Posted on 06/03/2012 1:47:18 PM PDT by Salvation
Yes, I do understand it, I actually read the whole chapter and stand by what I said.
Baptism meant water since the beginning. Any claim otherwise is wrong. And Paul quite clearly compares baptism to circumcision in Col.
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals.
The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
Correction: We do understand how taking a stand results in division..
No one on this thread has even hinted that only adults get baptized...So that is not and has not been an issue...
I dont know how much clearer I can put this.....
Just as they do now, parents speak for their children, the children are under the care and protection of the parents...
No, Scripture says that ALL in Lydias household were baptized. Period, no distinction for age, or adulthood or anything.
It doesn't matter how clearly you explain your philosophy...Human philosophy does not win out over God's word...
Yes, all Lydia's household were saved...But there were no babies there because we know that one has to make a conscious choice to believe on Jesus to get saved and be baptized...
It doesn't say whether there were or weren't babies in the household. It can't be assumed that there were because (fill in the blank) for the sole purpose of supporting a doctrine of the church.
If it's not valid to assume that there were no babies, then it's equally invalid to assume there were.
I've noticed quite a tendency for Catholics and Catholicism to work on assumptions ie, something isn't said to not have happened therefore we can assume it did and build a doctrine on it.
It's utter foolishness to build doctrines on unsubstantiated assumptions and claim someone's salvation depends on it.
Is there any reason to think that procedure WAS NOT followed with the rest of the household given no mention is made of ages?
If that pattern was followed then it would argue for only those old enough to be made disciples were baptized.
So the use of the term “househhold” is not an argument in favor of child baptism.
And Paul quite clearly teaches that circumcision doesn't save either.
Romans 2:25-29 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
so called born again Christians believe in the Trinity, do you?
you have posed a very interesting question.
there are wheat and tares within the Church, just as there are wheat and tares in what the world percieves in the “Christian world”
there is only One Church in the NT, that Church existed in the 2nd century, 3rd century and every year, month, day, minute and second ever since.
now, the real question is can you be a Christian and not be part of the visible Church?
John tells us in 1 John 2:3 that we can be sure we know Him if we keep His commandments.
in John 17 , Jesus beautifully prays to the Father that those that believe in Him “ that they all be one”
Why did He pray this? “so that the world may believe that thou has sent me” We know The Father heard Jesus and His true followers are one.
Paul follows up on the prayer of Jesus in 1 Corinthians by appealing to the brethern that they all agree and have no dissension. in Ephesians , he calls for the building up the Body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith.
now given all of the above, can someone be a Christian if they claim to believe in Christ, yet cause dissension among Christians and attempt to draw Christians out of the Church?
instead of “being one”, they split into all sort of factions with contradictory doctrines, causing the world not to believe the Father sent Jesus, is such a person a Christian? do these people care or even think about Jesus’s prayer in John 17?
you want to give us an example of a differnce in doctrine between two rites of the Catholic Church that involves a matter critical to salvation?
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
of course, this is what historical, orthodox Christians have believed for 2,000 years. yet some still cling to 16th century tradition of men that says baptism does not save us.
I will believe the Scriptures over the tradition of men.
It's not water baptism. It's a spiritual baptism (a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ), not the physical one (removal of dirt from the body).
You'll need another verse.
That’s going to take more time than I have at the moment.
I’ll get back to that later and if you don’t hear from me by tomorrow, remind me.
of course, this is what historical, orthodox Christians have believed for 2,000 years. yet some still cling to 16th century tradition of men that says baptism does not save us. I will believe the Scriptures over the tradition of men.
A thousand face palms wouldn't take care of it...
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, (speaking of water baptism...Water baptism doesn't do it...)
but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
It's not a matter of getting wet...It's a matter of a heart condition...
Baptism here is a change of heart toward Jesus...
It's just amazing that you guys pull out verses for your religion's defense and those scriptures are often the ones that condemn your religion...
LOL, how can this be? Catholics don’t know, read or hear Scripture! Nor do they appeal to Scripture for their doctrines. Haven’t enough people here told you that?
****Yes, all Lydia’s household were saved...But there were no babies there because we know that one has to make a conscious choice to believe on Jesus to get saved and be baptized...*****
That is pure speculative reading into Scripture what one wants to believe.
Yes, there is a pattern, that pattern is that the head of the household brought ALL of that household into the faith.
No one has adequately refuted the fact that parents do indeed bring their children to Christ. No one has adequately refuted that parents speak for and act for their children.
Scripture makes a point of saying entire households were baptized. Not, and everyone in the household who believed were baptized. No, entire households. It’s that simple. Households mean families and family means children and there is nothing that says that anyone was excluded because of age.
Bless ya, Jvette, but this is a hopeless fight, even by religious forum standards. If a person looks at a baby being baptized as a Christian, with parents and others taking responsibility to raise that child under Christ’s guidance, and they see this all as a bad thing, then they are clueless and faithless to the point that a post or two will not allow them to suddenly see The Light.
Well, then you better tell Jesus, who said quite clearly that unless one is born again of WATER and the SPIRIT one cannot enter the Kingdom of God.
The washing in water is a washing away of the sins of the soul, as the body is still subject to death and it is the condition of the soul on Judgement Day, which determines the fate of the body, not the other way around.
The pattern was those baptized had to be at least old enough to be disciples. That would exclude infants and very young children.
Jesus set the pattern. Make disciples, baptize, instruct them in Jesus’ commandments.
The use of the term “household” says nothing of the ages of any children, if present.
“No one has adequately refuted the fact that parents do indeed bring their children to Christ. No one has adequately refuted that parents speak for and act for their children.”
Nor is there any need to. Very young children, too young to be made a disciple, would not be baptized, being holy by virtue of the merit of a believing parent per Paul.
“Households mean families and family means children and there is nothing that says that anyone was excluded because of age.”
Of course there is! The one being baptized had to become a disciple first and be capable of being taught Jesus’ commandments afterward. And that is what Jesus said at Matt. 28.
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.