tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post7844982550285459367..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration vs. John Calvin's "Sign and Seal"Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43851423572777316542013-08-25T00:00:26.862-04:002013-08-25T00:00:26.862-04:00Can you really trust your English Bible to be God&...<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Can you really trust your English Bible to be God's true Word? <br /><br /><br /><br />Have you ever had an evangelical or Reformed Christian say this to you:<br /><br />"THAT passage of the Bible, in the original Greek, does NOT mean what the simple, plain reading of the passage seems to say in English."<br /><br /> It happens to me all the time in my conversations with Baptists, evangelicals, and fundamentalists on this blog. They state: "Repent and be baptized...for the forgiveness of sins" was mistranslated. "This is my body...this is my blood" is a metaphorical expression, "Baptism does now save us" is figurative speech for what happens to us spiritually when we ask Christ into our hearts.<br /><br /> What they are basically saying is that unless you speak ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek...you can't read and really understand the Bible without the help of an educated Churchman!<br /><br /> This morning I came across an excellent article on this subject, written by Jordan Cooper, a Lutheran pastor. I am going to give the link to his article below. I have copied a couple of his statements here:<br /><br />"So here is a question that we all need to ask ourselves when doing this (refusing to accept the simple, plain, English translation of a passage of Scripture): If a verse seems to disprove your theological beliefs, and you translate it in some way that doesn't fit with any of the dozens of major English translations of the Bible, and that unique translation just happens to fit your own theological biases, could it be that it is in fact you who are in the wrong? Could you be reading your own preconceived theological convictions back into the text?"<br /><br />" I know it can be frustrating when you are constantly told that Scripture can't be understood unless you learn (an ancient) language or read ancient documents that you don't have either the time or the energy to study. Honestly, if you have a few good English translations at your side, and you take the time to compare them to one another, you have all the tools you need to understand the meaning of the Bible. <br /><br /> Link to Pastor Cooper's original article:<br /><br />http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-wrong-use-of-biblical-languages.htmlGaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79998761496026559882009-09-19T13:55:21.313-04:002009-09-19T13:55:21.313-04:00Sorry to hear it. Gotta be very careful. I went th...Sorry to hear it. Gotta be very careful. I went through an episode with a virus about a month ago. No fun.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-3371594144255828942009-09-19T13:34:41.362-04:002009-09-19T13:34:41.362-04:00The scottish trust is at best spam. I think it dow...The scottish trust is at best spam. I think it downloaded malware to my computer as I was silly enough to peek.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750763393428404220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10101089336989330802009-08-17T14:25:20.315-04:002009-08-17T14:25:20.315-04:00Darn, I hit post instead of preview. On re-reading...Darn, I hit post instead of preview. On re-reading my post I see it makes it sound like I was trying to ascribe a Calvinist elect/unregenerate position to DA. I know that's wrong. My point was that DA did not seem to object to the concept that Jesus taught the crowds only in parables.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750763393428404220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-17531849118100277462009-08-17T14:20:39.480-04:002009-08-17T14:20:39.480-04:00Clearly He was seeking to decieve [sic] the non-el...<i>Clearly He was seeking to decieve [sic] the non-elect so that the elect can learn the truth later. <br /><br /><br />I say this with tongue in cheek though from Calvinist answers I get I can't help but wonder if that isn't at the heart of many of the answers I get.</i><br /><br />First, no I can't spell and sometimes fail to spellcheck. (I hate IE). <br /><br />Second, I see I have trouble communicating. I will try to do bettter. Apologies to PH as my direction in commenting on this was not to ascribe evil intent. Let me try again in a clearer (I hope) fashion.<br /><br />PH proposed (and in DA's comments it seems he has no issues) an idea that I will summarize in a syllogism:<br /><br />1. Jesus always spoke in public in parables.<br /><br />2. The purpose of the parables was to "hide" the kingdom from the unregenerate so that they may remain unregenerate.<br /><br />Question 1.: The people followed Jesus and he taught them. What was he teaching if not the truth?<br /><br />Question 2: Is it true that Jesus "only" spoke to the public in parables? It seems this idea is in part why so many Protestants stumble on John 6 (Everything Jesus said in public was parable therefore John 6 is parable). <br /><br />Again, not meaning disrespect but the concept sounds gnostic. What I hear is the idea: Only my secret people will have true knowlage from me, the masses will get pseudoknowlage.....I think it is my difficulty in getting my head into the Calvinist way of thinking.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750763393428404220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-41731334126346031452009-08-16T23:46:37.712-04:002009-08-16T23:46:37.712-04:00Pilgrimsarbour: Of course, Reformed theology recog...Pilgrimsarbour: Of course, Reformed theology recognises the regeneration of our spirit by the Holy Spirit, which is what we see as being baptised by the Spirit.<br /><br />Adomnan: Understood. However, I am making the point that one should not speak as if there are currently two baptisms, a "water baptism" and a "spirit baptism." And one should definitely not contrast these two baptisms as if they were two separate realities, one outer and the other inner.<br /><br />In the Bible, spirit baptism (better "baptism with the Spirt" as in Acts 1:5) was only applied to those who had undergone John's baptism of repentance (for the remission of sins). In the Biblical sense, there is no distinct "spirit baptism" today at all, only the one sacramental baptism, which both remits sins and confers the Spirit.<br /><br />When Jesus says in Acts 1:5, "John baptised with water but, not many days from now, you are going to be baptised with the Spirit," this means, "John baptised YOU with water (for the remission of sins); but, not many days from now, you are (also) going to be baptised with the Spirit."<br /><br />I might add that the disciples gathered for Pentecost were already "saved" before the Spirit descended on them. Thus, if they were in fact "regenerated by the Spirit" (and I wouldn't use that term in this context), then this "regeneration" wasn't the same thing as salvation.<br /><br />No one was baptised into Christ or the Spirit until after Christ had died and risen, because -- as St. Paul explains in Rm 6 -- the sacrament of baptism is a dying and rising with Christ. It is a sacrament of the Cross.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-92222076902426363002009-08-16T21:51:06.437-04:002009-08-16T21:51:06.437-04:00"Baptism with the Spirit" is a purely hi...<i>"Baptism with the Spirit" is a purely historical phenomemon with no current application. Thus, in my opinion, it would be better to avoid the expression "spirit baptism" when speaking of our current situation.</i><br /><br />Of course, Reformed theology recognises the regeneration of our spirit by the Holy Spirit, which is what we see as being baptised by the Spirit. We don't normally use that terminology, however, as the term has been made popular by "second-blessing" theologies, which we disavow as unbiblical.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75889157546199236372009-08-16T21:11:34.554-04:002009-08-16T21:11:34.554-04:00I concur, Pilgrimsarbour, that there's no poin...I concur, Pilgrimsarbour, that there's no point in you and me discussing Jn 3:5 any further, although perhaps some other Catholic out there would like to explore this verse with you. <br /><br />I think, though, it might be useful for me to comment on this statement of yours: "I don't mean to say that water baptism and spirit baptism are unrelated."<br /><br />"Spirit baptism," or more accurately, "baptism with the Spirit," is an event and sometimes a rite mentioned in the Book of Acts. It is administered only to former disciples of John the Baptist. The reason for this "baptism with the Spirit" is the following: While Christian baptism bestows two benefits, the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, John's baptism had just one benefit: the remission of sins. It did not confer the Spirit. <br /><br />Therefore, there were people in the first century who had received baptism for the remission of sins from John but had not yet received the Holy Spirit in Christian baptism. They thus needed a "baptism with the Spirit," but could forgo baptism for the remission of sins (having already experienced it through John). Evidently, this class of people died out in the early second century at the latest. <br /><br />Since then there has been no "Spirit baptism" distinct from what you call "water baptism." There is only one baptism (in water of course) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that both remits sins (like John's rite) and confers the Spirit. <br /><br />"Baptism with the Spirit" is a purely historical phenomemon with no current application. Thus, in my opinion, it would be better to avoid the expression "spirit baptism" when speaking of our current situation.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-8826133710603642922009-08-16T13:43:53.965-04:002009-08-16T13:43:53.965-04:00Adomnan,
Yeah, I really don't know what happe...Adomnan,<br /><br />Yeah, I really don't know what happened. I type everything on WordPad first before posting and commenting, typing out the HTML code as I go. I never use spellcheck, but I was curious about it, so I tried it. Anyway, it wouldn't let me post, even after I eliminated your name, replaced it with "Commenter" and even "A." I even re-booted the computer. No good. I wasn't going to retype everything, so there you have it.<br /><br />I think in future if I avoid spellcheck I'll be all right. I just didn't want you to think I wasn't going to respond to you in the combox.<br /><br /><i>These verses are therefore not examples of Jesus "withholding information from some people."</i><br /><br />I concede the point that "withholding information" is not the best choice of words as I've struggled to defend against the idea proposed that Jesus "deceives" people. I concur with the analysis of the spiritually blind and the spiritually sighted, although I hasten to add that it is God's Spirit that opens the blind eyes. So who is smart enough, on their own merit, to get God to do that for them?<br /><br />It's o.k. if we're at an impasse regarding John 3:5. Some scholars argue that "born of water" is a reference to physical birth whereas "born of the Spirit" refers, of course, to spiritual re-birth. In any case, I don't mean to say that water baptism and spirit baptism are unrelated. Quite the contrary. However, the issue for me is whether water baptism actually regenerates, and on this point we can't agree. It doesn't mean that we can't continue discussing things, but I agree with you that merely repeating ourselves to each other would be tedious to all who read our words. So, God's best to you and on to other things!<br /><br />Blessings in Christ,<br /><br />PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-60993476981894735992009-08-16T11:32:06.408-04:002009-08-16T11:32:06.408-04:00Pilgrimsarbour, if you'd like to reply to one ...Pilgrimsarbour, if you'd like to reply to one of my posts here and can't get pass the spellcheck, then please feel free to refer to me simply as A.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88531341635442391902009-08-16T03:27:42.734-04:002009-08-16T03:27:42.734-04:00On his blog, Pilgrimsarbout takes issue with my ob...On his blog, Pilgrimsarbout takes issue with my observation that Calvin's equation of water with the Spirit in John 3:5 is a trite metaphor. He points out that Isaiah and Ezechiel compare pouring out the Spirit with pouring out water. <br /><br />Well, in Isaiah and Ezechiel, the comparison or metaphor isn't trite, because it's fresh, poetic, evocative and appropriate in the context (as well, perhaps, as a prophecy of baptism). However, if water is a metaphor for spirit in John 3:5, then it would be trite, bald, repetitive, awkward and even absurd. Calvin would have us believe that Jesus said "you must be born of water and the Spirit," meaning "you must be born of the Spirit and the Spirit." If "water" is just a synonym for Spirit here, then why the meaningless repetition? <br /><br />If Jesus had said, "Just as water is poured down on the parched earth, so the Spirit will be poured down on you," then it would still be trite (because a bad imitation of Isaiah and Ezechiel), but at least it wouldn't be absurd.<br /><br />"Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?" and "You are my sunshine" say essentially the same thing. But the second is trite and the first isn't.<br /><br />On the larger issue, John 3:5 is so certainly and evidently a reference to the sacrament of baptism that I don't see the use of debating the point.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71878154143451387702009-08-16T03:15:06.292-04:002009-08-16T03:15:06.292-04:00Friends,
I have been trying to post my comments h...Friends,<br /><br />I have been trying to post my comments here but I keep getting an HTML spelling error prompt regarding Adomnan's name, and it won't let me post. The code is embedded invisibly, somehow related to the spellcheck feature, and no matter what I do I can't get rid of it.<br /><br />If you would be so kind as to see my new post on the subject of baptismal regeneration <a href="http://the-porters-lodge.blogspot.com/2009/08/water-and-spirit.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> I would be much obliged. It is almost an exact duplication of the comments I had tried to post here.<br /><br />Right now I need to get to bed, but I promise that I'll look at your comments and respond tomorrow sometime after church (and perhaps nap!).<br /><br />Blessings in Christ,<br /><br />PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-76898325909374313772009-08-16T02:44:41.278-04:002009-08-16T02:44:41.278-04:00Pilgrimsarbour: Unless it can be demonstrated exeg...Pilgrimsarbour: Unless it can be demonstrated exegetically that the verses I've posted on my blog do not mean what they seem to mean on their face, we may not be able to move past such barriers.<br /><br />Adomnan: The first verse you posted is John 9:39. In the Jerusalem Bible, it reads as follows:<br /><br />"It is for judgment that I have come into this world, so that those without sight may see and those with sight may become blind."<br /><br />I agree with the interpretative note on this verse in the JB: "(Those with sight) are the complacent who trust to their own 'sight', see vv. 24,29,34, as opposed to the humble, typified by the blind man, cf. Dt 29:3; Is 6:9seq; Jr 5:21; Ezk 12:2."<br /><br />Your other verse from Isaiah via Matthew et al has the same meaning.<br /><br />In both cases, those who are blinded don't truly see. They trust to their erring sight. By declaring what is true, Jesus shows that these supposedly "seeing" people are in fact blind. If their confrontation with the truth causes them to realize they are spiritually blind, then they too can learn to see. They are not necessarily reprobate.<br /><br />That this is the correct interpretation is borne out by the following verses; e.g., John 9:41: "Jesus said to them, 'If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." <br /><br />These Pharisees who CLAIM to see are worse than blind. They WILL not to see.<br /><br />As Raymond Brown in his exegesis of the Gospel of John points out: "The story began with the declaration that physical blindness is not caused by sin (v. 3); it closes with the declaration that spiritual blindness is caused by sin."<br /><br />These verses are therefore not examples of Jesus "withholding information from some people."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-69676796109683526252009-08-16T02:42:01.531-04:002009-08-16T02:42:01.531-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-1413129399569953782009-08-16T02:15:42.056-04:002009-08-16T02:15:42.056-04:00[For what it's worth, I just spotted the follo...[For what it's worth, I just spotted the following web piece:]<br /><br /> Anti-Catholic "Rapture" Doctrine<br /><br /> While recently looking at the "Opinionated Catholic" blog I was drawn to its lead story entitled "Tim LaHaye Does Most Silly Anti Catholic Charge Ever." Then my eye caught the first "Comments" which listed several web articles which expose the popular Evangelical and Fundamentalist belief in an "any-moment pre-tribulational rapture." You can't believe the huge amount of deliberate dishonesty and cover-up in the same "fly-away rapture" view since its strange birth in Scotland in 1830! To see what I mean, Google "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," "X-Raying Margaret," "Deceiving and Being Deceived," "Pretrib Hypocrisy," and especially "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" - all written by author and historian Dave MacPherson who has spent 40 years locating long forgotten (and covered up) early "rapture" documents in libraries in Britain etc. The same "Comments" urged Catholics to read MacPherson's highly endorsed and massively documented book "The Rapture Plot" (see online stores including Armageddon Books), and I got the impression that his findings could finally silence all anti-Catholic "rapture" traffickers such as Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. Don't forget that these two have been THE bestselling authors worldwide since the 1970s simply because they have discovered how to thoroughly brainwash tens of millions of deceived Protestant Evangelicals and Fundamentalists with the unscriptural "rapture escape" - no little achievement! Catholic leaders and writers apparently now have the ammunition and documentation to finally demolish the same anti-Catholic publishing craze! ----J. EdwardsRocky2https://www.blogger.com/profile/04154389992453412024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54932847065512784162009-08-16T00:12:23.224-04:002009-08-16T00:12:23.224-04:00Yep; let's try not to attribute nefarious moti...Yep; let's try not to attribute nefarious motives and near-blasphemous positions to our opponents. It's easy to get frustrated (believe me, I know), but we all need to step back and refrain from doing that, as it doesn't advance the discussion at all.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-8578416715232821422009-08-16T00:00:37.507-04:002009-08-16T00:00:37.507-04:00Clearly He was seeking to decieve [sic] the non-el...<i>Clearly He was seeking to decieve</i> [sic] <i>the non-elect so that the elect can learn the truth later. <br /><br />I say this with tongue in cheek though from Calvinist answers I get I can't help but wonder if that isn't at the heart of many of the answers I get.</i><br /><br />The attributing to Reformed believers the idea that they see Jesus as a deceiver of people is unwarranted and unfortunate. Since this word is used of Satan, it is particularly inflammatory.<br /><br />In the Scriptures, does Jesus withhold information from some people or not? The answer is yes/no, either/or, not both/and. The characterisation of Reformed believers as saying that Jesus is a deceiver is disingenuous at best. It does nothing to advance the discussion and actually places serious barriers to fruitful discussions between Catholics and Protestants such as those that Dave and I have already enjoyed.<br /><br />Unless it can be demonstrated exegetically that the verses I've posted on my blog do not mean what they seem to mean on their face, we may not be able to move past such barriers, if that is, in fact, desired at all.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28513040068868031512009-08-15T14:10:34.486-04:002009-08-15T14:10:34.486-04:00If Jesus is not talking about the sacrament of bap...<i>If Jesus is not talking about the sacrament of baptism in John 3:5, then nothing He says can be understood at face value; everything is a puzzle and verbal trick. Why would Jesus confuse people by making them think He was speaking of baptism ("born of water and the Spirit"), when he didn't have the sacrament in mind, but rather some trite metaphor equating the Spirit with water? And since Jesus mentions the Spirit explicitly in this passage, what would be the point of His tacking on a useless and repetitious metaphor? </i><br /><br />Clearly He was seeking to decieve the non-elect so that the elect can learn the truth later. <br /><br />I say this with tongue in cheek though from Calvinist answers I get I can't help but wonder if that isn't at the heart of many of the answers I get.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750763393428404220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70100593658903415582009-08-14T18:54:00.988-04:002009-08-14T18:54:00.988-04:00Calvin: By "water and the Spirit," . . ....Calvin: By "water and the Spirit," . . . I simply understand the Spirit, which is water . . . [T]o be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body.<br /><br />Adomnan: It's outlandish interpretations like this one that make me wonder sometimes whether Calvin was sincere. If Jesus is not talking about the sacrament of baptism in John 3:5, then nothing He says can be understood at face value; everything is a puzzle and verbal trick. Why would Jesus confuse people by making them think He was speaking of baptism ("born of water and the Spirit"), when he didn't have the sacrament in mind, but rather some trite metaphor equating the Spirit with water? And since Jesus mentions the Spirit explicitly in this passage, what would be the point of His tacking on a useless and repetitious metaphor? <br /><br />In fact, Calvin is saying in effect that "to be born again of water and the Spirit" means "to be born again of the Spirit and the Spirit," because "water" is just another way of saying "Spirit." There's something very wrong with this exegesis.<br /><br />Jordanes makes a very good point. The Reformed interpretation of Christian sacraments reduces them to the equivalent of Old Testament rites, as if the New Covenant was just a sort of refurbished Judaism, instead of a fulfillment, the reality of which the Old Covenant was the shadow. <br /><br />I do, however, differ from Jordanes somewhat in that I would disagree with his observation that Old Testament rites were just symbols that "did not save or take away sins." As the Epistle to the Hebrews makes clear, OT sacrifices did in fact take away sins, as they were supposed to. They just didn't take them away definitively, as does Christ's sacrifice.<br /><br />I'm convinced that ancient people did not perform purely "symbolic" rites. All sacred rites were supposed to be effective, to actually do what they were purported to do. The belief that there are "symbolic" rites that don't do anything was introduced by the Calvinists and other non-Lutheran Protestants. So, it's not that OT rites were ineffective; it's that their effects were much more limited than the perfect rites of the New Testament. Ancient people would not have have wasted their time -- not to mention the expense of temples, victims, priesthoods, etc. -- on rites they thought merely "symbolic." And that includes both Hebrews and pagans.<br /><br />But I would agree with Jordanes that OT rites did not "save" in the sense that Christian rites save.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23859381412386874282009-08-14T16:24:01.017-04:002009-08-14T16:24:01.017-04:00The problem with the classifical reformed view of ...The problem with the classifical reformed view of baptism is that it boils down to literally nothing more than something you have to do just because Jesus said so. It's essentially nothing more than a symbol or type like the Old Testament rites that also did not save or take away sin. Why would Jesus go to the trouble of replacing one set of non-salvific rites with another set of non-salvific rites?Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.com