C
chero23
Guest
God willing he picks up on it, and puts trust not in him, but in the Church that Jesus Christ established
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Scitor
Guest
(name removed by moderator)…are you kidding me. It is called a discussion. I am just giving my point of view as based on scripture.
S
Scitor
Guest
Chero…now you are comparing me to someone who has down syndrome or a mental disorder and that I do not believe in God. I can tell that you are truly Church filled and not Christ filled.People like the guy who started this thread does not make sense. I have asked him several times, people who have down syndrome or some sort of mental problem, most will never be able to understand, they will never be able to believe in God, what about them do they forgo baptism?
And as far as baptism…no, I do not believe that it is required to be saved. Do those who convert to Catholicism yet have not been baptized go to hell?
And as far as you asking me several times about baptism, you must remember there are just one of me and many Catholics responders on this thread. It may take a little time to answer every response, unless you think I just sit in front of my computer all day monitoring this thread.
S
Scitor
Guest
Hmmm…I was just asking Catholics to do the same as they have asked me. What is wrong in asking that you ask Christ to fill you with his truth. I wasn’t under the impression that Catholics would view this as a imprudent request.
S
Scitor
Guest
Chero…are you saying I should put my trust in the Church and not in him (Christ)?God willing he picks up on it, and puts trust not in him, but in the Church that Jesus Christ established
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
No, Scitor. He is saying you put your trust in yourself rather than the Revelation of God.
S
Scitor
Guest
QNDNN…I show humility everyday. Humility does not mean I have to agree with all of the Catholic teaching. From your text, anyone who disagrees with you or the catholic church must admit they are wrong or else they are not worth having a conversation with.In summary of this thread, nearly all the “facts” Scitor has laid out in this thread have been shown to be objective falsehoods. Yet he has not the humility to even admit this much. Instead, he prefers to dwell on the supposed ambiguity of the term “households” and the requirement of belief for baptism, ignoring the requirement of belief (not to mention baptism) for salvation. If this is how he always conducts himself, I see no purpose of discussing OSAS with him. What purpose is discussion with someone who holds on to contradictions to avoid admitting that they are wrong? Let him think what he wants. He will be judged by the words of the Lord, that he perverts to his own fancy, on the last day.
And yes…I will be judged on the last day just as you will. Again, from you text it can be inferred that all who are not catholic are doomed to hell.
S
Scitor
Guest
Chero…I read your post incorrectly. Please accept my apology for my response.Chero…now you are comparing me to someone who has down syndrome or a mental disorder and that I do not believe in God. I can tell that you are truly Church filled and not Christ filled.
And as far as baptism…no, I do not believe that it is required to be saved. Do those who convert to Catholicism yet have not been baptized go to hell?
And as far as you asking me several times about baptism, you must remember there are just one of me and many Catholics responders on this thread. It may take a little time to answer every response, unless you think I just sit in front of my computer all day monitoring this thread.
S
Scitor
Guest
Ambrose…in your view, is it wrong for Catholic parents not to baptize their children and have them wait until they can obtain their own relationship/belief with Christ. I would say your argument that Colley’s basis is prejudiced holds true for Catholics.Colley’s arguments are tendentious and prejudiced by the belief that infant baptism is wrong. They are not strictly objective arguments, because if they were then the Scriptural passages he cites can just as easily by interpreted in favor of infant baptism.
So the problem can NOT be solved with explicit Scripture, as there is none. Therefore we have to consider the entire Bible, the entire parallel that Chrisitianity had with the chosen people and their own practices as written down in Scripture. How the practice of infant baptism was foreshadowed by the Hebrew practice of infant circumcision, and how that is justified by both Judaism today and Catholicism today. IOW, the practice of building entire doctrines and even denominations based on this passage or that passage is categorically wrong and contrary to the Spirit of God.
But that’s not all. We must also consider the beliefs of the early Christians as witnessed by the early Church fathers, and the teachings of the Church, as they have been documented by councils and other documentary evidence.
IOW, it is IRRESPONSIBLE to abdicate our own powers of reason to search for the TRUTH, because someone has laid out a simple solution based on specious reasonings over a select few Scriptural passages.
Also, I do not believe entire doctrines have been built on just one scripture, but the interpretation of many scriptures as it relates to salvation, baptism, works vs grace, etc.
S
Scitor
Guest
This cannot be according to your statement. If baptism is necessary for grace/salvation, then how can infants be under God’s grace without being baptized?I would contend you are wrong on both counts.
They may be under His grace, but baptism is necessary.
Jon
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
There is a difference betwern agreeing with all Catholic teaching and showing some basic honesty. You barged into this forum “laying out the facts” on infant baptism, so you had better know what you’re talking about. For example, you claimed that “infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century.” Yet, when you were showed historical evidence that infant baptism was practiced in the Church at the very least from the Second Century if not earlier, you ignored it as if nothing happened, and continued on your crusade to enlighten the ignorant Catholics. At the very least, you could acknowledge that you were wrong, especially since you were so boldly and insultingly wrong, and apologize for being so presumptuous when you had not done sufficient historical research.QNDNN…I show humility everyday. Humility does not mean I have to agree with all of the Catholic teaching. From your text, anyone who disagrees with you or the catholic church must admit they are wrong or else they are not worth having a conversation with.
And yes…I will be judged on the last day just as you will. Again, from you text it can be inferred that all who are not catholic are doomed to hell.
It is unbelievably insulting that after this sort of behavior, you would have the audacity just now to say, “I would ask my Catholic brothers in Christ to do the same as they ask me. Research issues such as infant baptism, salvation by works, OSAS, etc. Keep an open mind, avoid confirmation bias, and pray Colossians 1:9-10.” Not that you have any credibility as an honest witness now, but do you think maybe you should call it a rest and do some more research before starting any new debates, especially when you are touting “salvation by works” as if it were a Catholic doctrine? Get off this forum and do some research about Catholicism from Catholic sources (not little Baptist tracts) before trying to tell us how ignorant we are.
If you don’t have time to address all the points raised in the thread, how do you have time to start a new thread? You have not even addressed the most basic points. I know I will think twice before trying to have any conversation with you again.
S
Scitor
Guest
Using this same logic…grey area…no scriptural basis, I believe that infants are under God’s grace until the age of accountability. I.e. Until they are old enough to understand what it means to accept Christ as their Savior.
A few on this board have said, by my logic infants go to hell because they cannot believe and thus are not able to be baptized.
My answer is above. Is there exact scripture that says this, no. Is there scripture that we can infer that infants are under the Grace of God…yes.
A few on this board have said, by my logic infants go to hell because they cannot believe and thus are not able to be baptized.
My answer is above. Is there exact scripture that says this, no. Is there scripture that we can infer that infants are under the Grace of God…yes.
S
Scitor
Guest
QNDNN…you are great example of how a Catholic should act. You must either be a very angry person. Again, in order to show some “basic” honesty one must agree with you. And as far as “barging” into this forum, just as I have not responded to every post, you have not read each of my post. If you had, you will see that I infact admitted that I could have titled this thread more appropriately. As far as infant baptism, yes there are a “few” examples of recorded infant baptisms in the second century. But it can be argued that it did not become common practice until the third or fourth century.There is a difference betwern agreeing with all Catholic teaching and showing some basic honesty. You barged into this forum “laying out the facts” on infant baptism, so you had better know what you’re talking about. For example, you claimed that “infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century.” Yet, when you were showed historical evidence that infant baptism was practiced in the Church at the very least from the Second Century if not earlier, you ignored it as if nothing happened, and continued on your crusade to enlighten the ignorant Catholics. At the very least, you could acknowledge that you were wrong, especially since you were so boldly and insultingly wrong, and apologize for being so presumptuous when you had not done sufficient historical research.
It is unbelievably insulting that after this sort of behavior, you would have the audacity just now to say, “I would ask my Catholic brothers in Christ to do the same as they ask me. Research issues such as infant baptism, salvation by works, OSAS, etc. Keep an open mind, avoid confirmation bias, and pray Colossians 1:9-10.” Not that you have any credibility as an honest witness now, but do you think maybe you should call it a rest and do some more research before starting any new debates, especially when you are touting “salvation by works” as if it were a Catholic doctrine? Get off this forum and do some research about Catholicism from Catholic sources (not little Baptist tracts) before trying to tell us how ignorant we are.
If you don’t have time to address all the points raised in the thread, how do you have time to start a new thread? You have not even addressed the most basic points. I know I will think twice before trying to have any conversation with you again.
As far as my “crusade to enlighten ignorant Catholics,” you again show a very defensive and angry posture. Please show me where I called any Catholic ignorant. You are the one doing the name calling, i.e. little baptist tracts
Salvation by works not being Catholic doctrine. Okay…correct me, what is required for salvation according to Catholicism.
And I have addressed the most basic point. I have supplied ample scripture to support believers baptism.
And…yes… feel free not to carry on a conversation me, especially on OSAS. You will not be missed by me given I doubt you will add any value to the conversation. I have no issue with not have a conversation with someone whose view is, “if you disagree with me you are not humble and ignorant.”
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I understand that denying original sin might seem more pleasing, but does your belief that unbaptized infants are automatically guarunteed heaven have a scriptural basis. Does not the Scripture (Romans 5:18) say, “by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation?” Are infants not included? So you say infants are under grace until the “age of accountability.” What? Do they lose God’s grace the moment they hit that age. Think fast, kids! What happens in the time inbetween the age of accountability and the time it takes them to accept Christ as their savior?
If you want to address Mark 16:16, which says that those who do not believe are damned, and how this is reconcilable with your view that all infants are saved (see my earlier post), I will talk it over with you. Otherwise, I’m out.
If you want to address Mark 16:16, which says that those who do not believe are damned, and how this is reconcilable with your view that all infants are saved (see my earlier post), I will talk it over with you. Otherwise, I’m out.
C
chero23
Guest
I said, what happens to these kids that have down syndrome or other mental problems. Most of them will never be to understand and speak. What happens to them. God said everyone must be baptized. My sister has down syndrome, she cannot read, nor she comprehends, what happens to her in your opinion?Chero…now you are comparing me to someone who has down syndrome or a mental disorder and that I do not believe in God. I can tell that you are truly Church filled and not Christ filled.
And as far as baptism…no, I do not believe that it is required to be saved. Do those who convert to Catholicism yet have not been baptized go to hell?
And as far as you asking me several times about baptism, you must remember there are just one of me and many Catholics responders on this thread. It may take a little time to answer every response, unless you think I just sit in front of my computer all day monitoring this thread.
Your own logic doesn’t work.
C
chero23
Guest
No problem, I replied to your concern, I want you to be aware, that you logic (it might be that of the SBC) it doesn’t really make sense.Chero…I read your post incorrectly. Please accept my apology for my response.
C
chero23
Guest
Yes baptism saves, here’s the verse is from 1 Peter 3:20-21Jon…just to make sure I am understanding this…are you saying (like a few others on this thread) that baptism is a requirement for salvation.
Does the Catholic Church teach that baptism is required for salvation? If yes, maybe we should start a new thread on this.
who formerly did not obey, 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,
S
Scitor
Guest
You view of this verse is incomplete. You are focusing on “saved through water,” but ignoring the remainder of the verse, "(not the removal of the filth of flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God).)Yes baptism saves, here’s the verse is from 1 Peter 3:20-21
who formerly did not obey, 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,
Baptism with water symbolically depict the changed life of a person whose conscience is at peace with God through faith in Christ. The act of “baptism” is viewed symbolically and does not actually save us is explained by Peter in the latter half of verse 21 with the words “not the removal of the filth of the flesh,” as stated above.
1 John 3:15 - “I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” He did not say “hope so” or “wish so” or “maybe so.” He said “know” as in “assured of” “confident.”
John 5:24 - ““I assure you: Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life.” - Not, he who believes and is baptized.
Many of you have stated Mark 16:16 - “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” - This verse supports the believe first and that baptism is not required for salvation. The order is 1) believe and then 2) be baptized. The verse ends saying “whoever does not believe will be condemned.” It does not say "whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.
You can also refer to the entire books of Galatians and Ephesians.
Thus, it is incorrect and not in line with scripture to state that baptism is required for salvation.
Now, before I get the “oh…so all we have to do is believe…it is just the easy…well…satan and all his demons believed…are they saved.”
We all know that the answer is no and that is is disingenuous to say…“oh all we have to do is believe…so simple” We all know that “believe” means to “repent of your sins and accept Christ as your Savior.” In this context…yes, it is that simple. Your salvation is immediate and forever. Let’s not down play the power of God and his ability to change lives.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Could you supply us with said Scripture?Using this same logic…grey area…no scriptural basis, I believe that infants are under God’s grace until the age of accountability. I.e. Until they are old enough to understand what it means to accept Christ as their Savior.
A few on this board have said, by my logic infants go to hell because they cannot believe and thus are not able to be baptized.
My answer is above. Is there exact scripture that says this, no. Is there scripture that we can infer that infants are under the Grace of God…yes.
To support baptism by desire, I refer you to the tale of the penitent thief, found in Luke 20:40-43. He was not baptized, yet it was promised by Jesus Himself that the good thief would soon enter Heaven.
S
Scitor
Guest
I do not see any support for baptism by desire in this scripture. This is a very very far reach and actually the scripture provides much greater support for salvation by grace. The thief recognized Christ as the true King…"“Don’t you fear God,” he said… Here the thief is recognizing Christ as King.Could you supply us with said Scripture?
To support baptism by desire, I refer you to the tale of the penitent thief, found in Luke 20:40-43. He was not baptized, yet it was promised by Jesus Himself that the good thief would soon enter Heaven.
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]” Same thing here. He is recognizing Christ’s Kingdom. No baptism required, just acknowledgement and acceptance of Christ as our Lord and Savior.
As far as infants…perhaps the only passage in Scripture which explicitly speaks about where babies go who die in infancy, is 2 Samuel 12. In the context of this passage, David committed adultery with Bathsheba. The prophet Nathan boldly confronts David about his adultery and tells him that the child that Bathsheba has conceived will die. As a result of the confrontation, David confesses his sin, puts on sackcloth and ashes, fasts, and mourns the fact that he will lose his child. When David receives news that the child has died, he quits mourning and fasting and changes his clothing. The prophet Nathan comes to David and asks him why he quit mourning the loss of his son.
David replies, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me (2 Sam. 12:22-23).” The text seems to imply that the child went to heaven since David says, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” and elsewhere Scripture indicates that David went to heaven (Ps. 16:10-11; Heb. 11:32-33).
Third, Scripture alludes to an age of accountability in Isaiah 7:15 which speaks of a child who “will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.” If a child dies before this “time,” it would seem that he or she would go to heaven.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.