JFJ Forums

So, now you want us to limit the discussion to *only* what the RCC early church fathers taught about baptism, wk?

Fine.

In that case I have absolutely NOTHING to say because I don't regard as authoritative the early church fathers, or the later church fathers, or the latest church fathers.

I regard God's word, like the Patriarchs, the Apostles, and our Savior did.

fine, no problem...

The first Pope "St.Peter" of the RCC preached this:

"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. -Acts 2:38

Too bad you guys want to leave out HIS opinion.

Sugarman – I never said the Bride of Christ was only Catholics.  I merely stated some of the promises Jesus made to her.  Two of the more significant was that he sent Her the Holy Spirit and promised to be with Her until the end of time.  This is why claims about Sacred Tradition can be made that cannot be made about the Oral Torah.

Sugarman said: “The church fathers tradition do not match from what the apostle taught in scripture. we do not need church fathers or tradition to know if baptism is for or not essential for salvation.”
I say: First of all, my argument is about the special graces received in baptism, not if we can or cannot get by without it.  Secondly, and this is very important distinction for you to recognize, the ECF writings DO match what the apostles taught in scripture (I’ve already given numerous quotes), it just so happens that they do not agree with the “baptism is symbolic” argument.  Note that I’m not saying you cannot find verses from scripture that support “symbolic” baptism.  The entire point of this thread is to show that of all the pre-reformation extra-biblical writings on baptism, none support the post-reformation tradition of baptism being “symbolic”.  In other words, the historical evidence shows regenerative rather than symbolic baptism was the belief of the early church.

Sugarman said: “WK again your basing your final Authority on The fathers and what they said.”
I say: I can make the very same argument …  that you are basing your final authority on what a small subset of Protestant leaders say.  We’ve both used scripture to support our view and we disagree.  Do you think the H.S. teaches opposing views?  You claim to use “sola-scriptura” but you really use a combination of scripture and Protestant (and a subset at that) tradition.  That is why you provide links to various Fundamentalist and Evangelical web-sites.  You use their beliefs to help you interpret scripture.  How is that any different than me using the ECF writings?  The only difference I can think of is that the ECF writings are about 1900 years less removed from what was passed down by the apostles.
(cont ...)

(… cont)
Sugarman said: “Do me a favor look at baptism ask me is it label a noun or verb?”
I say:  Baptism is a noun, baptize is a verb.  It is used in both forms in scripture.  This is an example of a teaching you got from some obscure web site that twists scripture to support your view.  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  The verb form is all over scripture and in different tenses.  If you want to continue with this distraction, why don’t you start a new thread and see where it leads?

The very first sentence in the link you provided: http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html shows where this web site is coming from.  They label baptism as “ any work”.  Read scripture and you can see that all of the graces in baptism are free gifts granted by the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ECFs back this up.  It is only a subset of Protestants who believe baptism is a “work”.

Ripley’s said regarding Sola-Scriptura: Yes, so "very foreign" from Hebrew thought …. Meticulously copied …  Authority in scripture …
I say:  This is something we completely agree on!  Thank the good Lord for the Jewish scribes and the Catholic monks who painstakingly copied scripture to ensure the infallible Word of God would be made available for generations to come.   But again, “Sola-Scriptura” is a man-made Protestant (and apparently a small sect of Judaism that sprouted in the 10th century) tradition.

I do not claim there is no authority in scripture.  What I do claim is that scripture is not the SOLE authority.  This is the very same claim Paul makes as he describes the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Regarding your bible search on tradition ….  Take a look at each of the quotes.  Every one that is a condemnation is because of Pharasaic tradition that OPPOSES God’s word.  But what does Paul say about tradition under the New Covenant?  And what happened to 2 Thes 2:15 in your list?????  It’s in my RSV but curiously enough didn’t make your list.  I’ll quote:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Ripley’s take a closer look at 2 Pet 3:16.  Peter is talking about the false teaching that were being passed around.  He describes Paul’s writings as “difficult to understand” and talks about how the “uninstructed” distort Paul’s writings as they do the other scriptures.  So what do we have here?  An exhortation from Peter to be wary of “uninstructed” “Sola-scripturists” who twist Paul’s writings as they do the other scriptures.  Authoritative teaching came from the Apostles who were “Semicha’d” by Jesus and who in turn “semicha’s” their successors.  The distortion of scripture is being done by the “sola-scripturists” who are teaching outside of the authority of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

No you don't you just pick and choose ....trinity doctrine came from the "early church fathers and later church fathers ...definityl don't come from Apostles or the Saviour.

Steadfast,



There's no evidence of Peter EVER heading the community of believers in Rome. So, we all need to quit merely accepting that RCC assertion, and ask for proof.

The scriptural evidence leads us to Paul as the Apostle in/to/for Rome. In all his writings IN SCRIPTURE, no mention of Peter being the head of Rome.



"CATHOLIC CONCERNS" - CH 7 - Was Peter a Pope?

Possibly another reason why RCC prefers Tradition over scripture.

Too bad you refuse to read this in the Historical context.

Ripley's - I left this web-site about 2 seconds after I opened it.  I suggest you check your sources.  Mary Ann Collins is a fictitious person and ranks among the Jack Chicks of the world when it comes to honest criticism of the Catholic Church.  You can "google" her to find out more.

The historical context??????  You mean like the Early Church Fathers????