Home Forums All Things Catholic Traditional Roman Catholicism Reply To: Traditional Roman Catholicism


I prefer when dialogue is not done by proxy. If you feel you need more time to respond, just say so and I will wait. Although I should warn you, I probably know Koine Greek better than most posters here.

[quote:3rejzr09]The O.T. verse in Ezekiel is symbolic.[/quote:3rejzr09]
It is symbolic. It symbolized and foreshadowed baptism (as we see in the direct parallel with Acts 2). Just because something is symbolic does not mean it is not also true.

[quote:3rejzr09]The one in Kings is not talking about the forgiveness of sins, but about the cure of Naaman’s disease.[/quote:3rejzr09]
True. But there is more than one sense to Scripture. Several of the Messianic Psalms were written about David but they foreshadow Christ.

One of the oldest maxims of Bible study is that the Old Testament is revealed in the New, the New Testament foreshadowed in the Old. This is why we look at Genesis 3 and see Christ’s sacrifice at Golgotha. This is why we look at the bronze serpent and see it as a figure of Christ (although He gave us that explicitly). Notice how Naaman’s cure mirrors the discussion Christ had with Nicodemus and how Ezekiel’s prophecy of washing away sins and recieving the Holy Spirit is even more directly mirrored in St. Peter’s speech in Acts 2. These verses are not so close in subject and wording by coincidence.

[quote:3rejzr09]3. Acts 2:38, 8:36 & 38, and 16:33. Ritual water baptism for the Church Age believer. This is a beautiful picture of something that has already happened. When a person has become a child of God by being instantaneously “born again”, 1 Pet 1:23, transferred from the kingdom of Satan into the Kingdom of God, Col. 1:13, and sealed into union with Christ, Eph. 1:13&14, ritual water baptism pictures all of this as well as being “dead with Christ”, and “raised in newness of life”, Rom. 6:3 & 4.[/quote:3rejzr09]
The piece from Biblefood is long on words but short on explanation. It commits the fallacy of [i:3rejzr09]petitio principii[/i:3rejzr09], i.e. begging the question. I have three verses above that specifically and explicitly state that baptism is for the remission of sins. In point 3 here, Biblefood simply assumes a purely ritual baptism without any attempt to show that the baptism is purely ritual. When one assumes his conclusion as a premise, then of course the argument arrives at the desired conclusion.

[quote:3rejzr09]Some denominations see the word “for” in this verse as meaning that water baptism itself washes away sins. But, the English word “for” in this verse is the Greek word “eis”, meaning “because of” the remission of sins. Their sins were forgiven already, and their public baptism was a RITUAL to publicly acknowledge what God had already done.[/quote:3rejzr09]
This is incorrect and is based on the exact same fallacy. If we look at Strong’s Concordance, [i:3rejzr09]eis[/i:3rejzr09] is defined as: into, unto, to, towards, for.

From these definitions, we see that [i:3rejzr09]eis[/i:3rejzr09] is not explaining something in the past but something to come (into, unto, towards, for). It does so in nearly 1800 places in the Bible. But Strong cannot accept the plain meaning of the word. In his explanation below, he points out the plain meaning of the word contradicts his theology and so decides, without further argument or support, to redefine the word:

“For” (as used in Acts 2:38 “for the forgiveness…”) could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying “Jesse James wanted for robbery”, “for” could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word “for” signifies an action in the past. [u:3rejzr09]Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works[/u:3rejzr09].

That last line that I have underlined is [i:3rejzr09]prepitio principii[/i:3rejzr09] in action. Rather than letting the Bible tell him what is truth, he has defined his belief [i:3rejzr09]a priori[/i:3rejzr09] and redefines the Bible where it does not fit.


In 1 Pet 3:21, for example, the Greek word translated “baptism” is the Greek word “baptisma”, which is a NOUN, meaning the “THINGS” SIGNIFIED BY BAPTISM, it is NOT A VERB as the English reader would naturally assume! Peter is saying that “baptism doth save us (is presently saving us) “, meaning that the “things”, or “Bible teachings”, or “doctrines” CONCERNING baptism are now saving us.[/quote:3rejzr09]
I am not sure what this is. On the one hand, it has chosen to completely redefine the sentence in such a way that it makes no sense in Greek or in English.

First, baptism is not a verb in English, so I do not know how the English reader would assume it is nor why that would have any impact on the correct reading of the verse.

Second, the original verse does not reference any “things” signified by baptism, explicitly or implicitly. Such an idea is inserted into the verse by Biblefood just as surely as the novel definition of [i:3rejzr09]eis[/i:3rejzr09] was inserted by Strong.

The verse is quite plain – baptism saves you now. It is only because one has denied [i:3rejzr09]a priori[/i:3rejzr09] that baptism does not save that he must change the Bible to fit.

The rest of the citatoin is not really relevant to the discussion.

[quote:3rejzr09]I am not protestant.
I am being raised in a Christian/Evangelical home.
I am of an Evangelical denomination. [/quote:3rejzr09]
Evangelicalism grew out of Protestantism. Luther even referred to the faith he was building as the [i:3rejzr09]Evangelische Kirche[/i:3rejzr09] (Evangelical Church).

A Protestant is a non-Catholic Christian. As a Baptist I did not object to the title, although I realize it has become a sticking point for some.

[quote:3rejzr09]Even though I am not a protestant, the simple fact that you do not agree with my signature is what makes me believe that Catholics are not Christians.[/quote:3rejzr09]
Gesundheit is Protestant.