The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[Jvette]

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.

[daniel1212]

We do not understand how taking a stand results in division, and as regards Roman Catholicism, one poster on a Roman Catholic forum comments,

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

[daniel1212]

Correction: We do understand how taking a stand results in division..

[Iscool]

there is NOTHING, not one thing in Scripture that says it was only the adults in the household.

No one on this thread has even hinted that only adults get baptized...So that is not and has not been an issue...

I don’t 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 Lydia’s 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...

[metmom]

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.

[count-your-change]

As Acts chapter 16 says, Lydia was made a disciple first, then baptized. There's that pattern again.

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.

[metmom]

And Paul quite clearly compares baptism to circumcision in Col.

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.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

so called born again Christians believe in the Trinity, do you?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

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?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

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?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

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.

[metmom]

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

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.

[metmom]

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.

[Iscool]

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.

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...

[Jvette]

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?

[Jvette]

****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.

[Jvette]

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.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

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.

[Jvette]

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.

[count-your-change]

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.