[Tj3]

This is Baptism: And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:


Our Father's Words: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Do we do what is pleasing to the eye of God? Is it essential?

So if it is of water, and since Ephesians says that there is one essential baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit becomes non-essential. Is that what you are telling me?

Yet, Jesus said that ALL who believe in Him would have the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and not everyone who is saved has water baptism.

Should we do what is pleasing to God? Yes, we should, and that is exactly the point - water baptism is an act of obedience following salvation, because we cannot please the father while we are yet un-saved.

Rom 8:7-10
8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
NKJV

You must first be saved for your acts to please God. You cannot be saved through works of obedience.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV


So if you are trying to please God through water baptism and are unsaved, it is futile. You must first be saved, receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and then you can please God with the act of obedience through water baptism.

[sndbay]

So if it is of water, and since Ephesians says that there is one essential baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit becomes non-essential. Is that what you are telling me?

Yet, Jesus said that ALL who believe in Him would have the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and not everyone who is saved has water baptism.

Should we do what is pleasing to God? Yes, we should, and that is exactly the point - water baptism is an act of obedience following salvation, because we cannot please the father while we are yet un-saved.

Perhaps this will answer your question: Who actually or what actually baptizes?

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

[sndbay]

God is in Control

Open up the heart of love for everyone and never call anyone unclean or common that God has cleaned. HIS Choice.. HIS Way...

For God is in Control...

Matthew 28:18-19-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy GhostTeaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

[De Maria]

I am not discussing your denominational distinctives. I am discussing scripture.

No you're not. You are comparing your interpretation of Scripture with the Church's explanation as I understand it.

First, you already agreed on these points, so now you are backtracking.

I agreed on some points. I highlighted that with which we don't agree.

Second, are you saying that scripture DOES contradict itself?

No. I was clear to say that I believe you contradict Scripture. Scripture does not contradict itself.

And your last point is circular reasoning.

If anything it is you who is being circular in your reasoning. You say that you are correct because you say so. Whereas I provide Catholic Teaching, logic and am prepared to provide historical record on any question.

No, scripture does. I just quoted it.

You quoted Scripture and then proceeded to misinterpret it.

Then are you denying those scriptures that tell us that it is the blood of Jesus that washes our sins?

No. I am showing you that those Scriptures are speaking metaphorically.

Then are you saying that scripture lied about our sins being washed by His blood?

Speaking metaphorically is not lying. It is speaking in signs and symbols. Showing us in poetic terminology what the Spirit has done for our souls.

You do know that Heb 9:22 says that without blood there is no remission of sins, don't you?

Yes. Jesus shed His blood on the Cross. Are you recrucifying Jesus every time someone is baptized?

I've missed your denominational boat, and for that I am grateful to my Saviour. My eternity is in His hands, not your denominational teachings.

The teachings of Jesus Christ are learned in the Catholic Church. It is she who provides and has provided His Word to all generations.

[De Maria]

Perhaps this will answer your question: Who actually or what actually baptizes?

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Very good point. The water baptizes in terms of washing away the dirt from the flesh. But the Spirit Baptizes in terms of washing away sin from the soul.

What God has joined together let no man tear asunder. God has joined the water and the spirit as a requirement to be born again. Why should we then, tear asunder what God has joined together:

Acts 11:17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

[Tj3]

Perhaps this will answer your question: Who actually or what actually baptizes?

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

So it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That means that water baptism is not essential for salvation.

[Tj3]

No you're not. You are comparing your interpretation of Scripture with the Church's explanation as I understand it.

No I am comparing your denominations's teaching with scripture, and scripture is the standard.

I agreed on some points. I highlighted that with which we don't agree.

You agreed on the points that I posted.

Whereas I provide Catholic Teaching, logic and am prepared to provide historical record on any question.

Like I said, I am not interested in denominational private interpretation.

Speaking metaphorically is not lying. It is speaking in signs and symbols. Showing us in poetic terminology what the Spirit has done for our souls.

Ah, I see. You are saying that the blood on the cross did not pay the price for our sins, that it was metaphorical.

Yes. Jesus shed His blood on the Cross. Are you recrucifying Jesus every time someone is baptized?

No need - that is why there is no need to re-sacrifice Jesus daily at Mass.

Heb 10:12-14
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
NKJV

[JoeT777]

No I am comparing your denominations's teaching with scripture, and scripture is the standard.

Catholic’s have pointed to numerous verses that the Church is the Authority named in Scripture. Where in Scriptures does it state that it claims Authority unto itself? Or where in Scripture does it state that the Scriptures are to be in accordance with Tj3’s standard?


JoeT

[De Maria]

No I am comparing your denominations's teaching with scripture, and scripture is the standard.

And I am comparing your interpretation to Scripture and your interpretation is in false.

You agreed on the points that I posted.

Two. Whereas you didn't post the regeneration and renewal by the washing of the Spirit.

Like I said, I am not interested in denominational private interpretation.

Yours is the private interpretation.

Ah, I see. You are saying that the blood on the cross did not pay the price for our sins, that it was metaphorical.

No, the Blood on the Cross did pay the price. But it did not wash our sins. The washing of the blood is metaphorical.

No need - that is why there is no need to re-sacrifice Jesus daily at Mass.

We don't. In the Mass we remember and make present the self same sacrifice of Jesus.

Heb 10:12-14
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
NKJV

Exactly. Once for all.

Trying to change the subject?

[Tj3]

Catholic’s have pointed to numerous verses that the Church is the Authority named in Scripture.

"The Church" in scripture is not a denomination, not yours, not any.

If you want to start yet another thread on this topic, go ahead.

[JoeT777]

"The Church" in scripture is not a denomination, not yours, not any.

If you want to start yet another thread on this topic, go ahead.

You're the one that made the statement, "scripture is the standard." Show where in the Scriptures it claims to be the Authority unto itself. Otherwise your words are empty of meaning.


JoeT

[Tj3]

And I am comparing your interpretation to Scripture and your interpretation is in false.

Since I am quoting scripture, you must be saying scripture is false. I disagree.

Two. Whereas you didn't post the regeneration and renewal by the washing of the Spirit.

Backtracking again, I see. I guess that you realized that agreeing with what scripture said causes irreconcilable differences with your private interpretation / doctrine.

Yours is the private interpretation.

Nice distraction from what scripture says. But it will not work for those who are alert and astute.

No, the Blood on the Cross did pay the price. But it did not wash our sins.

Really. Then you disagree with God's word:

Heb 13:20-22
20 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
NKJV

1 Peter 1:17-19
18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
NKJV

1 John 1:7-8
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
NKJV

Rev 1:5
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
NKJV

And there are many others. When you pit your interpretation against the clear and explicit word of God, your interpretation loses.

In the Mass we remember and make present the self same sacrifice of Jesus.

Heh heh - well that is a debate for another day and another thread.

[Tj3]

You're the one that made the statement, "scripture is the standard." Show where in the Scriptures it claims to be the Authority unto itself. Otherwise your words are empty of meaning.

Start another thread. I don't care what you think of my beliefs - what matters to me is God's word.

If you want to discuss, start a thread.

[De Maria]

Start another thread. I don't care what you think of my beliefs - what matters to me is God's word.

If you want to discuss, start a thread.

I sure do. Thread is started here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1648122

[De Maria]

Since I am quoting scripture, you must be saying scripture is false. I disagree.

You aren't just quoting. You quote and then give your interpretation of the quoted text. The quoted Scripture is correct. Your interpretation of that Scripture is false.

Backtracking again, I see. I guess that you realized that agreeing with what scripture said causes irreconcilable differences with your private interpretation / doctrine.

Not back tracking. Explaining and correcting that which you have misunderstood.

Nice distraction from what scripture says. But it will not work for those who are alert and astute.

I have no idea to what you refer.

Really. Then you disagree with God's word:

I agree with God's word and disagree with you.

Heb 13:20-22
20 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
NKJV

1 Peter 1:17-19
18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
NKJV

1 John 1:7-8
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
NKJV

Rev 1:5
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
NKJV

Again, the references to washing in blood are metaphorical.

This is literal. Christ shed blood on the Cross to pay for our sins.
This is literal. That we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.
This is metaphorical. That we are washed in Christ's blood. But it points to the fact, that by the blood of Christ which we drink at the altar of His Sacrifice, we are cleansed of sin.

We will not nor have we been washed in a tub of Christ's blood.

And there are many others. When you pit your interpretation against the clear and explicit word of God, your interpretation loses.

No. When people compare your interpretation to the Church's interpretation, you lose.

Heh heh - well that is a debate for another day and another thread.

Here it is:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1648150

[Tj3]

You aren't just quoting. You quote and then give your interpretation of the quoted text. The quoted Scripture is correct. Your interpretation of that Scripture is false.

No interpretation. I take it at what it says. You tell me that it doesn't mean what it says.

Not back tracking.

I have no idea to what you refer.

I guess that you don't want to admit it, so call it what it will.

I agree with God's word and disagree with you.

You agree with your alteration of God's word. God's word says that the blood washes away sin. You say that it does not mean blood, it means water.

Again, the references to washing in blood are metaphorical.

So you keep saying, but you are not the standard that I go by with respect to doctrine. God's word is, so if you want me to believe you, telling me your private interpretation isn't going to do it.

This is literal. Christ shed blood on the Cross to pay for our sins.

But you say that it doesn't wash away our sins. You are contradicting yourself.

This is literal. That we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

Jesus explicitly stated that the wine and bread are only symbolic.

We will not nor have we been washed in a tub of Christ's blood.

Do you think that the washing of sins is something that takes place physically? Maybe that is why you think water will wash sins. But sins are not physical. The sins were washed by His blood shed on the cross.

Water won't do it - again scripture is explicit on that point also.

No. When people compare your interpretation to the Church's interpretation, you lose.

That is fine. Anyone who places the private interpretation of their denomination above scripture is likely to come to that conclusion. That does not bother me.

[De Maria]

No interpretation. I take it at what it says. You tell me that it doesn't mean what it says.

I'm telling you it doesn't mean what you say.

I guess that you don't want to admit it, so call it what it will.

You agree with your alteration of God's word. God's word says that the blood washes away sin. You say that it does not mean blood, it means water.

I say that the Word of God is using metaphor to illustrate that our sin is removed from our soul.

So you keep saying, but you are not the standard that I go by with respect to doctrine. God's word is, so if you want me to believe you, telling me your private interpretation isn't going to do it.

Neither do your private interpretations convince me.

But you say that it doesn't wash away our sins. You are contradicting yourself.

No I'm not. I know when the word of God is speaking figuratively and when it isn't. And I know when I'm speaking figuratively and when I'm not.

Therefore, we are washed of sin by the Blood of Christ metaphorically. Neither you nor anyone else has collected a bucket of blood in which to scrub anyone down.

But this metaphor illustrates that by shedding His Blood on the Cross, we were healed. By His stripes, we were healed.

Jesus explicitly stated that the wine and bread are only symbolic.

On the contrary, He explicitly that they were real food and real drink:

John 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Do you think that the washing of sins is something that takes place physically? Maybe that is why you think water will wash sins. But sins are not physical. The sins were washed by His blood shed on the cross.

Blood is physical. Jesus shed actual blood.

Neither water nor blood wash sins. Water signifies the Spiritual washing of the soul. So does the metaphor of blood which is a liquid.

The shedding of blood signifies that Jesus gave His life. And Jesus gave His life to pay for ours.

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Water won't do it - again scripture is explicit on that point also.

True. But since water is used to wash bodies, food, clothes, dishes, animals, and just about everything known to man, the pouring of water over a person or the immersing of a person into water is a very effective sign representing the washing of regeneration in the person's soul.

And since water kills by drowning, water is an apt sign of the death of the sinful man.

And since water is released when a child is born, water is also a very effective sign representing the new birth of the Christian in the Body of Christ.

And since water is essential for life, water is an apt sign of the man rising to new life.

Water is the visible sign of the invisible result which the Soul is producing in the regeneration and renewal of the spirit in man.

That is fine. Anyone who places the private interpretation of their denomination above scripture is likely to come to that conclusion. That does not bother me.

It is you who puts your private interpretation over Scripture. Scripture does not say what you claim that Scripture says. And we will prove that in the Scripture as standard thread.

[Tj3]

I'm telling you it doesn't mean what you say.

And I say that it means what it says. So you are saying that it does not mean what it says.

I say that the Word of God is using metaphor to illustrate that our sin is removed from our soul.

Keep repeating your private interpretation enough and maybe you'll eventually convince yourself that is in scripture. But you won't convince me because I can read what it says.

No I'm not. I know when the word of God is speaking figuratively and when it isn't. And I know when I'm speaking figuratively and when I'm not.

You said that it was the water that washes away our sins not the blood. You are not being consistent.

Neither you nor anyone else has collected a bucket of blood in which to scrub anyone down.

I see where you are getting off-track. You think sins are a physical thing which can be washed away physically. They are not. Sin is a spiritual issue. That is why (or more properly, one reason why)water will not work

On the contrary, He explicitly that they were real food and real drink:

John 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Again, something for another thread, but if you read further, you'll see that He says that those who held to that belief betrayed Him.

Neither water nor blood wash sins.

You are half right. Water doesn't. Scripture is explicit that Jesus' blood does.

[De Maria]

And I say that it means what it says.

I know that Scripture means what it says. But you don't know what Scripture means.

So you are saying that it does not mean what it says.

I am saying that your interpretations do not agree with what Scripture says.

Keep repeating your private interpretation enough and maybe you'll eventually convince yourself that is in scripture. But you won't convince me because I can read what it says.

But apparently you can't understand what it says.

You said that it was the water that washes away our sins not the blood. You are not being consistent.

Did I? Show me.

I see where you are getting off-track. You think sins are a physical thing which can be washed away physically. They are not. Sin is a spiritual issue. That is why (or more properly, one reason why)water will not work

It is you who are getting off track as you seem to not be able to distinguish between the actual and the symbolic.

Again, something for another thread, but if you read further, you'll see that He says that those who held to that belief betrayed Him.

No. He says that those who would not believe Him betrayed Him.

John 6
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

You are half right. Water doesn't. Scripture is explicit that Jesus' blood does.

Scripture is speaking metaphorically in both cases.

[Fr_Chuck]

It is obvious that this issue is just the same as always, people do not see the same verse the same way.

Each knows they are right,

Thread ended