Truth.

No, it is means by which he enters the covenantal family. I think that Ed might have mentioned this to you before.

Is this representative of the way that you view circumscision in the Old Testament?

 

trying2understand,

You said, 'Baptism restores our relationship with God that was damaged by the original sin of Adam and Eve. It is the means by which we enter into God's Church and family.'

Ray is saying, 'We will need some Scriptural backing for your statement above. And remember tradition of the Roman church does not count as truth in God's Book, the Bible. Remember, the youngest apostle said,

'If any man shall add unto these things, {even tradition} God shall add unto unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.'

 

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men".

"But by the envy of the devil death came into the world".

"For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead".

"for as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners"

 

There was a universal baptism ' . . . unto Moses' by way of the ' . . . cloud and the Red Sea' but this baptism was only ministered to the Israelite people, God's people and not pagan nations and people. Notice the cloud baptized infants and adult people. [I Corinthians 10:1-2] What the fully meaning was as to this baptism, I do not know.

And also notice, if the old covenant assembly of God {meaning the complete Jewish congregation} was built on Peter, the first Pope, then why does the Bible say that these Israelites drank of the spritual Rock which was Christ? [I Corinthians 10:4] This passage offers corroborative evidence that Christ is ' . . . this Rock {that} I will build My church . . . ' [Matthew 16:19] The people of God under both covenants share the same Founder, Rock, and 100% basis of our faith and trust in God.

 

trying2understand,

Your verses only prove Original Sin. We agree with you that we all have this entity called, Original Sin, the Adamic Nature, the old man, etc.

You must prove to us that baptismal regeneration takes away Original Sin. This will be impossible to do.

Only the blood of Christ can cover our old nature, called Original Sin. And even though is is shielded by the blood of Christ before Almighty God and His throne, we have Original Sin our entire life until the hour of our death. [I Thessalonians 5:23] But, do not worry about this because of the covering of the blood of Christ. Water cannot remove Original Sin any more than water can remove our sins of commission or omission.

 

Trying2Understand,

Is this representative of the way that you view circumscision in the
Old Testament?

That depends whether we're under the law or under grace. Which do you want ?

If baptism brings one to the covenantal family, it is only to the Catholic
Covenantal family and then only in imagination. I'm sure you wouldn't
accept baptism from a Nazarene to be sufficient in the Catholic Church.
Therefore I stand on my statement as follows:

If baptism does that to a baby with no ability to condition himself
with forethought of his desire to serve the Lord, confess and believe
and such, then it would do it to others who have given no forethought to God.

So, to broaden your coverage of forced baptismal regeneration, what would be
the difference in baptizing a baby who could not think for himself compared to
that of a Muslim who was baptized with a waterbomb?


No disrespect for circumcision, and you haven't answered this question yet.

 

What was the purpose of circumcision in the OT - to bring the baby into the Covenant. Correct?

The NT compares baptism to circumcision. Why? Because baptism brings us into the new covenant.

As far as baptism in non-Catholic churches, the Church does in deed accept the baptisms of most non-Catholic Christian churches. It depends on the particular denomination. Actually it depends on the particulars of the baptism rite in those denominations.

Your waterbomb questions are just silly as you are no doubt fully aware.

The difference is that a baby is brought forth by parents who have authority over their children from God.

 

I'm sure you wouldn't accept baptism from a Nazarene to be sufficient in the Catholic Church.

Ray is saying, I by the above statement you mean the Church of the Nazarene, they do not baptize babies. The only dedicate them to the Lord until they are of an age where they can personally receive Christ as Savior. [John 1:12]

 

That would also restore their relationship
with God whether they knew what was going on or not ......same as with the baby. What would be the difference?

You show a profound lack of understanding in the difference between a baby who is under the covenantal headship of his/her parents and a full grown RATIONAL human being who is responsible for making his/her own decisions regarding the covenant of God.

I have numerous times pointed you to the PROTESTANT WEB SITE "Institute for Christian Economics" and have suggested that you read Ray Sutton's book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- Dominion by Covenant. If you would stop yapping at us and GO READ THE BOOK you would get an understanding of how a covenant works and the principles which govern it.

One of the five principles of covenantalism is that of "hierarchy" (which I have also spoken of until blue in the face). Covenantal heads make decisions for those who are under their authority until they are old enough to either accept or reject the covenant for themselves. This is why babies are baptized...they are under the headship of their parents (particularly the father). The rite of confirmation is that time when the child who has been baptized into the covenant makes a COGNITIVE AND WILLING decision to accept that covenantal status for him/herself.

An adult Muslim who has NO FAITH NOR DESIRE to enter the covenantal kingdom can be splashed with holy water directly from the fonts of the Vatican itself and it will MEAN NOTHING. The will is against what is happening.

Now please.....go READ THE BOOK!!!

 

Here -- I even looked up the site for you:

<a href="http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm" target="_blank">

INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN ECONOMICS</a>

Go to the left side drop down column and pick BOOKS BY and click on "authors." Then scroll down the right side till Sutton's name appears and click on THAT YOU MAY PROSPER.

And read FREE...you will learn the basic structure of how a covenant operates. Sutton does not do a thorough job (he missed entirely the familial aspect of covenant, focusing only on the judicial) but it will set a good foundation for you.

Then find Scott Hahn's web site and get some of his work on the covenant to understand the familial aspect of it.

THEN you will have a proper and well rounded understanding of the covenant.

Brother Ed

 

Bro Ed:

For your pleasure I read the short commentary (mostly by Gary North)
concerning Sutton's input on convenantal (whatever) issues. It is mostly
an invitation to read his book which I don't do much. Like you said, it doesn't
fully describe how a covenant works and personally I have never been confronted
with the issue in 26 years of christianity. I'm too inspired by John's words that
one would come after him and baptize us with the Holy spirit .........to get much
excited over water baptism. I know plenty Catholics who seem to have dirtied
the covenant.....meaning that if Catholics lead a Godly life because they
are baptized and because they belong to the church that Christ supposedly
started (and this is supposed to make them closer to the Kingdom than I am) then something is wrong with your theory. Many Catholics are my friends and I was just
involved in a conversation today that revealed hatred between two Catholics (as
told by one of the parties involved). I don't expect humans to be perfect, Ed, regardless of their church affiliation, but from all the input you give as to the
superior condition of Catholics in their superior church and all............

well you get the drift !

 

CatholicConvert

NO! the only true church is the church catholic, not the Catholic Church! The difference: The Catholic (Title) Church is headquartered in Rome, the church catholic (universal) is headquartered in Heaven! The Catholic Church is a physical presence in this world alone, the church catholic is a spiritual presence in this world and in Heaven.</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. This totally breaks the typology of the changing of the covenants as found in Matthew 21: 33 - 46. It also creates insurmountable problems in that if there is not ONE Church on earth with one distinctive voice, then it cannot be "a light upon a hill" "the pillar and ground of truth" and able to discipline people. If it is "invisible" it has no real presence on earth, and all those things which our Lord and St. Paul said regarding church discipline and other eklessiologic matters simply cannot be enforced.</font>[/QUOTE]Your response, though expected, assures all who read your posts that you do not know the truth. Nor do you know the true essence of the Church of Jesus the Christ. All you are able to see is the physical Roman church, believing it to be the true church when in reality it, the Roman Church has among its numbers a portion of true believers who are of the church catholic.

"Light on a hill", and "pillar of truth" are metaphors for the function of the true church, which is to stand apart from the world (light on a hill)and retain the spiritual truth that has been given us by God (pillar of truth) by which the world will be judged. Those metaphors do not mean that the church is to be resident on the seven hills of Rome and have many Pillars that hold up the roof, as in "Roman Catholic Church". But you will receive this as more Catholic bashing, and that too, is untrue.

 

CatholicConvert

True, and not by the Pope nor by Mary the mother of Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the prophets, etc.</font>[/QUOTE]It is really sad to see you making such a fool of yourself. The Catholic Church teaches that the Great Judge of all is Christ Jesus on the Last Day. You really should KNOW what your opponents say before you jump into a debate with them.</font>[/QUOTE]I simply extended another's comment to include those the Catholic church seems to have raised to positions having abilities and responsibilities not given to man.


RE: Artificial Contraception.

It is a mortal sin because it is, like all other sins, a violation of God's will for mankind and of His law for us. He told us to go forth and replenish the earth. He is life and the giver of life, and the only way we properly represent Him and His life giving grace in relationship to mankind is by always being open to life itself.

It is also a mortal sin because disobedience to a command of God is sin. When the Church speaks on an issue like this, it is GOD SPEAKING. To KNOWINGLY disobey God is to commit a sin "worthy of death". It severs the relationship just as the rebellion of the Prodigal separated him from his Father.</font>[/QUOTE]If the use of artificial contraception devices by lawfully married couples is sin, then 'natural means' such as "the rhythm method" is also sin because such sexual activity is done for the explicit mutual sexual gratification of the couple without the production of children. So, if artificial contraception is prohibited by scripture then "natural contraception should also be prohibited because it violates God's command to replenish the world. Now, that puts sex in it biblical place, the perpetuation of the species. Paul tells us it is better to marry than to burn in hell for engaging in sexual immorality... unmarried sex, which means that sex between married male and female is not sin, but rather is permitted by God, but sex between unmarried persons remains sin.

 

CatholicConvert

? Suffering is suffering, and it comes from many disorders. Saying that all suffering is meaningful only in light of the suffering of Jesus is to say that suffering that has its root in sin is the result of Jesus! What a false doctrine that is! Jesus is not Satan!</font>[/QUOTE]Once again, you do not understand. Suffering finds meaning in Jesus because HE IS THE MODEL FOR OUR LIVES!!! We are called to be like Him, and that includes being willing to suffer for the sake of others that good might come to them.</font>[/QUOTE]Excuse me, but Jesus was a perfectly healthy man of 33 years of age, who had not suffered anything out of the norm for humanity prior to taking upon himself the sins of the world and suffering death in our stead. He had not "suffered" sickness, debilitating, conditions such as blindness, loss of limb, cancer, palsy, etc. He had not suffered the Loss of a life mate, he had not suffered the loss or pain associated with having children who are born with debilitating or crippling condition. He did not suffer financial loss, or job loss, or any of the other things commonly called suffering that are common to man. So it is you who does not know what you are talking about!

And then there is Mary,

You were there at the right hand of God to personally witness this, right?</font>[/QUOTE]No, but if you understand conception, it is not something that happens to the mother, conception is the conceiving of new life within, and not of. Mary did not conceive, Jesus was conceived within her. Mary was conceived when Her father and mother "did it", and it was in the same manner that all humanity but Jesus were conceived, that is, through human sexual activity. Jesus was conceived in Mary by means of the Power of the Most High God, and that is why Jesus' conception is called the "immaculate conception". The fact that Mary herself was conceived in the same manner as all mankind, and as David said it, "in sin" makes her a mere mortal and not a deity capable of causing God the Son to do anything she bids Him do. That one condition in Mary's existence also negates any possibility of her being the "queen of heaven". To be the queen of any place means that you must be 'of that place' or 'married into that place'. Mary is not of heaven and she is not alone married to the King of Heaven whom she bore in her womb. She is part of the Bride of Christ in the same manner that all of us who believe in Jesus are part of the Bride of Christ.

And now the infallible Pope,

No agreement here.</font>[/QUOTE]Fine. Tell us THEN WHO IS . After all, if the truth is that important that we must find it and keep it for the salvation of our souls, it would be cruel of God not to have a source of infallible truth on the earth. So far, I have found nothing in Protestantism as a body but extreme doctrinal chaos and argumentation.</font>[/QUOTE]The Pope's words may be 'accepted' by his followers as infallible, but there is no Biblical doctrine that states the Pope is infallible! He, in fact, is a sinner conceived in sin, born in sin, having sinned, (Just like Peter!) a mere mortal raised to a position of authority among mere mortals. He is not infallible, any more than any other human mortal! He is not deity! He is not above humanness!

 

CatholicConvert,

FAITH alone changes souls, Baptism signifies the change! One cannot be baptized and thereby be saved! However one can have no experience with the waters of baptism and yet have eternal life!</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong again. You have been given numerous passages of scripture and exegesis by Catholics on this board proving you wrong. No further explanation needed.</font>[/QUOTE]Please explain the mechanics of how a dip under water, a pouring of water, or a sprinkle of water changes the soul of even one single human being! It is not possible to do so, because the "soul" of man is spirit, and spirit is impervious to the natural elements, such as water. Also, there is no mass whatever that can constrain spirit let alone have a changing effect upon it. Water is nothing to spirit! Take an unbelieving Astronaut, for example, and put him/her out in space away from "water". That astronaut can have his soul changed without the benefit of water. A miracle! A miracle! A miracle! Furthermore if water were withheld from the astronaut for a few days, the astronauts soul would most certainly change, because it would be set free from the astronaut's flesh because the flesh requires water to live. The human soul, or spirit does not!

So, do you care to expound on the mechanics of water changing the soul? Do you care to convince us all that it does? We could start another topic on Baptism just for you to teach us all how water effects the human spirit.

Jesus SAVES, There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved! Raising priests to this level is a sin equivalent to Blasphemy! All that any priest, no matter who the priest may be, can do is persuade a soul to believe in Jesus, the Christ and thereby be saved. Priests are not "other christs", for there is but one Christ, Messiah, for all eternity!</font>[/QUOTE]Jesus works through physical things on earth. Such things include water, wine, oil, bread, and people. It is a form of Gnosticism viriulent in Protestantism to say that God cannot use physical means to provide spiritual blessings. Are you a Gnostic? </font>[/QUOTE]No, friend, I am not Gnostic, my faith is based on belief that Jesus is the Son of God the Messiah. No priest of any Holy Order saved me. God established that it is human faith in Himself and His only Son that Saves the human from being cast into the lake of fire. Jesus took that further by stating that whosoever believeth is not judged, but whosoever believeth not is judged by their unbelief. I am saved by my belief (faith) in Jesus the Christ while God's grace prevails.

Priest are not deity, they are mere mortals, conceived in sin, born into sin, and having sinned they are just like me, a man! They have no power to save! There has not been even one single human saved, in the biblical sense of the term, by another human. The only authority that a priest has was given him, and all who obey, by Jesus in Matthew 28 by Jesus' command to "Go, make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." It is when one is persuaded to believe in Jesus that one becomes a disciple of Jesus, and it is belief in Jesus that saves. It is not the messenger, the one who persuades, that saves!

His theology is complete and quite brilliantly presented. It's a shame you don't stop with the knee jerk reactions and start listening, after all, you will stand before Jesus one day and answer for resisting the truth, won't you?</font>[/QUOTE]Praise God almighty, I will not only stand before Jesus, but I will live eternally with Jesus, having not been judged and found wanting because my faith is in Jesus and it is stronger today than any other time in my life. I have no intermediaries between He and me or the Father and me. I am in direct communication with God. I have the Holy Spirit as my Guide, therefore I am not willing to bend to any wind of doctrine found among men. I am instead like the tree planted by the waters, strong, well nourished, able to withstand the winds of doctrine no matter how strong or long lasting or wrong they may be.

You on the other hand are reliant on the infallibility of the pope, who is a mere mortal, and you will bend to the winds of doctrine coming from his mouth that are found circulating among men. In so being, you are susceptible to the maneuvering of the False Prophet who will sell your soul cheap to Satan. There is but one true shepherd and that one is Jesus. Hear his voice and obey Him alone!

Like I just said, you will bend to the winds of doctrine, and that last statement indicates the truth in what I've said. Man behaves in accordance with what man believes. That is, we act upon and act out what we believe. If we believe in Jesus, that he is the Son of God, the Messiah, we act according to that belief as disciples of the object of our belief, doing that which His words, amplified by the Holy Spirit, tell us to do. We will produce the fruits of the spirit, we will be wise as a fox - timid as a lamb. We will be prepared, with our lamps well oiled and our wicks trimmed, dressed in white robes of purity. All of which indicate what we believe. Yes my friend, it does matter that we live our faith, lest we lose our faith and thus lose eternal life.

What does not matter is the religious dogma and humdrum demanded by religious organizations as evidence of our faith!

 

One more thought on Jesus and suffering.

Jesus was not a man for suffering, but for resurrection and life abundant! It is not in dying that Jesus demonstrated his love for us, but rather in his resurrection.

All men must die and then the judgment, but Jesus did not die to be judged He died to judge! He judged sin and took it to the grave where he left it when He resurrected sinless! By resurrecting as He did, Jesus showed us that he has the power to do that which he promised those who believe in Him.

Don't keep Jesus on the Cross, He lives!

 

Brother Ed

 

Yes, the Catholic Church is superior simply because She is the Church
which our Lord put upon this earth. But as for the people within
Her.............yeeeeeeeeeeesh!!! .

Ed, the only comment you made that invites a response would be this
one. Now consider what you've just said. You offer that the people within
this supposed perfect church are ''yeeshish'' yet you maintain that I should
join it because it gives me more favor with God. I rather like to witness of the
Lord to friends and strangers and tell them of the factual proof that the bible
offers concerning eternal life. I like to suggest to them that there is more to
life than just the work ethics and relationships we know on earth. I like to
inform them of how we cannot DO anything of our own power to merit
this life eternal......how Jesus offered Himself as the propitiation for our sins
that we are born with and will commit. .......how faith in the fact that God has
offered his Son as our replacement in death is our key to heaven.

Since time began, the O.T. provides that a saviour would be given to cover
for 'whosoever believes'. Jesus is the Holy Spirit that indwells us with the
power to become his children. It is neither by church affiliation nor works of
the devil that I continue to tell the story of Jesus. I personally know a Catholic
or two who love to share Jesus with others; however I feel sorry for them that
they have to be involved in so much activity to get the job done. On the other
hand, most of the Catholics I encounter each day would be embarrassed to
even hear the name of Jesus at the coffeeshop. I know more who use His name
as profanity on a regular basis; yet they wouldn't miss Mass for anything.

So...........my experience in this world has not led me to your church by example of
those ''yeeshish'' people within it. And, it has not been revealed to me in the bible
that such is the case of an established church. And I am not drawn to either
the RCC or the Orthodox Catholic Church by example of their clergy who suffer from
indulgences. And I have enjoyed God's presence in my life from the standpoint
of a non-Catholic. And I am assured of eternal life on the basis of my faith
and His grace that abounds toward those who believe upon His name.

So for lack of evidence to support your views, I find no reason to move my name into
the rosters of the church that attacks the bible as the only basis of Gods word, that
attacks salvation by grace through faith alone, that suggests that Jesus was a Catholic,
that suggests that water somehow would regenerate me when I know I've already
been regenerated, that praying to Mary is needed on top of praying to Jesus, that
I should confess my sins to a mere man and expect forgiveness, that infant baptism
is anything more than dedication, that Jesus established a physical church, that attacks the members of 20,000 churches for not joining one more church. .................

That just does not excite me at all.

 

Brother Ed

 

Bro Ed:

Jesus is the Holy Spirit that indwells us with the power to become his children.(Singer)

I hope you don't mean that the way it sounds. Perhaps I am reading it
wrong. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are two separate and distinct persons of
the Blessed Trinity. Your sentence makes it sound as if they are one in the
same. (Bro Ed)

Two separate and distinct yet Jesus said "I will not leave you comfortless; I will
come unto you" and we both know it was the Holy Spirit that came at Pentecost
and is the same Holy Spirit that comes to us today to give us rebirth. That could
also be called "receiving the Son" or "having the Son". There is no other way to
have the Son....he cannot be bought or earned.

And I have enjoyed God's presence in my life from the standpoint of a
non-Catholic. And I am assured of eternal life on the basis of my faith and His
grace that abounds toward those who believe upon His name.(Singer)

[/b] Are you sure that your sense of "presence" is not subjective feelings? Just
wondering. As for your assurance, go back and read Romans 2: 5 - 10. No
one gets to Heaven until they have been judged and found worthy by their
deeds according to this passage. By our works, we keep God's covenantal
relationship with us and are deemed "faithful children" and recieve the
inheritance, which is eternal life.[/b] (Bro Ed)

We are told that we who have the Son are not condemned, that we who believe
have overcome the world, that we who call upon the Lord are saved. We are
told that whosoever believes in Him will have eternal life. What am I to do.......
consider God a liar in light of something revealed to me by Catholicism?

We are saved by grace through faith, not of works.
If there was even a scripture that said just the opposite, then you might have
an arguement, but there is not. You would contend that the gestures that
I post below are works and I would contend that if they are not enough to
save us, then becoming a member of the Catholic Church will not do it either.


We are told to believe:
1. That Jesus rose from the dead Rom 10:9
2. That He was from God
3. That do not believe on "Him whom He has sent" St John 6:29
4. "In me" St John 11:25,26
5. That Jesus is the Son of God 1 John 5:5
6. That He who has the Son has life. 1John 5:11,12

We believe through faith and we are assured through faith. Your suggestion
that my faith could be "subjective feelings" is no different if I were to accuse
you of your hope of heaven as being ''wishful thinking''. Neither of us can
prove or show anyone the place called heaven, but by faith we accept there is
such a place. Same with assurance of salvation.