Sunday, August 21, 2005

A Debate from FCFC with KJB Only

Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too Much

I said:

"Demonstrate that my saying that Philip baptized the eunuch AFTER
confirming his faith is a contradiction of 'my boss.' Again, be precise
and include your reference(s)"

KJB responds:

Yes sir! Right away, sir!

Baptism makes us members of Christ's body, Pope Eugene IV, General Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439)-3.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism) - 4.

No one can enter the kingdom of God without faith and water baptism.(Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, Dec. 11, 1925)-8.

Water baptism causes justification (Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7 on Justification)- 12.

Water baptism makes one a member of Christ's body, Pope Eugene IV, General Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra.

If you say that water baptism is not necessary for salvation, you are cursed, Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5.

Water baptism brings salvation, Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra.

Water baptism is the cause of justificationPope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra.

None of these quotes address what you were challenged to show. I asked you to demonstrate from Catholic teaching that Philip waiting to hear the eunuch's profession of faith before baptizing him was somehow contrary to the Catholic Faith or counter to what "my boss" would say. All you cited were references talking about the necessity of baptism, um, Philip seemed pretty certain of the necessity of baptism too. You're dodging, and you seem to think that by presenting a bunch of quotes from Catholic teaching that you're doing your part - but if those quotes don't speak to the challenge issued you, you're just beating the wind.

KJB continues:

Also "catechumens" must beg "the" church before they can be baptized, for faith!

Another tangential statement - and yet another undocumented and unsupported claim.
KJB continues:

The eunuch "confessed" NONE of those crazy beliefs and Philip never would have dreamed of asking him to and so he would be baptizing contrary to your bosses commands.

LOL KJB! Certainly you can find out of context statements and twist them to your own end, but you're making another nonsensical argument. The eunuch professed faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior:

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said: See, here is water: What doth hinder me from being baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

And, all that the Church says about the one baptised is that it is expected that their faith is immature and will grow:


CCC 1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

CCC 1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

So, your attempt to say more is required for baptism and that Philip's baptism was somehow invalid or would not be approved of by the Church today is just flat out wrong. I gave you the chance to document your claim - but you could not. Instead you tried to divert the subject to tangential topics. I have now provided to proof which demonstrates you are totally off the mark. I cited current Catholic teaching that does not expect the faith of one seeking baptism to be the mature faith and fully understanding of ALL the Church teaches.
You're just wrong, but will you admit it? I'll not hold my breath.

KJB then tries to predict my response:

Oh, yeah....before you ask....No, Dukey, I can't prove with documentation acceptable to you that Philip never dreamed that dream...sheesh

Now, do your usual dance as you've done with everyone elses posts that dare disagree with you..."You're confused", "You haven't made your point", "You've failed to do as I asked", etc., etc.

No, I didn't respond that way - I documented what is the REAL teaching on this matter. Have you failed? Yes, I believe you have - and since I've produced the TRUE teaching of the Church on this matter and it totally contradicts what you're saying - there is no way you can succeed in this endeavor, all that's left is your concession.

KJB continues:

After you're all done with that, tell me that Philip told the eunuch that before he could be baptized he'd have to beg "the" church for "faith".

If you won't or can't then you will have disobeyed your boss by saying that Philip's baptism was "legit".

The word "beg" is not there, but I have already quoted for you the Scripture wherein Philip demands the eunuch express his belief in Jesus Christ - and the eunuch complies.

KJB concludes (and finally concedes):

P.S. I apologize to everyone who has waded through this silliness..."Yeah, but you said 850 pages and you can't prove that it would take more than seven!" Gooooood grief, seems that some folks don't know what "exagerration to make a point" means.

Thank you for conceding that you were exagerating, why couldn't you just admit that when you were first challenged? I even asked you to just admit that you "puffed this up" (for whatever reason). So, I also accept your apology for not conceding this sooner and causing everyone who is reading to have to "(wade) through this silliness."

Now, KJB, did you go back and read the section from Trent that you totally misrepresented? I await your retraction of that too.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.