"I was extrapolating one time ...
...but then I realized that I was going way past where I should have been."
Posted on 01/27/2016 6:19:11 AM PST by marshmallow
No. If one were raised Fundamentalist Protestant, converted to Catholic, and then renounced Jesus as Messiah to dabble as a Gentile proselyte in Judaism would it be reasonable to infer such a one may not be a sure and certain interpreter of the holy scriptures, and was still in need of true answers to the soul's burning questions ?
"I was extrapolating one time ...
...but then I realized that I was going way past where I should have been."
Yep.
It doesn’t sy they baptized the dead people in their graves, either.
Infant baptism is completely unbiblical - unfortunately, lots of the midstream “protestants” have an infant baptism hangup as well.
Luths, Presbys, Angs, etc.... they never quite got around to finishing a Biblical Reformation.
They still have one foot in Rome and one foot.... wherever.
There is nothing wrong with the death penalty. There is something entirely wrong with burning to death those that disagree with you.
I would not be surprised that a Muslim would kill because of a disagreement, but I had hope Catholics had moved past this. Very sad.
I understand it is not part of your faith community's modern tradition. Your tradition notwithstanding, where in the scriptures is baptism of little ones explicitly forbidden ?
Killing those who disagree with you is wrong? In a just war people are killed and it is not a sin. Perhaps your religion reserves the death penalty for murderers. That is not the current view in the United States (treason for example). The Catholic Church, as far as I know, does not say that the death penalty is intrinsically evil if it is used for non-murderers.
Your argument is not with me but with God and history.
bump
Killing those who disagree with you is wrong! What kind of world do you live in?
Treason is a fine reason for the death penalty. The ruler does not bear the sword in vain. But treason is much more than a disagreement.
People die in war. That is what happens.
But I will stand with Luther and condemn Pope Leo X and any Catholic that agrees with him. "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." Why would we need to debate this?
You can have your rationalizations that you are doing it for the greater good. You can bemoan the fact that Martin Luther wasn't burned at the stake. You can try to confuse the death penalty by the state with the burning of heretics, but you are wrong and Pope Leo X was wrong.
The only thing Francis should be apologizing for is claiming to be Catholic.
“I understand it is not part of your faith community’s modern tradition.”
That is quite a liberal catch phrase. I would never use it.
I get my teaching from the Bible.
Believe me, for 23 years, I got enough from Rome to fill my craw for a long, long, time.
>>No baby or child is baptized in Acts 18:8.
How can you say that with authority?
“How can you say that with authority?”
I don’t need any authority to point out there is no child or baby mentioned in the passage.
If there is an invisible baby there, it doesn’t even mention anyone hearing the cries.
I think it best never to build a doctrine based on an invisible baby.
If that were true you could produce the scriptures that explicitly forbid baptism for little ones instead of relying on modern traditions.
>>I don’t need any authority to point out there is no child or baby mentioned in the passage.
There are no women explicitly mentioned either.
What does “entire household” mean to you. If a house burns down at you get the entire household out, would you leave the babies behind to burn?
“Your tradition notwithstanding, where in the scriptures is baptism of little ones explicitly forbidden ?”
Ah, back to an argument from silence. Can’t find a basis for a teaching? Make it up and pretend it’s sanctioned.
The Scriptures teach believers to be baptized. They never teach non-believers (including infants) be baptized. By claiming infant baptism, you are adding to the teaching of believers baptism.
Under the theory of “the Scriptures don’t explicitly forbid it” you may consider adding some other key doctrines, like...
Baptizing dogs, cats and hamsters. Scripture doesn’t forbid it.
I would caution you about baptizing cats thought. From experience, I can tell you they are not Christians and they do not appreciate immersion.
Okay, Catholic Tradition holds that Peter was the first Pope, right? So on the day of Pentecost, when the men in Jerusalem saw the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the disciples, they were convicted of their sin and asked what they had to do to be saved.
What did Peter tell them? "Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins." So if baptism is supposed to follow repentance, how can an infant be baptized?
By that logic only Jewish men could have "remission of sins" and "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses thirteen to fifteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
I have no disagreement with the verse you quoted, but it has nothing to do with infant baptism.
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.