"Wherever Jesus is there is the Catholic church" ~ St Ignatius of Antioch around 100 A.D.
"Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna."~Martyrdom of Polycarp A.D. 155
"We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church" ~ The united christian church at the council of Nicea 325 A.D.
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. (exerpt from vatican website, your correct it was never official dogma but accepted teaching){ see cont}
@carriebrk cont exerpt (wouldn't fit)-" This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis."-regardless it is still fables. I notice you gave no reference for you assertion the teaching was from Jesus' lips.
@carriebrk In addition, there are five references in the New Testament to the Baptism of entire households. Peter baptized the household of Cornelius (Acts 11: 14). In Philippi, Paul baptized the household of Lydia and the household of the jailer (Acts 16: 15, 33). He also baptized the household of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanas (1: 16).
@carriebrk 2. The Greek word for household is oikon and refers to all the inhabitants of the house including slaves, servants, infants and children. Can anyone seriously suggest that within the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus and Stephanas there were no children or infants present?
In addition, if the members of these households had converted to Judaism, all the males would have been circumcised.
@carriebrk 3. This included infants who were at least eight days old. In Colossians 2: 9-12, the Apostle Paul compares the effect of circumcision with the effect of Baptism. While there are no specific references to infant Baptism in the New Testament, there is every reason to believe that children and infants were included. When you read Pastor Kastens’ "Infant Baptism in Early Church History", the witness of the early church fathers is very clear. Children & infants were included in Baptism.
Acts 2:37-40 doesn't end there-there's a comma after children, it continues to say "and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." then vs 41 continues and said "then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them." Always taking pieces of scripture out of context to prove non-existant doctrines.
@carriebrk I am a little confused. How does the fact that the sentence goes on to say "and to all who are afar off" negate the fact that he said "you and your children"?
@100PercentCatholic - it's refering to the Gentiles when he said "those who are afar off"-36 starts "let all the house of Israel know..." He was re-assuring them that the promise is still to them, their descendents, and to gentiles-as many as the Lord God would call". That they could be saved from that "perverse generation" who crucified the Lord and Christ. further vs 41 says "those who gladly received his word were baptized" infants don't gladly recieve any words.
@carriebrk There were no Christians at that point so it makes sense that everyone converting was an adult and therefore had to gladly receive his word first. In Acts 16:31-33 Paul and Silas tell a jailer to “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” Then “He and all his family were baptized at once.” The head of the household believed in the Lord Jesus before the entire household was baptized. It doesn’t say entire household except for the kids.
@100PercentCatholic - Again you pluck out part of the story-32 "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." Were they speaking to infants? 34 says "Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household" They all believed. They spoke the word of the Lord to "all who were in his house"-there apparently weren't any young children, all were old enough to hear and understand.
@carriebrk The Greek helps us to get a better idea of what the author was trying to convey. The Greek used in Acts 16:31-33, 16:15, and 1 Cor 1:16 for household is oikos, which would include all children. In regards to Acts 2:39, the Greek word for children used is teknon, which is same word used in Acts 21:21 to refer to eight day old circumcised children. But even if kids were not in household, it still does not say to exclude children from baptism. Nowhere does scripture say this.
@100PercentCatholic - The point is you used both Scripture references as validifying infant baptism. Now you say "well it doesn't prohibit it" What exactly does that mean? Do we start basing doctrine on whatever we want as long as Scripture doesn't specifically prohibit it? Especially to the point of disregarding the abundance of times it says "they believed and were baptised" . It's every time, because rituals don't save us, it's what they represent that does, don't you see?
@carriebrk The Greek clearly shows what the author was trying to convey, that the households included children. My point was that even without this proof, it still does not tell us to not baptize children, so it still wouldn't prove your point. Let me ask you. Why were children allowed to enter the old covenant at eight old (Genesis 17:9-14)? Why would the New Covenant be narrower than the old? And why does Peter tell us that baptism saves us now (1 Peter 3:21).
@100PercentCatholic - the title of your video is "infant" baptism, not eight year old baptism. As I said above-you cannot base doctrine on what is not specifically prohibited. - the second half of the sentence says "not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." - not by the action, but by the principle it represents, dying to self, rebirth in Christ Jesus.
@100PercentCatholic - vs 11 "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a SIGN of the covenant between Me and you" Circumcision was to set apart a race of people-God's chosen nation. Not a means for salvation. Notice how clear and plainly it is put forth too. It says what it means, just like the NT. No infering by what isn't "forbidden directly"-it says what it says
@carriebrk Even if circumcision was a sign, why was it commanded to be done to children 8 days old? Why is the new covenant narrower than the old? Hebrews 8:6 says that the New Covenant is supposed to be better than the Old Covenant. So why exclude children from the new covenant?
@100PercentCatholic - not all children only male children-with your reasoning you are implying that females are not included in this covenent. I wondered about the specificity of 8 days too, and a long time ago I asked a Jewish friend. (She is from Russia) about it and she said something about it turns out your potassium level is way low until your at least 8 days old, and recovery could be adversly effected if it's earlier? I don't know, found that interesting though.
@carriebrk I had an instructor explain why only males were circumscribed. I forget his exact answer, but it had to do something with the male being the head of his household. However, the gender is irrelevant for this argument. I am just asking why were 8 day old kids allowed in the old covenant and suddenly excluded from the new? Everything that I have read about the new covenant is that it is supposed to be more inclusive, not less.
@100PercentCatholic - now your kinda confusing me. The Lord's Supper is the sign of the new covenent, not baptism. I was raised in the Roman system and we were taught baptism was for the remission of original sin.
@carriebrk Yes, baptism is for the remission of original sin as well as washing away any committed sins if you are adult (Acts 22:16). You also receive the gift of the spirit (Acts 2:38). And although the Eucharist is how we renew our covenant with God, baptism is how we enter into the New Covenant, just like people entered in the Old Covenant by circumcision. Col 2:11-12 helps us see how baptism has replaced circumcision.
@100PercentCatholic - we had this conversation-people didn't enter into the old covenent by circumcision. Jesus said "this is the new covenent" at the passover last supper- who decided it was baptism? It doesn't say that anywhere. Where does that come from? Col 2 doesn't say baptism replaces circumcision-it says "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith (through faith) . It says in Him (Christ) we are circumcised.
@carriebrk We could argue about what certain verses mean all day. Or we can look at history and see that infant baptism has been practiced since the apostles. You cannot provide me anything to show that infant baptism was forbidden because all your proof was “burned up” by those evil Catholics. How convenient. Why do people discount the teaching of people who directly or indirectly knew the apostles? Wouldn’t they have a better idea of what Jesus wanted than people who came centuries later?
@100PercentCatholic - I'm not arguing about a meaning-where is it ever stated that baptism is entering into God's covenent? Tertullian has writings that condemned infant baptism. The fact that an infant or very young child isn't converted at their baptism is the whole reason that confirmation was introduced. If you've ever read Augustine's input on infant baptism it is clear he is making a case for it-why would that be necessary if it was universal accepted practice?
@100PercentCatholic -Mat 28:19,20 " Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Mark 16:15,16 " Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" those are Jesus' words, who's teaching should I adhere to, His or yours?
@carriebrk As I said earlier, no one was a Christian at this point, so it only makes sense that adults were the first to become Christian and therefore had to believe before they were baptized. But studying history proves that the early Christians baptized babies. Would you like some quotes? Or better yet, can you find me even one quote from the first thousand or so years of Christianity that tells us to not to baptize infants.
@100PercentCatholic - Acts 20:29,30 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, also FROM AMONG YOURSELVES men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. and now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance."
@carriebrk Well, I have provided Biblical ones, such as Acts 2:38 that says children. Yet you interpret this to mean decedents even though the Greek clearly states otherwise. So what should we do? Argue over Scripture until we are blue in the face? Why are there thousands of Christian denominations that only go by Scripture alone yet all believe something different? Wouldn't it make sense to see how the people from the time of Jesus interpreted this verses?
@100PercentCatholic - the term teknon is used all over the place, the point and emphasis being on the close relationship of family members, not young age. For example Matt 3:9 the Jews call themselves the sons of Abraham. Matt 9:2 when Jesus heals the man with Palsey he calls him son (teknon)-when Jesus talks about the end times He states children will rise up against parents and deliver them to death. Matt 10:21-so it's not "clearly stating otherwise".
@100PercentCatholic - Oddly enough there are many denominations who practice infant baptism while acknowledging there is no Biblical basis for it. Even the orthodox church states there's no Biblical basis for it. I don't think matters like this are usually a matter of interpretation. The text says what it says. We (people) just want to do it our own way anyway I guess.
@carriebrk Where does the Bible teach that everything we need to know as Christians should be explicitly stated in it? It doesn’t, right? The church is called the pillar and foundation of truth in 1 Tim 3:15, not the Bible. In 2 Thess 2:15 it says, “Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Here Paul tells us to keep traditions by word of mouth or by letter, not by letter alone.
@100PercentCatholic - No Paul tells the Thess to keep the traditions because of course the Thess were taught directly by Paul and we of course were not. We already defined the term church, and if you are honest with yourself I don't even think you truly believe that the Roman church has an undefined, ever changing list of "traditions" that they have kept by word of mouth for 2000 years. Why would there be repeats of stories in the gospels, and not bother to record core doctrine's.
@carriebrk - How do we know if someone is telling the truth? How do you know Joseph Smith isn't right then? Why does the Bible tell us to test all spirits against the Word? Why were the Bereans in Acts commended for "searching the scripture daily to see if these things were so"- why was God's method the written Word since the beginning and now suddenly it sometimes depends on corruptible man?! Doesn't make much sense.
@carriebrk Absolutely. There are writings that prove the early church believed the same doctrines the CC teaches. You cannot do that because your documents were conveniently burned up. And no, “we” did not define the term church, you gave me your interpretation. See our video Did Jesus Establish An Invisible Church? If church is all believers, how can it be pillar and foundation of truth if so many denom. believe diff things. Can you have more than one truth? Can 1+1 equal 2 and 3?
@100PercentCatholic - The Roman church tends to site pieces of church fathers writings when it is convenient and matches their spin, while disregarding those that do not. Augustine, for example, with the exception of his stance on baptism, would most closely resemble the teachings of Calvin. Luther was highly influenced by his writings (Luther was an Augustinian monk). I didn't give you an interpretation, I simply sited the translation of the Greek word we translate as church.
@carriebrk Luther and Calvins theology is far from being Augustins...Augustine was 100 percent Catholic and would never have joined with the Prots in fact he stated...
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
@carriebrk Also, all Catholic doctrines are biblical. It is usually not the case that Catholic beliefs are not recorded in scripture, but someone’s interpretation differs from the CCs 2,000 year old interpretation (John 6 anyone). A good site to find Catholic beliefs in scripture is scripturecatholic[dot]com
@100PercentCatholic - when you get proven wrong you simply change the subject-you claimed with an authoritative aire that the greek word for child clearly indicated an infant, and in most cases that word used in the NT didn't indicate that at all.You stated the church fathers unanimously held to infant baptism, I sited Tertullian as an example of those who didn't. You claimed baptism is entering the new covenent, it says that nowhere. so always to the old stand by-"oral tradition".
@carriebrk Not intentional my friend. You have also avoided some of my questions. I gave you the benefit of the doubt though because I know the character limit imposed by YouTube makes it difficult to have a complete thought and answer every question. The conversation usually splinters into many different topics. I am interested in doing more research on Tertullian and his writings when I have time. Can you provide me the document in which he spoke against it.
@100PercentCatholic Tertullian was a heretic who was excommunicated by all 5 holy sees, he is not a church father, he joined a hertical sect know as the Montinists and believed that mortal sins could not be forgiven.
@100PercentCatholic - I shouldn't have answered qtepp031387-he gets all weird and starts ranting at people telling them they are satin and weird stuff. I was curious-what is your view of ECT. I know alot of Roman Catholics were upset by the John Paul II meeting with all the different religions at the vatican, and now Benedict did the same thing. How do you feel about it, and the ecumenical movement in general?
@carriebrk Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
@gtepp031387 - Col 2 does not state baptism is the new circumcision-read it-it was also discussed above I guess you both use the same apologetics page, read the text.
@carriebrk "Col 2 does not state baptism is the new circumcision"
"In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ:Buried with him in baptism"...bible says differently
@carriebrk Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.
Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
@gtepp031387 - it is the necessity for repentence and a Savior-"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, nobody is arguing that we have sinful natures I'm not sure what your point is-Matt 18:2-5 He says "Unless you are converted..whoever humbles himself as this little child."
@carriebrk Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
@carriebrk "I would disagree-that demonstrates that it is not the baptism that saves you." "baptism that now saves you also" 1 Peter 3:21...humm now what does this mean, well of course it doesn't mean this is the only requirment for salvation but it clearly means it plays a role in our salvation which would make it a salvific tool not a symbolic meaningless thing.
@carriebrk Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith.
@carriebrk Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.
@gtepp031387 - your misinterpreting the text-we had this conversation above, as well as the term teknon-I would encourage you both to do some of your own research-you simply frequent the sites that tell you what you want to hear instead of looking for yourself. A Greek Lexicon us great. There is no instance described in the Bible where an infant is baptized, or someone is told to. It's not there, your twisting scripture to try and make it fit what you want it to fit.
@carriebrk furthermore we see that baptism is used to forgive sins..."Repent, AND be baptized(if repentance was all that was required why throw in baptism?) 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."..now through repentance we can be forgiven nearly anything except original sin, however baptism kills us, as we are baptized unto his death, and reborn by the grace of the ressurection without original sin.
@carriebrk Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
@carriebrk Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.
@carriebrk Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
@gtepp031387 - Acts 16:33 was discussed above but I"ll say it again anyway. vs 32 "so they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." vs34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD." Paul spoke to "all" and "all believed" that's not infants. Do you guys read the text or just someone's reference to it?
@carriebrk Housholds include infants and children, the word teckon is used in several passages as I have given you, which includes infants...again there is nothing in the bible about a believers baptism, if fact Jesus states that baptism will be given to those who even do not believe, but this will not be enough to save them.
@carriebrk 2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
@gtepp031387 - the next vs. 11 says "For we hear that there are some who wald among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command to exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread." The text has nothing whatsoever to do with baptism-it doesn't imply anything of the sort. This blatent spinning to try and make things say something different. Be careful, it scares me for you.
@carriebrk Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.
@gtepp031387 - you infer alot-both passages say "when He saw their faith-what makes you think the paralytic isn't included in "they"? That's who the Lord speaks to. Yes there are passages where Jesus heals someone on bahalf of the faith of another. The fact that the Lord healed their physical ailments doesn't mean they were necessarily converted though, in the paralytics case he was. What about the 10 lepers, only one returned to glorify God. Don't forget, it rains on the unrighteous too :)
@carriebrk Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.
@carriebrk Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.
@gtepp031387 - of course the parents play a critical role in their childs faith-"bring up a child in the way he should go..." but nobody can provide salvation for someone else. It's a personal responsibility, a personal relationship. All those first born children who didn't die weren't necessarily redeemed. Physical and spiritual state is not the same. Cor 7 goes on to say "for how do you know O wife, whether you will save your husband? (and vice versa).
@gtepp031387 - cont..the marriage is considdered legitimate (as are the children of it) in the eyes of the Lord even though one is not a believer. (Remember when they were told not to be unequally yoked?) The believer is told to stay in the marriage unless the unbeliever wants out because they might be the influence and catalyste to save that unbelieving partner. It's not promising salvation to an unbeliever because of the other.
@carriebrk I am not saying that they are inspired, but don't you find it odd that Christians were unanimous in their belief in baptizing infants until over a thousand years after Christ? Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would never leave His Church, but you are pretty much saying that as soon as Jesus ascended into heaven His Church was teaching false things up until a few hundred years ago?
@100PercentCatholic - no-there have been believers all through history, it's always the few, the remnant. It was with Israel, and it is with us. Ekklesia is the Greek word translated "church"-it's literal translation is "assembly of the called out ones" - it's root being taken from the word used for a town crier who gave people a summons-a legal term. In Revelation Jesus writes a letter to the seven churches- five of the seven are told to repent. I didn't say it, He does.
@carriebrk "There have been believers all through history." Believers in what? Forbidding infant baptism? If so, please provide some documents from that time that say that infants were not to be baptized.
@100PercentCatholic - Bible believers-there were the Albegencies, and the Paulicians who were known and "labeled" sects of people who didn't adhere to Roman teachings or recognise any authority from any source besides the Bible The great east west schism didn't happen till after 1000AD. There was lots of disagreements. Most did, and still do, accept infant baptism. Doesn't make it Biblical though.
@100PercentCatholic - The anabaptist are the only one's that I know of that there's writings associated. That wasn't very early though. The inquisitions burned up alot of peoples writings and documents-especially those that didn't agree with the Roman church. They were considdered heretical. There's many documents from the gnostics that survived-the fact that they are old writings of the time doesn't make them true though does it.
@100PercentCatholic@carriebrk That is dangerous to align yourself with the Albigensians, also know as the Cathars, This group has some really strange beliefs. An occasional practice was suicide, preferably by starvation; for if this life is essentially evil, its end is to be hastened.Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil.
@carriebrk Catharists (also known as the Albigensians) are not Christians period. Listen to these beliefs they had: Matter is Evil. Two Gods, the Evil God of the Old Testament, and the the Good God, Christ from the New Testament. Marriage was evil but fornication was allowed. Death by suicide, mainly starvation, was promoted as a way to leave this evil world, it was forced on many. They did not believe in any authority, and would not obey any government.
@carriebrk Jesus according to the Cathars did not exist in the flesh, and did not suffer. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Hardly beliefs found in Scripture. The Paulicians also thought all matter to be bad. The denied the divinity of Christ, Spoke of Christ as an angel. They denied he was born of a Virgin. his real mother was Jerusalem. They rejected St. Peter's epistles
@100PercentCatholic - it matters because it is something that we do, or do to our children and expect that somehow that contributes to our righteousness, to our salvation. Only Christ's righteousness imputed to us is worthy. We have nothing in ourselves. All our works are "as filthy rags". It gives people a false sense of security, it's a "different gospel" (Gal 1:6-9) - by grace (underserved favor) you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..."
@100PercentCatholic They referred always to the "Gospel and Apostle", apparently only St. Luke and St. Paul, The Paulicians were Adoptionists (believing that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism) by the way the did reject infant baptism. the New Testament, should be the only text used by the followers. they refused to honor the Cross since they maintained that Christ had not been crucified. They did However deny all sacrements and believed in Faith Alone. but hardly Christian beliefs.
@carriebrk So the Holy Spirit stopped working after the Bible went into print? Where in the Bible does it say scripture alone? Where does it say faith Alone? Find either of those two words together? Sounds like this is what Christ is talking about? Now you tell me how the Apostles could have the power to forgive sins? You are promoting traditions of men in rituals that are not consistent with early Christians. It might help to read some of their early writings. Even if not inspired.
@carriebrk It is very clear that Baptism removes sin. And leads to salvation as Christ taught in the Gospel. Fact, entire households were baptized together. That includes Men, women and Children, even extended family. The Didache a very early writing, was the teachings of the 12 Apostles, and talks about infant baptism specifically, It also takes the place of circumcision, in the Old Covenant, That is also in the Bible.
@wealththinkers - The Didache tells the baptizer and the baptized to fast . It also states pouring water on the head as a last resort if no "living water" is available. It says nothing about infants and I find it hard to imagine they would expect an infant to fast, especially for "one of two days before". Romans5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." To God be the glory, salvation is only in Jesus.
@carriebrk You are right it only clear that water can be sprinkled in baptism. But still baptism does take the place of circumcision in the New Covenant. Col 2 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Roman 5:29 agree! .......
@wealththinkers - Why did you make an authoritative statement claiming the Didache specifically speaks of infant baptism when it doesn't? Col 2 has been discussed three times on this page. It says "by the circumcision of Christ" Baptism symbolizes dying to oneself,( going under the water) and rising with Christ as a "new creation". It doesn't say anything about taking the place of anything. We are risen with him through WHAT?! Oh- risen with him through faith.
@carriebrk I don't care you discussed it with apparently you don't understand the verse Let's look at it. Col 2 I will use the KJV as it is a good text. 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Now where does it say faith there?
@carriebrk 2 - It does say baptism. Now who in the old testament was circumcised? Both converts and Children with 8 days. What is the circumcision made without hands? Baptism as it says, The faith is in needed by not only, OK? This is a distortion of the scripture, Baptism is needed to participate in the operation of God. That is what it says. You must not only have faith in the operation of God but also be baptized.. Circumcision without hands is Baptism. Don't you see that?
@wealththinkers Christ Commands us to be baptized "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Notice that baptism is needed for salvation. Are there exceptions made, Let Christ be that judge. I for one believe that those who truly desire to know Christ will be saved not only because they believe but turn over their will to God and are obedient. Notice Acts 2 says baptism for remission of sins?
@wealththinkers -"The Didache a very early writing, was the teachings of the 12 Apostles, and talks about infant baptism specifically" that's a cut and paste from your statement above. You are frankly a lier. It doesn't say baptism is the circumcision no matter how badly you want it to. It says buried with Him in baptism because baptism is dieing to oneself. And being reborn a new creation in Christ, by power of the Holy Spirit. What you claim is not what it says.
@carriebrk I guess that shows where your fruit is calling me a liar, Read It! It says circumcision without hands, and the baptism is the dying of oneself, being reborn in a new creation. This very clear, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Ok Let's get on to the bigger picture,, Where in the Bible are the words Faith Alone and Scripture Alone. That is the big lie.
@wealththinkers - You lied about the Didache. You said "it talks about infant baptism specifically" - that's why I cut and pasted your statement and then made the statement "you are a lier" because it was a blatent fallacy. Your intention is not to share any kind of truth, or to "reason from the scripture"-your intention is to win your pre-conceived point even if you have to lie to do it. Which is exactly what you did. Being caught in a lie, you change the subject and try to shift the focus
@carriebrk Maybe you missed it, Maybe I am being harsh here. Here is what I said.
"You are right it only clear that water can be sprinkled in baptism." It seems by those words I admitted a mistake. Then you claim then why did you make and authoritative statement? I will repeat. If that is your perception then I will apologize and admit I made a mistake, as I explained it was from memory.
So apparently you are not correct that I am willing to lie at any cost just to win the argument.
@carriebrk Romans 5:29 is does not say we shouldn't follow the commandments of Christ. The Command to do and teach. Furthermore, Christ commands us to be baptized. "Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized" Christ says you must believe and be baptized to be saved. Fathers and Mothers make that decision for their children bring them up in the New Covenant. Romans 5 does not condemn baptism.
@wealththinkers - I wasn't implying Romans comdemns baptism, I was pointing out that only Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross takes away sin. Which appropriately gives the glory and praise where it is due. Of course we should follow the commandments of Christ, it's just not that obedience that reconciles us with God. That saves us from our sin. That atones for our transgressions. Only the blood of the perfect, spotless, sinless, lamb of God could do that.
@carriebrk All sins are forgiven by Christ, But not future sins! The idea that you can go and do what ever you want and still be saved in not biblical.. Two, Christ placed and ability for man to participate in the forgiveness of sins. Sorry, but Christ is not obligated to forgive future sins, that are not repented of. It is clear that sins will disqualify those believers who commit deadly sin. Check the epistles of John the Apostle.
@wealththinkers - who said you can go and do whatever you want? I am the one saying you must repent, you are saying your parents can repent for you. Sanctification is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. That is the ongoing process. Justification is only through Jesus and is all a gift from God. Bless His Holy name :) John 6:37 "ALl that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."
@carriebrk btw, you haven't accepted my apology? we agree you must repent! No, the infants are only accepted because the parent are in God's Family. Maybe you missed some these verses that apply? "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"
@wealththinkers - no need for apology, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions based on past similar experience, that was not fair. On several occasions He spoke of "childlike faith". This passage has nothing to do with baptism. The very next vs 17 says "assuredly I say to you , whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it"
@carriebrk Ok, fair enough, blessings to you! If I make an obvious mistake like that, I will own up to it. It was not my intention. And I accept you apology also, But it was a reaction to my message that was wrong. It is Ok. Certainly what you say here is true on verse 17, but we still should not keep children from the Christ, and his Kingdom. Now if you believe baptism bring you into the Kingdom, than it make sense. Maybe explaining it this way. cont.....
@carriebrk the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation.
@carriebrk ....... He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.
@carriebrk 2. Infants only inherit original sin, but they themselves are innocent. The have no sins committed by them yet. The Parents can speak for them to bring them into the God's family. 1 cor 7:14 talks about how the Father or Wife believing will sanctify the Children as well. So yes the parent can definitely speak for their children. Especially when Christ commands baptism. A true believing Father will make sure his children are baptized.
@wealththinkers - again you pluck out part of the scripture and take it out of context. The position of the non-believer doesn't change because of the believer. That's why in vs. 16 it says "For how do you know , O wife, whether you will save your husband?..." The unbelieving spouse and the children are sanctified in that the marriage is acceptible in God's eyes. They were told a believer shouldn't marry an unbeliever, well what if your already married and you come to Christ? cont...
@carriebrk cont. .. that is what Paul is addressing in the passage. If the marriage was "illegitimate" in God's eyes, then so would the children be. Romans 2:28,29 "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and cirucmcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Being a Christian is the same. Not what we do in the flesh, but the heart.
@carriebrk It is not secret the works of the law, is not what saves. I don't see your connection here to 1 cor 7. Seems we are running full circle here to Col 2, Let's put it this way, Does Baptism save? If so, why should we deny the Children to receive it? Circumcision is a work of the Law and is refuted as not being needed by the gentiles, and the jews are not better than the Gentiles, and therefore they have no right to boast about their circumcision. Did Christ command Baptism?
@wealththinkers - no, baptism does not save. It's showing outwardly an inner conviction. Am I a wife because I went through a ceremony with my husband, or because of the inner commitment that drove me to that ceremony? If I went through the ceremony and then kept living separate from him, living the same way I did before-would I be a wife? Nobody is ever adopted into the family of God because of someone else's faith, because someone else believes in Jesus and His atoning sacrifice for our sins.
@carriebrk If you say Baptism does not save, you are in conflict with God's Word. It is clear from scripture that Baptism does save. Let me ark you can you get to heaven if you don't love? How bout if you don't forgive?
1 Pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
@wealththinkers - Peter is saying just what I said " NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh" another words, it's not the water-it's not the act of cleansing- just like "circumcision without hands" It's what it represents. Dying to oneself and rising (by the resurrection of Jesus Christ) into newness of life. That's when you begin the "sanctification" process which is only possible through the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit. He "quickens" the heart (makes alive).
@carriebrk Did not water save in the verse before? Baptism is the dying of the old self and rising into the new self. It includes water and spirit. We agree the sanctification process comes from the Holy Spirit. I just don't agree with your interpretation there. You are saying faith is the circumcision without hands, But I say it is Baptism, and that faith continuing through love keep us on track to salvation. The Holy Spirit the one who dispenses the sanctifying grace.
@carriebrk Was Palsy healed because of the faith of others? Is the wife or husband sanctified because of the others belief? I think the information in scripture clearly shows this case. And you are in denial. Where in the Bible does it say Baptism does not save? Where does it say Faith Alone justifies us to salvation? Be specific, as there is not such verse in the Bible.
@wealththinkers - Acts 13:39; Romans 3:24; Romans 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (personal favorite :)) It's all over the place-Sanctification and justification are not the same thing-the unbelieving spouse is still not saved, that's why Paul says don't leave them, your influence might bring them to repentence and salvation. Peter says same idea 1 Pet 3:1,2.
@carriebrk I agree faith justifies, but not alone, there is no place in the Bible that says faith alone justifies. The Bible also says works justify in James 2. That is a nice verse though, having peace with God. it is a rich quote. That is true, sanctification and justification are different. you have a point there. What is the end process of Sanctification? Understand the verse says sanctified, not being sanctified. Clearly sanctification only happens when one has belief.
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. here we see signs being forgiven because of the faith of others.
@wealththinkers - Circumcision was also commanded by God. As were the sacrifices. (passover lamb etc) but that is not what saved them. It was giving them a picture of the perfect sacrifice to come. Jesus Christs' death and resurection is what saved OT people just like NT people. The only way to the Father is through Jesus. He payed our debt, that's why it says "you were bought with a price, the precious blood."
@carriebrk That's true, that is why we have the one sacrifice of the Lamb. I'm glad you included the resurrection. but understand not only must you believe in Christ but you must do and teach, and follow his commandments. Many are denying the commandments because they feel that faith is all they need. That is redemption, but everyone who says Lord, is saved. Why, because you must do and teach. What you do to the least of these you do unto me. Christ answer to why some will not make it.
@carriebrk If you do not love can you make it to heaven? How about forgive. You didn't answer that or I didn't see it. Another question that is important is if all sins are forgiven on the Cross, then why did Christ give the Apostles the power to forgive sins and bind and loose? 2nd, why does Love remove a multitude of sins? Again Faith Alone is not in scripture, there are verses that look like it but fall short of including both faith and alone in the same context. It is just not there.
@wealththinkers - only Jesus' sacrifice can atone for our sins-pay the penalty for them. The attributes of a Christian that you speak of here are some of the fruits of the Spirit. It's through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, not something WE'RE doing to earn heaven. Scripture states that all our works are "filthy rags". There are so much scripture running through my head. Even faith is a gift from God, so is repentence 2 Tim2:25. We have nothing to boast about. I'm tired, more tomorrow.
@carriebrk "only Jesus' sacrifice can atone for our sins-pay the penalty for them" .Show me where is says ONLY! I will accept the word ALONE! also. Show me Faith Alone? Show me Faith only? No one verse state what you just said. Funny how you use 2 Tim but it doesn't say anything about faith alone and in fact is supportive of good works. look at verse 19.....
@wealththinkers 22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; You can read 26 in context also.
@carriebrk Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
@carriebrk The word alone and only are probably the most misused words by protestants, who generally use them for doctrine, but the words never appear in scripture as they describe. In fact, if you can find Scripture alone or only I would like to see that too. Maybe you should just rewrite the Gospels like the Paulicians did. They removed 3 of the 4 Gospels from scripture.
@wealththinkers - well trinity isn't a specified in scripture either - it's doctrine as a result of a compilation. The word translated "inspired" literally means "God breathed" - why wouldn't I give God's inspired Word hightest authority? We're instructed to test all teaching against it, study it diligently as if mining for silver or gold, bind it in our hearts and minds, follow it's statutes etc. John calls Jesus "the Word made flesh" , so yeah, that's the authority.
@carriebrk Good point but you still have protestants who deny the Trinity! The difference is the fact that Jesus is Divine and one with the Father is clear. But Faith alone has so many verses that don't back it up. And in fact the Bible says we are not saved by faith alone. In scripture the bible is clear that traditions handed down through writing and oral should be followed, Not just scripture, Not to mention the Church, not the Bible is the foundation of the Faith. Trinity not the same
@carriebrk I think we conversed enough, and although we disagree, we should pray for each other and go in the Peace of Christ. Blessings to you and wish you the best. Amen!
@carriebrk How does she know? Or how does he know? And it is answered underneath? Keep the Commandments of God, 2nd, it is clear that the other is sanctified who is unbelieving. Yes, that is true that they are told not be yoked with an unbeliever. But that does not change this sanctification of the entire family. And also don't forget the palsy was healed not because of his faith, but the faith of others. Matt 9.
@wealththinkers I'm glad you admit to following the Commandments of Christ, Very Good! And agree that we should be baptized, that is good too. Back to the subject on infant baptism. Act 2 38Then Peter said unto them, 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. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
@wealththinkers Acts cont. Here specifically says children, does it not? Baptism is clearly the first step a believer takes to become part of the New Covenant. This covenant is sealed with the Death and Resurrection of Christ. being Baptized we are old self is buried with Christ and our new self is raised up with Christ and through our faith we participate in the operation of God.
@carriebrk Were does it say they all believed except for infants? No, infant are part of the household. Their parents answered for them, just as in the Old Covenant Jewish parents, answered for their children in Circumcision. They Child did not believe either, as it was too young.. The parents believed. Were doe it say there were not young children,, these are your words not the bible. Keep in mind a household also meant extended family as well. silly to think there were not children.
@100PercentCatholic This is absolutely correct. entire household were baptized. Where doe it say that Adults only were baptized? We have to realize that Early Christians wanted their children to be accepted into the family of God. And they were raised Christian. Amen Bro!
@100PercentCatholic -Again you pluck out part of the story-32 "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." Were they speaking to infants? 34 says "Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household" They all believed. They spoke the word of the Lord to "all who were in his house"-there apparently weren't any young children, all were old enough to hear and understand.
@carriebrk It is clear that what they receive the words for their Children. Keep in mind entire households were baptized. How do you expect 3 thousand in one day? 3,000 by 12 Apostles? But it makes more sense when we realize the Fathers spoke for their entire household. And yes, if there were infants they were baptized into the family of God.
@wealththinkers - your refering to Acts 2 right? First vs. 41 states "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (infants don't recieve words) Second of all it wasn't by just 12 Apostles-this event happened right after penacost it says in 1:15 "Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said..." Third it describes the crowd as "devout men" vs2:5.
@carriebrk We have given you so much scripture to show you why we believe as we do...the problem is there are different ways to interprite scripture, so basically it comes down to who has the correct interpritation and tradition...and that goes clearly and histrorically to the Catholic church.
@gtepp031387 - No, it's a matter of context. Skipping the rest of the account because it contradicts you. And other passages you disregard altogether. It's many books but it's all one story, the Bible I mean. It's to be understood as a whole not just pieces plucked out to make it say what you want. Pray for guidence, and understanding, and study diligently. You believe as you do because you were instructed to by your church." Let God be true, and every man a lier."
@carriebrk Basically what you are saying is that a baby born to christian parents should not be baptised? So you expect it to live with original sin until adulthood, I think that is quite selfish. And I don't think a protestant has any authority on the interpretation of scripture. The Catholic Church wrote the bible, and only they can interpret what it truly means. And also, protestant doctrine is entirely unscriptural, sola fide, sola scriptura, adult baptism, all of it is directly refuted.
@deemax90 - I'm accustomed to the Roman claim that they compiled the Bible, but now they wrote it too? Wow. You imply that baptism gets rid of original sin right? 100% says it's initiation into the covenent as well but I don't know if that's the universal understanding, anyway, assuming the point is that original sin has to be gotten rid of to go to heaven, what if a baby dies that hasn't been baptized yet? Does that baby go to hell?
@carriebrk We wrote the New Testament, allow me to apologize for not making the distinction, and compiling the 77 books of the bible is not a claim. And if that child dies without receiving baptism, it goes to purgatory, for a short time, most likely.
@carriebrk Limbo is different than purgatory. Limbo is a place for virtuous pagans, Dante placed the likes of Cicero and Julius Caesar there in his epic. Purgatory is for those repentant, but not admonished of all sin. Purgatory is a place for purification, not eternal entrapment.
@carriebrk Perhaps Dante's inferno is, but purgatory sure as hell isn't (no pun intended). The doctrine of Purgatory comes Our Lord's own lips, and before. To play it off as fables betrays the fear and ignorance of protestantism.
@deemax90 - there is no doctrine of purgatory, or of limbo. According to Roman Catholic doctrine limbo is for unbaptized infants. (a fable as well as purgatory) In reality limbo is a West Indian dance in which the dancer bends backward to pass under a horizontal bar that is progressively lowered. hahaha :)
@carriebrk I think you should read up on the Catechism a bit more, it says nothing about unbaptised infants going to limbo, it specifically states "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,""
Although chapter, verse number and punctuation are helpful, they are not properly a part of the Holy Scriptures, but were added c. 16th century. They should not be emphasized.
@TheChurchAuthentic - context is what I was emphasizing, not the comma. The vs. number and chapter were given so that they could look up what text I was refering to if they wanted. What exactly is the point you are making?
@carriebrk Which of the 30 000 different Protestant denominations give you the Authority to decide which Baptism is valid? By doing that you go against the Scripture; 1 Cor 10-17.
@yellowballpoets - 1 Cor 10:14- is telling believers to flee from idolatry. Paul says "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons." He's telling them not to participate in pagan rituals anymore, what does that have to do with baptism?
"Wherever Jesus is there is the Catholic church" ~ St Ignatius of Antioch around 100 A.D.
"Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna."~Martyrdom of Polycarp A.D. 155
"We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church" ~ The united christian church at the council of Nicea 325 A.D.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. (exerpt from vatican website, your correct it was never official dogma but accepted teaching){ see cont}
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk cont exerpt (wouldn't fit)-" This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis."-regardless it is still fables. I notice you gave no reference for you assertion the teaching was from Jesus' lips.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk In addition, there are five references in the New Testament to the Baptism of entire households. Peter baptized the household of Cornelius (Acts 11: 14). In Philippi, Paul baptized the household of Lydia and the household of the jailer (Acts 16: 15, 33). He also baptized the household of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanas (1: 16).
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk 2. The Greek word for household is oikon and refers to all the inhabitants of the house including slaves, servants, infants and children. Can anyone seriously suggest that within the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus and Stephanas there were no children or infants present?
In addition, if the members of these households had converted to Judaism, all the males would have been circumcised.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk 3. This included infants who were at least eight days old. In Colossians 2: 9-12, the Apostle Paul compares the effect of circumcision with the effect of Baptism. While there are no specific references to infant Baptism in the New Testament, there is every reason to believe that children and infants were included. When you read Pastor Kastens’ "Infant Baptism in Early Church History", the witness of the early church fathers is very clear. Children & infants were included in Baptism.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
Acts 2:37-40 doesn't end there-there's a comma after children, it continues to say "and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." then vs 41 continues and said "then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them." Always taking pieces of scripture out of context to prove non-existant doctrines.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk I am a little confused. How does the fact that the sentence goes on to say "and to all who are afar off" negate the fact that he said "you and your children"?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - it's refering to the Gentiles when he said "those who are afar off"-36 starts "let all the house of Israel know..." He was re-assuring them that the promise is still to them, their descendents, and to gentiles-as many as the Lord God would call". That they could be saved from that "perverse generation" who crucified the Lord and Christ. further vs 41 says "those who gladly received his word were baptized" infants don't gladly recieve any words.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk There were no Christians at that point so it makes sense that everyone converting was an adult and therefore had to gladly receive his word first. In Acts 16:31-33 Paul and Silas tell a jailer to “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” Then “He and all his family were baptized at once.” The head of the household believed in the Lord Jesus before the entire household was baptized. It doesn’t say entire household except for the kids.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - Again you pluck out part of the story-32 "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." Were they speaking to infants? 34 says "Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household" They all believed. They spoke the word of the Lord to "all who were in his house"-there apparently weren't any young children, all were old enough to hear and understand.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk The Greek helps us to get a better idea of what the author was trying to convey. The Greek used in Acts 16:31-33, 16:15, and 1 Cor 1:16 for household is oikos, which would include all children. In regards to Acts 2:39, the Greek word for children used is teknon, which is same word used in Acts 21:21 to refer to eight day old circumcised children. But even if kids were not in household, it still does not say to exclude children from baptism. Nowhere does scripture say this.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - The point is you used both Scripture references as validifying infant baptism. Now you say "well it doesn't prohibit it" What exactly does that mean? Do we start basing doctrine on whatever we want as long as Scripture doesn't specifically prohibit it? Especially to the point of disregarding the abundance of times it says "they believed and were baptised" . It's every time, because rituals don't save us, it's what they represent that does, don't you see?
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk The Greek clearly shows what the author was trying to convey, that the households included children. My point was that even without this proof, it still does not tell us to not baptize children, so it still wouldn't prove your point. Let me ask you. Why were children allowed to enter the old covenant at eight old (Genesis 17:9-14)? Why would the New Covenant be narrower than the old? And why does Peter tell us that baptism saves us now (1 Peter 3:21).
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - the title of your video is "infant" baptism, not eight year old baptism. As I said above-you cannot base doctrine on what is not specifically prohibited. - the second half of the sentence says "not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." - not by the action, but by the principle it represents, dying to self, rebirth in Christ Jesus.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Eight days old, not years. Read the scripture that I provided (Genesis 17:9-14)
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - vs 11 "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a SIGN of the covenant between Me and you" Circumcision was to set apart a race of people-God's chosen nation. Not a means for salvation. Notice how clear and plainly it is put forth too. It says what it means, just like the NT. No infering by what isn't "forbidden directly"-it says what it says
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Even if circumcision was a sign, why was it commanded to be done to children 8 days old? Why is the new covenant narrower than the old? Hebrews 8:6 says that the New Covenant is supposed to be better than the Old Covenant. So why exclude children from the new covenant?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - not all children only male children-with your reasoning you are implying that females are not included in this covenent. I wondered about the specificity of 8 days too, and a long time ago I asked a Jewish friend. (She is from Russia) about it and she said something about it turns out your potassium level is way low until your at least 8 days old, and recovery could be adversly effected if it's earlier? I don't know, found that interesting though.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk I had an instructor explain why only males were circumscribed. I forget his exact answer, but it had to do something with the male being the head of his household. However, the gender is irrelevant for this argument. I am just asking why were 8 day old kids allowed in the old covenant and suddenly excluded from the new? Everything that I have read about the new covenant is that it is supposed to be more inclusive, not less.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - now your kinda confusing me. The Lord's Supper is the sign of the new covenent, not baptism. I was raised in the Roman system and we were taught baptism was for the remission of original sin.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Yes, baptism is for the remission of original sin as well as washing away any committed sins if you are adult (Acts 22:16). You also receive the gift of the spirit (Acts 2:38). And although the Eucharist is how we renew our covenant with God, baptism is how we enter into the New Covenant, just like people entered in the Old Covenant by circumcision. Col 2:11-12 helps us see how baptism has replaced circumcision.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - we had this conversation-people didn't enter into the old covenent by circumcision. Jesus said "this is the new covenent" at the passover last supper- who decided it was baptism? It doesn't say that anywhere. Where does that come from? Col 2 doesn't say baptism replaces circumcision-it says "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith (through faith) . It says in Him (Christ) we are circumcised.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk We could argue about what certain verses mean all day. Or we can look at history and see that infant baptism has been practiced since the apostles. You cannot provide me anything to show that infant baptism was forbidden because all your proof was “burned up” by those evil Catholics. How convenient. Why do people discount the teaching of people who directly or indirectly knew the apostles? Wouldn’t they have a better idea of what Jesus wanted than people who came centuries later?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - I'm not arguing about a meaning-where is it ever stated that baptism is entering into God's covenent? Tertullian has writings that condemned infant baptism. The fact that an infant or very young child isn't converted at their baptism is the whole reason that confirmation was introduced. If you've ever read Augustine's input on infant baptism it is clear he is making a case for it-why would that be necessary if it was universal accepted practice?
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Just out of curiosity, at what age are you allowed to partake in the Lord’s Supper in your church?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - there is no age requirement. You have to be converted. In the case of children it is left to the discretion of their parent.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic -Mat 28:19,20 " Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Mark 16:15,16 " Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" those are Jesus' words, who's teaching should I adhere to, His or yours?
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk As I said earlier, no one was a Christian at this point, so it only makes sense that adults were the first to become Christian and therefore had to believe before they were baptized. But studying history proves that the early Christians baptized babies. Would you like some quotes? Or better yet, can you find me even one quote from the first thousand or so years of Christianity that tells us to not to baptize infants.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - Acts 20:29,30 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, also FROM AMONG YOURSELVES men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. and now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance."
carriebrk 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - The only quotes I'm interested in are Biblical one's. Other quotes are not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Well, I have provided Biblical ones, such as Acts 2:38 that says children. Yet you interpret this to mean decedents even though the Greek clearly states otherwise. So what should we do? Argue over Scripture until we are blue in the face? Why are there thousands of Christian denominations that only go by Scripture alone yet all believe something different? Wouldn't it make sense to see how the people from the time of Jesus interpreted this verses?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - the term teknon is used all over the place, the point and emphasis being on the close relationship of family members, not young age. For example Matt 3:9 the Jews call themselves the sons of Abraham. Matt 9:2 when Jesus heals the man with Palsey he calls him son (teknon)-when Jesus talks about the end times He states children will rise up against parents and deliver them to death. Matt 10:21-so it's not "clearly stating otherwise".
carriebrk 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - Oddly enough there are many denominations who practice infant baptism while acknowledging there is no Biblical basis for it. Even the orthodox church states there's no Biblical basis for it. I don't think matters like this are usually a matter of interpretation. The text says what it says. We (people) just want to do it our own way anyway I guess.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Where does the Bible teach that everything we need to know as Christians should be explicitly stated in it? It doesn’t, right? The church is called the pillar and foundation of truth in 1 Tim 3:15, not the Bible. In 2 Thess 2:15 it says, “Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Here Paul tells us to keep traditions by word of mouth or by letter, not by letter alone.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - No Paul tells the Thess to keep the traditions because of course the Thess were taught directly by Paul and we of course were not. We already defined the term church, and if you are honest with yourself I don't even think you truly believe that the Roman church has an undefined, ever changing list of "traditions" that they have kept by word of mouth for 2000 years. Why would there be repeats of stories in the gospels, and not bother to record core doctrine's.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk - How do we know if someone is telling the truth? How do you know Joseph Smith isn't right then? Why does the Bible tell us to test all spirits against the Word? Why were the Bereans in Acts commended for "searching the scripture daily to see if these things were so"- why was God's method the written Word since the beginning and now suddenly it sometimes depends on corruptible man?! Doesn't make much sense.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Absolutely. There are writings that prove the early church believed the same doctrines the CC teaches. You cannot do that because your documents were conveniently burned up. And no, “we” did not define the term church, you gave me your interpretation. See our video Did Jesus Establish An Invisible Church? If church is all believers, how can it be pillar and foundation of truth if so many denom. believe diff things. Can you have more than one truth? Can 1+1 equal 2 and 3?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - The Roman church tends to site pieces of church fathers writings when it is convenient and matches their spin, while disregarding those that do not. Augustine, for example, with the exception of his stance on baptism, would most closely resemble the teachings of Calvin. Luther was highly influenced by his writings (Luther was an Augustinian monk). I didn't give you an interpretation, I simply sited the translation of the Greek word we translate as church.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Luther and Calvins theology is far from being Augustins...Augustine was 100 percent Catholic and would never have joined with the Prots in fact he stated...
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk Also, all Catholic doctrines are biblical. It is usually not the case that Catholic beliefs are not recorded in scripture, but someone’s interpretation differs from the CCs 2,000 year old interpretation (John 6 anyone). A good site to find Catholic beliefs in scripture is scripturecatholic[dot]com
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - when you get proven wrong you simply change the subject-you claimed with an authoritative aire that the greek word for child clearly indicated an infant, and in most cases that word used in the NT didn't indicate that at all.You stated the church fathers unanimously held to infant baptism, I sited Tertullian as an example of those who didn't. You claimed baptism is entering the new covenent, it says that nowhere. so always to the old stand by-"oral tradition".
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Not intentional my friend. You have also avoided some of my questions. I gave you the benefit of the doubt though because I know the character limit imposed by YouTube makes it difficult to have a complete thought and answer every question. The conversation usually splinters into many different topics. I am interested in doing more research on Tertullian and his writings when I have time. Can you provide me the document in which he spoke against it.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic Tertullian was a heretic who was excommunicated by all 5 holy sees, he is not a church father, he joined a hertical sect know as the Montinists and believed that mortal sins could not be forgiven.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - I shouldn't have answered qtepp031387-he gets all weird and starts ranting at people telling them they are satin and weird stuff. I was curious-what is your view of ECT. I know alot of Roman Catholics were upset by the John Paul II meeting with all the different religions at the vatican, and now Benedict did the same thing. How do you feel about it, and the ecumenical movement in general?
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - Col 2 does not state baptism is the new circumcision-read it-it was also discussed above I guess you both use the same apologetics page, read the text.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk "Col 2 does not state baptism is the new circumcision"
"In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ:Buried with him in baptism"...bible says differently
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.
Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - it is the necessity for repentence and a Savior-"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, nobody is arguing that we have sinful natures I'm not sure what your point is-Matt 18:2-5 He says "Unless you are converted..whoever humbles himself as this little child."
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - I would disagree-that demonstrates that it is not the baptism that saves you. Baptism without belief obviously means nothing.
carriebrk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@carriebrk "I would disagree-that demonstrates that it is not the baptism that saves you." "baptism that now saves you also" 1 Peter 3:21...humm now what does this mean, well of course it doesn't mean this is the only requirment for salvation but it clearly means it plays a role in our salvation which would make it a salvific tool not a symbolic meaningless thing.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - your misinterpreting the text-we had this conversation above, as well as the term teknon-I would encourage you both to do some of your own research-you simply frequent the sites that tell you what you want to hear instead of looking for yourself. A Greek Lexicon us great. There is no instance described in the Bible where an infant is baptized, or someone is told to. It's not there, your twisting scripture to try and make it fit what you want it to fit.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk furthermore we see that baptism is used to forgive sins..."Repent, AND be baptized(if repentance was all that was required why throw in baptism?) 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."..now through repentance we can be forgiven nearly anything except original sin, however baptism kills us, as we are baptized unto his death, and reborn by the grace of the ressurection without original sin.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - Acts 16:33 was discussed above but I"ll say it again anyway. vs 32 "so they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." vs34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD." Paul spoke to "all" and "all believed" that's not infants. Do you guys read the text or just someone's reference to it?
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Housholds include infants and children, the word teckon is used in several passages as I have given you, which includes infants...again there is nothing in the bible about a believers baptism, if fact Jesus states that baptism will be given to those who even do not believe, but this will not be enough to save them.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk 2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - the next vs. 11 says "For we hear that there are some who wald among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command to exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread." The text has nothing whatsoever to do with baptism-it doesn't imply anything of the sort. This blatent spinning to try and make things say something different. Be careful, it scares me for you.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - you infer alot-both passages say "when He saw their faith-what makes you think the paralytic isn't included in "they"? That's who the Lord speaks to. Yes there are passages where Jesus heals someone on bahalf of the faith of another. The fact that the Lord healed their physical ailments doesn't mean they were necessarily converted though, in the paralytics case he was. What about the 10 lepers, only one returned to glorify God. Don't forget, it rains on the unrighteous too :)
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@carriebrk Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - of course the parents play a critical role in their childs faith-"bring up a child in the way he should go..." but nobody can provide salvation for someone else. It's a personal responsibility, a personal relationship. All those first born children who didn't die weren't necessarily redeemed. Physical and spiritual state is not the same. Cor 7 goes on to say "for how do you know O wife, whether you will save your husband? (and vice versa).
carriebrk 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - cont..the marriage is considdered legitimate (as are the children of it) in the eyes of the Lord even though one is not a believer. (Remember when they were told not to be unequally yoked?) The believer is told to stay in the marriage unless the unbeliever wants out because they might be the influence and catalyste to save that unbelieving partner. It's not promising salvation to an unbeliever because of the other.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk I think gave you ample biblical basis for infant baptism. Those are your words that are not inspired!
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk I am not saying that they are inspired, but don't you find it odd that Christians were unanimous in their belief in baptizing infants until over a thousand years after Christ? Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would never leave His Church, but you are pretty much saying that as soon as Jesus ascended into heaven His Church was teaching false things up until a few hundred years ago?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - no-there have been believers all through history, it's always the few, the remnant. It was with Israel, and it is with us. Ekklesia is the Greek word translated "church"-it's literal translation is "assembly of the called out ones" - it's root being taken from the word used for a town crier who gave people a summons-a legal term. In Revelation Jesus writes a letter to the seven churches- five of the seven are told to repent. I didn't say it, He does.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk "There have been believers all through history." Believers in what? Forbidding infant baptism? If so, please provide some documents from that time that say that infants were not to be baptized.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - Bible believers-there were the Albegencies, and the Paulicians who were known and "labeled" sects of people who didn't adhere to Roman teachings or recognise any authority from any source besides the Bible The great east west schism didn't happen till after 1000AD. There was lots of disagreements. Most did, and still do, accept infant baptism. Doesn't make it Biblical though.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk These Bible believers, did they forbid infant baptism? If so, prove it with a document from that time that says so.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - The anabaptist are the only one's that I know of that there's writings associated. That wasn't very early though. The inquisitions burned up alot of peoples writings and documents-especially those that didn't agree with the Roman church. They were considdered heretical. There's many documents from the gnostics that survived-the fact that they are old writings of the time doesn't make them true though does it.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic @carriebrk That is dangerous to align yourself with the Albigensians, also know as the Cathars, This group has some really strange beliefs. An occasional practice was suicide, preferably by starvation; for if this life is essentially evil, its end is to be hastened.Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Catharists (also known as the Albigensians) are not Christians period. Listen to these beliefs they had: Matter is Evil. Two Gods, the Evil God of the Old Testament, and the the Good God, Christ from the New Testament. Marriage was evil but fornication was allowed. Death by suicide, mainly starvation, was promoted as a way to leave this evil world, it was forced on many. They did not believe in any authority, and would not obey any government.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Jesus according to the Cathars did not exist in the flesh, and did not suffer. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Hardly beliefs found in Scripture. The Paulicians also thought all matter to be bad. The denied the divinity of Christ, Spoke of Christ as an angel. They denied he was born of a Virgin. his real mother was Jerusalem. They rejected St. Peter's epistles
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@100PercentCatholic - it matters because it is something that we do, or do to our children and expect that somehow that contributes to our righteousness, to our salvation. Only Christ's righteousness imputed to us is worthy. We have nothing in ourselves. All our works are "as filthy rags". It gives people a false sense of security, it's a "different gospel" (Gal 1:6-9) - by grace (underserved favor) you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..."
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk See my video Are We Saved By Faith Alone? That’s a whole other topic I don’t want to start under this video.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic They referred always to the "Gospel and Apostle", apparently only St. Luke and St. Paul, The Paulicians were Adoptionists (believing that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism) by the way the did reject infant baptism. the New Testament, should be the only text used by the followers. they refused to honor the Cross since they maintained that Christ had not been crucified. They did However deny all sacrements and believed in Faith Alone. but hardly Christian beliefs.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk So the Holy Spirit stopped working after the Bible went into print? Where in the Bible does it say scripture alone? Where does it say faith Alone? Find either of those two words together? Sounds like this is what Christ is talking about? Now you tell me how the Apostles could have the power to forgive sins? You are promoting traditions of men in rituals that are not consistent with early Christians. It might help to read some of their early writings. Even if not inspired.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk It is very clear that Baptism removes sin. And leads to salvation as Christ taught in the Gospel. Fact, entire households were baptized together. That includes Men, women and Children, even extended family. The Didache a very early writing, was the teachings of the 12 Apostles, and talks about infant baptism specifically, It also takes the place of circumcision, in the Old Covenant, That is also in the Bible.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - The Didache tells the baptizer and the baptized to fast . It also states pouring water on the head as a last resort if no "living water" is available. It says nothing about infants and I find it hard to imagine they would expect an infant to fast, especially for "one of two days before". Romans5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." To God be the glory, salvation is only in Jesus.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk You are right it only clear that water can be sprinkled in baptism. But still baptism does take the place of circumcision in the New Covenant. Col 2 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Roman 5:29 agree! .......
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - Why did you make an authoritative statement claiming the Didache specifically speaks of infant baptism when it doesn't? Col 2 has been discussed three times on this page. It says "by the circumcision of Christ" Baptism symbolizes dying to oneself,( going under the water) and rising with Christ as a "new creation". It doesn't say anything about taking the place of anything. We are risen with him through WHAT?! Oh- risen with him through faith.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk I don't care you discussed it with apparently you don't understand the verse Let's look at it. Col 2 I will use the KJV as it is a good text. 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Now where does it say faith there?
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk 2 - It does say baptism. Now who in the old testament was circumcised? Both converts and Children with 8 days. What is the circumcision made without hands? Baptism as it says, The faith is in needed by not only, OK? This is a distortion of the scripture, Baptism is needed to participate in the operation of God. That is what it says. You must not only have faith in the operation of God but also be baptized.. Circumcision without hands is Baptism. Don't you see that?
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers Christ Commands us to be baptized "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Notice that baptism is needed for salvation. Are there exceptions made, Let Christ be that judge. I for one believe that those who truly desire to know Christ will be saved not only because they believe but turn over their will to God and are obedient. Notice Acts 2 says baptism for remission of sins?
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers -"The Didache a very early writing, was the teachings of the 12 Apostles, and talks about infant baptism specifically" that's a cut and paste from your statement above. You are frankly a lier. It doesn't say baptism is the circumcision no matter how badly you want it to. It says buried with Him in baptism because baptism is dieing to oneself. And being reborn a new creation in Christ, by power of the Holy Spirit. What you claim is not what it says.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk I guess that shows where your fruit is calling me a liar, Read It! It says circumcision without hands, and the baptism is the dying of oneself, being reborn in a new creation. This very clear, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Ok Let's get on to the bigger picture,, Where in the Bible are the words Faith Alone and Scripture Alone. That is the big lie.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - You lied about the Didache. You said "it talks about infant baptism specifically" - that's why I cut and pasted your statement and then made the statement "you are a lier" because it was a blatent fallacy. Your intention is not to share any kind of truth, or to "reason from the scripture"-your intention is to win your pre-conceived point even if you have to lie to do it. Which is exactly what you did. Being caught in a lie, you change the subject and try to shift the focus
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk I made a mistake, and I apologized for it, and that is the response I get. Hardly the fruit of a Christian.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk Maybe you missed it, Maybe I am being harsh here. Here is what I said.
"You are right it only clear that water can be sprinkled in baptism." It seems by those words I admitted a mistake. Then you claim then why did you make and authoritative statement? I will repeat. If that is your perception then I will apologize and admit I made a mistake, as I explained it was from memory.
So apparently you are not correct that I am willing to lie at any cost just to win the argument.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk Romans 5:29 is does not say we shouldn't follow the commandments of Christ. The Command to do and teach. Furthermore, Christ commands us to be baptized. "Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized" Christ says you must believe and be baptized to be saved. Fathers and Mothers make that decision for their children bring them up in the New Covenant. Romans 5 does not condemn baptism.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - I wasn't implying Romans comdemns baptism, I was pointing out that only Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross takes away sin. Which appropriately gives the glory and praise where it is due. Of course we should follow the commandments of Christ, it's just not that obedience that reconciles us with God. That saves us from our sin. That atones for our transgressions. Only the blood of the perfect, spotless, sinless, lamb of God could do that.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk All sins are forgiven by Christ, But not future sins! The idea that you can go and do what ever you want and still be saved in not biblical.. Two, Christ placed and ability for man to participate in the forgiveness of sins. Sorry, but Christ is not obligated to forgive future sins, that are not repented of. It is clear that sins will disqualify those believers who commit deadly sin. Check the epistles of John the Apostle.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - who said you can go and do whatever you want? I am the one saying you must repent, you are saying your parents can repent for you. Sanctification is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. That is the ongoing process. Justification is only through Jesus and is all a gift from God. Bless His Holy name :) John 6:37 "ALl that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk btw, you haven't accepted my apology? we agree you must repent! No, the infants are only accepted because the parent are in God's Family. Maybe you missed some these verses that apply? "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - no need for apology, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions based on past similar experience, that was not fair. On several occasions He spoke of "childlike faith". This passage has nothing to do with baptism. The very next vs 17 says "assuredly I say to you , whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it"
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Ok, fair enough, blessings to you! If I make an obvious mistake like that, I will own up to it. It was not my intention. And I accept you apology also, But it was a reaction to my message that was wrong. It is Ok. Certainly what you say here is true on verse 17, but we still should not keep children from the Christ, and his Kingdom. Now if you believe baptism bring you into the Kingdom, than it make sense. Maybe explaining it this way. cont.....
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk ....... He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk 2. Infants only inherit original sin, but they themselves are innocent. The have no sins committed by them yet. The Parents can speak for them to bring them into the God's family. 1 cor 7:14 talks about how the Father or Wife believing will sanctify the Children as well. So yes the parent can definitely speak for their children. Especially when Christ commands baptism. A true believing Father will make sure his children are baptized.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - again you pluck out part of the scripture and take it out of context. The position of the non-believer doesn't change because of the believer. That's why in vs. 16 it says "For how do you know , O wife, whether you will save your husband?..." The unbelieving spouse and the children are sanctified in that the marriage is acceptible in God's eyes. They were told a believer shouldn't marry an unbeliever, well what if your already married and you come to Christ? cont...
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk cont. .. that is what Paul is addressing in the passage. If the marriage was "illegitimate" in God's eyes, then so would the children be. Romans 2:28,29 "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and cirucmcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Being a Christian is the same. Not what we do in the flesh, but the heart.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk It is not secret the works of the law, is not what saves. I don't see your connection here to 1 cor 7. Seems we are running full circle here to Col 2, Let's put it this way, Does Baptism save? If so, why should we deny the Children to receive it? Circumcision is a work of the Law and is refuted as not being needed by the gentiles, and the jews are not better than the Gentiles, and therefore they have no right to boast about their circumcision. Did Christ command Baptism?
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - no, baptism does not save. It's showing outwardly an inner conviction. Am I a wife because I went through a ceremony with my husband, or because of the inner commitment that drove me to that ceremony? If I went through the ceremony and then kept living separate from him, living the same way I did before-would I be a wife? Nobody is ever adopted into the family of God because of someone else's faith, because someone else believes in Jesus and His atoning sacrifice for our sins.
carriebrk 3 months ago
@carriebrk If you say Baptism does not save, you are in conflict with God's Word. It is clear from scripture that Baptism does save. Let me ark you can you get to heaven if you don't love? How bout if you don't forgive?
1 Pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@wealththinkers - Peter is saying just what I said " NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh" another words, it's not the water-it's not the act of cleansing- just like "circumcision without hands" It's what it represents. Dying to oneself and rising (by the resurrection of Jesus Christ) into newness of life. That's when you begin the "sanctification" process which is only possible through the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit. He "quickens" the heart (makes alive).
carriebrk 3 months ago
@carriebrk Did not water save in the verse before? Baptism is the dying of the old self and rising into the new self. It includes water and spirit. We agree the sanctification process comes from the Holy Spirit. I just don't agree with your interpretation there. You are saying faith is the circumcision without hands, But I say it is Baptism, and that faith continuing through love keep us on track to salvation. The Holy Spirit the one who dispenses the sanctifying grace.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Was Palsy healed because of the faith of others? Is the wife or husband sanctified because of the others belief? I think the information in scripture clearly shows this case. And you are in denial. Where in the Bible does it say Baptism does not save? Where does it say Faith Alone justifies us to salvation? Be specific, as there is not such verse in the Bible.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@wealththinkers - Acts 13:39; Romans 3:24; Romans 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (personal favorite :)) It's all over the place-Sanctification and justification are not the same thing-the unbelieving spouse is still not saved, that's why Paul says don't leave them, your influence might bring them to repentence and salvation. Peter says same idea 1 Pet 3:1,2.
carriebrk 3 months ago
@carriebrk I agree faith justifies, but not alone, there is no place in the Bible that says faith alone justifies. The Bible also says works justify in James 2. That is a nice verse though, having peace with God. it is a rich quote. That is true, sanctification and justification are different. you have a point there. What is the end process of Sanctification? Understand the verse says sanctified, not being sanctified. Clearly sanctification only happens when one has belief.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Matthew 9:2
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. here we see signs being forgiven because of the faith of others.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@wealththinkers - Circumcision was also commanded by God. As were the sacrifices. (passover lamb etc) but that is not what saved them. It was giving them a picture of the perfect sacrifice to come. Jesus Christs' death and resurection is what saved OT people just like NT people. The only way to the Father is through Jesus. He payed our debt, that's why it says "you were bought with a price, the precious blood."
carriebrk 3 months ago
@carriebrk That's true, that is why we have the one sacrifice of the Lamb. I'm glad you included the resurrection. but understand not only must you believe in Christ but you must do and teach, and follow his commandments. Many are denying the commandments because they feel that faith is all they need. That is redemption, but everyone who says Lord, is saved. Why, because you must do and teach. What you do to the least of these you do unto me. Christ answer to why some will not make it.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk If you do not love can you make it to heaven? How about forgive. You didn't answer that or I didn't see it. Another question that is important is if all sins are forgiven on the Cross, then why did Christ give the Apostles the power to forgive sins and bind and loose? 2nd, why does Love remove a multitude of sins? Again Faith Alone is not in scripture, there are verses that look like it but fall short of including both faith and alone in the same context. It is just not there.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@wealththinkers "It is just not there"
Well said that is just as simple as it gets.
gtepp031387 3 months ago
@wealththinkers - only Jesus' sacrifice can atone for our sins-pay the penalty for them. The attributes of a Christian that you speak of here are some of the fruits of the Spirit. It's through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, not something WE'RE doing to earn heaven. Scripture states that all our works are "filthy rags". There are so much scripture running through my head. Even faith is a gift from God, so is repentence 2 Tim2:25. We have nothing to boast about. I'm tired, more tomorrow.
carriebrk 3 months ago
@carriebrk "only Jesus' sacrifice can atone for our sins-pay the penalty for them" .Show me where is says ONLY! I will accept the word ALONE! also. Show me Faith Alone? Show me Faith only? No one verse state what you just said. Funny how you use 2 Tim but it doesn't say anything about faith alone and in fact is supportive of good works. look at verse 19.....
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@wealththinkers 22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; You can read 26 in context also.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk The word alone and only are probably the most misused words by protestants, who generally use them for doctrine, but the words never appear in scripture as they describe. In fact, if you can find Scripture alone or only I would like to see that too. Maybe you should just rewrite the Gospels like the Paulicians did. They removed 3 of the 4 Gospels from scripture.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@wealththinkers - well trinity isn't a specified in scripture either - it's doctrine as a result of a compilation. The word translated "inspired" literally means "God breathed" - why wouldn't I give God's inspired Word hightest authority? We're instructed to test all teaching against it, study it diligently as if mining for silver or gold, bind it in our hearts and minds, follow it's statutes etc. John calls Jesus "the Word made flesh" , so yeah, that's the authority.
carriebrk 3 months ago
@carriebrk Good point but you still have protestants who deny the Trinity! The difference is the fact that Jesus is Divine and one with the Father is clear. But Faith alone has so many verses that don't back it up. And in fact the Bible says we are not saved by faith alone. In scripture the bible is clear that traditions handed down through writing and oral should be followed, Not just scripture, Not to mention the Church, not the Bible is the foundation of the Faith. Trinity not the same
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk I think we conversed enough, and although we disagree, we should pray for each other and go in the Peace of Christ. Blessings to you and wish you the best. Amen!
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk How does she know? Or how does he know? And it is answered underneath? Keep the Commandments of God, 2nd, it is clear that the other is sanctified who is unbelieving. Yes, that is true that they are told not be yoked with an unbeliever. But that does not change this sanctification of the entire family. And also don't forget the palsy was healed not because of his faith, but the faith of others. Matt 9.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers I'm glad you admit to following the Commandments of Christ, Very Good! And agree that we should be baptized, that is good too. Back to the subject on infant baptism. Act 2 38Then Peter said unto them, 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. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers Acts cont. Here specifically says children, does it not? Baptism is clearly the first step a believer takes to become part of the New Covenant. This covenant is sealed with the Death and Resurrection of Christ. being Baptized we are old self is buried with Christ and our new self is raised up with Christ and through our faith we participate in the operation of God.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@carriebrk Were does it say they all believed except for infants? No, infant are part of the household. Their parents answered for them, just as in the Old Covenant Jewish parents, answered for their children in Circumcision. They Child did not believe either, as it was too young.. The parents believed. Were doe it say there were not young children,, these are your words not the bible. Keep in mind a household also meant extended family as well. silly to think there were not children.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic This is absolutely correct. entire household were baptized. Where doe it say that Adults only were baptized? We have to realize that Early Christians wanted their children to be accepted into the family of God. And they were raised Christian. Amen Bro!
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic -Again you pluck out part of the story-32 "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." Were they speaking to infants? 34 says "Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household" They all believed. They spoke the word of the Lord to "all who were in his house"-there apparently weren't any young children, all were old enough to hear and understand.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk It is clear that what they receive the words for their Children. Keep in mind entire households were baptized. How do you expect 3 thousand in one day? 3,000 by 12 Apostles? But it makes more sense when we realize the Fathers spoke for their entire household. And yes, if there were infants they were baptized into the family of God.
wealththinkers 4 months ago
@wealththinkers - your refering to Acts 2 right? First vs. 41 states "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (infants don't recieve words) Second of all it wasn't by just 12 Apostles-this event happened right after penacost it says in 1:15 "Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said..." Third it describes the crowd as "devout men" vs2:5.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk We have given you so much scripture to show you why we believe as we do...the problem is there are different ways to interprite scripture, so basically it comes down to who has the correct interpritation and tradition...and that goes clearly and histrorically to the Catholic church.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 - No, it's a matter of context. Skipping the rest of the account because it contradicts you. And other passages you disregard altogether. It's many books but it's all one story, the Bible I mean. It's to be understood as a whole not just pieces plucked out to make it say what you want. Pray for guidence, and understanding, and study diligently. You believe as you do because you were instructed to by your church." Let God be true, and every man a lier."
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk "No, it's a matter of context. Skipping the rest of the account because it contradicts you. And other passages you disregard altogether."
This explains quiet well what you do...."Not by faith alone" James 2:24...ring ring...here the bell?
gtepp031387 3 months ago
@carriebrk Basically what you are saying is that a baby born to christian parents should not be baptised? So you expect it to live with original sin until adulthood, I think that is quite selfish. And I don't think a protestant has any authority on the interpretation of scripture. The Catholic Church wrote the bible, and only they can interpret what it truly means. And also, protestant doctrine is entirely unscriptural, sola fide, sola scriptura, adult baptism, all of it is directly refuted.
deemax90 4 months ago
@deemax90 - I'm accustomed to the Roman claim that they compiled the Bible, but now they wrote it too? Wow. You imply that baptism gets rid of original sin right? 100% says it's initiation into the covenent as well but I don't know if that's the universal understanding, anyway, assuming the point is that original sin has to be gotten rid of to go to heaven, what if a baby dies that hasn't been baptized yet? Does that baby go to hell?
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk We wrote the New Testament, allow me to apologize for not making the distinction, and compiling the 77 books of the bible is not a claim. And if that child dies without receiving baptism, it goes to purgatory, for a short time, most likely.
deemax90 4 months ago
@deemax90 - I thought they went to Limbo.
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Limbo is different than purgatory. Limbo is a place for virtuous pagans, Dante placed the likes of Cicero and Julius Caesar there in his epic. Purgatory is for those repentant, but not admonished of all sin. Purgatory is a place for purification, not eternal entrapment.
deemax90 4 months ago
@deemax90 - fables
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Perhaps Dante's inferno is, but purgatory sure as hell isn't (no pun intended). The doctrine of Purgatory comes Our Lord's own lips, and before. To play it off as fables betrays the fear and ignorance of protestantism.
deemax90 4 months ago
@deemax90 - there is no doctrine of purgatory, or of limbo. According to Roman Catholic doctrine limbo is for unbaptized infants. (a fable as well as purgatory) In reality limbo is a West Indian dance in which the dancer bends backward to pass under a horizontal bar that is progressively lowered. hahaha :)
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk I think you should read up on the Catechism a bit more, it says nothing about unbaptised infants going to limbo, it specifically states "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,""
deemax90 4 months ago
@deemax90 good point!
wealththinkers 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@carriebrk
Although chapter, verse number and punctuation are helpful, they are not properly a part of the Holy Scriptures, but were added c. 16th century. They should not be emphasized.
TheChurchAuthentic 4 months ago
@TheChurchAuthentic - context is what I was emphasizing, not the comma. The vs. number and chapter were given so that they could look up what text I was refering to if they wanted. What exactly is the point you are making?
carriebrk 4 months ago
@carriebrk Which of the 30 000 different Protestant denominations give you the Authority to decide which Baptism is valid? By doing that you go against the Scripture; 1 Cor 10-17.
yellowballpoets 4 months ago
@yellowballpoets - 1 Cor 10:14- is telling believers to flee from idolatry. Paul says "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons." He's telling them not to participate in pagan rituals anymore, what does that have to do with baptism?
carriebrk 4 months ago
@yellowballpoets my bad. i meant 1 Cor 1:10-14.