The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[count-your-change]

Baptism of a person is not a contract with parents and others. Thanks, but we just can’t find little children or infants being baptized in the Scriptures.

[Jvette]

Yea, nice try.

That is not what this passage says...another example of reading into Scripture what one first believes.

Paul here couldn’t be more timely even though he wrote nearly two thousand years ago.

Let’s substitute the words circumcision and uncircumcision for believer and unbeliever, or even baptized and unbaptized.

If the baptized believer does not live righteously then their baptism becomes like an outward thing that has not changed them inwardly. So that an unbeliever/unbaptized man who does live righteously will look at the unrighteous believer and condemn them.

What do we see and hear and read now all over the media from atheists and those of other faiths? That Christians are not living their Christianity, they are lip service, outward Christians but not inward Christians.

They then wonder, why be a Christian? And they say, why believe in God? I am a good person without Him. I live righteously without Him?

But, it is not the life we have here that we live for, it the life we wish to share with Him forever that we live for here today.

[metmom]

Circumcision doesn’t save and baptism doesn’t save.

Being born of water is physical birth.

Without the shedding of blood, there is NO forgiveness of sins. Washing the body with water doesn’t do it. There’s no blood involved.

[metmom]

OK. So anyone who is baptized is saved. It doesn’t matter what they do after that then, does it?

If they’re in, they’re in.

[metmom]

If the baptized believer does not live righteously then their baptism becomes like an outward thing that has not changed them inwardly. So that an unbeliever/unbaptized man who does live righteously will look at the unrighteous believer and condemn them.

OK, so baptism DOESN'T save after all.

Now it's righteous living that saves someone. After all, Paul also said...Romans 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

It's really about the heart after all then, isn't it and not the outward actions.

[daniel1212]

there are wheat and tares within the Church, just as there are wheat and tares in what the world percieves in the “Christian world”

Which destroys your analogy that places the tares outside the Catholic Church.

there is only One Church in the NT, that Church existed in the 2nd century, 3rd century and every year, month, day, minute and second ever since.

Which you hold to be the RCC, but which presupposes that her definition of herself as uniquely being the One True Church® is true, the assurance of which is based upon the premise of her infallibly declared assured infallibility, under which tradition, Scripture and history can be infallible declared as supporting her. If not, what is the basis for your assurance that Rome is what she claims?

now, the real question is can you be a Christian and not be part of the visible Church?

No, but restricting this to Rome is dependent upon the the above premise, versus the church of the living God being established upon supernaturally established Scriptures as the supreme authority.

And which does not testify to such things as pastors called priests being a separate sacerdotal class, much less required celibacy (with rare exceptions), or praying to the departed, or assured perpetual formulaic infallibility as per Rome, or that regeneration cannot precede baptism, nor to an exalted magistrate in Rome to whom all the churches were directed to look to, etc.*

And that warns against such exaltation, (Jude 1:11; Rv. 2:15) and never mentions any successors to the original apostles (such James: Acts 12:2) besides Judas, he being elected to preserve the foundational twelve apostles, (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14) and that by lots, preventing political maneuverings and things that resulted in extended absences and men being chosen who were not even qualified to be church members, let alone successors to Peter.

Note that the church began in dissent from the magisterium of the entity that was the instrument and steward of Divine revelation, and possessors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuity, and valid historical decent, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; cf. Mt. 23:2 etc.) and thus they opposed the Itinerant Preacher (Mk. 11:28-33) upon whom the church is built, (1Cor. 3:11) and who established His claims upon Scripture and the power of God it testifies to, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12) .

John tells us in 1 John 2:3 that we can be sure we know Him if we keep His commandments.

And which presupposes there is a transcendent, wholly Divinely inspired, verifiable source of these commands on earth, which only the Scriptures assuredly are, (2Tim. 3:16) most of which writings were established as being so, before there was a church in Rome or an assuredly infallible magisterium of men, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119; Heb. 2:3,4) establishment being due to their Divine qualities and attestation, and thus in principle providing for the establishment of a canon.

1Jn. 5:13 also provides for personal assurance that one has eternal life, based upon faith and examination of oneself in the light of the criteria preceding v. 13, which assurance appeals to personal examination of Scripture, as does “knowing” elsewhere, not an assuredly infallible magisterium in Rome (though the magisterium can be indirectly instrumental in that, it is subject to Scripture as the supreme, assuredly infallible authority).

in John 17 , Jesus beautifully prays to the Father that those that believe in Him “ that they all be one”...so that the world may believe that thou has sent me” ”
Which is speaking a spiritual unity, which is basically that of the Father in Christ, and Christ in Him, and Christ in believers, and believers in Christ, (Jn. 17:21-23) which is manifest by the evident supernatural regeneration of the new birth, but which those in Rome evidence little of (as expressed below).

We know The Father heard Jesus and His true followers are one.

The oneness is not comprehensive doctrinal unity, which has ever been a goal not yet realized, but the most essentially it is the wondrous spiritual “unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3) which born again evangelical type believers even spontaneously experience upon meeting another one walking in the Spirit, and transcends race and other divisions, based upon a common Scripture-based conversion and Christ-centered relationship, which is visibly manifest in many ways and forms.

As for Roman Catholics, they are mostly one in basic error, but with many disagreements and internal informal divisions, while being formally divided from other Catholics who interpret Tradition, Scripture and history differently, but who share some church and culture-based unity. As a former Roman Catholic who remained therein for 6 years after i was truly born again and seeking to serve the Lord, i know the vast difference.

And rather than Rome testifying to being sent of Christ, its overall negative legacy has been that of religious syncretism, and of exalting herself and ruling by the sword of men, even papal sanction of torture etc., and hindering free reading of Scripture, while fostering faith in herself to gain her members (even the most nominal in modern times) eternal life, resulting in overall spiritual deadness, Scriptural illiteracy and perfunctory professions, she being the church of the institutionalized god, versus the Living God, and all told, becoming as the gates of Hell for multitudes. For which my heart is grieved (as well as for my own declensions and that of the church universal)

Paul follows up on the prayer of Jesus in 1 Corinthians by appealing to the brethern that they all agree and have no dissension. in Ephesians , he calls for the building up the Body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith.

Which is ever a goal in its fullness, but which contextually is set in contrast to thinking of men above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) which Rome promotes, even praying to them, while Paul also told the same body that divisions were necessary in the face of spiritual declension, (1Cor. 11:19)

Rome herself is divisive in the way that Diotrephes did, who loved to have the preeminence and ejected from his church those who possessed the spirit of God who did not exalt him.

Yet unity itself is not the goal of the Godly, but unity based upon Scriptural means, in which Scripture is the supreme authority, and the unity which it effects on any degree is superior to the cultic means which is based upon implicit faith in mortals as having assuredly infallibility.

Nor do Roman Catholics have comprehensive doctrinal unity, as not only are few things infallibly defined, but they cannot even be sure how many things have been thus defined and thus require full assent of faith, and what degree of dissent is allowed in other things. And outside the paper unity of Rome, and disagreements and lack of actual unity abound within Rome and Catholicism,, while their greatest degree of distinctive unity is that of being proud to be Catholic.

now given all of the above, can someone be a Christian if they claim to believe in Christ, yet cause dissension among Christians and attempt to draw Christians out of the Church?

No they cannot, if such are drawing souls out of the church, Scripturally defined as the being the born again body of Christ, which is what men such you are doing by restricting “church” to the RCC.

Do you even believe Protestants can be saved if they do not convert to Rome? Or is it alone the Body of Christ? Are the Orthodox also outside the true church seeing as they deny papal infallibility and more?

instead of “being one”, they split into all sort of factions with contradictory doctrines, causing the world not to believe the Father sent Jesus, is such a person a Christian? do these people care or even think about Jesus’s prayer in John 17?

Which is a fanciful vision that fails to see that it has been Rome which gives the atheists the most canon fodder, from ruling over those that are without and torturing and or killing theological dissidents by the sword of men, (contra Jn. 18:36; 1Cor. 5:12,13; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor 6:1-10; 10:3,4) to supporting the church by gambling, and things which those who hold to SS had or has to unlearn, while its overall negative legacy has been bigotry, apathy toward Scripture, and (as it lost the power of the sword) liberal moral and theological views predominating, which statistical studies bear out.

Certainly evangelical faith has had its offenses, and is also in decline, but historically it has resulted in a vast increase in souls who earnestly believe the Father sent Jesus, and which faith America owes much to. I live in an area that has been overwhelming Roman Catholic for about 100 years, and can testify to its spiritual deadness, and to the contrasting positive transformative effect of the evangelical gospel.

And contrary to the typical RCA polemical picture, such churches share a common consent to core truths, and are foremost contenders for them. Catholics under sola ecclesia also share a common consent to core truths, many of which we also defends, while those under both Sola Scriptura and sola ecclesia differ among themselves and between themselves to varying degrees, the difference being a matter of degrees.

As for caring about unity, such persons who are manifest regeneration true Christians — even if they are born again in the desert and never heard of a church — (Acts 8:29-38) do care about both the essential unity of the Spirit, who baptizes every believer into the one body of Christ, (1Cor. 12:13) under one Lord, and the fuller unity of doctrine and ministry, but which is not by the cultic means of implicit assent of faith to decrees of men, but which must be done by Scriptural means, “by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God,” (2Cor. 4:2) however harder and precious that is.

* Note that you and i have exchanged on various doctrinal issues in times past.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=1867#1867

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2297#2297

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2373#2373

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2866#2866

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2935#2935

[Iscool]

That is pure speculative reading into Scripture what one wants to believe.

You've been shown tons of scripture that tells us that baptism doesn't happen without repentance...Plus where Philip says that 'if you believe on Jesus, you may be baptized'...

Reject it all you want...

[Iscool]

Scripture makes a point of saying entire households were baptized. Not, and everyone in the household who believed were baptized.

Yes, there is a pattern, that pattern is that the head of the household brought ALL of that household into the faith.

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Now this is getting a little old...You post false doctrine about the scriptures...I (we) correct you with the scripture itself...And then you pretend that we never posted the scripture...And continue on with your false doctrine and misclaims of what the scripture does and doesn't say...What's up with that???

[daniel1212]

Concerning baptism:

► It is true that there is no mention of any infants being baptized, and while infant baptism may be surmised from the basic mention of whole households being baptized, wherever more details are given then it states or infers that the baptized were able to hear and believe the word.

Basic: "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. " (Acts 16:15)

"And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. " (1 Corinthians 1:16)

More details

"And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. " (Acts 16:32-34)

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. " (Acts 18:8)

►It is also clear that conditions are given for baptism, requiring a cognitive response of repentant faith, and that those who did so were those who were baptized:

"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. " (Acts 2:38)

"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? 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. " (Acts 8:36-37)

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. " (Acts 2:41)

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. " (Acts 8:12)

"Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. " (Acts 8:13)

"Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. " (Acts 19:4-5)

►It is also true that is it faith that appropriates justification, but that justifying faith is the kind of faith that effects obedience toward its Object, the Lord Jesus (relative to light received), and thus those who have saving faith are those who call upon the Lord and are baptized (and follow Christ), this normally being one event in Scripture as seen above, with baptism both requiring and expressing saving faith, and as such can be a “sinner’s prayer” (Lk. 18:13; 23:42) in body language. And works that confess Christ confirm one as having saving faith (though no response of man earns him salvation, as what they deserve is the second death):

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, " (Romans 4:4-6)

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. " (Acts 22:16)

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:10)

"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. " (Hebrews 6:9)

"(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. " (Romans 2:13)

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. " (Romans 8:4)

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:19-20)

►Finally, as it is the confessional type of faith itself that baptism both requires and expresses that is appropriates justification, so it is clear that souls can be forgiven and regenerated prior to being baptized, though again, that should immediately follow is the faith is real, out of a broken heart and contrite spirit.

"The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. " (Psalms 34:18)

And Rome basically allows for this with her (disputed) baptism of desire.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

the problem those who claim to follow “sola scriptura” have is twofold:
1. the concept itself is condemned in the Scriptures
2. the ultimate authority is actually the man in the mirror, giving his or her OPINION on what the Scriptures teach. this is easily illustrated: baptists and lutherans both claim “sola scriptura” as a doctrine, now the baptist does not baptize infants and the lutheran will, both claiming the Scriptures as their authority and both can’t be right.

so what history has shown is the fruit of this doctrine is people honoring Jesus with their lips, but their heart is far from Him. how can i say this? because Jesus prayed for unity and Paul commanded it, yet the fruit of their actions is in direct DISOBEDIENCE to the Lord they claim to love and follow. the non-Christian world laughs at the 30,000 groups ( most started in the USA since the 19th century ) and can’t believe Jesus was sent by the Father with all this confusion and attacks on the Church.

the Scriptures themselves tell us the natural man can’t understand the truth of God WITHOUT the Holy Spirit’s help.
now, we know the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion and He won’t lead men to believe one thing ( baptismal regeneration fo example ) for 1,500 years and then inspire men to believe the opposite in the 16th century. what we do know is false teachers will arise and lead many astray.

now, we don’t have to wonder about what is the true Church to be in unity with, Jesus gives us the acid test in the Scriptures - IT IS HIMSLEF.
THE UNITY OF THE TRUE CHURCH IS FOUND IN JESUS CHRIST AND THE TRUE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNIFIED IN THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.
if someone claims to be a “Christian” and abstains from worshipping with the Church because they reject the Eucharist, they prove by their actions they are not true followers of Jesus. by their fruits you will know them, in this case , the fruits are dissension and disunity and rebellion against the Lord.
as Paul told the Corinthians ( after instructing they all should agree and have no dissensions ) in 1 Corinthians 10:16 - “ the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? the bread which we break, is it not a participation IN THE BODY OF CHRIST?”

here is the acid test - v17 BECAUSE THERE IS ONE BREAD, WE WHO ARE MANY ARE ONE BODY, FOR WE ALL PARTAKE OF THE ONE BREAD.

true Christians have partaken of JESUS CHRIST for 2,000 years.

no matter how many false teachrs arise and no matter how many Bible verses they quote or no matter how they honor Jesus with their lips, WE KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS. AND IF THEY SPERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE CHURCH AND ARE NOT ONE AS JESUS COMMANDED, THEIR FRUIT IS NOT FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT.

for THERE IS ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Baptism now saves you mean baptism doesn’t save us?

this can only make sense to one who rejests the Trinity.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

hmm, “water baptism” that’s an interesting term. i have searched the NT and i don’t ever find this term in any of the 27 books.

i see “baptism” or “baptize” many many times, but i never see “water baptism”

it makes me think that this is not a mistake or oversight on the users part. it makes me think the user sticks the word “water” in front of baptism to make the reader think there must be some “non-water” baptism.

is that possible, hmmm. not if Paul is to believed and not if the Apostolic Faith is true:

THERE IS ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.

hmm, maybe , just maybe, we could have false teaching trying to fool the elect ( if that were possible )

[Iscool]

Baptism now saves you mean baptism doesn’t save us?

Apparently you don't read the posts any better than you read the scriptures...

this can only make sense to one who rejests the Trinity.

What? Did you just get home from the mosque??? Or are you guys rallying for another jihad???

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

do you believe the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God, three seperate persons, yet there is only ONE GOD?

let’s stop the tap dancing, shall we?

[Iscool]

no matter how many false teachrs arise and no matter how many Bible verses they quote or no matter how they honor Jesus with their lips, WE KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS. AND IF THEY SPERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE CHURCH AND ARE NOT ONE AS JESUS COMMANDED, THEIR FRUIT IS NOT FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT.

No Catholic, no Christian, eh???

God thru the scriptures condemns your 'unified' religion in no uncertain terms...

You can not gain salvation by getting wet and eating a cracker...

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

[count-your-change]

To become a disciple of another implies acceptance (belief) of a discipline or training. And while a house or household may have very young children in it, it is hardly remarkable that they are not discipled and baptized seeing that Jesus’ command was that disciples were themselves to baptize and teach, not an activity of children below the age of consent.

So while in the instances where households are mentioned it would not be improper to restrict the use of the term to those capable of belief, discipleship, consent to baptism, and going out to teach others.

But it is upon the use of the term “household” that is looked to as a support for infant baptism. Improperly so by every indication of the Scriptures.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“God thru the scriptures “

who is God? is the Father God? is Jesus Christ God? is the Holy Spirit God?

please tell me, who is God?

[Jvette]

****It’s really about the heart after all then, isn’t it and not the outward actions.****

LOL, can you even seen the contradiction in what you wrote?

It is ALL about one’s actions after receiving the saving grace of salvation in baptism. One cannot undo baptism, just as one cannot undo a circumcision, but one’s actions can cut off that saving grace and so the consequences are as if one had not been baptized.

Paul is saying if the believer lives a life that does not reflect God’s light in them, if their life is not one which causes others to thirst for His saving grace, if it is a life of unrighteousness, then it will cause the unbeliever to deny the necessity of God, of Jesus’ passion and resurrection and of repentance. Indeed, it causes them to deny the very existence of God and to think they are good without Him and the precepts of His law.

It IS the actions and not just what the person professes to believe.

2 Peter 2:20-21
20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

[Jvette]

John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I will let Jesus speak for Himself.

****Being born of water is physical birth.****

And where does Scripture say this?

[Jvette]

Leviticus 16:17
There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.

The head of the household made atonement for ALL of his household. I have not rejected what has been said regarding baptism, rather I have asserted that the head of the household acted/spoke for his children.

You have shown nothing from Scripture to refute that, but have been shown from numerous writings that the ECFs knew that it was a tradition from the earliest days.

And so when one interprets Scripture one way and another does so differently, there is an appeal to be made to determine the right understanding of Scripture. That is why the Church is so important and if one is unafraid to follow history, one would see that there were certainly differing interpretations of Scripture from the beginning, but always it was the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth who spoke the last word on the debate.

I began this conversation asking the question about how it is that so called Bible churches could have such diverse interpretations of such import as baptism verses no baptism.

And here we are, hundreds of posts later and the question has not been answered though there has been complete unity among the *NCCOUOUDOB on why the Church is wrong.

*Non Catholic Christians of Undeclared or Unknown Denominations or Beliefs.