Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

This point need not be argued since various sources, both historic and religious, all agree that baptism in the early Church was done by immersion.

Yes, whenever possible, but sometimes it was not. Have you ever read the Didache? This is dated around the time of the letters of John and Revelation (96 AD). It is the earliest post - apostolic testimony to the sacramental life of the Church.

1. Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, “baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” in running water;
2. But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm.
3. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.”
4. And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.

Clearly they did not get legalistic about immersion. But Immersion is considered by the Church to be the fullest sign.

1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.

Immersion corresponds to being buried with Christ:

Romans 6:4 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.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

These are things that happen by someone making a decision to be born again. It doesn’t say that this transformation happens passively on someone, such as an infant, who can’t claim it for themselves.

Indeed there are! But Jesus does not deny His grace to any, and enjoins us to bring the children to Him. All the first Christians were Jews, so why would they not bring their children into the New Covenant?

Salvation is a free gift of grace, and we do nothing to earn it. Those who are at the age of reason make a profession of faith, and for those who are not, the profession is made for them.

It is curious why you would say that transformation does not happen “passively”. Scripture is clear that baptism is a circumcision of the heart accomplished by the Holy Spirit (not human hands). There is nothing a person can do but receive it.

Colossians 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;

Baptism is the circumcision of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Paul is telling the believer that their example in faith can hopefully get the unbeliever to be saved, but the believing spouse can’t get salvation for the non-believing spouse.

Well, the text does not say that…

Paul is basically telling the believing spouse to not give up hope, that one day the other person will come to be saved on their own- that’s all they can do, demonstrate Christ through love, encourage the person in love and pray, but they can’t make the confession of salvation on their behalf.

I agree with you, but by your own admission, the spouse does a lot to bring that person . Example, encouragement, prayer and sacrifice. This is the same thing that parents promise to do when their infants are baptized.

I am glad to see full immersion tanks coming back into Catholic Churches.

 

[medwigel]

Acts 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Why would the Jews who heard the Apostle think that some of their children were too young?

Luke is saying the promise of salvation is for them and their children, but they still have to make the steps to salvation on their own- it’s a promise.

We do participate in the salvation of others. The friends of the paralytic, who was as helpless as an infant to come to Jesus, brought him to Jesus for salvation.

People may have assisted the paralytic in getting to Jesus but when it came to his deliverance Jesus address the man personally, not his friends.

 

[medwigel]

I agree with you, but by your own admission, the spouse does a lot to bring that person . Example, encouragement, prayer and sacrifice. This is the same thing that parents promise to do when their infants are baptized.

No, this is not the same, because the final act is done by the person themselves, not by the people who assisted them. The person in question must take the final step ON THEIR OWN; there is no proxy in baptism or salvation anywhere in the Bible.

 

[medwigel]

Indeed there are! But Jesus does not deny His grace to any, and enjoins us to bring the children to Him. All the first Christians were Jews, so why would they not bring their children into the New Covenant?

They bring their children in by teaching their children their faith from the very beginning, so that the child is old enough, may take hold of the promise given to them and decide to make their own confession of salvation. Child are able to learn and make a profession of faith, and it is at that time that they too can be baptized.
But as an infant the profession of faith does not exist. There is no understanding of the old self dying and them being born anew. Yet when they are at the age to understand and accept this you are telling them “ok don’t worry, we already baptized you before you understood these things”; that’s essentially putting the cart before the horse.
First let them be saved then baptize, not the other way around.

 

[medwigel]

Paul is telling the believer that their example in faith can hopefully get the unbeliever to be saved, but the believing spouse can’t get salvation for the non-believing spouse.

Here is the same text in the Amplified version
1 Corinthians 7:16
16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband [by leading him to Christ]? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife [by leading her to Christ]?

 

[medwigel]

This is a Scripture on healing not absolution. Paul is telling us to confess our sins to each other, he does not specify priest nor does he touch on this confession leading to absolution. There is even a part in verse 14 where he does direct you to the elders of the church, but not for absolution or forgiveness but for healing.

If may sound nice to “confess ones’ sins to the person who is authorized by Christ to remit them” but that is not what the Scripture says. It says to confess your sins one to another, not to the elders, not to the priest and not for the purpose of having Christ remit your sins.
Christ has already remitted all of our sins when He died on the cross once and for all, so why do you feel the need to redo what Christ has already done when it comes to forgiven and absolving you of all your sins? Must Christ die over and over again before the freedom and forgiveness He paid for us to have sticks and doesn’t need to be reinforced?

Romans 6:10-11
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin [ending its power and paying the sinner’s debt] once and for all; and the life that He lives, He lives to [glorify] God [in unbroken fellowship with Him]. 11 Even so, consider yourselves to be dead to sin [and your relationship to it broken], but alive to God [in unbroken fellowship with Him] in Christ Jesus.

Here the writer of Hebrews is tell us all the acts that we do (or in this case what the Jews did) to try to absolve themselves of sin was inferior to the complete absolution we have attained through Christ, and while the human verse of atonement involved us doing the acts repeatedly because they was not sufficient to last what Jesus did was far much greater and does not need to be redone

Hebrews 9:11-14
11 But when Christ appeared as a High Priest of the good things to come [that is, true spiritual worship], He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not a part of this [material] creation. 12 He went once for all into the Holy Place [the Holy of Holies of heaven, into the presence of God], and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, having obtained and secured eternal redemption [that is, the salvation of all who personally believe in Him as Savior]. 13 For if the sprinkling of [ceremonially] defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a [burnt] heifer is sufficient for the cleansing of the body, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal [Holy] Spirit willingly offered Himself unblemished [that is, without moral or spiritual imperfection as a sacrifice] to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works and lifeless observances to serve the ever living God?

 

[guanophore]

Luke is saying the promise of salvation is for them and their children, but they still have to make the steps to salvation on their own- it’s a promise.

Yes, of course. He is talking to adults, so he directs them to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. This is what we do in the RCIA with adult converts.

Infants are brought because Jesus told the disciples to suffer the children to come to him.

People may have assisted the paralytic in getting to Jesus but when it came to his deliverance Jesus address the man personally, not his friends.

Of course. We bring infants to Jesus, and He baptizes them. If God was opposed to this, why do you think He was unable to convince anyone in the Church about it for 1800 years? “Believers Baptism” is a modern innovation.

No, this is not the same, because the final act is done by the person themselves, not by the people who assisted them. The person in question must take the final step ON THEIR OWN; there is no proxy in baptism or salvation anywhere in the Bible.

Actually proxy baptism is mentioned in the Bible, but not as a supported practice. Of course every individual must come on their own. It was no different in the Old Covenant. Infants were brought and given to God, but it was up to the child whether they would follow the faith into which they were sealed.

When infants are brought, the infant is baptized. The parent is not baptized on their behalf.

They bring their children in by teaching their children their faith from the very beginning, so that the child is old enough, may take hold of the promise given to them and decide to make their own confession of salvation.

Yes, this happens in the Latin Rite in Confirmation. But yes, infants who are baptized are expected to be raised in the faith and make their own profession of faith prior to first Holy Communion.

Child are able to learn and make a profession of faith, and it is at that time that they too can be baptized.
But as an infant the profession of faith does not exist.

The profession exists through the parents and Godparents. You are imposing a modern human tradition. In the early church, it was understood that baptism replaced circumcision. The arguments were not about whether the infant should be baptized, but whether they should wait for the 8th day!

 

[guanophore]

There is no understanding of the old self dying and them being born anew.

No, but those at Pentecost had little understanding of that either. This is why, after baptism, they had to devote themselves to the Apostle’s Teaching, and to prayer.

Yet when they are at the age to understand and accept this you are telling them “ok don’t worry, we already baptized you before you understood these things”; that’s essentially putting the cart before the horse.
First let them be saved then baptize, not the other way around.

We don’t do this because the Apostles taught that baptism is what saves.

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism…now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism is the initiation, the starting point.

 

[guanophore]

If may sound nice to “confess ones’ sins to the person who is authorized by Christ to remit them” but that is not what the Scripture says. It says to confess your sins one to another, not to the elders, not to the priest and not for the purpose of having Christ remit your sins.

I don’t know about “nice”, but Jesus authorized the Apostles to remit or retain sins. They passed this authority to their successors, elders and bishops. Why did He tell them this, if it is not valid?

Christ has already remitted all of our sins when He died on the cross once and for all, so why do you feel the need to redo what Christ has already done when it comes to forgiven and absolving you of all your sins?

No, you have been given misinformation. Christ redeemed us on the cross, but each person must personally choose to participate in that redemption. He paid the price for us, but not everyone chooses to be purchased by Him, and go with Him.

In the Sacrament of reconciliation, as in the Anointing of the sick, sins are confessed and remitted. This is God’s plan for post-baptismal sin. If we confess our sins, He is faithful to forgive them.

This is how His redemption is applied to each of us personally. Just as in Baptism, we enter into His death and resurrection. He purchased us, but we need to be united to Him to benefit from the redemption.

Must Christ die over and over again before the freedom and forgiveness He paid for us to have sticks and doesn’t need to be reinforced?

No, He died once for all. It is we who must enter again and again into the grace of forgiveness through confession.

14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal [Holy] Spirit willingly offered Himself unblemished [that is, without moral or spiritual imperfection as a sacrifice] to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works and lifeless observances to serve the ever living God?

Indeed! The blood of Christ is applied to the individual first in baptism, then each time of Reconciliation.

The nature of sin has not changed, medwigel. Sin separates people from God.

 

[medwigel]

Yes, of course. He is talking to adults, so he directs them to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. This is what we do in the RCIA with adult converts.

Infants are brought because Jesus told the disciples to suffer the children to come to him.

No, that is not what that means.
This is not equivalent to salvation.
Again, you need this verse in context.

Matthew 19:13-15
13 Then children were brought to Jesus so that He might place His hands on them [for a blessing] and pray; but the disciples reprimanded them. 14 But He said, “Leave the children alone, and do not forbid them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 After placing His hands on them [for a blessing], He went on from there.

People were bringing their children to Jesus to be blessed but the disciples were trying to stop the people and Jesus told them to let the parents through so that their children could be blessed by Jesus; similar to people wanting their children to be blessed by the Pope. This blessing is not conferring salvation onto the person

 

[medwigel]

If God was opposed to this, why do you think He was unable to convince anyone in the Church about it for 1800 years? “Believers Baptism” is a modern innovation.

You lost me here.
“Believers Baptism” is not a modern innovation! The only baptism you see in the Bible are people who have become believers.
You have yet to so me outright in the Bible where infants are clearly being baptized; everything you’ve pointed to so far has been you trying to extrapolate from the Scripture which you are misinterpreting.

 

[medwigel]

When infants are brought, the infant is baptized. The parent is not baptized on their behalf.

Again, baptism is done AFTER the person has made a confession of faith.
I can show you clearly where someone had made a confession of faith and is baptized, show me clearly where it says parents can make that confess for a child or infant and the infant is then baptized.

 

[medwigel]

Yes, this happens in the Latin Rite in Confirmation. But yes, infants who are baptized are expected to be raised in the faith and make their own profession of faith prior to first Holy Communion.

See, they must make a profession of faith prior to communion. So after this profession of faith the next sacrament should be baptism and not communion.
So how backwards that is, you require a profession of faith before communion but don’t require a profession of faith before baptism.

 

[jlhargus]

First post one scripture example teaching baptism of all adults was done by being immersed?

Let’s first look at Jesus teaching by example! Jesus was baptized by immersion.

Matthew 3:13-16 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” 15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.

16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

JL: Scripture doesn’t say Jesus was baptized by immersion. You are taking immersion from Tradition going outside what you say is your sole authority. Scripture doesn’t mention immersion.

Here is an example of someone newly converted being baptized by immersion as well. It doesn’t say water was poured onto his head, it says he went down into the water.

Acts 8:36-38 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 [f]Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him

JL: True it doesn’t say water was poured over his head but you are going outside scripture using Tradition. Your using another authority outside scripture because scripture doesn’t say he was immersed either.

Notice the scripture you posted both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. If going down into the water means baptized by immersion then Philip would have baptized himself by immersion along with the eunuch.

There is more evidence in scripture to support of Paul standing when baptized than there is for immersion. But scripture doesn’t ever tell us the mode.

[Acts9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.]

Paul was baptized in a house and then ate.

 

[medwigel]

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism…now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism is the initiation, the starting point.

Let’s read this whole verse shall we:
1 Peter 3:21
21 Corresponding to that [rescue through the flood], baptism [which is an expression of a believer’s new life in Christ] now [d]saves you, not by removing dirt from the body, but by an appeal to God for a good (clear) conscience, [demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

So Peter is saying baptism should be a sign of your belief. And again, an infant can’t express their belief.
Peter is referring to people who can make a decision of faith.

 

[medwigel]

I don’t know about “nice”, but Jesus authorized the Apostles to remit or retain sins. They passed this authority to their successors, elders and bishops. Why did He tell them this, if it is not valid?

No, the source of this authority comes from Jesus referring to everyone, not just elders and bishops
Here’s the verse in context:
Matthew 18:15-18
15 “If your brother sins[d], go and show him his fault in private; if he listens and pays attention to you, you have won back your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two others, so that every word may be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses. 17 If he pays no attention to them [refusing to listen and obey], tell it to the [e]church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile (unbeliever) and a tax collector. 18 I assure you and most solemnly say to you, whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth [f]shall have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth [g]shall have [already] been loosed in heaven.

This is not just address to the Apostles, it is addressed to all believers on how to deal with someone who sins against you.

Paul reiterates this in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11- focus on verse 10

2 Corinthians 2:5-11
5 But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent—not to be too severe. 6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. 9 For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ, 11 lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.

 

[medwigel]

JL: Scripture doesn’t say Jesus was baptized by immersion. You are taking immersion from Tradition going outside what you say is your sole authority. Scripture doesn’t mention immersion.

But Jesus was an adult and He did go into a body of water. Fine, we’ll just ignore historians and theologians who all agree that baptism at that time involved being immersed or submerged during those days and we’ll just ignore verse 16 were it says “Jesus came up immediately from the water”

 

[medwigel]

Paul was baptized in a house and then ate.

Right, so Paul was an adult when he was baptized.

 

[medwigel]

In the Sacrament of reconciliation, as in the Anointing of the sick, sins are confessed and remitted. This is God’s plan for post-baptismal sin. If we confess our sins, He is faithful to forgive them.

This is how His redemption is applied to each of us personally. Just as in Baptism, we enter into His death and resurrection. He purchased us, but we need to be united to Him to benefit from the redemption.

Please show me the verse for this.

No, He died once for all. It is we who must enter again and again into the grace of forgiveness through confession.

Again, this is a man made theology. You are choosing to keep your self in bondage but Jesus has already forgiven you.
Where in the Bible does it say you have to continually enter again and again into forgiveness?
Do you not believe that Jesus forgave you the first time?
Why is it so easy to believe that by one act Adam and Eve where able to bring sin into the world but we can’t believe and accept that by one act Jesus has forgiven you completely. Is what Adam and Eve did more powerful that what Christ has done. Why do we accept that we don’t have to “reinforce” sin since through one act it’s already present but we feel the need to “reinforce” forgiveness that Jesus already gave us through one amazing act of love? Did Christ not do a good enough job?

Romans 5:17-18
17 For if by the trespass of the one (Adam), death reigned through the one (Adam), much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in [eternal] life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one trespass [Adam’s sin] there resulted condemnation for all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to [d]all men.

So again I ask, is the result of Adam’s actions greater than the result of what Jesus did?