mk 16:16 doesn't say 'water' baptism. But to argue that this baptism Jesus speaks to in Mk 16:16 is not water baptism, is again an obstinate denial of the context of the NT, the context of the many water baptisms the apostles and Christ's other disciples continually perform.

Then if, as HopeofGlory says, man through his obedience partakes of water baptism, why can't God use the waters of baptism to confer the grace upon us to heal our souls when we follow His instructions, just as he healed the blind man through the waters of the pool at Siloam?

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Freak]

Francisco-

You talk out of both sides of our mouth. No wonder your confused. Look, the Scriptures is the objective standard by which we should test all doctrines held be men (like the church fathers). Jesus, once said, "Thy Word is truth" (see John 17:17). God's Word is true and His Word states: Having been justified by faith we can have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (see Romans 5:1). Justification is simply by faith in Christ. At first, you said you believed this then you say:

I do trust in God alone to save me. What I don't understand is your obstinate denial that the Almighty God can use a simple substance of his own creation, water, to transmit or confer his saving power to his creatures, us, in a sacrament Jesus said was necessary for salvation, baptism.

Fran, water baptism is not a "sacrament" that confers salvation. Water is just that water. It is symbolic for the work of salvation God does within you. It's not God. It cannot save. Only God can justify. Jesus simply calls people unto Himself for salvation (see John 3:15) which does not include water. Jesus is enough. Stop adding to Jesus. Water baptism should happen after salvation not for salvation. It is a powerful symbol but that's all it is-a symbol.

 

[Francisco]

Francisco-

You talk out of both sides of our mouth. No wonder your confused. Look, the Scriptures is the objective standard by which we should test all doctrines held be men (like the church fathers).

Again, you seem confused as to my argument. Let me put it in simpler terms for you:

1) The early church fathers were the one's who TESTED SCRIPTURE to determine what the bible was to consist of. They read the scriptures, prayed, debated amongst themselves, and determined which writings were inspired, and which were not.

2) One of the first ways these different writings were tested by the early fathers was simply asking, 'do these writings match what the apostles handed down to us through oral preaching.' If the content of the writing was contrary to what the early fathers had been taught by the apostles, the writing was declared to be NOT inspired and was considered no further.

For you to say we should now test the fathers by their own creation is ridiculous. I'm sure you do this as a reaction to the false doctrine of sola scriptura, not out of clear and convincing logic, because it is illogical. For the Bible to supposedly hold some position of supreme authority from the 16th century forward is absurd, particularly when the bible doesn't even claim that authority for itself. And no one else ever claimed this authority in behalf of the Bible until Luther did, some 1500 years after the texts were actually written, and 1100 years after the Catholic Church determined the Bible's canon. On the contrary, the Bible admits that many of Jesus' teachings were never written down, so how could the Bible profess to be the end all source of divine teaching? Didn't Jesus tell the apostles to teach us to observe 'ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you'? He didn't say 'teach them the stuff that will be written down in the years to come'! Didn't Paul exhort Timothy to follow all that he taught, whether he taught orally or in writing?

So again, bearing in mind that the early fathers were the one's who originally tested the writings to determine canonicity, how can you judge the fathers by the writings? Would this not be subject to one's own personal, uninspired, interpretation of the scriptures? Of course it would, and it would end with the ridiculous scenario of everyone coming up with his own interpretation and claiming 'it is the right one cause the bibles says so', never giving any regard to what was passed on in oral instruction from Jesus to the apostles, and through his disciples through the ages finally to us.

To simply the position even further, I'll illustrate your position and mine each with a simple question. The question put to both positions is this: On what authority do you claim your interpretation of scripture to be correct?

I would imagine your answer to be simply 'because the bible says so'. But that is a circular argument without end. The same circular argument responsible for the creation of 25,000 Protestant denominations.

My answer would be 'because my interpretation follows the apostolic teachings passed from Christ to the apostles to the early fathers who then wrote down these apostolic traditions. These are the traditions Paul instructed Timothy to pass on to faithful men, so they in turn could teach others.'

Fran, water baptism is not a "sacrament" that confers salvation. Water is just that water.

Then was the water in the pool at Siloam just symbolic? Does the gospel not tell us that the man's blindness was cured when he washed his eyes with that water, just as Jesus commanded him?

You seem to think I am saying that the water itself has some magical power. It does not, and that's NOT what I'm saying. I am saying that it is reasonable to believe that God can and does use water to confer His healing grace to us. If you find this unreasonable, you must then find it unreasonable to believe what scripture tells us about the blind man's cure. You can't say that it is reasonable that Jesus healed the blind man through the water in the pool, and unreasonable that he could do the same thing through the waters of baptism for our souls.

It is symbolic for the work of salvation God does within you. It's not God. It cannot save. Only God can justify.

Again, WATER DOES NOT SAVE, but God can certainly use any substance to confer his grace to us or to reveal Himself to us. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Jesus simply calls people unto Himself for salvation (see John 3:15) which does not include water.

What are you saying here? Do you think that because John 3:15 doesn't include a reference to baptism that somehow cancels out that Jesus said 'whoever believes AND IS BAPTIZED' at Mk 16:16? Sorry pal, I'm not buying that! And I don't think you can sell that to many others.

Jesus is enough. Stop adding to Jesus. Water baptism should happen after salvation not for salvation. It is a powerful symbol but that's all it is-a symbol.

I'm not adding to Jesus, you're taking away from Jesus. As I pointed out, Jesus said 'whoever believes AND IS BAPTIZED'. To say we should not believe Jesus meant baptism was necessary for salvation is ludicrous and baseless, and it is taking away from Jesus' teaching. How can you say baptism is a mere symbol when Jesus says it is necessary for salvation? Do you have any evidence at all to support your position? I have plenty of verses that support the great importance given to baptism by the apostles and early disciples. I also have some of the written testimony of Christians who were directly taught by the apostles to back my position. Oh, and I also have about 2,000 years of historical and archealogical evidence that proves the early church, again the Christians taught directly by Jesus and/or his apostles, believed baptism to be of great importance for their salvation.

A Catholic could never believe that baptism IS salvation. Of course this could be a topic for another thread, but briefly, Catholics do not believe you necessarily receive eternal salvation through a single action or event. JUST believing isn't going to save you. The devil BELIEVES in Jesus Christ. Many will actually believe, but only those who persevere in that faith and continuosly submit themselves to God's will, will be saved, hence 'many are called but few are chosen.' You have to completely submit to God to be saved. That includes following his commandments. And it doesn't mean just following Him once, like responding to an altar call and professing your faith. In other words, to a Catholic salvation is much more than just the initial justification that you keep calling salvation. So, Catholics do not believe that baptism guarantees you eternal salvation, but rather it is a necessary step toward our goal of salvation. Nor do Catholics believe that attaining initial justification affords a guarantee of your salvation, like many Protestants believe their profession of faith in Jesus affords them.

 

[JustAChristian]

Please Explain

Please Explain

Originally posted by Sheepdog


Well Said! :thumb:

What do you mean when you say "Baptism is by the obedience of man?"

JustAChristian :angel:

 

[HopeofGlory]

Francisco,

I will agree that you, Kevin and JustWorks (LOL) , quote scripture in the same fashion. You said.."Paul does not say simply that he wasn't sent to baptize, but rather infers he was not sent just to baptize". Paul really did not say but infers something and then you add the word "just" to make your point.

I quoted without addition (tradition), yours is the misquote. The Father's word backs me up and your fathers tradition backs you. Are you implying that your church is without chaos? Get real! Those men that you call father are..don't get me started, this thread is on water baptism. I don't care to hear more about your holy fathers or their interpretation of scripture.

If you will kindly discuss the scriptures without your additions we will see who is scripturally uneducated.

You said:
"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."

You dearly love to spew off at the mouth but it only displays your ignorance.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal. 1:11
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:12

Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles and he disagreed with the other apostles on many occasions.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal. 2:11 (KJV)

Who was doing the instructing?

If it could conclusively be proven that Clement was a disciple of Peter I would have to say he was instructed in the gospel of the circumcision.

You Said
"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."

This is where we differ, I depend on the word of God not men.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim. 3:16 (KJV)

You Said
"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."

You know! Yeah right. Sharing scripture is why I am here, so let's have at it.

You said:
"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'?"

Listen up! Paul said "Christ sent me NOT to baptize". Now, do you have any scripture to prove that Paul was sent to water baptize?

You Said:
" 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:"

This is exactly the point! Baptism was to unify believers but here we clearly see water baptism caused division. Paul reveals that there is ONE baptism! That ONE baptism is Spirit baptism. One NOT two.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

You said:
"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."

Paul said...For 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. 1 Cor. 1:17

What was water baptism performed? Answer, remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Why was the blood of Christ shed on the cross? Answer, remission of sins (Roms 3:25).

If you believed the first (which began with the Baptist) the second
is of non effect.

You said:
"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?"

Yes it is simple to see that the so called great commission and the Peterine gospel of the circumcision brought division.

You said:
"Now for some 'water baptism' scripture, as promised. Consider, what was the baptism of the eunuch in Acts 8?"

LOL, circumcision gospel.

You said
"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."

Show me the scripture where the eunuch was "baptized into Christ".

You said
"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.

I was referring to your most resent post but it is true you have no scriptural basis. I should skim through the thread, get real.

In Christ
Craig

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Freak
Cir. aks: Why can't Christ use it as a tool.

Not as salvation, He can't! He Has chosen His blood to do that (Hebrews 9:22).

AMEN :thumb:

 

[c.moore]

People in cults will often cite James 2:26 where it says that faith without works is dead in an attempt to demonstrate that works are part of becoming saved. While it is true that faith without works is dead, it isn't the works that save us. James is saying that if you have real and true faith, it will result in real and true works of Christianity. In other words, you do good works because you are saved, not to get saved. He isn't saying that our works are what saves us, or that they, in combination with the finished work of Christ, save us. James is simply telling us that if we say we have faith (James 2:14) but we have no works in correspondence to that faith, then that faith won't save us because it is a dead faith. This agrees with Paul who tells us that faith is what saves us, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1). This faith is real faith, or true saving faith, not just an empty mental acknowledgement of God's existence which is what those who "say" they have faith but show no corresponding godliness are guilty of. Incidentally, you should realize that faith is only as good as who you put it in. Just having faith in something doesn't mean you're saved. That is why it is important to have the True Jesus, because if you have great faith but it is in the wrong Jesus, then your faith is useless.

Check these fact out, you water diving believers.


peace

 

[Yxboom]

Leave it up to Freak not to post this in the Dispensational Section. :doh:

 

[Yxboom]

The issue hinges clearly on whether we are under the covenant of circumcision or the covenant of grace?

HopeofGlory: :thumb: Fantastic post!!!

 

[Francisco]

HopeofGlory,

You seem to have misunderstood most of my responses to you, and I don't have time to repeatedly explain my comments or scripture to you. It seems the 16th century Bible filters and colored scripture lenses were somehow superglued to your face in all the confusion of your man-made modern theology. But in the hope you can find some small glimmer of order in all the chaos in which you exist, I will leave you with these questions:

1) What group of men decided what was inspired scripture, and what was not inspired, in regard to the canon of the Bible?

2) By what standard did these men test the writings they considered for the Bible?

3) What did these same men say about water baptism?

Now, you can just quickly dismiss these questions and never consider them again, but if you seek the complete truth about anything, all avenues should be investigated with an open mind. It's up to you.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Solly]

1) What group of men decided what was inspired scripture, and what was not inspired, in regard to the canon of the Bible?

Firstly, the writings were received by the churches they were addressed to as from the hand of an apostle - they did not arrive out of nowhere, and even they had to beware of supposed letters from apostles, as Paul points out; they were passed on as such by those who, as Christians, bore testimony to them as being inspired of God. The canon issue didn't really arise until Marcion promulgated his, and so the churches desired to sift the wheat from the chaff for the sake of the brethren.
If the RC church (as if there was such a fish in those days) was so led by the Holy Spirit in this, why did it take so long to rubber stamp Hebrews and Revelation, and to reject Shepherd of Hermas?

2) By what standard did these men test the writings they considered for the Bible?

As above, they came from an apostle and had continued in the churches; the churches desired to sift out those that bore the name of an apostle, but were not from such; they would have used the analogy of faith, the witness of the Spirit, etc.

3) What did these same men say about water baptism?

What did they say about Christ descending into hell, or the value of celibacy, or not eating meat on Friday, or transubstantiation, or the Bishop of Rome? What does it matter, it has no bearing, and is the usual RC chicken and egg tactic - since we decided what is scripture, you must listen to us. That from the church that has invented the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix.

peace in Him

 

[Freak]

Fransico,

When Jesus said to simply believe Him (see John 3:15-16) for salvation. JUst take Him at His Word ok? Water did not heal, as you believe, it was Jesus that healed. Water was again a symbol. Jesus is God. He is the healer (see Luke 4:18) not water. Tell me where it says water is the healer? But I can show you many places where Jesus is declared as the healer. Same with salvation! Water does not save. God saves. Your like these Wiccans I deal with who believe elements of nature (like water) have some mystical powers. WAter is simply the created. Turn to the Creator!

 

[Freak]

BTW, I'd like to see HopeofGlory and JustWorks or Kevin debate these issues formally in a Royal Battle!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Solly,

If the RC church (as if there was such a fish in those days) was so led by the Holy Spirit in this, why did it take so long to rubber stamp Hebrews and Revelation, and to reject Shepherd of Hermas?

Firstly, there was such a fish in those days. Mr. Miacca and I have derailed another thread discussing this issue here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=134807#post134807

Guided by the Holy Spirit does not mean all that you seem to indicate. It does not mean the church has all the answers. However, the church does infallibly define orthodox from hetrodox beliefs when the situation dictates.

From the 1st century to the end of the fourth century, various Christian communities held that differing books were sacred scripture. That was fine as long as people held to orthodox beliefs as had been passed on through apostolic succession. However, some heresies began to spread based upon bogus books (e.g. gnosticism). By the end of the fourth century, the situation dictated that the church should proclaim definitively what sacred scripture consisted of. Hence, the Papal decree of Pope Damasus in 382 AD to the universal Catholic Church.

3) What did these same men say about water baptism?

What did they say about Christ descending into hell, or the value of celibacy, or not eating meat on Friday, or transubstantiation, or the Bishop of Rome? What does it matter, it has no bearing, and is the usual RC chicken and egg tactic - since we decided what is scripture, you must listen to us. That from the church that has invented the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix.

Ah, but it does matter. The same men who were guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit to recognize what was authentically sacred scripture did not then lose the teaching authority given by Christ and passed on through apostolic succession.

Both the church and sacred scripture have their source in Christ. One is not subordinate to the other. Both continue to have complimentary roles in teaching us the gospel message.

Freak,

When Jesus said to simply believe Him (see John 3:15-16) for salvation. JUst take Him at His Word ok? Water did not heal, as you believe, it was Jesus that healed. Water was again a symbol. Jesus is God. He is the healer (see Luke 4:18) not water. Tell me where it says water is the healer? But I can show you many places where Jesus is declared as the healer. Same with salvation! Water does not save. God saves. Your like these Wiccans I deal with who believe elements of nature (like water) have some mystical powers. WAter is simply the created. Turn to the Creator!

Of course, the grace given in Baptism is only from the power of God. However, water is the "matter" of the sacrament. Scripture show us that Jesus does use physical matter to perform his miracles. He healed the blind with mud, for example. Could Jesus have healed the blind man without mud? Certainly. But it is equally certain that he did indeed choose to use mud to convey his healing power. Likewise, Christ washes away our sins and gives us His santifying grace through the water of baptism.

God bless,

 

[JustAChristian]

Never Able To Come To The Truth...

Never Able To Come To The Truth...

Originally posted by HopeofGlory

Craig,

Paul once told his "son in the faith" Timothey that there were people who were striving to be Christians but they were "...ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3:7). Imagine; ever learning-every day more study and more study. Day by day and yet they were never able to put it together. Why? Paul tell the brethren saying, "..because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thess. 2:10). I see further that Paul said of these..."And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thess 2:11-12 ). I wonder if you might be in this number?

You and other has given inconsiderate consideration to 1 Cor. 1:17. Let me give you some more information to consider today.

By ignoring certain factors, endless and useless arguments have been made by taking verses out of context. A classic example of this is 1 Corinthians 1:17:

"For 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."

Was Paul stating that baptism was of secondary importance? ... that it was not a command? If so, this would be quite contradictory to the dozens of passages in the New Testament. However, there is no contradiction. When we place this passage in its context we see exactly what Paul was trying to say, and it does not de-emphasize baptism in any way.
To show this, let’s first consider the entire context (1 Corinthians 1:10-17):

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 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. 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. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For 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.”

This is a very informative and enlightening passage which has little to do with the doctrine of baptism. Let us analyze it in detail to see exactly what Paul was trying to communicate to the Corinthians:

First, the subject is not baptism, it is division. Clearly, the Corinthians were denominating -- they were dividing the church and calling these different groups by distinctly different names. It is interesting that calling a denomination after Paul was condemned even though Paul was an apostle and his inspired writings and speech had the full weight of the commandments of Christ (1 Cor. 14:37:

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord").

But then, even those who claimed "I am of Christ" for the purpose of making distinctions within the Lord's church were condemned for this.

"Is Christ divided?"
This rhetorical question would be answered in the affirmative by denominationalists. The obvious answer is no; Christ is not divided. The body of Christ is not divided. At some point when such divisions arise the organization so divided ceases to be the body of Christ.

"... was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
This begins to get at the context of the 17th verse which is at issue here. These rhetorical questions necessarily infer that the readers, the Corinthian Christians, were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and not in the name of Paul. Thus, they should only call themselves Christians (1 Peter 4:16) and not Paulites or any other name to distinguish themselves from one another. This does not diminish the importance of baptism in any way. In fact, the very mention of it in this context emphasizes its importance as the act which distinguishes Christians from those of the world.
"I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." This is a statement of frustration on the part of Paul, since it is evident that the Corinthians were calling themselves and dividing themselves over those who had baptized them. Who baptizes you is not important. The important thing is that it is done in obedience to (in the name of) Jesus Christ. The fact that Paul cannot remember who he baptized further illustrates this point -- whether a person were baptized by Paul or some other Christian has no relevance to that person's salvation!

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel ..." The role of the apostle Paul was preach the new truth that was specifically given to him through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- the gospel of Christ. Any Christian could baptize, it did not take an apostle to do that. And there was always the danger of someone trying to exalt themselves by saying that they were baptized by the apostle Paul. (Perhaps this is the reason that Jesus did not baptize -- John 4:2.) Thus, there was probably an advantage to Paul avoiding the performance of baptisms.
"... not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." This does not relate to baptism. It introduces a contrast between the "word of the cross" and the "wisdom of words" which is another expression for the wisdom of man. This subject continues through the end of Chapter 4.

In conclusion, the context clearly shows that the apostle Paul was not trying to de-emphasize baptism, he was trying to de-emphasize the baptizer. Baptism is clearly a commandment of the Lord and must be obeyed for salvation (Mark 16:16).

JustAChristian :angel:

 

[Francisco]

Solly,

1) What group of men decided what was inspired scripture, and what was not inspired, in regard to the canon of the Bible?

Firstly, the writings were received by the churches they were addressed to as from the hand of an apostle - they did not arrive out of nowhere, and even they had to beware of supposed letters from apostles, as Paul points out; they were passed on as such by those who, as Christians, bore testimony to them as being inspired of God. The canon issue didn't really arise until Marcion promulgated his, and so the churches desired to sift the wheat from the chaff for the sake of the brethren.

NO, no, no. Not 'Where did the writings come from', but 'who decided what writings were inspired, and which were not'? No matter where they came from, who wrote them, or how long which church used these writings is not the point. The point is, the early church fathers were the men who decided what was inspired, and what was not inspired.

If the RC church (as if there was such a fish in those days)

The Catholic Chrch was instituted by Jesus Christ, built on the foundation of the apostles, with Jesus as the capstone. True, it wasn't called catholic, meaning universal, at that time as it would have made no sense to call the tiny fledgling church 'universal'. As the church very rapidly spread throughout the known world, Ignatius coined the phrase 'catholic' as a description of the church. Over some period of time, the word 'catholic' became the common proper mane for this church. Ignatius died in 107AD, so the usage of 'catholic' to describe Jesus' church has been in use for 1900 years, or so.

was so led by the Holy Spirit in this, why did it take so long to rubber stamp Hebrews and Revelation, and to reject Shepherd of Hermas?

The Holy Spirit works on His own timetable. Just as God the Father and God the Son do. A similar question could be, 'why is it taking Jesus so long to come again'? And again the answer is 'God works on His own timetable.'

I notice your question seems to imply that you doubt the Holy Spirit guided the church in determining the canon of the Bible. If you doubt the Holy Spirit guided the church in determining the canon, do you accept scripture as the Word of God? If so, why?

2) By what standard did these men test the writings they considered for the Bible?

As above, they came from an apostle and had continued in the churches; the churches desired to sift out those that bore the name of an apostle, but were not from such; they would have used the analogy of faith, the witness of the Spirit, etc.

Analogy of faith? Does that mean the fathers would have compared the writings to the oral gospel handed down from the apostles?

Witness of the Spirit? Does this mean the fathers sought guidance from the Holy Spirit? If so, did they receive that guidance?

In determining the canon, several principles were used. You got the first one, Apostolic origin. Here are all the primary criteria used:

a) Apostolic origin of the writings, meaning it had to have been written by an apostle, or someone associated with an apostle.
b) It had to have been written within the apostolic age.
c) It had to conform with Orthodoxy as opposed to Docetism, Marcionism and Gnosticism.
d) It had to have been in regular liturgical use within the church for a long period of time and in many places.

Of course the fathers prayed for guidance and assistance, debated and discussed the writings amongst themselves, etc... But those were not the criteria, the list I gave you above is.

I'll direct your attention to criteria 'c'. It makes absolute sense the fathers would have tested the 'orthodoxy' of the writing, regardless of any other criteria the writing may have met. For them to do otherwise, after more than 300 years of ingrained oral instruction, would have been ridiculous. This begs the question, "against what did the fathers 'test' the orthodoxy of the writings in question?" The only standard by which they could make any judgement is the oral teachings that had been handed down from the apostles through the first several generations of the church. In summation, the fathers must have tested the potential scriptural writings against their own orthodox beliefs, and the only standard they possessed, by which to 'test' the writings, was the oral doctrine handed down from the apostles.

Bearing all this in mind, I ask again, 'what did the early fathers say about water baptism'?

3) What did these same men say about water baptism?

What did they say about Christ descending into hell, or the value of celibacy, or not eating meat on Friday, or transubstantiation, or the Bishop of Rome? What does it matter, it has no bearing, and is the usual RC chicken and egg tactic - since we decided what is scripture, you must listen to us.

Wrong again, solly. That's not what I'm saying at all. Nor is it what the Catholic Church says about scripture. It's not 'WE decided what is scripture...', it's 'since THEY (EARLY FATHERS) decided what is scripture, WE ALL must listen to what THEY say, not just about scripture, but about faith and morals in general.

That from the church that has invented the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix.

Tisk, tisk. That was a clumsy stab. And it reveals your misunderstanding, or possibly your refusal to even genuinely consider, what the idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix actually means.

Your argument here is only about semantics, just as previous arguments against the title 'Theotokos', or 'Mother of God.' Just as some are unwilling to accept the fact this term is simply a recognition of the wonderful gift God bestowed on Mary by letting her be the mother of Jesus Christ, the second person of God. The formula, for lack of a better term, is Mary=Mother of Jesus, Jesus=God, so Mary=Mother of God. It's an undeniable truth that has been there since the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived our Lord, but the Catholic Church did not formally define this for several hundred years.

The same goes for the idea behind Mary as Co-Redemptrix. The idea here stems from the fact that man could not attain salvation except through Jesus Christ, and man could not come to Jesus until Mary assisted God in bringing Him into our world. The title 'Co-Redemptrix' is only a way of honoring Mary for this role which she freely accepted as a gift from God.

Co-Redemptrix DOES NOT mean that Mary is in any way our salvation; that is Jesus Christ, ALONE! And this is the core of orthodoxy, as preached by the Catholic Church since the beginning of Christianity, as taught in the apostolic oral tradition, and recorded in scripture and the writings of the church fathers.

I hope that cleared up your misunderstandings.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Francisco]

Freak,

Fransico,

When Jesus said to simply believe Him (see John 3:15-16) for salvation. JUst take Him at His Word ok?

Shouldn't I take Him at His word at Mark 16:16, 'Whoever believes AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved'?

Water did not heal, as you believe, it was Jesus that healed. Water was again a symbol. Jesus is God. He is the healer (see Luke 4:18) not water. Tell me where it says water is the healer? But I can show you many places where Jesus is declared as the healer.

Freak, try to get it through your head, I KNOW JESUS HEALED THE BLIND MAN. But he did so through the use of the water at Siloam.

Same with salvation! Water does not save. God saves. Your like these Wiccans I deal with who believe elements of nature (like water) have some mystical powers. WAter is simply the created. Turn to the Creator!

And again, get it through your head, I KNOW JESUS ALONE IS OUR SALVATION. It is not an element of the water that effects the healing, just as it wasn't an element of the water in the pool at Siloam. JESUS is the 'healer' in both cases. But it is unreasonable of you to say Jesus can't use water to confer His grace upon us to cause the healing of our souls.

Now stop dodging me and answer my previous questions, or else put up a substantial argument to refute me.

BTW, I was truly hurt that I wasn't invited to the party:

BTW, I'd like to see HopeofGlory and JustWorks or Kevin debate these issues formally in a Royal Battle!

 

[Solly]

Originally posted by Francisco
Tisk, tisk. That was a clumsy stab. And it reveals your misunderstanding, or possibly your refusal to even genuinely consider, what the idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix actually means.

The title 'Co-Redemptrix' is only a way of honoring Mary for this role which she freely accepted as a gift from God.

Co-Redemptrix DOES NOT mean that Mary is in any way our salvation; that is Jesus Christ, ALONE!

Off an RC website

St. Antonius (circa 250 - 350): "All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary."

St. Bernard (1090 - 1153): "[Mary is called] the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her." What, no one comes to the Father but by her?

St. Bonaventure (1221 - 1274): "As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice."

But unto you that fear my name, shall the Moon? no Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings. Mal 4.2

1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast.

1964-NOV-21: The Chapter 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, passed by the Vatican Council II, and "Solemnly promulgated by Holiness Pope Paul VI" states, in part:
"Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching ...'death through Eve, life through Mary.' This union of the mother with the son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death"

"Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix."

"...the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator." "For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source." I left this in to prove how fair I am

1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix" during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, "Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity...In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son."

1997-APR-9: During an audience Pope John-Paul II referred to the role of Mary during the crucifixion of Jesus: "Mary … co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity...In God’s plan, Mary is the ‘woman’ (cf. John 2:4; John 19:26), the New Eve, united to the New Adam in restoring humanity to its original dignity. Her cooperation with her Son continues for all time in the universal motherhood which she enjoys in the order of grace. Trusting in this maternal cooperation, let us turn to Mary, imploring her help in all our needs."

This looks a lot more than just honouring someone; and the personal devotion to Mary that goes on around the world, and the prayers offered to her (for her to pass on, of course!) speak volumes for the lack of a relationship with Christ himself,

peace in Him, and only Him

 

[Jaltus]

Because we know that websites are the best places to get info.

Umm, no. Having battled it out with RCs many times over this issue, I realize that most do not think of "Co-Redemptrix" as a salvific title, it is just another way of saying "theotokos."