Baptism....

[cmotherofpirl]

I think the idea to discuss one section at a time could be helpful, and kindly remember not all of us played football.

[thessalonian]

Actually I wasn't switching topics and asking different questions. I was making points that he missed with regard to his hyperliteral approach to biblical interpretation that strips it of it's spirit, when he uses "we" to dispensationally remove baptism from it's intended purpose in the Christian life. This makes him a blind guide. I have no intention of debating him on his views about my usage of the John passage or the Matt 15 quote from Jesus.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Briguy' post='1095657' date='Oct 19 2006, 08:03 AM']
Can you ask me one question at a time or post one set of verses at a time that we can discuss?[/quote]

Ok, fair enough. Let us slow down, wipe the slate clean, and start again. I understand if you are suffering from a bit of information overload. For you, let us stick to one topic concerning baptism. Baptism is a very complicated thing from our perspective. It is has many implications and properties about it. Discussions such as (1) infant baptism and whether (2)baptism into Christ can occur by only water or may occur by blood or desire are both good discussions, but let us first figure out the norm of the plan God has given us before we discuss the exceptions.

A bit of what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject is in accord with doctrines held by protestants other than yourself. So, if you were to agree with us on some element of baptism, you would only be switching doctrines to a different protestant one.

Let us stick with this item of discussion (resolution):

[u]Nowhere in the bible does it say baptism is a function of showing repentence.[/u]

Do you support or oppose this resolution?
How do you defend your position about the resolution using scripture alone?



Let us seek the truth together.

[thessalonian]

The more I think about your football analogy the more it is apples and oranges. To be on the football team there are things you must do. He wanted the Jews in Acts 2 on his team and the answer is the same for them as us. Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you shall recieve the Holy Spirit. There is not a way to the Holy Spirit for Jews and one for Gentiles.

Just thinking here. We have Eutecus, Brian, and Budge, oh and JesusPaidThePrice, each with his own home brewed theolog. Three very different Protestants with three very different beliefs telling us Catholics we're the ones who have it wrong. Kinda leaves a guy scratching his head. Kinda makes one think of the verse "blown about by every wind of doctrine".

Edited October 19, 2006 by thessalonian

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

Don't drag me into your little fit on this thread. I never claimed to be a Protestant, nor have I said I belonged to a Protestant Church. The Catholic Church through the 'development' of doctrine" has taken the individual thought of the early fathers, theologians, doctors of the Church, to modern scholars today [as well as the thought of clergy] and has discerned from their own thought what they believed to be truth and eventually define it as doctrine and dogma. I don't see any need to attack Brian's scripture study as if he is claiming to be a Magisterium, as I don't see him claiming to be infallible or claiming that you have to take his word for it. It seems he is presenting material on a debate board to be debated. If you have debated him in the past, and are sick of debating him, I would think the best thing to do would be to ignore him.

Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes. He is simply making conjectures based on a casual observance of his English text as to the meaning of the text. To state that the function of baptism according to Acts is to be a sign after repentance terribly strains the plain meaning of the text. It ignores the Jewish understanding of Hebrew scriptures, especially the prophetic texts that tell us a remnant of Israel will be "cut to the heart", that is their circumcision would not merely be of the flesh, but their whole lives would be transformed in the New Covenant and they would become a "new creation". Luke was very careful in his choice of words in Acts. The argument of the demonstration of believers being baptized after repentance as a condemnation of infant baptism, or more importantly, the covenantal role of baptism, is extremely weak to the point that I would call it error given the organic unity of scripture tells us otherwise about baptism. It is fine that Brian does his own Bible study, just as it if fine that Catholics do so, but the study of scriptures cannot be done in a vacuum.

[thessalonian]

Fit? Because a Catholic points out the obvious division after division, contradiction after contradiction, blown about by every wind of doctrine it is a fit? Your sounding kind of anti-catholic here. I know you don't like to be lumped in with them but you base your theologies on the same false premise they do. I am sorry you don't like my direct words. Telling it like it is.

"Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes"

[jswranch]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1095975' date='Oct 19 2006, 02:31 PM']
Fit? Because a Catholic points out the obvious division after division, contradiction after contradiction, blown about by every wind of doctrine it is a fit? Your sounding kind of anti-catholic here. I know you don't like to be lumped in with them but you base your theologies on the same false premise they do. I am sorry you don't like my direct words. Telling it like it is.

"Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes"


[/quote]
Well, he has his opinion. He is also kindly wishing to discuss this very important issue. Lets make sure he knows he is welcomed.

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1095975' date='Oct 19 2006, 04:31 PM']
Fit? Because a Catholic points out the obvious division after division, contradiction after contradiction, blown about by every wind of doctrine it is a fit? Your sounding kind of anti-catholic here. I know you don't like to be lumped in with them but you base your theologies on the same false premise they do. I am sorry you don't like my direct words. Telling it like it is.

"Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes"


[/quote]

You're attitude is really no better than Budge or Eut, and is a poor example as a representative of the Catholic Church. You don't "tell it like it is", you simply, like Budge and Eut, come off as self righteous. This board has got to be one of the worst examples of Protestant and Catholic dialogue today. I've long since given up attempting any level of scholarly dialogue as the intellect doesn't exist here, but even the apologetics are poor as people seem personally wounded everytime a varying opinion is voiced. It seems the only Protestants this board can engage anymore, for any period of time, are those who will cater to the "attack the person, don't discuss the issue" form of "Internet Debate". I expect this out of most Protestant boards, I have however come to expect a better level of engagement at Catholic boards based on those I attend to now. This board however, unfortunately fails that standard, it seems, for popularity. This atmosphere unfortunately eventually effects everyone, even those who are very well meaning. I'm sure you, and other Catholics and even Protestants here are perfectly wonderful, loving people but it seems that this type of board just brings out the worst in people. As an example, where in any of my posts have I attempted to advance a doctrine that is opposed to Catholic teaching? I have indeed, over and over again attempted to help Catholics approach non-Catholics with their theology in a way non-Catholics can understand it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1095959' date='Oct 19 2006, 04:10 PM']
Don't drag me into your little fit on this thread. I never claimed to be a Protestant, nor have I said I belonged to a Protestant Church. The Catholic Church through the 'development' of doctrine" has taken the individual thought of the early fathers, theologians, doctors of the Church, to modern scholars today [as well as the thought of clergy] and has discerned from their own thought what they believed to be truth and eventually define it as doctrine and dogma. I don't see any need to attack Brian's scripture study as if he is claiming to be a Magisterium, as I don't see him claiming to be infallible or claiming that you have to take his word for it. It seems he is presenting material on a debate board to be debated. If you have debated him in the past, and are sick of debating him, I would think the best thing to do would be to ignore him.

Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes. He is simply making conjectures based on a casual observance of his English text as to the meaning of the text. To state that the function of baptism according to Acts is to be a sign after repentance terribly strains the plain meaning of the text. It ignores the Jewish understanding of Hebrew scriptures, especially the prophetic texts that tell us a remnant of Israel will be "cut to the heart", that is their circumcision would not merely be of the flesh, but their whole lives would be transformed in the New Covenant and they would become a "new creation". Luke was very careful in his choice of words in Acts. The argument of the demonstration of believers being baptized after repentance as a condemnation of infant baptism, or more importantly, the covenantal role of baptism, is extremely weak to the point that I would call it error given the organic unity of scripture tells us otherwise about baptism. It is fine that Brian does his own Bible study, just as it if fine that Catholics do so, but the study of scriptures cannot be done in a vacuum.
[/quote]
Please continue with this discussion

[quote name='jswranch' post='1095788' date='Oct 19 2006, 01:15 PM']
Ok, fair enough. Let us slow down, wipe the slate clean, and start again. I understand if you are suffering from a bit of information overload. For you, let us stick to one topic concerning baptism. Baptism is a very complicated thing from our perspective. It is has many implications and properties about it. Discussions such as (1) infant baptism and whether (2)baptism into Christ can occur by only water or may occur by blood or desire are both good discussions, but let us first figure out the norm of the plan God has given us before we discuss the exceptions.

A bit of what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject is in accord with doctrines held by protestants other than yourself. So, if you were to agree with us on some element of baptism, you would only be switching doctrines to a different protestant one.

Let us stick with this item of discussion (resolution):

[u]Nowhere in the bible does it say baptism is a function of showing repentence.[/u]

Do you support or oppose this resolution?
How do you defend your position about the resolution using scripture alone?
Let us seek the truth together.
[/quote]

please continue with your points.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1096716' date='Oct 20 2006, 09:35 AM']
You're attitude is really no better than Budge or Eut, and is a poor example as a representative of the Catholic Church. You don't "tell it like it is", you simply, like Budge and Eut, come off as self righteous. This board has got to be one of the worst examples of Protestant and Catholic dialogue today. I've long since given up attempting any level of scholarly dialogue as the intellect doesn't exist here, but even the apologetics are poor as people seem personally wounded everytime a varying opinion is voiced. It seems the only Protestants this board can engage anymore, for any period of time, are those who will cater to the "attack the person, don't discuss the issue" form of "Internet Debate". I expect this out of most Protestant boards, I have however come to expect a better level of engagement at Catholic boards based on those I attend to now. This board however, unfortunately fails that standard, it seems, for popularity. This atmosphere unfortunately eventually effects everyone, even those who are very well meaning. I'm sure you, and other Catholics and even Protestants here are perfectly wonderful, loving people but it seems that this type of board just brings out the worst in people. As an example, where in any of my posts have I attempted to advance a doctrine that is opposed to Catholic teaching? I have indeed, over and over again attempted to help Catholics approach non-Catholics with their theology in a way non-Catholics can understand it.
[/quote]
Oye vey.

There is no such thing as worthwhile discussion on the internet because people can't type with a beer in their hand.

But seriously. The tone is always "I have this degree, or go to that school, or I've studied some arcane theological subject, so you should listen to me unless you are a hater, or a sin lover, or are arrogant, or are stupid..."
Just because someone isn't Catholic doesn't make them all like Budge or Eutychus. In the 6+ years I've been posting on the various iterations of phatmass, it's been very rare that non-Catholic Christians have been regularly welcomed and dialogued with. Very rare. Even Bro.Adam was chased off a number of times. Sure there are a few who have consistently been welcoming though challenging, those people are in the minority.
Catholics are the FIRST to scream and rant when non-Catholic Christians accuse them of not being Christians. But the Catholics do the Same Thing time and time again.

Now will follow all the posters who will defend their bad behavior and the posters who will take offense from what I said because 'they' didn't behave that way. No, not all the posters here are spiritual bullies, but an awful lot are here. I've debated religion on the 'net for more than 10 years and it's not usually pleasant or constructive. I think I've come to the conclusion that no 'net based discussion can stay constructive. There are just too many people with too many voices for the anonimity of the internet to control, temper, or encourage discussion. They always devolve into an unproductive argument.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1096745' date='Oct 20 2006, 12:22 PM']
Oye vey.

There is no such thing as worthwhile discussion on the internet because people can't type with a beer in their hand.

But seriously. The tone is always "I have this degree, or go to that school, or I've studied some arcane theological subject, so you should listen to me unless you are a hater, or a sin lover, or are arrogant, or are stupid..."
Just because someone isn't Catholic doesn't make them all like Budge or Eutychus. In the 6+ years I've been posting on the various iterations of phatmass, it's been very rare that non-Catholic Christians have been regularly welcomed and dialogued with. Very rare. Even Bro.Adam was chased off a number of times. Sure there are a few who have consistently been welcoming though challenging, those people are in the minority.
Catholics are the FIRST to scream and rant when non-Catholic Christians accuse them of not being Christians. But the Catholics do the Same Thing time and time again.

Now will follow all the posters who will defend their bad behavior and the posters who will take offense from what I said because 'they' didn't behave that way. No, not all the posters here are spiritual bullies, but an awful lot are here. I've debated religion on the 'net for more than 10 years and it's not usually pleasant or constructive. I think I've come to the conclusion that no 'net based discussion can stay constructive. There are just too many people with too many voices for the anonimity of the internet to control, temper, or encourage discussion. They always devolve into an unproductive argument.
[/quote]
There are excellent boards out there, but you will find trolls are immediately banned and good conversations then ensue.

[thessalonian]

JPTP.

I see your posts toward me as nothing but personal attacks. Perhaps you need to look in a mirror. I'm having fits? I'm personally offended? No it is you that is personally offended and apparently having fits. Insult and inuendo is what you are about. You really don't know me at all. We could have had respectful dialogue as I have had with many prots and with Brian in the past. But it is you that chose to go on the attack against me. I merely pointed out the contradictory views of a group of Protestants who use the same basis for their viewpoints and speak them as if they are the gospel truth. You took offense to that. I am sorry that you did but you missed my point. By the way I could really care less about popularity. When have I accused you of promoting doctrines against Catholic teaching? Thus far our discussion has not been on that level. If I had expanded my arguement lumping you in with Euty and Budge I would have put you in the teddy bear Catholics are Christians too, even though they bow down before a wafer and some wine (which is called idolatry in the OT, that is if it really isn't Christ), category non-anti-catholic. It's not my fault you don't like being lumped in with budge and euty, of course it seems like your retaliation is to do the same with me. I guess my doing it justifies you somehow.

Blessings however.

Edited October 23, 2006 by thessalonian

[cmotherofpirl]

now that the tantrums are over, please get back to the topic....

[thessalonian]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1099030' date='Oct 23 2006, 11:56 AM']
now that the tantrums are over, please get back to the topic....
[/quote]


-> ->

[jswranch]

Anomaly,
Could you answer the questions of the post?