Posted on 05/09/2013 2:17:35 PM PDT by NYer
“One size does not fit all. We know that for some water baptism is not required for some, but that does not mean it is not required for others. Presumption is every bit as much of a sin against hope as is despair.”
An illogical position, since you state that baptism is required while presuming that those verses which indicate salvation without water baptism are simply exceptions to your rule, a rule that is simply not found in the scripture if read without the prism of Catholic theology.
You also ignore the scriptures which utterly refute the concept since, as has been shown before, salvation depends upon the Will of God. Therefore, if it is by the will of God, predestinated before the foundation of the world, it cannot be upon a baptism of water, or any other carnal act, since those can only be the “willing” and “running” of God Himself, and not the “willing” and “running” of the individual, who is chosen by Christ but yet did not choose Christ.
“I can’t believe that you are saying these words, rejecting the Scriptures that you build sola scriptura on.”
Please see my post to the other fellow. I did not concede that Roman Catholic theology is found in the scripture. My argument is, that if sacraments dispense grace or the Holy Spirit (only grace is taught in the scripture), then it ought to have the power that the scripture ascribes to it (that is, to grace, or the Holy Spirit). Since baptizing children in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit still leaves half, or even more of them, as the children of Satan, who have no real advantage over the unbaptized in terms of holy living and coming to belief in Christ, then this proves that there is no spiritual regeneration at work in a mere baptism by water.
“It is damning of the people who leave the One Holy Apostolic Church to pursue their own theological fantasies.”
“But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.” (Augustine, A
Treatise On The Predestination of the Saints, Chapt. 38)
Did Saint Augustine fantasize all of this teaching from scripture?
**The sacraments, as they exist in Catholicism, do not exist in the scripture.**
Oh, but they do!
“Why or why would you want to rejct the power of the priest given in his ordination (another Sacrament).”
I don’t reject the power of the Priest, since I myself am a Priest and a King in the sight of God, as is every member of the elect (Rev 5, 1 Peter 2). I simply deny the power of carnal works to facilitate Grace, since grace is the free and unmerited gift of God.
Grace is, by definition, the unmerited favor of God on sinners. It is utterly independent of all works, which cannot add to it or take away from it without destroying its very meaning.
Rom_11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
One cannot “obtain” grace, since that’s the same thing as saying that you are justified by works, because your works are what succeeded in “earning” grace. But grace is always unmerited:
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Eph_1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Or as Augustine says:
“We know that God’s grace is not given to all men. To those to whom it is given it is given neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of the will, but by free grace. To those to whom it is not given we know that it is because of God’s righteous judgment that it is not given.”
Augustine - On Rebuke and Grace
You cannot “cooperate” with grace, because that is the same thing as saying that unmerited grace depends on you retaining your merits.
Rom_4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Therefore grace cannot be hindered or supported by works. While the scripture teaches that we ought to work out our salvation, a sentence later it says that it is God who works in us both to will and to do:
Php 2:12-13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Isa_26:12 LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.
Salvation, therefore, is the entire work of God from start to finish. Both works and faith must bow to the will of God who chose us, not because He foresaw we would do good, but so that we would do good, as the Bishop of Hippo explained in my previous post to the other fellow.
That people might receive the sacrament and the sacrament may work to their damnation we see right from the Holy Scripture, 1 Cor. 11:29.
Predestination has nothing to do with it.
“”Do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.” (Acts 2:38)”
Let me fix this mischievous Catholic quote. The proper translation is repentance, not Catholic penance, which implies doing works to make up for a sin (sin is made up for by Christ’s perfect work on the cross, and cannot be bought by human action).
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The word is metanoeo, defined thusly:
1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence
of one’s past sins
And to be baptized in the name of Jesus means to take on His religion, to accept Him as lawgiver, to embrace His religion, as Christ teaches that:
Joh_11:26 ... whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Those who are baptized are not saved by baptism, but are rather those who were saved by the direct intervention of God who predestinated them before the world began:
Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Therefore belief and works cannot be attributed to man, but to the God who “wills and works in them to do.”
“That people might receive the sacrament and the sacrament may work to their damnation we see right from the Holy Scripture, 1 Cor. 11:29.
Predestination has nothing to do with it.”
Predestination has everything to do with it, because it takes away the worth or unworthiness of the individual who eats or drinks and places it on the sovereign will of God who makes a man worthy or leaves Him to be unworthy.
This predestination IS the plan of God to give His grace to those who do not deserve it. What you must do is break away from the Catholic definition, which speaks of so many graces as if it were an inanimate object to be dispensed and then either lost or found by those fortunate enough to go through physical gestures or to chew with their teeth or be sprinkled as a child when they did not even believe (and the scriptures say, one must BELIEVE and be baptized, and those who BELIEVE not are damned. Why then is belief taken out of the equation altogether by the Catholics?). Salvation either belongs in the hand of God, or it belongs in the hand of men, it cannot be both, and the scripture testifies of the former.
Cornelius and his family are not the norm, but the exception that proves the norm. Meaning, Peter and those with him were shocked to see that the Holy Ghost came upon Cornelius because he was Gentile and not Jew.
It was because of this that Gentiles were accepted as believers.
But, Scripture notes that immediately following, Cornelius and his family were baptized. Peter says, how could we deny or forbid water that they should not be baptized. In other words, who are we to deny them the saving waters of baptism if the Spirit has chosen to come to them?
So, clearly, Peter would not have baptized Cornelius without having first witnessed the Holy Ghost coming to him.
God is not bound by human actions, but humans are bound by God’s commands. Jesus says one must be baptized and that is the norm, but there are exceptions which only God can make.
“Cornelius and his family are not the norm, but the exception that proves the norm.”
....
“But, Scripture notes that immediately following, Cornelius and his family were baptized.”
If water baptism imputes the Holy Spirit, as Francis claims, then the water baptism that followed after the infilling/baptism of the Holy Spirit is redundant. The Holy Spirit already fell on them, thus demonstrating that they were regenerated, washed, and made clean by the power of God already. If, on the other hand, the purpose of baptism is the first act of a convert publicly confessing His inward faith and determination to follow God, then it is logical that it should be done either way, as it is the entry way to public membership in the body of Christ, a fact that is already secured by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit done (normally, in our age) invisibly.
Peter was not surprised at it, but the Jews were, as Peter had already been told that salvation should be to the Gentiles also. It was not to convince Peter to baptize them, since he already had the commands of God backing him up. If water baptism is necessary for salvation, then the rule should be kept on every occasion. If the “rule” is broken so easily at the whim of God, it is more likely that your rule is a figment of your imagination.
Rules are from God and of God and for man. Man does not hold God to account, but is rather held to account by God.
That being said....
The norm is that one receives the Holy Spirit for the first time in baptism, but obviously there are instances in Scripture where that is not the case.
In the upper room, following His resurrection, Jesus breathes on the Apostles and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” and yet the Holy Spirit comes upon them at Pentecost as well.
In baptism, one is born again, into a new life with Christ, becoming the temple of the Holy Spirit. One is also cleansed of all sin and becomes a child of God.
“Rules are from God and of God and for man. Man does not hold God to account, but is rather held to account by God.”
A statement which hurts your position, because if God is not bound to come upon the person who is or isn’t baptized in water, then it is the same thing as saying that the physical act has no power over God at all. The Roman Catholic position is that spiritual graces are dependent on Roman Catholic sacraments.
“In baptism, one is born again, into a new life with Christ, becoming the temple of the Holy Spirit. One is also cleansed of all sin and becomes a child of God.”
Since your arguments about Peter needing to be convinced were refuted, the basis of your argument is founded entirely upon Roman Catholic theology outside of scripture. As has been shown in other posts, salvation is by the sovereign will of God, and it is this understanding which explains why God is able to save Cornelius or the Thief on the cross prior or even without water baptism entirely. God is not bound to the actions of men, but rather moves according to His own grace and purpose given to us before the world began. There are no “exceptions” to this system, only wonderful rules which declare that salvation is of the LORD.
“In the upper room, following His resurrection, Jesus breathes on the Apostles and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” and yet the Holy Spirit comes upon them at Pentecost as well.”
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Peter states they had received the Holy Ghost in the same way they have. Unless you believe that the Holy Spirit only stays with the believer temporarily, or that the Holy Spirit filling a man is not the same as His being regenerated and baptized by the Spirit as promised by Christ Himself?
As for previously, it is clear that there is a tremendous difference between the Apostles before and after Pentecost. Before Pentecost, there were things they could not even understand. Even Peter played the coward and denied Christ three times. Yet, after Pentecost, that same Peter is boldly declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament period, the Holy Spirit’s presence with the individual was dependent and temporary. In the New Testament period, the Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence in the believer.
“he does not harp on water, but harps on being born again ‘in the spirit.’”
How do you know what His emphasis was? You can’t just lightly dismiss Christ’s plain, straightforward word about the necessity of water baptism. Since we disagree, who is the authority we can go to to resolve our differing opinions?
I don’t understand this response in 9, you’ll have to be more specific.
“How do you know what His emphasis was?”
Joh 3:5-15 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (9) Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? (10) Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (11) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. (12) If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (13) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: (15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Because, right afterwards, Christ discusses entirely on being born again in the Spirit, on the nature of the Spirit, and the necessity of faith in Himself. In Christ’s sense, to be born of water is to be entirely converted, as that is what the Jews understood baptism to be. Not that the water itself led to spiritual results. This latter conclusion would force one to utterly ignore Christ’s constant emphasis on spiritual regeneration, real fruits of the Spirit wrought by God, throughout the Gospels.
“Since we disagree, who is the authority we can go to to resolve our differing opinions?”
Spiritual truths can only be understood spiritually. Therefore, until the Holy Spirit reveals it to you, you will not believe the scriptures which declare that salvation is entirely the work of God.
1Co_2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
“I don’t understand this response in 9, you’ll have to be more specific.”
I suggest reading through all my posts in this thread as one single argument, this way I won’t have to go over the same thing multiple times.
No, my position is completely supported. God is not bound to come upon the person who is or isn’t baptized in water. God says to man, I will do this and you must do that. God makes promises which HE keeps and man is called to obey God’s commands. So, God is bound by HIMSELF and not man.
It’s not complicated.
You are correct, I should not have included Peter as one who was shocked, but that does not negate the fact that Cornelius is being used here as a lesson to the others. Remember, that Peter had just seen the vision when he was called to go to Cornelius and was not sure why.
So, okay, he wasn’t shocked. More like he was a little unsure. Cornelius was the first of the Gentiles. Peter needed to be shown God’s intent, which was made known to him first through the vision, then through Cornelius.
One cannot describe baptism as “the actions of men” without affirming that that very action was commanded by God. The Apostles and the Church did not invent baptism, nor do they command God to come upon one being baptized. The Apostles and the Church obey what they were commanded.
_____________________________________________________
Peter states they had received the Holy Ghost in the same way they have. Unless you believe that the Holy Spirit only stays with the believer temporarily, or that the Holy Spirit filling a man is not the same as His being regenerated and baptized by the Spirit as promised by Christ Himself?
As for previously, it is clear that there is a tremendous difference between the Apostles before and after Pentecost. Before Pentecost, there were things they could not even understand. Even Peter played the coward and denied Christ three times. Yet, after Pentecost, that same Peter is boldly declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
_____________________________________________________
This is all a red herring.
Did Peter and the others receive the Holy Spirit twice? If not, what did they receive when Jesus breathed upon him? Because Jesus said receive the Holy Spirit.
Why were they only changed men at Pentecost and not after receiving the Holy Spirit in the upper room 40 days before?
This is what happens when one reads Scripture a verse at a time instead of seeing the whole picture. What one has with this method of eisegesis is a small piece of the puzzle which could be anything or nothing according to the one handling the piece.
The Church fits the pieces together under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit to form a cohesive theology rooted in Scripture so that her doctrines are sound and not subject to piecemeal confusion.
__________________________________________________
In the Old Testament period, the Holy Spirit’s presence with the individual was dependent and temporary. In the New Testament period, the Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence in the believer.
___________________________________________________
Jesus said, If you abide in me, I will abide in you. Or as some translate it, If you remain in me, I will remain in you. What happens if one decides to no longer abide/remain in Jesus?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.