Baptist

[12volt_man]

Eden:

I agree. Neither B-2 bombers nor the Baptist faith existed in the early years of Christianity.

Actually, Baptists and Anabaptists are found throughout the New Testament.

I believe in the New Testament. I also believe that the Baptist faiths did not exist until the 17th century.

Say, that was right about the time that the Roman Catholic church was still killing people for teaching that the Earth revolved around the Sun, wasn’t it?

 

[imroc]

12volt_man:

THAT is a man-made doctrine developed several 100’s of years after Christians had already been baptising infants
No, it is not a man made doctrine. It is based on the Biblical example that the only baptisms we see in scripture are what is commonly called “believers’ baptism”.

I’m sorry that you feel that sound Biblical teaching is sickening and anti-Christian.

You say "It is based on the Biblical example that the only baptisms we see in the scripture are what is commonly called “believers baptism”, but you still have not shown me where infants and children are prevented from baptism, nor have you shown us where the “believers baptism” doctrine was invented. Where!?

 

[Eden]

12volt_man:

No, it is not a man made doctrine. It is based on the Biblical example that the only baptisms we see in scripture are what is commonly called “believers’ baptism”.

You are still avoiding the explicit examples of entire households being baptised in the Bible.

 

[Mickey]

12volt_man:

No, it is not a man made doctrine. It is based on the Biblical example that the only baptisms we see in scripture are what is commonly called “believers’ baptism”.

If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?

 

[Eden]

12volt_man:

Say, that was right about the time that the Roman Catholic church was still killing people for teaching that the Earth revolved around the Sun, wasn’t it?

Actually that never happened. I would suggest reading the history of geocentrism before getting egg on your face like that again:

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

 

[Eden]

12volt_man:

Actually, Baptists and Anabaptists are found throughout the New Testament.

Since you believe the Early Church Fathers were true to Christianity, how would you respond if you read works by these ECFs illustrating that infant baptism was a part of the earliest days of Christianity?

 

[imroc]

Eden:

You are still avoiding the explicit examples of entire households being baptised in the Bible.

Now where does it say that children and infants were prevented from being baptised.

And it definitely doesn’t say, “…and the whole houshold, including slaves and servants and the mother-in-law and the visiting bretheren…Oh! except the children and infants, were baptised.”

 

[Della]

12volt_man wrote:

No, anytime your tradition tells you that rituals and works are required for salvation, that is contradicting scripture.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this. Show us in the Catechism where it does. And the Church that gave the Bible to the world hardly teaches anything that contradicts Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture is the witness of the Church not the other way around.

Anytime your tradition tells you that it’s a good idea to build statues of dead people and pray to them, that’s contradicting scripture.

We don’t do that. We create many forms of art, including statues. We do not pray to any of them. We pray (ask for help and intercession, not worship) the saints who are alive with Christ in glory.

The Bible was written as the Holy Spirit moved on the hearts of God’s men and women to record His word.

What women “record[ed]” His word? None that I know of. And the writings of the Bible, both OT and NT were written for specific reasons, not merely “as the Holy Spirit moved on [their] hearts.”

Lazerlike42 wrote:

Prove to me that it is authoritative without mentioning the Catholic Church.

(And you can’t say that the Bible says so, because A) it doesn’t, and B) if you do, then the Bible has the same proof of inspiration as my next post does.)

You’re absolutely right. I can’t say that the Bible says so. Of course, I can’t say that the Bible says that the B-2 bomber uses technology to jam enemy radar, either.

Lazerlike42’s meaning being that the Bible is the product of the Catholic Church, which was the only Church at the time.

 

[Lazerlike42]

12volt_man:

I’ve already been told by two people here, as well as several people on another message board, that there is no salvation outside of the rituals of the Roman Catholic church.

You are either misunderstanding or purposefully misquoting. IF you are misquoting, let me admonish you, reminding you that “he who hates admonishment hates his own soul” (Prov. 15:32). You should know that we must never lie to prove the truth of God. For one, God condemns lying. On top of that, if lying is necessary to prove something, then that something is not true.

12volt_man, you must forget for just a moment that you are baptist and I am Catholic. Think only about God. Whatever is true of God, He wants you to accept it. Whenever a person wishes to teach other than you believe, you must at least truly, and openly consider what that person has to say, if only for 5 minutes. Isn’t God worth 5 minutes? Imagine appearing on judgement day only to be told you are condemned because you could not give your Lord 5 minutes. Isn’t He worth it? Isn’t He, who hung on a cross for our sins, worht 5 minutes?

If He is, then you owe it to Him to truly understand what others have to say, and to truly listen and understand what they say and not misrepresent them. If you are to be judged for your faith, at least let that faith be one that is based on truth and understanding, and not lies and deceptions.

As far as the main point - The Church does NOT teach that nobody is saved outside the rituals of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that nobody is saved outside of belonging to the Catholic Church, and that belonging does not necessarily mean official belonging. The Church teaches that if a person truly does not know that the Church is the true Church (and this is very important) through no fault of their own, then their faith in Christ can make them an implicit member of the Church.

 

[imroc]

Mickey:

If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?

Because the Bible wasn’t developed the day after Christ died and it was not developed to defend aspects of the faith. It wasn’t developed to give explicit guidlines and instructions as to how people were to teach certain topics as “alterless alter calls” and “age of reason”. You don’t quite understand what the Bible is and the how’s and when’s of it’s being…

Not all of Christs words and directions are recorded in the Bible, but you act as if it were because you don’t have 2000 years of tradition, teaching and doctrine that instilled the true faith. You have a couple hundred years of false teaching, half truths and one single authority, the Bible…the same “authority” in which itself claims that the Church has the authority.

 

[Lazerlike42]

imroc:

Because the Bible wasn’t developed the day after Christ died and it was not developed to defend aspects of the faith. It wasn’t developed to give explicit guidlines and instructions as to how people were to teach certain topics as “alterless alter calls” and “age of reason”. You don’t quite understand what the Bible is and the how’s and when’s of it’s being…

Not all of Christs words and directions are recorded in the Bible, but you act as if it were because you don’t have 2000 years of tradition, teaching and doctrine that instilled the true faith. You have a couple hundred years of false teaching, half truths and one single authority, the Bible…the same “authority” in which itself claims that the Church has the authority.

lol Mickey is Catholic. You misunderstood him.

 

[imroc]

I quoted you, Mick, but not aimed at you

 

[Mickey]

imroc:

I quoted you, Mick, but not aimed at you

No problemo.

 

[imroc]

I guess that I’ll just never understand how any protestant faith could claim the God had changed his mind and no longer accepts the induction of infants and chilren into his covenant until they become a certain age. It just blows my mind that they think that after Christ came, all of the works that lead up to the new covenant were just erased and God somehow developed a different mindset when He became man. Amazing…simply amazing…

 

[Lazerlike42]

imroc:

I guess that I’ll just never understand how any protestant faith could claim the God had changed his mind and no longer accepts the induction of infants and chilren into his covenant until they become a certain age. It just blows my mind that they think that after Christ came, all of the works that lead up to the new covenant were just erased and God somehow developed a different mindset when He became man. Amazing…simply amazing…

8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

So why did God require sacrifices yesterday, but not today? Why did God introduce children to His covenant yesterday, but not today? Why did God look kindly upon His people performing penance with ashes yesterday, but not today? Why did He have priests yesterday, but not today? Why did He have people confess to priests yesterday, but not today? Why did He convey grace through relics yesterday, but not today?

Before you answer, remember that Christ was always high priest.

 

[Mickey]

imroc:

I guess that I’ll just never understand how any protestant faith could claim the God had changed his mind and no longer accepts the induction of infants and children into his covenant until they become a certain age.

Ditto imroc!
This one blows my mind more than any other. Thankfully, “believer’s baptism” is not the norm for most protestants. I can’t understand why the anabaptists, baptists, brethren, menonites, and a few others would invent such a practice that excludes our little babies. It makes me weep. :crying:

 

[12volt_man]

Eden:

Since you believe the Early Church Fathers were true to Christianity, how would you respond if you read works by these ECFs illustrating that infant baptism was a part of the earliest days of Christianity?

I said that they were Christians, not that their opinions supercede God’s word or that someone did something a long time ago shows that God’s word isn’t true.

 

[imroc]

Lazerlike42:

So why did God require sacrifices yesterday, but not today? Why did God introduce children to His covenant yesterday, but not today? Why did God look kindly upon His people performing penance with ashes yesterday, but not today? Why did He have priests yesterday, but not today? Why did He have people confess to priests yesterday, but not today? Why did He convey grace through relics yesterday, but not today?

Before you answer, remember that Christ was always high priest.

Beautifully written, Lazer. Without the true teaching of the true Church, he cannot ansewr these questions.

And while you’re at it, how can this prophesy be fulfilled by ANY protestant 'church":

*My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty. *

 

[12volt_man]

Mickey:

If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?

Probably because the only “preparation” required is to be able to say “I do”.

 

[imroc]

12volt_man:

I said that they were Christians, not that their opinions supercede God’s word or that someone did something a long time ago shows that God’s word isn’t true.

You still skip out on telling us WHERE in the Bible it says that infants and children cannot be baptised!