Non-Catholic Chrisitans on Baptism

[always_gr8ful]

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

And this outside Word of God, would it be inerrant? And what happens when it conflicts with God’s Word - the Bible? Wow! I sure hope YADA comes back and tells me that Catholics don’t hold the Church above the Word of God (The Bible), because right now I see some things that are pretty scary about y’all. Not scary spooky, but “I wonder about your salvation” scary.

 

[CWBetts]

And this outside Word of God, would it be inerrant? And what happens when it conflicts with God’s Word - the Bible? Wow! I sure hope YADA comes back and tells me that Catholics don’t hold the Church above the Word of God (The Bible), because right now I see some things that are pretty scary about y’all. Not scary spooky, but “I wonder about your salvation” scary.

Mgesterial Teaching and Sacred Tradition IS a God’s Word (Divine Relevation) We Catholics accept that the Holy Scriptures are not a CHristian’s sole rule of faith.

 

[CWBetts]

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?

If you read the Epistle of James, (dirested to believers, by the way as we can see form James 2:1) you will say that works is a component of salvation. James asks 'can your faith save you?" (2:14) and he also says faith without works is dead! (2:17) He calls someone who belives faith alone is ebough 'senseless" (2:20). He then goes on to quote Genesis showing works are necessary (James 2:23) He also uses Rahabas an example (2:26) Now lets check your context. If you would read the next verse, 2 Corinthians 6:1, what does St. Paul say? “As we work together with him” No isn’t that interesting. I can only assume thet your :coule of dozen scriptures" are similarly out of context. BTW chapters and verses were put in by men to help find passages easier and not part of the original writing. So the fact that the context i used is in the next chapter is completely irrelevant.

 

[banjo]

Interesting thread; however, unless I missed the post, it surprises me that no one has mentioned Rm 5:12ff with regard to original sin and baptism. Sin was in the world before the law but since there was no law sin was not counted. Yet, death reigned from Adam to Moses. If sin was not counted before the law, why did death reign?

 

[James1982]

I think the proponents of infant baptism are doing a better job than I could, so I’ll leave it in their capable hands- other than noting that I agree.

I would add that I generally subscribe to the notion that baptism is one of those things that needs to happen ASAP after birth. I have known others in my synod who, when it was feared that their newborn children might not live very long and the pastor couldn’t get there in a reasonable amount of time, baptized their children themselves in the hospital so they could be certain that their child received its obvious benefits, in case the child didn’t make it.

 

[always_gr8ful]

Mgesterial Teaching and Sacred Tradition IS a God’s Word (Divine Relevation) We Catholics accept that the Holy Scriptures are not a CHristian’s sole rule of faith.

CW, I’m a simple Bible believer and from where I’m sitting, I see that if including anything that the Church determines is God’s Word outside the Bible in spite of it’s contradiction to THE Bible is a slippery road indeed. Something tells me you don’t need examples of this because surely I’m not the first non-Catholic to wonder in here and notice that the Word of God is being ignored over Church teaching.

I’m only asking just how much faith you put in outside teaching, or scripture. If outside teaching contradicts the Bible, which one has the overriding authority?

 

[JonNC]

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.

I can see why your view of Baptism would be different, if you do not believe in Original Sin, and I’m sure a thread will eventually arise about Original Sin. For now, what then does your faith teach about Baptism. What is its value? What does it do?

Jon

 

[always_gr8ful]

If you read the Epistle of James, (dirested to believers, by the way as we can see form James 2:1) you will say that works is a component of salvation. James asks 'can your faith save you?" (2:14) and he also says faith without works is dead! (2:17) He calls someone who belives faith alone is ebough 'senseless" (2:20). He then goes on to quote Genesis showing works are necessary (James 2:23) He also uses Rahabas an example (2:26) Now lets check your context. If you would read the next verse, 2 Corinthians 6:1, what does St. Paul say? “As we work together with him” No isn’t that interesting. I can only assume thet your :coule of dozen scriptures" are similarly out of context. BTW chapters and verses were put in by men to help find passages easier and not part of the original writing. So the fact that the context i used is in the next chapter is completely irrelevant.

On the “Evangelicals will be Extinct” thread, James 2 call to action was brought up after I had posted two full thread pages of scripture that said we are saved and justified by belief alone. Taking a cue from Jesus (because we had just talked about the rich man, and why Jesus didn’t tell him like all the others “believe”) I took on the challenge of the apparent contradiction to show how I study the Bible. Someone said earlier that the Pope has recommended, ordained, I don’t know the proper term, studying the Bible.

The contradiction was an interesting study, and I was pretty sure the answer would be found in the two he mentioned from the Old Testament, with that verse sandwiched in the middle. When I found the scripture about Abraham’s belief in the promise, and how God counted it to him as righteousness, I knew why Rehab had been used too. Her belief in the promise given in the Lord’s name.

In context, this conclusion goes with the entirety of the scripture, a call to action. Active faith through belief in the promises of God.

I find all apparent Bible contradictions interesting because it gives me a chance to prove God’s Word is perfect and without error, and strengthens my faith. God wants us to know His Truth. That’s why we have His Word.

As to Paul’s continued thought in Chapter 6:1, we need only go back to the 4 verses before in 5:18-21 to see that Paul is making a call to action the same as James 2, saying God has given us the ministry of reconciliation and we are His ambassadors. Chapter 6:1, we are workers together with Him, so don’t sit on this information. 6:2 Now is the time of salvation.

 

[always_gr8ful]

I would add that I generally subscribe to the notion that baptism is one of those things that needs to happen ASAP after birth.

Let me ask y’all this: When babies are baptized, and then grow up and believe, are they then baptized again in obedience to God’s Word?

If the answer is yes, I see no harm in baptizing an infant. If the answer is no, I think this teaching is from the devil because it’s obviously not supported with scripture and it keeps the now-believing child or adult from following God’s Word - believe and be baptized.

 

[CWBetts]

CW, I’m a simple Bible believer and from where I’m sitting, I see that if including anything that the Church determines is God’s Word outside the Bible in spite of it’s contradiction to THE Bible is a slippery road indeed. Something tells me you don’t need examples of this because surely I’m not the first non-Catholic to wonder in here and notice that the Word of God is being ignored over Church teaching.

I’m only asking just how much faith you put in outside teaching, or scripture. If outside teaching contradicts the Bible, which one has the overriding authority?

Church teaching IS God’s Word. Lets us look at it this way. What is the pillar of truth? The Scriptures? No. The Church. 1 Timothy 3:15. Are we to rely on only the written word, or also oral tradition? Oral tradition may be included. 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2. Does Scripture clearly explain itself? No. The eunich needed explanation. Acts 8:30-31. As far as "teaching contradicting the Bible. Find ONE just one Catholic Dogma that directly contradicts Scripture. You have set up a hypothetical situation that does not exist. Futhermore. How do you know your interpretation is correct? Are you a self proclimed personal Pope?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let me ask y’all this: When babies are baptized, and then grow up and believe, are they then baptized again in obedience to God’s Word?

I’m surprised that a Bible Christian would ask this question.

4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

A second baptism would be not only unbiblical but anti-biblical. You’re not recommending this, are you?

If the answer is yes, I see no harm in baptizing an infant. If the answer is no, I think this teaching is from the devil because it’s obviously not supported with scripture and it keeps the now-believing child or adult from following God’s Word - believe and be baptized.

“Believe and be baptized” as you say, is the norm for those who have reached the age of reason. Since the NT was written during a time when most converts were adults (there hadn’t been time for any babies to have been born into Christian homes, yet), the rubric you describe seems valid.

However, as Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ”, we can expect that dutiful Jewish parents who converted to Christianity would have brought their infants into the New Covenant at a tender age just as they had brought them into the old by circumcising them on the eighth day.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[JonNC]

Let me ask y’all this: When babies are baptized, and then grow up and believe, are they then baptized again in obedience to God’s Word?

If the answer is yes, I see no harm in baptizing an infant. If the answer is no, I think this teaching is from the devil because it’s obviously not supported with scripture and it keeps the now-believing child or adult from following God’s Word - believe and be baptized.

This - infant Baptism - was the teaching of the early Church, the unified Church, both East and west after the schism, and the virtual entirety of the reformers (save the anabaptists). If this is the teaching of the devil, then the devil has controlled Christ’s Church, visable and invisable, for the entirety of the post-apostolic era. And “one baptism for the remission of sin” as been the unified teaching of the Church at least as long.

Are you saying that they’ve all been wrong?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m surprised that a Bible Christian would ask this question.

4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

A second baptism would be not only unbiblical but anti-biblical. You’re not recommending this, are you?

“Believe and be baptized” as you say, is the norm for those who have reached the age of reason. Since the NT was written during a time when most converts were adults (there hadn’t been time for any babies to have been born into Christian homes, yet), the rubric you describe seems valid.

However, as Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ”, we can expect that dutiful Jewish parents who converted to Christianity would have brought their infants into the New Covenant at a tender age just as they had brought them into the old by circumcising them on the eighth day.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Randy,
Your response is far better than mine.
Jon

 

[always_gr8ful]

I’m surprised that a Bible Christian would ask this question.

4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

A second baptism would be not only unbiblical but anti-biblical. You’re not recommending this, are you?

Why would it surprise you that a Bible believing Christian wouldn’t discount the numerous scripture in God’s Word that says “Believe” THEN be baptized? A Bible believing Christian would have to say that by your reasoning, all those verses are a lie, and a Bible believing Christian knows that God doesn’t lie, nor is His Word in error.

Yes! You are absolutely right - there is only one baptism. If baptism is contingent upon belief as God’s Word says, then the baptism of infants is only symbolic, and that child may grow up, old and die without baptism after belief - the One baptism. Do you see why I think this teaching is from the depths of hell? Am I the only one who hears satan laughing?

 

[always_gr8ful]

This - infant Baptism - was the teaching of the early Church, the unified Church, both East and west after the schism, and the virtual entirety of the reformers (save the anabaptists). If this is the teaching of the devil, then the devil has controlled Christ’s Church, visable and invisable, for the entirety of the post-apostolic era. And “one baptism for the remission of sin” as been the unified teaching of the Church at least as long.

Are you saying that they’ve all been wrong?

Jon

Jon, I make no judgments about your religion. My posts are based on the Word of God only.

 

[CWBetts]

Jon, I make no judgments about your religion. My posts are based on the Word of God only.

Your posts are made your interpretation of the one piece of the Word of God, or perhaps what you have learned from your pastor, because I doubt you know Greek and Aramaic.

 

[CWBetts]

And this outside Word of God, would it be inerrant? And what happens when it conflicts with God’s Word - the Bible? Wow! I sure hope YADA comes back and tells me that Catholics don’t hold the Church above the Word of God (The Bible), because right now I see some things that are pretty scary about y’all. Not scary spooky, but “I wonder about your salvation” scary.

One more thing. Since you abviously accept OSAS and “faith only” salvation, i was “saved” in a Fundamentlaist church when i was 21. Fortunately, since then, I have come home to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

 

[kalt]

Let me ask y’all this: When babies are baptized, and then grow up and believe, are they then baptized again in obedience to God’s Word?

If the answer is yes, I see no harm in baptizing an infant. If the answer is no, I think this teaching is from the devil because it’s obviously not supported with scripture and it keeps the now-believing child or adult from following God’s Word - believe and be baptized.

We believe in one baptism. You can’t rebaptize someone. Once you’re baptized, that’s it.

 

[always_gr8ful]

Your posts are made your interpretation of the one piece of the Word of God, or perhaps what you have learned from your pastor, because I doubt you know Greek and Aramaic.

This is seeming to be the pat answer given when something contradicts God’s Word. I hope not, because it’s getting old. The Bible is not in code! Are you saying that you need to know the Greek and Aramaic to understand the plain words of Philip here:

Acts 8:36-38
"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.

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."

 

[always_gr8ful]

One more thing. Since you abviously accept OSAS and “faith only” salvation, i was “saved” in a Fundamentlaist church when i was 21. Fortunately, since then, I have come home to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Yeah, I know all about the doctrine games from the other thread, and I don’t play those. My salvation is through Jesus and Jesus alone who washed my sins away and made me righteous through Him and Him alone. I have blessed assurance of my salvation through the Holy Spirit in which I’m sealed.

LOL, I just realized this is the first time in my entire life I have summed that up in that way - covering all bases -, and did so with such inner confidence. Cool.
God is good, and I give Him the glory.