How far can one wander from the original Church and still claim to be Christian?

[John_oxios]

. .

The overriding and overwhelming message throughout all these references is that baptism is for believers in Jesus Christ. That salvation is simple (not easy, but simple) Romans 10:9 & 10. If though will confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Plain and simple, there is no baptism in that passage.

As for Acts 2:39… well again, you have to go back and you will see in verse 38 Peter says “repent and be baptized” A young child or infant can’t repent! Only someone who knows they are a sinner can repent. Only a person who knows they are a sinner can understand their need for a savior. As for verse 39, I agree, this same promise is made to us and our children and grandchildren.

As for Acts 16 and 1 Cor, I would say this: When my daughter got baptized, she was telling the world that she believes in Jesus Christ as her savior. If she were to die before me, I can tell you that by her baptism she is in heaven. In heaven, not because she was baptized, but because she believed. So many of these passages on baptism is spoken amongst the believers and yes by their baptism we can know they are in heaven.

As for the Hitler comment I was only rebutting the statement that baptism saves. If it’s the catholic church position that you can lose your salvation, then I would tell you that is wrong. A born again Christian can not lose his or her salvation. Once you accept your separation from God because of your sin, once you accept Jesus’ death on the cross for your redemption, and understand that on your own you are hopeless, you can not lose your salvation. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that what Jesus did was insufficient, that somehow he needs your help, that you need to add works, but our works can not save us. Jesus paid it all.

Hi StillCheck,
Salvation is simple? Not easy, but simple? Tell that to the Martyrs!
How about:

Act 5:1 But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property,

Act 5:2 and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Act 5:3 But Peter said, "Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?

Act 5:4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

Act 5:5 When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.

Act 5:10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

Commentary on Acts 5: 1,2

iii. According to Calvin, these are the “evils packed under” the sin of Ananias, beyond the mere attempt to deceive God and the church: The contempt of God, sacrilegious defrauding, perverse vanity and ambition, lack of faith, the corrupting of a good and holy order, and hypocrisy
www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=2&contentID=7958&commInfo=31&topic=Acts&ar=Act_5_1

Any act of deceit interrupts the victorious progress of the people of God!

there are sins unto death:
1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified

 

[John_oxios]

I’ve read this entire discussion and don’t understand a couple things. Is it true church teaching that in order to go to heaven I need to have been baptized in the Catholic Church before I die?

Catholics, while not denying the importance of the “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ (you cannot get much more personal than receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist) and clearly emphasizing a holy life after Baptism, understand the Gospel text on “born again” as a reference to the Sacrament of Baptism. Catholics note our Lord’s words that one must be “born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT” as clearly equated by Jesus himself with the phrase “born again” (compare verses John 3:3,5,7). The surrounding context of the first four chapters of John’s Gospel also show that by “water and the Spirit” that water BAPTISM is what our Lord meant (cf. John 1:29ff; 3:22ff; 4:1ff), which Sacrament was instituted by Christ himself at the Great Commission where he commanded Baptism in the name of the Blessed Trinity (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). This is shortly followed by St. Peter the Apostle’s command to be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Catholics accept the plain and literal meaning of the biblical texts.

The Catholic understanding of Baptism is also the unanimous teaching of the earliest Christians who immediately followed the apostles. Every Christian, all the Church Fathers, bishops, and saints who lived after the apostles (and some while the apostles were still alive) interpreted our Lord’s words in John chapter 3 that to be “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” refers to the Sacrament of Baptism. There are no exceptions. And Protestant scholars frankly admit this fact (note the relevent sections on Baptism in Reformed/Presbyterian scholar Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, and Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition).

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70)

Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of Baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer 22:13; Isa 16:1-2; 33:16-18; Psalm 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, “Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.” Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (11:1-10)

plenty of other examples here:
philvaz.com/apologetics/num2.htm

If you can get faith from the scriptures why do the Apostles pray to Christ, why didn’t the just hunker down into the scriptures?
Luk 17:5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”

And why is it not everyone who reads or hears scriptures become believers?

When we actually listen to God’s Word and ready to receive it, the Holy Spirit leads/moves to want to know more and us to teachers of the faith… It took the apostles their lifetimes and three yr. instruction** with Christ.** Faith comes by hearing, but belief but belief has to reach to our hearts, it is the in the heart true change occurs.** Faith** is a complete trust, trust takes time.

Belief: is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

God bless,
john

 

[SteveGC]

I think he means “simple”, as in not complex…as in not containing multiple facets. And certainly not containing phases such as “have been saved”, “am being saved”, “will be saved”, as the Church teaches. Not sure, but my guess is he would not dispute your argument that the martyrs found it excruciatingly challenging or overwhelming to stand firm in their faith.

 

[John_oxios]

Again, my point is that baptism does not save us: I defended accurately the verses thrown out there. N
.

Hello Stillcheck,
some vss and commentary on

II. Infant Baptism

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”

Luke 18:15 ñ Jesus says, ìLet the children come to me.î The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptizedî (ìMetanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.î) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parentsí faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. ìThose far offî refers to those who were at their ìhomesî (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses ìteknonî for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows ìoikosî generally includes children.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

from
scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

 

[John_oxios]

John oxios;7914568]

Hello Stillcheck,
More vss and commentary on

II. Infant Baptism

  [scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html](http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html)

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - **the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. **This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. ** This is another example of healing based on another’s f**aith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone elseís faith, then He can baptize us based on someone elseís faith as well.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Exodus 12:24-28 -** the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.**

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.

 

[John_oxios]

Again, my point is that baptism does not save us: I defended accurately the verses thrown out there.
The reason you ought to want Bibles in those pews rather than missals is so not let them skip verses that aren’t convenient. If you back up a verse we pick up with the apostles in verse 32 ** And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.** .

First of all Catholics don’t use one verse proof-texts, like our protestant brethren, i.e.“Call no man Father” They blurt it out and then don’t stick around for the Contextual explanation or response.

over the course of three years Catholics hear the entire Bible, In three cycles A, B, and C.
and then start the cycle again.

And the Liturgy of the Mass is based on Scripture, as the Canon of the Catholic Bible is based on the Liturgy the Church used at the time of the Canon of the Bible. I hear all kinds of Protestant state we don’t use the Scripture during the Mass… even those claiming to be ex-Catholics… The whole Mass is Scripture, and Biblical. Read Revelations it is the Mass! Or better yet visit a Mass (sit in the Back, don’t do any Catholic Calisthenics…just observe) and see Revelations unfold, look around you’ll see the altar, all the angels and saints, the last supper, you’ll hear the Our Father, Old testament reading, New testament writing and the The Gospel with a homily which usually explains how and why the Early Church put these particular readings together and how it applies to today! I’ve been around and there isn’t any religion with more scripture than the Catholic Mass (sixty minutes worth, from the opening blessing to the closing blessing).

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Again, my point is that baptism does not save us: I defended accurately the verses thrown out there. .

Okay, maybe this will change your opinion:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical lectures 347 a.d.
“For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the bodily part: water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body being washed with pure water [Heb 10:22] When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both you cannot possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter; for He says, Unless a man be born anew (and he adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God [Jhn 3:3] Neither does he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit. Receive grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven.” [Cat lii-5]

youtube.com/watch?v=ghjhex1CXfQ

 

[Stillchecking]

If someone could tell me how to cut and paste prior posts to a new post I would appreciate it.

Elvisman, it appears my post #150 was most challenging, as evidenced by you resorting to plan B. Having rebutted with scripture the points you made, you now change course and justify the practice of baby baptism with old testement circumcision. Where in scripture is this connection made? If it’s there, then I’ll stand corrected. Then you move on to plan C and start quoting extra biblical writings. I won’t accept (and debate you with) that stuff, you know that.

**Elvisman says:

First of all - you have fallen into the Calvinist trap that claims we can never fall away from God. As I have shown, the Bible says differently.
You say that we are NOT saved by Baptism. I have shown, the Bible says differently.

Finally, you say that all we have to do is believe and call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. MUCH more than “calling on the Lord” or “believing” is required of us in order to attain salvation. In context, the Bible illustrates the requirements:**

1. I don’t know much about calvinism, in fact near nothing. I defintely believe that (even a born again christian) can fall away from God, of course, but a born again christian is sealed unto salvation. I will address in another post your claim that I can lose my salvation. I’ve only read through them once and must agree the verses you quote are quite challenging, eye opening even, but the word of God does not fail.

You say I’ve fallen into a trap. For almost 30 years now I’ve tried, tried to let the bible be my guide. I’ll admit that I don’t know everything and have likely heard some teaching that wasn’t accurate. But we at least try and discern the truth with scripture. Perhaps it is you who has fallen into a trap? I could sit here and list the contradictions of catholic teaching with scripture that would shock 99% of catholics…but i am a guest here.

1. Yes I do believe the bible says what it means, including Romans 10: 9 &10. I do not deny that as Christians we have great responsibilities as dictated in the verses you site. You Elvisman do not understand your seperation from God, the gulf that exists between man and God is too vast to bridge by our works. You first have to understand how hopeless you are on your own, it is then that you realize your need for a Savior. Only Jesus can save you. He is not just an insurance policy in case you were not good enough. You will never be good enough. He is your lifeline unto salvation.

 

[Stillchecking]

Hi John,

Thanks for your posts. I hope you understand that I can’t sit here and comment on all the verses of scripture you site. I do have a life haha, and if I skipped one verse I suppose from someone I would get an ah ha!

Ground rule for me, I will only debate using the bible.

In John 3:5 Jesus says you must be born of water and the spirit, Jesus does not say you must be baptized in that verse. You can throw all the other verses on baptism at me, they all are accompanied by or the overwhleming message is that belief in Jesus is required for salvation and that baptism follows belief. Jesus was talking to a full grown man, a leader. To be born of the spirit, one’s heart must first be seeking after Jesus, we seek him out in the scriptures, by listening to preachers preach the scriptures. The water here is the word of God. Jesus didn’t tell Nicodemus to get dunked in the river, come back and I’ll give you the spirit. Jesus is talking about a change of heart and the only place we can find that truth that changes the heart is in the bible.

Not you neccessarily John, but it amazes me how frothed the catholic gatekeepers get with someone who claims they are born again outside of the catholic church. Like’s it’s an impossibility or they’ve been deceived and they are going to hell. Try as they might, they can not take that joy away from me, the assurance I have, they can not unseal what Jesus has sealed.

I was born again at age 23, December 5th 1983 at 9:20 in the morning. I was by myself. I had some biblical understanding. Most all born again christians will tell you it happened to them the same way, that it was a specific time and place. There are millions like me, and no one is going to convince me (or take it away) that it was not real or that it was the work of the devil. I know I am going to heaven and it has nothing to do with baptism, or confirmation, or confession (to a priest) or even the eucharist and all the other man made laws.

It’s been insinuated that I am a Protestant, but that is not the case because that would mean my faith came out of Catholicism. I’ve read on this thread that the catholic church was the only church until the reformation. But that is not true. There was a christian church, made up of all the small churches that maintaned the bible alone would be their guide book. They had no earthly or political might, they had no army, they hid from the self appointed rulers, yet they survived from the time of Christ through the generations to this day, preserving the word of God.

If you want to know Jesus, if you want to be born again, it would help if you give up all that man made stuff and ask Jesus to come into your heart.

God Bless.

 

[John_oxios]

Stillchecking;7919687]Hi John,

Thanks for your posts. I hope you understand that I can’t sit here and comment on all the verses of scripture you site. I do have a life haha, and if I skipped one verse I suppose from someone I would get an ah ha!

Ground rule for me, I will only debate using the bible.

In John 3:5 Jesus says you must be born of water and the spirit, Jesus does not say you must be baptized in that verse. You can throw all the other verses on baptism at me, they all are accompanied by or the overwhleming message is that belief in Jesus is required for salvation and that baptism follows belief.

Hi,
There is a lot to address in the above . It seems however you only address the scriptures which you believe can help your opinion… ANNnddd then you mix up (confuse ) the issue with Baptism doesn’t save.
If you believe Baptism doesn’t save, why argue against infant Baptism??
If you have never been to a Infant Baptism, to see exactly what the liturgy is about purification of original sin, and the responsibility of raising the Child in the Faith of Christ, the Church and teaching him/her these in everyday life within the family and community. the Parties involved swear a commitment to do so.

When raising your children did you bring them up in your chosen faith? Are you still practicing the same faith as your parents?

Don’t we learn by example? We learn as we grow, Being brought up with good behavior and good example we would know the difference as being brought by poor example and bad behavior we wouldn’t know the difference. It’s just what we do.

Ground rule??? did you come to the opinion That Baptism doesn’t save because someone told you that? How about Biblical context? Or are you saying you refuse to take the time out to read where how and why where our practice and belief in infant Baptism comes from?
It’s a one sided discussion then, you refuse to try to understand our belief because of a conclusion you made while self interpreting the bible. (What was made known to you) Did Revelation of the Holy Spirit spell it out for you, personally?

My Bible states not once , not twice, but three times:
Mat 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
Mat 19:15 And** he laid his hands on them and went away.**

Mar 10:13 And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.

Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Jesus also says what Father woud refuse his child

luke 11:11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent;…
Luke 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Biblically It is spelt out: “Baptism now saves you” it is not just a ritual, it’s not just a cleansing of the flesh, it is a sign in the Physical world of what’s actually happening the work of the Spirit that has transpiring within my heart. Our hearts are not changed in a day, old habits die hard, but given a clean conscious is a new beginning in Christ.
But then you choose vss where you really can or cannot biblically prove infant baptism.

On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. **For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism—either in infancy or later. **

You say the early Church met in homes. no doubt, but it was one Church,there were factions trying to keep Jewish, or make Christ a spirit person, or others calming to be of Christ… however there was only One Church of many communities, under one teaching. And when things got questioned or confused all the leaders met in Council to decide what the Christ and the Apostles taught. Infant Baptism wasn’t questioned til about the 4th century

Jer 4:14 O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, that you may be saved. How long shall your evil thoughts lodge within you?

Hbr 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Are you trying to say that first God changes our hearts, [we are saved] and then?
Faith comes by hearing… when the student is ready the master ‘appears’ However He’s been there all the time waiting for us to turn to HIm… ask Moses

Exd 3:3 And Moses said, "I will turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt."

Exd 3:4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, "Here am I.

Household in the Greek means all persons forming a family, even their descendants I guess infants are not considered person in your book? Christ stated do not prevent the children from coming to him.

More to follow

 

[John_oxios]

Hi,
There is a lot to address in the above . It seems however you only address the scriptures which you

Household in the Greek means all persons forming a family, even their descendants I guess infants are not considered person in your book? Christ stated do not prevent the children from coming to him.

And unless you read write and speak ancient Greek and Hebrew, you are not using Scripture only, you using some else’s translation, qualified as they may be, you would need their commentary or notes on how they came to this particular translation. Unless you’re claiming divine guidance from the Holy Spirit, But do you believe God would exclude Children in the New Testament, when he did not exclude them in the Hebrew Scriptures? Remember Salvation comes through the Jews…

Acts 16:31

Household: Strongs number #3624/.B] Greek ‘Oikos’

1. the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household
   a) the family of God, of the Christian Church, of the church of the Old and New Testaments
2. stock, family, descendants of one

You can’t prove biblical correct in you admonition of infant baptism, nor can you prove us wrong. However we have today a practice of infant baptism dating back to the early Church.

Keep this in mind the earliest written account of the Church being called ‘Catholic’ is in 2nd century a.d.
also keep in mind even less than a hundred yrs ago families had many children because the chance of their survival was low, my grandmother had 13 children 7 made to adulthood. Were parents concerned about their children’s future in eternity you bet they were!
Even the dishonest steward was commended for his action of taking a present bad situation and preparing for his future (Luke 16:8)

Irenaeus
“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]).

 

[Stillchecking]

If baptism saves, why did Paul write:

1 Cor 1:17 "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel…

1 Cor 1:14 "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius

First we repent and have faith, then the obedient thing to do is to be baptized

Mat 3:2 “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Mat 3:6 “baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”

Acts 8:36,37 “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Acts 16:30 “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house… And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”

Acts 8:18 “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, **believed on the Lord **with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.”

Acts 2:41 “… **they that gladly received his word **were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”

Acts 8:12 “**But when they believed Philip **preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”

Acts 8:13 “Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip…”

Also, the thief on the cross did not receive baptism, but went to heaven.

The catholic church teaches we are saved by baptism but Eph 1:13 says: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were **sealed **with that holy Spirit of promise,"

 

[John_oxios]

Stillchecking;7926163]If … why did Paul write:

1 Cor 1:17 "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel…

 14 "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius

Hello Stillcheck,
Why do you say you’ll discuss ‘bible only’ and then limit yourself to a verse or two here or there only?

{text without context is a pretext}… your vss above lack any credance to Baptism doesn’t save! It’s not about the saving Grace!

I don’t even have to look this up… What is going on in this entire chapter?? People are arguing who baptized them ex. “I was baptized by Apollo,” or who they belong too.

It’s about how the quarelling is dividing Christ’s Church, (Sound Familiar) Paul is saying it doesn’t matter who baptized you, we are all baptized in Christ… and Paul is saying he gives thanks for not being part of this division. it is not against baptism!! In fact they are bragging about whom baptize them and whose footsteps they are following trying to gain some kind of prominence over one another.

See not even scripture works for you.

Stillcheck
First we repent and have faith, then the obedient thing to do is to be baptized

yes the Biblical context is about adult converts,
And again an example of the early Church, how Jews and Pagans become new converts and members to Christianity. It’s not about Families and Children already born into Christian homes. In Fact Paul is writing to the Community from 50 a.d. to what 60 a.d. approx.

Acts 8:36,37 "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

What hinders us from baptizing our Children? The Bible or Protestants opinion after a 1700 Church Tradtion and Practice. Luther Baptized infants!

Acts 16:30 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house… And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway."

And their are perfect example of the Children being saved by the faith of their parents Even a Roman Centurion astounded Jesus by his Faith and Jesus immediately healed/ saved his servant. That’s Biblical, how much more does Jesus do for His followers in their Homes, in their Church, in their workplace?

CCC# 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 baptize

Stillcheck,"Also, the thief on the cross did not receive baptism, but went to heaven.

The Catholic Church teaches we are saved by baptism but Eph 1:13 says: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were **sealed **with that holy Spirit of promise,"

And how are they sealed? By Baptism, the Church and Early Church in Baptism, makes (And still does) the sign of the Cross three times over the Candidate we where the seal/mark of Christ in the sign of a cross on our foreheads.
(# 3, 0or 3x means a totality)
The Bible says we now saved by Baptism`" it’s explicitly in there:

1Pe 3:20 "…when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The Roman Catholic Church does believe in other forms of Baptism… Baptism removes the sinful state which we are born into the world (original sin). Baptism is the infusion of grace through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, Who doesn’t need God’s Grace?

Infants are to be denied this?? For infants, baptism is the sole means of salvation,

Did you know the word Trinity comes from the The Baptismal formula? And **Trinity **is not in the Bible yet you may use the term.

There is a Baptism of desire… example the thief on the right side of the Cross.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

The Church admits to a baptism of blood or martyrdom, and in a certain measure the baptism of desire, as a means of replacing the baptism of water…

…Baptism of desire is not the sacrament of baptism and yet applying the term ìbaptismî to the baptism of blood and baptism of desire has been a practice of the Church for centuries. Even if it is not a baptism in the strict sense, it nevertheless is a baptism in the analogical sense. Just as receiving the Eucharist by making a spiritual ìCommunionî is not a true Communion, but given the name ìSpiritual Communionî in the analogical sense. In both cases, no one is denying the primary term. On the same point, St. Albert the Great says that the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire can only be called baptism when water baptism is lacking.

St. Augustine also distinguishes between the sacrament of Baptism and the turning of the heart to God. He teaches that if either of these conditions cannot be secured, the other will be sufficient. A baptized Child is saved, without turning its heart to God, should it die before coming to the age of reason, and a man who turns his heart to God is saved without water baptism, provided he in no way despise the sacrament

why do you insist on teaching/ preaching Catholicism when all you have heard/ learned was anti Catholicism rhetoric?
God bless,
John

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman, it appears my post #150 was most challenging, as evidenced by you resorting to plan B. Having rebutted with scripture the points you made, you now change course and justify the practice of baby baptism with old testement circumcision. Where in scripture is this connection made? If it’s there, then I’ll stand corrected. Then you move on to plan C and start quoting extra biblical writings. I won’t accept (and debate you with) that stuff, you know that.
St. Paul uses the terms, “circumcision of the heart” and the “circumcision of Christ” (Romans 2:29, Col. 2:12-17) to describe the reality of circumcision being a spiritually inward act, not merely an outward sign. The Old Testament type that wascircumcision is* now* baptism. By calling Baptism circumcision of the heart, St. Paul is telling us that it was not the foreskin that had anything to do with true circumcision. Cutting the foreskin was simply the MEANS - not the end. It was an outward sign of an INWARD act.**

**As for the ****extrabiblical **writings – those were the writings of the Early Church. These are the people who carried the faith of the apostles over the next several centuries. These are the people who were slaughtered for the beliefs of the Church. These are the same people who are quoted by Protestant and Catholic theologians when they teach. YOUR rejection of them and their writings simply exposes you as a “Lone Ranger” Christian who believes that it is you and Christ and the Bible – and nobody else. This is NOT the family of God, the Body of Christ that Jesus established. At the Last Supper (John 17:20-23) He prayed for the UNITY of his Body that they remain ONE as he and the Father are ONE.

Stillchecking:

1. I don’t know much about calvinism, in fact near nothing. I defintely believe that (even a born again christian) can fall away from God, of course, but a born again christian is sealed unto salvation. I will address in another post your claim that I can lose my salvation. I’ve only read through them once and must agree the verses you quote are quite challenging, eye opening even, but the word of God does not fail.

**I have given you over a DOZEN verses that prove you wrong on this point and you have failed to address them in an exegetical menner: **Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 23:37, Matt. 24:13, 25:31–46, Luke 12:46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-22, 1 Cor. 9:27, Col. 1:21-23, 1 Tim. 1:18-20, 1 Tim. 4:1, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19.

 

[elvisman]

continued . . .

You say I’ve fallen into a trap. For almost 30 years now I’ve tried, tried to let the bible be my guide. I’ll admit that I don’t know everything and have likely heard some teaching that wasn’t accurate. But we at least try and discern the truth with scripture. Perhaps it is you who has fallen into a trap? I could sit here and list the contradictions of catholic teaching with scripture that would shock 99% of catholics…but i am a guest here.

And there is your folly. The Church is to be our guide. NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it say that the Scriptures themselves are our guide – but the CHURCH.

---

Secondly, whether you follow Calvinism or not, you have fallen into its trap of OSAS (once saved, always saved)**. This is NOT a belief of the historic Christian faith and was an invention of the “Reformation”.

---

**Lastly, we’re ****ALL ****guests here – and if you have something to say, then say it. If you say that you can list the Church’s contradictions, please do so. If you can list just ONE contradiction, I‘d be more than happy to address it.
**

1. Yes I do believe the bible says what it means, including Romans 10: 9 &10. I do not deny that as Christians we have great responsibilities as dictated in the verses you site. You Elvisman do not understand your seperation from God, the gulf that exists between man and God is too vast to bridge by our works. You first have to understand how hopeless you are on your own, it is then that you realize your need for a Savior. Only Jesus can save you. He is not just an insurance policy in case you were not good enough. You will never be good enough. He is your lifeline unto salvation.

**Again – you don’t seem to have ANY sort of grasp of the Catholic faith of the Apostles. The Church has NEVER taught that our works save us. We have ALWAYS taught that is it only by God’s infinite grace that we are saved – IF we cooperate (Sunergeo ****1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 6:1) **with that grace, as the Scriptures teach.

 

[elvisman]

In John 3:5 Jesus says you must be born of water and the spirit, Jesus does not say you must be baptized in that verse. You can throw all the other verses on baptism at me, they all are accompanied by or the overwhleming message is that belief in Jesus is required for salvation and that baptism follows belief. Jesus was talking to a full grown man, a leader. To be born of the spirit, one’s heart must first be seeking after Jesus, we seek him out in the scriptures, by listening to preachers preach the scriptures. The water here is the word of God. Jesus didn’t tell Nicodemus to get dunked in the river, come back and I’ll give you the spirit. Jesus is talking about a change of heart and the only place we can find that truth that changes the heart is in the bible.

This is a textbook case of somebody who reads the bible but does not understand.**

You say that Jesus never uses the word “Baptism” in his dialogue with Nicodemus - and you’re right. Does Jesus always have to use a particular word when he teaches? Does he ever use the word “Trinity” in the Bible. Do you still believe in the Trinity?

Where do you get the list of books that comprise the Bible? Do you get it from the Bible? NO - you get it from the Church.

Does Jesus tell Nicodemus that the water he is speaking of is the word? NO, he doesn’t. So, where do you get this understanding from? Certainly not the Bible. Certainly not the Church. This was an invention of the Protestant "Reformatio"n and had NEVER been understood to mean ANYTHING other than water by the Early Church.

What you fail to remember what happened at Jesus’ own baptism just 2 chapters earlier in John 1. His baptism is the prototype of ALL Christian Baptisms to come. Do you remember what happened there? Jesus was baptized by John with WATER. The Holy Spirit then descended upon him in the form of a dove.
WATER and SPIRIT, my friend . . . WATER and SPIRIT.

 

[elvisman]

This is a textbook** case of somebody who reads the bible but does not understand.

You say that Jesus never uses the word “Baptism” in his dialogue with Nicodemus - and you’re right. Does Jesus always have to use a particular word when he teaches? Does he ever use the word “Trinity” in the Bible. Do you still believe in the Trinity?

Where do you get the list of books that comprise the Bible? Do you get it from the Bible? NO - you get it from the Church.

Does Jesus tell Nicodemus that the water he is speaking of is the word? NO, he doesn’t. So, where do you get this understanding from? Certainly not the Bible. Certainly not the Church. This was an invention of the Protestant “Reformation” and had NEVER been understood to mean ANYTHING other than water by the Early Church.

What you fail to remember what happened at Jesus’ own baptism just 2 chapters earlier in John 1. His baptism is the prototype of ALL Christian Baptisms to come. Do you remember what happened there? Jesus was baptized by John with WATER. The Holy Spirit then descended upon him in the form of a dove.
WATER and SPIRIT, my friend . . . WATER and SPIRIT.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Stillchecking
You say I’ve fallen into a trap. For almost 30 years now I’ve tried, tried to let the bible be my guide. I’ll admit that I don’t know everything and have likely heard some teaching that wasn’t accurate. But we at least try and discern the truth with scripture. Perhaps it is you who has fallen into a trap? I could sit here and list the contradictions of catholic teaching with scripture that would shock 99% of catholics…but i am a guest here.

99% of Catholics? Really? Show us ONE Catholic teaching which contradicts scripture? I can name one contradiction by Protestants:

Show me one verse where Jesus authorized mere men to found their own church based on private intepretation of scripture?

 

[John_oxios]

Where in scripture is this connection made? If it’s there, then I’ll stand corrected. Then you move on to plan C and start quoting extra biblical writings. I won’t accept (and debate you with) that stuff, you know that. .

Catholicism is not limited to the Bible, in fact without extra biblical sources no one could.  Christ taught the Apostles who knew scripture for three yrs. and they taught, and so on.... til Someone taught you..and .. so on.  First live witnesses to Christ.. then they pass on that witness through the Church  then the New Testament is written 62 a.d. to 95 a.d..  and then four hundred yrs later the Canon is established in order to prevent non-bliblical or non apostolic teachings to be read or used in Mass.  The New Testament was given to the Church, held and protected by the Church  1600 yrs before the Reformation.

Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.

Concerning Baptism, Who is Peter is addressing ? Acts 2:14, “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words”

.
“You who are Jews,” indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words. vs 36 ** Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain**

Original sin passed down from Adam and his children, promise of a Saviour

Covenant with Abraham, Was with him and his children “Circumcision”

Children not exempt from 40 yrs in the desert! Not exempt from the Law!

Not exempt in Joel 2:15, 16 Blow the trumpet in Zion; sanctify a fast; call a solemn assembly;
gather the people. Sanctify the congregation; assemble the elders; gather the children, even nursing infants. Let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her chamber.

not in Micah 2: 9 “…Is the Spirit of the Lord restricted? …The women of My people you cast out from their pleasant houses; from their children you have taken away My glory forever.”

Christian children/ infants exempt?

There is no restriction of the Spirit of the LORD, Men provide restrictions

Christ told His Apostles what the bind (forbid) and what they loosen (Allow) stands in His name on Earth and in heaven.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Stillchecking;7919687]Hi John,

Thanks for your posts. I hope you understand that I can’t sit here and comment on all the verses of scripture you site. I do have a life haha, and if I skipped one verse I suppose from someone I would get an ah ha!

Hello Stillcheck,
So you skip them all? but you have the time to misrepresent scripture, by using vss out of the context they are written in to show you ‘accurately’ defend your opinion? At least look up the context of the scripture you do use… and then check the scripture I use to see if I am on point.

I was born again at age 23, December 5th 1983 at 9:20 in the morning. I was by myself. I had some biblical understanding. Most all born again christians will tell you it happened to them the same way, that it was a specific time and place. There are millions like me, and no one is going to convince me (or take it away) that it was not real or that it was the work of the devil. I know I am going to heaven and it has nothing to do with baptism, or confirmation, or confession (to a priest) or even the eucharist and all the other man made laws.

right! Yes you can be born again on this plain… but we are Born anew in Baptism, that’s what John 3:3 is about.
Since you are baptized than argument against it is moot for you, but you are denying the power of the Holy Spirit, and also tossing aside the Commission Christ gave to His Apostles and His Church to Follow… “Go out and Baptize all nations in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” Baptism is not an option

It’s been insinuated that I am a Protestant, but that is not the case because that would mean my faith came out of Catholicism. I’ve read on this thread that the catholic church was the only church until the reformation. But that is not true. There was a christian church, made up of all the small churches that maintaned the bible alone would be their guide book. They had no earthly or political might, they had no army, they hid from the self appointed rulers, yet they survived from the time of Christ through the generations to this day, preserving the word of God.God Bless

.

Not a Protestant?? Okay what is your Faith? Because whatever it is its root is Catholicsm, whether your faith came out of Protestantism or not.

Protestant by definition :

noun
1.
any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
2.
an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

If your not part of the One, your a Protestant.

God Bless,
John