Baptism and Infant Baptism

That is ok, I kind of figured I wouldn’t get a straight answer (not just from you, I’ve never gotten any Catholic to give me a straight answer on that one.)

We were haveing an intelligent conversation and you go and make a rude comment.

I said I had a personal reason for not answering that because..... wait for it....., it was personal.

MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND EXAMINE IF YOU ARE REALLY A CHRISTIAN OR NOT.

I answered eveery other question to asked with good will candor and documentation, you may nothave liked the answers, or even agreed with them, but every one save that was answered.

Grunthor wrote:
“Does the great commission remove the need to believe prior to being baptized? Which verse is wrong, Matt or Mark?”

There are a couple of problems here that if not addressed and fixed will prevent any progress being made or understanding. Remember, Grunthor, I wrote: “So, point one: For whom is baptism commanded (I trust no one will say that it isn’t)? Where is this written?”

The point was to take one thing at a time, and go point by point, using the Bible only. Instead of immediately asking, “Which verse is wrong, Matt or Mark?”, why don’t we simply ask, Which of these two, Mark 16:16 or Matthew 28:18-20, contains a command? Why would you offer as the only possibility that one or the other must be wrong? If this is the Word of God, how can either be wrong? Or does God contradict Himself?

So, let’s not make this any more complicated than it is. Which of the two, Mark 16:16 or Matthew 28:18-20 contains a command? It is a simple matter of grammar.

Before one can proceed to theology, one must deal with the grammar of what He said - He to whom all authority in heaven and earth has been given. Would you not agree? So, which is it?

I guess I will reply to myself.

When a person enters into a confrontation with God, for that is what reading or hearing the Word of God, the Bible, really is - whether a person believes it is so or not, one of two things will happen. Either the person will see which direction the confrontation is going, and begin to argue details (so as not to place him- or herself in direct opposition to God) or will, upon seeing the direction going in a way he or she did not expect and perhaps did not want, will think, “Well, it is the Word of God, I will be led by what it says because what it says is what God Himself says.”

The classic examples that the NT Scriptures themselves give are, of course, the Sadducees (sometimes referred to as the scribes or the chief priests) and the Pharisees. The first favored ritual and hierarchical control, the second personal holiness and the individual. And both argued details with Jesus. In every case, He showed them that they were as wrong in the details as in the big picture. Both were wrong. But they managed to agree that their mutual problem was Jesus and His interpretation of God’s word. Both are given as examples not of what was, but of what still is in the heart of the “religious.” If one goes to the details in arguing against what the Scriptures plainly say, he will find, if he has the courage to examine himself and his motives, that he either falls into the general mindset of the Sadducee or that of the Pharisee. The only solution is to give up, to say, “I will be led, for the Good Shepherd alone knows and speaks the truth. I am the lost He came to seek.”

To be religious is not enough. To believe that Jesus is the Christ, the only rightful Savior and head of the body that is the church, is alone the sufficient answer to what God confronts us with in the Holy Scriptures. What He says is the authoritative understanding, however our mind and heart may object. He has the big picture right and every single detail as well.

One more note: There is no difference between what Jesus taught and what His apostles wrote. To say that is, again, to argue the facts with Him who said, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Me.” (Matthew 28:18) Look in the very context of those words. You will find that some of them also doubted. But doubt is a far, far, far different thing than opposition. Doubt remains silent, non-argumentative, waiting for God in His word to make clear what is not yet clear. God is merciful to the doubting, but opposes the proud.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.