My word!...

This guy is really starting to get to me, spiritually to…

[quote]Could say the same of you, when martin schimsed from the catholic church and created protestantism and all it’s doctrines, something that you cannot prove existed before hand, he held none of the beliefs you do. In fact mainstream protestantism has changed and fluxed way too much from it’s roots. And the 36,000 differen’t sects and interpretaions do not exactly support your entire beleifs as being apart of the the true roots of christianity, and seems also to make obvious the man made ideology attached to protestantism. I would say that constitutes a hec of a lot of confusion, doesn’t it? The cathoilc church is the only church that is unified and comes straight from Peter. I really am starting to see what you mean about this guy montanaman, and not just from this post, **since when the bloody hec does water refer to being in the womb, **

not even the orginal transcripted word translates into that. It is infact synomous with baptism. Jeez it’s like banging my head against a brick wall, only slightly less gratifying

Read the passage,

4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. **“Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” **{Born of the Womb}

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water {Born of the Womb}and the Spirit.

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh{Born of the Womb}, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

You bang your head because you are dense.

One question for centurian, I’m assuming here he believes the “once saved, always saved” doctrine.**What right or grounds then does he have to be against the catholic church? **

[1]Think about, if you can just recieve Christ and thats it, whats done is done, nothing can be undone. So then why is he against catholicism, seriosuly if it’s one something can do and still be saved, then he can’t logically be against it, And with all the 36,000 protestant translations and interpretations and no set church ,] hec the catholic church has to be right some where right? So you have no basis for your ideology against the catholic church right, centurian? Man what a muddled mess of confusion, I’ve given my self a head ache…
[1] They are a tool of satan used to counterfit the truth as a effort to retard spiritual growth of believers.

[2] The basis againt the RCC is the bible it self.


St. Paul, it appears, felt his own responsibility was preaching rather than baptism. This does not mean that the Corinthians should not be baptized, but that he felt other Church leaders, in lower positions than himself, should have that responsibility–lest any man boast.

Umm no.

He stated no such thing, about lower doing the dirty work.
Since we are baptized BY THE SPIRIT, water baptism was the tool to show that.
People was elevating the ritual over the doctrine, so Paul ceased the ritual.
The gospel saves. Not baptism.

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

1 Peter 3:21 (Young’s Literal Translation)

21 also to which an antitype doth now save us – baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

What is peter saying, its not the bath that saves you. But Christ.

He is speaking of a baptism of the Spirit.

1 Cor 12:13

13 for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink,

On I Cor. 1 and John 3:16,your simply asserting with no evidence that faith and baptism are somehow opposed to each other. prove this. John 3:16 doesn’t say that baptism doesn’t save.

[1]your assuming that belief in Christ somehow excludes a salvific role for baptism. John 3:16 also doesn’t mention repentance–but other passages in Scripture clearly do.[2]

[1] IT states belief in Christ. Saves. PERIOD. Was the thief on the Cross next to christ baptized?
[2] Those “other” passages relate to spiritual growth, falling away and returning, and many other things. Yet the RCC applies them to salvation. Which is not the purpose of those passages.


38 And Peter said to them, “Repent{Change you mind regarding Christ, IE salvation}, and be** baptized**{A act they did after salvation.} every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word{THose who believed or was saved} were baptized{A Act they did after salvation, notice BEING BAPTIZED had NOTHING to do with them reciving his word.}, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Peter’s sermon
Acts 3:19.
“Repent and return, that your sins may be wiped away…(no mention of baptism).”

Acts 8:36, 37 the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip if he would baptize him.
In verse 37 Philip responded, “If you believe with all your heart you may.”

While preaching to Cornelius in Acts 10:43 Peter said, “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Again no mention of baptism. The example of Cornelius is significant because Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Peter responded (v. 47), “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Here we have clear evidence of a genuine believer who had not been baptized.

Acts 16:30
Philippian jailer asked an important question to Paul and Silas:

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” In response (v. 31) Paul and Silas said,**“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.” **Paul didn’t include water baptism! After the jailer responded Paul baptized him.

The consistent pattern therefore seems to be this.

Unbelievers heard the gospel and responded.

Then they were immediately baptized (immersed) in water at moment of faith.

The preaching of the apostles does not demonstrate that baptism is a necessary condition for salvation. Paul in fact drew a clear distinction between the preaching of the gospel and baptism when he said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (I Cor 1:17)

Yes, it is typical of Protestants to single out individual verses and treat them as if they are more true than others. Just as the one you quote insists that merely believing in Christ (having Faith) gets us into heaven. Isn’t it odd that in their discussions they never refer to the only place in Scripture that actually explicitly addresses the idea of being justified by faith alone - the only place in the entire New Testament which actually uses that expression? (James 2:24).

I address Biblical and Early Church teachings regarding the nature of the Church herself in posts 37 through 60 of this thread.

I discuss the Biblical basis for Catholicism’s teachings on Justification in post 90-95 of this thread.

Feel free to copy them as you want. I hope that they can help.

Not really but thanks anyway…

I didn’t think it would be this hard efending my faith, but fortunetly, actually hopefully I can rely on you guys to help with anything thuroughly tough…

Thank you…

i still have a TON to learn about apologetics, so i cant help you too much in terms of passages, but from what i have learned, his protest about the man on the cross only further supports Catholic doctrine because we believe also in baptism of intent. the disciples and john the baptist called people to repent and be baptised to cleanse their soul. this is cited repeatedly. but we also believe that those who CANNOT be baptised, but truly WOULD HAVE had they been able to, can be treated as though they had been baptised. (ie a young child born in a communist/anti religion nation, but was raised with faith). this is clearly what happened with the man on the cross, as he came to believe too late to be truly baptised, but still recognized Christ before he died, thus receiving a baptism of intent. a person who comes to recognize Christ and is able to be baptised has a responsibility to. hope this helps . . at least a little. give the post a few days, there are so many people who know their apologetics well who can help you far better.



It is pretty hard when argueing over interpretations and what things mean what. As an ultimate result of many debates end up with once you finally have proven your point and have them backed up in the corner the just say “we agree to disagree”

Are you asking for help in how to respond on Baptism?

I am sorry I only have about ten minutes more online and I have to check some things so I can’t really in depth reply, so…

Take Care
God Bless, you’ll need it with this guy

I just need some rebuttals to his points that baptism isn’t salvific, I mean I 've given him every catholic answer possible to show baptism is, but he always puts me under. I can take on the whole water = womb thing, because that line of reasoning is absurd in such an answer to a question and raises so many more questions. But please some one help!

Long story short, he’s wrong & obstinant. You provided him with good points; here are some more. :smiley:

From Where is That in the Bible? by Patrick Madrid, Ch 20, “Baptism”:

Necessity and Effects of

Just before Christ ascended into heaven, he imparted a final few directives for the Apostles and their successors to carry out. Prominent among these directives was the command to baptize all nations. This universal mission of bringing people into the Church has been carried out since the time of the New Testament, through the sacrament of baptism. The following verses demonstrate the importance of theis sacrement and the fact that it was always seen as the normative means of entering into the New Covenant (circumcision was the method of entering into the Old Covenant, and baptism replaced circumcision). For believers, there is always a link in Scripture between faith, repentance, and the sacrement. Infants, however, who are incapable of faith and repentance, are still spiritually cleansed by the power of the sacrament of baptism. God’s saving word of grace is introduced into the soul, cleanses it of all sin, actual and original, and animates it with sanctifying grace, the very life of the Blessed Trinity. The life-giving effects of the sacrament of baptism are reminiscent of these words of the Lord, spoken through the Prophen Isaiah:
----Isaiah 55:10-11: “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”

When the priest or other person who baptizes pours the water (or immerses the one being baptized) and speaks the words of the sacrament: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” the power of God’s saving word in this sacrament accomplishes the purpose it was intended for.



**Matthew 28:18-20: **“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

[left]**John 3:4-5, 22: **"Jesus anSWERED him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the Sprit is spirit…’ After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

**Acts 2:37-39 **is a powerful scriptural passage to show someone who argues against the saving effects of the sacrement of baptism (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, Reformed, and many “nondenominational” Evangelical Protestants). For here St. Peter is explicist that “baptism now saves you.”

Acts 2: 37-39
Mark 16:15-16
Acts 16:30-33
Acts 22:16
Romans 6:2-4
1 Cor 6:11
Col 2:11-14
Titus 3:3-7
Hebrews 10:21-22
1 Pet 3:18-21

…Vatiel, do you also need something to support infant baptism & did this help any? ALSO, let him know, that being baptize “of the spirit” is a new invention, by Protestant churches. It’s not what the Bible says, and, it’s not how they did it back in the day.[/left]

im sorry i cant support, but rather im here to ask… Adstrinity, would you mind posting supports for infant baptism… i will be shortly preparing a talk for my youth group on baptism, and infancy will be one of my major points… thanx

[quote=jax8686]im sorry i cant support, but rather im here to ask… Adstrinity, would you mind posting supports for infant baptism… i will be shortly preparing a talk for my youth group on baptism, and infancy will be one of my major points… thanx

Will start a new thread.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit