Catholic, Protestant Churches Sign Historic Baptism Agreement

sad day of compromise.

This does not suprise me, the very reformers considered the catholics baptism as valid and condemed those whom did not consider it valid who rebaptized upon confession of faith.

the problem is that the catholic church view baptism much different than the opposing side which signed this document w/them. catholics see baptism as part of what saves u (human works based salvation). protestants see baptism as a outward action and sign that u have already been saved (justified by faith).

this event is a compromise of biblical truth borne out of ignorance of sound doctrine.

i watched a few months ago as a number of people were banished from this community 4 speaking against the catholic church. not sure why sermonindex posted this knowing the discussion that would ensue, but i have decided 2 speak no more on this. i am learning so much from people here, i do not wish to be baited and trapped in2 a discussion about this issue and then kicked out.

Hi SkepticGuy

SkepticGuy wrote ///protestants see baptism as a outward action and sign that u have already been saved (justified by faith).///

actually this is more of a Babtist or Anabaptist position,
Infant Baptizers such as the reformers and Presbyterian view baptism differently they equate baptism more in line with a predestined covenant, they equate baptism with the old covenants circumcision.

An interesting History study is how infant baptizers have treated those whom taught believers baptism down through history.

thnx 4 clarifying. while this is so, they do not believe baptism bring about salvation. they believe the other way around. correct?

skepticguy,

Very few people on here support the catholic church and their teachings. No one says that we can not discuss issues within the catholic church. We just have to follow the lead of the admins when they tell us to stop posting the same issue over and over and over again.

Catholisism is from the devil. My opinion. It baits people into a false sense of salvation, yet, there are things that we can learn from some catholic followers. To say that we cannot, would be an ignorant statement.

Be blessed.

To say that we cannot, would be an ignorant statement.

true, and that is not a statement that i made or make. i find a contradiction in sum here who say we should not use commentaries or listen to other men's teaching, but let the holy spirit be ur teacher. then the same people say we can learn from the catholic church. this confuses me on several levels.

that was not aimed @ u. just a general observation i have noticed here.

SkepticGuy wrote ///thnx 4 clarifying. while this is so, they do not believe baptism bring about salvation. they believe the other way around. correct?///

Well this gets a bit confusing because of their predestination theology, Reformed Protasants, Calvinist and the like trace their roots through the Catholic Church, They Declare the Catholic ST Augustine as one of their fathers of the true church, Augustine taught infant baptism for the removal of the original sin placed on all infants, hence Augustine taught regenerational baptism as does the catholic,(Augustine also taught that one can not be saved out side the catholic church) The great reformers Calvin,Luther,Zwingly all relied heavy on Augustine for interpataion of scripture. They all taught infant baptism and harshly condemed those whom rejected it, infact Zwingly had Felix Manz drowned over the issue.

Calvin did not teach that infant baptism saved the infant but rather the dead infant was saved or condemed inaccordance with Predestination, If the infant had saved parents than the infant was probably saved if the infants parents was not saved than of no action of the infant Calvin believed the infant was predestined to condemnation, this conclusion would have worked nicely for Calvin whom lost an infant.
Things get foggy in this perspective for those whom lose an infant before conversion.
The Catholics taught a state of limbo for the infant all of these perspectives are an attempt to make Augustines view of original sin work.

Zwingly had Felix Manz drowned over the issue.

maybe he didnt have him drowned but felix manz had a lot more sin in his heart than most people and he was just holding him under until he knew all the guy's sin was gone! 2ward the end the people heard zwingly say "whooops!"

thats an insteresting history on the reformed. i know sum christians who are what they call reformed. a lot of what they say makes sense to me and seems 2 jive w/the bible. none of them believe in baptising babies. so i guess there r different flavors of reformed people like there are baptists.

sum1 should just decide what the bible says and get every1 on the same page. be a lot less confusion.

SkepticGuy wrote ///maybe he didnt have him drowned but felix manz had a lot more sin in his heart than most people and he was just holding him under until he knew all the guy's sin was gone! 2ward the end the people heard zwingly say "whooops!"///

This event in history is not one to speak lightly of, to be a martyr is no joke, I have found no evidence that Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, Michael Sattler or the like where anything less than examples of true saints.
Often times Reformed apologist will try to cover up their less than desirable history by trying to mix these men with the likes of Thomas Muntzer by doing so they prove themselves to be either ignorant or dishonest.

Those whom hold to reformation theolgy trace there roots through the Catholic Church. Here is something of what Peter Hammond says about that.

As a Protestant missionary, I recognise that while we have serious differences and disagreements, there is also common ground, which both Protestants and Roman Catholics can agree on. We wholeheartedly endorse and believe The Apostles Creed , The Nicean Creed and The Athanasian Creed as foundational statements, which all Christians must accept if they are to be called Christians at all. Additionally, we look to the Church fathers including Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius and Policarp. In fact, the Reformers respected, quoted from, referred to and accepted the Church fathers as their own.

In addition, many of the saints and heroes of the Roman Catholic church are ours also, including the great missionaries: Patrick, Boniface, Francis of Assissi, and many others as examples of dedicated Christians who are an inspiration to us all.

As Protestants we oppose Catholicism, but we are not anti-the-Catholic-people. In fact, it must be admitted that shamefully many so-called Protestants do not even hold to the basic minimum standards which all true Christians worldwide, through the centuries, have accepted, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the Bible as the infallible Word of God, the doctrine of Eternal Judgment in hell, and much more.

Roman Catholics frequently are our allies in the pro-life, pro-family, pro-moral movements, standing up for pre-born babies against the violence of abortion, opposing homosexual attempts to pervert the very definition of marriage and the fight against pornography and prostitution and a host of other social and ethical issues.

I am far closer to Roman Catholics who hold to the Trinity and are pro-life than so-called Protestants who deny the Trinity and are pro-choice.

Scripture Alone is our Authority....

http://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=646:i-am-a-roman-catholic-why-cant-we-work-together-more-and-where-in-the-bible-is-scripture-alone-as-our-authority-taught&catid=56:answers-to-critical-questions-cat&Itemid=250

SkepticGuy wrote ///thats an insteresting history on the reformed. i know sum christians who are what they call reformed. a lot of what they say makes sense to me and seems 2 jive w/the bible. none of them believe in baptising babies. so i guess there r different flavors of reformed people like there are baptists.///

reformed or calvinist baptist did not exist while the Great reformers Zwingly,Calvin,Luther where alive, All of the reformers greatly condemed those that taught believers Baptism and rejected infant baptism, The first reformed or calvinist Baptist churches where formed 50 to 100 years after the reformers.

reformed apologist try to cloud up the facts of history but to consider ones self as a reformed or calvinist Baptist can not more define the term oxymoron.

We see alot of good coming out of proffessing reformed Baptist such as Paul Washer ,John Piper and the like.
but even though the reformed Baptist would argue with me, I believe that Luther and Calvin and those whom they exalt as their forfathers would call them to change there views of Baptism or else be condemned.

as i understand it from classes in college, the reformation was progessive, meaning it happened in steps as that discovered more and more truths. over time it evolved much like we all do in our walk with god. therefore it is understandable why calvin or luther from the 15th century would challange a reformed baptist from 2013 to change. the 2013 believer has the benefit of time, history and revelation whereas the 15th century reformer is somewhat limited in his own understanding and revelation at that point.

as far as the zwingly story, wasnt trying 2 be flippant. every1 here is 2 serious sumtimes.

SkepticGuy wrote ///as i understand it from classes in college, the reformation was progessive, meaning it happened in steps as that discovered more and more truths. over time it evolved much like we all do in our walk with god. therefore it is understandable why calvin or luther from the 15th century would challange a reformed baptist from 2013 to change. the 2013 believer has the benefit of time, history and revelation whereas the 15th century reformer is somewhat limited in his own understanding and revelation at that point.///

It is doubtful that what the reformers condemned as blasphemy and worthy of death in their day that they would be up for ecumenical agreement with today.

unfortunately in my study of the reformers they did not seem to progress toward the truth (which I relize is a strong statement and I am more than open to changing my opinion based on documented facts that would prove otherwise) For example Zwingly went from being a pacifist to condeming to death those whom Baptized upon confession of faith and than he died himself in battle, Luther went from trying to Save the Jews to writing the Jews and There Lies' one of his last publications. One in which I have right beside me if any would like to here some of the bizzar things that he wrote.

There are many other disturbing and bizzar things about the reformers that I find, For me I have found very little evidence of compassion that they showed with anyone that even slightly disagree with them. If someone would prove to me from there writings that my conclusions are without merit, I would be more than happy to recant my perspective.

As I have said in the past, I hope we all get to heaven and find out that their was some Jesuit Conspiracy that has distorted all of the refomers documents and church history, but as of now I have not even heard of such an accusation.

Michael Sattler (?), "On the Satisfaction of Christ," Legacy,116-118 as in Anabaptist in Outline by walter klaassen herald press 1981 p 318-319

They say much about faith and yet know neither what Christ nor faith is. They reject works without faith in order to raise up faith without works. They would like to obey God with the soul and not also with the body, so that they might be without persecution. They believe that faith is a lazy empty fiction, whereby they are also able to say that infants have faith, even though no works of faith can be discerned in them, even when they grow up. It would seem that the works of faith and the Holy Spirit were to curse when they hardly know how to speak, etc. Oh, the miserable blindness! Although they write all of this not because they do not know better, but in order that they provide for their belly and maintain their honour. Thus one sees here so clearly how the beast, with seven heads and ten horns, recuperates from its mortal wound; according to which the Roman school or curia,from which the Bread-Lord-God and infant baptism originaly come,are again defended as truths by the scribes. To say nothing of many other things wherein the scribes again flatter the papists and set them up again as Christians. But that is how the second beast with the ten horns, namely the bands of the scribes, had to do, so that the earth and the men who live on it would again worship the first beast; they had to reestablish the popish oil idols, that is the clergy; they had to throw downfire from heaven to banish and curse everyone who does not adhere to them, just as John predected it all. And this is precisely what he also saw, Rev. 17, how the ten horns on the beast would hate the harlot, and would leave her desolate and naked, would devour her flesh and burn her with fire, after God put it in their hearts. The kingdom was to be given to the beast untill the Word of God was all accomplished. Yea, that said ten horns, which are like ten kings, would take over the kingdom one hour after the beast, would come to an agreement to give power to the beast, would wage war with the Lamb and the Lamb would overcome them. That is how in the last days from all the high schools, awakened by the scribes were to arise and to attack the great zeal the Roman Church, the congregation of the work-saints, seize everything, and consume all the gold ,silver,and other goods which she had brought together,condemn her as heretical, but soon after they would again take the side of the beast, that is the Roman School, and defended it, and again cast away the kingdom of God which previously had come to them. Yea,these would then defend the beast against the Word of God and those who adhere to it, nad would violently strive against the Lamb (i.e.,Christ). Nevertheless the Lamb, Lord of all lords, King of all kings, would overcome them, together with the papist, the abomination of desolation of which Dan. 9, Paul in 2 Thess. 2; Peter in 2 pet. 2, and Christ in Mt. 24; Mk. 13; Lk17, clearly spoke, which now sits in the place of the saints, lets itself be worshiped as either gospel or Christendom since the work-saints say, Behold, here is Christ!" The scribes call, "Behold, here is Christ!" and therefore blessed is he who goes out from said Babylon...

considering the fact that many people (including the reformers) were brutalized by the catholic church back then for centuries, many murdered and martyred during the inquisition, witch hunts, and the like, to me it seems understandable that the reformers would be more harsh in their push back against the catholic church than it would be 2day where everything is nice and polite, dont you think? in no way am i saying they were right about everything, or we should follow their example, but it seems a bit hard to sit here almost 500 years after the fact and judge men whom we can not even begin to understand from a thoughtful prospective. yes, we have their books and their written words and some conclusions can be drawn from that. but none of us here have even come close 2 walking a mile in their shoes. i read a little book called the institutes of the christian religion by john calvin and i must say that it was very enlightening to me. i am not a reformed christian but i can say i understand the bible much better now and have profited from reading that book.

point being, the church fathers from the time right after the apostles got some things wrong too. they were not as pure as sum want to believe when it came to teaching. i would dare not say they were unsaved. we see things through our 21st century glasses with basically no perspective on their point of view or surroundings or environment.

i feel like i rambled. duz any of that make sense, my friend?

Hi SkepticGuy

SkepticGuy wrote ///i feel like i rambled. duz any of that make sense, my friend?///

I understand what you are saying, I will show some reasons that I have come to a different conclusion.

SkepticGuy wrote ///considering the fact that many people (including the reformers) were brutalized by the catholic church back then for centuries, many murdered and martyred during the inquisition, witch hunts, and the like, to me it seems understandable that the reformers would be more harsh in their push back against the catholic church than it would be 2day where everything is nice and polite, dont you think?///

Why Did the Catholic Church believe that it was acceptable to use such extreme measures during the inquisition to deal with those whom disagreed with their orthodoxy??

Here is what 'The new Foxes Book of Martyrs John Fox rewritten updated by Harold J chadwick p.56' says:

referring to Papal persecutions and the Inquisition
//They justified the horrors they committed by wresing Old Testament Scriptures, and by appeal to (Augustine), who had interpreted luke 14:23 as endorsing the use of forse against heretics: "Then the master said to the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges,and compel them to come in,that my house may be filled."//

Reformed Theology is molded by the Catholic Augustine, All Reformed protestants and Calvinist will agree with this statement.

History of the Christian Church, Volume viii, Modern Christianity, The Swiss Reformation by Philip Schaff Wm. B. EERDMASS PUBLISHING CO. REPRODUCTION THIRD EDITION REVISED,copy right 1910 Charles Scribner's sons.
p.696-697

//The great Augustine, who had himself been a Manichaen heretic for nine years,justified forcible measures against the Donatists, in contridiction to his noble sentiment: "Nothing conquers but truth, the victory of truth is love". The same Christian Father who ruled the thinking of the Church for many centuries, (((and molded the theology of the Reformers))), excluded all unbaptized infants from salvation, though Christ emphatically included them in the Kingdom of Heaven.//

recommended by Leonard Ravenhill as the best little history book, the one that greatly influenced Denny kenaston.
'The Pilgrim Church' by E.H. Broadbent Copyright 1931, this edition copyright 2009 by Gospel Folio Press

p48-49

//Augustine, in his zeal for the unity of the Church and his genuine abhorrance of all divergence in doctrine and difference in form, lost sight of the spiritual, living, and indestructible unity of the Church and Body of Christ, uniting all who are shares by the new birth in the life of God. Consequently he did not see the practical possibility of the existence of churches of God in various places and in all times, each retaining its immediaterelation with the Lord and with the Spirit, yet having fellowship with the others, and that in spite of human weakness, of varying degrees of knowledge, of divergent apprehension of Scripture and differenceof practice.
His outward view of the Church as an earthly organization naturaly led him to seek outward, material means for preserving, and even compelling, visible unity. In controversey with the Donatist,he wrote:

{It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word... while those are better who are guided aright by love, those are certainly more numerous who are corrected by fear. For who can possibly love us more than Christ, who laid down His life for His sheep? And yet, after calling Peter and the other apostles by His words alone, when He came to summon Paul... He not only constrained him with His voice, but even dashed him to the earth with His power; and that He might forcibly bring one who was raging amid the darkness of infidelity to desire the light of the heart, He first struck him with physical blindness of the eyes.Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return...The Lord Himself said,"Go out into the highways and hedges andCompel them to come in'... Wherefore, if the power which the Church has received by divine appointment in its due season, through the religious character and the faith of kings, be the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and hedges — that is, in heresies and schisms — are compelled to come in, then let them not find fault with being compelled}

Such teaching, from such an authority, incited and justified those methods of the persecution by which papal Rome equalled the cruelties of pagan Rome. So a man of strong affections and quick and tender sympathies, departing from the principles of Scripture, though with good intentiones, became implicated in a vast and ruthless system of persecution.//

Does anyone know what the terrible Heresy of the Donatist that Augustine believed was worthy of Death was ??

revised and expanded 'Pilgrim Church" 'by william j.Bausch' "A Popular History of Catholic Christianity" copyright 1989 'by william j.Bausch' Tenth publishing 1994 Twenty-Third Publications
p102
//..The Donatist heresy was taking place there. This was the heresy that said the validity of the sacraments depended on the goodness or state of the soul of the person who administered them...//

Is this a heresy Worthy of Death ???