Code:
2/3 of the books that make up the Bible did exist. Jesus quotes from them frequently.
Yes. And they do include references to Baptism.
So then how did they get into the Bible?
Your ideas about baptism are what is not in the Bible. The NT reflects the beliefs of those
who wrote it, and they were Catholic.
Two problems with this.
The first is that credo-baptism is the norm, simply because of the sheer numbers of Baptists, charismatics, non-denom, etc, who practice credo-baptism.
No, kc. The fact that a large number of people do something does not mean it is right. It may be the “norm” in the sense that most people are doing it, but that still does not make it right.
Credo-baptism is the norm for adults, which is what is reflected in the NT.
The second is that I’ve never tried to make an argument that we should do it because it’s the norm. Like I said, I don’t care how many people do it or don’t do it, our first obligation is to be obedient to the word of God, not do what everybody else is doing.
And your error in this is the belief that the Word of God is confined to the Scriptures.
If that’s true, then why do we spend so much time studying what they taught? If that’s true, why do we look to their creeds and confessions as authoritative and to their writings as instructive?
What you study are the interpretations of the writings. I believe you are sincere in doing so, and believe that you are learning the faith of the Apostles, but this is not the case. The Apostles committed what they believed to the Church, that is why scripture should not be interpreted apart from what they believed and taught.
I find that for you to say that I don’t care is blatantly dishonest. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t have spent all of the time and energy studying it, nor the time and energy developing classes and teaching them at no cost to students (and, often times paying for it out of my own pocket).
I believe that you are sincere. You are the one who claimed you did not care. I found it a rather hostile and arrogant post, frankly.
Could you please give me any examples from scripture of the Apostles baptising infants or of any infant in scripture meeting the Biblical requirements to be baptised?
They have been provided in the thread, which I encourage you to read. You are proceeding from a false foundation, expecting everything necessary to our faith can be found in the Scriptures. This is a heresy that emerged during the Reformation.
We believe it does not exist because scripture does’t support such an idea.
Certainly your interpretation of it excludes it. But, this is why the Church is not founded on Scripture. Everyone who reads it interprets it differently. We have almost as many perspectives as there are belly buttons.
And there is your problem. Anytime you put anything above the authority of the word of God, you’re going to run into trouble.
kc, the Scripture is not capable of exercising “authority”. The attempt to ascribe this quality to it was sincere, as those who separated themselves from the Apostolic succession did so because they were disenfranchised by the corruption of the clerics. They wanted a holy substitute for the immoral leadership of the time. They wanted a church that reflected the holy standards we see in scripture. However, trying to make the Scriptute the final authority is forcing it into a role it cannot take. The exercise of authority requires acts of the will,a nd the ability to take responsibility. These are qualities of people, not writings, holy though they are. Scripture cannot act, and therefore, cannot be infallible. People act.
Basically what you are saying here is that when I put any ideas above what you percieve the Word of God to mean, I am in trouble. It is this thinking that has caused the multitude of fractures in the Body today.
You say that like accepting God’s word as authoritative is a bad thing.
Not a bit! I absolutely accept every word of Scripture as authoritative. However, it is meant to be used by those to whom God entrusted authority over the flock. When it is separated from that, all kinds of error result.
As a Catholic, I understand that you believe that. But I don’t so your condescending remarks just don’t work as the personal attacks you mean them to be.
It is not condescending, or personal. None of us know you enough to say anything personal. For all I know, you are just here role playing, and are not posting anything you really believe.
It is an accruate observation. Your comments indicate a separation from what the Apostles believed and taught.
Who says nobody saw them until the sixteenth century? Jesus saw them. Paul saw them. Philip saw them.
No, kc. Adults met these requirements. Children were baptized by all the Apostles, and Jesus called the children to Himself, and laid His hands upon them. This is what He does in baptism. He baptized John when both of them were still in their mother’s wombs!
No, they did not. If they did, there would be some record of these super genius babies.
No, they are not “genius”. To behold and reside in the presence of God really does not take much mind, but Spirit. That is why Jesus says “of such are the Kingdom of God”. Actually, our minds get in the way of the trust and confident assurance that children have naturally.
And we say the same thing about Catholics.
Do you? Perhaps you can provide us with some historical validataion that Catholics are “self appointed”?
No. There’s nothing in scripture to indicate that the baby in Elizabeth;s womb met the Biblical criteria for baptism. What’s more, baptism had not yet been introduced as an ordinance of the church.
Exactly! That is one way we know that your modern innovation of these criteria is without historical merit.
The Spirit filled John while he was yet in his mother’s womb. God can baptize whoever He wants, however He likes!
