Non-Catholic Chrisitans on Baptism

[ParkerD]

In the Catholic Church, babies are routinely Baptized.

We recieve our First Holy Communion, though, at the age of reason, usually at about 7 years old.

Is there an accepted “age or reason” understanding in your church? Is there an age at which it is usually accepted that someone has reached the age or reason and can decide for himself to be baptized?

Kalt,
The LDS church (Mormonism) administers baptism to a believing person who wants to be baptized, after or on their eighth birthday which is considered the “age of reason.” Children under age eight who die are considered to have been redeemed by Christ from the fall of Adam, and go to heaven without the need for baptism. That is the LDS belief, as well as my personal belief. Have a nice day, all.

 

[JonNC]

Kalt,
The LDS church (Mormonism) administers baptism to a believing person who wants to be baptized, after or on their eighth birthday which is considered the “age of reason.” Children under age eight who die are considered to have been redeemed by Christ from the fall of Adam, and go to heaven without the need for baptism. That is the LDS belief, as well as my personal belief. Have a nice day, all.

Just curious. What evidence do you point to for this belief?

Jon

 

[ParkerD]

Just curious. What evidence do you point to for this belief?

Jon

Jon,
We believe that Christ didn’t teach the need for infant baptism, because He knew that His mission included atoning for Adam and Eve’s trangression in the Garden of Eden. In several places in the New Testament, He blessed little children as for example:

Matthew 17:13 ¶ Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

He also said the child born blind was “without sin” when he was asked if he had sinned and that had caused his blindness.

It appears that some early Christians confused baptism with needing to be done at the same age that circumcision was done under the “old covenant.” I can understand why that confusion could occur, but Christ didn’t teach about baptism in that way.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
We believe that Christ didn’t teach the need for infant baptism, because He knew that His mission included atoning for Adam and Eve’s trangression in the Garden of Eden. In several places in the New Testament, He blessed little children as for example:

Matthew 17:13 ¶ Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 ]And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

He also said the child born blind was “without sin” when he was asked if he had sinned and that had caused his blindness.

It appears that some early Christians confused baptism with needing to be done at the same age that circumcision was done under the “old covenant.” I can understand why that confusion could occur, but Christ didn’t teach about baptism in that way.

Without wanting to appear confrontational, your response didn’t really answer the question.
You said, “Children under age eight who die are considered to have been redeemed by Christ from the fall of Adam, and go to heaven without the need for baptism.”

What evidence can you point to that says that children who die are considered redeemed, and go directly to heaven without Baptism?

Jon

 

[ParkerD]

Without wanting to appear confrontational, your response didn’t really answer the question.
You said, “Children under age eight who die are considered to have been redeemed by Christ from the fall of Adam, and go to heaven without the need for baptism.”

What evidence can you point to that says that children who die are considered redeemed, and go directly to heaven without Baptism?

Jon

Jon,
The atonement of Christ was pre-figured in the following practice that Aaron was asked to do for the children of Israel:

Leviticus 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
11 And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself:
12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail:
13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:
14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
15 ¶ Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
20 ¶ And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

When Gentiles began to be baptized, we know from the New Testament that they were not circumcised. Believers were baptized and received the Holy Ghost. The Gentiles became a part of the “new covenant people.” The Old Testament and the New Testament show that God’s plan was for the new covenant to be universal, for all mankind, Jews and Gentiles.

The above passage from Leviticus describes the atonement (pre-figuring Christ’s atonement) as covering “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins” meaning that Christ’s suffering and blood atoned for all of the sins committed up to that time as well as all that would come thereafter–all sins and trangressions, including Adam and Eve’s.

Isaiah 53:6 says “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Children are certainly included in all these promises.

Christ knew He was fulfilling the blood of atonement and Isaiah 53.

 

[always_gr8ful]

I can certainly show you some scripture, but is important for you to understand that Catholic doctrine, unlike the doctrine of modern day evangelicals, is not derived from gleaning verses of scriptures. Catholic doctrine comes from Jesus, who founded the Church. He committed everything to the Apostles, and this once for all divine deposit of faith was whole and entire before one word of the NT was ever written. So, although the NT does reflect the doctrine of the Church, it is not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source.

WOW! You said it all right there! I have repeatedly asked the Catholics on this board if they believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and some that even said yes (most said no) simply denied that scripture said what it CLEARLY said so that the scripture would not be in contradiction to their man-made doctrine.

So what you are saying is that the Bible is only part of the Word of God, and if anything contradicts what the Bible says, you choose the error of man (outside teaching) over the Word of God. That’s pretty amazing.

You appear to be laboring under the misunderstanding that all the Apostles taught is contained in scripture, and this is just not the case. The Apostles baptized infants, so we do so today, as we have followed the Apostolic command to keep the traditions that were delivered by them.

“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 8:36-37

If all the other verses that said “Believe”, then be baptized weren’t clear enough, this one by the APOSTLE Philip is plain as day. Can you see how ridiculous it is to tell me that I can’t trust and have faith in what is clearly stated in scripture because of YOUR outside teachings?

I doubt very much that you will be able to “verify” this, always. You have not received the faith embraced by the Apostles, who taught that there was only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Of course the sins are washed clean by the blood of Jesus, but that washing is applied in baptism. This is Jesus commandment.

Read this “you have not been taught our man-made doctrine”.

What you are basically saying here is that your opinion of what scripture means is more accurate than the teaching that has been handed down from the Apostles.

“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 8:36-37

My “opinion of what scripture means”? Can you look at that scripture and say it doesn’t say what it says?

Indeed, you are correct in saying that the beliefe that Catholics can earn their way to heaven is false. It is sad that you have recently been taught this old lie. However, you came to the right place.
All of the errors you beleive about Catholicism can be corrected here. You might wish to start a new thread on this falsehood, though. It is off topic here.

Already did that, and what a tangled web they wove. The Evangelicals will be extinct thread.

Baptism is the manner in which the Apostles taught that we accept God’s free gift of grace.

Well which is it? Baptism as forgiveness of sins or baptism as obedience to God once we believe and accept God’s free Gift of Grace. 'Cause some of your counterparts are teaching here that baptism forgives sin - absolutely not substantiated with scripture.

No. As much as Catholics do not derive their doctrine from scripture (it comes from Christ Himself), neither do we “ignore the verses” as do many of our evangelical brethren. Catholics embraced the whole of scripture in understanding doctrine. We understand that baptism is the manner in which the blood of Christ is applied to the individual.

Read this “We are taught through the doctrines of man…”
Because God’s Word teaches that when we Believe we are saved, justified, and our sins forgiven.

Just because something happens in a spiritual realm, rather than a physical, that does not make it less “real”. On the contrary, the fact that we are buried in Christ in baptism is a more salient reality than things that we can see with our carnal eyes. We have received this teaching in faith, and we are blessed because we believe even those things we cannot “see”. Spiritual reality is more “real” than physical.

Oh, I totally agree. But just because Paul used the word “baptized” in the spiritual sense, doesn’t mean that you can take that verse and use it to prop up false doctrain when Paul is clearly explaining how we are now dead to sin and new in Christ.

No need. The entire NT was written by, for, and about Catholic. Everything in it is Catholic. That is why there is no contradiction between what the Church teaches,a nd what is written in the NT. All of it came out of Catholic belief.

Or so you have been taught. I’m sorry, but just how many Catholic Jews were there at the time of Christ?

YOu are creating a false dichotomy in your mind. It was Jesus who instituted and commanded baptism. It is He that shed His blood to cleanse us, then instructed the Apostles to baptize.

No disagreement there, so I don’t know what false dichotomy you are referring to. It is the Blood of Christ that saves us, justifies us and forgives our sins. Not baptism.

Indeed, Jesus once for all sacrifice on the cross has purchased for us eternal life. Baptism is the means by which we enter into that life…

Absolutely contrary to what the Word of God says. We enter when we believe. Belief plus nothing!

What you have been taught about baptism is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

All I have been “taught” is what I read in the Word of God. I have no religion. Are you saying that the Word of God is not consistent with what is taught outside it’s pages?
I agree wholeheartedly. THAT’S why I choose the Truth of the Bible - the Word of God.

 

[always_gr8ful]

Thanks to Edwin for your excellent posts.

Edwin read a book about how we are all shaped by tradition. Edwin doesn’t like me because he can’t force me into that tradition box because I have no religion, no tradition. I am walking, living proof that what Edwin put his faith in is erroneous. I pray that Edwin puts his faith in God, and in His Word.

 

[Ross09]

Edwin read a book about how we are all shaped by tradition. Edwin doesn’t like me because he can’t force me into that tradition box because I have no religion, no tradition. I am walking, living proof that what Edwin put his faith in is erroneous. I pray that Edwin puts his faith in God, and in His Word.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don’t like you It means they disagree! Only God knows our faith, so it’s not prudent to say that Edwin needs to put his faith in God and His Word. I am sure he will tell you that he has! To say he doesn’t rather than focusing on the issues of an argument is an ad hominem, and not a good witness to Christ in my opinion.

 

[Contarini]

some that even said yes (most said no) simply denied that scripture said what it CLEARLY said so that the scripture would not be in contradiction to their man-made doctrine.

It seems clear to you, because you are so thoroughly indoctrinated into your tradition that you are incapable of considering alternative interpretations.

My “opinion of what scripture means”? Can you look at that scripture and say it doesn’t say what it says?

Since you don’t explain what you think it says, we can’t answer this question. We can’t read your mind. Well, you’re fairly predictable so we could try, but it would be rude for us to do this, and it is rude of you to expect it (since the burden of making yourself clear is on you).

I’m not sure if you’re saying that this verse contradicts infant baptism, which is a reasonable interpretation even though I disagree with it. If you want to talk about infant baptism, we could start another thread. But if you’re arguing that the passage somehow contradicts the idea that baptism is salvific, then sorry–I don’t see that the text says this and you need to make your case. Romans 6 fits with this passage perfectly–in baptism the believing eunuch will be buried and raised with Christ. How does this not conform with Scripture?

Well which is it? Baptism as forgiveness of sins or baptism as obedience to God once we believe and accept God’s free Gift of Grace. 'Cause some of your counterparts are teaching here that baptism forgives sin - absolutely not substantiated with scripture.

Sorry, but you yourself referred to Acts 2:38, which does substantiate this. You simply refuse (to use your own terminology) to believe that the text says what it says. You maintain that because Peter says baptism is in Jesus’ name it can’t be salvific, which makes no sense. It is salvific precisely because it’s in Jesus’ name.

To repeat: Jesus and baptism, faith and baptism, are not opposed to each other. It is your false human tradition that sees them as opposed.

Oh, I totally agree. But just because Paul used the word “baptized” in the spiritual sense

You have no reason for denying that Paul is talking about a physical, water baptism, except that your preconceived notions prevent you from hearing what he is saying here.

No disagreement there, so I don’t know what false dichotomy you are referring to. It is the Blood of Christ that saves us, justifies us and forgives our sins. Not baptism.

That is the false dichotomy. You have yet to point out one Scripture that opposes baptism to the blood of Christ. Wherever baptism is mentioned, it is mentioned in a way that implies that it’s part of salvation. You resist this implication because of the unfounded assumption that this would somehow detract from the blood of Christ. And yet you don’t apply this to “belief” (I think “pistis” refers to something more than intellectual “belief” when Paul uses it–hence the scare quotes). You haven’t explained this inconsistency.

Absolutely contrary to what the Word of God says. We enter when we believe. Belief plus nothing!

First it’s the Blood of Christ plus nothing, now it’s belief plus nothing. And you don’t see the problem with this?

All I have been “taught” is what I read in the Word of God. I have no religion.

Define “religion.” You pray, don’t you? You believe in Scripture, don’t you? I presume that you also worship with other believers from time to time? These are all attributes of what people normally call “religion.”

And whether you admit it or not, you are reading Scripture through the lens of a particular tradition. Hence your complete blindness to what most Christians over the centuries have seen in Scripture.

Are you saying that the Word of God is not consistent with what is taught outside it’s pages?

No. We’re saying that your interpretation of Scripture is wrong. You keep saying that Scripture can’t possibly mean what it seems to say (that baptism saves), but you are so completely indoctrinated that you don’t even notice that that’s what you are saying. You have had it beaten into your head that to give any efficacy to baptism is to take away from the Blood of Christ. You can’t give any reason for this belief. You can’t cite any Scripture in its favor. You just assume it as self-evident and dismiss any Scriptural evidence to the contrary.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin read a book about how we are all shaped by tradition.

I didn’t read just one book.

And it is clearly true that we are all shaped by tradition. You are proof of this.

Edwin doesn’t like me because he can’t force me into that tradition box

I can’t get you to stop and think critically about your claims not to have tradition. That’s quite different. You fit into a “tradition box” as neatly as anyone I’ve ever met. I know the traditions that shape you very well. You just don’t want to hear this.

because I have no religion, no tradition.

That’s obviously false to everyone here except yourself. Refusing to acknowledge tradition won’t make it go away. Indeed, your insistence on ignoring tradition just gives it absolute power over you. You identify your tradition with Scripture so completely that you can’t imagine the possibility that anyone could read Scripture any other way. That’s the very blindest and most idolatrous form of traditionalism.

I am walking, living proof that what Edwin put his faith in is erroneous.

No. You are walking, living proof of the power of tradition. And the more you deny it, the more you make my point for me to everyone except those who accept your particular traditions.

So please. Keep on denying that you are simply regurgitating dispensationalist tradition. I am sorry for you, but perhaps you can serve as an object lesson to others. Or just perhaps, some day, you will experience something that will shake your blind, arrogant confidence in your own interpretive powers.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

WOW! You said it all right there! I have repeatedly asked the Catholics on this board if they believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and some that even said yes (most said no) simply denied that scripture said what it CLEARLY said so that the scripture would not be in contradiction to their man-made doctrine.

I would sure like to see where any Catholic on this board denied that scripture is the inerrant Word of God. On the contrary, it is considered to be this because of what the infallible Catholic Church has proclaimed. Any Catholic who says otherwise clearly does not understand what the Church teaches about the Bible.

That being said, your interpretation of what the scripture says may certainly be denied as accruate, especially when it is not consistent with the Apostolic teaching. The teaching of the Catholic Church is not “man made”, but comes from God.

1 Thess 2:13
13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

So what you are saying is that the Bible is only part of the Word of God, and if anything contradicts what the Bible says, you choose the error of man (outside teaching) over the Word of God. That’s pretty amazing.

No, that is not what I said. This is your anti-Catholic prejudice talking.

If all the other verses that said “Believe”, then be baptized weren’t clear enough, this one by the APOSTLE Philip is plain as day. Can you see how ridiculous it is to tell me that I can’t trust and have faith in what is clearly stated in scripture because of YOUR outside teachings?

You are obviously not listening to the Catholic teaching, which is found in the Scripture. Adults always make a profession of faith before baptism.

Read this "you have not been taught our man-made doctrine".

The teaching of the Catholic Church comes from Jesus, who is the Head, and who founded the Church. It was this that produced the NT.

My “opinion of what scripture means”? Can you look at that scripture and say it doesn’t say what it says?

You are interpreting a passage about an adult, and saying that it relates to an infant, so it does not mean what you are trying to make it say. Adults profess faith, and are then baptized.

Well which is it? Baptism as forgiveness of sins or baptism as obedience to God once we believe and accept God’s free Gift of Grace.

Both are true.

'Cause some of your counterparts are teaching here that baptism forgives sin - absolutely not substantiated with scripture.

The teaching of the Apostles that baptism forgives sins is reflected in scripture, but scripture is not the Source of this teaching. The Apostles teaching came first then the NT.

Read this “We are taught through the doctrines of man…”

Indeed you are. However, you don’t seem to realize that…

Because God’s Word teaches that when we Believe we are saved, justified, and our sins forgiven.

Along with a great many things, yes.

Oh, I totally agree. But just because Paul used the word “baptized” in the spiritual sense, doesn’t mean that you can take that verse and use it to prop up false doctrain when Paul is clearly explaining how we are now dead to sin and new in Christ.

I have no need to “prop up” anything. Paul taught that baptism washes, cleanses, justifies, and sanctifies. This has been the constant teaching of the Apostles.

Or so you have been taught. I’m sorry, but just how many Catholic Jews were there at the time of Christ?

All of them. There were no members of the church at the time that were not Jewish, and all of them were Catholic from the time of Pentecost.

No disagreement there, so I don’t know what false dichotomy you are referring to. It is the Blood of Christ that saves us, justifies us and forgives our sins. Not baptism.

The false dichotomy that separates the cleansing of Christ that saves us from the baptism by which it is applied to the individual.

Absolutely contrary to what the Word of God says. We enter when we believe. Belief plus nothing!

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

All I have been “taught” is what I read in the Word of God. I have no religion. Are you saying that the Word of God is not consistent with what is taught outside it’s pages?

No, I am saying that what you believe is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. The teaching of the Apostles was complete and entire before a word of the NT was written.

I agree wholeheartedly. THAT’S why I choose the Truth of the Bible - the Word of God.

The word of God has never been confined to the pages of theHoly Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Edwin read a book about how we are all shaped by tradition. Edwin doesn’t like me because he can’t force me into that tradition box because I have no religion, no tradition. I am walking, living proof that what Edwin put his faith in is erroneous. I pray that Edwin puts his faith in God, and in His Word.

You have read a book that we are all shaped by tradition too, always. It is called the New Testament. It is created 100% out of Catholic Sacred Tradition.

You are new here,so you don’t know Edwin. I assure you has no desire to "force"anyone in matter of faith. He will present to you the truth, and if you reject it,he will be polite and courteous anyway. That is the kinda guy he is.

You also may not realize that Edwin’s faith is not erroneous, and that you only make a fool of yourself saying such things (as well as insulting another forum member). Edwin’s faith is in God, and God’s word.

I encourage you, should you wish to remain here on the forum, to read the forum rules before you are sanctioned for such insulting remarks.

 

[always_gr8ful]

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don’t like you It means they disagree! Only God knows our faith, so it’s not prudent to say that Edwin needs to put his faith in God and His Word. I am sure he will tell you that he has! To say he doesn’t rather than focusing on the issues of an argument is an ad hominem, and not a good witness to Christ in my opinion.

Oh, Edwin has made it quite clear that he doesn’t care for me because I don’t fit his mold. The proof is in his two posts above this one.

Edwin would have us believe that the Bible is written in code that no one is able to understand together. That every line is up for grabs to private interpretation - lie straight from the devil to keep those who would know the Truth from the Truth.

Example:

36 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?

37 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.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
~Acts 8:36-38

Edwin is saying that these clear words need interpreting. What does the Word say?

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
~2 Peter 1

and

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
~2 Timothy 3:14-17

 

[Jamison97]

All I know is that the good Protestants (Lutherans and Anglicans) are baptized as infants. Amen to them!

 

[CWBetts]

Oh, Edwin has made it quite clear that he doesn’t care for me because I don’t fit his mold. The proof is in his two posts above this one.

Edwin would have us believe that the Bible is written in code that no one is able to understand together. That every line is up for grabs to private interpretation - lie straight from the devil to keep those who would know the Truth from the Truth.

Example:

36 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?

37 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.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
~Acts 8:36-38

Edwin is saying that these clear words need interpreting. What does the Word say?

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
~2 Peter 1

and

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
~2 Timothy 3:14-17

I am interested in your bolded text. What are you trying to get at? Also, your sig line is in error. “See how a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24
Baptism is a component of salvation. “Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling on his name” Acts 22:16

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
The atonement of Christ was pre-figured in the following practice that Aaron was asked to do for the children of Israel:

Leviticus 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
11 And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself:
12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail:
13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:
14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
15 ¶ Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
20 ¶ And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

When Gentiles began to be baptized, we know from the New Testament that they were not circumcised. Believers were baptized and received the Holy Ghost. The Gentiles became a part of the “new covenant people.” The Old Testament and the New Testament show that God’s plan was for the new covenant to be universal, for all mankind, Jews and Gentiles.

The above passage from Leviticus describes the atonement (pre-figuring Christ’s atonement) as covering “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins” meaning that Christ’s suffering and blood atoned for all of the sins committed up to that time as well as all that would come thereafter–all sins and trangressions, including Adam and Eve’s.

Isaiah 53:6 says “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Children are certainly included in all these promises.

Christ knew He was fulfilling the blood of atonement and Isaiah 53.

While I’m still not sure how that nullifies the need for Baptism, I appreciate you sharing your belief.

Jon

 

[YADA]

So we are to ignore the vast number of verses that say our sins were forgiven by the Blood of Christ only, and instead, cling to the verses in Romans 6 about baptism in Christ that are clearly metaphor - unless, of course, you believe you were actually buried with Christ!

Acts 2: is the remission of sins in the name of Jesus? Yes. If it wasn’t through His Blood that our sins are forgiven, Peter would have said “be baptized for the remissions of sin”.

Should I post every scripture that says that Jesus and Jesus alone died for our sins - a finished work through His sacrificed Blood? Our sins are either forgiven through baptism or through Christ alone - it can’t be both. You have one scripture of metaphor, and one scripture that clearly states “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”. Are we just throwing out the window everything from Genesis on? Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission (Hebrews 9:22)

I think you are missing the point of what Paul is intructing us regarding JEsus’ atoning sacrifice and baptism … Baptism is how we are united with Christ … it is through Baptism that we are born from above, become an heir to Christ … Sons/daughters of the Living God …

I [nor does any Catholic or the Church] state that our Salvation comes thorugh any but the Messiah, Jesus, the Christ … .

… and it is not a metaphor … we are not intsructed to be ‘metaphorically’ baptised so that we can e saved through Christ’s blood and Christ alone … non-sensical …

And Catholics do not throw out everything [or anything] from Genesis to Any passage in the Bible … We take Scripture as the whole package …

After all … we gave you the New Testament - you know - The NT is a Catholic document, the cannon of the Church … written, preserved, copied, and handed down - Catholic from the beginning to the end … with the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles [Septuagint] safeguarded as well…

and You are very welcome to read and study the same … Remember:

“Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ” [St. Jerome]

 

[ParkerD]

While I’m still not sure how that nullifies the need for Baptism, I appreciate you sharing your belief.

Jon

JonNC,
Thanks for letting me know you had read my reply. If Christ had wanted to teach a concept of “infant baptism” as being necessary because of the transgression of Adam and Eve, He would have taught it clearly and specifically because millions of children who died young without baptism would have been important for Him to talk about. He didn’t. Again, He knew He was sent to earth as the “great and last sacrifice”, pre-figured in the sacrifice that Aaron performed. The description I quoted about Aaron and the children of Israel doesn’t single out the sin of Adam and Eve differently than any other sin in history. That is why Christ didn’t need to single it out either in His teaching. He had no need to single it out, because there was no difference–Adam and Eve’s sin would be covered by His atoning sacrifice.

Infants are thus born innocent. They have no stain. They are pure. Christ’s shed blood already covered the sin of Adam and Eve. Young children only need baptism after they are of age to knowingly do wrong or commit sin, whereupon the New Testament is clear that those who believe should be baptized as several have pointed out on this thread.

Someone writing on this thread has said that the Apostles baptized infants. That is not said anywhere in the New Testament.

 

[always_gr8ful]

I think you are missing the point of what Paul is intructing us regarding JEsus’ atoning sacrifice and baptism … Baptism is how we are united with Christ … it is through Baptism that we are born from above, become an heir to Christ … Sons/daughters of the Living God …

I [nor does any Catholic or the Church] state that our Salvation comes thorugh any but the Messiah, Jesus, the Christ …

I’m glad to hear that because other Catholics have said on this thread that baptism forgives sin. I’m still learning what all y’all believe, and that one just blew me away!

After all … we gave you the New Testament - you know - The NT is a Catholic document, the cannon of the Church … written, preserved, copied, and handed down - Catholic from the beginning to the end … with the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles [Septuagint] safeguarded as well…

and You are very welcome to read and study the same … Remember:

Oh yeah, ah ha. Evidenced by all those Jewish Catholics running around. “Catholic from beginning to end”. So y’all set yourselves up over the Word of God. Lovely. Remember: Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[always_gr8ful]

Also, your sig line is in error. “See how a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

For my sig to be in error, Salvation = Belief + nothing, 2 Corinthians 5:21 would have to be in error. I can post a dozen scriptures in context that say we are justified in Christ alone. So who is in error - God? Or your interpretation of James 2:24?