Baptism is NOT symbolic

[hoser]

Ezekiel 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

Evidence #1 - Forshadowing from the Old Testament of baptism. Notice, through the water AND Holy Spirit a persons "uncleannessess" will be cleansed. This is referring to sins being removed through baptism just as the New Testament teaches. NOT SYMBOLIC

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'
Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Evidence #2 - Being Baptised forgives sins as scripture plainly states. NOT SYMBOLIC

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Titus 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Evidence #3 - Washing and pouring represents the baptismal water. NOT SYMBOLIC

1 Peter 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1 Peter 3:21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Evidence #4 - Baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Noah and his family were saved by water as we are in the New Covenant. NOT SYMBOLIC

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Evidence #5 - This puts a big hole in protestants belief of "Faith Alone" which is why I suspect they pretend that baptism is only symbolic. In addition to believing (faith), one must be baptized (a work) as stated so clearly. NOT SYMBOLIC

Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Colossians 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Evidence #6 - In baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is real, it is regenerative, it is salvific, NOT JUST SYMBOLIC. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

I am sure you would like to bring this verse up saying that good thief was never baptized. But there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Show me any symbolic language in references to baptism. They do not exist. Like I said, protestants ignore the true meaning of these verses to claim support for their false doctrine of sola fida. But note, there are some protestants who do believe in baptism in a regenerative way. So is your "sola scriptura" interpretation of the bible "better" than theirs? And how do you know?

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

This should be interesting, good post Hoser

I will add this...One of the basic rules of Bible interpretation, is if something is only stated once, it might be taken figuratively. But, if it is repeated two or more times times, it is to be taken literally.

 

[Chief117]

I'm glad you brought this up too. I've had a hard time lately with viewing baptism as only symbolic. I don't think it is any longer--and mostly for the very reasons you have posted here. It is a very real thing--we die with Christ and are resurrected with Him, and are thus a new creation.

I'm curious to know about the root of the "baptism is only symbolic" ideaology.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Evidence #5 - This puts a big hole in protestants belief of "Faith Alone" which is why I suspect they pretend that baptism is only symbolic. In addition to believing (faith), one must be baptized (a work) as stated so clearly. NOT SYMBOLIC

This does not, nor anything else in all the Bible, come close to "putting a hole" in the doctrine of "Faith Alone." Baptism is not a work. Works refers to things people do in order to be justified--in order to earn salvation. When a Christian does good to others, loves strangers, gives to the community and does good "works", he is doing a good thing. When he does it in order to earn justification from God, to gain favor in the Lord's eyes, or to "cover up" other sins, he is clearly in the wrong.

Baptism is part of the bridge that sinners cross in order to become Christians. What must one do to be saved? Be baptized, believe in your heart that Jesus is the Lord, Divine, and Resurrected from the Dead, and confess it with your mouth. At that point, you are justified by God's grace alone. That is what the whole book of Romans is about.

You CANNOT read the Bible and still honestly say it says "Faith plus Works." That concept was human invention, and it is but a shame that your church still believes it.

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

I am sure you would like to bring this verse up saying that good thief was never baptized. But there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

I've always wondered where this line of thinking came from. If you were to look at the Scriptures, think about the Event, and then look at your belief, there is a clear hole in the foundation of the comment. Jesus made the comment upon the cross, and since no one--not even the apostles--would have made it up to the Lord and asked, "Lord, what did you mean by Paradise?" Since no one asked, I guarantee that no one earth really knows the true meaning. The other stuff you've mentioned is planted by the Catholic Church.

Perhaps it was the thief's faith alone that saved him. And, since you pointed out that he was "baptised" as well, we don't even need to argue that point.

Show me any symbolic language in references to baptism. They do not exist. Like I said, protestants ignore the true meaning of these verses to claim support for their false doctrine of sola fida. But note, there are some protestants who do believe in baptism in a regenerative way. So is your "sola scriptura" interpretation of the bible "better" than theirs? And how do you know?

I agree, I don't see any basis to say that baptism is merely symbolic. But, for the record, I also don't agree with how your church conducts it either. The Baptism itself should be an act of acceptance. Baptism at birth doesn't make sense because the child is incapable of knowing what he/she is doing. Baptism is also an act of acceptance--much like a jailer who chooses to accept the Lord as savior, or the people of Israel coming to John to profess their repentance and to be cleansed.

Again, the attack on sola fida (faith alone for those who didn't know) by the Catholic Church can only be construed as an arrogant denial of Scripture. The New Testament says time and time and time again that we are saved by God's grace alone, and that faith alone is required to receive it.

The better question is, "what is faith?" There's a question I think many would enjoy discussing. The Bible says true faith is characterized by obeying God and doing outward things, such as helping people. Doing these deeds/works does not earn justification, we already have it, rather it is doing these things that separate us from the demons.

Even the demons believe in God and Christ--and shudder. Our faith is to be more. How can it be more than that of the demons? By obeying His commands and through living a self-less life that uplifts, encourages, helps, and heals our neighbors.

No one knows everything about the Bible. We are all taught. In many cases, peoples' knowledge is based solely on someone's perspective (no different from Catholic perspective, as they base all their belief off of papal authority). Only Jesus knew everything. Even Peter and Paul and the apostles were wrong at times (its in the Bible)--no one knows everything about God's word. But by working together we build each other up and help each other to grow.

Is the regenerative way of thinking "better?" You make it sound as if we might view ourselves as mightier or holier. That line of thinking isn't Christian, so, no, I wouldn't believe that my way is any of those things. Rather, I would urge all readers to study baptism in the Bible. There is much reason to believe that it is more than symbolic.

God Bless.

 

[InquisitorKind]

Ezekiel 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

Evidence #1 - Forshadowing from the Old Testament of baptism. Notice, through the water AND Holy Spirit a persons "uncleannessess" will be cleansed. This is referring to sins being removed through baptism just as the New Testament teaches. NOT SYMBOLIC

This is a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between symbolic and regenerative, since you can view baptism as a means of significant grace without viewing it as forgiving sins.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This passage isn't conclusive regarding baptismal regeneration. Matthew 3:11 uses the same word eis ("for") in a way that denotes "because of", not "to attain". In other words, Acts 2:38 can be read as "because of the forgiveness of your sins", just as Matthew 3:11 is.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Is there anything in the context of Acts 22:16 that suggests baptism is to be tied with the washing of sins? Since the text can also be read equally as conveying the meaning of the calling producing the washing of sins, the burden of proof is on the baptismal regeneration advocate to demonstrate his position as correct.

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

There are many references in the Scriptures of people being washed and cleansed and it not referring to baptism (Psalms 51:2, Ephesians 5:26, etc.). What necessitates that this passage is referring to physical baptism?

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Titus 3:5 begins with stating that our being saved is "not because of works done by us in righteousness". Why, then, would the author immediately state that the work of physical baptism would be necessary to be cleansed by God?

1 Peter 3:21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Since Peter states elsewhere in his epistle that these people were justified through their response to the word of God (1 Peter 1:3-5 and 1:23-25), Peter is addressing the sanctification of these believers, not their justification.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The textual evidence strongly suggests that Mark 16:16 is not to be included as part of the original Gospel of Mark.

Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Colossians 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Not all passages that speak of baptism refer specifically to the physical baptism of the body. There are other kinds of baptism (e.g. John 1:33 and 1 Corinthians 10:2). What necessitates that in these passages Paul is referring to the act of physical baptism?

Like I said, protestants ignore the true meaning of these verses to claim support for their false doctrine of sola fida.

Sola Fide is supported by a large number of Scriptures (Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Timothy 1:9, Philippians 3:9, Romans 4:3, Mark 2:5, Genesis 15:6, Acts 10:44-48, Romans 5:1-2, Romans 11:6, etc.); the idea that there is not a single work that needs to be done in order to be justified before God is not only Biblical--it's the Gospel. To the contrary, adhering to baptismal regeneration involves reading large assumptions into a variety of texts and straining them out of their original context in order to add human effort to the sufficiently justifying work of Jesus Christ.

But note, there are some protestants who do believe in baptism in a regenerative way. So is your "sola scriptura" interpretation of the bible "better" than theirs? And how do you know?

How do you know that your fallible interpretation of your denomination's infallible teachings is better than those Catholics that disagree with you on what Catholicism teaches? How do you come to any reasonable conclusion about religious matters? Just as you might research the evidence, consult teachers, scholars, reliable authorities, primary sources, etc., so would Protestants.

~Matt

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

You CANNOT read the Bible and still honestly say it says "Faith plus Works." That concept was human invention, and it is but a shame that your church still believes it.



I've always wondered where this line of thinking came from. If you were to look at the Scriptures, think about the Event, and then look at your belief, there is a clear hole in the foundation of the comment. Jesus made the comment upon the cross, and since no one--not even the apostles--would have made it up to the Lord and asked, "Lord, what did you mean by Paradise?" Since no one asked, I guarantee that no one earth really knows the true meaning. The other stuff you've mentioned is planted by the Catholic Church.

Perhaps it was the thief's faith alone that saved him. And, since you pointed out that he was "baptised" as well, we don't even need to argue that point.



I agree, I don't see any basis to say that baptism is merely symbolic. But, for the record, I also don't agree with how your church conducts it either. The Baptism itself should be an act of acceptance. Baptism at birth doesn't make sense because the child is incapable of knowing what he/she is doing. Baptism is also an act of acceptance--much like a jailer who chooses to accept the Lord as savior, or the people of Israel coming to John to profess their repentance and to be cleansed.

Again, the attack on sola fida (faith alone for those who didn't know) by the Catholic Church can only be construed as an arrogant denial of Scripture. The New Testament says time and time and time again that we are saved by God's grace alone, and that faith alone is required to receive it.

None of the stuff you mentioned above has been planted by the Catholic Church. It is merely handed down through Apostolistic succession and tradition.

You say you don't believe in infant baptism. What about those babies that die before being baptised? I am not sure how old you are or if you are married or not. But I would just guess that you would like to get married and have kids some day. Are you telling me that you would hold your newborn baby from this baptism? Jesus didn't say leave the babies behind did he? He baptised whole households. So what makes you think a baby wasn't included in that bunch? I am not arguing with you as you are entitled to your belief and I respect that. But just curious...

If we are guilty of this "arrogant denial of scripture." Then you and every other sola-fide believer is too. "The New Testament says time and time and time again that we are saved by God's grace alone, and that faith alone is required to receive it."

This is true but it is one verse. I can show you many verses that show otherwise, but sola-fide is guilty of "arrogant denial of scripture" as you are failing the scripture that says "Faith without works is dead..."

Why do you throw those verses out? If anyone is guilty, it should be the people who willfully pick and choose scripture that suits them best and throw out the verses that don't apply to them. BTW, Catholics don't believe works will gain you any better standing with God. For it is "Faith + Works + Grace" that

The better question is, "what is faith?" There's a question I think many would enjoy discussing. The Bible says true faith is characterized by obeying God and doing outward things, such as helping people. Doing these deeds/works does not earn justification, we already have it, rather it is doing these things that separate us from the demons.

Even the demons believe in God and Christ--and shudder. Our faith is to be more. How can it be more than that of the demons? By obeying His commands and through living a self-less life that uplifts, encourages, helps, and heals our neighbors.

No one knows everything about the Bible. We are all taught. In many cases, peoples' knowledge is based solely on someone's perspective (no different from Catholic perspective, as they base all their belief off of papal authority). Only Jesus knew everything. Even Peter and Paul and the apostles were wrong at times (its in the Bible)--no one knows everything about God's word. But by working together we build each other up and help each other to grow.

Is the regenerative way of thinking "better?" You make it sound as if we might view ourselves as mightier or holier. That line of thinking isn't Christian, so, no, I wouldn't believe that my way is any of those things. Rather, I would urge all readers to study baptism in the Bible. There is much reason to believe that it is more than symbolic.

God Bless.

I would believe something the Church said with the Pope's authority before believing a sola-fide scripture Church. Personal interpretation cannot be left to amateur's (which I am one). One person's sin to create fallacies will only compound and multiply in the people they teach those fallacies to.

I don't think he was viewing you or anyone else as mightier or holier. He is showing proof that Baptism is not symbolic.

I agree, everyone needs to read and study Baptism and other things to get a better understanding. Thankyou for your post and your insight into how you are starting to see Baptism more than a symbol.

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

InquisitorKind
How do you know that your fallible interpretation of your denomination's infallible teachings is better than those Catholics that disagree with you on what Catholicism teaches? How do you come to any reasonable conclusion about religious matters? Just as you might research the evidence, consult teachers, scholars, reliable authorities, primary sources, etc., so would Protestants.

~Matt

Matt, how do you know your personal interpretation next to another persons personal interpretation is correct? You question us on this. But I am failing to see your reasoning with your own church (whatever that may be as you are Protestant). What if there is a large group of people in a room at your church arguing on this? Who has the "final" authority to what is true and correct? Trust me, I have seen it first hand in a Protestant church as people were arguing over this and no one knew the answer. People left even more confused than when they got there. That is just great, so people left frustrated because no one knew the answer.

That is the beauty of the Catholic Church. You have a problem in interpreting scripture. Go to the Church and ask.

Remember, God gave us Free Will to believe in him or not. He did not give us the free will to personal interpretation of scripture

 

[Bingle]

Ezekiel 36:25

This verse has nothing to do with New Testament physical baptism. In the New Testament people didn't get sprinkled they got dunked!!! (Show me if I'm wrong)


Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It all depends where you put the bold.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

This has always been the command of God, repent and be baptized. Just because the order of this verse is different doesn't mean that baptism is washing away sin all of a sudden. Christ's blood does the washing when we put our faith in him.

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Sorry, New testament Baptism is dunking. This is talking about sanctification anyway.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Titus 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Here I should interject that there are three baptisms. Two spiritual baptisms and one physical baptism. These verses are talking about neither lol. They are talking about salvation by grace through faith.

1 Peter 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1 Peter 3:21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

This I believe refers to that spiritual baptism wherein the Holy Ghost baptizes us into the mystical body of Christ. Not my preacher.
1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Notice carefully how this verse is written. Most professing lost Christians these days say they are saved but refuse to be baptized. God writes this verse perfectly for such people. He says that belief is what keeps us from being damned. (look at it people!!!) I believe given the opportunity and the right teaching, a true child of God obeys the Lord in baptism.

Romans 6:4,Galatians 3:27,Colossians 2:12

These all are referring to the Holy Spirit's baptising us into the body of Christ at salvation.


If baptism saves please explain why Paul thought it wasn't part of the gospel.

1 Cor 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.

 

[PaladinValer]

Bingle, Fallacy of Equivocation.

Baptist doesn't equate to Baptism. There were no "Baptists" before the Reformation.

 

[Theophorus]

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

I am sure you would like to bring this verse up saying that good thief was never baptized. But there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

There is traditionally a baptism of blood, also. Christ alludes to it in Mat 20:22 and Luke 12:50.

 

[billychum]

If it's not symbolic, then what is it?
Billy <><

 

[Bulldog]

Matt, how do you know your personal interpretation next to another persons personal interpretation is correct? You question us on this. But I am failing to see your reasoning with your own church (whatever that may be as you are Protestant). What if there is a large group of people in a room at your church arguing on this? Who has the "final" authority to what is true and correct? Trust me, I have seen it first hand in a Protestant church as people were arguing over this and no one knew the answer. People left even more confused than when they got there. That is just great, so people left frustrated because no one knew the answer.

You missed his point. Even in Catholicism, you still have fallible people making an inteprretation of "infallible" church tradition and teaching. This also causes squables and debates.

 

[Stinker]

Ezekiel 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

Evidence #1 - Forshadowing from the Old Testament of baptism. Notice, through the water AND Holy Spirit a persons "uncleannessess" will be cleansed. This is referring to sins being removed through baptism just as the New Testament teaches. NOT SYMBOLIC

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'
Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Evidence #2 - Being Baptised forgives sins as scripture plainly states. NOT SYMBOLIC

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Titus 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Evidence #3 - Washing and pouring represents the baptismal water. NOT SYMBOLIC

1 Peter 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1 Peter 3:21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Evidence #4 - Baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Noah and his family were saved by water as we are in the New Covenant. NOT SYMBOLIC

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Evidence #5 - This puts a big hole in protestants belief of "Faith Alone" which is why I suspect they pretend that baptism is only symbolic. In addition to believing (faith), one must be baptized (a work) as stated so clearly. NOT SYMBOLIC

Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Colossians 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Evidence #6 - In baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is real, it is regenerative, it is salvific, NOT JUST SYMBOLIC. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

I am sure you would like to bring this verse up saying that good thief was never baptized. But there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Show me any symbolic language in references to baptism. They do not exist. Like I said, protestants ignore the true meaning of these verses to claim support for their false doctrine of sola fida. But note, there are some protestants who do believe in baptism in a regenerative way. So is your "sola scriptura" interpretation of the bible "better" than theirs? And how do you know?

Water baptism (immersion Rom.6:4-5) by itself does not wash away sins. It is just that water baptism is the only vehicle that God uses to transport our souls into Christ where our souls are washed clean by His blood......

"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." (Eph.1:7)

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal.3:27)



The reason that Ananias said to Paul; "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16) is because water baptism is so closely linked to Christ's blood, which actually does the 'washing away' of sins. It is called a 'figure of speech' .

 

[BBAS 64]

Matt, how do you know your personal interpretation next to another persons personal interpretation is correct? You question us on this. But I am failing to see your reasoning with your own church (whatever that may be as you are Protestant). What if there is a large group of people in a room at your church arguing on this? Who has the "final" authority to what is true and correct? Trust me, I have seen it first hand in a Protestant church as people were arguing over this and no one knew the answer. People left even more confused than when they got there. That is just great, so people left frustrated because no one knew the answer.

That is the beauty of the Catholic Church. You have a problem in interpreting scripture. Go to the Church and ask.

Remember, God gave us Free Will to believe in him or not. He did not give us the free will to personal interpretation of scripture

Good Day, Wild_Fan4Christ

I suppose one could go and ask the sticky point is they really do not know. Now they can qualify their answers with many presuposions that they feel are germaine, but in a literal sense of what the Scripture says or what the writter meant they are not sure.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Continuing in the next sentence, Brown says, “Moreover, church interpretations of Scripture in Roman Catholicism are affected by qualifications laid out in reference to church teaching in general which have the effect of recognizing historical conditioning.” Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 31-32.

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[mesue]

Show me any symbolic language in references to baptism.

We agree Jesus was sinless, yes?

2 Corintians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Where is His sin to be cleansed?
Why, then, was He baptized? As a symbol, perhaps?

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

[Chief117]

None of the stuff you mentioned above has been planted by the Catholic Church. It is merely handed down through Apostolistic succession and tradition.

Exactly what I meant. The interpretations and beliefs of early church fathers should be taken into careful consideration, but in no way does their belief or tradition supersede scripture. The Catholic belief that their papal interpretation of the Bible is infallible is absurd and requires you to overlook several Bible passages in order to accept it. I'll find some examples showing how the apostles could and did err--opening the door to the idea that even your "infallible" papal authority can be wrong--and showing that the WHOLE catholic church at that time worked together as a united whole to strive.

Summed up: tradition doesn't necessitate truth. Resting all your faith on a single human authority can and will lead you astray--I beg you to pray and read the Bible.

You say you don't believe in infant baptism. What about those babies that die before being baptised? I am not sure how old you are or if you are married or not. But I would just guess that you would like to get married and have kids some day. Are you telling me that you would hold your newborn baby from this baptism? Jesus didn't say leave the babies behind did he? He baptised whole households. So what makes you think a baby wasn't included in that bunch? I am not arguing with you as you are entitled to your belief and I respect that. But just curious...

Jesus always takes children to heaven. Regardless of anything. Would you suggest that an unborn child dieing (by miscarriage or abortion) would not go to heaven? Most certainly he would. Children are the special case.

I don't have children, but I did get married just last week! If I were to describe my hopes for them, they would be baptized around the age of 6. This is an age that allows for my wife and I to teach them about Jesus, and they are capable enough to know of their love and desire to Jesus' will. They will choose to accept Christ. I will not allow them to be baptized not knowing what it means, only to grow up and abuse it before they know what they're doing.

If we are guilty of this "arrogant denial of scripture." Then you and every other sola-fide believer is too. "The New Testament says time and time and time again that we are saved by God's grace alone, and that faith alone is required to receive it."

This is true but it is one verse. I can show you many verses that show otherwise, but sola-fide is guilty of "arrogant denial of scripture" as you are failing the scripture that says "Faith without works is dead..."

one verse? one verse? There are probably closer to 20 verses that say that faith alone saves us, and work is not required. THE ONLY verse that I am aware of that even suggests faith plus works, and that is James 2:14-26.

However, James here is not arguing for works as a means of earning salvation. He is arguing for "what is real [legitimate] faith?" Legitimate faith is one characterized by works, but the works themselves do not earn you salvation. One kind of faith, mere belief, is the same faith as the demons. These will not inherit the kingdom of God. Another kind of faith, legitimate faith, fills a person with the holy spirit which leads them to a desire to do good for the common man.

The works characterize the faith and separate it from a dead faith. The works themselves do not earn you salvation. James is not disagreeing with Paul in Romans, he is taking the idea a bit further.

Why do you throw those verses out? If anyone is guilty, it should be the people who willfully pick and choose scripture that suits them best and throw out the verses that don't apply to them. BTW, Catholics don't believe works will gain you any better standing with God. For it is "Faith + Works + Grace" that

Throw them out? Nope. Never. I don't pick and choose. The Bible is not self-contradictive. Catholics are one of the most guilty parties of this accusation. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a "thing" against Catholics. There are millions of people out there with the completely wrong idea and many are guilty of this accusation. However, with the Lord as my authority, I lead my life Biblically, and by my faith I am a member of the true, catholic church.

I'd quote some passages, but I just woke up so I'll have to jump back in this thread later. Let it be said though, that "Faith +Grace" alone saves us. The faith without deeds is dead, but the deeds do not earn us salvation, they merely separate us from the demons. This also separates us from those who idly sit in church and say, "Hey I'm resting secure in salvation and I don't have to do a thing about it."

I would believe something the Church said with the Pope's authority before believing a sola-fide scripture Church. Personal interpretation cannot be left to amateur's (which I am one). One person's sin to create fallacies will only compound and multiply in the people they teach those fallacies to.

The only thing I wish to say to you is this: amateur or not, you have the Holy spirit and more than fully capable to understand and interpret the Bible. These things are spiritually discerned, revealed by the Holy Spirit, not by a papal authority. They have just as much (if not more) room for error than many true Christian Protestants.

Funny about this compounding/multiplying comment. You know, the very apostles who spent all their time with Jesus were not always right--not even Peter, who you must view as infallible since he was your first pope, and the papal authority according to you is infallible. Acts has a couple examples of how the church was expanding, and the apostles worked together to decide interpretations and courses of action. Peter wasn't always the final authority. In fact, in Acts 15, it was James who passed final judgment (over both Peter and Paul). There is also a very high chance that this was not James the apostle, as I believe he was already killed by Herod, but rather, James Jesus' brother. Funny a non-apostle might have this authority.

Peter was once wrong, and Paul had to confront him about his actions. The early, catholic church (the root of all present-day Christianity, and not the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church) was characterized by their unity, working together and instructing each other. None was greater than another. Yet, their ability and inclination to err and produce fallacies did not prevent any church from obtaining the New Testament, nor did it prevent the church from expanding.

 

[InquisitorKind]

What if there is a large group of people in a room at your church arguing on this? Who has the "final" authority to what is true and correct?

The truth is already out there. The issue isn't who has the "final authority" to determine what is true. Rather, the issue is what that truth is. In the end, it will be you alone, not your denomination, that stands before God to make an account for all of the Biblical interpretations you hold, for better or for worse.

Trust me, I have seen it first hand in a Protestant church as people were arguing over this and no one knew the answer. People left even more confused than when they got there. That is just great, so people left frustrated because no one knew the answer.

I have seen the same thing with large groups of Catholics, even on issues that should be clear within Catholicism, such as when a group of Catholics I used to be involved in was actively debating whether or not homosexual relationships were sin. To make things even more confusing, the priest was advocating homosexual relationships, but I don't take this example as representative of the norm. Your example of confusion isn't representative of the whole, and neither is mine; since I don't generalize from the particulars, neither should you.

He did not give us the free will to personal interpretation of scripture

There's nothing in the Scriptures which state that. Also, have you ever looked at passages like Matthew 5:1-12 and tried to figure out the meaning for yourself? If you have, you've used "personal interpretation" to determine the meaning of the text.

~Matt

 

[SumTinWong]

Bingle, Fallacy of Equivocation.

Baptist doesn't equate to Baptism. There were no "Baptists" before the Reformation.

I am a Baptist and I agree with PV. The Trail of Blood is a rabbit trail IMHO.

 

[Gold Dragon]

As a baptist who does question both the traditional baptist positions of symbolic baptism and communion, what is the Catholic response to Jesus' words to the thief who died beside him without baptism?

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Now that the thief's faith was initiated, wouldn't he wanted to have been baptized?
2. The Resurrection hadn't happened yet. The New Covenant between God and the world through Himself hadn't started yet. Thus, the Church hadn't been founded yet, and thus, no one yet could be baptized into the Church and into His Mystical Body.

 

[Borealis]

You missed his point. Even in Catholicism, you still have fallible people making an inteprretation of "infallible" church tradition and teaching. This also causes squables and debates.

Except that the Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit; they are not permitted to be incorrect in matters of faith and morals, as promised by Christ when he stated that the church was the pillar and foundation of truth.