Posted on 08/11/2018 10:24:01 AM PDT by Salvation
What?! Another RC abusing/compelling Scripture to support Catholicism is supposed to make it attractive to Bible believers who know better? Your "why doubt?" response is one befitting of ignorance and of cultic assent to anything the Roman church says.
Lets examine this propagandist:
Further, St. Peter in Acts includes children when he requires baptism: “‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call’” (Acts 2:38-39).
Where or where is infant baptism (paedobaptism) commanded or commended here??? The promise is not that the act itself of baptism effects regeneration, nor by proxy faith as in heretical Catholicism, but receiving the promise is contingent upon obeying the command, which requires repentance, which means believing.
Thus Phillip in Acts 8:
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)
And Peter again Acts 10:43:
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
And explained in Acts 15:
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)
The promise of Acts 2:38,39 is indeed to both children and those far off who would repent/believe, as shown in baptism, but the insurmountable problem for paedobaptists is that infants are morally incognizant, and cannot choose to repent and believe. Plus they are not guilty of any sin of their own.
Therefore Acts 2:39-39 simply does not command or commend paedobaptism, but instead it disallows it since infants cannot obey the stated requirements.
Next up,
St. Paul says: “In [Christ] you were circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism …” (Col 2:11-12). Calling baptism the “circumcision of Christ” links it to a practice performed on the eighth day after birth. The analogy seems far less meaningful or sensible if only adults were baptized.
There is only a limited correspondence btwn circumcision and baptism,for the requirements were not same. For besides only males being circumcised, circumcision of infants was actually commanded, and nowhere is the NT condition of repentant faith ever given.
The very fact that there is no command to baptism infants anywhere in the NT, or any manifest record of this, despite the cardinal importance of it in Catholic delusion, and that they must therefore attempt to extrapolate it out of a forced analogy to circumcision, testifies to this not being a belief of the early church. Which we can add to the list .
And, of course, Jesus said, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Mk 10:14). But later he adds, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (Jn 3:5). So the little children belong to the kingdom but must enter in the water of baptism and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
As his premise is false so also is his conclusion (thank God). For baptism is not shown to be the actual means of regeneration, and if it were then all infants in the past or present can not see the kingdom of God. Instead of a ritual being the means of regeneration, what Scripture teaches is that it is the faith which is behind baptism that purifies the heart.
For as shown above, the promise is "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) To which Peter adds, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) For as he testifies, God "put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith ." (Acts 15:9)
However, since baptism properly requires as well as testifies to this faith, then Peter could promise, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)
For this act required effectual faith, and thus those who chose to do so were believers, and would receive the promise.
Finally, as to the practice of the early Church, infant baptism is clearly attested in numerous places. Hippolytus wrote in 215 A.D. about baptizing households or large groups: “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).
This recourse is a typical Cath fallacy, for the uninspired words of such men are not qualified to be determinitive of what the NT church taught.
But for the record, you see some other teaching by such ancients .
And again, we are not dealing with a peripheral doctrine here, but one of gravest importance in Catholicism, and yet this is not what we see (no command, nor clear example) manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels). which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. And thus to insist this Catholic doctrine, among others, was what the NT church believed is absurd. Thus Catholics appeal to oral tradition, out of which Rome even channeled the Assumption . . However., writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And as i abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)
And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:30-31)
Baptizing babies doesn't send them to heaven or hell. It just makes them wet.
It does? Where? I understand that it simply must since your elitist church makes it of grave importance, but nowhere in the sparse mention of household baptisms are infants mentioned, and instead Catholics must state as fact what they can only assume, and wish was there. Why not just admit that the RC basis for assurance of doctrine does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults)?
Now its time to sleep for me.
Ain't that the truth! You don't hear that much about unbaptized babies going to "Limbo" anymore. Catholicism hasn't made a definitive statement on that subject or else they have changed their teaching on it. Limbo is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church but neither has it been rejected by the Church. I guess as abortion became more and more an issue, the thought that innocent souls were being sent somewhere other than heaven through no fault of their own, didn't get the same response. Now, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God. Grammas don't like to guess.
Quite the opposite, actually! But thanks for asking.
Those who aren't capable of understanding their need for a Savior and who cannot consciously RECEIVE the gift of God through faith ARE saved by the grace of God - even Catholicism teaches that. Infants, children, mentally handicapped people - God knows the limitations - aren't under condemnation but under grace.
Aye, and many of them may well have a more thorough and genuine understanding of the mysteries of the faith than such alleged intellectual giants as John Knox, John Calvin, and John Wesley.
The Bible uses the strongest language to say baptism is essential for salvation. But you dismiss it as mere tradition, just a symbol. Based on what, feelings? The strength if scripture should at least give you pause about your belief that baptism is somehow just a “symbol”. If it was why did Jesus insist on it.
Yes, I do! I have faith in our Lord! He forgives us our sins. I do not need anyone to serve as intermediary.
Thank you for posting that.
Please don't distort and corrupt the scriptures...
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
Paul actually says a person has to believe...
He then says he preached to all who were in the house...
Paul then says everyone who was baptized BELIEVED in God...
NO BABIES... This has been pointed out to you over the many years but you continue to obfuscate and mislead the people you are talking to...
Since baptism does the following:
Cleanses you from iniquity, gives you a heart of flesh rather that of stone. Ezekiel 36:25-33
Makes you a disciple of Jesus. Matthew 28:19 (with teaching)
Forgives your sins. Acts 2:38 (With repentance)
Gives you the Holy Spirit. John 3:5, Acts 2:38.
Joins you with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans 6:2-5, Colossians 2:12.
Washes the Church and makes her holy. Ephesians 5:25-26
Clothes you in Christ. Galatians 3:27.
Regenerates you. Titus 3:5.
Saves you. 1 Peter 3:21
Why WOULDN’T you baptize an infant? They need all of the above just as much as adults do!
“Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. Ask a Fundamentalist to show your their cherished “Sinner’s Prayer” in the Bible and the grab the popcorn.”
Yeah, I see your point!
As soon as someone points out that a Roman teaching is not in the Bible, they immediately change the subject!
And far worse than rome’s teaching that baptism of infants keeps them from hell, is rome’s failure to teach salvation by grace so that people might be saved and be sure of their salvation.
As to the sinners prayer...
I don’t know of any evangelical that teaches that any prayer can save.
Nor do I know anyone who believes the sinners prayer is in scripture.
Your quote is a category mistake, which is a logical fallacy.
You want to show us some scripture where someone changes their heart after they get dipped, or dipped upon???
If that was true, all you'd have to do is sneak around with a spray bottle of Catholic holy water and spray unsuspecting victims...Their eyes would be opened and their hearts turned to the Catholic religion...
Get 'em at night when they are sleeping...Just like a little baby...
So you think God CHANGED His eternal plan - so it would “make sense” to YOU?
The RCC blinds men to the Truth.
The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.
Not Roman--Orthodox!!!--and for the first 1054 years there was only one, holy catholic, and apostolic Church!
When did your Johnny-come lately "church" begin?
You want to show us some scripture where someone changes their heart after they get dipped, or dipped upon???
Titus 3:5.
Was the thief on the cross baptized?
Haha, well done. Oy
It’s the kind of blindness that keeps people on their eternal death path.
That’s EXACTLY where the real enemy wants them to stay...
... in the dark. Ignorant... and satisfied to be such, having carved THEIR OWN image of God or blindly following the ones who have ignorantly done so for them.
Fools.
No, it depends on what YOU DO FOR YOU...
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Did Jesus say I will give rest to everyone whether they 'come unto me' or do not come unto me???
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.