How are we saved?

[Randy_Carson]

I will simply say we are all born into the same Spirit,
Are you implying that Paul was indoctrinated into Apostleship / Apostolic Succession by Ananias.

No.

I have no reason to believe that Ananias was an Apostle or Bishop; therefore, there is not reason to believe that Ananias did anything more than to heal Paul’s blindness and (possibly) baptize him.

Paul, like the twelve, was made an Apostle by Jesus Himself and not through Apostolic Succession.

Jesus could have chosen to continue this process, of course, but for whatever reason, he has not chosen to do so.

Curiously, this is NOT in scripture. The idea that there are to be no more Apostles in a non-biblical tradition that is universally accepted among Christians as binding. Consequently, we can see that the Bible Alone is insufficient since this essential doctrine is itself not found in the Bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, something that was not addressed, and I believe is the main problem with Catholic theology, is the fact we are spirit, soul, and body. ( 1 Thess. 5:23). The New Birth is the rebirth of the human spirit. The real man is spirit. The spirit operates through the soul ( man’s intellect, emotions, and will). And the soul in turn operates through the physical body.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you think Catholics would be ignorant of such things.

Here is a link to a free, online and searchable copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Do your own research as to what the Church teaches about the spirit, soul and body of man.

So, where are you getting your ideas concerning the tri-partite nature of man? Watchman Nee? Jesse Penn-Lewis? T. Austin Sparks? Who’s the “hot” author in your “church” these days?

 

[Randy_Carson]

INFANT BAPTISM?
​

This is the first possible reference to infant baptism. I doubt Irenaeus intends this to be such a reference. It was spoken in the ECF’s that Jesus sanctified a thing by participating in it, e.g. he sanctified water when he was baptized in the Jordan. So here, Irenaeus says all stages of human development are sanctified because Jesus participated in them and also to become a perfect teacher “in respect to relative age.” So a person of any stage of development, when old enough to obey from the heart, will be able to be born again. This is the likely meaning since Irenaeus makes no reference to infant baptism in any of his writing.

Add to this the fact that the **earliest explicit reference **to infant baptism is in 200 AD from Tertullian who opposes the practice. Since Tertullian was a traditionalist, he would not have opposed a practice that was generally accepted and known to be from the apostles, so **this is proof that infant baptism was an innovation **and not a biblical practice.

Daniel-

Your arguments do not prove what you hope desperately that they will prove.

First, I have shown you previously that the Didache speaks of infant baptism as early as the first century. You claim that the passages referring to baptism are later additions. How convenient for you. Please cite any scholarly sources to this later dating if you can. I wish to review them.

Second, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. If he had wanted to deny the practice of infant baptism, he could have done so. However, the simple fact of the matter is that infant baptism had been practiced since Apostolic times and was known to all. There was no need to expound upon common practice.

Third, Tertullian died a Montanist heretic, so I’d be careful marching under his banner if I were you. However, what we can infer from Tertullian’s opposition to infant baptism (if he really did oppose it), is that the practice must have existed during his time or he would have had nothing to oppose.

Finally, the practice of infant baptism is clearly implied in scripture. It is there just as the doctrine of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the papacy and other theological ideas are found.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

INFANT BAPTISM?​

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus is the first possible reference to infant baptism. I doubt Irenaeus intends this to be such a reference. It was spoken in the ECF’s that Jesus sanctified a thing by participating in it, e.g. he sanctified water when he was baptized in the Jordan. So here, Irenaeus says all stages of human development are sanctified because Jesus participated in them and also to become a perfect teacher “in respect to relative age.” So a person of any stage of development, when old enough to obey from the heart, will be able to be born again. This is the likely meaning since Irenaeus makes no reference to infant baptism in any of his writing.

Add to this the fact that the **earliest explicit reference **to infant baptism is in 200 AD from Tertullian who opposes the practice. Since Tertullian was a traditionalist, he would not have opposed a practice that was generally accepted and known to be from the apostles, so **this is proof that infant baptism was an innovation **and not a biblical practice.

Even the Catholic Catechism says infant baptism is not mentioned in the NT.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

The Catechism clearly exaggerates to say that there is explicit testimony from the second century since Irenaeus who is the first possible reference in the second century is NOT EXPLICIT.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Actually, it’s the Bible that says this, not me, and you have never responded to my frequent postings of the verses which state precisely this.

I’m still waiting.

Hi Randy, You claim per the Bible that water baptism washes away sins. I say NO! and I’ll say NO! again. John in Mat.3:11 explains what his water baptism does. Also Mat 3:8 It’s a sign of our repentance. It appears to me that everytime you read the word “baptism” or “water” it means water baptism to you. If water baptism atones for sins, then Jesus shed His BLOOD in vain. Also Heb 9:22 very clearly states, "without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO remission of sins. That’s very clear to me. Rev. 1:5 Jesus freed us from our sins by His BLOOD. Not by water baptism. I also suggest you read post 736 by tukfryer and post 745 by Daniel Keenan. They explain the water baptism issue as well. ED

 

[paul_c]

Hi Randy, You claim per the Bible that water baptism washes away sins. I say NO! and I’ll say NO! again. John in Mat.3:11 explains what his water baptism does. Also Mat 3:8 It’s a sign of our repentance. It appears to me that everytime you read the word “baptism” or “water” it means water baptism to you. If water baptism atones for sins, then Jesus shed His BLOOD in vain. Also Heb 9:22 very clearly states, "without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO remission of sins. That’s very clear to me. Rev. 1:5 Jesus freed us from our sins by His BLOOD. Not by water baptism. I also suggest you read post 736 by tukfryer and post 745 by Daniel Keenan. They explain the water baptism issue as well. ED

What about St Peter’s statement in Acts 2: 38:
Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the** forgiveness of your sins**; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Add to this the fact that the **earliest explicit reference **to infant baptism is in 200 AD from Tertullian who opposes the practice. Since Tertullian was a traditionalist, he would not have opposed a practice that was generally accepted and known to be from the apostles, so **this is proof that infant baptism was an innovation **and not a biblical practice.

Your proof is weak and inconclusive. Here is what Tertullian wrote:
"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].
“Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? …For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation – in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom – until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!” (Tertullian, Treatise on Baptism,** 18,4** (c. AD 200-206))
Tertullian expresses a preference for adult baptism, but he does not condemn infant baptism. Saying “A is better than B” is not the same as saying “B is unacceptable”.

Additionally, writing just a few years after your early dating of Tertullian’s opposition, we find this:

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

If opposition to infant baptism was as widespread as you claim, how did Hippolytus make such a statement?

Just a few years later Origen, a truly prolific author, wrote:

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Finally, just 50 years after Tertullian supposedly speaks the death-knell of infant baptism, we find the following:

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (*Letters *64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Note that the argument is not about whether infants should be baptized…they obviously were. The issue causing some disagreement was over how quickly they should receive the saving sacrament. Fidus proposed waiting until the eighth day in accord with the law of circumcision. Everyone else disagreed and thought that even new-borns should be allowed to receive the washing of rebirth.

You have proven nothing.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Randy, You claim per the Bible that water baptism washes away sins. I say NO! and I’ll say NO! again. John in Mat.3:11 explains what his water baptism does. Also Mat 3:8 It’s a sign of our repentance. It appears to me that everytime you read the word “baptism” or “water” it means water baptism to you. If water baptism atones for sins, then Jesus shed His BLOOD in vain. Also Heb 9:22 very clearly states, "without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO remission of sins. That’s very clear to me. Rev. 1:5 Jesus freed us from our sins by His BLOOD. Not by water baptism. I also suggest you read post 736 by tukfryer and post 745 by Daniel Keenan. They explain the water baptism issue as well. ED

Christ’s blood is the paint, Ed.

Water baptism is the brush.

The paint is what brings life to the old house, but it doesn’t get on the house unless you have a brush.

No one here has ever claimed that the brush brings life by itself.

It’s all about APPLICATION, Ed. I’ve been laboring for several posts to explain that to you.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Golfjack,
Stop trying to tell us what Catholic’s believe and let us tell YOU what we believe. Frankly, that’s why we are here. To give you Catholic Answers. Take advantage of that to learn what the Catholic Church really stands for. What you have been lead to believe about Catholicism is highly inaccurate.

Ask us questions and let us tell you the ture position of the church and then we can debate the varacity of the position if you like. It does us no good to debate against positions we do not hold.

PaulC, This is Ed, I’ve asked, and asked, and asked for any Catholic on this thread to show me precisely how to get saved. No one has responded to my plea thus far. Can you do it for me by showing me precisely the steps by steps required to be certain that, If I stay in the state of grace, I’ll be certain of going to heaven?

 

[SteveGC]

PaulC, This is Ed, I’ve asked, and asked, and asked for any Catholic on this thread to show me precisely how to get saved. No one has responded to my plea thus far. Can you do it for me by showing me precisely the steps by steps required to be certain that, If I stay in the state of grace, I’ll be certain of going to heaven?

I’m pretty sure he did that on post 670. Did you need more?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Your proof is weak and inconclusive. Here is what Tertullian wrote:
"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].
“Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? …For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation – in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom – until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!” (Tertullian, Treatise on Baptism,** 18,4** (c. AD 200-206))
Tertullian expresses a preference for adult baptism, but he does not condemn infant baptism. Saying “A is better than B” is not the same as saying “B is unacceptable”.

Additionally, writing just a few years after your early dating of Tertullian’s opposition, we find this:

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

If opposition to infant baptism was as widespread as you claim, how did Hippolytus make such a statement?

The practice of infant baptism developed gradually at the urging of parents (as JPII says), then Tertullian who is familiar with the practice discourages it, then the first baptismal liturgy including baptism of young children is written by Hippolytus.** If infant baptism began in full swing with household baptisms during the apostles time and on their authority, why on earth would a traditionalist like Tertullian oppose or discourage the practice???**

 

[thechristian]

Suppose I get my faith and before I get my chance to get water baptise a rocks falls on me and kills me…would that be considered an unforgivable sin, something I can go hell for?

Peace and blessings

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Suppose I get my faith and before I get my chance to get water baptise a rocks falls on me and kills me…would that be considered an unforgivable sin, something I can go hell for?

Peace and blessings

I believe that scenario has been discussed. If you truly believe and have a desire to be baptized, but die before having a chance, it is the same as being baptized. Similar to the thief upon the cross who confessed his belief in Christ.

 

[thechristian]

So I guess water baptisum is not required for salvation as long as you have the desire to do some time after you have recieved faith and believed.

Peace and blessing

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So I guess water baptisum is not required for salvation as long as you have the desire to do some time after you have recieved faith and believed.

Peace and blessing

As long as circumstances are beyond your control…

 

[EdOsiecki]

Christ’s blood is the paint, Ed.

Water baptism is the brush.

The paint is what brings life to the old house, but it doesn’t get on the house unless you have a brush.

No one here has ever claimed that the brush brings life by itself.

It’s all about APPLICATION, Ed. I’ve been laboring for several posts to explain that to you.

SteveGC What you are saying that in order for me to be painted with the BLOOD of Christ, I must be sprinkled or submerged in water to receive the paint of Christ’s BLOOD. What I’ve been trying to tell you is NO! The thief on the cross received Jesus’ paint (BLOOD), as you call it, simply by believing (no water APPLICATION) Also Cornelius and his group received the paint (BLOOD) simply by believing.(no water APPLICATION) When we are baptized into Christ’s body, it’s the symbolic baptism as the result of believing the gospel (not water baptism) We don’t need the water baptism to be saved but we DO need the BLOOD. Water baptism is necessary only to show repentance. Let me illustrate what you are saying “Water baptism is the brush” = How can repentance (baptism) get the paint onto the house? Your theology supports infant baptism that’s why you try to combine the BLOOD whit water. What amazes me, I’ve been a Roman Catholic for years, attended Catholic grade school, was an altar boy etc. etc. We knew that Jesus died for our sins.(whatever that meant) and water baptism was necessary because if we died without it, hell would be our destination. We were never taught anything about the BLOOD. I never heard about the BLOOD until I got saved, which is the most important part. I hope you understand what I’m trying to convey to you.

 

[ralphy]

What about St Peter’s statement in Acts 2: 38:
Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the** forgiveness of your sins**; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Paul, may I suggest you read this statement by Peter again. He say’s “repent” and be baptised. Notice “repent” comes first, this is very significant as baptism (water) can not take away sin, only the blood of Christ. Ralph

 

[Randy_Carson]

Has anyone else noticed that Ed has stopped responding to my questions and posts?

I have asked several times for explanations of the verses which clearly state that water baptism washes away sin…

 

[Randy_Carson]

The practice of infant baptism developed gradually at the urging of parents (as JPII says), then Tertullian who is familiar with the practice discourages it, then the first baptismal liturgy including baptism of young children is written by Hippolytus.** If infant baptism began in full swing with household baptisms during the apostles time and on their authority, why on earth would a traditionalist like Tertullian oppose or discourage the practice???**

First, Tertullian died separated from the Church, a Montanist heretic. Stop trying to make him the poster boy for Catholic Orthodoxy. He obviously opposed or discouraged much that was considered orthodox practice in the early Church. That’s what made him a heretic.

Second, it has already been pointed out that you have twisted Tertullian just as you attempted to twist Eusebius on Novation previously. Tertullian said, “A is better than B”. He never said, “B is invalid”.

Third, Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus. I never knew that before. Thus, the incredibly powerful quote from Hippolytus supporting infant baptism that I gave you above came from a disciple of Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John, the disciple of Christ.

Jesus > John > Polycarp > Irenaeus > Hippolytus

No wonder you were hedging earlier about the “possible” reference to infant baptism in the quote from Irenaeus. Hippolytus confirms the doctrine that he had learned from Irenaeus who had learned it from Polycarp, etc, etc.

One final point, Daniel, and then I’m about done wasting more time on your endless denials: Jesus left behind an authoritatitive Church; one with the power to bind and loose. Either the Church is merely mirroring what is already loosed or bound in heaven (in which case the Church cannot err) or the Church is binding and loosing what is subsequently bound and loosed in heaven (in which case the Holy Spirit must act to prevent the Church from ever binding or loosing something that cannot be ratified in heaven). Either way, the Church has real, infallible authority under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

So, regardless of when baptism of infants was authorized (by the apostles or by the Church at some later date), the decision either reflects the will of Heaven or has been ratified in heaven.

Doesn’t really help you much either way, does it?

 

[thechristian]

So in the case of procrastination would not being baptise at the time of death be considered a mortal sin.

peace and blessings