Question for Bible-Only Christians

[Pax]

…
…
Can you show me where any of the Apostles ever taught this doctrine of “faith by association” through baptism? Can you show me exactly where it’s taught that the faith of parents can be transferred, by water, to their offspring?I’ve seen many infants baptized strictly out of religious conformity and Christian culture. The parents had no more faith in Christ than your every day pagan.
…
…

I’ll address your points in what I hope to be the most appropriate fashion. The way you have posed the questions and points, however, is a bit problematic because it is not congruent with Catholic teaching or scripture.

I’ll take the last point first. Scripture[Rom 14:23] and the Catholic Church both indicate that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Baptizing an infant or doing anything else simply out of conformity to Christian culture is a sinful thing to do on the part of the person that is doing it with that motivation. Fortunately, for the infant, the baptism is still valid. Christian baptism, when properly administered, is not negated by the sinfulness of a parent, the minister/priest, or any witnesses. If the sinfulness of those involved in a baptism negated the baptism then few would have a valid baptism because most people sin.

I would be extremely careful about judging people’s hearts. This is an activity reserved to God alone. Your statement that, “The parents had no more faith in Christ than your every day pagan”, is at best problematic. Even very sinful people that do not visibly live a life in Christ may still have faith in Him. We simply do not know the state of their minds, hearts, and souls. If we see exterior indications of sinfulness, it is right and proper to evangelize someone even though they already profess belief in Christ. We must, according to scripture, " Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."[Heb 12:14] Sinfulness must be elimated if we are to be holy.

Alright, now let’s address your question of “faith by association…through baptism… that the faith of parents can be transferred, by water, to their offspring” Please be advised that this kind of formulation does not conform to either scripture or Catholic teaching. This is what we would call a “Straw man.”

Catholic teaching and scripture indicate that baptism is a New Covenant oath/sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ to give grace. Jesus commanded baptism and so did the apostles.[see Matt 28:19 & Acts 10:48] Moreover, there are certain promises tied to baptism. The promises can be seen in the following scriptures:

ACTS 2:37-38
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
–water baptism bring the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

ACTS 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
—water baptism removes sin.

MARK 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
—water baptism is a necessary part of salvation…it is the sacrament of faith.

ROMANS 6: 3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
—water baptism is the initiation into the Christian faith and this verse tell us what the sacrament brings to us.

GALATIANS 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
—this has always been understood as water baptism.

COLOSSIANS 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead
—baptism is our initiation into Christianity just as circumcision was the initiation into the old covenant. Paul explains this important truth.

EPHESIANS 4:5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
—notice how these are tied together.

TITUS 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
—this is water baptism as prefigured in the OT and seen in Acts 2:37-38

1 PETER 3:21
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,
—Peter uses the analogy of Noah to emphasize that this is water baptism, and he clearly states that baptism saves you.

None of these statement indicate that the regenerative aspects of baptism are dependent upon the “association of the faith” of others in the sense that you propose. Baptism is something that is administered by human beings but is the work of God in the person who is baptized.

My next post will get into the issue of infant baptism.

 

[justinthemartyr]

The question was:
If the Scriptures are the only authority given us, how could the Church have done away with the requirement of circumcision?

My answer is that sola scriptura wasn’t the norm while the scriptura was being developed.

As to your question which isn’t the same as the OP asked, Peter and the other 11 were apostles…you know, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Define “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” and what that has to do with totally changing a teaching from God?

Also, where does scripture say that scripture (the Word of God) was not the auithority at that time? why did they look to the scriptures at times for guidance and help if scripture was not the authority? what was the authority? when did it change to scripture? what year precisely and where do you know this from?
I look forward to your response.

peace, Justin

 

[Pax]

Now to Infant Baptism.

In my previous post I mentioned the following scripture:

MARK 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

I then went on to say that “water baptism is a necessary part of salvation…it is the sacrament of faith.”

You contend that infants cannot make a profession of faith and therefore shouldn’t be baptized. It would seem that both of us can agree that there is a relationship between faith and baptism. The difference is that I would support the belief in infant baptism.

This time let’s look at this logically first and then we will go to the scripture that supports infant baptism. Please keep in mind all of the scriptures that I previously posted concerning the regenerative aspects of baptism.

Everyone is conceived with original sin. Everyone must be baptized in order to receive the remission of original sin and any personal sin. Infants have original sin but no personal sin. Infants can be baptized and they can receive the remission of original sin.

Baptism provides grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Everyone needs grace and the Holy Spirit. Infants can receive grace and the Holy Spirit. Infants should, therefore be baptized.

The perfect biblical example of an infant receiving grace and the Holy Spirit is found in Luke 1:14-15 which tells us of John the Baptist.

It says:

“And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”

This is all very interesting and extremely important to recognize as a clue about infant baptism. We are shown that the one who is called “the Baptist” is given the gift of the Holy Spirit even before birth. John could not have made any kind of profession of faith whatsoever. Nevertheless, he was given exactly what we receive in Christian baptism.

We are also told in several places in scripture that whole households were baptized such as those of the Roman jailer, Lydia, and Stephanes. When scripture refers to whole households it is understood that this includes everyone associated with the family. This includes the slaves and their families. It is extremely unlikely that there were no children and infants in any of these households. Likewise, if small children and infants were not to be baptized scripture would surely have made the point in at least one of the three accounts that I listed or somewhere else in scripture.

Instead, scripture gives us other clues that children and infants should be baptized and that faith is not necessary for them until they reach the age of reason. We know that everyone in the OT that went to heaven did so by way of the salvific work of Jesus Christ. They were saved by the same means that we are, but in an anticipatory fashion. None of them knew or professed a belief in Jesus. Nevertheless, scripture says in 1 Cor 10:4 that they were saved “For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

It is important to accept this information concerning salvation for the OT people of God. Likewise, it is very important to note what is said in the preceding three verses in 1 Cor 10. The full passage of 1 Cor 10:1-4 says:

“I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,** and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink**. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

Genesis 17:1-14 says:

WHEN ABRAM was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless. And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him, “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you… Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

In Joshua 5 we are told that the people that had fled Egypt had died and that their descendents were going to enter the Promised Land. God ordered Joshua to circumcise all of the males and he did so. God then says to Joshua, “This day I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.”[Joshua 5:9]

The people that God took out of Egypt are the people of Israel and they are referred to as the “Chosen People.” Moreover, Yahweh repeatedly refers to them as “My People.” These people were saved. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10:1-4 that. "I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Circumcision was necessary to be part of God’s people. God’s people then and now are saved by the supernatural rock that is Jesus. Just as circumcision was the sign and entry in the OT family of God, baptism is now the sign and entry in the New Covenant family of God.

Belief was not necessary for the infants that were of OT circumcision that fled Egypt. Belief was not necessary for the OT infants circumcised by Joshua just before entering the Promised Land. All those infants that passed through the Red Sea leaving Egypt were all under the cloud and were baptized into Moses.

Likewise, all NT infants are baptized into Christ. Belief as an infant is not necessary. Baptism provides the remission of original sin and imparts the Holy Spirit. This is a huge jump start for faith when the child reaches the age of reason. I was baptized as an infant. I cannot remember not believing in God. I do not remember just when it was that I first believed that Jesus died for my sins. It is so far back in my childhood that I simply cannot remember. It is almost as if I have always believed.

I hope this helps.

 

[moondweller]

I hope this helps.

NONE of it helped your case. After all that you posted you still didn’t show me where anyone was baptized prior to FIRST believing. You didn’t show me where one is to repent of their sins for salvation. Nor did you show me where it’s taught that a parents faith can be transferred to their offspring by water.

 

[Pax]

Either you didn’t read my posts or you are ignoring the contents.

 

[jmcrae]

NONE of it helped your case. After all that you posted you still didn’t show me where anyone was baptized prior to FIRST believing. You didn’t show me where one is to repent of their sins for salvation. Nor did you show me where it’s taught that a parents faith can be transferred to their offspring by water.

Acts 16:30-31 - the jailer’s entire household is saved because of the jailer’s faith (his family and household servants have not yet even heard of the Gospel yet, because Paul and Silas are still in the jail, and even so, they are already saved).

In verse 33, he and his entire household were baptized “without delay” - that very same evening.

 

[MrS]

Acts 16:30-31 - the jailer’s entire household is saved because of the jailer’s faith (his family and household servants have not yet even heard of the Gospel yet, because Paul and Silas are still in the jail, and even so, they are already saved).

In verse 33, he and his entire household were baptized “without delay” - that very same evening.

Vertually all commentary on this passage acknowledges that “whole household” included numerous family, servants and children… with no exclusion.

The protestant understanding of the value of baptism and the necessity to repent would force Jesus to withhold that sacramental grace from some… but we know better.

.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Sacraments, the doctrines about Mary, Purgatory, and all the other teachings of the Church that we don’t find explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but which come down to us via the Oral Tradition that was given to the Bishops from the Apostles - along with everything that we do find in the Scriptures, as well, of course.

Maybe the best way for me to ask this is, do you accept the material sufficiency of scripture or do you believe that part of God’s revelation is given in scripture and part in tradition?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Define “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” and what that has to do with totally changing a teaching from God?

We are under a new covenant. We no longer offer animal sacrifices, obey the strict dietary laws, etc. No longer do we suffer under the law.
"Hebrews 8:6-13:

6 But as it is, Christ(1 )has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says1 )“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

By inspired by the Holy Spirit I mean communication that has been ordained by God’s authority and produced by the enabling of his Spirit.

How do you see the apostles authority? Was it independent of God’s will or were they working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Also, where does scripture say that scripture (the Word of God) was not the auithority at that time? why did they look to the scriptures at times for guidance and help if scripture was not the authority? what was the authority? when did it change to scripture? what year precisely and where do you know this from?
I look forward to your response.

My answer is that sola scriptura wasn’t the norm while the scriptura was being developed. How can scripture be the sole infallible source of God’s word when scripture is still being developed by God’s inspiration?

That doesn’t mean that scripture wasn’t an authority, just that it wouldn’t have been the only infallible authority until the last apostle passed from the earth.

 

[MrS]

Maybe the best way for me to ask this is, do you accept the material sufficiency of scripture or do you believe that part of God’s revelation is given in scripture and part in tradition?

All the Truth can be summarized in one word…Jesus.

He is the source of all we can and should know… it is called Tradition. He wrote nothing, He gave no instructions to write…well you know the drill by now.

Everything that was revealed… which formed this Tradition… was given to the Apostles.

Over time, much of what is Tradition was written down… some correctly, some with error.

Through the Holy Spirit, the teaching authority of the Church (Catholic, and there was no other) determined which was divinely inspired. The remainding were simply rejected.

The Catholic Church members were truly the first “Bible” Christians. But the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church. All others can only claim to be “churches” of the book…to their own demise.

Thus, to answer your question, God’s revelation is all in Tradition. And, as promised to only His One, True Church, the Holy Spirit will guide us into all that Truth.

Part, but not all, of that guidance resulted in the 73 books of the Canon.
Part, but not all, of that guidance resulted in the teaching Magisterium who alone, over time, can permit a correct or deny a false understanding of our Bible.
Part, but not all, of that guidance resulted in the birth of the church at Pentacost, and the 2000 years of life and growth in that Church… often in spite of ourselves.

One Truth… 3 witnesses… Tradition, Scripture, Church

.

 

[Pax]

…

My answer is that sola scriptura wasn’t the norm while the scriptura was being developed. How can scripture be the sole infallible source of God’s word when scripture is still being developed by God’s inspiration?

That doesn’t mean that scripture wasn’t an authority, just that it wouldn’t have been the only infallible authority until the last apostle passed from the earth.

We would agree that scripture could not be the sole infallible source of God’s word when scripture was still being developed by God’s inspiration. We, however, do not believe that scripture is “infallible” then or now. Instead, our view is that scripture is the **“inerrant” **word of God then and now. Infallibility is not the same as inerrancy.

We simply believe, as do most Christians, that scripture needs to be interpreted in order to be properly understood. We believe that there is an “infallible” authority for doing so. Within non-Catholic Christian communities there is no authority for interpreting scripture infallibly. The inerrant word of God takes on numerous meanings that contradict one another and the competing interpreters all claim that their interpretation is correct. This simply destroys the “practical” and “applied” inerrancy that is intrinsic to scripture.

Scripture must have an infallible authority that can provide the guidelines within which the inerrant word is to be understood. Jesus provided that authority when He established His Church.

 

[moondweller]

Acts 16:30-31 - the jailer’s entire household is saved because of the jailer’s faith (his family and household servants have not yet even heard of the Gospel yet, because Paul and Silas are still in the jail, and even so, they are already saved).

In verse 33, he and his entire household were baptized “without delay” - that very same evening.

Look at the text carefully. In 16:30 the jailer asked Paul and his companions what he must do to be saved. Their response was, “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” The promise was not only to the jailer but to all in his houselhold who would believe. And they spoke the word of the Lord (1) to him (2) together with all who were in his household. In verse 33 it specifically states:"…having BELIEVED in God with his whole household."Those who were baptized in his household were those who heard the word of the Lord and BELIEVED. Based on the text one must conclude there were no infants in his household, since they all believed the word of the Lord.

The same thing happened with Crispus, the leader of the synagogue. He "BELIEVED in the Lord WITH all his household (1 Cor. 18:8). It goes on to say that many of the Corinthians “when they HEARD were BELIEVING and being baptized.”

First they believed what they heard concerning the Lord, and then they were baptized. In all situations only believers were baptized. Based on the text it was those who heard and believed in the households that were baptized. You read your doctrine of infant baptism into the text, but that doctrine cannot be formed from an exegetical study of the text.

 

[Pax]

…
…Based on the text one must conclude there were no infants in his household, since they all believed the word of the Lord.
…
…

It would be more accurate to say that based on the text, “Iconclude…”

Your interpretation is only a possibility among other interpretations. The evidence of the households seems to lean the other way from out perspective. This is especially true when you consider all of the other scriptures associated with infants as they are made part of the family of God. Likewise, the Christian practice and the Church has always favored infant baptism. Your view is a rather modern spin to say the least.

 

[Pwrlftr]

We would agree that scripture could not be the sole infallible source of God’s word when scripture was still being developed by God’s inspiration.

At least we agree on something.

We, however, do not believe that scripture is “infallible” then or now. Instead, our view is that scripture is the **“inerrant” **word of God then and now. Infallibility is not the same as inerrancy.

We simply believe, as do most Christians, that scripture needs to be interpreted in order to be properly understood. We believe that there is an “infallible” authority for doing so.

As you know, this is where we part ways. I do not accept your church as being infallible.

Within non-Catholic Christian communities there is no authority for interpreting scripture infallibly. The inerrant word of God takes on numerous meanings that contradict one another and the competing interpreters all claim that their interpretation is correct. This simply destroys the “practical” and “applied” inerrancy that is intrinsic to scripture.

Scripture must have an infallible authority that can provide the guidelines within which the inerrant word is to be understood. Jesus provided that authority when He established His Church.

Yes, there are competing views on scripture but if you hold your faith to the same test, do you not end up with competing views?

For example, is scripture inerrant or not? Dei Verbum for Vatican II uses some ambiguous phrasing that many Catholics now interpret that inspiration is limited to only those parts of the scriptures that deal with faith and morals. Other Catholics (Pope Leo XIII for example as well Pope Pius XII) claimed that scripture is completely inerrant.

Can a Catholic couple use ABC? Some say “no, never” others say “depends”.

I agree that your church should have more unity than all non-Catholic church’s but even within the confines of the Catholic church, there isn’t unity in either practice or belief. I do have a problem when different Catholics compare their one church with all other churches. It’s comparing apples and oranges. A better comparison would be to either compare your church to mine or those churches who claim infallibile authority to those that cling to sola scriptura.

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe the best way for me to ask this is, do you accept the material sufficiency of scripture or do you believe that part of God’s revelation is given in scripture and part in tradition?

What I believe is better expressed by saying that all of God’s revelation comes to us by means of the Holy Tradition, and that the Scriptures, as one of the elements of the Holy Tradition, can’t be separated out from it without doing serious damage to both.

We hear about “reading the Scriptures in context,” and for most of us, when we hear that, we realize, obviously, that we have to look at the whole chapter rather than just one verse - but I believe that it goes much deeper than that - I believe that the proper context in which we can correctly understand the Scriptures is the Holy Tradition, and the proper context in which we can properly understand the Holy Tradition is the Church - they aren’t really divisible from one another; they are interdependant.

 

[jmcrae]

Can a Catholic couple use ABC? Some say “no, never” others say “depends”.

The Church says “No.” The teaching is not ambiguous. Even unbelievers are quite aware of the teachings of the Church on this matter - it’s one of the beefs they have against us.

If an individual Catholic claims to be confused on the issue, this is not the Church’s fault - the Church’s teaching is perfectly plain.

When we compare random individuals with random individuals, it’s accurate to say that Catholics are just as confused as Protestants on moral issues; secular society has influenced people on both sides of the fence to believe that “anything goes, as long as you don’t hurt anyone.”

When we compare authority to authority, though, that’s where we see clarity in the Catholic church, and not so much, in the Protestant churches.

 

[Pax]

At least we agree on something.
…
…

Yes, it looks like we are off to a good start

Do you think that inerrancy and infallibilty are inter-changeable terms and that they should be used that way?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Yes, it looks like we are off to a good start

Do you think that inerrancy and infallibilty are inter-changeable terms and that they should be used that way?

I often interchange the two terms but I’m not sure that is proper. I suppose it would depend on the context.

 

[Pwrlftr]

What I believe is better expressed by saying that all of God’s revelation comes to us by means of the Holy Tradition, and that the Scriptures, as one of the elements of the Holy Tradition, can’t be separated out from it without doing serious damage to both.

We hear about “reading the Scriptures in context,” and for most of us, when we hear that, we realize, obviously, that we have to look at the whole chapter rather than just one verse - but I believe that it goes much deeper than that - I believe that the proper context in which we can correctly understand the Scriptures is the Holy Tradition, and the proper context in which we can properly understand the Holy Tradition is the Church - they aren’t really divisible from one another; they are interdependant.

It may be better expressed in the way you did it above but I am still not sure what you believe concerning either the material sufficiency of scripture. Mr. S seemingly believes that all Tradition is not found in scripture, I guess he holds to the partim-partim theory.

I am curious to know our thoughts on this.