The Baptism Debate, Part B

As a retired military member, I like streight forward information. I also know the necessity of verifying information. This is an important topic that requires addressing as it is one of the most debated and contriversial doctrinal issue. The Bible is (as I have noted in other places) the technical manual for life. I digress.
Baptism does not save, in and of itself. A person who is baptized (full immersion or sprinkling, name of Jesus or Father, Son, Holy Ghost) and is not repentant is just a wet sinner.
The best way I can explain as to why baptism is this. It is a landmark. It is one of the first things a person can do and point to as obediance, not to God but the accuser. Not that works save, but works driven by faith are of effect (James 2). Not that God requires a landmark, but as people we do. The Old Testament is replete with landmarks. We have landmarks today.
Baptism is one of the founding principles of our salvation (Hebrews 6:1,2). Not THE founding principle, but one of 6 foundational principles.
The early Church baptised as part of the "initiation" into the Church.
As far as immersion vs sprinkling, do a word study of the word both concordance and definition (metalurgy is a good place to look)
As far as names, I ask a question. Is there a name that fulfills all 3 titles?
The scripture reference. Is it rather Acts 11:16?

Pastor Begg,

You purposfully left out the Luterans when explaining differnt views of Baptism. Could you explain your take on the Lutheran view?

Mr Begg: Catholics are not as paralyzed as you may think. In fact quite a few of your followers seems to have quite a few questions on the Lords Supper B broadcast.

The dispenser of Grace is Christ not the Church. I am curious why you are so interested in the Catechism. Do you have doubts about your own theology?

You may want to reference: http://www.catholic.com/library/Infan...

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized 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" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "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" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . 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."

Only Mr. Begg could turn a sermon on Baptism into an inquiry of the validity of the sacrament of confession in the Catholic Church. Rather than question the concept in whole he questions elements such as a perfect confession. His approach of classical fundamentalist questioning is not the approach one would take if the focus was on saving souls.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgi...

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)

Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).

Some say that any power given to the apostles died with them. Not so. Some powers must have, such as the ability to write Scripture. But the powers necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed down from generation to generation. If they ceased, the Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations." It would take much time. And he promised them assistance: "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19–20).

If the disciples believed that Christ instituted the power to sacramentally forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the apostles’ successors—the bishops—and Christians of later years to act as though such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. If, on the other hand, the sacramental forgiveness of sins was what Fundamentalists term it, an "invention," and if it was something foisted upon the young Church by ecclesiastical or political leaders, we’d expect to find records of protest. In fact, in early Christian writings we find no sign of protests concerning sacramental forgiveness of sins. Quite the contrary. We find confessing to a priest was accepted as part of the original deposit of faith handed down from the apostles.

Note that the power Christ gave the apostles was twofold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper repentance.

Such interpretations don’t account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining—nor do they account for the importance given to the utterance in John 20:21–23. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be "retained."

Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," which he explained is required because "if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:12–15).

If forgiveness really can be partial—not a once-for-all thing—how is one to tell which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a priestly decision? You can’t very well rely on your own gut feelings. No, the biblical passages make sense only if the apostles and their successors were given a real authority.

Still, some people are not convinced. One is Paul Juris, a former priest, now a Fundamentalist, who has written a pamphlet on this subject. The pamphlet is widely distributed by organizations opposed to Catholicism. The cover describes the work as "a study of John 20:23, a much misunderstood and misused portion of Scripture pertaining to the forgiveness of sins." Juris mentions "two main schools of thought," the Catholic and the Fundamentalist positions.

He correctly notes that "among Christians, it is generally agreed that regular confession of one’s sins is obviously necessary to remain in good relationship with God. So the issue is not whether we should or should not confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is, How does God say that our sins are forgiven or retained?"

Is the Catholic who confesses his sins to a priest any better off than the non-Catholic who confesses directly to God? Yes. First, he seeks forgiveness the way Christ intended. Second, by confessing to a priest, the Catholic learns a lesson in humility, which is avoided when one confesses only through private prayer. Third, the Catholic receives sacramental graces the non-Catholic doesn’t get; through the sacrament of penance sins are forgiven and graces are obtained. Fourth, the Catholic is assured that his sins are forgiven; he does not have to rely on a subjective "feeling." Lastly, the Catholic can also obtain sound advice on avoiding sin in the future.

During his lifetime Christ sent out his followers to do his work. Just before he left this world, he gave the apostles special authority, commissioning them to make God’s forgiveness present to all people, and the whole Christian world accepted this, until just a few centuries ago. If there is an "invention" here, it is not the sacrament of penance, but the notion that the sacramental forgiveness of sins is not to be found in the Bible or in early Christian history.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9
We don’t have to rely on a feeling that we are forgiven when we directly ask God for forgiveness. We have His Word that we are forgiven and He does not lie (Titus 1:2).
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Timothy 2:5.

"‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)

No Catholic believes that a priest, simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.

It is noteworthy that the fundamental objection so often urged against the Sacrament of Penance was first thought of by the Scribes when Christ said to the sick man of the palsy: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." "And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God only?" But Jesus seeing their thoughts, said to them: "Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Mark 2:5-11; Matthew 9:2-7). Christ wrought a miracle to show that He had power to forgive sins and that this power could be exerted not only in heaven but also on earth. This power, moreover, He transmitted to Peter and the other Apostles. To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). Later He says to all the Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 18:18).

In Luke 18:9-14 Jesus taught by a parable the doctrine that a person who humbles himself before the Lord and repents of His sin is declared righteous. He is not told to do acts of penance, for forgiveness is free and not earned. Our sins can only be covered by the blood of Christ and not by any works we try to do. We cannot earn forgiveness. It is given to us by God’s grace through faith (Ephesians 3:8-9). Hebrews 10:19 says that we can boldly (not arrogantly) enter the presence of God when our sins are covered by Christ’s sacrifice through faith. Prior to the sacrifice of Christ, only the priest could enter the inner sanctuary of the temple where God’s presence dwelt. But now, because of Christ’s sacrifice, all whose sins are covered have no need of a priest to represent them.
Christ gave his apostles the keys of the kingdom. They were to spread the gospel which opens the door to heaven and to the Lord’s presence. They could authoritatively declare who was forgiven and who was not based on what Christ had taught them, that all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. The traditions and practices of the Catholic Church which have developed over the centuries go past what scripture teaches and are not supported by scripture.

Mary,

Can I ask where your knowledge of "Catholic beliefs" is from? Catholics do not believe that a man can by his own good works, independently of the Merits and Passion of Jesus Christ and of His grace, obtain salvation, or make any satisfaction for the guilt of his sins, or acquire any merit. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/d...

Even if a Catholic were to agree with you that our tradition is wrong what Protestant sect has it right? There are so many with their own traditions that have nothing to do with Catholic tradition. How can all these sects have different beliefs from the same scripture?

If I should ask you "Did Joe buy a bottle of Pesi?" what does it really man from just the text? Am I asking:
1. Did JOE and not someone else buy the bottle of Pepsi?
2. Did Joe BUY a bottle of Pepsi or not buy it?
3. Did Joe buy a BOTTLE or can of Pepsi?
4. Did Joe buy a bottle of bottle of PEPSI or Coke, or something else?

I do not think you can clearly answer this question without knowing the context and
having been a witness. Likewise I do not believe you are getting the correct context unless you are using
a historical context which is how Catholics view tradition. I would be very suspect
if there was no tradition at all to your service / denomination and I would guess I would not
have to look to far to find another Protestant sect with very different views using the same
verses you quote.
biblical.

Mary,

What is your view on confession in the Episcopal Church? More useless traditions? : http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepri...
"The saying I heard about confession in The Episcopal Church is "All may. Some should. None must." And with private confession to a priest not being compulsory, most Episcopalians never bother unless they attend an Anglo-Catholic Parish.

I think this is worth a second look as the centuries long practice of confessing one's sins to God in the presence of a priest who can then pronounce absolution is a powerful sacrament. I have found in my own life that it is an important way to make a break with past sins. Saying the confession out loud and having a priest give counsel and pronounce absolution is a powerful act. I not only affirm that The Episcopal Church offers the sacrament of Reconciliation, I recommend the practice highly.

One further word on the sacrament. A monk I know has spoken of the confessional as God's Septic Tank. We dump the waste of our lives in confession, freeing ourselves from the baggage too long carried around. But having cleansed out hearts in confession, we must then let the sins go. To go back over those past failings would be as useful as reaching back into a septic tank to stir up the contents. Confess your sins and God will separate them from you as far as the east is from the west. Confess them in the presence of another, expressing true repentance and amendment of life and you should find it easier to walk away from that past."

Non Catholic views on confession:
Lutherans differ from other Protestants, as they practice "confession and absolution". They, like Roman Catholics, see James 5:16 and John 20:22-23 as biblical evidence for confession. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that "Confession is a necessary requirement for complete forgiveness. In Judaism, confession is an important part of attaining forgiveness for both sins against God and another man. Confessions to God are done communally in the plural. Jews confess that "We have sinned." In matters involving offenses against a fellow man, private confession to the victim is a requirement to obtaining forgiveness from the victim, which is generally a requirement to obtaining forgiveness from God. If the victim refuses to forgive, the offender confesses publicly, before larger and larger audience. Confession (viduy) is also performed on one's deathbed, if at all possible.

Roman C.:
When Christ taught His disciples to pray, He taught them to pray to God, our Father in heaven. His model prayer included asking God for forgiveness. When James 5:16 tells us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another, it is talking about openness and support among brethren. As I wrote in my last post, God wants us to approach Him and says we may due it boldly because our sins are covered by Christ’s blood. The book of Hebrews tells us that Christ has fulfilled the priesthood and as I wrote before, 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that Christ is the only mediator between God and man. God wants a relationship with each of His children. He tells us to call Him Abba Father which is a term of endearment. We are not told in scripture to pray to anyone other than God and are not told that we should be confessing to a priest rather than God.

The church which the New Testament refers to is the body of believers who have repented of their sinful hearts and ways and have placed their trust in Christ’s sacrifice to pay for their sins. Through God’s grace, their sins are forgiven and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them at the time of their conversion, At that time the Holy Spirit comes to indwell them, in order to bear His fruit in them, to teach them, to guide them and to enable them to glorify God. The true church is not a denomination but members may be found in different denominations.

A denomination or church is only as good as it is true to the Word of God which is our sole authority. Traditions should not be authoritative. Only God’s Word is. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for allowing their traditions to trump the written word of God (Mark 7:6-13).

In choosing a church in which to worship, one should judge it on how it is aligned with scripture. We should be like the Bereans who were commended for searching the scripture to assure what was being taught to them aligned with scripture (Acts 17:11). Scripture is not hard to understand but spiritual truths require the help of the Spirit to understand (Matt. 16:17) and it is promised to all true believers (1 John 2:27) that the Holy Spirit will teach us. We also must always look at context and related passages to gain the true meaning. There are many false teachers (as scripture tells us there will be) who twist scripture and take meanings out of context but true sheep know their shepherd’s voice. False teachers are not true believers but are found inside and outside of churches.

You seem to imply that the traditions of the Catholic church are as they have been since the time of the disciples, but that is not true history. There has been much disagreement among popes and councils. If you are open to searching for the truth about Catholic traditions and church history, you might consider reading Is Rome the True Church by Norman Geisler.

Mary,

The core beliefs of the Catholic Church are from apostolic lineage. One of the most misunderstood things about the Pope is this "infallibility" thing. Some Evangelicals think infallibility means that Catholics claim that every word that comes out of the Pope's mouth is supposed to be infallible.

The Pope is human and therefore sins. He's the first to admit it. He goes to regular confession where he confesses his sin, repents and is granted forgiveness. Catholics do not deny the Pope's humanity. What the Church is saying with the doctrine of infallibly is that Christ is protecting his flock by giving the Pope the ability to say the right things when making official statements about faith and morals. The Church claims that these proclamations are "infallible," not that Church leaders are "indefectible." Most certainly everybody in the Catholic Church has defects (including its leaders), just like Evangelicals and all humans.

The doctrine of infallibility has nothing to do with the brainpower, intuition, moral fibre, or even the faith of the Pope. The Doctrine of infallibility has everything to do with God protecting his Church. It's amazing that even during medieval times when there were some questionable and even bad popes, God kept them silent on issues of faith and morals during their office.

A Pope only exercises infallibility on rare occasions - a handful of times in history. Here are the conditions:

I checked out reviews on Is Rome the True Church by Norman Geisler. Norman Geisler’s co-author of Is Rome the True Church? (Crossway Books, 2008), Joshua Betancourt, has converted to Catholicism!
http://www.catholic-convert.com/2010/...

This review was telling: Geisler and Betancourt do not merely seek to unravel the Catholic claim for apostolic succession; they also seek to show how the episcopal form of church government is unbiblical. (This is most curious when considering that Betancourt received his ordination as a clergyman from an Anglican bishop!) Likewise, Geisler argues for the value of creeds, but does not see them as binding - a suggestion that will raise the eyebrow of a good many readers within other streams of the Reformation.

I think we can go back and forth debating verses, doctrines and books but in the end neither of us will change. I know atheists would look at our differences and say if the Bible is God's word how can there be any differences between Protestants, Lutherans, Episcopals, and Catholics.

This was cut off from the prior post if any are following this ...........

A Pope only exercises infallibility on rare occasions - a handful of times in history. Here are the conditions:

The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
It must be on a matter of faith or morals.
He must be intending to teach.

Roman C:
I understand that the Catholic Church does not claim that the pope is infallible except when he is speaking ex cathedra. My point was in response to statements of yours which seem to claim that the practices and doctrines of the Catholic Church today were universally accepted and practiced since the time of the disciples until “a few centuries ago.” This is not historically true. What the book Is Rome the True Church documents through quoting the writings of various early church leaders, is the evolution of doctrine and practices and the disagreements between different leaders.

I believe anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura might appreciate certain creeds and even recite them if they feel they accurately state Biblical truths, but that is not to say they see creeds as having the authority of scripture.

I agree that neither of us seems to be changing the other’s mind so I believe this will be my last post. I do pray that you might consider what I have said about the Bible’s clear statement that there is no mediator between God and men but Christ Jesus. I think one of the most beautiful miraculous acts at the time of the crucifixion was when the veil of the temple which blocked entrance to the Most Holy Place was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death. This signified that all could now enter God’s presence through Christ’s shed blood. Jesus invites all who are weary and heavy laden to come to Him (Matt. 11:28). In 1 Peter 5:7 we are told to cast all our cares on Him for He cares for us.
There is no scripture which tells us to confess to a priest or pray to saints. God wants us to draw near to Him.

Psalm 1 tells us that blessed is the man who meditates on His Word day and night. Psalm 119 tells us that the Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. I pray that you will search the scriptures and may God reveal His truth to you.

Mary,

I find it interesting throughout this discourse that you are so well versed in what Catholics believe. I agree with much that you have said and disagree with much you have said. Catholics believe there is no mediator between God and men but Christ Jesus but I know you will disagree. If you ever want to do some research in our mass where we confess to God.
See: Order of a Catholic Mass: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchD...
Priest: May almighty God cleanse us of our sins…………

Breaking of the Bread:
All: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
Communion:
Priest: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.

In respect to Tradition:
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
It is one thing to know scripture it is another to realize Christ is not limited to everything the Bible.....
John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Pax,
RC

Roman Catholic, it looks to me like you got told, by Mary!!

I. Ronic

I think there is good points.....
on the other hand I feel the need to say I ronic is that the Godly way to answer? I think your comment is VERY childish and there was no need for it.

You know, I normally enjoy Pastor Beggs sermons. I’m not sure why he feels the need to go off on these anti-catholic tangents. If you don’t agree with something, just say so. If he feels his personal interpretation of scripture is correct, then teach your congregation your personal interpretation. He comes off as very insecure when he feels the need to berate the faith of others. The topic was infant baptism. He not only disagrees with the Catholic teaching on the subject, but he also feels the need to throw in comments about the mass, confession and other Catholic beliefs. He fails to mention his personal belief is a subset of a subset of a subset of the traditional view on the subject. Not only Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and other mainline protestant denominations practice infant baptism but it was overwhelmingly taught by the early church fathers and councils. I guess the original “reformers” needed reforming. They obviously didn’t know their way around scripture. Actually the entire Christian church was wrong on the subject for 17 hundred years until some reformers of the reformers got around to figuring out the truth.
All we have to support his position are strawmen arguments and arguments from silence. At least let your congregation in on the teachings of Augustine, Aguinas, Luther, Zwingli and the early fathers and councils of Christian antiquity. The Pastor says he is concerned for Catholics and their eternal salvation. If he is that concerned then at least attempt to understand Catholic theology before broadcasting a message all over the world exposing a clear lack of that understanding. Just saying.

I agree with the previous post. The Pastor seems to have an axe to grind with Roman Catholicism. I agree he lacks some basic understanding of Catholic doctrine. It seems a bit irresponsible to broadcast on national radio and misrepresent the faith of other Christians. If he feels confident in his position maybe he can take some time out of his busy schedule and debate a Catholic apologist on any given doctrinal subject. Are you up for it pastor? Time to put your money where your mouth is?

Mr. Begg,

My, you have grown so much smaller these last few days.

For those of us who continue to hold the party line for the sacramental issues the comments are what can be expexted, but for those of us who see the need to express the full-orbed articulation of our conversation with a Living Savior, Mr.Beggs views have our full support, but only for the reason that those views are fully supported by scripture. I have a brother who is probably the best Roman Catholic I know so I can also sense the burden of those who feel that Begg is in error. However, we are not called to give in to how religion makes us feel - we are called to give an answer ( wherever we are) for what we believe, and if "where we are" can be seen as the operative we do not have the option of going to look for a priest if someone asks one of those "why" questions.
A note to Pastor Begg, if you are still struggling with how deep the baptismal pool should be, please schedule one of your Basics Conferences in the Bahamas and I will show you a couple of very good beaches. ..... .... ...

There was a letter in a local paper where a Roman Catholic priestwas going over his many duties as a minister and he made mention that the "forgiving of sins" was one of the duties that he enjoyed most. The responses were minimal in the media, but his admission in generally accepted that this is what priests and pastors are able to do, and this being a daily relaity for many is the reason why those of us who will not have our "christianity" handed to us will never be in the majority. We will be a remnant until He comes.

From reading all these comments, it seems the Bible is open to numerous interpretations, and it seems that the correct one depends on what the denomination one belongs to believes. In the previous sermon on the Lord's supper, A. Begg accuses Catholics of idol worship, strictly forbidden by the 10 commandments. Yet when I read Num. 21:6-9, the Lord himself commanded Moses to make a brass serpent and put it on a standard so when the people were bitten by fiery serpents they could look upon the brass serpent and live. If that's not an idol, I don't know what is! This is just one of many contradictions found in the Bible. No wonder confusion reigns among the many different Christian denominations.

It seems a lot of talk is about whether a practice is in the Bible. Some practices are not expressed in detail in the Bible, however that doesn't disprove or prove them. It says people ate, it doesn't say whether they ate 3 meals a day. Maybe this isn't the emphasis, maybe we are missing the forest for the trees. With that being said, if all truth is in the Bible please refer me to the passage that states baptism is to be done only to adults and only by full immersion. Also I would like the verse that states the Bible is the sole rule of faith. I believe that we have so much to learn from the Bible that we don't need to bash other denominations from the pulpit or sling verses out of context to make the Bible state an idea that it doesn't clearly support. I am sure in every church in America there are people who know The Lord and those who don't. If we spend time arguing and picking apart statements, how is that bringing others to Christ?
The one point I will make in closing is the Catholic church accepts protestants as fellow Christians, the reverse can not always be said. May our passion for Christ be used to bring others to Him and not to drive anyone from Him.

The Protestant church and Catholic church have both to long done the same thing, failed to study Gods word, and when a pastor like Pastor Begg proclaims the truth of Gods word, they can’t recognizes it. The church for years has just taken a man at his word and failed to know the truth and must people are in the same boat. The Church is ten miles wide and an inch deep. Just some plade to attend on sunday. Must people do not study bible doctrine and have no spirit within them to be able to discern Biblical truth. This is why this country is in the shape it is in. Most preachers preach a social message, not one that is based on Christ and Him crucified and that is the only one message there is.
Pastor Begg, continue to preach the full word of God, till he returns to receive his real church, only those Born Again, covered by His precious blood.

......."Destroy this temple,and I will raise it again in three days.."JESUS CHRIST.The body is like grapes,and the grapes create wine...creating the eternal into time,creating that which remain,into that which cannot remain.....The body is like the seed...The seed is dying,and the seed cannot imagine that is not death,...that soon it will start growing,as a sprout...birth of the tree. and there will be great foliage,and flowering and fruits...,and birds will come,and sit on the branches,and make their nests,...and the tree will talk to the clouds and the stars in the night.....and will play with the sky....and will dance in the winds.....and there will be great rejoicing.......!!!...Truly ,truly baptism..."DO YOU LOVE ME PETER..?!." -ask JESUS. DO YOU LOVE MY CHURCH ..................................................................................................................................................................???!!!

Study your Scripture and you will find truth.
I was once a Catholic held in bondage and now set free to serve my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Not the Catholic church.

Matt Cramer & John Paul - I recall Mr. Begg giving a good outline of a defense for the infant baptism (the best arguments he gave for infant baptism he ascribed to the Prysbeterians). Not sure if it was included in the sermons reposted here, but I'm pretty sure you can find it in the series which is free for download. As to your comments regarding an 'axe to grind with catholics' maybe he does have one, i'm not inside his head. It does seem to me that the catholic church believes (as Roman pointed out in his comments) that the catholic church play a part in the dispensation of grace through their sacraments). There is no doubt that it is possible for God to use any instrument of His choosing to work miracles, including religious rites, but these rites are not necessarily intrinsic to the dispensation of any general or specific grace of God. The only real source of grace from what the Bible teaches is faith in Christ. plain readings of the didatic New Testament letters make this clear to anyone with intellectual honesty... which is why Roman in his defense of catholicism above, needs to call on the catholic 'tradition' to 'properly' interpret scripture. It is reasonable for one who is committed to the truth of the gospel, to call attention to anything, anyone, or any group that poses a real threat in convoluting the message of the gospel. The issue at hand is the salvation of the normal regular attenders of catholic mass, who rely on the institutional dispensation of grace through human effort (catholic sacraments) to save them, rather than faith in Christ. Yes, faith in christ is part of the Catholic church, yes I do think that heaven will be populated with many who have called themselves catholic, many who are probably like Roman who has a clear understanding and personally take part in the centrality of faith in Christ. But it is very clear in my experience with catholics, that they are not terribly sure what their full catechism teaches, nor are they clear about the foundation of Christ in salvation.
That is what I think Allistair and most protestants are attempting to address.
The fact that the catholic church is now in a position to focus on defending the validity of their sacraments, rather than preaching the gospel, only exacerbates the potential for a lack of clarity on what is the real foundation of salvation.

Obtuse, you know the Bible better than that. Both protestant and Catholic would acknowledge the snake on the pole as a forshadowing of Christ. Snake represents sin being lifted on high. Just as the new testament teaches that Christ became sin for us, taking on the punishment of our sin upon himslef. Those who trusted in God's directions in the Old Testament by faith, were healed, just as when we trust in the God's word and revelation in the New Testament look to Christ and are healed.

Wow...I haven't even listened to the teaching yet, but just waded through all these comments. Let me echo Bob G's simple testimony. After 50 years in the Catholic Church, following rules and traditions, a dear friend handed me a Bible and told me to read it, starting with the Gospel of John in the New Testament. I could hardly breathe! I read things that I had never heard taught in church -- including, and especially, the need for a spiritual rebirth, in the story of Nicodemus. Long story short (and it is a beautiful story drenched in grace) I sought forgiveness for my sinful life and accepted Jesus as my Savior. I left the church -- which I found cold and mechanical -- and found a church warmed by spirit-led followers of Jesus Christ. So grateful I was for this gift, I wanted to publicly proclaim my love for my Lord and was baptized (full immersion) in front of the whole church. Dead to sin, alive in Christ. Roman C can spend hours annotating the Catechism of the Catholic Church in this forum, but it leaves me cold and empty. Life in Christ....I am a new creation. Now I will listen to this podcast!

Chris - The same can be said of the average Baptist sitting in the pew on Sunday. Ask the average Baptist to explain premillenial dispensationalism and you will get a lot of balnk stares and "well, my pastor says...", Your contention that many Catholics cannot explaine what they believe and why doesn't take away from the truth of the teachings of the church. Many prominent evangelical pators and leaders are converting to the Catholic faith because they got past the misconceptions commonly taught in the protestant world. Look up the conversion story of Frank Beckwith. Peace

Christopher, if I read any other account exaclty like that in Numbers that wasn't in the Bible, but was in a different holy book from a different religion that used the name of another god, I'd say they were looking to an idol to be healed and I'm sure you'd agree. When I see it in the Bible I still interpret it as the Isrealites lookng to an idol for healing. But Christians have to interpret it differently or else they would have to say God commanded Moses to make an idol, in direct violation of the second commandment, thus it becomes a symbol of Christ. When A. Begg says Catholics worship idols, they could say he is interpreting their beliefs incorrectly, and the images they use are symbols of Christ's love and salvation for them, and in my opinion they would have just as much right to their interpretation as you have to yours. One man's idol is another man's symbol of God's salvation. Interpretation of the Bible is obviously not an exact science, as this lively and very thoughtful series of comments by all these sincere people demonstrates.

part & parcel to my point - its not a question of how to interpret the Bible. as i mentioned before, in the vigorous defense of the Catholic position, Roman C has to call in tradition to guide him. external source to scripture itself. IF we stick solely to scripture this is very easy to interpret. I apologize, since in our last conversation you had told me that you grew up in a bible church of sorts and I assumed you would have been familiar to the New Testament interpretations of the serpent incident.

See John 3:14 - Jesus himself says the 'serpent on a pole' is a symbol of what must be done to the Son of Man, i.e. himself. So unless a Catholic or protestant wants to argue against Jesus Himself, it is pretty clear. Throughout history God has used things to point to Christ and his sacrifice as the sole satisfactory and permanent sacrifice for man's sins. Catholic's emphasis on certain rites and sacraments as intrinsically dispensing grace detract from the work of Christ. The work of Christ was either sufficient or not. the bible is clear if you read it in its entitirety and in context.

Further analysis how this OT incident points us to Christ:
Compare the disease of the Israelites in the incident and ours. Sin bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder. Compare the application of their remedy and ours. They looked and lived, and we, if we believe, shall not perish. It is by faith that we look unto Jesus, see (hebrews 12:2). Whosoever looked, however desperate his case, or feeble his sight, or distant his place, was certainly and perfectly cured.

John Paul - The issue is as follows. Is Christ sacrifice sufficient to redeem man, or is participation in religious rites required in addition to faith in Christ's sacrifice. IF it is the latter, than the Catholics are certainly correct and you win. Unfortunately, the Bible seems to take the latter position and so do I. Your point about Non -baptists not knowing doctrine accurately, is a possible scenario one could encounter. However, this is not apples to apples. in the Baptist tradition, they won't run into doctrine that says Jesus + something (religious sacrament of some kind) = salvation. The baptist tradition holds to the sufficiency of Christ death and ressurrection. The catholic insisence that participation/agreement/faith in church sacraments plus jesus = salvation is not the same thing. So we are talking about what is the fundamental Christian message. that is faith in the work of Christ is sufficient for salvation. that is the good news. we don't have to earn or merit, or trust in another's merits apart from Christ. It sounds like we just disagree. I have a lot of sympathy for catholics and a lot of respect for theis position on social/moral issues. I am only proposing that their focus on participation in the sacraments detracts from the biblical message of the gospel.

The common error and problem with most "modern interpretation" can be explained in a statement I heard this morning - Most of us do not want a story, we want a paragraph, but we have no use for a paragragh if we can get it in a sentence. Our fast paced lives allow no time for really looking into what we say we want to know the full story on. We are up to date on whatever else is going on around us, but being up to date is the Pastor's job. Isn't hat what we pay him for? For many have come in among us spewing silly tales and fables, leading many astray .... ... .. ... ....