Yet another Infant Baptism proof - from St. Paul

[rob179ny]

The real question is are they in union with Peter the bishop of Rome ( The 1st pope ) and his successors ( the Popes to come after him ) , who were given the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and given this special authority.

I dont think Jesus wanted his church to be a symbol of disunity. Any house divided against itself shall surely fall. Remember these words. This house is built upon a Rock which will prevail against the gates of hell. The Church is one, holy,Catholic, and apostolic. I do believe that the bible itself was put together by the Catholic church. Named by the Catholic church. By the way isnt it funny how we can try our best to make a case for our own passionate beliefs and discount the devil. I wonder how much he is enjoying this, I mean he does wish to sift us as wheat.

 

[JBaker45]

And yet, you still can’t address the issue.

What issue is that? I look forward to addressing it for you.

NotWorthy:

First of all, “your interpretation” does not see the regenerative teaching of the Apostles. Just as other faith who don’t believe this have produced numerous variations of the specifics of baptism.

I’ve tested the Scriptures. The Early Church Fathers have tested the Scriptures. And the Church that gave us the Bible Canon tested Baptism against the Scriptures. Don’t you realize that if they disagreed with the Scriptures, the Scriptures wouldn’t have been in the Canon?!?

I do “realize” it. And therefore I can accept that those so ordained to assemble the scriptures (the church and body of Christ) would not have exceeded what was written.

Now please explain to me how it is that you do not see how Simon was baptized by Phillip in Acts 8:9-21 and yet Peter discovered that he was not regenerated.

Thanks,
John

 

[JBaker45]

The real question is are they in union with Peter the bishop of Rome ( The 1st pope ) and his successors ( the Popes to come after him ) , who were given the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and given this special authority.

I am familiar with the Roman Catholic interpretation of “the rock” that appears in Matthew 16:18, and I must say that I have reason to doubt it.

But before we go there, I would like to ask you… Do you believe that only Peter was commissioned to start churches?

 

[JBaker45]

I dont think Jesus wanted his church to be a symbol of disunity. Any house divided against itself shall surely fall. Remember these words. This house is built upon a Rock which will prevail against the gates of hell. The Church is one, holy,Catholic, and apostolic. I do believe that the bible itself was put together by the Catholic church. Named by the Catholic church. By the way isnt it funny how we can try our best to make a case for our own passionate beliefs and discount the devil. I wonder how much he is enjoying this, I mean he does wish to sift us as wheat.

I agree.

But Jesus was no respecter of false doctrine and error either. And neither was Paul… And do you remember what Jude explained to us :
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was necessary for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into licentiousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
I should caution everyone never to take your eyes off of Jesus and place them on men and man-made institutions and hierarchical structures. Here in Jude, such things have been identified as gateways of deception.

In Christ’s service,
John

 

[JBaker45]

OK, I"m confused. WHICH Reformed understanding is derived from Scriptures. There’s so many different beliefs, I’m afraid I lost count!

Lol… Then may I suggest that you pay closer attention my friend

 

[NotWorthy]

What issue is that? I look forward to addressing it for you.

The issue that there are numerous “versions” among many Bible Christian Churches that all vary in numerous ways.

I do “realize” it. And therefore I can accept that those so ordained to assemble the scriptures (the church and body of Christ) would not have exceeded what was written.

Now please explain to me how it is that you do not see how Simon was baptized by Phillip in Acts 8:9-21 and yet Peter discovered that he was not regenerated.

Thanks,
John

Baptism can be done by anyone, including Deacons like Phillip (see Acts 6:5). It calls down the Spirit in an invisible way (Acts 2:38).

Confirmation, which is done by the Apostles (the Church today normally lets the Bishop and less often the priest), bestows a fuller measure of the Spirit on the baptized by the laying on of hands. In the Church, Confirmation is usually done in conjunction with Baptism among adults. Infants are Baptized, but they aren’t confirmed (sealed with the Holy Spirit) till they are (most often) in their teens.

 

[MariaG]

Hi John

Since I don’t want to cut out any of the scripture I quoted, I am going to cut this up into two different posts. I am also taking your post slightly out of order and allowing the answer to the regenerative baptism to be in a post by itself. I hope you don’t mind

Yes, I think that is it. We disagree on what being born again is.

Of course, the Reformed understanding is derived from scripture. In particular see :John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.You see, the ones who believe are the ones who are born again of God. Philip asked the Ethiopian is he believed prior to his being baptized (Acts 8:36-37). This is because baptism is for people who have already been born again.
(See also Jesus’ response to Nicodemus John 3:3-8.)

Well at least we are making progress. We now know that we disagree on when one is born again.

And I respectfully disagree with the at least implied statement that the Catholic view is not scriptural. You say your interpretation is derived from Scripture and respectfully, I believe you are not dividing scripture properly.

We can see in scripture as well as those who were taught by the apostles that they believed baptism is when we were born again. And we can see in the history of Christianity that a believer’s only baptism did not appear in Christian teaching until at least 1500 years after the fact.

That’s okay. You can get back with me later on this if you wish.

I certainly will I could ponder a guess on it, but I would really like to research it more to find out if and what the “Catholic” answer is to that scripture.

Well, the earliest church fathers are the Apostles who actually wrote the inspired books of the New Testament.

Yes that would be true. And then after that we have those who were taught by the apostles whose words, although not inspired and inerrant, certainly show that the teaching of infant baptism was not in dispute at all. As well as shows that baptism was believed to be a miracle of God made visable to men.

As a matter of fact, John Calvin (the same one that gives Calvinism it’s name) did teach a form of infant baptism. But even here, it is my understanding that the infant baptism that John Calvin taught was more akin to a dedication than the recognition of actual regeneration.

I will have to bow to your knowledge on this.

But don’t get the wrong idea. It’s not like children can not become regenerate believers at a young age. If a child can answer Philips question (Acts 8:37) in the affirmative, then he or she should be baptized

Blessings,
John

I believe (and the Catholic Church ) God can regenerate even infants. I love the scripture that shows how even babes in the womb can exhibit faith, in a childlike way, and leap for joy in their mothers womb when in the presence of their savoir, like John the baptist in the first chapter of Luke.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Can you show me were they said that baptism results in regeneration because I have already shown you an example in Acts 8:9-21 where Phillip baptized Simon, but later it was discovered by Peter that Simon was not regenerate.

Sure I would love to.

:bible1: Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6: Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7: That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

This one I obviously already used, but wished to put up again. the “washing of regeneration” refers to baptism. Here, scripture tells us that it is He saved us. How did He save us? by the washing of regeneration. By baptism.

Note, while I know we disagree on when one is born again, I hope you can see that although Catholics would say “baptism saves us”, it is because we believe this is WHEN the saving blood of Christ is applied to the individual. It is not just an empty ritual but we truly believe this is when the blood of Christ makes us His children.

:bible1:John 3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The water and spirit both refer to baptism. They go together.

:bible1:1Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It is the washing of baptism that gives birth to sanctification and justification, and is not just a symbolic act.

I also like this one.

:bible1:Acts 22:16: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Be baptized. Why? to wash away your sins.

There are many more. I will post a link. Sacrament of Baptism. Some I do not find as compelling as others, but what I do find compelling is the consistency of interpretation of scripture.

Because basically that is what we have here. It is not that Catholics do not have scripture and we pull this belief out of “traditions of men”. But we do in fact believe that this has been passed on since the time of the apostles, can point to scripture that we interpret to support this, and can also point to other Christians, very early Christians who have a consistently Catholic interpretation of scripture.

So what you are asking me to replace the Catholic interpretation of Scripture with your interpretation which is seen nowhere in Christian writings until the last 400 years. And that is not something I can do since scripture specifically warns of those who will come along with false teachings.

You believe you have scripture. I believe I have scripture.

But I also have the history of other Christian writings that show the Catholic interpretation is the one Christians had followed since the time of the apostles.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[JBaker45]

The issue that there are numerous “versions” among many Bible Christian Churches that all vary in numerous ways.

There are approximately 5 essential doctrines of Christianity specified in scripture. These are explicit items listed within the scriptures that one must either accept or deny in order to be Christian. As long as all of these are maintained by a church, then that church may be considered Christian.

These are :

1. 
   *]The Deity of Christ, that Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Colossians 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4),
   *]That Salvation by Grace through faith (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:1-2; 5:1-4),
   *]The Resurrection of Christ, that Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:14),
   *]The validity of the Gospel, the death, burial, and resurrection o Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Galatians 1:8-9), and
   *]That there is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
   
   Outside of these essential doctrines of Christianity there is room for reasonable people to disagree and orthodox Protestant denominations diversify around these non-essential differences.
   (For more details, see the Christian Doctrine Grid
   
   Note: I am also aware of the fact that there is a great deal of diversity within the RCC as well. Unfortunately, the teachings of the RCC lay outside of the bounds of biblical orthodoxy.
   
   
   NotWorthy:
   

   Baptism can be done by anyone, including Deacons like Phillip (see Acts 6:5). It calls down the Spirit in an invisible way (Acts 2:38).
   
   Confirmation, which is done by the Apostles (the Church today normally lets the Bishop and less often the priest), bestows a fuller measure of the Spirit on the baptized by the laying on of hands. In the Church, Confirmation is usually done in conjunction with Baptism among adults. Infants are Baptized, but they aren’t confirmed (sealed with the Holy Spirit) till they are (most often) in their teens.

   O k a y… So are you saying that Philip did not possess sufficient authority to for his baptism to “take” ?
   
   According to New Advent (the online Catholic encyclopedia) Philip was an Apostle. See : St. Philip the Apostle

 

[NotWorthy]

There are approximately 5 essential doctrines of Christianity specified in scripture. These are explicit items listed within the scriptures that one must either accept or deny in order to be Christian. As long as all of these are maintained by a church, then that church may be considered Christian.

These are :

1. 
   *]The Deity of Christ, that Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Colossians 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4),
   *]That Salvation by Grace through faith (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:1-2; 5:1-4),
   *]The Resurrection of Christ, that Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:14),
   *]The validity of the Gospel, the death, burial, and resurrection o Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Galatians 1:8-9), and
   *]That there is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)

1. 1. 
      *]O k a y, what authoritative body decided this? There is one truth. Are you saying that a Church has to teach the truth on ONLY these five doctrines that are magically the only five essential doctrines?
      

      Outside of these essential doctrines of Christianity there is room for reasonable people to disagree and orthodox Protestant denominations diversify around these non-essential differences.
      (For more details, see the Christian Doctrine Grid

      So, the Holy Spirit guides different people to teach different teachings based on the same Scripture? And you justify this simply because it’s not essential.
      

      Note: I am also aware of the fact that there is a great deal of diversity within the RCC as well. Unfortunately, the teachings of the RCC lay outside of the bounds of biblical orthodoxy.

      Can I correct this error? You are aware of the fact that there is one teaching within the RCC, but the laiety have a great deal of diversity in what they believe. But the RCC teaches one thing.
      
      Big diffference.
      
      I couldn’t deny the validity of your faith simply because you may fail in your faith, now could I?
      

      O k a y… So are you saying that Philip did not possess sufficient authority to for his baptism to “take” ?
      
      According to New Advent (the online Catholic encyclopedia) Philip was an Apostle. See : St. Philip the Apostle

      Wrong Philip. Look at Acts 8:1 - Now Saul was consenting to his execution.On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. This Philip is the Philip ordained to the Deaconate in Acts 6:5. He was one of the Hellenistic Jews who were scattered after the persecution of Stephen. Philip, the Apostle, as stated in verse 1, stayed in Jerusalem.
      
      But, back to your point, no, I’m saying Baptism (the washing away of our Original Sin and all of our previous sins and making us Children of God) and Confirmation (the Sealing of the Holy Spirit within our soul) are two different events.
      
      Jesus was baptized, and then the Holy Spirit descended to anoint Him. Catholics are Baptized and Confirmed (which is the anointing with Holy Oil). A Deacon can baptize, heck, I can baptize. Even you, a Non-Catholic, can baptize and the Church would recognize the validity of the Baptism (as long as it involves water and the Trinitarian formula). But only a priest, and preferably a bishop can confirm someone. In the Catholic Church with adults who are not baptized, we perform the Baptism and the Confirmation at the same time. With infants, we baptize as infants and wait til they are of age to be confirmed.
      
      What Luke is describing in Acts chapter 8 is Confirmation.

 

[JBaker45]

Hello Maria

Hi John

Since I don’t want to cut out any of the scripture I quoted, I am going to cut this up into two different posts. I am also taking your post slightly out of order and allowing the answer to the regenerative baptism to be in a post by itself. I hope you don’t mind

No problem

MariaG:

Well at least we are making progress. We now know that we disagree on when one is born again.

And I respectfully disagree with the at least implied statement that the Catholic view is not scriptural. You say your interpretation is derived from Scripture and respectfully, I believe you are not dividing scripture properly.

I appreciate your candor Maria, and I want to assure you that I do not presume to imply any error in your own understanding before you have had the opportunity to explain it to me.

MariaG:

We can see in scripture as well as those who were taught by the apostles that they believed baptism is when we were born again. And we can see in the history of Christianity that a believer’s only baptism did not appear in Christian teaching until at least 1500 years after the fact.

I can agree with you that we see a solid codification of baptismal regeneration appearing at some point in history.

What we do not agree upon is that baptismal regeneration was taught by the Apostles. It seems to me that I have already demonstrated (with the scriptural evidence itself) that the Apostles did not teach baptismal regeneration. (And you have yet to deal with Acts 8:9-21.)

MariaG:

I certainly will I could ponder a guess on it, but I would really like to research it more to find out if and what the “Catholic” answer is to that scripture.

That sounds good

MariaG:

Yes that would be true. And then after that we have those who were taught by the apostles whose words, although not inspired and inerrant, certainly show that the teaching of infant baptism was not in dispute at all.

Not at all. In fact, history shows that the teaching of IB (and BR) did not begin until approximately 370 AD. But the evidence does not support the idea that every church was practicing this.

MariaG:

I believe (and the Catholic Church ) God can regenerate even infants. I love the scripture that shows how even babes in the womb can exhibit faith, in a childlike way, and leap for joy in their mothers womb when in the presence of their savoir, like John the baptist in the first chapter of Luke.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Hey hey… Once again, on this point, I find myself in complete agreement with you

God bless,
John

 

[NotWorthy]

Not at all. In fact, history shows that the teaching of IB (and BR) did not begin until approximately 370 AD. But the evidence does not support the idea that every church was practicing this.

If I can show you that the teaching of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration began well before 370 AD, would you refrain from repeating this fallacy?

But first, I’d like to see what evidence you had the they were invented (for lack of a better word) in 370AD.

 

[rob179ny]

I am familiar with the Roman Catholic interpretation of “the rock” that appears in Matthew 16:18, and I must say that I have reason to doubt it.

But before we go there, I would like to ask you… Do you believe that only Peter was commissioned to start churches?

I believe Peter to be the Albiet one who the King Jesus leaves behind to watch over his kingdom till he gets back.

 

[JBaker45]

Part 1)

JBaker45:

Can you show me were they said that baptism results in regeneration because I have already shown you an example in Acts 8:9-21 where Phillip baptized Simon, but later it was discovered by Peter that Simon was not regenerate.

Sure I would love to.

:bible1: Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6: Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7: That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

This one I obviously already used, but wished to put up again. the “washing of regeneration” refers to baptism. Here, scripture tells us that it is He saved us. How did He save us? by the washing of regeneration. By baptism.

Yes. And as I explained above, my position is that the “washing of regeneration” refers to the washing by the blood of Christ on the cross.

And notice how verse 6 confirms and supports my assertion of this here. Because that which Christ shed on us was His cleansing and healing blood.

MariaG:

Note, while I know we disagree on when one is born again, I hope you can see that although Catholics would say “baptism saves us”, it is because we believe this is WHEN the saving blood of Christ is applied to the individual. It is not just an empty ritual but we truly believe this is when the blood of Christ makes us His children.

Yes. I think I understand what you are saying.

But does this really jibe with what Jesus said to us in John 1:13. Here we discover that the ones who were born of God are the ones who believed merely in His name

:bible1:John 3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The water and spirit both refer to baptism. They go together.

This is interesting. And I must say that I am a bit surprised that you would use this one.

If you wish to assert that the phrase “born of water” refers to baptism, then logically the verse is claiming that being “born of water” is not enough!

:bible1:1Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It is the washing of baptism that gives birth to sanctification and justification, and is not just a symbolic act.

Question: Is there any reason to conclude that the washing spoken of here is baptism and not some other kind of washing (like the actual washing clean of sins by the blood of Christ)?

[continued…]

 

[JBaker45]

Part 2)

MariaG:

I also like this one.

:bible1:Acts 22:16: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Be baptized. Why? to wash away your sins.

But Maria, in this case Paul is retelling the story of his own regeneration. We know from his earlier exposition of this same incident that the scales had been lifted from his eyes before he was ever baptized : Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight, and arose, and was baptized.Notice how first the scales are removed from his eyes (regeneration) and then second he is baptized.

MariaG:

So what you are asking me to replace the Catholic interpretation of Scripture with your interpretation which is seen nowhere in Christian writings until the last 400 years. And that is not something I can do since scripture specifically warns of those who will come along with false teachings.

Good heavens! Lol

I certainly do not want you to replace one interloper with another.

Jesus promised to send us the “Helper”, who would guide us into the truth of all things : John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
Scripture teaches that with the help of the Holy Spirit we need to man teach us but that He shall guide us in all truth.

Furthermore, John tells us (concerning the gift of the Spirit) : 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him.

MariaG:

You believe you have scripture. I believe I have scripture.

But I also have the history of other Christian writings that show the Catholic interpretation is the one Christians had followed since the time of the apostles.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

But if it is revealed to you that there is serious error in what you have been taught, will your heart be open to accepting the truth?

1 John 2:27 promises that if you are regenerated, then (in time) you will

God bless,
John

 

[MariaG]

But if it is revealed to you that there is serious error in what you have been taught, will your heart be open to accepting the truth?

1 John 2:27 promises that if you are regenerated, then (in time) you will

God bless,
John

Hi John,

I spent too much time on my other threads and am now out of time so I cannot respond in length to your reply.

But I wanted to answer your very important question.

YES! I believe that I was led to the Catholic Church through scripture and the Holy Spirit. I constantly am asking God to show me the truth. And IF you ever showed that I was in error, and the Holy spirit convicted me that what you said was true, I would do so in a heartbeat.

Christ is my master, Lord and Savior and I ever try to do His will in my life.

I will give you the key to showing me my error.

I stand on Scripture. I believe the Holy Spirit has led me to see the truth in the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church interprets scripture correctly.

But here is the key. Not only did Christ give me faith in Him, and in His word, but He has since given me faith in His Church. I find the absolute beautifulness of the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church reflected in scripture AND history.

**The key is history. **I stand on scripture. But I do not in anyway think I am infallible in my interpretation of it. If you can show me that the early Christians did not interpret scripture as the Catholic Church does, then I concede that I could be completely wrong and the Catholic Church does not teach the truth of the Gospel of Christ.

You made a claim that infant baptism was not until about 370AD and that claim is not supported by history. We can see in the writings of those who were taught by the apostles, things about infant baptism.

You show me any historical writings of Christians that say infant baptism is wrong, I will concede that my interpretation of scripture may be wrong. Of course, I would need to pray about it as well which is why I say May.

My faith is in Christ, His word and His Church. Show me the Church is wrong, that the claims of infant baptism early on in the Church are wrong, that is your key.

From CA Answers Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[JBaker45]

JBaker45:

There are approximately 5 essential doctrines of Christianity specified in scripture. These are explicit items listed within the scriptures that one must either accept or deny in order to be Christian. As long as all of these are maintained by a church, then that church may be considered Christian.

These are :

1. 
   *]The Deity of Christ, that Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Colossians 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4),
   *]That Salvation by Grace through faith (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:1-2; 5:1-4),
   *]The Resurrection of Christ, that Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:14),
   *]The validity of the Gospel, the death, burial, and resurrection o Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Galatians 1:8-9), and
   *]That there is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)

1. 1. O k a y, what authoritative body decided this?

1. 
   Like I said, the basic essentials are explicitly cited in the scriptures. Thus, the authoritative body in this case is the very word of God itself.
   
   
   NotWorthy:
   

   There is one truth. Are you saying that a Church has to teach the truth on ONLY these five doctrines that are magically the only five essential doctrines?
   

   

   JBaker45:
   

   Outside of these essential doctrines of Christianity there is room for reasonable people to disagree and orthodox Protestant denominations diversify around these non-essential differences.
   (For more details, see the Christian Doctrine Grid

   )
   So, the Holy Spirit guides different people to teach different teachings based on the same Scripture? And you justify this simply because it’s not essential.

   Scripture justifies it.
   Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in your name; and we forbade him, because he follows not with us. 50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
   
   
   NotWorthy:
   

   

   JBaker45:
   

   Note: I am also aware of the fact that there is a great deal of diversity within the RCC as well. Unfortunately, the teachings of the RCC lay outside of the bounds of biblical orthodoxy.

   Can I correct this error?

   Of course you can
   
   
   NotWorthy:
   

   You are aware of the fact that there is one teaching within the RCC, but the laiety have a great deal of diversity in what they believe.

   Yes. I am aware.
   
   
   NotWorthy:
   

   But the RCC teaches one thing.

   I am not at all certain that the left hand always knows what the right hand is doing.
   
   For example, how many of Catholics (in general) are deeply familiar with what goes on within the community of the Opus Dei?
   
   
   NotWorthy:
   

   I couldn’t deny the validity of your faith simply because you may fail in your faith, now could I?

   I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. But on the surface, it sounds like a reasonable statement.
   
   
   NotWorthy:
   

   Wrong Philip. Look at Acts 8:1 - Now Saul was consenting to his execution.On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. This Philip is the Philip ordained to the Deaconate in Acts 6:5. He was one of the Hellenistic Jews who were scattered after the persecution of Stephen. Philip, the Apostle, as stated in verse 1, stayed in Jerusalem.

   Upps, I do stand corrected
   
   But in the defense of the authority of this Philip, I would like to point out that Acts 8:6-7 gives testimony to the miracles that he performed.

 

[JBaker45]

I believe Peter to be the Albiet one who the King Jesus leaves behind to watch over his kingdom till he gets back.

And is your belief consistent with the RCC’s teaching concerning the Eastern Orthodox church (which Peter did not found)?

 

[NotWorthy]

Like I said, the basic essentials are explicitly cited in the scriptures. Thus, the authoritative body in this case is the very word of God itself.

So why isn’t the Real Presence of the Eucharist a Basic Essential. It was a Basic Essential for the Church for 1500 years, and it still is for the RCC. There have been teaching on the Real Presence throughout every generation in the history of the church.

Scripture justifies it.Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in your name; and we forbade him, because he follows not with us. 50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

But they didn’t cast out these demons by teaching in error, for that was the point of this rebuttal.

I am not at all certain that the left hand always knows what the right hand is doing.

For example, how many of Catholics (in general) are deeply familiar with what goes on within the community of the Opus Dei?

Well, now that Dan Brown has brought them to light…

BTW, what does Opus Dei have to do with the Teaching Authority of the Church. Silly me thought that was the point of our discussion.

But in the defense of the authority of this Philip, I would like to point out that Acts 8:6-7 gives testimony to the miracles that he performed.

I wasn’t aware that only Apostles (and hence Bishops and Priests) held a monopoly on miracles. Philip, like Stephen and 5 others, was appointed the role of deacon to help out with the distribution among the Hellenistic Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. He did great wonders for the church, just as the Laity and Deacons do today… Just as many people in your faith do, God Bless them all!!!

 

[JBaker45]

… IF you ever showed that I was in error, and the Holy spirit convicted me that what you said was true, I would do so in a heartbeat.

Okay. Good for you

MariaG:

You made a claim that infant baptism was not until about 370AD and that claim is not supported by history. We can see in the writings of those who were taught by the apostles, things about infant baptism.

Well… The specific date is not essential to what I was trying to say… Evidence that an individual taught a thing does not imply that the teaching was universal.

But let’s not get too sidetracked by this point. As long as regeneration precedes baptism then I agree that scripture supports the baptism of children (and infants).

Also, what has been referred to as infant baptism is often more akin to a dedication which is justifiable under the biblical doctrine of headship (take your Hippolytus quote for example).

MariaG:

You show me any historical writings of Christians that say infant baptism is wrong, I will concede that my interpretation of scripture may be wrong.

Please note :

• That we have already seen in scripture that Paul’s eyes were opened before he was baptized (Acts 9:18).
• Also, we have seen how Philip questioned the Ethiopian about his faith before baptizing him (Acts 8:37). And I have shown you that faith implies that the person has already been born again (John 1:12-13).

But the real clincher for you should be this : Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?These spoken of in Acts 10:44-47 had received the gift of the Holy Spirit before being baptized.

God bless,
John