I Need Some Major Apologetics Help

[phatcatholic]

phatpham,

i found this article that claims to refute baptismal regeneration. i thought it would be a joke, but when i read it i actually found many claims to which i did not know how to respond. i realize that one could discredit the entire article just by saying that it goes against the tradition of the Church and what the Fathers have always testified. but, i'm looking more for a defense through biblical exegesis (sp?) or theological arguments. actually, a point-by-point response would be the most helpful--and the most comprehensive--but i realize that this is a long article and so you guys may not have the time.

anyway, here's the artilce:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/baptism.htm

anything you guys can do to help would be appreciated. the guy who wrote this responds to his email (i sent him a critique of his article on the scapular), so we could even send him our response if we put something amesome together.

are you down w/ the phatness?

pax christi,

nick

[Aloysius]

IF the proof texts used by these groups can be Biblically refuted, while harmony is maintained with other verses on both water baptism and salvation, then logic would declare that these groups are disseminating "another gospel,"

sooo... if you interpret one scripture out of context, then go through every other scripture and make it fit that previous interpretation, then THAT must be what it means for the Holy Spirit to guide your interpretation? :huh:

[Aloysius]

iiiich, they're tryin to make the Bible answer questions it NEVER set out to answer :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

[Mary's Knight, La]

well i like how they claim the key is Acts 10:43 which does not speak at all as to the state of their souls read properly but paraphrased you could say it reads like this:Peter delivered the message, they believed then Peter asked (rhetorically) if anyone would deny them baptism God declared them "clean" *before they heard Peter* so this declaration of clean means only fit to be ministered to by both Peter and the Spirit. This is the only declaration of their cleanliness until Peter reports that they have joined the family of God in chapter 15.

The only way to make the claim that particular site makes is you have to believe that it is hearing and believing the message of salvation that "saves" one, before you read that verse.

Bottom line is it's a misinterpretation and you probably won't be able to change their minds but if you're gonna try I'd start with asking who has the authority to interpret the bible. but that's much too long of a point to get into now so I wont on the hope that you can already handle that one yourself, but once you set up the fact that the right to interpret the bible comes from the same group that was around at the time and that declared under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that that particular text was in fact inspired by God then you have a foundation by which to inform them of the truth behind that text. but if you can do that then you have them well on the way to becoming Catholic.

[Katholikos]

Sorry, Nick, but I know this guy -- not personally, but through his tapes and books. His mind is closed, locked, sealed, and enclosed in an impenetrable vault. He believes his interpretation of Scripture is infallible. He's his own Pope, and then some. I have one of his books: "The Believer's Security" -- 801 pages of arguments against the Protestant doctrine of Eternal Security of Once Saved, Always Saved. Now, I agree with him that OSAS is a dastardly doctrine, but coming from a guy who believes in Sola Scriptura (the Bible is the sole rule of faith and morals and the Holy Spirit guides every sincere individual to 'all truth'), it's silly for him to argue the point.

I do like his booklet against Calvin, though, called "His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin," about how Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for not agreeing with him.

The most relevant question in biblical interpretation is: What did the sacred writers mean by what they wrote; what did they intend to convey? You can only know that by examining what the first Christians believed, who were taught by the Apostles own lips -- before, during and after the time the NT was written. You've gotta read early Christian history, including the Church Fathers.

The Reverend Corner's problem is that of all Protestants: He begins reading the New Testament under the false assumption that it's an instruction book in Christianity. But Christianity wasnt based on the NT -- it was based on the living, dynamic, teaching Catholic Church, founded by Christ and led by the Apostles. The Church is the Mother of the New Testament. She gave birth to it and named it in 397 A.D., and it was "baptized and confirmed" in 405 when Pope Innocent I gave it final approval. (She canonized both the OT and the NT at the same time.)

The NT was written within the context of the lived faith of the Catholic Church and cannot be understood unless read in that same context. Protestants are doomed to be wrong because their premise is wrong. Begin with a false premise and you will inevitably reach a false conclusion.

The Church has always taught baptismal regeneration, because the Apostles taught it, and they learned their doctrines from Chirst, who was God. Reverend Corner reads the NT differently -- it is exogesis (reading an interpretation INTO the Scriptures), not exegesis (reading the meaning OUT of the Scriptures).

Catholicism and Christianity are synonyms.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

Edited November 24, 2003 by Katholikos

[phatcatholic]

likos,

i agree w/ everything u said, for real. but then, i read some of his arguments in this article and they are majorly convincing. i mean, if he is bound to be wrong if he contradicts tradition (and i believe he is) then their should be a solid answer based on biblical exegesis for every claim he makes. right? if the Bible is a reflection of what the Catholic Church has always believed--since it is a catholic book--then from the bible we should be able to refute every claim he makes in the article. but, i can't do that w/ many of the claims he makes. so, that's what i need help with. i need someone to help me take the Bible--our book--and shove it right up his you-know-what....

i also realize that it would be futile to send him a response to his article in hopes that it would somehow change his mind. so, now this exercise would basically be for my own education--so that i can better use the bible to defend catholicism. any help would be appreciated.

pax christi,

nick

[Anna]

likos,

i agree w/ everything u said, for real. but then, i read some of his arguments in this article and they are majorly convincing. i mean, if he is bound to be wrong if he contradicts tradition (and i believe he is) then their should be a solid answer based on biblical exegesis for every claim he makes. right? if the Bible is a reflection of what the Catholic Church has always believed--since it is a catholic book--then from the bible we should be able to refute every claim he makes in the article. but, i can't do that w/ many of the claims he makes. so, that's what i need help with. i need someone to help me take the Bible--our book--and shove it right up his you-know-what....

i also realize that it would be futile to send him a response to his article in hopes that it would somehow change his mind. so, now this exercise would basically be for my own education--so that i can better use the bible to defend catholicism. any help would be appreciated.

pax christi,

nick

hi Nick,

First of all, always remember that the Bible is SACRED to us Catholics.

Before the priest reads the Gospel during Mass he kisses it. In some parishes, I think they also incense it.

What do Protestants do with their Bibles?

They pound on them, thump on them, poke their finger firmly on them!

We treat the Holy Scriptures with reverence, as we would the Host. It is the Word of God.

The first of the Protestant Fathers, Martin Luther, abused the Bible. He edited Sacred Scripture to agree with his thinking!!! (talk about pride, phew.)

And sooooooooo many of these protestant ministers, puffed up in pride, having memorized lots of verses and attached incorrect meanings to them are out there pounding, thumping, poking and challenging us to take the bait.

Don't do it.

Follow the Scriptures as they were meant to be followed.

Love the Scriptures, and don't listen to those who twist them.

Remember, even Satan quoted Sacred Scripture when trying to tempt Jesus!

This guy's claims are just that, claims.

Can he claim that the gates of hell will not prevail against his "church?" Certainly not, cuz a couple hundred years from now, it will have splintered into so many other little groups, the original won't even be recognizable any more.

Stinks to be him! lol.

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

I "borrowed" this from another Catholic phorum, it was so good...

Here's just a teensy weensy glimpse into the history of protestantism, vs. the history of Catholicism, as described by convert-apologist Dave Armstrong-----

The Old Testament in Catholic Bibles contains seven more books than are found in Protestant Bibles (46 and 39, respectively). Protestants call these seven books the Apocrypha and Catholics know them as the deuterocanonical books. These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch. Also, Catholic Bibles contain an additional six chapters (107 verses) in the book of Esther and another three in the book of Daniel (174 verses). ...

The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii). ... Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

... Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river. ... The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.

... Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read."

[ironmonk]

Bro,

Here is a great resource...

http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teac...ant_Baptism.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Im...ersion_Only.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Born_Again..._in_Baptism.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinitaria...ian_Baptism.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_..._of_Baptism.asp

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Jake Huether]

Wow! Point by point would be a huge undertaking, as every scripture quote that this guy has produced has been scritinized to mean what it doesn't mean. Which means that one would equally have to scrutinize it's meaning to show what it really means.

Hope that makes sense.

Anyway, at the root of this guys filth is the exact same "portestant" argument for faith alone (i.e. no works).

He seems to be saying that we need Baptism, but it is our calling on the Name of Jesus that saves us. But that doesn't make sense because Jesus himself told us, "not everyone who crys, 'Lord, Lord' will enter Heaven".

Typical...

If you believe that Christ gave Peter the Keys, then you don't have to worry about these kinds of things. Just trust in His Church.

[Muschi]

See also the words of Jesus Christ Himself in John 3:5 and Peter in 1 Peter 3:21 which clearly refutes this pastor's fancy "two-step". I hope this helps too. - God bless! - Michelle

[phatcatholic]

phatpham,

i plan on making a point-by-point response to his claims over christmas break. i realize that this man's mind is already made up. so, this exercise is for my own benefit. at the same time, i'll probably send it to him anyway, just to see what he says. nothing is impossible w/ God, ya know? so, i guess we'll see what happens.

if anyone wants to help me w/ this. just let me know. we can take a look at this article and break it up into sections so it will be easier to refute.

holla back,

nick

[peach_cube]

See Stephen K. Ray "Crossing the Tiber; Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historic Church" Excellent book, First gives the conversion story and then a thorough treatment of Baptism (as well as the Eucharist) as taught by the scriptures, early church fathers, and the church today. The Footnotes are especially helpful because he even brings in quotes from known Protestant resources to confirm the Catholic belief!

Edited December 7, 2003 by peach_cube