Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

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.

Perhaps you do not believe that Baptism is how God touches children?

We understand what this passage means because it was written by, for, and about Catholics. People who are separated from the Sacred Tradition come up with various other interpretations that are not consistent with what the early church believed.

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;

In Baptism the recipient is circumcised by the Holy Spirit. This is how God lays hands on children and blesses them.

Since you have redefined salvation in a way that the Apostles did not believe and teach, it makes sense that you would find ways to interpret these passages that are consistent with your theology.

This blessing is not conferring salvation onto the person

The text does not specify what was conferred when Jesus laid hands on the children. But it is clear that Baptism is for “you and your children” and that we are to bring the children to Jesus, and that Jesus baptizes and spiritually seals.

“Believers Baptism” is not a modern innovation! The only baptism you see in the Bible are people who have become believers.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? Of course those who have reached the age of reason make a profession of faith, but the idea that this is the only kind of baptism is a modern innovation. Even the Reformers believed in baptizing infants. The concept is just a couple hundred years old.

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.

I understand. We do not believe that the New Testament was ever intended to be a full compendium of the faith. The Apostles baptized infants and children, and taught their successors, the Bishops and elders to do the same. There were whole households baptized.

Polycarp testified that he was baptized as a child, and was a disciple of the Apostle John.

You have much to learn from your early family history. You will find, if you are willing to study it, that the whole of the faith is not confined to scripture.

 

[medwigel]

In Baptism the recipient is circumcised by the Holy Spirit. This is how God lays hands on children and blesses them.

Baptism and circumcision are not the same.

 

[medwigel]

Even the Reformers believed in baptizing infants. The concept is just a couple hundred years old.

And they too are doing something that is not Biblical

 

[medwigel]

Polycarp testified that he was baptized as a child, and was a disciple of the Apostle John.

Never heard of him but he said he was baptized as a child; child are capable of making a profession of faith, so that is possible and consistent with the Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Again, baptism is done AFTER the person has made a confession of faith.

Of course, if they are at the age of reason. If not, their parent makes the profession of faith for them. This is what was done in circumcision.

Since you are unwilling to look at the historical record of what the early Church believed and practiced, it will not help to show you any other sources. I will accept that you are limited to a truncated version of the Revelation of God.

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.

I understand that it seems this way to you.

So how backwards that is, you require a profession of faith before communion but don’t require a profession of faith before baptism.

Of course a profession of faith is required for baptism! The infant will not be baptized without it. The parents take vows to raise the child in the faith.

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.

Yes. We have followed the Apostolic command:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Sacred scripture and sacred Tradition together make up Divine Revelation.

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.

Yes, when the child is too young, the parents make the profession of faith for them.

 

[medwigel]

You have much to learn from your early family history. You will find, if you are willing to study it, that the whole of the faith is not confined to scripture.

I REFUSE to go with faith that strays away from the Scripture. Straying away from the Scripture opens you up to false doctrine; for how else will you know that something is false unless you hold it up to the truth and see if it measures up and that truth is found in the Bible. If I were to follow “apostolic teaching” in must be in accordance to the Word; if the 2 differ then that means one of them is wrong.

2 Peter 2:1-3
But [in those days] false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will subtly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways, and because of them the way of truth will be maligned. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false arguments and twisted doctrine. Their sentence [of condemnation which God has decreed] from a time long ago is not idle [but is still in force], and their destruction and deepening misery is not asleep [but is on its way].

Is faith manifested in different ways throughout history and even now, absolutely. History serves to glorify the power and truth of Christ, but give up following the Word for someone’s “feel good” interpretation to make people dependent on an institution for salvation and forgiveness instead of relying and believing in only and everything that Christ has done, no thanks.
I rolling with Christ and the instructions He has given, not with man made tradition.

 

[medwigel]

Of course, if they are at the age of reason. If not, their parent makes the profession of faith for them. This is what was done in circumcision.

Again baptism does not replace circumcision.
Circumcision was used as a sign of a covenant that God had with Abraham
Baptism is and outward demonstration of your profession of belief

 

[medwigel]

Of course a profession of faith is required for baptism! The infant will not be baptized without it. The parents take vows to raise the child in the faith.

The profession must be made by the person being baptized.

 

[medwigel]

Yes. We have followed the Apostolic command:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

But they can’t go against or contradict the Word of God, if they contradict that you must go with the Word not the tradition.

 

[medwigel]

Yes, when the child is too young, the parents make the profession of faith for them.

Once again, please show me the Scripture that says this is allowable.

 

[guanophore]

Where in the Bible does it say you have to continually enter again and again into forgiveness?

I have already posted James 5:15 and you have agree that believers confess their sins.

James 5:15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Are you saying that sins are forgiven without grace?

And forgive us our debts,
As we also have forgiven our debtors; Matt. 6

This is a daily practice. People trespass against us continually and we need to continually forgive them.

If Jesus has already forgiven all of our sins, why would this need to be said?:

Matthew 6:15
15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

I agree, unforgiveness is a bondage. It keeps us from God’s forgiveness, and nurturing resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. People that do not forgive do keep themselves in bondage.

Do you not believe that Jesus forgave you the first time?

Of course. The Apostles taught that all sin, original and personal, are washed away in Baptism. After Baptism, confession and remission of sins happens each and every time.

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?

Jesus is the expiation for our sins. He bore our sins in His body on the cross. But we do not benefit from His sacrifice for us unless and until we join ourselves to Him. When our lives are hidden with Christ in God, we benefit from it. Redemption is paid, but not all will be saved.

Baptism and circumcision are not the same.

No. Circumcision was the entrance Rite into the Old Covenant. Baptism is the entrance Rite into the New Covenant. Circumcision was accomplished by human hands. In baptism, the heart of the person is circumcised “without hands” (by the Holy Spirit).

And they too are doing something that is not Biblical

I understand that it seems this way to you, being separated from the Apostolic faith as you are.

 

[guanophore]

Never heard of him but he said he was baptized as a child; child are capable of making a profession of faith, so that is possible and consistent with the Scripture.

He said he belonged to the Lord for 86 years. Here are some references from a Reformed source. Maybe that will be more palatable? You seem to be hostile and unreceptive to Catholic sources saying the same.

These writers from the Post Apostolic period can show us much about what the Apostles believed and taught.

I REFUSE to go with faith that strays away from the Scripture. Straying away from the Scripture opens you up to false doctrine; for how else will you know that something is false unless you hold it up to the truth and see if it measures up and that truth is found in the Bible. If I were to follow “apostolic teaching” in must be in accordance to the Word; if the 2 differ then that means one of them is wrong.

I admire your tenacity, but what you are talking about here is your PERCEPTION of what the Scripture says. It is your PERCEPTION of whether it “measures up” based on how you understand what it says. We understand it differently because we interpret through the lens of sacred tradition.

There can be no conflict between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture because they both come from the same Source. God does not contradict Himself. What may contradict is your PERCEPTION of what is written or what was taught.

o make people dependent on an institution for salvation and forgiveness instead of relying and believing in only and everything that Christ has done, no thanks.

There is no separation between Christ and His One Body, the Church. The institution He founded carries the fullness of faith, and is the pillar and ground of the Truth. It is this “institution” that produced the New Testament. That is why there is nothing in it that contradicts the Catholic faith.

I rolling with Christ and the instructions He has given, not with man made tradition.

What you don’t seem to realize is that you have espoused a great many man made traditions. Sola Scriptura and Believers Baptism are among these. These are not teachings of the Apostles, but were invented a millenia and a half later.

Again baptism does not replace circumcision.

So you believe that Christians should still be circumcised?

Baptism is and outward demonstration of your profession of belief

This thought also represents one of those man made traditions. It is found no where in the bible.

 

[guanophore]

The profession must be made by the person being baptized.

This is a man made tradition also.

But they can’t go against or contradict the Word of God, if they contradict that you must go with the Word not the tradition.

You are right that they cannot. Sacred Apostolic Tradition is the Word of God in the Church. It comes from the Holy Spirit, which is why it never contradicts Scripture. It contradicts your PERCEPTIONS, because you have espoused a number of modern man made traditions.

 

[medwigel]

The profession must be made by the person being baptized.

Nope, this in clearly delineated in the Bible

 

[medwigel]

You are right that they cannot. Sacred Apostolic Tradition is the Word of God in the Church. It comes from the Holy Spirit, which is why it never contradicts Scripture. It contradicts your PERCEPTIONS, because you have espoused a number of modern man made traditions.

NO, they contradict because the tradition doesn’t match the Word.
It’s not rocket science when you put 2 things side by side and they don’t agree.
As they say on Sesame Street “one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn’t the same…”

 

[medwigel]

I admire your tenacity, but what you are talking about here is your PERCEPTION of what the Scripture says. It is your PERCEPTION of whether it “measures up” based on how you understand what it says. We understand it differently because we interpret through the lens of sacred tradition.

Yeah, you’re going by what someone else has told you while I am trying to stick to what the Word is actually saying without trying to interject man made traditions into the Scripture.
See, I’m trying to stick true to the Gospel.

here can be no conflict between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture because they both come from the same Source. God does not contradict Himself. What may contradict is your PERCEPTION of what is written or what was taught.

You say there is not conflict and yet the conflict is blazing bright!
The Word says you are forgiven once and for all and your tradition is saying you have to get forgiven over and over again.

And you still haven’t answered my question:

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

 

[medwigel]

What you don’t seem to realize is that you have espoused a great many man made traditions. Sola Scriptura and Believers Baptism are among these. These are not teachings of the Apostles, but were invented a millenia and a half later.

So following God’s Word and baptism are a new aged thing?
I thing you need put the man made traditions aside and read your Bible WITHOUT your preconceived filter and look at the Word with a fresh and unbiased lens.

 

[guanophore]

Nope, this in clearly delineated in the Bible

We see it in the bible, because the examples there are of adults. Of course persons who have reached the age of reason must make their own profession of faith.

But the “whole households” that were baptized included children. Infant baptism was the practice of the early church.

There is no prohibition in scripture against baptizing infants.

I think you are saying is that you believe the Church founded by Christ went off the rails in one generation, since they were baptizing infants.

NO, they contradict because the tradition doesn’t match the Word.

They contradict only your perception of how you understand the Bible. Catholics do not see any contradiction, because we interpret it from the point of view of those who wrote it, rather than through the doctrines of Reformers 1500 years after the fact.

It’s not rocket science when you put 2 things side by side and they don’t agree.

It is not. There are as many perceptions as there are belly buttons, and every one who reads the bible understands what they read based on their own experiences and education (or lack of it). You lack information on your early family history, so you deny that [the early church baptized infants.](http://

NO, they contradict because the tradition doesn’t match the Word.

)

Yeah, you’re going by what someone else has told you while I am trying to stick to what the Word is actually saying without trying to interject man made traditions into the Scripture.

I understand that it seems that way to you, but you are also going on what others have told you.

without trying to interject man made traditions into the Scripture.

In fact, this is exactly what you have done.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God living in the Church. man made traditions are customs and ideas of people. The first is from the Holy Spirit, the second is from the mind of man. The belief that infants cannot be baptized comes from the mind of man.

I’m trying to stick true to the Gospel.

I commend you for that, even if you are missing the target.

 

[medwigel]

You lack information on your early family history, so you deny that [the early church baptized infants.]

I don’t lack information about my history, I am just bright enough and brave enough to ask questions and ask why things don’t match up instead of just blindly following what I’ve been told by “authorities”, who clearly have not read the Bible themselves. I am a diligent student who is willing to look at the other side of an argument and ask, “well, what was this event that caused such a great change”, “why where people willing to give up so much”, “what about this message was so important”.
I didn’t just sit in a corner and hold onto my tradition; the went about vetting the tradition against the Word of God, and again, found some aspects contrary to the Word.

 

[medwigel]

I’m trying to stick true to the Gospel.

I think you lens of measuring the Word through man made tradition the clouding your aim.