Catholics Come Home

Check out the Anglican Mission in the Americas: http://www.theamia.org/
They have a relationship with the ACNA

 

Okay, you answered me fairly enough. I have no desire to "pick a fight." I'm having to fight my own battles in other places here.

 

Wise decision. I stay away from them too.

You have been in an argument with Spong? I'd love to hear the details of that.

You can learn more about the ACNA (and it's relationship to the conservative Global South Anglican Churches) at its website:
http://www.anglicanchurch.net

 

For EWF: Reformed Anglicanism blog

 

Thanks Jerome but its my wife enamored by them....Im not. BTW I really like Mohler (did you read the subject matter heading disparaging him)

 

Not anymore they don't. I have looked at them closely myself. The AMIA recently broke with the Rwandan bishops and as a result, ACNA has said they will have to bring about a reconciliation with Rwanda or they will no longer be in partnership with them.

I must say, Anglicanism has an appeal to me also, maybe because the doctrines in the Catholic Church that I am wrestling are not part of the 39 Articles of Religion. But then again, as Doubting Thomas said, The Anglican Communion is in such turmoil. Seems to be a crisis in authority going on in Anglicanism and the rest of Christianity resluting in more splits and new denominations that doesn't go on in the RCC.

http://anglicanink.com/article/make-or-break-meeting-nairobi-amia

 

And I suppose Catholics look at Baptists and say "They say the sinners prayer one time and get a free pass on sinning for the rest of their lives."

What are you going to do?

People believe what they choose to believe.

 

Correct--certain RCC emphases (which still made me uncomfortable no matter how much I read), particularly those prevalent in the late Middle ages, are either absent from the 39 Articles or are proscribed by them.

Regarding the Anglican Communion, over the past few years there has been an ongoing realignment of conservative churches (GAFCON) within the communion and the formation of a new orthodox province in North America, so this is encouraging despite all the temporary mess. (Remember, there was a lot of turmoil in the chruch between AD 325 and AD 381 when some complained that it seemed like the world had gone after Arius.)

Regarding the RCC, there is sadly plenty of liberalism within the Church as there have been traditionalist 'schisms' from the church, so it's not entirely true that they monolithically speak with one voice. There's a lot to admire about the current pope (IMO), but there are many within the Roman fold that want to follow in the footsteps of the liberal (apostate) protestant denominations it seems.

 

Yes, as in the Flood. There were many "baptized" in the Flood. They all drowned--destroyed. Water is water. It doesn't always mean baptism.

I never said it means ambiotic fluid, and agree that it doesn't, neither does it refer to baptism.
[quote Baptism is the symbol of our death and resurrection in Jesus[/quote]
I'll stop you right here, and say I agree. "Our" is the Christian. Baptism is a step of obedience after a person is saved. As you said "our." It is a symbol of our death and resurrection in Christ. Very good. If you had stopped right here you would have it right.

Now you are both adding to the Scripture and then taking other Scripture out of context. There is nothing in the Bible about "physical property of the signature for our covenant with him." That is just man-made doctrine. It is adding to the Word of God. Baptism does not replace circumcision, though that is a Presbyterian belief. And then you try to fit in a verse from Colossians, and run all these together into one hodge-podge mixed up doctrine. No wonder you are confused.

You haven't demonstrated why it is necessary.

No, it says what IT says. And what IT says is very clear. Does that bother you? It says that baptism is necessary to salvation. It says that the new birth is the same as baptism. It teaches baptismal regeneration--a heresy.

That which I read does.

If you are trusting in your baptism in any way to be saved, then you are not saved. The Bible does not teach that. Salvation is in Christ alone.

Do you think that matters to me. The CoC is also a cult teaching baptismal regeneration.

You lack understanding in your Bible. Not one of those verses teach baptism is necessary for salvation; not one.

No, you have swallowed the RCC heresies, hook, line and sinker. I study the Bible, and use it as my infallible guide. It is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. That is the big difference between your approach to Scripture and mine. You have a corrupted authority.

I have read a good many books. I have not read through the Confession, nor all the ECF, nor Calvin's Institutes. I am not a Calvinist. I find my Bible more authoritative than them all.

You are wrong.

(Act 8:36) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

(Act 8:37) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

(Act 8:38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
--He was saved before he even went near the water. He believed on the Lord. Verse 37 is very clear about that.

If that is what you now believe, then you don't have salvation. Salvation is only through Christ. Baptism cannot save. Salvation is not of works (Eph.2:8,9). You can't have it both ways. Salvation is either by faith alone, or it is by works (baptism). Which one?

(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.
--Baptism is a work. It has nothing to do with grace.

You can have all the faith you want. Baptism will not save. It will only get you wet. There is nothing special about H2O. The Hindus believe baptism will wash away their sins. You believe the same superstition.

I teach the Bible, expound it verse by verse; comparing Scripture with Scripture. I am instructed by it. I must "rightly divide the word of truth."
But the RCC does not do that. They believe in man-made doctrines not supported by Scriptures at all.

Sorry about that. I am not good at remembering acronyms and abbreviations. There was another Catholic on here some time ago that had a similar abbreviation that referred to Catechism classes.

 

Na.... most RC's dont give a wit but the liberal ones are allot like the Apostate & liberal Protestant Churches forever ignoring and /or modifying scriptures to suit their humanistic desires....hedging ever toward Pelagianism.

 

Do Reformed Anglicans hold to particular redemption? The RCC's do not. Thats another thing that separates us however I would not step into a church that doesnt support DoG (Doctrines of Grace) as salvation theology. all the rest of it is window dressing.

 

DHK wrote. "If you are trusting in your baptism in any way to be saved, then you are not saved. The Bible does not teach that. Salvation is in Christ alone."

This is exactly what I was referring to in my "Christ Plus" commentary.

Plus Baptism, Plus Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Matrimony, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction. Total nonsense & very works based!

 

Not Christ plus baptism, Holy Eucharist, etc., etc. But Christ through baptism, Holy Eucharist, etc., etc. Or you could say Christ via (by way of) baptism, Holy Eucharist, etc. Scripture tells us to do these things, i.e., baptize, receive the Eucharist, confess, etc. They are not window dressing. They are there for a reason and a reason that is more than going through mere motions. Faith is the sine qua non of receiving grace but grace doesn’t just fall out of the sky on your head because you look skyward and ask for it. You receive it through the sacraments that Christ has given us.

There is no more clear example of a sacrament than anointing of the sick in James 5:14-15:

 

David you make a good point. However, notice what I said to DHK Baptismal Regeneration does not equal salvation. It is necissary for salvation. 1st comes the faith and the proclimation of that faith then the act of baptism brings the grace of the Holy Spirit. As paul says in Col 2. Our baptism can be viewed as our circumcision our signature on the covenant God now gives us and is sealed by the Holy Spirit. Thats how it should be viewed.

 

Thus the full argument that still ensues.....apparently faith in Christ is not enough for the RCC. Again I stand on Pauls commentary, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love"

 

You are speculating. There is nothing in that Chapter that even indicates water is referring to the Flood. In fact, else where in the NT it says the Flood is symbolic of the baptism which now saves

So if you are using the Flood in the New Testiment context then you are referring to baptism which saves you as Peter says.

It absolutely does. You have to do scriptural gymnastics in my opinion to make it mean something else.

I'll stop you right here, and say I agree. "Our" is the Christian. Baptism is a step of obedience after a person is saved. As you said "our." It is a symbol of our death and resurrection in Christ. Very good. If you had stopped right here you would have it right. [/QUOTE] DHK, you may not understand this, but I'm always right. :laugh:

Not at all I'm just showing you the plain text and context of that passage.

How would you define Circumcision which for us is our baptism? Its a covenant mark. As Paul says in Col. and also as peter above has mentioned. In the above passage.

contrarily, taking baptism out of Christian doctrine of salvation is man made and in the modern age started By Zwingli.

I have you just didn't see it. It is our circumcision our covenant mark.

It does say what it says and it doesn't say Baptism = salvation. It says Baptism is necissary for salvation just like faith is necissary for salvation just like repentance is necissary for salvation.

thats because you are easily confused when it conserns anything about Catholicism. Its a typical problem among vehimently anti-catholics for which I forgive you.

Do you not understand what you read? Did I not say without faith - getting dunked does nothing? No I trust in Christ who gave me my faith and baptism. By the way Jesus saves me. Faith and Baptism are how he wants me to receive him. He instituted it not me.

It just shows you that several people reading the same passage of scripture can come to differing conclusions. Are you telling me that you have total truth. That you are supperior to your fellow man? If not then when discussion scripture you or anyone else (according to your belief) has any higher authority to decide which is right with regard to understanding scripture.

Contrarily, you lack understanding in your Bible.

Nope. Wrong again I read scripture daily and I've come to the same conclusions as the Catholic Faith. I use the bible as my infallible guide. And though you claim it is your final authority, what you are really saying is your interpretation of scriptures is your final authority namely making you, your final authority. Do you interject your faith into scriptures or are you lead by it? I believe I'm lead by it and I have the distinct experience of having left the Catholic faith for almost 30 years. Studying scripture and at times re-inventing the theological wheel so to speek ending up at the same conclusion as the Catholic faith. Most Catholics would be as you say following the Catholic Church without question. I've questioned.

Oh come now. Surely you've read commentaries to help you understand passages or at least the bible notes on scriptures. You've read how each book was compiled and structured have you not? I'm certain you have your favorite theologian you review. Its really the same thing. I'm just open about my studies. Unless you are the only commentator of scripture you believe. Then you proved my point on how you approach scripture. Scripture relys on your interpretation rather than How God is leading you.

I am right the Ethiopian is asking what is baring him from baptism which saves him. and the answer is because he has faith nothing. You minimalize what has occured.

Ithink you are confusing RCIA (which is Catholic) and RVA. Let me explain it to you this way. RVA good. RVA protestant missionary school. RCIA bad (I don't think so) because its related to Catholic boggey men. Though I don't agree RCIA is bad but I wanted to be understood so I used your thinking to help you along.

 

In a narrow sense, that is true. So tell me, EWF, why do you think the apostles used so much ink telling us about baptism, the Eucharist and other sacraments? The Great Commission wouldn’t have included a command to baptize unless Jesus meant it. He didn’t say, “Go make disciples and teach them everything I have commanded you. And, by the way, it might be good idea to baptize them as well. But if you don’t, no big deal, I will take them to Heaven anyway.”

Although Jesus said nothing like that, it is the logical conclusion you must draw unless you believe in the salvific effect of baptism. So my question, why did the apostles use so much ink in telling up about the sacraments in the New Testament if they are only optional?

 

Faith is not something that is just in the intellectual realm (see Heb 11 and James 2:14-26). Baptism and Communion are special means of grace because they are special concrete expressions/acts of our faith IN CHRIST--we are dead/buried/raised WITH CHRIST and PUT ON CHRIST in Baptism (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27); and we are strenghtened/nourished BY CHRIST'S body and blood in Communion which He gave for the Life of the world (John 6:51-57, 1 Cor 10:16). In other words, in doing these things we are, in a tangible and visible way, actually expressing our dependence on CHRIST, and not just saying we have intellectual beliefs in certain doctrines about Jesus.

So you see, Baptism and Communion aren't things that are in juxtaposition to faith. They are never seen in Scriptures as somehow being separate from (let alone in opposition to) receiving Christ by faith, nor were they seen that way for the first 1500 years of the Church's existence. They are certainly nothing that men somehow add to the Atonement, but are rather Christ's ordained means of appropriating the benefits of the same through faith.

 

You misunderstood me. I didn't say it refers to the Flood. I was pointing out that water doesn't always refer to baptism. Water is water. The Greek word for water is used, not baptism. You can't make a case for baptism when the word for baptism is not used nor even mentioned in the passage. I agree, it doesn't refer to the Flood. It is symbolic of something: not the Flood, and certainly not baptism, and not amniotic fluid as you also mentioned. I agree with you there. I have mentioned those only to point out that water is translated water, not baptism. So we can't automatically assume that this is baptism.
It absolutely does. You have to do scriptural gymnastics in my opinion to make it mean something else.[/quote]
You can take that view point if you want. Many do. I won't argue against it. It is not my view. However, the Bible says:
"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
If it refers to amniotic fluid then it does not refer to baptism. You can't have it both ways. It is one or the other. This interpretation cancels out baptism immediately.

DHK, you may not understand this, but I'm always right. :laugh: [/quote]
Not always. But if you had stopped there, you would have been.

No, you were adding to it.

Circumcision has nothing to do with baptism; nothing to do with this passage; and is a complete red herring. (It leaves out all women believers doesn't it?)

Then you don't know your history very well. Either that or you have been brain-washed by the revisionist history put forth by the RCC.

Again, baptism has nothing to do with circumcision, or vice-versa.

You won't find those teachings in the epistles. Here is what it says:

Being justified by faith, we have peace with God (Rom.5:1)

For by grace are ye save through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. (Eph.2:8,9)
--Salvation is by faith alone.

Are you going to deny that the RCC teaches that baptism is essential to salvation?

If you are trusting in baptism to get you to heaven you will go to hell.
No one can receive Christ through baptism. That is an insult to Christ. Only His shed blood can get you there. Baptism is a work of obedience done after salvation; not a work done that is essential for baptism. That is a heresy. If you are trusting in your baptism plus Christ then you are trusting in the wrong things. Trust in Christ alone is what saves. What did Christ say:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me."
--Do you believe that? He is the only way. Not baptism plus Christ; but Christ alone.

The COC, the J.W., The Mormon's, the SDA are all cults. Yes, they have a different understanding of Scripture--an understanding that almost no one on this board is willing to accept. It is not just me. Who else is going to accept their cultish understanding of Scripture?

Take any one of those verses that you listed. You cannot properly exegete them to show that they teach baptismal regeneration. You will have to wrest the Scripture out of context and twist the Scripture to make it mean something it doesn't. Unbelievers try to do it, without success all the time.

And have you questioned:
the worship of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, the assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, limbo, the authority of a priest to forgive sins, transubstantiation, penance, praying to the dead, idolatry, etc.
Have you questioned sincerely the unbibllical nature of all these ungodly man-made doctrines that the Catholic Church believes in and on a deadly basis spreads like poison? Can you back them up with Scripture?

Yes, I have a library of over 2,000 books. I already acknowledged to you that I have read many books.

The Scripture is clear. He confessed his faith first. Then Philip took him down into the water and they both were baptized by immersion. If pouring or sprinkling were the method they could have stayed in the chariot and used water from his canteen. Either way, he made a confession of faith in Christ, and then was baptized. That is what happened with every believer in the NT.

Thank you.

 

>The COC, the J.W., The Mormon's, the SDA are all cults.

Is being a cult different from teaching a new god?