A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Why did John the Baptist leap in his mother’s womb when the pregnant Mary approached?
- Status
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I understand it was the bowl of chili that Elizabeth ate!!!
But you bring up a good point. If John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in Elizabeth’s womb, that would mean he was saved (in Protestant theology). If John the Baptist can be saved prior to Christ’s death on the Cross, why is it so hard to believe that Mary would be saved?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
What does the term ‘profitable’ tell you?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
If John the Baptist was a special case, then why was Mary not a special case?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
*.”
That verse taken alone would propose problems.
Let’s break it down, shall we?
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
notice, he’s not asking what his family must do, but only him.
and they say:
Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and** your household** will be saved.
His whole household will be saved on the belief of the Jailor? Of course if you took the verse at Blank Face Value?
**
**
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Joey, you could imagine how big the smile was on my face as I absorbed this passage. I guess when you’re lectoring, you read so slowly, that you can read more into it then normal. This is about the 3rd or 4th “fascinating fact” that I’ve come to understand in the Mass readings in the last month.
Man, I should have started listening a long time ago!!!
Man, I should have started listening a long time ago!!!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Notworthy,
What a perfect post! to show how fundamentalist baptism as an act of obedience, Believe and be saved, is right on!
Then later be baptized, baptizing is an after act of obedience.
Simon
B
Black_Knight
Guest
That’s not the point. You are reading your own interpretation into the passage, and an objective reading does not support that. Notworthy has it right, and you have ignored his point and sought to force your interpretation onto the passage.
The point is that his entire household would have included all his family, including infants. I’ve read the Bible all the way through several times and it seems to me that every time it speaks of entire households, it includes the infants.
Paul knew very well that baptism is necessary for salvation from the first interaction he had with a believer after the Damascus road. Acts 22:16 says, *“Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’”
*That infants were baptized is evident from both the New Testament and Christian history.When an 86 year old bishop of the Church at Smyrna says, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” (See chapter 9) you can plainly see that infant baptism was a common practice in the early church. In this case… Polycarp may very well have been baptized by the apostle St. John himself, since he was one of his disciples.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Really, cause if you compare this statement to a 1/2 a dozen other areas of scripture that talk about baptism you’ll see “believe”
before the term baptize.
This can not be shown in or with scripture. Only citations to the contrary, such as the thief.
T
Tom
Guest
In the teaching of the Catholic Church the sacrament of Baptism is more than symbolic. We actually believe the Holy Spirit enters the baptized and indwells in them. My question, if you can accept that the Holy Spirit can enter a human, and indwell in a human, why would you want to have a child grow through their formative years without the Holy Spirit indwelling in them? Do you think this is Gods idea? If it is as some say symbolic what harm does it do? If it were more than symbolic the only harm would be to allow your child to grow without the Spirit guiding them. Either way the only harm could possibly be in NOT baptizing the infant.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
You know I had been a lector for a long time and never did I actually pay attention to the detail of what I was reading until I started onto the path of an apologist 18 months ago.
How many of us lectors actually read blindly to the point of only caring about how we read to the masses instead of **what **we are reading?
And how many hear and not listen in the pews?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Maybe families didn’t have infants way back then. Maybe they reproduced asexually. Or maybe they only didn’t have infants when families were being baptised. Or maybe, if you were in a family, you could only be baptised if you didn’t have infants.
It seems mighty complicated to me.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
P
PeVee
Guest
I can’t lurk anymore. I have a few cents to add…
ORIGINAL SIN IS IN THE BIBLE…
Romans 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
BAPTISM IS THE CIRCUMCISION OF CHIRIST. HOW OLD WERE THE MALES THAT WERE CIRCUMCISED…EIGHT DAYS OLD!
Colossians 2:11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ:
SCRIPTURE IS PROFITABLE…
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
WHEN THIS WAS WRITTEN THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT. THIS VERSE REFERS TO WHAT WE CALL THE OLD TESTAMENT! THE WORD PROFITABLE IS USED, THE OLD TESTAMENT IS GOOD AND HELPS BUT IT IS NOT ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE CHRISTIAN.
WHAT IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH FOR A CHRISTIAN…
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
THE CHURCH, NOT THE BOOK, BUT WHAT CHURCH? WHAT CHURCH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 2,000 YEARS? NO PROTESTANT DENOMINATION I CAN THINK OF.
THE CHURCH WILL NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE BUT IT FILLS IN THE GAPS AND CLARIFIES THE BIBLES TEACHING SO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CAN BE ONE.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
THE BIBLE IS INCOMPLETE! NOT EVERYTHING IS THERE. IF YOU ARE A BIBLE CHRISTIAN THEN YOU DON’T HAVE THE FULLNESS OF CHRISTIAN TRUTH.
John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
FOR THE FULLNESS OF CHRISTIAN TRUTH YOU NEED THE ORAL TRADITION FROM THE APOSTLES TEACHINGS.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
THE CHURCH CAME BEFORE THE BIBLE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GAVE THE WORLD THE BIBLE. WE HAVE TO LOOK TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUCESSOR TO SAINT PETER FOR DECIDING THE THINGS THAT THE BIBLE DOESN’T NAIL DOWN. KEEP THESE THINGS IN MIND BEFORE YOU GO TO THE BIBLE FOR A WORD-FOR-WORD ANSWER TO QUESTIONS. THE BIBLE WASN’T MEANT TO BE USED IN A STAND-ALONE FASHION BUT IS WAS TO BE USED IN THE CHURCH IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CHURCHES TEACHING AUTHORITY.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
ORIGINAL SIN IS IN THE BIBLE…
Romans 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
BAPTISM IS THE CIRCUMCISION OF CHIRIST. HOW OLD WERE THE MALES THAT WERE CIRCUMCISED…EIGHT DAYS OLD!
Colossians 2:11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ:
SCRIPTURE IS PROFITABLE…
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
WHEN THIS WAS WRITTEN THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT. THIS VERSE REFERS TO WHAT WE CALL THE OLD TESTAMENT! THE WORD PROFITABLE IS USED, THE OLD TESTAMENT IS GOOD AND HELPS BUT IT IS NOT ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE CHRISTIAN.
WHAT IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH FOR A CHRISTIAN…
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
THE CHURCH, NOT THE BOOK, BUT WHAT CHURCH? WHAT CHURCH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 2,000 YEARS? NO PROTESTANT DENOMINATION I CAN THINK OF.
THE CHURCH WILL NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE BUT IT FILLS IN THE GAPS AND CLARIFIES THE BIBLES TEACHING SO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CAN BE ONE.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
THE BIBLE IS INCOMPLETE! NOT EVERYTHING IS THERE. IF YOU ARE A BIBLE CHRISTIAN THEN YOU DON’T HAVE THE FULLNESS OF CHRISTIAN TRUTH.
John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
FOR THE FULLNESS OF CHRISTIAN TRUTH YOU NEED THE ORAL TRADITION FROM THE APOSTLES TEACHINGS.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
THE CHURCH CAME BEFORE THE BIBLE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GAVE THE WORLD THE BIBLE. WE HAVE TO LOOK TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUCESSOR TO SAINT PETER FOR DECIDING THE THINGS THAT THE BIBLE DOESN’T NAIL DOWN. KEEP THESE THINGS IN MIND BEFORE YOU GO TO THE BIBLE FOR A WORD-FOR-WORD ANSWER TO QUESTIONS. THE BIBLE WASN’T MEANT TO BE USED IN A STAND-ALONE FASHION BUT IS WAS TO BE USED IN THE CHURCH IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CHURCHES TEACHING AUTHORITY.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
no, they all popped out already at the age of twelve back then, sort of like some animals that are born running…Maybe families didn’t have infants way back then. Maybe they reproduced asexually. Or maybe they only didn’t have infants when families were being baptised. Or maybe, if you were in a family, you could only be baptised if you didn’t have infants.
It seems mighty complicated to me.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
YES! Why have you not joined sooner?
B
Black_Knight
Guest
Acts 2:38 is another one that refutes your interpretation.
There is nothing in the word order of sentences that informs this issue. The fact is that you refuse to accept the balanced belief and the plain statement of the New Testament in favor of an interpretation that is literalist…but not literal.
That one won’t work either. St. Dismas conversion occurred under unique circumstances.
I think we have shown more than adequately that infant baptism is both scripturally and historically supported.
Furthermore…if infant baptism is wrong and therefore without merit, then how would infant circumcision been righteous? Yet it was commanded by God. And the infant did not believe or profess anything…but his parents did… and it was valid.
No, you can repeat it all day long, but the Bible and Christian history refute your teaching.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
We sure are in a spunky mood tonight, are we, Ani?Maybe families didn’t have infants way back then. Maybe they reproduced asexually. Or maybe they only didn’t have infants when families were being baptised. Or maybe, if you were in a family, you could only be baptised if you didn’t have infants.
It seems mighty complicated to me.
T
Tom
Guest
Welcome to the forums.
- Status