Leaders representing the Roman Catholic Church and some American Protestant denominations have signed an agreement in Texas to recognize each other's baptisms.
After about six years of dialogue, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Reformed Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Christian Reformed Church in North America, and the United Church of Christ signed a document recognizing each other's liturgical rites of baptism.
The five denominations signed the "Common Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism," affirming the baptism agreement on Tuesday evening at a prayer service held at St. Mary's Cathedral in Austin....
MICHAEL HRANEK...What I'm wondering, if you can answer, is when do you think the Catholic church began? It seems to me there wasn't any church but the Catholic church for some time in early Christian history. All of the church fathers after the Apostles were Catholic. Am I mistaken?
didactics for baptists wrote: Why Michael. I thought you Baptists had now realised that the Early Church was Presbyterian.
Disciples dear Didactics, disciples.
AND in the early church in the time of the apostles wonderfully filled with the Holy Spirit. So what do you think, begin with the Spirit in new birth at conversion and be perfected in the flesh (in a systematic theological education)?
Michael Hranek wrote: You may not like this either but if you honestly consider early church history we might FIND all the early church in the time of the Apostles were PENTECOSTAL in the Best Biblical Sense of the Word.
Why Michael. I thought you Baptists had now realised that the Early Church was Presbyterian.
From; "The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church" "In The Elder and Overseer," Ben Merkle, Asst. Prof. of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, persuasively argues (against the current majority opinion) that the office of elder (presbuteros) and overseer (episkopos) are synonymous throughout the New Testament. Merkle originally wrote this as a Ph.D dissertation under the supervision of both Mark Seifrid and Tom Schreiner at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Recently deceased New Testament scholar E. Earle Ellis served as an outside reader for the project."
Remember that "Presbyterian" is from the Greek New Testament "presbuteros" eg 1Tim 5:17.
Christopher000 wrote: JohnUK wrote: I can't really put it any simpler than that. What do you think? That did the trick...thanks John. You heavyweights need to remember that we are not all scholars. Well, now that I think about it, I'm probably the only one who didn't know what you were talking about...ha-ha. Oh well, whatever.
Ha! You make I smile Christopher, and that is a great gift you have, in blessing the body of Christ.
Don't fret too much about not seeing where we are going sometimes, as you'll pick it all up in time. However, I shall try to be more careful in future, and get back to the simplicity of faith, and the straight talking in which all can partake and enjoy. I myself am no scholar, but sometimes theological debate can become quite complicated, and there is no avoiding it. I really enjoy your comments, and find so little to argue with that I have no response to make. Or would you like to know there is agreement? Maybe that is what I ought to be doing.
(Fault?) Finder You may not like this either but if you honestly consider early church history we might FIND all the early church in the time of the Apostles were PENTECOSTAL in the Best Biblical Sense of the Word.
John For Of course the RCC was heretical from the beginning. But that is not the issue that ought to concern you but where you stand with God and why.
There is only one place where you can look with confidence to know the Truth of God, it is the Word of God, the Bible the 66 Books of the Old and New Testaments, written in 3 languages, on 3 continents, by 40 some men (prophets and eyewitnesses), who Scripture claims were moved by the Spirit of God in what they wrote, with supernatural (not merely superhuman but supernatural) coroboration in fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled prophecy. After all out of all the books ever written on earth The Bible Aone is the written word of God, God's self revelation to man that we might know the Truth of Christ and what He requires of us.
Sadly to too many people it is nothing more than a religious decoration or a book they can abuse and distort to make it say what they want it to.
But for those who LISTEN Jesus told us His words are spirit and life,
JohnUK wrote: I can't really put it any simpler than that. What do you think?
That did the trick...thanks John. You heavyweights need to remember that we are not all scholars. Well, now that I think about it, I'm probably the only one who didn't know what you were talking about...ha-ha. Oh well, whatever.
Christopher000 wrote: In soteriology, Tertullian does not dogmatize;... Huh?? I don't know what you guys are talking about half the time...ha-ha. Does SA have a forum for dummies that I could join?
Ha! Good one Christopher.
Ante-Tertullian, Christian men believed (as we do) that the new birth was a sovereign work of God, involving quickening, enlightening, convicting of sin, and conversion.
But Tert believed that for the price of a bus ticket to your friendly, neighbourhood Catholic Church, and with a nod and a wink to the Catholic priest, Father Blah Blah could perform some magic on you and get you born again, because of his authority over the Holy Ghost. Then, because you are now a baptised Catholic, and therefore under his authority also, he will invite you to his magic show where he performs even more miracles, producing Jesus Christ out of a simple wafer, and handing him to you on a little plate. After he has done this, he will do something most remarkable, he will produce some blood from a bottle and tell you to drink it, because then you will have received Christ and have eternal life.
In soteriology, Tertullian does not dogmatize; he prefers to keep silence at the mystery of the cross (De Patientia, iii). The sufferings of Christ's life as well as of the crucifixion are efficacious to redemption. In the water of baptism, which (upon a partial quotation of John 3:5) is made necessary (De baptismo, vi.), humans are born again; the baptized does not receive the Holy Spirit in the water, but is prepared for the Holy Spirit. Humans are little fishes â€” after the example of the ichthys, fish, Jesus Christ â€” are born in water (De baptismo, i). In discussing whether sins committed subsequent to baptism may be forgiven, Tertullian calls baptism and penance "two planks" on which the sinner may be saved from shipwreck â€” language which he gave to the Church (De penitentia, xii). (wiki)
MARK HRANEK...If I grant to you that the Catholic Church is heretical (for the sake of argument), why do you believe it was nonChristian from the beginning? They didn't believe some of the stuff that they now do at that time. It crept in over their long history. When I read many of the ante-nicene fathers (who were catholic) they sound pretty scriptural.
John for JESUS wrote: JOHN UK...I believe "life" is referring to eternal life, otherwise it would be redundant. Earlier in the statement it says "through Him all things were made". The only part of the creed I can find fault with is the statement on baptism because I believe they were talking about water baptism. Wouldn't it at least be plausible that the Catholic Church was Christian up to this point in time?
You see what I mean about the creed being vague?
Now when I use the word gospel, I am speaking about the gospel message, as I posted earlier, about the "just shall live by faith", and the righteousness of God being appropriated by faith alone. The gospel, if it is received and embraced, makes a sinner "right with God".
But in the anglican and catholic churches, a man may read a portion of scripture from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, and say, "This is the gospel of Christ".
Now the apostles were "called of God", and that made them "ecclesia" or "church". A church structure or system cannot be an ecclesia, only people can. Therefore if God in his grace "called" a sinner while they were in the false Catholic system, that sinner would have been saved and become part of the genuine ecclesia (church). Sure, God can do that.
JOHN UK...I believe "life" is referring to eternal life, otherwise it would be redundant. Earlier in the statement it says "through Him all things were made". The only part of the creed I can find fault with is the statement on baptism because I believe they were talking about water baptism. Wouldn't it at least be plausible that the Catholic Church was Christian up to this point in time?
John for JESUS wrote: MICHAEL HRANEK...When you were looking forward to "believer's baptism",
John For As I already have posted the RCC failed me. Although they told me things about God they did not tell me the Truth about the Lord Jesus Christ.
IF I had been the best RC possible in that FALSE Religion I would have died and gone to hell forever and God would have been right to send me there.
BUT I was not a good anything and had no idea while I was yet a sinner God had already demonstrated His immeasurable love for me in that Christ died and He died NOT FOR a wonderful kind caring good man BUT FOR a wretch like me.
Therefore being saved, forgiven, knowing my infant baptism was a religious sham, I looked forward to Believer's Baptism to publically identify with Christ and testify in this act of obedience in following His example of the change He had made in me and in a small measure of His immeasurable worth, although at that time I would not have been able to explain it in the words I can today.
Remember I was raised Catholic and already knew of RC hostility against believer's baptism which in certain periods of history could have put my life at risk, as it is also a public renounciation of everything "Catholic"
John for JESUS wrote: JOHN UK...I believe it is stated in a few places. "For us (believers) and for our salvation He came from heaven". "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, who is the giver of life
John, your last point first:
Acts 17:25 KJV 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Of course the Spirit of God gives physical life to all men. I have no grumbles with such statements. But we are concerned with spiritual life, which he does not give to all men, or all men would be saved. Check out the first few verses of John 3.
"He came from heaven for our salvation". Sure he did. He is the Incarnate God, born of a virgin, untainted by sin, lived a perfect life, died a substitutionary death in the place of all that would believe on him, rose again, ascended into heaven.
Romans 1:16-17 KJV 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
MICHAEL HRANEK...When you were looking forward to "believer's baptism", didn't you know you had already been baptized for the forgiveness of sins by the Holy Spirit? So why did you look forward to believer's baptism other than somebody told you it symbolized the death and resurecction of Christ and was a professing of your faith? Also, I understand that everytime I sin I knowingly sin against God. I also believe I won't have total victory over my flesh until the Ressurection or death.
John for JESUS wrote: Cont. The end of that was a little misworded. Lastly, in the saying "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". I believe that's like some baptist churches that teach God saves in the baptismal waters and not that an individual can earn their salvation simply by bathing.
John For You really missed it on this one.
Only HERETICAL baptist churches teach the damnable error of "baptismal regeneration"
btw Just a word of testimony here in appreciation of the Mercy and Grace of God. After being saved (converted, born again of the Spirit of God) I knew my infant sprinkling was wrong AND looked forward to believer's baptism.
Cont. The end of that was a little misworded. Lastly, in the saying "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". I believe that's like some baptist churches that teach God saves in the baptismal waters and not that an individual can earn their salvation simply by bathing.