Follow
We are now in our 4th week of evaluating Called to Communion‘s analysis of the Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration. We originally planned to limit this to a four-week series, but we will continue beyond four weeks due to the volume of material.
Thus far, we have seen Called to Communion read Baptismal Regeneration into Ignatius of Antioch and the Shepherd of Hermas, and we have seen them read regenerate baptism out of Barnabas of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.
To this litany of interpretive errors, Called to Communion adds its mishandling of both Hippolytus and Origen. The former refers to Christ’s Passion as “the laver of washing,” and the latter refers to the Holy Spirit as “the laver of regeneration.” True to form, Called to Communion can only see Baptismal Regeneration whenever the laver is mentioned by a Church Father. But context tells a different story.
As we did last week, we provide Called to Communion‘s argument, followed by our analysis.
St. Hippolytus of Rome (early 3rd Century)
Called to Communion: St. Hippolytus of Rome, (d. 236), in his “Discourse on the Holy Theophany,” writes:
The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all you kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism. I bring good tidings of life to you who tarry in the darkness of ignorance. Come into liberty from slavery, into a kingdom from tyranny, into incorruption from corruption. And how, says one, shall we come? How? By water and the Holy Ghost. This is the water in conjunction with the Spirit, by which paradise is watered, by which the earth is enriched, by which plants grow, by which animals multiply, and (to sum up the whole in a single word) by which man is begotten again and endued with life, in which also Christ was baptized, and in which the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.
This is the Spirit that at the beginning “moved upon the waters;” by whom the world moves; by whom creation consists, and all things have life; who also wrought mightily in the prophets, and descended in flight upon Christ. This is the Spirit that was given to the apostles in the form of fiery tongues. This is the Spirit that David sought when he said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Of this Spirit Gabriel also spoke to the Virgin, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you.” By this Spirit Peter spoke that blessed word, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established. This is the Spirit, the Comforter, that is sent because of you, that He may show you to be the Son of God.
Come then, be begotten again, O man, into the adoption of God. And how? Says one. If you practise adultery no more, and commit not murder, and serve not idols; if you are not overmastered by pleasure; if you do not suffer the feeling of pride to rule you; if you clean off the filthiness of impurity, and put off the burden of sin; if you cast off the armour of the devil, and put on the breastplate of faith, even as Isaiah says, “Wash, and seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow. And come and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, I shall make them white as snow; and though they be like crimson, I shall make them white as wool. And if you be willing, and hear my voice, you shall eat the good of the land.” Do you see, beloved, how the prophet spoke beforetime of the purifying power of baptism? For he who comes down in faith to the laver of regeneration, and renounces the devil, and joins himself to Christ; who denies the enemy, and makes the confession that Christ is God; who puts off the bondage, and puts on the adoption,— he comes up from the baptism brilliant as the sun, flashing forth the beams of righteousness, and, which is indeed the chief thing, he returns a son of God and joint-heir with Christ. (Discourse on the Holy Theophany)
White Horse Blog: This extensive quote from Hippolytus is from his Discourse on the Holy Theophany. The Discourse, to be brief, is an essay on the significance of Jesus’ baptism when God spoke from heaven saying “Thou art my beloved Son,” and the Holy Spirit “descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him” (Luke 3:22). We grant to Called to Communion that Hippolytus seems literally to invite us to “be begotten again … into the adoption of God” by baptism, and if Hippolytus is to be taken literally, there is simply no other way to understand his Discourse. We might be tempted to join Called to Communion in their literal reading of him if Hippolytus himself had not implored his listeners to take him figuratively.
The problem for Called to Communion is that Hippolytus explicitly insists that the reader not take him literally: “When you hear these things, beloved, take them not as if spoken literally, but accept them as presented in a figure” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 2).
To understand Hippolytus therefore, we must understand at least three things: 1) What does Jesus’ baptism signify by figure? 2) In which Water are we to be baptized unto purification? and 3) Into which Laver do we go down unto regeneration? We will answer these three from Hippolytus’ own words, and then invite the reader, and Called to Communion, to return to the Discourse and read it the way Hippolytus intended.
1) What does Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan signify?
What does Hippolytus mean when he invites us “to the immortality of the baptism”? In his introduction to the Discourse on the Holy Theophany, after marveling that Jesus Himself, the Water of Life, the River, the Spring would condescend to be baptized, Hippolytus then insists that we see His baptism itself as a figure for something else. Hippolytus writes,
“For you have just heard how Jesus came to John, and was baptized by him in the Jordan. Oh things strange beyond compare! How should the boundless River that makes glad the city of God have been dipped in a little water! The illimitable Spring that bears life to all men, and has no end, was covered by poor and temporary waters! He who is present everywhere, and absent nowhere— who is incomprehensible to angels and invisible to men— comes to the baptism according to His own good pleasure. When you hear these things, beloved, take them not as if spoken literally, but accept them as presented in a figure. Whence also the Lord was not unnoticed by the watery element in what He did in secret, in the kindness of His condescension to man.” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 2)
As we shall see in a moment, Hippolytus believed Jesus was literally baptized in the Jordan, but His baptism’s meaning is to be understood by seeing it as a figure for His death on Calvary. Thus, when God says, “This is my beloved Son,” Hippolytus makes the connection to Calvary for us, as if Jesus at that moment were hanging from the Cross:
” ‘
This is my beloved Son’— … who is pierced in the side, and yet repairs the side of Adam.” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 7)
As he elsewhere explains in explicit terms, Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan river fulfills Genesis 49:11, and was itself a figure for the washing that would take place at the Cross. The robe He “may be supposed” to have worn at the Jordan signified the nations that would be washed in the water and blood that flowed from His side:
” ‘
He shall wash his garment in wine,’[Genesis 49:11a] that is, according to that voice of His Father which came down by the Holy Ghost at the Jordan. ‘And his clothes in the blood of the grape’ [Genesis 49:11b].In the blood of what grape, then, but just His own flesh, which hung upon the tree like a cluster of grapes?— from whose side also flowed two streams, of blood and water, in which the nations are washed and purified, which (nations) He may be supposed to have as a robe about Him.” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 11)
Jesus did not wear a robe on the Cross (Luke 23:32), but He may well have been wearing one at His baptism, and that robe Hippolytus takes as a figure for the nations being washed by the blood and water that flowed from His side. Note well that Hippolytus taught that Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan was not an occasion to show the power of the water, but to show “the power of the Son” and that it is not the water, but Jesus Who “is the Remover of sins” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapters 3 & 5). The baptism in the Jordan signified the real baptism by which Jesus would wash the nations by His blood, and it is of that baptism we are encouraged to partake, for it is in His baptism of washing on the Cross, by way of figure, that we are regenerated, adopted and saved.
We begin to see Hippolytus’ methodology when he says that it is not our baptism, but Jesus’ own baptism that opens heaven’s gate, renews the old man and secures our adoption. Because he has explained that Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan is to be understood as a figure for the washing in the blood of the Cross, Hippolytus is at liberty to teach that it is Jesus’ baptism (not ours) that renews us, Jesus’ baptism (not ours) that adopts us, Jesus’ baptism (not ours) that opens the gates of Heaven, and Jesus’ baptism (not ours) that makes peace where there was enmity—all of which benefits are typically ascribed to the Cross:
“Do you see, beloved, how many and how great blessings we would have lost, if the Lord had yielded to the exhortation of John, and declined baptism? For the heavens were shut before this; the region above was inaccessible. We would in that case descend to the lower parts, but we would not ascend to the upper. But was it only that the Lord was baptized? He also renewed the old man, and committed to him again the sceptre of adoption. For straightway
the heavens were opened to Him.A reconciliation took place of the visible with the invisible; A reconciliation took place of the visible with the invisible; the celestial orders were filled with joy; the diseases of earth were healed; secret things were made known; those at enmity were restored to amity.” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 6)
We do not believe that we are regenerated and adopted by Jesus’ baptism, or that in Jesus’ baptism God and sinners were reconciled, or that by being baptized Jesus made a sacrifice by His own blood, and neither, apparently, did Hippolytus. Rather, in Hippolytus’ own words, Jesus’ baptism in this Discourse was to be taken as a figure for our washing that took place at Calvary, where Jesus was pierced, where our adoption and regeneration were secured, and where the reconciliation took place, “having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself” (Colossians 1:20).
Thus, when Hippolytus refers to the “purifying power of baptism,” inviting us to “the immortality of the baptism,” and the “laver of regeneration,” as Called to Communion cites him, it is to Christ’s Passion, and not to our baptism, that he refers. Here we observe once more that a Church Father would point us to Christ, His Passion, and the Gospel, as “the laver of washing,” and Called to Communion would draw us away from Him to the Roman Baptismal font. And this leads us to Hippolytus’ identification of the Water by which we are to be purified.
2) In which Water are we to be baptized unto purification?
Although Called to Communion started in Chapter 8, we will return to Chapters 1 and 2, where the foundation of Hippolytus’ Discourse is still being laid. Hippolytus begins the Discourse by extolling the loveliness of creation, paying particular attention to water, which from the beginning was allotted a certain dignity. The reader is invited to recognize from the outset Who “the Water” is, “who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit.” And we invite Called to Communion to notice that Hippolytus describes Rome’s baptismal font as the “poor and temporary waters” in comparison to Christ, Who is the actual Water of our washing:
“And what creature more excellent than man? Very good, then, are all the works of our God and Saviour. And what more requisite gift, again, is there than the element of water? For with water all things are washed and nourished, and cleansed and bedewed. … Nor is this the only thing that proves the dignity of the water. But there is also that which is more honourable than all—the fact that Christ, the Maker of all, came down as the rain, and was known as a spring, and diffused Himself as a river, and was baptized in the Jordan. For you have just heard how Jesus came to John, and was baptized by him in the Jordan. Oh things strange beyond compare! How should the boundless River that makes glad the city of God have been dipped in a little water! The illimitable Spring that bears life to all men, and has no end, was covered by poor and temporary waters!” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapters 1 & 2)
If Hippolytus intended to convey the merits and powers of the water of Roman baptism, “little,” “poor and temporary” were simply the wrong words to use. Jesus, as Hippolytus would have it, is the Water of Life, the Rain, the River, the Spring that “came down” and “bears life to all men,” by comparison to Whom the waters of the Jordan were simply impotent. Hippolytus has Jesus in mind, not created water, when he says He came to wash men in water and the Spirit. This is evident as we return to Chapter 8 where Called to Communion begins their citation. We will provide the sentence immediately preceding Called to Communion‘s citation. Note that Hippolytus does not venture into a discussion on washing by the water and the Spirit until he first reminds us of Whom that water is:
“But give me now your best attention, I pray you, for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing. The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit…” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 8)
When Hippolytus “goes back to the fountain of life … that gushes with healing,” it is to Jesus that he leads us, not to the “poor and temporary waters” of the Jordan, nor to the “little” waters of the Roman Baptismal font. Called to Communion omitted that first sentence for brevity, its significance lost to them, so predisposed are they to find the Roman font in every mention of water.
Lest Called to Communion be tempted to allege that Hippolytus thought the waters of the Jordan were “poor and temporary” only on account of John, we return again to Hippolytus who invites us to be baptized with the same baptism “by which man is begotten again and endued with life, in which also Christ was baptized” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 8). By Called to Communion‘s reading, Hippolytus has invited us to be baptized by the same “poor and temporary waters” of the Jordan, as if “poor and temporary waters” could impart life. But in reality, Hippolytus has insisted that Jesus Himself is “the fountain of life” that “gushes with healing” and “bears life to all men.” It is to His baptism of washing by the blood of the Cross that he invites us, which leads us to Hippolytus’ identification of the Laver into which we are to go down to be purified.
3) Into which Laver do we go down unto regeneration?
That Hippolytus saw Christ’s Passion—and not Roman baptism—as the laver of washing and regeneration is evident from his commentary on the apocryphal Daniel 13, the Rape of Susannah.
Before we begin with Daniel 13, we note that the author of this chapter does not specify a time of year for the events about to unfold. All we understand is that Susannah had retired to the garden “at noon” (Daniel 13:7), and further that Hippolytus understood that “Susannah prefigured the Church” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On Susannah). At verse 15 when the two elders wait to spy upon her nakedness, Susannah washes herself in “the laver,” and Hippolytus takes that laver as a reference to Christ’s Passover sacrifice:
“15.
‘As they watched a fit time.’What fit time but that of the Passover, at which the laver is prepared in the garden for those who burn, and Susannah washes herself, and is presented as a pure bride to God?” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On Susannah, 15)
It is Hippolytus, not the author of Daniel 13, who identifies for us the festival of the Passover “at which the laver is prepared,” and by doing so, identifies Christ’s Passion as “the laver of washing” by which the Church is presented to to God “as a pure bride.” Hippolytus then goes on, explaining that Susannah had only two maids in attendance who signify “faith on Christ and love to God, … For it is by faith on Christ and love to God that the Church confesses and receives the laver” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On Susannah, 15). Because “the laver” is the Passover Passion of Christ, the Church confesses and receives it—which is to say the Church confesses the Gospel and receives the preaching ministry—for it is for love of Him and by faith in His work on the Cross that we receive the washing He administered by dying in our place.
The two maids of “faith” and “love” are then directed to fetch oil and ointments (Daniel 13:17), signifying the Word of God and the Holy Spirit:
“But what were these ointments, but the commandments of the holy Word? And what was the oil, but the power of the Holy Spirit, with which believers are anointed as with ointment after the laver of washing?” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On Susannah, 17)
Thus, says Hippolytus, after we have been washed in the laver of Christ’s Passion, faith and love compel us to be anointed in His Word and by the Holy Spirit. In sum, the Church (signified by Susannah) receives the laver (signifying Christ’s Passion and His Gospel message) for her purification. In this, She is attended by two maids, “faith and love,” and those two maids bring with them the Word and the Spirit, “with which believers are anointed as with ointment after the laver of washing.” This does not speak of Baptismal regeneration at all, but of a people for whom Christ came to die, for “I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day” (Zechariah 3:9); and it speaks of believers receiving His sacrifice by faith, in love being sanctified by the Word of God (John 17:17) and indwelt by the Holy Spirit unto adoption, for “when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son … To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5).
With this in mind, we encourage our readers now to return to Discourse on the Holy Theophany. Hippolytus saw Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan as a figure for the washing of the nations by His blood, and that His “baptism” on the Cross renewed us, opened Heaven’s gates, and secured our adoption, and that Jesus Himself is the Water that washes us, and that He is the Laver into which we descend for rebirth and adoption and regeneration—and that the waters of the Jordan were poor and temporary by comparison. The Discourse may therefore be read in the light of Hippolytus’ figuration of Christ’s Passover sacrifice, rather than a treatise on the Roman baptismal font. What we find upon an informed reading of Hippolytus is that Called to Communion has simply read “Baptismal Regeneration” into the Discourse literally—something that Hippolytus implored them not to do.
Called to Communion then continues with Hippolytus:
Called to Communion: “In another work he writes:
For her [i.e. the Church’s] prow is the east, and her stern is the west, and her hold is the south, and her tillers are the two Testaments; and the ropes that stretch around her are the love of Christ, which binds the Church; and the net which she bears with her is the laver of the regeneration which renews the believing, whence too are these glories. (On Christ and Anti-Christ, para. 59)
White Horse Blog: We invite our readers to notice that Called to Communion has once again assumed that any mention of a laver must be a reference to Rome’s baptismal font. Thus, this sentence from Hippolytus is offered without any further commentary—as if the mere mention of a laver is sufficient to prove Rome’s position. But at this point in his Treatise on Christ an Antichrist, Hippolytus waxes metaphorical, describing the Church as a ship sailing on the sea, her net ever ready to take in its haul of those who believe her message. We will here provide the entire metaphor, and we invite the readers to notice that “the sea” from which “the believing” are hauled typifies “the world.” Of particular interest is the ship’s cargo: “the trophy … over death; for she carries with her the cross of the Lord,” which, as Hippolytus has elsewhere described, renews those who believe in it:
“For the wings of the vessels are the churches; and the sea is the world, in which the Church is set, like a ship tossed in the deep, but not destroyed; for she has with her the skilled Pilot, Christ. And she bears in her midst also the trophy (which is erected) over death; for she carries with her the cross of the Lord. For her prow is the east, and her stern is the west, and her hold is the south, and her tillers are the two Testaments; and the ropes that stretch around her are the love of Christ, which binds the Church; and the net which she bears with her is the laver of the regeneration which renews the believing, whence too are these glories. As the wind the Spirit from heaven is present, by whom those who believe are sealed: she has also anchors of iron accompanying her, viz., the holy commandments of Christ Himself, which are strong as iron. She has also mariners on the right and on the left, assessors like the holy angels, by whom the Church is always governed and defended. The ladder in her leading up to the sailyard is an emblem of the passion of Christ, which brings the faithful to the ascent of heaven. And the top-sails aloft upon the yard are the company of prophets, martyrs, and apostles, who have entered into their rest in the kingdom of Christ.” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 59)
“The net,” as it turns out, is used to haul in those who believe the message of the Cross that the ship of the Church bears to the world, for it is the teaching ministry of the Church (so also with Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book X, Chapters 11-12). Here, the “laver of the regeneration which renews the believing” is the Gospel message itself, not the Roman Baptismal font.
We conclude this section on Hippolytus by peering into his voluminous Refutation of All Heresies. His Refutation was an exhaustive rebuttal of all errors of the day, originating from within and without the Church, and the Refutation goes on and on for 250 chapters in eight Books—which is all the more impressive for the fact that Books II and III are missing, and we do not know how many chapters they contained.
Most of the errors he rejects in Refutation relate to the creation of the world; the regeneration of man; the origin of the universe by earth, fire, air and water; Jesus’ birth; Jesus’ baptism; Jesus’ adoption; “second baptism” for remission of sins; incantations during baptism, ablutions, washings and purifications. Not all errors of the day had to do with baptism, but errors regarding baptism figured prominently in his Refutation. Thus when Hippolytus writes his conclusion under the title “The Doctrine of the Truth,” we expect him to set forth the true doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration once and for all. But he makes not a single mention of the role of water in rebirth. Instead, he commends his listeners to the Word of God which can change them, beget them unto life by its irradiating power, and fit them for incorruptibility and immortality:
“Such is our faith, O all you men,— …And these injunctions has God given to the Word. But the Word, by declaring them, promulgated the divine commandments, thereby turning man from disobedience, not bringing him into servitude by force of necessity, but summoning him to liberty through a choice involving spontaneity.” (Hippolytus, A Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, chapter 29).
“Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O you men … Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word! … Now such (torments) as these shall you avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And you shall possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. … because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality.” (Hippolytus, A Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, chapter 30).
If Hippolytus really held to Baptismal Regeneration, promising rebirth “unto immortality” by “the irradiating voice of the Word” was the wrong way to say it. We therefore reject Called to Communion‘s efforts to read Baptismal Regeneration into Hippolytus.
Origen (3rd Century)
Called to Communion: Next consider a selection from Origen (185 – 254):
We next remark in passing that the baptism of John was inferior to the baptism of Jesus which was given through His disciples. Those persons in the Acts (Acts 19:2) who were baptized to John’s baptism and who had not heard if there was any Holy Ghost are baptized over again by the Apostle. Regeneration did not take place with John, but with Jesus through His disciples it does so, and what is called the laver of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit. (Commentary on John, Bk VI.17)
White Horse Blog: Here we simply note that what Called to Communion hoped to find in Origen is completely undone by Origen’s own words from the same chapter. Origen insists that water baptism is symbolic of the washing that takes place in the soul, in the same way that Jesus’ miracles of healing were done to the body, but were symbolic of the real healing that could only take place in the soul, by faith:
“And here we must note that as the wonderful works done by the Saviour in the cures He wrought, which are symbolic of those who at any time are set free by the word of God from any sickness or disease, though they were done to the body and brought a bodily relief, yet also called those who were benefited by them to an exercise of faith,so the washing with water which is symbolic of the soul cleansing herself from every stain of wickedness, is no less in itself to him who yields himself to the divine power of the invocation of the Adorable Trinity, the beginning and source of divine gifts; for
there are diversities of gifts.” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, chapter 17)
We invite our readers to see this same thought developed in his Commentary on the Gospel of Mathew, in which the diseases Jesus cured were symbolic of the “palsied in soul,” the blind of soul, and deaf of soul (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XIII, Chapter 4), and that the Pharisees should have endeavoured to “wash the hands of [their] souls” instead of criticizing Jesus’ disciples for not washing their hands of flesh (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XI, Chapter 8).
If Origen intended to convey the regenerating power of the Sacrament of water in baptism, comparing the symbolism of baptism to the symbolic cures of Jesus—which healed the body but did not heal the soul—was the wrong way to do it. Origen’s claim that baptism is merely an external washing that is symbolic of an internal soul cleansing that is by faith, provides no support to Called to Communion. But Origen goes on with this theme, and explains precisely Who the laver of regeneration is. Having identified the symbolic washing of water, and explaining that “the water had prepared the way” for the Spirit, he explains that the “laver of regeneration” refers to “the renewal of the Spirit,” which renewal “does not come to all after the water.”
Before we continue with Origen’s citation, we invite the attention of our readers to Acts 19:2-6, the passage to which Origen is about to refer. Disciples at Corinth had received the baptism of John, but had neither received the baptism of Christ nor that of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2-4). The disciples were then baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 19:5). After being baptized in the name of Christ, Paul then lays hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:6). This is important because the Spirit comes not with the water (v. 5) but with the laying on of hands (v. 6), and that is what Origen called “the laver of regeneration [that] takes place with renewal of the Spirit.” Let us return now to Origen, picking up in the next sentence:
“This view receives confirmation from the narrative recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, which shows the Spirit to have descended so manifestly on those who receive baptism, after the water had prepared the way for him in those who properly approached the rite. … Those persons in the Acts [Acts 19:2] who were baptized to John’s baptism and who had not heard if there was any Holy Ghost are baptized over again by the Apostle. Regeneration did not take place with John, but with Jesus through His disciples it does so, and what is called the laver of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit; for the Spirit now comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water.” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, chapter 17)
Whatever instrumentality Rome may assign to the water, Origen was explicit in his belief that the water is as symbolic as Jesus’ medical miracles—symbols that were performed on the body but that did not heal the soul. This section of his Commentary on John is not a description of the instrumentality of water at all. It is a description of water as an outward symbol of an inward washing that is effected by the Spirit apart from the water, for the “laver of regeneration” is the “renewal of the Spirit” Who “does not come to all after the water.”
To those who would still assign to water the instrumentality of regeneration in Origen, his Commentary on Romans will put that to rest. He defers to his language of symbolism in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, and then explicitly denies that the water is anything other than a sign of what the Spirit does apart from the water. He links the water to the Spirit only in its signification, for water is a symbol of cleansing—and then states that even though “all of us” were immersed in those “visible waters,” only they who die to sin are truly baptized into Christ and “born anew”:
“But concerning the meaning of baptism, we have spoken to the best of our ability whatever was able to come or, rather, whatever the Lord freely granted, when we were explaining the Gospel according to John, when it came to the passage where he says of Jesus, “He himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit,” and again where the Savior himself says, “Unless someone should be born anew of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In that passage we tried to reveal the force of that expression more profoundly, in which it is said, “unless someone should be reborn anew.” For what we Latin speakers use as “anew,” the Greeks say ἄνωθεν which means both “anew” and “from above.” In this passage, that whoever is baptized by Jesus is baptized in the Holy Spirit, it is suitable to be understood not so much as “anew,” as “from above”; for we say “anew” when the same things which have already happened are repeated. Here, however, the same birth is not repeated or done a second time, but this earthly one is laid aside and a new birth from above is received. For that reason we would more accurately read the text in the Gospel as, “Unless someone has been reborn from above, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” For this refers to being baptized in the Holy Spirit. For this reason, that baptism is confirmed to be “from above,” not unfittingly are even the waters, which are above the heavens and which praise the name of the Lord,” linked to the Holy Spirit. And although all of us may be baptized in those visible waters and in a visible anointing, in accordance with the form handed down to the churches, nevertheless, the one who has died to sin and is truly baptized into the death of Christ and is buried with him through baptism into death, he is the one who is truly baptized in the Holy Spirit and with the water from above.” (Origen, Commentary on Romans, 6:3-4, section 8.3)
It is the invisible water from above, not the visible water from below, that effects regeneration. Thus does Origen separate “the laver of regeneration … renewal by the Spirit” from the visible waters of baptism. Called to Communion missed this, so disposed are they to see the Roman baptismal font in every mention of the laver.
As with Tertullian, Origen insisted that baptism must not be administered unless there are first signs of new life, and the water that effects regeneration is that which comes from above, not below. As Origen explains in his Commentary on Romans, baptism is not to be administered unless one has first died to sin: “First you must die to sin so that you can be buried with Christ [in baptism]” (Origen, Commentary on Romans, 6:3-4, section 8.4). If, as Origen states, the real baptism by the Holy Spirit; the real rebirth; the real regeneration; and real renewal with the invisible “water from above” is when one has truly “died to sin” (section 8.3), and one must first “die to sin” so that one can be immersed in the “visible waters” of baptism (section 8.4), then regeneration is a prerequisite to baptism in Origen, defeating Called to Communion‘s attempts to read Baptismal Regeneration into his works.
We conclude this section on Origen by providing his thoughts from the Commentary on John 1:4, “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” Here Origen sees our true resurrection unto life not in the sacrament, but much rather when we have truly received Him and have actually died to sin and are truly walking in newness of life:
“
Now He is called the light of men and the true light and the light of the word, because He brightens and irradiates the higher parts of men, or, in a word, of all reasonable beings. And similarly it is from and because of the energy with which He causes the old deadness to be put aside and that which is par excellence life to be put on, so that those who have truly received Him rise again from the dead, that He is called the resurrection. And this He does not only at the moment at which a man says, “We are buried with Christ through baptism and have risen again with Him,” [Romans 6:4] but much rather when a man, having laid off all about him that belongs to death, walks in the newness of life which belongs to Him, the Son, while here.” [2 Corinthians 4:10]” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book I, Chapter 25)
Those are not the words of a man who believed that the the Roman baptismal font was the laver of regeneration.
Next week, we will continue this series, addressing Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pamphilus of Caesarea, and Methodius of Olympus.
Tim, have you engaged them anywhere on their own site? I don’t get over there frequently, but I would be more than interested in seeing any of your direct interactions with them.
Thanks, John. I have not interacted with them there. This series really began as an evaluation of a 2010 Bryan Cross post once I realized how selective and decontextualized his analysis of the Fathers is. I’m sure we’ll have a chance to interact with them soon enough. My passion here is to provide “the rest of the story,” lest our fellow believers be tempted to stumble into error by succumbing to Called to Communion’s mishandling of the Church Fathers.
Thanks so much,
Tim
Tim, I have mentioned this series on CtC. They seem reluctant to come on and engage.
Tim, this article is so good. The truth will set us free. If I were called to communion I’d stay away to. LOL My rule ” read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, and arrive at biblical truth.”
Tim, At some point I hope you take on justification and imputation at called to communion. Its like Russia over there. They are selective and decontextualized also. They allow maybe 1 out of every ten of my posts. They should seriously be considered of directing their site to convert Reformed and other Protestants to Roman Catholicism. They get allot of uninformed seekers, and they attempt to keep to deep of Reformed thinking at bay from these seekers.
Tim, When I go on CtC it specifically says ” your ip address has been banned” I believe I was booted. Where you getting the same message. If they were having site prblems I dont think it would tell me im booted. Did you get booted too? Thanks K
Kevin,
I can access Called to Communion from any other location except from my home. When I attempt to access from home, I get a message saying “bad server address.” As long as I have internet access to someone else’s wireless, I can get to the site.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, ya, which means they booted your home address. Why?
I’m not sure. I’ve never done anything but read their material. I’ve never posted at the Called to Communion site.
Tim
Tim, I was communicating wit EricW and we were discussing how these sites like Jason’s or Ctc really dont want to deal with the hard core challenge to their doctrines. So Im sure they are in no want to deal with these arguments.They are interested in the Reformed whowill meet them at the crossroad of sanctification, where if they can take down imputation they can convert Protestants. Nick on his site has said as much. I think there is a cooporative effort to take out imputation. Because it is the current topic at ctc, ccc, Coffee house inquisition, Nick’s site and other RC blogs. We dont fit in to there plan. I m a staunch defender of imputation, but I thing it waining in some Protestant quarters especially with the current return to NPP which is just an historical RC view.
It seems so incredible to me how little real thinking people within the RCC do when it comes to any biblical doctrine. Jim is the perfect mirror image of the typical RCC follower. They really do love the sacred tradition far far more than Scripture.
With Tim’s series here, one can see that they love their sacred tradition far far far more than they do historical evidence.
I cannot understand it. I don’t know anything about this CtC group, nor if they have any blog posts except for 1 or 2 a month (as many blog sites), but how can they just ignore this series? It makes no sense. Is there anyone out there inside or outside the RCC that wants to examine the CtC teachings?
Jim is not the example I’m looking for…as Jim is the typical RCC adherent who is just blinded by all the pomp and Popish rock star fervor surrounding the RCC now. Clearly, there has never been a more popular and rock star type figure than this Pope. I saw on EWTN this week where the Pope and Israel are promoting a new “UN of religions”…just incredible.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/04/israel-shimon-peres-proposes-new-peace-initiative-un-religions-to-pope-at/
Walt, for not knowing the righteouness of God they seek to establish their own. For the have a zeal but not in accordance with knowlddge.
Walt, CtC guys are hung up in theit philosophical underpinnings. They are modern day sophists. They avoid this argument because they cant win it on biblical or historic grounds, so they hide behind Roman tradition and philosophy. If they could eliminate the words of Paul they would. The reason Tim’ arguements are so good is he is unraveling them thru exegesis of scripture and thru church fathers. Imho whats left is to unravel justification thru sacramental efficacy, which he just made here a great deposit toward. Putting sacramental efficay in place of the atonement is wicked.
Guys,
I have no trouble getting C2C. Maybe they are just sick of kevin never engaging in actual dialogue. He just uses every post as a springboard to rant and rave without making sense.
Tim, I am back in Portugal. Yesterday I went to First Saturday Mass and was thinking of some differences between American and Portuguese devotions. Here, the Fatima message 9 The % saturadays ) is not private devotion but is a given. I think CCC was long in shutting down in order to escape K.F. due to this difference. Americans seem to think that they have to put up with abuse in order to be ecumenical or open minded.
Your mom would love a visit over. You should pony up the bucks and send her over on a tour group.
While in Portland I invited a few people over including Fr. Stephan Mary O. P. of Holy Rosary and our mutual buddy Nick.
I really learned some important stuff from Nick about imputation. I think he should follow your lead and write a book.
You really could learn a lot from him.
Jim — actually, CTC has its own circular apologetic, which is characterized in these two articles:
http://reformation500.com/2014/07/14/roman-catholicism-on-trial-evidence-and-assumptions/
http://reformation500.com/2014/07/16/two-roman-catholic-claims-that-cannot-both-be-true/
Kevin merely failed to distinguish what the CTC “circle” needs to be about.
John,
I didn’t know we were discussing circular reasoning.
I clicked on your links only to see the usual side stepping of the inability of Protestantism to prove its claims to any authority. Instead, I saw the usual sorry attacks on Catholicism in order to prove itself by default.
Christ said that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him and then sent the Apostles out to build up the Church. He invested that Church with that same divine authority. He did not commission the writing of a book. Rather, He empowered that Church to guide and teach in His name down through the ages.
Protestantism. ( as seen in Tim’s writings ) has no means with which to distinguish between legitimate development of doctrine and heretical innovation.
Luther himself never tried to prove Sola Scriptura from that scriptura. Instead, he merely asserted councils and popes had failed thereby begging the question of scripture being the only trustworthy authority.
As for Falloni, he’s a write-off. I am on board with CTC, CCC, Nick, and anyone else who sees the futility of engaging his rantings. After the goofy show he put on of repeatedly crashing the CCC party under a number of corny names despite being asked to please go away , I feel more than vindicated in my assessment of the man.
Jim: I didn’t know we were discussing circular reasoning.
You weren’t, until I pointed out, that’s how the CTC crowd does apologetics.
I clicked on your links only to see the usual side stepping of the inability of Protestantism to prove its claims to any authority.
Protestantism doesn’t try to prove it has authority. Instead, it is Scripture that has the authority. It is up to Rome to prove that Rome has a kind of authority that’s on par with Scripture (CCC 81). It fails to do this. (And in trying to do so, it steps on its own paradigm. That is the point to the articles that I linked to).
Christ said that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him and then sent the Apostles out to build up the Church. He invested that Church with that same divine authority.
Where does the Scripture say that Christ gave “the Church” his own divine authority? Secondly, where does he define “the Church”?
You have no answers to these other than, “uh, Rome says…”
This is where your “circular reasoning” comes in, and why we have to talk about it.
He did not commission the writing of a book.
That book — the Scriptures — already existed, and Christ repeatedly invested the ultimate authority on earth in the Scriptures.
Protestantism. ( as seen in Tim’s writings ) has no means with which to distinguish between legitimate development of doctrine and heretical innovation.
This is Liccione’s canard — why are you introducing this red herring, unless you think that the Scriptures, to which Christ constantly pointed, fail to provide sufficient guidance?
In fact, it is Rome that introduces “heretical innovation”, and then claims that it has the authority to do so. This is why we need to talk about circularity.
Luther himself never tried to prove Sola Scriptura from that scriptura. Instead, he merely asserted councils and popes had failed thereby begging the question of scripture being the only trustworthy authority.
There is no question-begging. Christ in Scripture, and Scripture itself, assert the authority of Scripture. The question-begging comes in when the Roman Church makes claims that it provides the only “authentic” “interpretation”. Both of those words, in fact, are never defined in the Roman system, but the use of them represents the ultimate circularity.
John,
“Jim: I didn’t know we were discussing circular reasoning.
You weren’t, until I pointed out, that’s how the CTC crowd does apologetics.
ASSERTION.
I clicked on your links only to see the usual side stepping of the inability of Protestantism to prove its claims to any authority.
Protestantism doesn’t try to prove it has authority. Instead, it is Scripture that has the authority. It is up to Rome to prove that Rome has a kind of authority that’s on par with Scripture (CCC 81).
SCRIPTURE POINTS TO EXTRA-BIBLICAL AUTHORITY. TRADITION, CHURCH AND PAPACY ARE ALL THERE.
It fails to do this. (And in trying to do so, it steps on its own paradigm. That is the point to the articles that I linked to).
Christ said that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him and then sent the Apostles out to build up the Church. He invested that Church with that same divine authority.
Where does the Scripture say that Christ gave “the Church” his own divine authority? Secondly, where does he define “the Church”?
TO WHOM WAS CHRIST SPEAKING IN THAT PASSAGE? HOW DO YOU INTERPRET IT?
You have no answers to these other than, “uh, Rome says…”
GRATUITOUS SNOTTINESS.
This is where your “circular reasoning” comes in, and why we have to talk about it.
He did not commission the writing of a book.
That book — the Scriptures — already existed, and Christ repeatedly invested the ultimate authority on earth in the Scriptures.
REALLY? WAS SOLA SCRIPTURA THE RULE OF FAITH IN THE O.T? DURING THE TIME CHRIST WALKED THE EARTH? AFTER HE ASCENDED AND BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE LAST APOSTLE?
Protestantism. ( as seen in Tim’s writings ) has no means with which to distinguish between legitimate development of doctrine and heretical innovation.
This is Liccione’s canard — why are you introducing this red herring, unless you think that the Scriptures, to which Christ constantly pointed, fail to provide sufficient guidance?
FUNNY YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF INTRODUCING A RED HERRING!
In fact, it is Rome that introduces “heretical innovation”, and then claims that it has the authority to do so. This is why we need to talk about circularity.
AGAIN, HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENT AND HERETICAL INNOVATION?
Luther himself never tried to prove Sola Scriptura from that scriptura. Instead, he merely asserted councils and popes had failed thereby begging the question of scripture being the only trustworthy authority.
There is no question-begging. Christ in Scripture, and Scripture itself, assert the authority of Scripture.
SCRIPTURE IS INDEED AN AUTHORITY. WHO DENIED IT?
The question-begging comes in when the Roman Church makes claims that it provides the only “authentic” “interpretation”.
CHRIST ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH. DO YOU DENY IT?
DO YOU THINK HE COMMISSIONED EVERYONE TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE?
Jim,
You wrote:
“Christ said that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him and then sent the Apostles out to build up the Church. He invested that Church with that same divine authority. He did not commission the writing of a book. Rather, He empowered that Church to guide and teach in His name down through the ages.
Protestantism. ( as seen in Tim’s writings ) has no means with which to distinguish between legitimate development of doctrine and heretical innovation.
Luther himself never tried to prove Sola Scriptura from that scriptura. ”
Actually these were questions I posed based upon quotes I took from the authors of the Canon article, and asked them to explain their position a bit more clearly as indeed what I read was circular reasoning by the author. I drew it to his attention, but he must not have liked the question so my posts were removed as far as I can tell. They did leave one, but did not respond to it.
In answer to your confusion above, the distinction needs to be made between primary authority and secondary authority. The triune God gave HIS CHURCH and all mankind the Scriptures as the primary authority on earth binding all men to perfect and perpetual obedience to HIS revealed will. The Church is to preach and practice this law and testimony throughout the ages as a secondary and subordinate standards to the Scriptures.
Nowhere does God tell HIS CHURCH to produce standards that exceed or overturn HIS standards from Scripture, and certainly HE does not say that man’s standards are equal to HIS Scriptures. Primary standards are superior to secondary and subordinate standards.
“First, whatsoever reverence or dignity is by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures given to particular men in office, all of it is given, not properly to men themselves, but to the office of the ministry which those men occupy. Those particular men who are called of Christ to serve in an official capacity are “clothed” with the ministry. In essence, the official requirements of the ministry, and the associated spiritual power to fulfil their attendant duties are “committed” unto them (Exod.3:4 and 14:31; Duet.17:9,10; Mal.2:4,6; Ezek.3:17; Jer.23:28 and 1:6; Matt.28:19; Acts 15:10). ”
“Accordingly, these men, as official ministers called and sent of Christ, have been given a limited ministerial power to make subordinate rules and decrees. These rules and decrees do not bind except where and when they wholly conform to that first infallible and unerring rule prescribed by Christ Himself (Luke 22:25-27; 1Pe5:2,3; 2Tim.3:15,16,17; 1Thess.5:12; Eph.6:1).”
“In essence, the authority of all ministerial rules and decrees are founded solely upon and wholly deprived from the Word of God. Not only is the authority associated with ministerial declarations of doctrinal abstractions, such as Confessions of Faith, solely dependent upon the authority of the written Word of God, but also the administration and exercise of the same-the practical out-working of these doctrinal positions in time and history-must also conform to this alone infallible rule, or else such rules, decrees, or practical examples of mere men have no binding authority (Isa.8:19,20; Mal.2:6,7; Matt.28:19).”
“In so far as any ministerial declaration or practical application does actually err and decline from that which is taught in God’s Word, these officers do act without power and authority from Jesus Christ. Because they are commissioned by Christ, and clothed with the ministry, ministers may do nothing against the Truth, but only for the Truth (2Cor.13:8), with power that He has given unto edification and not unto destruction (2Cor.13:10).”
“It is, therefore, both the duty and privilege of every church member to use his own judgment and discretion in order to examine every thing that a church judicatory decrees or declares. If after a diligent and impartial examination, any ministerial decree or practice is found to be “certainly” contrary to God’s Word, then these members are not to bring their conscience in bondage to the mere dictates of men (Isa.9:15,16; Jer.8:8,9; Mal.2:8,9; Isa.40:6-8; Rom.3:4; 1Cor.13:9-12). “
Jim, ya you learned how Nick truncares his agruements. His argument is dikaiouw means only your past sins have been forgiven. So when Paul says ” by one man’s obedience the many are constituted righteous” means past sins are forgiven. Because if it didnt mean that it would put an end to sacramental efficacy by one’s works in Rome. It would bd a blow to auricular confession and satisfations, and “the work of the people” The Mass. Ji you drop in with your cameos but you got nothin but Fatima, and your exegetical retort to Tim’ piece ” Tim, where does it say we arent supposed to be baptized. Thats deep Jim boy.lol
Tim,
I saw Jim’s comments about your mother, and the incredible carelessness he has taken with your own testimony. I went through the same degree of torment watching my father live his final days as a Catholic knowing he was not ready to put saving faith in Christ Jesus. When they called the local Priest into his home to do “last rights” I was totally heart broken knowing that meant nothing for his salvation in Christ. My mother was fortunately damaged extensively by our local Roman Catholic church so she left them, but she knew nothing else growing up as a child. She did not know any thing about Protestantism as it was banned by our local Catholic school to discuss growing up, and many just considered Protestants as ignorant of Mary and the Papal link to Peter, the ultimate head of the global Catholic Church. I can just imagine how the comments by Jim about your mother must feel knowing that the RCC is taking so many to everlasting torment, but yet you have hope that Christ can effectually call her to a saving knowledge if she hears the true gospel.
I really pray your own testimony will one day be sufficient for her to hear the gospel, and awaken her to the false promises of the RCC system. You are a great encouragement to many former Roman Catholics because you are digging into the false and deceptive statements of these Catholic apologists who say anything to build their church membership and revenues.
I watched today on EWTN the massive push they have going to get more priests, and how the Seminaries since 1975 have dropped from near 160 to less than 80 in 2014. I assume these were all in the USA, as in Portugal, Brazil, Italy, etc. they might have 100 alone in each small country building priests.
Your mom is in my prayers as I beg and plead with the Lord to draw her unto a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Walt, beautifully said, I join my prayers with you. I will not quit telling evryone about this site. Ive lost all my Catholic friends telling them them the gospel and dont regret it for one minute.
Tim,
I’ve been reading through some of the articles on Called to Communion. Wow, these guys call themselves former reformed? I have posted a couple questions…we will see if they allow my posts to go through. One is to ask what is their definition of reformed. I see they like to quote Calvin a lot, and dance around Calvin as the only reformed teacher in history during the first reformation. I’ve yet to see any quote of any reformed father of the second reformation.
However, I would encourage you to dig further (after this series if you have time and desire) into the discussion about the Scriptures. I saw one of the article at CtC and see that is always going to be their “holy grail” argument. In conclusion, the author states:
“A canon criterion that judges the canon based on Scripture’s internal attributes will always be of dubious reliability because it depends on subjective human judgment. A canon criterion that judges the canon based on evidence external to Scripture violates sola scriptura, or the Reformed assumption that necessarily accompanies sola scriptura that whatever authoritatively testifies to the canonicity of Scripture must be more authoritative than Scripture, by placing extra-Biblical evidence effectively above the Bible, which is to be the believer’s sole infallible authority. Therefore, every criterion available to Reformed theology to answer the Canon Question will either be of dubious reliability or in violation of sola scriptura (and hence not available to Reformed theology). The fundamental problem, then, for the sola scriptura position is that it is left without any way of determining the canon that is faithful to its own paradigm of authority.
I finish with a challenge, and one I offer with a heart longing for Christian unity. Approach your pastor, or the most knowledgeable Reformed teacher or theologian you know, and ask him how he is certain that the Protestant canon is correct. Ask him which answer to the Canon Question he follows, and why he chose that theory over the others. Wrestle together with him until you have found an answer that both yields the 66-book Protestant canon, and does not rely on subjective bosom-burning or extra-Biblical canon criteria. Let us pray to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit from the depth of our hearts for Christian unity.”
It would be interesting to see if you can find the split in the Early Church which preserves the text before Jerome and others began to create the exclusive Latin text in the world.
Tim, I will not post more on this issue of where the Scriptures went besides into the hands of Jerome and the Romish church, but here is some food for thought as you know this period of history better, if not one of the best, than most.
“Hi Donald,
What evidence do you have that Jerome accepted the longer canon?
Jerome, Epiphanius, and Rufinus all published “twenty-two” book canons in 390, eight years after the Council of Rome in 382 (which, by the way, Jerome and Epiphanius both attended).
Augustine and the Third Council of Carthage published the first 44 book canon in 397 (please note that the canon according to Augustine and every other western source of a longer canon, including the Council Trent, was at most 71 books, not 73 as you claim. Innocent I published a 70 book canon since he omitted Hebrews in the NT).
In 398, Jerome amended his declaration that books beyond the “twenty-two” were Apocrypha, by agreeing with Rufinus, et al. regarding the distinction between “Canonical” and “Ecclesiastical” books. Commenting about the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach in his Prologue to the Books of Solomon, Jerome says: “Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls [Wisdom and Sirach] for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”
The complete Vulgate, published in 404, included Jerome’s Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings, which preserved his “twenty-two” book canon for over 1000 years in the “authorized” version of the Bible up to the time of the Reformation. How else do you explain Cardinal Cajetan – in Luther’s day – saying of the canon: “For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.”
Blessings,
Lojahw”
For months I kept telling the guys in charge of CCC that Kevin Falloni was just a thug despite his sucking up to them. They wouldn’t believe me. Kenneth W. actually accused me of being the bad guy for stalking Kevin! They gave him every chance possible to debate and dialogue but he blew it and revealed his ugly dark side.
Kevin proved himself the potential criminal he is. For weeks, after being requested to exit the site, he kept barging in under about a dozen phony names. He even lied when asked by someone why he was posting under a fake name. He said that Jason had asked him to when Jason had asked him not to post at all. Like a drunk who won’t leave a party when politely asked to, Kevin kept sneaking back in through the back door. Jason had to actually do as I suggested and shut down rather than continue to supply a mad dog with a format to rant from.
All along, I kept insisting Kevin was just an old style anti-Catholic bigot, a throw back to America’s dark history of nativism and waspish bullying.
Kevin proved how little respect he has for the guys he claims he wanted to “dialogue ” with. He would lick boots and whine and plead to be allowed on the blog but I was convinced I knew his black motives. I had a long and lonely battle to get him dumped. It was tough but worth it.
I have said all along, if not for fear of being arrested by the authorities or of being punched out by the Catholic men present, he would walk into Sunday Mass and disrupt the proceedings. He might even walk walk right up to the altar with a group of other mental cases and smash open the tabernacle. More than once I said Kevin would scare little catholic kids.
Kevin”s boorish pushiness proved me right. It is pointless fighting Kevin with words. Forget using logic or throwing Bible verses at him. He is a violent mad man. He understands only force.
In the mid 19th century, Bishop ” Dagger” John Hughes of New York had to authorize the Irish Catholic men of New York to take up clubs and guns to defend the Catholic churches, cemeteries and people from the Know Nothing gangs of Kevins burning and desecrating our churches.
Tim, Walt, Eric, anyone who approves of Kevin, examine your association with him. The man is dangerous. If he hurts someone, you have egged him on in his hysteria.
Jim, Please get your facts straight before calling me a thug and a liar, which you have truly proven to be, it takes one to know one. Jason let me back on the site and asked me to post under another name, which in retrospect I sould have nor agreed to do. Everyone knew who I was because I told them. You however posted under the cover of darkness as Mikel.
Jim, of course that makes a good fiction story, unfortunatelly there is no shred of violence in my background. I have been a married ,law abiding citizen my whole life. And the many times I have been in antchrist’s church I was really uncomfortable, and it just seemed to me a ritualistic cemetary. I am 6’4 240 and a blackbelt, so worrying about any Catholic coming after me isnt a problem. I married to a great believing woman and we are in a bible study and love our church. So your attempt to paint me this way fails badly. I do however hate the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic church tha has sent more men to hell than almost any other false religion. I love their people however and pray for them. But their c doctrine has wo u nded Christ and robbed Him of his glorry.
I posted 4 comments on the CtC site, and they removed three of them (the last 3) and left one (the first one I posted).
They were all questions, but from a Covenanter and Presbyterian perspective, and so I don’t expect to be able to post there again with my email address.
They do a great job of really restricting what people post there from what I can tell, and so only let through exactly those posts that agree with themselves, or that don’t ask the tough questions that they don’t want to answer.
The RCC has silenced their opponent for thousands of years, whether it is to murder them into silence or to just make sure they don’t get heard.
So much for CtC winning my vote for a neutral environment.
Walt,
“… I don’t expect to be able to post there again with my email address.”
Whose email address would you use? A phony one? Why?
This is exactly the kind of guerrilla warfare hooliganism that Kevin engages in.
I don’t get it. Posting under an assumed name is something Christians do in order to screech the gospel? Barging in uninvited or, worse, disinvited is found in the pages of the Bible?
No Walt. You and Kevin are pushy and rude. I am surprised at you. Too much playing footsie with Falloni.
Jim wrote:
“No Walt. You and Kevin are pushy and rude. I am surprised at you. Too much playing footsie with Falloni.”
Actually, I did not say anything rude. To the contrary. I quoted the author where he misstated Calvin’s position, and asked if he could source a better more accurate position. The other point I made was what I mentioned already. They were really questions, nothing rude.
Jim, I really think you are among the most rude people I have ever witnessed on a blog. You use vulgar language when it suits you, plus you constantly label everyone by making claims they did not make. You did this to me the first time you responded to my post, and said things I never said which I asked you to stop it. You did not stop it, but you continue to use the same tactics often with others.
This is your mode of operation, and has been since I have been here. It is something we all have grown used to I’m sure…but when you brought in those comments about Tim’s mom it took it to a new low even for you. It was sad, but I know as the RCC took my dad and tried to take my mom. They system is incredibly seductive to the weak and misguided. Just watch the Pope in his pomp and rock star image. It is incredible what he teaches that has little to do with sound doctrine. He is interested in global toleration of all religions in unity in hopes for peace. True peace and true liberty of conscience does not come from toleration, nor does it come from one world religion run or overseen by this popular Pope. The forthcoming vial judgments will show the world this fact.
Walt,
You are so ridiculous. You and Kevin. Both of you have accused me of trashing Tim’smother. You two don’t get it. Tim’s mom and I are on the same side. We are both Catholics. We “worship bread and Mary”. You two haters of Tim’s mom say she is going to hell.
Walt, until you grow up and get honest and stop the game playing, let’s agree to ignore each other.
I posted this on CtC but assume now it will not be published. Here it should go through.
Neverthelesse, we are also very sensible of the great and imminent dangers into which this common cause of religion is now brought by the growing and spreading of most dangerous errours in England, to the obstructing and hindering of the begun reformation, as namely, (beside many others,) Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, Brownisme, Erastianisme, Independency, and that which is called (by abuse of the word) Liberty of Conscience, being indeed liberty of errour, scandall, schisme, heresie, dishnouring God, opposing the truth, hindering reformation, and seducing others; whereunto we adde those Nullifidians, or men of no religion, commonly called Seekers: Yea, we cannot but look upon the dangers of the true Reformed religion in this island as greater now then before, not onely for that those very principles and fundamentals of faith which, under Prelacy, yea, under Popery itself, were generally received as uncontroverted, are now, by the scepticisme of many sectaries of this time, either oppugned or called in question; but also, because in stead of carrying on the reformation towards perfection, that which hath been already built is in part cast down, and in danger to be wholly overthrown through the endeavours of sectaries to comply with many of the Prelaticall and Malignant, and even the Popish party; and their joyning hand in hand, and casting in their lots, and interweaving their interests together in way of combination against the Covenant and Presbyteriall government; yea, the unclean spirit which was cast out, is about to enter againe, with seven other spirits worse then himselfe, and so the latter end like to be worse then the beginning. (Sess. 15, August 20, 1647, ante meridiem.—A Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their Brethren of England, emphasis mine.)
Amen to that!
Tim
Walt,
Or should I call you Coventer?
Do you think Jesus wore a kilt and played the bagpipes?
Your fixation with all things Scottish has gotten to be beyond corny.
Walt, they can never change because they are infalible.
I second that.
John,
Back to circular reasoning.
Protestants say the Bible is the sole rule of faith yet they cannot find this doctrine within the pages of scripture. Sounds like the dog chasing his tail to me.
Catholics say it can be proven from Jewish, Roman, Gnostic and Christian sources, including the historically accurate New Testament, that in Palestine 2,000 years ago a religion sprang up based on the person and teachings of Jesus. We also have copious archaeological testimony to support this.
That religion survived persecutions and is with us today. It was and is centered around the Apostle Peter and his successors as established by Christ.
No circle here John.
Jim – it’s not a circle. The claim is “the Word of God stands alone”. the challenge is for any other authority to make (and prove) the claim that it also
God’s revelation occurred in history, and history runs from beginning to end. The Old Testament functioned for the Jews in a Sola Scriptura way. Christ himself was “new Revelation” — the ultimate Revelation. (Interestingly, the Old Testament functioned for Jesus in a Sola Scriptura way).
The Apostles preached Christ and his Revelation, and they codified it into Scripture. See this link for actual information about how that happened (rather than the drivel that Rome puts out about it).
John,
Not interested in your links. Use your own words please if you want to dialogue.
The O.T. Jews were NOT sola scriptura people. Jesus was not sola scriptura and neither were the Apostles.The Jews had Moses, the priests, the kings and the rabbis to tell them what to believe.
Jesus did not appeal to the Bible only to prove Himself. He is God.
The early Church had presbyters and bishops.
Think it through John, before about 1450 and the invention of Gutenberg’s press, very few people owned Bibles.
Your principle of Sola Scrptura is 100% unhistoric. Therefore it is 100% false.
Jim, you are passing our plastic rosaries on the corner, staring at at the bread God for hours on end, and wear a scapular. You wear a scapular, and my guess is you have paid for a few of Christ’s merits in your life because you sure ain’t earning any. Dude, you better unload your bank account on those indulgences because thats your only chance of fulfilling the law. You say Walt is rude. Walt and Tim have been consistently loving with your sorry rear end. You got no argument for baptism ex opere operato! Our prayer is for salvation Jim. Only the Word can save you.
Jim, ” to the Word and the Testimony” its not Protestants that say the Word is the rule of faith.
Jim, if their is any example of why the Word of God is the only infallible truth just look at Romanism and Mormonism. That will tell you what happens when the traditions of men replace the word of God. Nuns, Popes, Cardinals, Scapulars, Pilgrimages, Idolatry, relics, plastic rosaries, Mass sacrifices, penance, candles, Holy water, bread God, indulgences, Purgatory, Priestcraft, a false Magisterium etc. For they teach as commandments the traditions of men. Paul said he wanted to know nothing else except Christ and Christ crucified. He preached the gospel because thats what save men.
John,
Give me some examples of S.S, from the Bible please. (2nd Tim 3:16 perhaps?)
Think about it. Where would a nomadic shepherd get a Bible? Where would a Jewish slave living in Babylon, a fisherman sailing the Sea of Galilee or a farmer, carpenter or even a well to do merchant come up with a set of books or scrolls?
During the Dark Ages most people could not read, at least not in latin.
S.S. never existed before Luther.
Jim, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. God spoke everything into existence by His Word long before a church Jim.
Tim and Walt, does it ever blow you away that we have to defend Word of God to Catholics who call themselves Christians? We have to defend the sufficiency of Scripture and the atonement. We have to defend that faith alone and not our character justifies us, Iow we have to defend God’s perfection and Christ’s perfect work from people that barely let Him be a member of the congregation, Its amazing to me. Like you said Tim, they have Christ in a box and Mary seated ubove heaven and earth.
Tim, I have been doing allot of study to the refutation of the Roman Catholic progresive inhernt justification. There are 3 verses which I think greatly refute this. Paul says it is a trustworthy statement that Chrust came into the world to save sinners of which I AM foremost. Its present tense that in his sanctification he is the present chief sinner. Second, as Augustine believed and so do I that Paul in Romans 7 disusses the inner ongoing battlt with sin, the flesh. Whe Isaiah , a righteoes man,sees the glory of the glory of God, he says he was aman of unclean lips. Thirdly 1 John 1:9 says if wee say have no sin we make God aliar. This proves to me the more we grow in holiness the more we see our sinfulness and we understand that our justification is by faith righteouness and not works righteouness. Rome does a slight of hand and cannot resist thd urge to smuggle their character into God’s work of Grace Rom. 11:6.
John,
What happened? I thought we were discussing circular reasoning.
Jim — I am a busy person, and you are an unimportant blip from where I sit. I’ll be back if I have time.
John,
Of course. As soon as you think you can dance around the obvious inconsistency of claiming the Bible as the sole rule of faith, or better, of establishing just which books comprise that Bible while debunking the Church who gave you the canon of that Bible, you will sally forth to make short work of this lowly blip.
You are a busy man and so it will take some time to figure out how to bamboozle around your obvious circular thinking. Let’s hope the moss doesn’t grow to thick on you in the interim.
Ciao
Sounds to me Jim as if you haven’t got a clue, and you really don’t want one either.
John,
For such a busy man, you sure waste a lot of time when you could be explaining your Bible Only position.
You accuse C2C of circular reasoning yet hold to a self refuting authority claim yourself.
I’m a simple man. Actually, a simpleton compared to those guys. You should be able to make mincemeat out of me ( and impress Kevin and Walt ) with your superior argument if you do indeed have the truth on your side.
So, John, you stand on the principle of Sola Scriptura.
Okay, show me in that oh-so perspicacious scripture where it is taught.
Actually John, I am not a busy man. I just don’t have an interest in exchanging snarky barbs with you. If you seriously want to argue Calvinist/Catholic issues, fine. Otherwise you can blow kisses to Kevin.
John, he doesnt.
Tim, you have mentioned the word Priestcraft. Did you know that the word for Priest is Heirus mentioned over 400 times in the OT, its never mentioned in the new.
Tim,
” My passion is to warn Christ’s sheep of the danger of Roman Catholicism, and to equip them to defend the faith and refute Rome’s many errors.”
Is this for real Tim? How many little lost sheep Protestants visit this site? Do you need to rescue Kelvin or John from that Old Harlot? Walt has already apostatized from the Faith. So what gives?
I doubt if the protestants who stumble on this site even understand the in-house issues you bring up. ( I see you as a disgruntled Catholic. Not a real Protestant).
Isn’t your site really dedicated to your mom? Or me? Or the type of Catholics that attend Mass at Holy Rosary in Portland?
Jim, you told John that you are a simple man. John Bunyan after reading scripture looked up and said “my righteousness is in heaven” Paul said it is a trustworthy statement that Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom I AM chief. Jim if Paul saw himself as a mature believer a chief sinner and said his prize was layed up for him, then his justifying righteouness has to be reckoned, imputed. As Paul said in Philemon, charge what he owes to my account.
Ok Jim, the place to start is here:
If someone were misrepresenting Roman Catholicism, you would direct them to the CCC for correct information.
I’ll say, you are misrepresenting Sola Scriptura in saying the things that you’ve said throughout this thread when you talk about “explaining your Bible Only position”.
Let’s first get the doctrine straight. This is from the WCF (a confessional document):
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”
It also says “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
Here, which I’ve borrowed from a friend, is how that cashes out in real life (and not in your make-believe definition of Sola Scriptura):
Roman Catholics (like you) seem to think that the advocates of Sola Scriptura need to prove that Scripture teaches “Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and life.” Part of the problem is that some Roman Catholics don’t seem to understand that “sola scriptura” is a name for a bundle of doctrines. There are both positive and negative positions within that bundle.
The primary positive claims of Sola Scriptura are that:
a) Everything we need to know for salvation is taught in Scripture. (Sufficiency)
b) Everything necessary for salvation is taught clearly in Scripture. (Perspicuity)
We could summarize these as simply “sufficiency.”
The negative claim of Sola Scriptura is that there is nothing else like it. This is a universal negative. But there are also specific negative claims, such as:
c) Teachers that teach contrary to Scripture should be rejected. (Primacy)
d) The Bible does not err. (Inerrancy)
That the Scripture teach (a)-(d) really should be enough for anyone who properly understands Sola Scriptura. The general negative claim of “and there is no other like it” does not have the same kind of burden. In other words, having established that the Scriptures are an infallible rule of faith, we can be content to let all comers try to prove that their supposedly supplemental rule of faith is also one. It’s not strictly necessary for us to remove that possibility antecedently.
Indeed, it is illogical for people to suppose that the position of sola scriptura would be defeated, simply because the negative part of the claim were unproven. Until some other infallible rule is established, Scripture alone is the default position.
I mention all of the above without getting into the question of whether the general negative claim can be established from Scripture, but rather simply observing the lack of consequences in the case that it could not. In short, sola scriptura is not discredited until either the sufficiency of Scripture is disproven or some other rule of faith established.
***
Now, if you ever ask me again, “where in the Bible is Sola Scriptura?” or if you accuse me of having a circular rule of faith, I’ll know (a) you didn’t read this, in spite of all your bluster about wanting to have a dialog, or (b), you didn’t understand it, in which case I’ll know that your proclamations not to be all that bright were genuinely true.
John,
Your definition of Sola Scriptura, taken from the WCF is not shared by all Bible Christians. Would you agree?
Still. the definition you hold to, that
“a) Everything we need to know for salvation is taught in Scripture. (Sufficiency)
b) Everything necessary for salvation is taught clearly in Scripture. (Perspicuity)”
needs some examination.
As for ” A”, I would say that it is a legitimate position to say that scripture is materially sufficient. Everything taught by the Catholic Church is found, at least in seed form, in scripture. However, we still need an authority to interpret it. Scripture itself points to extra-biblical authority.
As for “B”, you have 2nd Peter 3:16 to contend with. As a Protestant, you no doubt give the writings of Paul, especially the book of Romans, primacy over the rest of the N.T. including the Gospels, right?
I am sure you have heard James White’s analogy of the computer or automobile manual. While the entire manual contains vital information, when one wants to understand the headlights or some other electrical part of the car, one does not turn to the chapter on the tires or windshield wipers. Instead, one turns to the appropriate chapter. When it comes to the Biblical position on salvation, according to White, ones turns to Paul. Do you agree or disagree with Mr. White?
Assuming you do, I hope you see the obvious question begging here.
The rest of your post went off target and didn’t even try to prove S.S. positively.
John, Paul essentially says that to those who are perishing the Word of God is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the bread of Life.
Maybe he will “get it”. I wouldn’t put anyone outside of God’s reach. After all, I was a devout Roman Catholic for many years, and I even made the effort to persuade some of my Protestant friends that they should become Catholics.
For me, the Lord began to put a bitter feeling in my heart whenever I would attend Mass. It started slowly, but surely — the notion that I could not believe these Roman Catholic things in good faith.
You never know. Keep praying!
Was it the Lord? Maybe it was the devil. Or maybe you were just experiencing spiritual aridity as did St. Theresa of Avila, the Little Flower of Lisieux ,John of the Cross or mother Theresa.
John, thats amazing the work of the Spirit of God in your life. Walt and Tim are former RC’s and there story out of tha idolatry is amazing. So many bound up in that system. We must pray God removes the veil.
Thanks Kevin 🙂
Tim,
My last 4 postings on CtC were removed so anyone who challenges their site is silenced. It is interesting how when anyone challenges the Catholic Apologist they get silenced (as in the past when your head was removed), but I have yet to see you exclude anyone from your site. I could be wrong, but it seems like you let everyone speak here…and on CtC it is clear that only those mostly RCC adherents or those considering to join their cause get a chance to post. I do hope you won’t take their tactic and forbid Catholics from posting on your blog.
Thanks, Walt,
I was surprised to find that my access to CtC was cut off even though I had never posted on the site. As soon as my series on Baptismal Regeneration began, I was no longer able to access CtC from home. I can only access it from other locations. I find it interesting that my access was cut off simply for objecting to a blog entry from 2010, without actually posting anything at all.
I have not deleted or cut off access here, and have no plans to do so.
Tim
Walt, thats really interesting. They booted me by blocking my IP address and Tim was bloked. I belive there is a coordinated effort between CtC 0, CCC, Nick’s blog to eradicate any acknowledgement of this site. They hate it. I tried to get them to come over and engage Tim’s baptismlseries. They want none of it. The so called brain trust there want nothing to do with what God is doing here. Tim, a guy who never attended seminary is a theologian of the highest order. They have no answer to their exact opposite of the correct reading of the Fathers on this subject. I saw Jonathan break into a name calling tirade on CCC when Tim outed his interpretation of Chrysostom. We are few in numbers here, but God will make it grow. Uncovering their errors meticulouly comparing RC doctrine with scripture and the Fathers is Tim’ method of
Kevin,
Sevearl months ago I received private emails from different sources telling me to “stop feeding the troll” ( you). I thought the use of the word troll to be a mere coincidence. I thought it was just a reference to the ugly green monster that lived under a bridge in the billy goats gruff story.
Recently I learned it is a definite computer blogging term used for a specific type of blogger who trolls for reaction from others.
A troll is not interested in dialogue, only attention. You are not interested in understanding Catholicism. You aren’t even interested in making converts to Calvinism. You just enjoy heckling.
Your constant, ” let Jesus off the cross”, “plastic” rosaries, and off topic allusions to pedophilia expose you to be a classic troll.
I ain’t feeding you anymore.
Jim, except the legend of my actions on Catholic sites we know its not true, Tim being banned from CtC after never posting there tells us everything. Can you say bloody Mary. Darkness hates truth. I never consider this personal. Those who desire to live godly in Christ, and those who share the truth will be hated by error. Incidentally I had tolaugh when you told John there is
Jim, I had to laugh when you told John that “there is even a seed of all Roman tradition in the scripture” Where would the seed of Mary being mediatrix of all graces? Queen of heaven? Gateway into heaven? Immaculacy ? Where is the scripture that allows JPII to commit the whole church into the hands of Mary? And for Ratzinger and Francis to do the same? Can you direct me to the scripture on selling Christ’s merits? Scapulars? Priestcraft? Magic baby water? Peter as a Pope? He called himself a fellow Elder. Seeds indeed Jim. Seeds grow. And so have the tales of a false religion. Jim in 1400 one Pope burned Joan of Arc as a heretic. 40 years later the next Pope pardoned her. And 20 years after that the third Pope made her a saint. Oh yes Jim, seeds indeed.
My post got cut off. Putting error directly up against scripture and the Fathers is making it vivid. I would want to stay away too.
Walt, as you have seen from Tim all comers are welcome. Think about what Jim has said to him, and yet he treats him respect. Man I want to get to that point.
John (2),
As I was hurrying for Mass as I posted my previous, I didn’t have a chance to develop all I wanted to say. I will do so a bit more now.
As for James White, please don’t deny that you agree with him. His method is borrowed from Luther himself who believed in a canon within the canon.
Sola Fide does not flow out of Sola Scriptura. Rather, the reverse is true. Luther first concocted JBFA and then used it to determine the canon. If James or Revelation or any other book did not jive with ” My Doctrine”, it did not “preach Christ” and so was not canonical and could be jettisoned.
Would you concede this is circular reasoning?
As for your appeal to WCF, you should first demonstrate why I should be impressed with its decrees. ( Walt, are you there? )
If WCF says all that is necessary for salvation is clearly taught in scripture, fine. But you must demonstrate WFC’s authority.
Plus, if S.S. is one of the doctrines they say is necessary to adhere to, we are back where we started. It doesn’t matter what your starting point is. If it goes full 360 degrees, it is circular reasoning. ( And, yes, I did read your post. Did you read mine? I asked you at least twice to explain how S.S. could have applied before the advent of the printing press . )
John, the Church and not S.S. has been the final court of appeal since the beginning. We see this when the Apostles in Acts 15, with no appeal to scripture but under their own authority abrogate the law of circumcision.
Before going further, please don’t assert the old Protestant canard that Catholics don’t see scripture as an authority. We just don’t see it as the final authority as you do.
Think about my question of the printing press. If people didn’t own Bibles, or were illiterate, or couldn’t read Latin, how was the Faith promulgated and preserved down through the centuries?
How were various heresies refuted by the Church? Just by references to the scriptures? Hardly!
Think about this; As a Catholic kid, how did you come to believe in the Trinity? Probably the same way I did, by learning to make the Sign of the Cross every morning and night.
In ages past, people were taught Christ was to be adored and to deny Arianism by genuflecting at every Mass in the second Gospel at the words ” et incarnatus est”.
What about Nestorianism? It was defeated by the doctrine of the Theotokos.
Or Manicheanism? The Church sent Dominic to preach the Rosary as an antidote to this error.
Whether by papal pronouncement or the common consent of the faithful, the Church was the mater et magistra.
The Church taught through her liturgy, sacred images and decrees. Ever hear of Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi”?
I live in Portugal where they don’t have a history of stained glass windows. Instead, the lives of the saints, themes from the bible and the mysteries of the faith are portrayed in blue and white tiles along the walls of churches. In times past, other than at Mass, the peasants had no way of learning the Faith via the scriptures as they didn’t own Bibles or couldn’t read.
As I said, the Church was the teacher. Let me demonstrate;
To refute the errors of the French Revolution and the deists and evolutionists who denied Original Sin and Divine Revelation, the Church promulgated the the already existing belief in the Immaculate Conception. After two world wars and the rise of Nihilism, the Church proclaimed man’s dignity and destiny through the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption. To combat communism May Day was baptized the feast of St. Joseph the Worker.
Devotion to the Sacred heart of Jesus saved France from Calvinism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
John, the Church is our mother and teacher. She bears witness to the Bible and uses it to instruct us, for sure. Without her, you can’t even tell me which books comprise the Bible but must scramble, to come up with another way to determine the canon. Luther did it his way. Calvin spoke of the inner witness. Both of those ways are purely subjective.
The Bible itself bears witness to the Church as as an authority. ( Not circular reasoning here! )
The Bible, Sacred Tradition and the living magisterium are intertwined.
The Bible taken outside of the Church is like fire taken outside of the fireplace. It causes disaster.
Tim,
I seriously doubt your access to C2C was cut off. Why don’t you ask them if it was. It is probably just an accidental case of guilt by association. Kevin probably posted using your name or something weird like that.
Jimmikel, nice try buckwheat. It couldn’t be that CtC wants no part of the baptismal argument, because that would put a king in progressive sanctification Jimmkel. No way could Paul have ever meant by dikaiow the state of affairs inside a believer. No way Jose.
Should be kink. My typing is atrocious. Only seconded by my spelling. Jim, you know those beads that Catholics finger with when they are praying, where can I find them in the NT? 1 Hesitations 5:1. lol Hope you are well in Portugal and had a nice stay in Portland.
John,
I just gave a quick scan of the WFC’s statement on the Bible. For starters, it is wrong on the canon.
It’s kind of hard to discuss the Bible if one can’t determine with authority just what comprises the Bible.
Tim–
You contrast the “Roman Font” with Reformed baptism.
Can you give me a brief explanation or definition of each so that I may compare. It will help me understand your thought.
Thank you, Bob. Strictly speaking, this series is not a comparison of the Roman Font with Reformed Baptism, but is rather an examination of the Early Church Fathers to determine if they taught the Roman Catholic view of baptismal regeneration “from the work worked”, that is, by the administration of the water of baptism. Called to Communion’s intent was to provide “Patristic … evidence for the truth of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.”
Thus, my sole purpose in the series is to examine that claim.
Regarding the comparison between the Roman view and the Reformed view of regeneration by baptism, the following comparison should suffice:
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1215): This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.”
Westminster Confession of Faith: “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” (27.3) “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.” (28.1) “Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.” (28.5) “The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.” (28.6)
Thanks, and I hope that helps.
Tim
So, basically, it is a distinction without a difference. Either way, Catholic or Reformed, the sacrament of baptism with the combination of water and the Holy Spirit is efficacious. I don’t believe that any Christian would think that the water in and of itself has any power to that effect. If I am not mistaken, Rome believes not only in baptism of water, but also baptism of blood and baptism of desire.
If this truly is the case, then the “Roman Font” is completely in line with the Early Church Fathers as is Reformed theology.
Bob,
Read this.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num2.htm
Bob, Also Roman baptism indicates that a person is born again, initially justified, washed from original sin, only with concupiscence remaining ( venial sin ) and in a state of neutrality, able to do the level best ( sacraments of the church ex opere operato) to earn more justice and grace. Rc’s do their best and God gives them grace. Its the tail wagging the dog. God gives us grace and we do our best ( Gospel). So Roman baptism puts someone in a state of grace wiping out original sin. But perfection to God’s royal law is necessary to enter heaven. Hence the safety net Purgatory, without which Romanism would be a hard sell. Tim can correct me if I’m wrong about something.
Tim,
By all mean, prove you actually understood the faith you walked away from and correct the errors in the above statement.
Not that it really matters to the troll. He will continue to spout the same errors forever. He is just trolling for reaction.
Jim, you keep saying that Tim walked away from his faith. This man preaches the gospel of Christ and you judge the man as having walked away from faith. A church isnt faith Jim. Catholics always say my Catholic faith, as if faith is specific to a visible church. They say universal church but Roman Catholic is specific. The true universal catholic church are all those who believe the true gospel. When the Ethiopian treasury secretary ran into Phillip and he explained Isaiah to him he was saved. Phillip wasnt infallible. People are saved thru hearing the Word of God. Tim walked away from Mary worship and FOUND true faith in Christ, or should I say God chose him. Listen Jim, its time for you to stop being flipant, stop calling people names, stop running people down, and to leave the bread worship and Mary worship, stop working your way to heaven thru sacraments ex opere operato, and embrace Christ alone in faith. Dont worry about Tim, we all must stand before God. Whose righteouness will y I u stand in Jim, His or yours. Yy
All lurkers, today I studied ths scripture 2 Thessalonians 2 today. Paul after telling us early in the chapter tha the apostasy was already at work and the man of perdtion will take up his seat in the temple of God, displaing himself as God. We know this the Papacy by self proclamation. The Pope has usurped the titles from the Trinity, reffering to himself a Holy Father, Vicar,and head of the church. Then Paul says this in verse 9,10: that is the one who is coming is in accord with the activity of satan, with all power, signs, and false wonders, and with all deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. ” Paul is clear those who follow the Pope and his relgion will not be saved. Then Paul says this ” For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will bel I eve what is false.” Roman Catholics are under a delusion and believe what is false. Now listen how Paul concludes with the gospel and how it is the opposite of Roman Catholic doctrine, verse 13 and following, ” But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, God has CHOSEN you from the beginning for ” salvation thru sanctification by the Spirit”and faith in the truth.” Notice Paul says that God chose us forcsalvation by sanctifying us by His Spirit and causing us to believe, not a church, but the truth. He continues ” It was for this He called you thru our Gospel, thay you may gain th glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Notice that we are brought to salvation thru calling of the gospel, not baptism, and we gain the glory of Christ. So Paul says here we are chosen, called, sanctified and gorified by God thru the gospel. He confirms this in Romans 8. Its all monergistic and all forensic for Paul. After being called and regenerated, declared just, our justification undergirds the rest of salvation. Please note how the Roman Catholic gospel of cooperating to get grace is completely opposite of the gospel. Paul ends this way with our assurance, verse 16. ” Now may the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our father (not the Pope our Holy Father) who has loved us and GIVEN us eternal comfort good hope by grace.” Paul gives us the assurance that He who began a good work in us will bring it to glory, and we are to have eternal comfort, having passed out of judgment and death into life John 5:24. So any religion that doesnt promise immediate eternal comfort and peace and the guarantee of immediate glory for the beliver is a false religion. Purgatory should tell you all you need to know. Catholics come out of this false church now and embrace the truth.
Tim,
To be 100%, I haven’t read your series on Baptism. I think I told you that about 25-30 years ago William Webster tried bamboozling me on the fathers. I learned the hard way never to bother with Webster-like claims ever again. They are nonsense and not worth the hassle of doing the research needed to refute them.
Still, I am enjoying this fellow’s refutation of your claims.
http://articulifidei.blogspot.pt/2014/09/baptismal-regeneration-and-early-church.html
Thanks, Jim,
Yes, I see that the sum of my error, in David’s eyes, is that I left the Roman Catholic plantation and have refused to accept that the early Church was Roman. He says my reading of Justin Martyr is
Here David, like Roman Catholic Apologists are wont to do, assumes that Justin Martyr was a Roman Catholic, and therefore that I have misread him by placing illumination before baptism. He goes on, citing Dr. Everett Ferguson (Baptism In The Early Church, pp. 240, 241, 244) as evidence of my misreading. Dr. Ferguson says, “‘illumination’ was “a technical term for baptism” in Justin’s thought (p. 241).
But that is precisely what is in question—did Justin use “illumination” to refer to baptism? Or did he use it to refer to regeneration? Here is Justin Martyr: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, … then are brought by us where there is water.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61). Does that sound like the persuasion, understanding and belief comes before or after the baptism? Justin goes on:
Does that sound like the the learning takes place before, or after, or the baptism? Here again is Justin Martyr on “illumination”:
That “illumination” is equated with regeneration, I do not deny. That “illumination” is equated with “being persuaded that these things are true,” I do not deny. Justin equates illumination with circumcision of the heart, and consistently has illumination, understanding, persuasion, belief, trust and regeneration placed before baptism.
David’s problem with me is that I have concluded that the earth really orbits the sun after all, and it bothers him that I am not constrained in any way to read Romanism into the Early Church. Ferguson’s problem is that he has allowed Roman Catholicism’s illegitimate claim on the first four centuries to color his reading of Justin.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I first read or heard this illumination=Baptism stuff years before I ever found your site. David is not the innovator here, you are.
Jim,
I agree that the idea that “illumination” = “baptism” in Justin and other Patristics is a long-held tradition. I challenge that tradition, not because I have everyone else on my side, but based on the data. The question is not, “Did Ferguson believe that illumination = baptism in Justin?” The question is “Did Justin equate illumination with baptism?” Look at the data and see. Yes, I am innovative in the sense that Copernicus was innovative. Everyone else had believed the Ptolemaic system for 1400 years, but Copernicus considered the data. Illumination is only a technical term for baptism in Justin if you already believe that illumination is a technical term for baptism in Justin. Set that assumption aside and you find that Justin said “he who is illuminated is washed” for a reason. “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, … then are brought by us where there is water.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61).
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, thats says it all. You come on here shooting off your mouth and you haven’t read Tim’s series on baptism. Are you serious? Why? Are you afraid of what you might find? You come on here and won’t even give the man the respect to read his work. Who is the troll but you. Tim said it right, he was freed from the plantation. There is so much piled on the cross in Rome is it a wonder they can’t see the cross is empty. I just looked up extreme unction, the Priest absolves sins thru the senses historically rubbing their loins. Mystical Priestcraft. Leaving the plantation with a get out of jail card. Sad < Jim you didn't read this article. So sad.
Jim, incidentally do you think Dave wins the argument because he quotes the greek word for illumination and the present tense of wash. Hardly. If God chooses us, which we know he does, then the work of the Spirit must precede any external washing. Since that prerogative according to our Lord is specifically given to the Spirit “who blows where and how He wills” it cannot be usurped by a church, a Priest, or anyone else. Peter says baptism saves, not the outer washing but the appeal to God for a clean conscience. The word baptism means immersion. Its given as an external sign of an inward grace. Incidentally, if a Roman Catholic believes that he is saved by an infusion of faith at baptism, that in itself is a statement of faith, albeit a fallible one.
Are you so stupid as to think Catholics take a bar of soap and a bath toy into the baptismal font? Nobody physically scrubs down when they get baptized you troll.
Folks,
Kevin’s post above is just one example of why he has been dubbed a “troll” on the Catholic/Protestant blogosphere.
Kevin has had it explained to him scores of times that one is regenerated in Baptism by water AND the Holy Spirit. He knows that “AND” means “both” yet he constantly pretends it mean only half of the coordinating conjuntive phrase.
“Repent AND be baptized…”, “he who believes AND is baptized…”, “repent AND believe the good news…”, “water AND the Holy Spirit…”, etc. etc. are just a few examples of where Mr. Falloni pretends to think “AND” means “either/or” to the exclusion of half of the imperative.
He is just trolling for some attention. He knows my answer by heart already. He is just having fun like the kid who keeps asking the same question over and over to be cute.
I doubt if Kevin has ever actually held a job in his life. Employers have a nasty habit of saying, “If you show up on time AND work your shift, I will pay you.”
Kelvin probably showed up on time expecting to be paid before actually doing any work.
Jim, you wrote to Kevin:
“water AND the Holy Spirit…”, etc. etc. are just a few examples of where Mr. Falloni pretends to think “AND” means “either/or” to the exclusion of half of the imperative.
On behalf of the troll:
Council of Trent…this translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
———————-
Look at Laver of regeneration OR its desire. You have the “OR” of Either/Or near the “AND” of Both/And. Isn’t Kevin right to exclude “half the imperative” because DESIRE means we have no application of water ? The EFFECTS of the SPIRIT and WATER can be before the application of the water. How can water have an effect without contact with the water ?
Eric W,
I see you addressed something to me but I really must scroll past you as you always speak in riddles and I don’t care to play your games.
Jim, you wrote:
“Are you so stupid as to think Catholics take a bar of soap and a bath toy into the baptismal font?”
I’m beginning to wonder myself.
You also wrote this:
“To be 100%, I haven’t read your series on Baptism. I think I told you that about 25-30 years ago William Webster tried bamboozling me on the fathers. I learned the hard way never to bother with Webster-like claims ever again. They are nonsense and not worth the hassle of doing the research needed to refute them.”
Over on the link you provided there was a comment by Guy Fawkes which mirrors your comment above.
—————————–
guy fawkes said…
David,
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.
I have skimmed kauffman’s articles but don’t have the patience or interest in doing the work needed to refute him.
I have a history of being sent on wild goose chases over the fathers by William Webster. After falling for his slight-of-hand shenanigans, I decided not to bother ever again with Protestant of J.W. claims on the fathers.
I am enjoying your efforts though.
Thanks.
——————-
Guy Fawkes quote was at “September 13, 2014 at 1:16 PM” and your quote above was “September 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm”.
Can I assume based upon this evidence that the Guy Fawkes was yours as well, and this statement, “I have skimmed kauffman’s articles but don’t have the patience or interest in doing the work needed to refute him.” is yours.
Jim, a question. When have you ever on this site taken the time to refute any of Tim’s articles?
In watching you post for a long time I have never seen it once, and find most of your comments are purely either mean spirited or outright misrepresentations.
At least on “Articuli Fidei” the author really tried to persuade his audience (e.g., perhaps only you) that he knows the writings of the Early Church Fathers by at least quoting them based upon this assumption:
“…and I suspect that it is this premise which drives his attempt to “prove” that the pre-late 4th century Church Fathers did not teach baptismal regeneration.”
He then says, “My read of Justin is exactly the same as the one foremost authorities on NT and early patristic baptism, Dr. Everett Ferguson..” to qualify his own expertise.
What is just incredible in what I find in most Catholic Apologist’s is they never read anything as you have admitted, and rather just bark really loud. This other guy assumes Tim’s motive to prove the evidence, and goes about to bark really loud to get your attention with this comment:
“This is one the most skewed, twisted, error-ridden, misreading of a Church Father I have yet to encounter.”
This sounds just like you. Ignore the facts and evidence laid out before you (and in your case don’t even read it), and then BARK REALLY LOUD that someone is skewed, twisted and error-ridden. Once I saw that, it was clear this author was just like you. Smoke and mirrors.
Jim,
I’m forced to use riddles when superstition accompanies the water of baptism. I’m trying to be wise as a serpent. (Matt.10:16)
Jim, I shouldnt even address you since you dont even have enough respect to read Tim’ article. So we know the reason you come here is to simply argue, which Tim has said all are welcome, unlike him being kicked off CtC having never posted there. Jim, one thing rings true in Ian Paisleys points, Rome has not changed anything. Trent was supported at Vatican 2, and Catholics are still trying to silence opposition to their doctrine. Look no further than CtC’s treatment of Tim. The baptism issue is imho a huge issue. Roman appologists admit there isnt one recorded infant baptism in scripture. Paul said he did not come to baptize but preach the gospel. So baptism must take its rightful place, and Reformed view I think has it right. The issue with Roman Baptism is it takes the soverienty out of God’s hand and puts it in man’s. Salvation is from the Lord. He chooses us, and is clear we dont choose Him. So Choice made bya Priest that a baby is born again, placed faith, washed original sin , and initially justified takes soverienty out of the hands of God and usurps the Spirit’s perogative to regenerate the elect. This hits at the heart of the issue. The church can lead a man to faith but it is the spirit who brings Christ to the heart, when and how he wants.
What is the water ?
“This is the water in conjunction with the Spirit, by which paradise is watered, by which the earth is enriched, by which plants grow, by which animals multiply, and (to sum up the whole in a single word) by which man is begotten again and endued with life, in which also Christ was baptized, and in which the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.”
Maxime,
Can you elaborate on this citation from the Discourse on the Holy Theophany?
Thanks
Tim