Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[kaycee]

What about adult baptism, do you think it is necessary?

It is the first act of obedience to the Lord that identifies one as a Christian to the world, but baptism is not what saves anyone.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sorry, I don’t see the relationship of Jesus touching children being relevant to infant baptism. It appears that children were acceptable to Him without baptism.

Well, infant baptism is’nt biblical as there are no instances of it recorded in scripture.

What do you think?

Certainly when read in context the meaning is clear.

Act 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household

Children and slaves were also considered part of the househod, hence there is Biblical evidence for infant baptism.

Acts 16:15:*
When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.*Acts 16:14-16 (in Context) Acts 16 (Whole Chapter

1 Corinthians 1:16:*
(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)*

 

[kaycee]

In one instance in Scripture where it says, “households” you acknowledge that infants/children are/could be included and in the next instance in Scripture where it says, “households” you say infants/children are not included. That’s not very consistent is it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that was the point of “rlg94086’s” question.

Sorry, maybe i have not been clear enough. I never acknowledged that any infants were baptized in scripture.

Acts 16:29And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 **And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. ** 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Paul preaches the Gospel to ALL who were in the Jailer’s house, verse 32, and All in the house were baptized, having believed verse 34.

Whoever was in the household understood and believed the Gospel and were baptized. It is certainly a reasonable conclusion that there were no infants in this household.

 

[Lampo]

Sorry, I don’t see the relationship of Jesus touching **children **being relevant to infant baptism. It appears that children were acceptable to Him without baptism.

Well, infant baptism is’nt biblical as there are no instances of it recorded in scripture.

Sorry, maybe i have not been clear enough. I never acknowledged that any infants were baptized in scripture.

This is your response in referencing Luke 18:15-17. Looks to me like you acknowledge that children are/could be included in “households.”
This is from post #855.

 

[jmcrae]

Paul preaches the Gospel to ALL who were in the Jailer’s house, verse 32, and All in the house were baptized, having believed verse 34.

Whoever was in the household understood and believed the Gospel and were baptized. It is certainly a reasonable conclusion that there were no infants in this household.

Don’t preachers today also preach to the children and infants who are with their parents in Church? Why would St. Paul not have preached to the infants of the family right along with everyone else, if they were present?

There is nothing in the passage to indicate that children and infants were not present.

 

[kaycee]

Children and slaves were also considered part of the househod, hence there is Biblical evidence for infant baptism.

Acts 16:15:*
When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.*

Not sure i see the infants here.

“If you consider me a believer” would be a strange question if one did not have to believe, but just be baptized.

The Ethiopian had to believe with all his heart, before being allowed baptism.

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! **What prevents me from being baptized?” ** 37 And 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.”

 

[jmcrae]

Not sure i see the infants here.

“If you consider me a believer” would be a strange question if one did not have to believe, but just be baptized.

The Ethiopian had to believe with all his heart, before being allowed baptism.

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! **What prevents me from being baptized?” ** 37 And 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.”

Even today, adults who convert to the Catholic faith are required to believe before being baptized - that’s why they have to do up to two years of RCIA.

Infants and children are baptized on the faith of their parents and godparents, which is why we don’t baptize infants and children from families that are not Catholic, or where it doesn’t seem likely that the child will be brought up to believe the Catholic faith.

 

[Lampo]

Not sure i see the infants here.

Do you see toddlers, children, teenagers, young adults, adults or the elderly mentioned? Or do you just see “households.” Does “households” automatically exclude infants? If I were to say to you, “Everybody in my household likes to drink milk”, can you tell me what makes up my household just from that statement?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not sure i see the infants here.

Very sure I don’t see infants excluded.

“If you consider me a believer” would be a strange question if one did not have to believe, but just be baptized.

And that is why Catholic Church teaches that we are born again into the body of Christ (the community of believers) at Baptism.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Do you see toddlers, children, teenagers, young adults, adults or the elderly mentioned? Or do you just see “households.” Does “households” automatically exclude infants? If I were to say to you, “Everybody in my household likes to eat pizza”, can you tell me what makes up my household just from that statement?

Even today, adults who convert to the Catholic faith are required to believe before being baptized - that’s why they have to do up to two years of RCIA.

Infants and children are baptized on the faith of their parents and godparents, which is why we don’t baptize infants and children from families that are not Catholic, or where it doesn’t seem likely that the child will be brought up to believe the Catholic faith.

You guys are so good!

 

[Lampo]

You guys are so good!

Thanks. Sometimes the things I say don’t really come from me if you know what I mean.

 

[rlg94086]

“If you consider me a believer” would be a strange question if one did not have to believe, but just be baptized.

That is an interesting juxtaposition of belief and baptism. We don’t baptize unbelievers. Faith, as you have already agreed, is a gift from God which we can’t merit. However, we can turn away from that gift after Baptism. At what age does God give that gift in your understanding? Does this have somehting to do with your belief in the predestined Elect?

 

[Gamera]

Here’s what I don’t understand about the position opposing infant baptism.

If baptism isn’t neccesary for salvation, then who cares? If a valid baptism doesn’t help you get into heaven, then an invalid baptism doesn’t hurt your chances of getting into heaven, right? So why deny infants baptism, even if its invalid?

On the other hand, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then do you really think God refuses the possibility of salvation to infants?

The only position that makes sense (for anyone who believes in original sin) is the position in favor of infant baptism.

 

[Lampo]

My answer is no. Is’nt that your answer as well?

That’s my answer too. How do you know that Acts 16:34 - “And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” doesn’t mean that he was merely in the presence of his whole household and nothing more?

 

[rlg94086]

Here’s what I don’t understand about the position opposing infant baptism.

If baptism isn’t neccesary for salvation, then who cares? If a valid baptism doesn’t help you get into heaven, then an invalid baptism doesn’t hurt your chances of getting into heaven, right? So why deny infants baptism, even if its invalid?

On the other hand, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then do you really think God refuses the possibility of salvation to infants?

The only position that makes sense (for anyone who believes in original sin) is the position in favor of infant baptism.

Exactly. However, logic is not a requirement for many Christians it seems.

I also like the explanation on Catholic Answers regarding the link between circumcision and baptism:
catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

The historical arguments are also compelling:

Catholics From the First

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

No Cry of “Invention!”

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants”; it simply says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.” Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

 

[Teflon93]

Here’s what I don’t understand about the position opposing infant baptism.

If baptism isn’t neccesary for salvation, then who cares? If a valid baptism doesn’t help you get into heaven, then an invalid baptism doesn’t hurt your chances of getting into heaven, right? So why deny infants baptism, even if its invalid?

On the other hand, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then do you really think God refuses the possibility of salvation to infants?

The only position that makes sense (for anyone who believes in original sin) is the position in favor of infant baptism.

Virtually all Protestants do engage in infant baptism—they just call it “christening” or “dedication ceremony” or somesuch.

Since Abraham and Isaac, the faith of one’s father has mattered.

 

[hawkeye]

It is not right therefore to say that parliament approved of Cromwell’s actions under the King who was head of the Church. Cromwell later abolished the Parliament and for a brief period (up to 1660) ruled as Lord Protector.

So which is it ?

So, one may say that Cromwell himself with the backing of Parliament perpetrated this slaughter.

Oh me oh my, “the backing of Parliament” so he abolished Parliament and then is in cahoots with it ? oh yeah,.

Sorry for being confused.

And anyway since you brought it up, “you nor your many affiliations are not squeaky clean.”

 

[peary]

You realize this is against what the Church has stated. Which clearly states that only by Christ can we get to heaven

If jews and muslims and other religions are getting to heaven then what Christ did on the cross means nothing.

The only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.

Actually, Christ died for ALL. If, therefore, Christ died for all, then, even if one is unaware of His sacrifice, the person still may attain Heaven by sincerely living a holy life as taught in his nonChristian religion/tradition.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, Christ died for ALL. If, therefore, Christ died for all, then, even if one is unaware of His sacrifice, the person still may attain Heaven by sincerely living a holy life as taught in his nonChristian religion/tradition.

Whoa, whoa, whoa peary…careful there, we have Five Point Calvinists on this thread. Don’t go all “Christ died for ALL” on them…they may burst a bloodvessel or something.

 

[guanophore]

It is the first act of obedience to the Lord that identifies one as a Christian to the world, but baptism is not what saves anyone.

It is interesting that this private interpretation seems to contradict what scripture says…

“Baptism …now saves you…” 1 Peter 3:20-21

Could you please show the verse that says that baptism “identifies one as a Christian to the world”? I find this puzzling, since the Church was persecuted for three centuries, and believers went to great pains to be secretive about their participation in it on pain of death.