Featured The Catholic Church

When the Scriptures are not the final authority for what a person believes, then pandoras door is wide open and every concievable and cultish thing in the world rushes right in. That depicts the history of the Roman Catholic Cult since its inception in the fourth century.

 

Sure haven't found any retraction by you. Did I miss it? If I did, I apologize. The questions you asked, you have asked of me more than once and my answers have not changed. I used to believe the same that you do now about what the passage in John 3:1-17 and what that passage means. I now believe the same as the Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc., etc. The Baptist church I was raised in still teaches that the water referred to in that passage refers to amniotic fluid. There are no examples of that in Greek literature from before the time of Christ or after or any place in scripture that it refers to amniotic fluid. It's a lot of hooey but they would prefer to believe that than to let the obvious be true.

 

That is not the only interpretation among Baptists. Many interpret the conjunction "kai" in John 3:5 to mean "also" or "even" and thus the Master speaking to a Master of Israel - theologion to theologion that water is the symbol of the regenerating life of the Spirit even as Christ asserts in the very next chapter (Jn. 4:10,14; Jn 7; Jn. 13).

However, your greatest problem is that the whole idea of sacramentalism is repudiated clearly in the New Testament in several places (Lk. 5:12-15; Heb. 10:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.) but especially in Romans 4:9-11.

 

I will do some study on the biblical references you gave. I'm on this board to learn. Thanks!

 

Granted there are some that believe that it may refer to the amniotic fluid. That is only one view, but not all believe that way. I don't.
Biblicist has a different view. I don't agree with his view. I do believe this however, that both of those views are tenable, that is believable or within the bounds of Scripture. Baptismal regeneration (which the RCC teaches) is one of the first known heresies to enter Christianity.

Perhaps I'll explain my view later, if need be.
But more importantly: whether it is my view, Biblicist's, or your former church's--all acceptable. You must be born again. It is an essential. Either you were born again before when you were a Baptist by the Holy Spirit as Biblicist pointed out.
Or, you were born again by water as the RCC teaches. Both cannot be true. Either you were never a Christian in the first place, having never understood what it means to be born again, and still don't know accepting the RCC apostate view. Or you do know and you must reject the RCC view. Which is it? You can't be schizophrenic and be both.

 

Your welcome. I think we are all in a progressive learning experience.

 

Over and over again the Bible teaches that salvation is by faith and faith alone. Even in the gospels, Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me."

Baptism is never the way to heaven. Baptism cannot save. Water simply makes a person wet. It is superstitious to think that H20 can save anyone.

Baptism is the first step of obedience that a believe takes after salvation. It symbolizes a believers death to his old life to sin, and a new life in Christ. (Rom.6:3,4).

Here are some important Scriptures.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 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.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation is by faith, not of works, not of baptism.

 

And there are hundreds of heretical teaching in the Roman Catholic Communion.

Baptismal regeneration is absolute nonsense. In Scripture regeneration is the New Birth, Salvation. Scripture also teaches the Security of the believer. Yet these groups baptize a baby, say he is regenerate, Born Again by the Holy Spirit, but he has to work incessantly to get to heaven and if he fails to "hell" with him! Absolute nonsense.

Constantine, the unbeliever and first pope, delayed baptism until just before he died to assure his "whatever the papists call it". I assume salvation. That is how ridiculous the idea of baptismal regeneration is,

 

Catholic theology in a nutshell put to song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

 

That's true, and so it would also rule out all the Magisterial Reformers, including Calvin whom some Baptists on here defend as not being a persecutor and murderer which he clearly was, as I have documented extensively on this forum.

However, that was then, and this is now. I would only deny a church being a true church if it never held or had abandoned basic NT/early church teachings and traditional morality.

I disagree with the RCC on many things, but I think we had better appreciate them as allies in our battle to uphold traditional morality.

 

I do not believe that. I disagree with the Calvinists as strongly as I do the RCC -- more so in certain areas -- but I would not say that Calvinists cannot be Christians.

 

Yep, almost as many errors there as in Calvinism.

 

Better keep studying. The doctrine of papal infallibility proves that statement wrong -- and that's just one example.

 

Yes, indeed, and the EOC dunks them babies, too!

 

I agree with you completely and totally here -- probably a first in my discussions with you.

 

What type of church or churches do you think was preserving the NT church along side the RCC before the Reformation?

 

I think the EOC had preserved much of NT doctrine -- but not ministry, polity, or sacraments.

There were Dissenters all down through the ages who arose and tried to hold to or return to NT teaching and practice -- I won't list them here. Most were persecuted nearly or completely out of existence.

Part of ancient Celtic Christianity, after Rome absorbed much of the Celtic church at the Synod of Whitby, basically went underground and held on to early church teaching.

Essentially, the "NT church" was an underground movement before the Reformation, and the Magisterial part of the Reformation didn't move as far away from Rome as some think.