saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then Peter said, "Can anyone withhold the water to baptize these people? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!" So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for a few days."


Here, it is clear that the Holy Spirit came to the believers first, then AFTER that they were baptized.

---

These people received the Holy Spirit before baptism. It does not say they were saved before baptism.

---

So you were completely wrong when you said "We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism (Acts 2:38). There is no reason to believe this spiritual act happens separate and without immersion in water". Correct?

And it does not say they were saved before baptism, but neither does it say that they weren't.

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How is it that by baptism all sins are forgiven and the punishment for them removed, when in Revelation 1:5 it says it was the blood of Christ that does that?

---

Romans 6: 3,4 states that at baptism we are united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. You can not separate Christ's blood from baptism.

Too many play a game of either/or with things that are united.

---

But what baptism is Paul talking about in Romans 6? Because in 1 Corinthians 12 he says we were all "baptized by one Spirit". John the Baptist and Peter also referred to Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit. So was Paul talking about Spirit baptism or water baptism?

If it was Jesus' Spirit baptism, then there isn't any game of either/or being played here.

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then Peter said, "Can anyone withhold the water to baptize these people? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!" So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for a few days."


Here, it is clear that the Holy Spirit came to the believers first, then AFTER that they were baptized.

---

These people received the Holy Spirit before baptism. It does not say they were saved before baptism.

---

OK, seems to me you can't receive the Holy Spirit unless you are saved when that happens.

Oldbear83 said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then Peter said, "Can anyone withhold the water to baptize these people? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!" So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for a few days."


Here, it is clear that the Holy Spirit came to the believers first, then AFTER that they were baptized.

---

These people received the Holy Spirit before baptism. It does not say they were saved before baptism.

---

OK, seems to me you can't receive the Holy Spirit unless you are saved when that happens.

---

You CAN'T receive the Holy Spirit UNLESS you are ALREADY Saved:

Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

(KJV)

It is the Holy Spirit that Seals us unto Salvation:

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

(KJV)

We access God's Saving Grace Through Faith:

Ro 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then Peter said, "Can anyone withhold the water to baptize these people? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!" So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for a few days."


Here, it is clear that the Holy Spirit came to the believers first, then AFTER that they were baptized.

---

These people received the Holy Spirit before baptism. It does not say they were saved before baptism.

---

OK, seems to me you can't receive the Holy Spirit unless you are saved when that happens.

---

You CAN'T receive the Holy Spirit UNLESS you are ALREADY Saved:

Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

(KJV)

It is the Holy Spirit that Seals us unto Salvation:

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

(KJV)

We access God's Saving Grace Through Faith:

Ro 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

---

I think that's what he is saying, that you can't receive the Holy Spirit unless you are saved. I'm not sure though, because his comment isn't entirely clear.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then Peter said, "Can anyone withhold the water to baptize these people? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!" So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for a few days."


Here, it is clear that the Holy Spirit came to the believers first, then AFTER that they were baptized.

---

These people received the Holy Spirit before baptism. It does not say they were saved before baptism.

---

OK, seems to me you can't receive the Holy Spirit unless you are saved when that happens.

---

You CAN'T receive the Holy Spirit UNLESS you are ALREADY Saved:

Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

(KJV)

It is the Holy Spirit that Seals us unto Salvation:

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

(KJV)

We access God's Saving Grace Through Faith:

Ro 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

---

I think that's what he is saying, that you can't receive the Holy Spirit unless you are saved. I'm not sure though, because his comment isn't entirely clear.

---

To me, that has always been the paradox of our relationship to God. Evil cannot stand in the presence of God, yet we have Scripture evidence that God has allowed Satan to argue with Him (the book of Job starts with that after all). This happens, I believe, because we are meant to learn about our purpose and being by seeing how God acts towards us.

The whole purpose of the Holy Spirit includes creating a way by which God can reach out to anyone without destroying them. It reflects God's attention to the smallest and weakest of us. It is the essence of God's hope for us.

But more, God allows us Free Will, which means God does not possess us the way demons do. That means (to me at least) that no one can receive the Holy Spirit until they have aligned with God.

At that point, it seems to me confession and faith are in progress. I leave it to others whether one's life with Christ officially starts before or after that point. The point is the outcome.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How is it that by baptism all sins are forgiven and the punishment for them removed, when in Revelation 1:5 it says it was the blood of Christ that does that?

"Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."

---

Sorry for the delay in getting back with you. I wanted to confirm my thought with a Catholic Apologist and the following is what he responded:

It is Jesus' sacrifice (i.e., 'blood') that paid the price for the forgiveness of sins, but it is ordinarily through the sacramentsbeginning with baptismthat this forgiveness is offered. Thus, the Church can echo St. Peter's words, "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is the catechism referring to "baptism" as being baptized through Jesus' sacrifice, i.e. his blood? If so, then what does water baptism achieve, specifically, according to the Catholic church?

---

As stated earlier, baptism obtains the forgiveness of all sin, including original sin and personal sin.

Many of the earliest church fathers agree:

Shepard of Hermas - 140 AD:
" 'I have heard, sir,' said I, 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'"

Theophilus - 181 AD:
"Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God"

Justin Martyr - 150 AD:
Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.'…

Cyril of Jerusalem - 350 AD
"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism (cf. Mark 10:38)….Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness"

I could site several more, but my whole point of this is to demonstrate what those closest to the apostles believed and practiced.

None believed that baptism was just a symbol.

nudge

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How is it that by baptism all sins are forgiven and the punishment for them removed, when in Revelation 1:5 it says it was the blood of Christ that does that?

"Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."

---

Sorry for the delay in getting back with you. I wanted to confirm my thought with a Catholic Apologist and the following is what he responded:

It is Jesus' sacrifice (i.e., 'blood') that paid the price for the forgiveness of sins, but it is ordinarily through the sacramentsbeginning with baptismthat this forgiveness is offered. Thus, the Church can echo St. Peter's words, "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is the catechism referring to "baptism" as being baptized through Jesus' sacrifice, i.e. his blood? If so, then what does water baptism achieve, specifically, according to the Catholic church?

---

As stated earlier, baptism obtains the forgiveness of all sin, including original sin and personal sin.

Many of the earliest church fathers agree:

Shepard of Hermas - 140 AD:
" 'I have heard, sir,' said I, 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'"

Theophilus - 181 AD:
"Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God"

Justin Martyr - 150 AD:
Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.'…

Cyril of Jerusalem - 350 AD
"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism (cf. Mark 10:38)….Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness"

I could site several more, but my whole point of this is to demonstrate what those closest to the apostles believed and practiced.

None believed that baptism was just a symbol.

---

Thank you for your effort in providing answers. There is a lot to say here, so I will address things one at a time to avoid tediously long posts. The first thing I should say is that while I believe that the viewpoints of the early church fathers are incredibly important and valuable, they should not carry the same authority as scripture, being that the church fathers are still human and therefore fallible.

Therefore, what is most important is examining the scripture on which they based their beliefs. Let's take the first reference to scripture in your comment, an excerpt from Acts 2:38 - "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". I should point out first of all, that you left out the word "Repent". Here is the whole verse:

"Peter replied, "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 is very important, because the forgiveness may be coming from the repentance, and not necessarily from water baptism. In other words, since there are two commands given, one may be the causative act (yields forgiveness) while the other is just an accompanying act. It does not necessarily mean that both commands are requirements for forgiveness. For example, if I say "Go to your room, get on your knees, and repent and pray to God for forgiveness, and you'll be forgiven" - while this statement is indeed true, it doesn't necessarily mean that you must literally go to your room and get on your knees to be forgiven. They are just commands in excess of that which is the required part.

To further illustrate this, look at the second part of that verse - "Repent and be baptized....and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This obviously can't mean that water baptism is required to receive the Holy Spirit because we clearly see in Acts 10:44-48 that the Holy Spirit was given before water baptism. So if Peter isn't talking about water baptism in the sense of it being causative of receiving the Holy Spirit, it is possible that he is doing the same regarding the forgiveness of sins. So we really can't use this one verse in isolation, we have to consider it in context of the whole of scripture regarding salvation.


That is the first part of what I want to address. I hope it made sense. I'll have to come back at another time for the other parts.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Thank you for your effort in providing answers. There is a lot to say here, so I will address things one at a time to avoid tediously long posts. The first thing I should say is that while I believe that the viewpoints of the early church fathers are incredibly important and valuable, they should not carry the same authority as scripture, being that the church fathers are still human and therefore fallible.

---

I will 100% agree that scripture is infallible and the all Church fathers are fallible. Even the great St. Thomas Aquinas has a few issues that are recognized by the Church today, but I digress …

One would be hard pressed to find many Church fathers that did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration. The preponderance of evidence shows this. As I mentioned, this shows what the apostles believed and taught. John taught Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. Polycarp taught both Irenaeus and Tertullian.

How did all these men "get it wrong" SO quickly if they learned from the apostles themselves? How did the greatest minds in Church History study the scriptures "incorrectly" for 1500 years but only to have Zwingli crack the code on baptism?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Therefore, what is most important is examining the scripture on which they based their beliefs. Let's take the first reference to scripture in your comment, an excerpt from Acts 2:38 - "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". I should point out first of all, that you left out the word "Repent". Here is the whole verse:
"Peter replied, "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."

---

The Church affirms that the process for salvation is Repent, Believe, and Be Baptized.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is very important, because the forgiveness may be coming from the repentance, and not necessarily from water baptism. In other words, since there are two commands given, one may be the causative act (yields forgiveness) while the other is just an accompanying act. It does not necessarily mean that both commands are requirements for forgiveness. For example, if I say "Go to your room, get on your knees, and repent and pray to God for forgiveness, and you'll be forgiven" - while this statement is indeed true, it doesn't necessarily mean that you must literally go to your room and get on your knees to be forgiven. They are just commands in excess of that which is the required part.

---

I can only echo here what the Church and the Church fathers believed about the forgiveness of sins. It come with baptism. They are VERY explicit about this.

I realize that you reject sacramental theology, but, as I mentioned before, a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace. When the washing occurs, the sins are literally washed away.

I realized that you most likely reject infant baptism, but the same goes here. When the infant is baptized, his original sin is washed away he is filled with sanctifying grace.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To further illustrate this, look at the second part of that verse - "Repent and be baptized....and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This obviously can't mean that water baptism is required to receive the Holy Spirit because we clearly see in Acts 10:44-48 that the Holy Spirit was given before water baptism. So if Peter isn't talking about water baptism in the sense of it being causative of receiving the Holy Spirit, it is possible that he is doing the same regarding the forgiveness of sins. So we really can't use this one verse in isolation, we have to consider it in context of the whole of scripture regarding salvation.

---

Yes, I will agree that those few select people DID receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, but what did Peter IMMEDIATELY instruct them to do? He said get them baptized.

Baptism is the gateway to Christ. It is the first sacrament that one receives. In the Catholic Church, we recognize all seven sacraments that Jesus instituted. The three sacraments of initiation are Baptism, Confirmations, the Eucharist (First Communion).

Finally, I'll extend to you the same offer to you that I have others. If you're ever in the Waco area and would like to discuss theology or philosophy, please PM me. I'd like the opportunity to hear your witness over a drink and some chips and salsa at George's.

Ok, so here is where the equivocation between "baptism" and "water baptism" is confusing the issue. If you're saying that all the early church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, and that the Church believes that salvation requires "repent, believe, and be baptized", and that baptism is the "gateway to Christ" - WHICH baptism are they referring to? According to what you've told us, the Catholic Church believes there are several forms of "baptism" - water baptism, blood baptism (martyrdom), and "desire" baptism. Btw, does the CC believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul spoke of? I'm sure they do, I just don't remember you telling me whether that was included.

So when I ask whether Catholics believe water baptism is required for salvation, the answer I get is "yes", but when I pressed further for details, I'm told that other forms of baptism (blood, desire, ?Holy Spirit) meet the requirement of baptism. But then this is explicitly saying that water baptism, specifically, is NOT required for salvation. In fact, as you explained before, the Catholic Church even says that if someone doesn't get water baptized, and doesn't even desire water baptism - they are still saved if they would have desired water baptism if they knew it was required. Which ultmately means, again, that water baptism is not required.

To put it simply, water baptism is either required for salvation (meaning, if you aren't immersed in water, you will go to hell), or it's not. It should be really easy to answer this question clearly and directly. If it is required, then blood, desire, and Holy Spirit baptisms DO NOT SAVE because water immersion DID NOT HAPPEN. There'll be no gateway to Christ. There is no forgiveness of sins. If, however, blood, desire, and Holy Spirit baptisms DO save, then it follows that water baptism is clearly NOT required.

Do you see the confusion? This is simple logic. I reject your earlier assertion that this is "legalism" - it's not being legalistic for wanting something to make logical sense. Can you clearly spell out the CC's position on water baptism, specifically, without the obfuscation and equivocation?

Here is the equivocation I'm talking about - I'm asking whether water baptism is required for salvation. The answer I'm getting is "yes", but the question you're really answering is whether baptism is required for salvation. I'm asking specifically about water baptism. So please don't do that, ok?

Quote:

---

As stated earlier, baptism obtains the forgiveness of all sin, including original sin and personal sin.

Many of the earliest church fathers agree:

Shepard of Hermas - 140 AD:
" 'I have heard, sir,' said I, 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'"

---

While I wait for a response to my previous post, I'll go ahead and start on my next point, regarding the above. Let's look at this by examining scripture. Look at Luke 18:9-14, where Jesus is telling the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

"..."Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

"But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other."


To be justified, means that one's sins are forgiven and one is considered righteous in God's eyes. How did this tax collector become justified? Wasn't it the truly repentant state of his heart? There was no water baptism, yet Jesus clearly says his repentance was acceptable to God and that he obtained a remission of sins. So how do we reconcile this with what the Shepard of Hermas said, that there is "no other repentance" except through water baptism, and that water baptism is when we obtain the remission of sins?

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Lu 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
(KJV)

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. {Gentiles: Gr. Greeks}


Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
(KJV)

Water Baptism is a symbol of a Spiritual Reality. Nothing more. The Holy Spirit Baptizes a Believer into Christ, not water.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Ok, so here is where the equivocation between "baptism" and "water baptism" is confusing the issue. If you're saying that all the early church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, and that the Church believes that salvation requires "repent, believe, and be baptized", and that baptism is the "gateway to Christ" - WHICH baptism are they referring to? According to what you've told us, the Catholic Church believes there are several forms of "baptism" - water baptism, blood baptism (martyrdom), and "desire" baptism. Btw, does the CC believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul spoke of? I'm sure they do, I just don't remember you telling me whether that was included.

So when I ask whether Catholics believe water baptism is required for salvation, the answer I get is "yes", but when I pressed further for details, I'm told that other forms of baptism (blood, desire, ?Holy Spirit) meet the requirement of baptism. But then this is explicitly saying that water baptism, specifically, is NOT required for salvation. In fact, as you explained before, the Catholic Church even says that if someone doesn't get water baptized, and doesn't even desire water baptism - they are still saved if they would have desired water baptism if they knew it was required. Which ultmately means, again, that water baptism is not required.

To put it simply, water baptism is either required for salvation (meaning, if you aren't immersed in water, you will go to hell), or it's not. It should be really easy to answer this question clearly and directly. If it is required, then blood, desire, and Holy Spirit baptisms DO NOT SAVE because water immersion DID NOT HAPPEN. There'll be no gateway to Christ. There is no forgiveness of sins. If, however, blood, desire, and Holy Spirit baptisms DO save, then it follows that water baptism is clearly NOT required.

Do you see the confusion? This is simple logic. I reject your earlier assertion that this is "legalism" - it's not being legalistic for wanting something to make logical sense. Can you clearly spell out the CC's position on water baptism, specifically, without the obfuscation and equivocation?

Here is the equivocation I'm talking about - I'm asking whether water baptism is required for salvation. The answer I'm getting is "yes", but the question you're really answering is whether baptism is required for salvation. I'm asking specifically about water baptism. So please don't do that, ok?

---

Your question is fair and one that I will obtain a more nuanced and knowledgeable answer. II understand you wanting a 'yes or no' logical answer. I'm not sure it's that easy in this situation.

It does seem that we are two different, but related topics. You want your "logical" answer about water baptism and I am stating that baptism is not just a symbol.

In the interim, I'll try my best to answer will the fact that God is not always a God of absolutes. He is equally just and merciful.

I'll restate that something happens at baptism. All sins are washed away. It is not just a symbol. The bible is very explicit about this in the various verses that I've provided many times before.

As soon as I receive a more nuanced approach to your questions, I'll provide them here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other."

---

I've reached out for help on the original meaning of the Koine Greek for 'justified'. Once again, I'll respond as soon as I get an answer.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Water Baptism is a symbol of a Spiritual Reality. Nothing more. The Holy Spirit Baptizes a Believer into Christ, not water.

---

Please provide bible passage as to where Christ or His apostles stated that baptism is a 'symbol'. Please provide the earliest point in history that this was proposed. I've sited many church fathers going back to the second century that stated otherwise.

Quote:

---

One would be hard pressed to find many Church fathers that did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration. The preponderance of evidence shows this. As I mentioned, this shows what the apostles believed and taught. John taught Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. Polycarp taught both Irenaeus and Tertullian.

How did all these men "get it wrong" SO quickly if they learned from the apostles themselves? How did the greatest minds in Church History study the scriptures "incorrectly" for 1500 years but only to have Zwingli crack the code on baptism?

---

I'll go to my next point, regarding the above:

An important thing to point out here is that the two you mention who were directly taught by the apostle John (Ignatius and Polycarp) at least according to wikipedia "are silent on the issue" of baptismal regeneration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration

Regarding how all the others "got is so wrong" - there could be logical explanations. It could be that there were in fact other early church fathers who didn't hold to that belief and therefore were quashed, or maybe too afraid of being accused of heresy. So it may be that their writings were never promoted enough to survive antiquity, or maybe even destroyed. I know, that is just speculation. But it's also speculation that we are sure none like them ever existed.

It's also important to remember that even Jesus' disciples themselves, who later became apostles, are all shown in the Gospels to often be wrong about their understanding of things, and Jesus has to correct them. So it really isn't a far-fetched idea that the earliest, most prominent church fathers could have not been exactly right on all things either. Again, humans are fallible, God is not. It's true in science too - all scientists got it wrong about the sun going around the earth, but only Copernicus was right. So we shouldn't fall to the fallacy of the majority.

Also, I honestly don't think Zwingli was the first person to ever believe that about baptism. I'll bet that it's been thought about long before. I mean, if Christians with the Holy Spirit today, who've read the bible and have never even heard of Zwingli let alone read anything he wrote (or anything from the early church fathers, for that matter), have come up with the belief that baptism itself isn't the saving act, I'm pretty certain many early Christians came up with the same belief when they too studied the scripture for themselves.

Therefore, let's be like the Bereans and study the scriptures for ourselves, and decide if we agree with their interpretations or not. We have the same scriptures, and the same Holy Spirit as they did, don't we? Again, I believe the writings of the earliest church leaders are invaluable. But yes, being fallible humans they can still be wrong in their understanding, even all of them on the same topic of baptism.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other."

---

I've reached out for help on the original meaning of the Koine Greek for 'justified'. Once again, I'll respond as soon as I get an answer.

---

I commend the effort you put into answering questions, and the seriousness by which you take them.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Ok, so here is where the equivocation between "baptism" and "water baptism" is confusing the issue. If you're saying that all the early church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, and that the Church believes that salvation requires "repent, believe, and be baptized", and that baptism is the "gateway to Christ" - WHICH baptism are they referring to? According to what you've told us, the Catholic Church believes there are several forms of "baptism" - water baptism, blood baptism (martyrdom), and "desire" baptism. Btw, does the CC believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul spoke of? I'm sure they do, I just don't remember you telling me whether that was included.

So when I ask whether Catholics believe water baptism is required for salvation, the answer I get is "yes", but when I pressed further for details, I'm told that other forms of baptism (blood, desire, ?Holy Spirit) meet the requirement of baptism. But then this is explicitly saying that water baptism, specifically, is NOT required for salvation. In fact, as you explained before, the Catholic Church even says that if someone doesn't get water baptized, and doesn't even desire water baptism - they are still saved if they would have desired water baptism if they knew it was required. Which ultmately means, again, that water baptism is not required.

To put it simply, water baptism is either required for salvation (meaning, if you aren't immersed in water, you will go to hell), or it's not. It should be really easy to answer this question clearly and directly. If it is required, then blood, desire, and Holy Spirit baptisms DO NOT SAVE because water immersion DID NOT HAPPEN. There'll be no gateway to Christ. There is no forgiveness of sins. If, however, blood, desire, and Holy Spirit baptisms DO save, then it follows that water baptism is clearly NOT required.

Do you see the confusion? This is simple logic. I reject your earlier assertion that this is "legalism" - it's not being legalistic for wanting something to make logical sense. Can you clearly spell out the CC's position on water baptism, specifically, without the obfuscation and equivocation?

Here is the equivocation I'm talking about - I'm asking whether water baptism is required for salvation. The answer I'm getting is "yes", but the question you're really answering is whether baptism is required for salvation. I'm asking specifically about water baptism. So please don't do that, ok?

---

Your question is fair and one that I will obtain a more nuanced and knowledgeable answer. II understand you wanting a 'yes or no' logical answer. I'm not sure it's that easy in this situation.

It does seem that we are two different, but related topics. You want your "logical" answer about water baptism and I am stating that baptism is not just a symbol.

In the interim, I'll try my best to answer will the fact that God is not always a God of absolutes. He is equally just and merciful.

I'll restate that something happens at baptism. All sins are washed away. It is not just a symbol. The bible is very explicit about this in the various verses that I've provided many times before.

As soon as I receive a more nuanced approach to your questions, I'll provide them here.

---

God may or may not always be a God of absolutes.....but heaven and hell certainly are. Therefore, I believe it is absolutely encumbent upon any theology to spell it out in absolute terms.

Quote:

---

Yes, I will agree that those few select people DID receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, but what did Peter IMMEDIATELY instruct them to do? He said get them baptized.

---

I just want to point out here that the fact that they were immediately baptized does not really answer anything regarding whether the forgiveness of their sins or salvation itself would only happen if they were water baptized. Meaning, whether or not the actual procedure of immersion in water itself was the salvivic act.

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

[

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

An important thing to point out here is that the two you mention who were directly taught by the apostle John (Ignatius and Polycarp) at least according to wikipedia "are silent on the issue" of baptismal regeneration.

---

I did not mean to imply that these men wrote about baptismal regeneration only the fact that they learned at feet of John. It was Polycarp that discipled Irenaeus, who wrote about it in Against Heresies in 180 AD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding how all the others "got is so wrong" - there could be logical explanations. It could be that there were in fact other early church fathers who didn't hold to that belief and therefore were quashed, or maybe too afraid of being accused of heresy. So it may be that their writings were never promoted enough to survive antiquity, or maybe even destroyed. I know, that is just speculation. But it's also speculation that we are sure none like them ever existed.

---

You have provided some potential reasons that sound logical on the surface; however, all throughout Church history, anytime a heresy was raised by someone, the Church fathers wrote about it (i.e. see Irenaeus - Against Heresies)or the Church itself addressed it in Councils (First Council of Nicaea 325 Arianism (denied divinity of Christ), First Council of Constantinople 381 Macedonian (denies divinity of Holy Spirit and that Mary was Theotokos), Council of Ephesus 431 Nestorian (denies the single person two natures of Christ), Council of Chalcedon 451 Eutychian (denies perfect divinity and the full humanity of Christ). I could go on, but the point here is that SO many Church fathers wrote about baptismal regeneration, it would have most CERTAINLY been addressed by someone or a council if it was a unified belief.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's also important to remember that even Jesus' disciples themselves, who later became apostles, are all shown in the Gospels to often be wrong about their understanding of things, and Jesus has to correct them. So it really isn't a far-fetched idea that the earliest, most prominent church fathers could have not been exactly right on all things either. Again, humans are fallible, God is not. It's true in science too - all scientists got it wrong about the sun going around the earth, but only Copernicus was right. So we shouldn't fall to the fallacy of the majority.

---

I agree that we shouldn't fall into the fallacy of the majority. But, Christ promised in Matt 28:20 to be with us until the end of ages and prior to that he established His Church with Peter in Matt 16:18 and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. If the Church believe and taught something erroneously, the Jesus was wrong. That can't be because the Church would have failed. But it didn't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also, I honestly don't think Zwingli was the first person to ever believe that about baptism. I'll bet that it's been thought about long before. I mean, if Christians with the Holy Spirit today, who've read the bible and have never even heard of Zwingli let alone read anything he wrote (or anything from the early church fathers, for that matter), have come up with the belief that baptism itself isn't the saving act, I'm pretty certain many early Christians came up with the same belief when they too studied the scripture for themselves.

---

The last two hundred years of some Protestants may have not heard of Zwingli, but they have been operating under the paradigm of a rejection baptismal regeneration. Their collective minds already have that seed planted. Remember our Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist brethren all accept baptismal regeneration. How did that change?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Therefore, let's be like the Bereans and study the scriptures for ourselves, and decide if we agree with their interpretations or not. We have the same scriptures, and the same Holy Spirit as they did, don't we? Again, I believe the writings of the earliest church leaders are invaluable. But yes, being fallible humans they can still be wrong in their understanding, even all of them on the same topic of baptism.

---

But who's Holy Spirit do we listed to? What happens when people's Holy Spirit differ? Do we take a vote? Who gets to decide between a differing opinion between a Baptist and a Lutheran? Christianity is not a religion of consensus.

I realize that you will not accept this and I try to type this without arrogance, but out of historical fact … Jesus came to earth to establish a visible church. He gave His authority to Peter and the apostles, who passed it onto other men (like Mathias in Acts) through Apostolic Succession. The Church gave us the Bible and the Magisterium (the teaching office) to help determine what the scriptures mean. We both can interpret scripture any way we want, but at the end of the day, I will defer to the Church because of what Jesus promised and she has pondered this topics for nearly 2000 years.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, I will agree that those few select people DID receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, but what did Peter IMMEDIATELY instruct them to do? He said get them baptized.

---

I just want to point out here that the fact that they were immediately baptized does not really answer anything regarding whether the forgiveness of their sins or salvation itself would only happen if they were water baptized. Meaning, whether or not the actual procedure of immersion in water itself was the salvivic act.

---

Yes, I will concede that the passage does not explicitly state that this was for the forgiveness of sins; however, I and others ask why does Peter immediately request their baptism? I will contend that it's because of the importance of baptism and what it does.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

Quote:

---

I agree that we shouldn't fall into the fallacy of the majority. But, Christ promised in Matt 28:20 to be with us until the end of ages and prior to that he established His Church with Peter in Matt 16:18 and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. If the Church believe and taught something erroneously, the Jesus was wrong. That can't be because the Church would have failed. But it didn't.

---

Jesus never said the Church would be infallible, only that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. These are not mutually exclusive. If the Church was wrong, it could be reformed. Jesus' letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation illustrate this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

Quote:

---

I realize that you will not accept this and I try to type this without arrogance, but out of historical fact … Jesus came to earth to establish a visible church. He gave His authority to Peter and the apostles, who passed it onto other men (like Mathias in Acts) through Apostolic Succession. The Church gave us the Bible and the Magisterium (the teaching office) to help determine what the scriptures mean. We both can interpret scripture any way we want, but at the end of the day, I will defer to the Church because of what Jesus promised and she has pondered this topics for nearly 2000 years.

---

I am certainly not promoting an interpretation free for all, where the bible can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. But if we both have the same Holy Spirit, then we we should be able to discern scriptural truth in a unified way. And our discernment should allow us to weigh the historical teachings of the Church against scripture with correctness and in good faith. I only ask that we allow ourselves to challenge church dogma and see if it holds up to scriptural scrutiny. Again, I remind you that the Church isn't guaranteed to be infallible, so I wouldn't automatically defer to the Church's teachings every time. The Church currently has, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many, many other true believers in Jesus) holds errant teaching today, baptismal regeneration being one of them. There are others, but perhaps that is another topic for another day.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will ultimately be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will then be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

---

The requirement is premised on commitment to Christ. Otherwise it's moot anyway.

Quote:

---

Yes, I will concede that the passage does not explicitly state that this was for the forgiveness of sins; however, I and others ask why does Peter immediately request their baptism? I will contend that it's because of the importance of baptism and what it does.

---

But what DOES it do, regarding forgiveness and salvation? That's the question. And is this verse necessarily saying that water baptism is what brings it? How do you know it isn't the "Repent" part that brings it? That's why I brought up the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, because that is scriptural support for the belief that it's the "Repent" part that brings forgiveness, not the water baptism. This is what I mean by looking at the whole of Scripture instead of just looking at verses in isolation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will then be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

---

The requirement is premised on commitment to Christ. Otherwise it's moot anyway.

---

That doesn't solve your problem. Commitment to Christ can exist independent of water baptism, as in the example. You have a committed Christian who failed to get water baptized before their death, and it was not impossible for them to have gotten it. Are they in hell? If so, then you've falsified many verses in the bible. If not, but they're in heaven, then you've falsified your "impossible" standard.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will then be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

---

The requirement is premised on commitment to Christ. Otherwise it's moot anyway.

---

That doesn't solve your problem. Commitment to Christ can exist independent of water baptism, as in the example. You have a committed Christian who failed to get water baptized before their death, and it was not impossible for them to have gotten it. Are they in hell? If so, then you've falsified many verses in the bible. If not, but they're in heaven, then you've falsified your "impossible" standard.

---

It becomes impossible when they die. Until then they've yet to be judged. It's actually quite reasonable if you don't get too legalistic about it.