Protestant claims baptism not necessary - help!

[HollowMan]

Okay, then that would also place repentance is also a response to salvation?

That would be consistent with some views of ordo salutis.

Given the Bible’s teaching that carnal man is incapable of repenting, but is granted the ability to repent upon regeneration, it’s not an argument I would use, but I certainly wouldn’t object to it. While not untrue, I think it would be more accurate and more clear to say that repentance is a response to regeneration.

 

[HollowMan]

Dozens of Christians on CARM have explained to you that we do not believe in scripture “alone”, but that scripture is the highest authority by which other sources must defer, not that it is the only source.

 

[De_Maria]

Dozens of Christians on CARM

Welcome to Catholic Answers.

have explained to you that we do not believe in scripture “alone”,
but that scripture is the highest authority

I believe they said that Scripture alone is the highest authority. But they did not deny their belief in Scripture alone.

by which other sources must defer, not that it is the only source.

And I have explained, in return, that Scripture does not teach this idea. So, unless you can provide proof from Scripture, why should I believe you?

 

[HollowMan]

I believe they said that Scripture alone is the highest authority. But they did not deny their belief in Scripture alone.

Yes, we tell you constantly that scripture is not the only source, but merely the authoritative source.

And I have explained, in return, that Scripture does not teach this idea. So, unless you can provide proof from Scripture, why should I believe you?

We have provided scripture. And we have provided the writings of the ECF, all of which show the authority of scripture.

The difference is that you’re demanding we show you evidence of the exclusivity of scripture, which we explain to you time and time again we do not believe in, but instead believe that scripture is not the only source, but the highest authoritative source by which all other sources must be judged.

Then, when we provide you with Biblical and historical evidence (and I would think any rational person would see citing extra-Biblical historical evidence as evidence that we don’t believe the Bible is the only source), you start crowing about how the evidence we provide doesn’t prove your straw man description of the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, we tell you constantly that scripture is not the only source, but merely the authoritative source.

Then why do you call it “Scripture alone”?

We have provided scripture.

Nope. There is no Scripture which says that Scripture is the highest authority. If you can provide it, feel free.

And we have provided the writings of the ECF, all of which show the authority of scripture.

And I provided the writings of the ECF’s in context so that you could see that they accepted Sacred Tradition as equal authority and the Church as the interpreter of the Word of God.

The difference is that you’re demanding we show you evidence of the exclusivity of scripture,

I demand that of those who hold that belief.
I demand of you that you show the Scriptures which claim that Scripture is the highest authority.

which we explain to you time and time again we do not believe in,

That’s a stance which you hold in distinction to most Protestants. Even on CARM, the only ones who hold that stance are the CARM Protestants. The others, hold to exclusivity. In either case, none of you provide evidence from Scripture to support your various definitions of Sola Scriptura.

but instead believe that scripture is not the only source, but the highest authoritative source by which all other sources must be judged.

Again, Scripture says that all sources are judged by the Church.

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Show me where Scripture says that any sources are judged by Scripture as the highest authority.

Show me where you claim that Scripture teaches that Scripture is the highest authority.

Then, when we provide you with Biblical and historical evidence (and I would think any rational person would see citing extra-Biblical historical evidence as evidence that we don’t believe the Bible is the only source), you start crowing about how the evidence we provide doesn’t prove your straw man description of the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura.

That’s because you’ve done neither. As we can see by this post of yours, you simply claim to provide evidence. But you don’t.

So, let’s see what you’ve got. As the saying goes, “talk is cheap.”

 

[HollowMan]

Then why do you call it “Scripture alone”?

As you well know, I’ve never called it “scripture alone”, nor would I, as I’ve been very consistent in explaining to you that Christians do not believe the Bible exists in a vacuum, but is one of many sources available to the Christian, and that even the Bible, itself, tells us there are other sources.

I don’t approve of your dishonesty, but at least you’re consistent about it.

Nope. There is no Scripture which says that Scripture is the highest authority. If you can provide it, feel free.

What authority is higher than God?

And I provided the writings of the ECF’s in context so that you could see that they accepted Sacred Tradition as equal authority and the Church as the interpreter of the Word of God.

And I have shown you the writings of the ECFs in context that show that they held God’s word as a higher authority than man’s traditions.

I demand that of those who hold that belief.

No, you demand that of anyone who adheres to the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura.

And why demand evidence from the Bible when you say you don’t believe the Bible is more authoritative than your traditions?

 

[De_Maria]

As you well know, I’ve never called it “scripture alone”, nor would I, as I’ve been very consistent in explaining to you that Christians do not believe the Bible exists in a vacuum, but is one of many sources available to the Christian, and that even the Bible, itself, tells us there are other sources.

Hm? Is this you?

That’s weird, because I’ve been a Christian for thirty years, in ministry for twenty-five, and a believer in the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura all that time, and yet, I’ve never heard anyone say the Holy Spirit is the only authority one needs.

Does sola scriptura mean Scripture alone? Yes or no.

I don’t approve of your dishonesty, but at least you’re consistent about it.

What have I been dishonest about?

What authority is higher than God?

None. But God can’t be reduced to a handwritten message.

And I have shown you the writings of the ECFs in context that show that they held God’s word as a higher authority than man’s traditions.

All of us hold God’s word higher. But God’s word comes to us in Sacred Tradition and Scripture. In fact, Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition. As Sacred Scripture is also handed down.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ did not write a word of Scripture. He commanded the Church to Teach all that He commanded.

No, you demand that of anyone who adheres to the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura.

You’ll have to show that from Scripture. Note that you are still calling it Scripture alone. Just because you’re using a different language, Latin, doesn’t change the meaning of the term.

And why demand evidence from the Bible when you say you don’t believe the Bible is more authoritative than your traditions?

In order to show you that the Bible does not contain that admonition. Therefore, your praxis is found to be without merit.

Your practice of holding to sola scriptura merely makes you the authority over Scripture, since you have now given yourself the authority to interpret Scripture as you please.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The sad part is because you are Catholic, the moderators will allow you to lie and misrepresent our beliefs.

This is a Catholic forum supported by Catholics. Do not come here insulting us. Moderators will not allow lying.

 

[JonNC]

Through the years, I’ve had the opposite experience. Most Protestants that I talk to, reject Baptism as necessary.

Which Protestants ? There’s no such thing as a Protestant teaching on baptism, so one has to be specific about communions.

For example, why do they believe in the purported “salvation by faith alone”? It is obviously a reaction against “salvation by faith and good works.”

Why do they believe in the unbiblical, so-called, “Scripture alone”? It is a reaction against the authority of the Church.

How are these in any way related to the topic?

 

[JonNC]

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” ([Matthew 28:19–20].

How do we make disciples of all nations?

According to this passage, first we baptize, then we teach.

The Bible shows in many places that the order of events is 1) a person believes in the Lord Jesus and 2) he is baptized. This sequence is seen in [Acts 2:41], “Those who accepted [Peter’s] message were baptized” (see also [Acts 16:14–15].

True, but now, by stating the order you’ve set here, you’ve made the great commission false because it says, first baptize, then teach.

The fact is that baptism is not our work. It is God’s regenerative work in us.

 

[De_Maria]

@HollowMan

Does Sola Scriptura mean Scripture alone? Yes or no.

Actually, the moderators do allow lying. De_Maria has lied about me, personally, at least twice now.

Where?

Why does Catholic Answers invite non-Catholics, if you’re just going to beat up on us?

Just answer the question. Where is your non-Scripture alone sola scriptura praxis taught in Scripture?

 

[De_Maria]

englands123:

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” ([Matthew 28:19–20].

How do we make disciples of all nations?

The Scripture says it clearly. By teaching all that Jesus commanded and by baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

According to this passage, first we baptize, then we teach.

Actually, first we make them disciples then we baptize and then we continue to teach.

True, but now, by stating the order you’ve set here, you’ve made the great commission false because it says, first baptize, then teach.

No, it says first make then disciples, then baptize then continue to teach.

The fact is that baptism is not our work. It is God’s regenerative work in us.

True. But only those who have worked by repenting of their sins and provided proof of their repentance, are baptized:

Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

 

[De_Maria]

Which Protestants ?

The one’s I’ve spoken to. Ask HollowMan. There are many Protestants on CARM who say that Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

There’s no such thing as a Protestant teaching on baptism, so one has to be specific about communions.

I’ve encountered several Protestant teachings on Baptism.

1. Necessary for salvation.
2. Not necessary for salvation but required for disciplinary reasons.
3. Not necessary for salvation nor required for any reason.

How are these in any way related to the topic?

I’m responding to his apparent objection to the use of the word, “Protestant”.

What are you teaching today? Anglicanism or Lutheranism?

 

[HopkinsReb]

What are you teaching today? Anglicanism or Lutheranism?

Lutheranism, in his case.

His point is simply that one cannot say “the Protestant position on Baptism is…”

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

What are you teaching today? Anglicanism or Lutheranism?

Lutheranism, in his case.

Oh, I thought he had switched to Anglican.

His point is simply that one cannot say “the Protestant position on Baptism is…”

Yeah. He and I have gone round and round on this several times, through the years. I contend that, because Protestants, no matter what they call themselves, believe in private interpretation of Scripture, I can’t be specific about what each Protestants teach because most of the Protestants I’ve encountered don’t care about the “Little Catechism” nor about the “Book of Concord”. They basically stick to “me and my bible”.

 

[adf417]

There’s no such thing as a Protestant teaching on baptism, so one has to be specific about communions.

Yet we get many coming here to CAF professing Catholics have it wrong. :man_shrugging:t3:

Peace!!!

 

[De_Maria]

JonNC:

There’s no such thing as a Protestant teaching on baptism, so one has to be specific about communions.

Yet we get many coming here to CAF professing Catholics have it wrong. :man_shrugging:t3:

Peace!!!

Lol! What a wonderful point!

 

[De_Maria]

Baptism is a picture of what Christ did- He died,was buried,and rose again.

For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God

Not as a result of works so that no one may boast

Ephesians 2:8-9

I do not nullify the grace of God for if righteousness comes through the Law then Christ died needlessly

Galatians 2:21

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Notice that only those who have done works of righteousness, are saved by the mercy of God in the washing of regeneration, which is Baptism.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

There’s no such thing as a Protestant teaching on baptism, so one has to be specific about communions.

Yet we get many coming here to CAF professing Catholics have it wrong. :man_shrugging:t3:

Peace!!!

Many who?..

 

[JonNC]

The Scripture says it clearly. By teaching all that Jesus commanded and by baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That’s not what the passage says. It says to baptize, then teach.

Actually, first we make them disciples then we baptize and then we continue to teach.

How do we make them disciples unless we baptize and teach? The passage says we make them disciples. It then tells us how: baptize and teach in that order. That’s why we baptize infants.

You are defending “ believers’ baptism”. Why?