# Catholic baptism....fiance wants to have our 8 month old...i'm not catholic



## Luke0927 (Mar 23, 2008)

OK this should be good....wanted to see what some of you thought im not really informed on the Catholicism....i was raised here in GA and have went to baptist, Pentecostal and nodinomatial churches.....We have an 8 month old son....Her family is from Florida here parents are divorced her mom and step dad moved to GA and live here rest of the family is in Florida....here mom and step dad are not really religious.....her dad is catholic and wants her to get my son and my sons cousin (fiances sisters 5 month old baptized)  We'll im not catholic and i  was saved and then baptized....she said she wants to discuss it and honestly i would rather not but when he is old enough and then saved he can be baptized but just giving her a no reason will cause me too much headache....so im about to the point of saying ok what ever what can it hurt.....but when he is older i want him to be saved and baptized....i just don't belive this whole thing about a baby being born to sin and if its not baptized its going to Edited to Remove TAC ----Edited to Remove TAC ----Edited to Remove TAC ----Edited to Remove TAC ----...that's the theory behind it right?


thoughts?


----------



## Lead Poison (Mar 23, 2008)

This is really something that should have been discussed prior to you asking your wife to marry you. 

All of us, including new borns, are born sinful, but I personally see no reason to baptize a infant child and fully believe you'd only be giving the child a bath because they've not reached an age of personal accountability. 

Baptism is a public profession of one's _personal_ acceptance of salvation and for this reason one must be old enough to understand the decision they're making for Christ. An infant is obviously not old enough to make this decision.

The act of Baptism does NOT guarantee salvation, nor does not being baptized before you die prevent you from entering heaven. 

I strongly encourage you and your wife to get on the same page before this becomes a big issue in your marriage. It is also much better for your children to grow up seeing mom and dad worshiping together.


----------



## Luke0927 (Mar 23, 2008)

The thing is shes not really catholic she hasn't been to a catholic church since she was a little girl...basically her dad wants to see both his grand kids baptized together...and she doesn't have a problem with it....like you said i see it no more than a giving a child a bath..... When we go to church here it is a Pentecostal or nondenominational church.....


----------



## Jeff Raines (Mar 23, 2008)

Luke
I dare ya to get one of them super soaker squirt guns and soak the kids down in front of their grandfather,and announce they are baptized.

Truthfully,I don't know if anyone can give you advice,this is between you and your wife


----------



## Luke0927 (Mar 23, 2008)

i was just wondering what people thought of a child being baptized as one way and then anohter when they are older...i don't guess there is anything wrong with it never read anything were it was a bad thing....


----------



## PJason (Mar 23, 2008)

Luke this is what the Catholic Church and therefore Christ's Church teaches about Baptism.



> PART TWO
> THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
> 
> SECTION TWO
> ...



cont...


----------



## PJason (Mar 23, 2008)

> 1248 The catechumenate, or formation of catechumens, aims at bringing their conversion and faith to maturity, in response to the divine initiative and in union with an ecclesial community. The catechumenate is to be "a formation in the whole Christian life . . . during which the disciples will be joined to Christ their teacher. The catechumens should be properly initiated into the mystery of salvation and the practice of the evangelical virtues, and they should be introduced into the life of faith, liturgy, and charity of the People of God by successive sacred rites."47
> 
> 1249 Catechumens "are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity."48 "With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own."49
> 
> ...



cont...


----------



## PJason (Mar 23, 2008)

> IN BRIEF
> 
> 1275 Christian initiation is accomplished by three sacraments together: Baptism which is the beginning of new life; Confirmation which is its strengthening; and the Eucharist which nourishes the disciple with Christ's Body and Blood for his transformation in Christ.
> 
> ...




http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm


----------



## Pale Blue Dun (Mar 23, 2008)

As far as Baptising them now and then "re-Baptising later" that is a no-no. 

"One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Is a part of the Nicene Creed which most Protestant churches and Catholic Churches still profess today. It has been in use since the 4th century when all Christian churches flew under one banner. it goes like this:

We believe in one God, 
the Father, the Almighty, 
maker of heaven and earth, 
of all that is, seen and unseen.  
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
the only Son of God, 
eternally begotten of the Father, 
God from God, Light from Light, 
true God from true God, 
begotten, not made, 
of one Being with the Father. 
Through him all things were made. 
For us and for our salvation 
he came down from heaven: 
by the power of the Holy Spirit 
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, 
and was made man. 
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; 
he suffered death and was buried. 
On the third day he rose again 
in accordance with the Scriptures; 
he ascended into heaven 
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, 
and his kingdom will have no end.  

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, 
who proceeds from the Father and the Son. 
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. 
He has spoken through the Prophets. 
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. 
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. 
We look for the resurrection of the dead, 
and the life of the world to come. Amen. 


The Catholic Church accepts the Baptism of all Christian churches. My wife recently converted to Catholicism and the Church will not re-Baptise her.

Baptism replaced circumcision in the New Covenant. Did the Jews circumcise adults and 12 year olds? No. They circumcised babies. So it makes sense to Baptise babies.

In John 3:5, Christ states clearly, "I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God's Kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit.

Mark 16:16 states, "The man who believes in and accepts Baptism will be saved. The man who refuses to believe in it will be condemned."

I am a Catholic. a practicing, devout Catholic and I will tell you unequivically to Baptise your son as soon as possible.

Dan


----------



## PJason (Mar 23, 2008)

Pale Blue Dun said:


> As far as Baptising them now and then "re-Baptising later" that is a no-no.
> 
> "One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Is a part of the Nicene Creed which most Protestant churches and Catholic Churches still profess today. It has been in use since the 4th century when all Christian churches flew under one banner. it goes like this:
> 
> ...




Amen


----------



## Israel (Mar 23, 2008)

Have you asked Jesus? He's pretty much the authority on these things and likes to be consulted about them. Believers have this promise from him: 
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Also:
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


----------



## Pale Blue Dun (Mar 23, 2008)

Another option os to go and talk with the priest at the church where your son will be Baptised. He will have a wealth of knowledge and can answer any questions you might have better than any of us here.

Whenever I have problems I usually seek the help of my priest and then pray about what we talked about.

Dan


----------



## PJason (Mar 23, 2008)

Also remember that you will make a promise to God that you will raise your child Catholic.

I also agree with Dan. Go and talk with a priest about what it means to baptize your child in the Catholic Church. If you would like I could find the name of one in your area. Just send me a PM.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 23, 2008)

Definitely something you should have discussed prior to marriage, but Pale Blue Dun and Pjason have given you some good information and I agree with them.


----------



## Luke0927 (Mar 23, 2008)

cant talk to him they want to do it in Flordia....i will pray about it and we'll see where i goes....


----------



## matthewsman (Mar 23, 2008)

*sounds like...*



Luke0927 said:


> OK this should be good....wanted to see what some of you thought im not really informed on the Catholicism....i was raised here in GA and have went to baptist, Pentecostal and nodinomatial churches.....We have an 8 month old son....Her family is from Florida here parents are divorced her mom and step dad moved to GA and live here rest of the family is in Florida....here mom and step dad are not really religious.....her dad is catholic and wants her to get my son and my sons cousin (fiances sisters 5 month old baptized)  We'll im not catholic and i  was saved and then baptized....she said she wants to discuss it and honestly i would rather not but when he is old enough and then saved he can be baptized but just giving her a no reason will cause me too much headache....so im about to the point of saying ok what ever what can it hurt.....but when he is older i want him to be saved and baptized....i just don't belive this whole thing about a baby being born to sin and if its not baptized its going to Edited to Remove TAC ----Edited to Remove TAC ----Edited to Remove TAC ----Edited to Remove TAC ----...that's the theory behind it right?
> 
> 
> thoughts?



Sounds like she ain't really Catholic...You definitely ain't Catholic..and y'all aren't even married yet

Get married,visit some churches and settle down...The Word is pretty simple,it doesn't take pages of "cut and pastes" or paragraphs of doctrine to decide what to do...If you ain't Catholic,and she ain't Catholic,don't do it just to please somebody's parents.


Get in a church...then decide.The eternal destiny of that child doesn't depend on what the parents did for it doctrinly,but on it accepting Salvation ,later.

Get in a church,marry your fiance and baby's mama,and raise your child grounded in the Faith so that later she/he will have a firm foundation.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 23, 2008)

No wonder I am not Catholic. I am not smart enough to remember all of that.

I don't think that the baptism of those young children would be any different than what we do in Baptist churches and call Baby dedication.

At our church, young couples bring their babies to the front so everyone can ooohh and ahhhh at them, them the pastor says a prayer and they rub some oil on their forehead.

It really is just a promise from the family to teach and raise the child according to biblical teachings. It does not change the direction of their soul one way of another. Just like baptism alone, if you are a sinner when you go in, you will be a wet sinner when you come out.


----------



## Pale Blue Dun (Mar 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No wonder I am not Catholic. I am not smart enough to remember all of that.
> 
> I don't think that the baptism of those young children would be any different than what we do in Baptist churches and call Baby dedication.
> 
> ...





Man! You crack me up sometimes!

Seriously, Luke...go talk with any priest, any priest from any Catholic Church will do. The thing about the Catholic Church is every Church is the same no matter where you go. You can go to Timbuktu or Woodstock and the church will be the same and what comes out of the priest's mouth will be the same. You don't have to talk to the priest of the particular Church you are having your son Baptised in.

If you want, I can put you in touch with a young priest who is a friend of mine. He's the Pastor for Souther Catholic College in Dawsonville and he's a young guy and is used to dealing with you younger fellows. He's as cool as the other side of the pillow. I knew him when he was a seminarian and he'll give you the straight skinny on what is going on and he won't push you in any direction you don't want to go.

Dan


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 23, 2008)

Luke0927 said:


> The thing is shes not really catholic she hasn't been to a catholic church since she was a little girl...basically her dad wants to see both his grand kids baptized together...and she doesn't have a problem with it....like you said i see it no more than a giving a child a bath..... When we go to church here it is a Pentecostal or nondenominational church.....


Then it is like a Buddhist telling me to dress as they do.

Why would anyone be allowed to interfered with your belief.
Stand by your convictions,man !


----------



## jason4445 (Mar 23, 2008)

If it keeps peace in the family no harm in getting it done. I have known many who married Baptist who were of other faiths and already Baptized as infants. They "got dunked" because going to the Baptist Church was important to their Baptist spouse.  It had no meaning to them, but kept peace in the family.

My in laws were life long Southern Baptists and we went to the Methodist church and our two children were baptized as infants.  Although the Baptist in laws did not make a big deal out of it they were all "concerned" that their grandchildren had not been dunked, and as the kids got of dunking age the in laws asked me  if the kids would do it could they get them Baptized at their First Baptist Church.  I agree, they asked, the kids asked me about it.  I told them it was their decision alone. Whatever they decided I would support.  They opted out of it and that was the end of it.


----------



## Pale Blue Dun (Mar 23, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> Then it is like a Buddhist telling me to dress as they do.
> 
> Why would anyone be allowed to interfered with your belief.
> Stand by your convictions,man !




On offense but the way I read your post is that you guys never really go to church all that much anyway and you have no home church. 

Lowjack, it looks to me like he IS standing by his convictions.

Again I must tell you to talk to a priest.


----------



## redwards (Mar 23, 2008)

Israel said:


> Have you asked Jesus? He's pretty much the authority on these things and likes to be consulted about them. Believers have this promise from him:
> Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
> Also:
> If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


Luke,
The best advice anyone can give the two of you!


----------



## Lead Poison (Mar 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> Luke this is what the Catholic Church and therefore Christ's Church teaches about Baptism.cont...



*For the record, the Baptist church is also CHRIST'S CHURCH.*


----------



## Lead Poison (Mar 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> Luke this is what the Catholic Church and therefore Christ's Church teaches about Baptism.cont...



*For the record, the Baptist church is also Christ's church!*


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 23, 2008)

And so are all churches that preach a resurrected Christ.
The Waters are just as good,IMO. LOL


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 24, 2008)

For the child's sake, pray, find a church, go to church, take the child to church, learn about the church and then decide.  My question would be why would I want to partake in a ritual for my child of a church that I was not a part of.


----------



## SBG (Mar 24, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> For the child's sake, pray, find a church, go to church, take the child to church, learn about the church and then decide.  My question would be why would I want to partake in a ritual for my child of a church that I was not a part of.




Amen!!!


----------



## Branchminnow (Mar 24, 2008)

16: 16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be  danged( under the censor look this up to see the real word)

Notice you have to BELIEVE before you are baptized. This is the word of God found in Mark. It is very simple no BIG explanation. It is simple what is expected.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Mar 24, 2008)

> My question would be why would I want to partake in a ritual for my child of a church that I was not a part of.



What he said.  If you are not a member of the church, and don't believe what that church teaches, why would you go through one of it's sacraments.  How are you going to explain this to the child? Baptism, child or adult, is supposed to be a recognition of the baptized person's commitment to God.


----------



## toddboucher (Mar 24, 2008)

I believe in only believers baptism, this act is a sign to show the world that you are now a follower of Christ.


----------



## Workin2Hunt (Mar 24, 2008)

I have seen parents "dedicate" their children to the lord. This is not baptism but they are publically professing that they will raise the child in the ways of the lord. I believe that it is up to the child when the time is right, and when the time comes they will know.


----------



## THREEJAYS (Mar 24, 2008)

Workin2Hunt said:


> I have seen parents "dedicate" their children to the lord. This is not baptism but they are publically professing that they will raise the child in the ways of the lord. I believe that it is up to the child when the time is right, and when the time comes they will know.



I agree,To me it means to much just to do it to please someone


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man (Apr 21, 2008)

Branchminnow said:


> 16: 16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be  danged( under the censor look this up to see the real word)
> 
> Notice you have to BELIEVE before you are baptized. This is the word of God found in Mark. It is very simple no BIG explanation. It is simple what is expected.


Sooooooooooo Simple.


----------



## PJason (Apr 21, 2008)

WTL said:


> Dan,
> 
> How does infant baptism save? One must be able to believe and repent (Acts 2:38, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, Titus 3:5). Perhaps the most compelling example of this is spoken by the apostle John in John 1:12,13-
> 
> ...




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.

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? 

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism. 

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God. 

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." 

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason. 

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. This is confirmed in the next verse. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years). 

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. 

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls. 

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom. 

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults. 

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism. 

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

1 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.


----------



## PJason (Apr 21, 2008)

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual. 

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved. 

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.” 

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase "born again" is "anothen" which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where "anothen" is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation. 

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus? 

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism? 

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ. 

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required. 

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away. 

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation. 

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic. 

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul. 

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic. 

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation. 

There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit. 

Heb. 10:22 - in baptism, our hearts are sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (again, dealing with the interior of the person) as our bodies are washed with pure water (the waters of baptism). Baptism regenerates us because it removes original sin, sanctifies our souls, and effects our adoption as sons and daughters in Jesus Christ. 

1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water. 

Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior). Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature). 

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments. 

Luke 23:43 - the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus. 

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, "I have a baptism to be baptized with" referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents). 

Mark 10:38 - Jesus says "are you able...to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?," referring to His death. 

1 John 5:6 - Jesus came by water and blood. He was baptized by both water and blood. Martyrs are baptized by blood.


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/


----------



## PJason (Apr 21, 2008)

WTL said:


> By the way, John 3 is speaking of physical birth versus spiritual birth. That's why Nicodemus was confused about the spiritual birth. We're all born of water at the time of our birth. That's not a choice/decision. Jesus even clarifies this in verse 6:
> 
> "That which is born of the flesh is flesh (childbirth); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."




The problem here is no where in the New Testament or Septuagint Greek is "water" (Greek: hudor) referred to  as "amniotic fluid" . Check Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament VIII:314–333.





WTL said:


> How is an infant capable of that (belief/faith and repentance)? Also, where do miscarried and aborted babies go according to your belief?



Well according to your reading they have not been "born of water" or "born of the Spirit", so would you say they go to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----


----------



## Branchminnow (Apr 21, 2008)

Over analization of a particular subject tends to take the bite out of some of the stances stated on this forum.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 21, 2008)

Lead Poison said:


> *For the record, the Baptist church is also Christ's church!*


 

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## WTL (Apr 21, 2008)

PJason said:


> The problem here is no where in the New Testament or Septuagint Greek is "water" (Greek: hudor) referred to  as "amniotic fluid" . Check Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament VIII:314–333.
> 
> Well according to your reading they have not been "born of water" or "born of the Spirit", so would you say they go to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----




PJ, in regard to your first comment, Where in the entire Bible is "amniotic fluid" referred to as "amniotic fluid"? That's like saying let's not make a reasonable deduction of a Trinity because the "New Testament or Septaguint Greek" doesn't contain that particular word. Again, in verse 6, the Lord Jesus clarifies precisely what He was saying in the preceding verses.


In regard to your second comment, you're incorrect in regard to my "reading". According to verse 6, we're all born of water (that obviously means embryos, fetuses, and liveborn babies are, by deduction, born of water). And without their own realization of the stain of original sin, they would fall under God's loving grace. Wouldn't you say? Or do you believe that anyone physically or emotionally incapable of comprehension of the Gospel message because of infancy or handicaps (deaf, blind, dumb, anencephalic) is doomed to an eternity of condemnation? Remember that "For God so loved the world..."

WTL


----------



## PJason (Apr 22, 2008)

WTL said:


> PJ, in regard to your first comment, Where in the entire Bible is "amniotic fluid" referred to as "amniotic fluid"? That's like saying let's not make a reasonable deduction of a Trinity because the "New Testament or Septaguint Greek" doesn't contain that particular word. Again, in verse 6, the Lord Jesus clarifies precisely what He was saying in the preceding verses.



What I said was where is the Greek  á½•Î´Ï‰Ï� (hudor) used in to refer to "amniotic fluid" ? The answer is it is not. St. Paul relates Noah’s flood to baptism, the eunuch seeing water ask why he can not be baptized, St. Peter says "can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?" what are they forbidding their birth? Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water. 






WTL said:


> In regard to your second comment, you're incorrect in regard to my "reading". According to verse 6, we're all born of water (that obviously means embryos, fetuses, and liveborn babies are, by deduction, born of water). And without their own realization of the stain of original sin, they would fall under God's loving grace. Wouldn't you say? Or do you believe that anyone physically or emotionally incapable of comprehension of the Gospel message because of infancy or handicaps (deaf, blind, dumb, anencephalic) is doomed to an eternity of condemnation? Remember that "For God so loved the world..."
> 
> WTL



An embryo or fetus that has not passed through the birth canal has not been born. So they have not been born of water until they come out. Unless you would like to debate about when someone is born? So yes by your reading someone must be born of water (childbirth) and born of the Spirit, so if that fetus dies in the womb that fetus has never been "born of water" according to your reading. Also John puts both water and Spirit together. He does not write "You must be born of water and of the Spirit" John writes it "You must be born of water and the Spirit" not two different events but one.


Please do not play the stupid game of "you wouldn't condemn someone would you" to try and win your argument. I do not claim to make decisions for God about how he handles souls who have never heard of Him or are too physically or mentally handicap to understand. But seeing that I am capable of following His commands I will be baptized, confess my sins, and receive His Body and Blood Soul and Divinity in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. It is the least I can do.


----------



## WTL (Apr 22, 2008)

PJason said:


> What I said was where is the Greek  á½•Î´Ï‰Ï� (hudor) used in to refer to "amniotic fluid" ? The answer is it is not. St. Paul relates Noah’s flood to baptism, the eunuch seeing water ask why he can not be baptized, St. Peter says "can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?" what are they forbidding their birth? Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.
> 
> An embryo or fetus that has not passed through the birth canal has not been born. So they have not been born of water until they come out. Unless you would like to debate about when someone is born? So yes by your reading someone must be born of water (childbirth) and born of the Spirit, so if that fetus dies in the womb that fetus has never been "born of water" according to your reading. Also John puts both water and Spirit together. He does not write "You must be born of water and of the Spirit" John writes it "You must be born of water and the Spirit" not two different events but one.
> 
> Please do not play the stupid game of "you wouldn't condemn someone would you" to try and win your argument. I do not claim to make decisions for God about how he handles souls who have never heard of Him or are too physically or mentally handicap to understand. But seeing that I am capable of following His commands I will be baptized, confess my sins, and receive His Body and Blood Soul and Divinity in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. It is the least I can do.



I thought this thread was on baby baptism, but okay. As I posted before, believer's baptism is accompanied by a contrite heart of repentance, and of course, faith. An infant isn't capable of any of those qualifications. I suggest that the Lord is merciful.

It was Peter, not Paul, who made an analogy of Noah and the eight being saved by water (1 Peter 3:20), and in verse 21, the clarification is that it is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." Furthermore, what really saves us? "By the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Thanks for bringing up the former Gentiles in Acts 10 and Peter's question: "Can any man forbid water...?" They wanted to be baptized. Hardly something an infant can do. 

It was Titus, not Paul, who wrote of the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), and it starts off with: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done..."

As for John 3 and being born again, again, they are two events, and even Nicodemus realized this. The preposition "of" doesn't change the context if it's added. It's like me saying that "I'm writing of this and of that." I can just as easily say "I'm writing of this and that." Nicodemus' only problem was that he didn't understand how someone could be born "again". And again, Jesus clarifies it for him in verse 6. He makes the distinction between being born of the flesh and being born of the Spirit. There is a distinction. 

As for fetuses and embryos not having passed through the birth canal, if anyone is an example of 1 Peter 3 and how "eight souls were saved by water", it is them. I'm sure you'd agree that life begins at conception (as in Psalm 139). And I will stand by God's mercy for the embryos, fetuses, and infants. God killed the first born of the Egyptians during the Exodus as a result of Pharoah's obstinance. This doesn't mean that the infants were condemned, does it? I would suggest that it was those who were old enough to willingly reject God who would/will ultimately perish spiritually.

John 1:12, 13- "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood (parents speaking for an infant at baptism?), nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

In Christ Alone,
John


----------



## matthewsman (Apr 22, 2008)

*I hate to admit it...*



WTL said:


> I thought this thread was on baby baptism, but okay. As I posted before, believer's baptism is accompanied by a contrite heart of repentance, and of course, faith. An infant isn't capable of any of those qualifications. I suggest that the Lord is merciful.
> 
> It was Peter, not Paul, who made an analogy of Noah and the eight being saved by water (1 Peter 3:20), and in verse 21, the clarification is that it is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." Furthermore, what really saves us? "By the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
> 
> ...





But a good Floridian has made it to Woody's....

I enjoy and concur with your posts John....

If you had started it like an epistle..."Greetings and I write to you my brothers at the church of PJason......" it would be classic...


----------



## PJason (Apr 22, 2008)

WTL said:


> I thought this thread was on baby baptism, but okay. As I posted before, believer's baptism is accompanied by a contrite heart of repentance, and of course, faith. An infant isn't capable of any of those qualifications. I suggest that the Lord is merciful.



It was and still is you asked a question I am answering. 



WTL said:


> It was Peter, not Paul, who made an analogy of Noah and the eight being saved by water (1 Peter 3:20), and in verse 21, the clarification is that it is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." Furthermore, what really saves us? "By the resurrection of Jesus Christ."



My apologies you are correct it was St. Peter and not St. Paul. But why did you leave out a part


> who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,







WTL said:


> Thanks for bringing up the former Gentiles in Acts 10 and Peter's question: "Can any man forbid water...?" They wanted to be baptized. Hardly something an infant can do.



So what about the households in Greek “oikos” that were baptized? They did not exclude infants or children.



WTL said:


> It was Titus, not Paul,


Paul, a slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ for the sake of the faith of God's chosen ones and the recognition of religious truth, in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began, who indeed at the proper time revealed his word in the proclamation with which I was entrusted by the command of God our savior, to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior.



WTL said:


> who wrote of the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), and it starts off with: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done..."



No it is not by works of righteousness, but by following His commands which are works that we are told to do, like being baptized of water and Spirit.



WTL said:


> As for John 3 and being born again, again, they are two events, and even Nicodemus realized this. The preposition "of" doesn't change the context if it's added. It's like me saying that "I'm writing of this and of that." I can just as easily say "I'm writing of this and that." Nicodemus' only problem was that he didn't understand how someone could be born "again". And again, Jesus clarifies it for him in verse 6. He makes the distinction between being born of the flesh and being born of the Spirit. There is a distinction.



I can make something of cotton and of wool and they can be two different things. I can make something of cotton and wool one thing made of two different materials not two different things. Chirst clarifies before verse 6 saying "you must be born of water and Spirit". Then He goes on to say "what is of flesh is flesh and what is of Spirit is Spirit" two different things. Christ includes water with Spirit but excludes flesh with Spirit. 



WTL said:


> As for fetuses and embryos not having passed through the birth canal, No you claim they are born before they pass through the birth canal, I say lfe begins at conception, but you are not born until you pass through the birth canalif anyone is an example of 1 Peter 3 and how "eight souls were saved by water", it is them. I'm sure you'd agree that life begins at conception (as in Psalm 139).



see red



			
				WTL;2113540And I will stand by God's mercy for the embryos said:
			
		

> Again I do not speak for God. I do not know if He condemned them or not. They were at His mercy, not mine. You can suggest what God would do all you like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PJason (Apr 22, 2008)

For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow...And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165). 

"Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181). 

" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190). 

"When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'" Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203). 

"But give me now your best attention, I pray you, for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing. The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism." Hippolytus of Rome, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 8 (A.D. 217). 

"But you will perhaps say, What does the, baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God? In the first place, because that which hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when yon are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; hut otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet testified to its with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it be is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation. For whether you be righteous or unrighteous, baptism is necessary for you in every respect: for the righteous, that perfection may be accomplished in him, and he may be born again to God; for the unrighteous, that pardon may he vouchsafed him of the sins which he has committed in ignorance. Therefore all should hasten to he born again to God without delay, because the end of every one's life is uncertain." Recognitions of Clement, 6:9 (A.D. 221). 

"'But perhaps some one will say, What does it contribute to piety to be baptized with water? In the first place, because you do that which is pleasing to God; and in the second place, being born again to God of water, by reason of fear you change your first generation, which is of lust, and thus you are able to obtain salvation. But otherwise it is impossible. For thus the prophet has sworn to us, saying, 'Verily I say to you, Unless ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore approach. For there is there something that is merciful from the beginning, home upon the water, and rescues from the future punishment those who are baptized with the thrice blessed invocation, offering as gifts to God the good deeds of the baptized whenever they are done after their baptism. Wherefore flee to the waters, for this alone can quench the violence of fires. He who will not now come to it still bears the spirit of strife, on account of which he will not approach the living water for his own salvation." Pseudo-Clementines, Homily 11:26 (A.D. 221). 

"The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244). 

"[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to 'lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,' unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, 'Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'...[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" Cyprian, To Stephen, 71:72 (A.D. 253). 

"And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, "Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit...Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ." Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258). 

"'But you will perhaps say, What does the, baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God? In the first place, because that which hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when yon are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; hut otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet testified to its with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it be is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation. For whether you be righteous or unrighteous, baptism is necessary for you in every respect: for the righteous, that perfection may be accomplished in him, and he may be born again to God; for the unrighteous, that pardon may he vouchsafed him of the sins which he has committed in ignorance. Therefore all should hasten to be born again to God without delay, because the end of every one's life is uncertain." Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5:19 (A.D. 310). 

"We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection." Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9:9 (A.D. 359). 

"And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, III:33 (A.D. 360). 

"The baptized when they come up are sanctified;--the sealed when they go down are pardoned.---They who come up have put on glory;--they who go down have cast off sin." Ephraim Syrus, Hymns for the Feast of the Epiphany, 6:9 (ante A.D. 373). 

"And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism." Basil, On the Spirit, 10:26 (A.D. 375). 

"This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit." Basil, On the Spirit, 15:35 (A.D. 375). 

"[T]he birth by water and the Spirit, Himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things He became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to His own by water and the Spirit." Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 2:8 (A.D. 382). 

"For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head." John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, 3:5-6 (A.D. 387). 

"The Word recognizes three Births for us; namely, the natural birth, that of Baptism, and that of the Resurrection...” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, I (A.D. 388). 

"And that the writer was speaking of baptism is evident from the very words in which it is stated that it is impossible to renew unto repentance those who were fallen, inasmuch as we are renewed by means of the laver of baptism, whereby we are born again, as Paul says himself: 'For we are buried with Him through baptism into death, that, like as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we, too, should walk in newness of life.'" Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, 2:8 (A.D. 390). 

"Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: 'For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 4:20 (A.D. 391). 

cont...


----------



## PJason (Apr 22, 2008)

"Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a cause of renovation and regeneration...Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:--for his visible body, water, the sensible element,--for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably. For 'the Spirit breathes where He wills, and thou hearest His voice, but canst not tell whence He cometh or whither He goeth.' He blesses the body that is baptized, and the water that baptizes. Despise not, therefore, the Divine laver, nor think lightly of it, as a common thing, on account of the use of water. For the power that operates is mighty, and wonderful are the things that are wrought thereby.” Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ (ante A.D. 394). 

"Time would fail me were I to try to lay before you in order all the passages in the Holy Scriptures which relate to the efficacy of baptism or to explain the mysterious doctrine of that second birth which though it is our second is yet our first in Christ." Jerome, To Oceanus, 69:7 (A.D. 397). 

"Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord...For the Lord says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.'" Apostolic Constitutions, 6:3:15 (A.D. 400). 

"Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination [baptism], without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, 'Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.' Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not." John Chrysostom, Homily on Philippians, 3:24 (A.D. 404). 

"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another's will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn...'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam." Augustine, To Boniface, Epistle 98:2 (A.D. 408). 

"But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent's poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted." Augustine, On Forgiveness of sin and baptism, 43:27 (A.D. 412). 

"No sooner do they rise from the baptismal font, and by being born again and incorporated into our Lord and Saviour." Jerome, Against the Pelagians, III:15 (A.D. 415). 

"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.'" Augustine, City of God, 13:7 (A.D. 419). 

"Moreover, from the time when He said, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;' and again, 'He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it; ' no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ, or death for Christ." Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin, 1:10:9 (A.D. 419). 

"One generation and another generation; the generation by which we are made the faithful, and are born again by baptism; the generation by which we shall rise again from the dead, and shall live with the Angels for ever." Augustine, Psalms,135:11 (A.D. 433). 

"And each one is a partaker of this spiritual origin in regeneration; and to every one when he is re-born, the water of baptism is like the Virgin's womb; for the same Holy Spirit fills the font, Who filled the Virgin, that the sin, which that sacred conception overthrew, may be taken away by this mystical washing." Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), Sermon 24:3 (ante A.D. 461). 

"From that time when the Saviour said to us: 'If any man is not born again from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God', without the sacrament of baptism--apart from those who without baptism in the Catholic Church shed their blood for Christ--no one can receive the Kingdom of God or eternal life." Fulgentius, On Faith, 3 (A.D. 524). 

"The baptism then into Christ means that believers are baptized into Him...And He laid on us the command to be born again of water and of the Spirit, through prayer and invocation, the Holy Spirit drawing nigh unto the water. For since man's nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the Spirit the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life." John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 9 (A.D. 743). 


cont...


----------



## PJason (Apr 22, 2008)

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165). 

"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140). 

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156). 

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180). 

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190). 

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215). 

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233). 

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244). 

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244). 

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251). 

"It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration." Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365). 

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?" Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381). 

"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381). 

"'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387). 

"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins." John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388). 

"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized." Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400). 

"While the son is a child and thinks as a child and until he comes to years of discretion to choose between the two roads to which the letter of Pythagoras points, his parents are responsible for his actions whether these be good or bad. But perhaps you imagine that, if they are not baptized, the children of Christians are liable for their own sins; and that no guilt attaches to parents who withhold from baptism those who by reason of their tender age can offer no objection to it. The truth is that, as baptism ensures the salvation of the child, this in turn brings advantage to the parents. Whether you would offer your child or not lay within your choice, but now that you have offered her, you neglect her at your peril." Jerome, To Laeta, Epistle 107:6 (A.D. 403). 

"Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left." Augustine, On forgiveness of sin and baptism, 39[26] (A.D. 412). 

"The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul which behoved to be saved from perdition -- in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth." Augustine, Epistle 166:8:23 (A.D. 412). 

"'C. Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized?
A. That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism." Jerome, Against the Pelagians, 3:18 (A.D. 415). 

"Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ."
Augustine, Epistle 167,7,21 (A.D. 415). 

"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized...let him be anathema." Council of Carthage, Canon 2 (A.D. 418). 

"Concerning the Donatists it seemed good that we should hold counsel with our brethren and fellow priests Siricius and Simplician concerning those infants alone who are baptized by Donatists: lest what they did not do of their own will, when they should be converted to the Church of God with a salutary determination, the error of their parents might prevent their promotion to the ministry of the holy altar." African Code, Canon 47/51 (A.D. 419). 

"[T]his concupiscence, I say, which is cleansed only by the sacrament of regeneration, does undoubtedly, by means of natural birth, pass on the bond of sin to a man's posterity, unless they are themselves loosed from it by regeneration." Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:23 (A.D. 420). 

"Believest thou this?...When a newborn child is brought forward to receive the anointing of initiation, or rather of consummation through holy baptism." Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 7 (A.D. 428). 

"Question XIX. Concerning those who after being baptized in infancy were captured by the Gentiles, and lived with them after the manner of the Gentiles, when they come back to Roman territory as still young men, if they seek communion, what shall be done?
Reply: If they have only lived with Gentiles and eaten sacrificial food, they can be purged by fasting and laying on of hands, in order that for the future abstaining from things offered to idols, they may be partakers of Christ's mysteries. But if they have either worshipped idols or been polluted with manslaughter or fornication, they must not be admitted to communion, except by public penance." Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], To Rusticus, Epistle 167 (A.D. 459). 

"But with respect to trine immersion in baptism, no truer answer can be given than what you have yourself felt to be right; namely that, where there is one faith, a diversity of usage does no harm to holy Church. Now we, in immersing thrice, signify the sacraments of the three days' sepulture; so that, when the infant is a third time lifted out of the water, the resurrection after a space of three days may be expressed." Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], To Leander, Epistle 43 (A.D. 591). 


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

end


----------



## WTL (Apr 22, 2008)

Matthew,

Thank you for your kind words!

PJ,

I'll get back to you later, but I'm not sure that I can add more than I have. Sorry for the quote from "Titus". It was very late when I wrote. I've read the quotes from the church fathers before. You can baptized infants all you'd like, but it doesn't make them "saved". If you'd like to know a good example of "household", see Acts 10:2, when in speaking of Cornelius, Luke wrote: "...a devout man and one who feared God with all his house..."

Again, an infant doesn't have the capability to "fear" God.

And every instance of baptism in Acts is accompanied by belief and repentance. An infant isn't capable of it.


----------



## Vernon Holt (Apr 22, 2008)

*Baptism*



PJason said:


> , "the eunuch seeing water ask why he can not be baptized,"


 
It is surprising that Jason would quote from the baptism of the Eunuch since even a child can understand that the Eunuch had experienced salvation prior to his baptism.

This being the case, how could his baptism have played any role in his salvation experience??

And as they (Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch) went on their way, they came unto certain water: and the eunuch said, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized??" And Phillip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest". And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God". And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down in the water, both Phillip and the eunuch; and he baptised him. Acts 8: 36-38

It should be clear to all that the above was a two staged affair, Salvation first of all, then subsequently Baptism.


----------



## Branchminnow (Apr 22, 2008)

Vernon Holt said:


> It is surprising that Jason would quote from the baptism of the Eunuch since even a child can understand that the Eunuch had experienced salvation prior to his baptism.
> 
> This being the case, how could his baptism have played any role in his salvation experience??
> 
> ...



Great post Mr Vernon.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 22, 2008)

> It should be clear to all that the above was a two staged affair, Salvation first of all, then subsequently Baptism.
> Reply With Quote



It should also be clear that the only criteria for salvation is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Phillip didn't ask the Eunuch if he wanted a bouquet of tulips before being baptized.


----------



## sawyerrt10 (Apr 22, 2008)

I have a question,  what if the situations were reversed. For example, you were raised a Catholic and sprinkled, but you are interested in joining a Baptist church now...Do you have to be rebaptized?


----------



## JohnK3 (Apr 22, 2008)

Ayup.

That's where the word "Baptist" came from.  It was a shorter form of the original term, "Anabaptist" which means "to baptize again."


----------



## WTL (Apr 22, 2008)

sawyerrt10 said:


> I have a question,  what if the situations were reversed. For example, you were raised a Catholic and sprinkled, but you are interested in joining a Baptist church now...Do you have to be rebaptized?



I think the bigger question would be whether the individual is saved or not. If they have come to acknowledge Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior thru repentance and belief/faith, then the next step ought to be believer's baptism as the first step of obedience (our identification with the Lord thru public affirmation). But yes, real baptism would follow.

In Him,
John


----------



## PJason (Apr 22, 2008)

Vernon Holt said:


> It is surprising that Jason would quote from the baptism of the Eunuch since even a child can understand that the Eunuch had experienced salvation prior to his baptism.



Thanks for the name calling and belittling Vern I would think a person of your age would be past it, but some things you may not out grow. 



Vernon Holt said:


> This being the case, how could his baptism have played any role in his salvation experience??
> 
> And as they (Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch) went on their way, they came unto certain water: and the eunuch said, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized??" And Phillip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest". And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God". And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down in the water, both Phillip and the eunuch; and he baptised him. Acts 8: 36-38
> 
> It should be clear to all that the above was a two staged affair, Salvation first of all, then subsequently Baptism.



What you seem to miss or leave out is that the Eunuch recognizes the need for water baptism. He does not say “Well I have been born already of water now I am born of Spirit too”; he makes a point to be baptized in water.

The other thing I love about the story of Phillip and the Eunuch it shows the need for an authoritative interpreter of scripture. Notice when asked if he understands what he is reading the Eunuch replies how can he without being taught. Phillip does not say “well just ask the Holy Spirit and you will understand” no Phillip gets up with the Eunuch and teaches him. Christ does the same things on the road to Emmaus, and it is only after He authoritatively explains all the scriptures and then gives them the Eucharist it is then that they recognize Him, not before. They recognized Him in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

The main issue as always is the Protestant’s lack of an authoritative interpreter of scripture and has been for the past four hundred and ninety-one years. Luther and his ilk decided that they knew better then the Church Christ established. The Church is God’s response to man to help him on the path to salvation, Protestantism has been man’s response to God saying “we want to do it our way not yours.”


----------



## PWalls (Apr 22, 2008)

PJason said:


> The main issue as always is the Protestant’s lack of an authoritative interpreter of scripture and has been for the past four hundred and ninety-one years. Luther and his ilk decided that they knew better then the Church Christ established. The Church is God’s response to man to help him on the path to salvation, Protestantism has been man’s response to God saying “we want to do it our way not yours.”



Wrong on that score bud. Looks like you're letting emotion or something else do the typing.

You *DO NOT NEED *a man or a church or any mortal entity on this earth to explain scripture to you. The Holy Spirit can do it and will do it if you just go to God and ask for it.

Here is my opinion: Protestantism is man's response to seeking truth in Scripture instead of simply following dogmatic and man-made tradition that leads away from the truths within Scripture. Going to God directly instead of relying on man-created doctrine in self-serving heirarchal structures.

I apologize if that offends. It is strictly my opinion.


----------



## WTL (Apr 22, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Wrong on that score bud. Looks like you're letting emotion or something else do the typing.
> 
> You *DO NOT NEED *a man or a church or any mortal entity on this earth to explain scripture to you. The Holy Spirit can do it and will do it if you just go to God and ask for it.
> 
> ...



Amen, amen!


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Wrong on that score bud. Looks like you're letting emotion or something else do the typing.
> 
> You *DO NOT NEED *a man or a church or any mortal entity on this earth to explain scripture to you. The Holy Spirit can do it and will do it if you just go to God and ask for it.
> 
> ...




That does not offend me in the least, you have the right to be wrong.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 23, 2008)

Ya'll try not to get too upset, Jason has the right to be wrong too


----------



## SBG (Apr 23, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Ya'll try not to get too upset, Jason has the right to be wrong too




And he is on so many accounts.

Seriously...the Bible is a spiritual book and has to be spiritually discerned.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 23, 2008)

Jason,

Do you think that you can interpert scripture?

DB BB


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

PWalls said:


> You *DO NOT NEED *a man or a church or any mortal entity on this earth to explain scripture to you. The Holy Spirit can do it and will do it if you just go to God and ask for it.



You make the assumption that I have not called on the Holy Spirit. You seem to base that assumption on the mere fact that the interpretation I was lead too does not agree with yours. Again you can see the problem of personal interpretation.



PWalls said:


> Here is my opinion: Protestantism is man's response to seeking truth in Scripture instead of simply following dogmatic and man-made tradition that leads away from the truths within Scripture. Going to God directly instead of relying on man-created doctrine in self-serving heirarchal structures.



Again you make the same assumption. You assume the doctrines I believe in to be “man-created” and that they “lead away from the Truth”, I believe they are not “man-created” I believe they were created by Our Lord Jesus Christ and handed onto His Church, and I believe they lead to the fullness of the Truth. The issue here is we both believe the Holy Spirit lead us to these conclusions. Who is right? We can not both be right. We could both be wrong. Again we have the same problem. If you say we are both right then you fall into the deadly doctrine of relativism, which is exactly where the doctrine of “everyone can be their own interpreter of Scripture” leads. St. Peter saw this problem and addressed it in 2 Peter 3:16.




PWalls said:


> I apologize if that offends. It is strictly my opinion.



Again it does not offend.


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

WTL said:


> You're really opening yourself up for criticism.




I think you will find that there are no shortages of critics on this board, all of them self appointed popes.




WTL said:


> First of all, who is the "interpreter of scripture" and teacher of Scripture, the "pope"?



When the Pope teaches on faith and morals from the Chair of Peter then he is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. We also rely on the Deposit of Faith which is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to be preserved and proclaimed by His Church and all His Saints.




WTL said:


> Why don't we have a look at what the catechisms of the catholic church says?:
> 
> 
> #891- "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful..."
> ...



Lets break down what you just said



			
				Parapharse of what WTL said said:
			
		

> We can all through the power of the Holy Spirit each interpret Scripture for ourselves.



You can see the paradox. How can the Holy Spirit lead to two different interpretations? Both can not be right. Without an authoritative interpreter there is no right and no wrong.. By this thinking Fred Phelps, can claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in interpretation of Scripture, after all he only needed to call on the Holy Spirit. Anyone can and does twist scripture to their destruction




WTL said:


> If you also believe that the "pope" is head of the church, as says the catechisms:
> 
> #882- "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."




It does not say that the Pope is the Head of the Church.

Main Entry: vic•ar  
Pronunciation: \ˈvi-kər\ 
Function: noun 
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin vicarius, from vicarius vicarious 
Date: 14th century 
1: one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy
2: an ecclesiastical agent: as a: a Church of England incumbent receiving a stipend but not the tithes of a parish b: a member of the Episcopal clergy or laity who has charge of a mission or chapel c: a member of the clergy who exercises a broad pastoral responsibility as the representative of a prelate  



WTL said:


> This is actually blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Himself, also by virtue of the Word of God:
> 
> Ephesians 1:22- "...and gave Him (the Lord Jesus) to be head over *all* things to the church."




Matthew 16:18-19
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- shall not prevail against it.And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


The Key of the Kingdom where handed to St. Peter, to be Christ Vicar on Earth. See Isaiah 22:22 for cross reference. 





WTL said:


> Over how many things, PJ? Over some? No. Over *all* things.
> 
> Ephesians 5:23- "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as *Christ is the head of the church*..."
> 
> Colossians 1:18- "*And he is the head of the body, the church*."




So are you saying the Christ did not give St. Peter the power to bind and loose, He did not give him the Keys to the Kingdom? Christ choose His Prime Minster here on earth, an office that has been passed on for 2000 years.



WTL said:


> So, PJ, who is the head of the church? The "pope", or the Lord Jesus? The Lord Jesus "is" (not "was", but "is"), always was, and always will be the head of the church.






No Catholic claims that Christ is not the Head of the Church.

669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. "The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery", "on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom".552 


551 Cf. Eph 1:22.
552 LG 3; 5; cf. Eph 4:11-13.[/COLOR] 




WTL said:


> Let me correct you on something else. You said: "The Church is God's response to man to help him on the path to salvation..."
> 
> No, it is not a path. The church is the body of believers. When one gets saved, he/she becomes a member of the body of Christ (the church). Any true believer is a part of the church, the bride of our beloved Groom, the Lord Jesus. The church is not a "path". It's not a "way". Jesus is the only Way, Truth, and Life. No one comes unto the Father but thru Him (not thru the church). Again, the church is the assembly of those who already have received Jesus as Lord and Savior. The church is not "the mother church". Mother of what? Christians (the church) are the bride.



The Church is Christ’s Body, Christ is the Head of the Body, Christ is the way, the Head can not be separate from the Body, the Head and the Body are One. Therefore through His Body we are lead.


The path to Salvation does end until we are with Christ, His Father, The Holy Spirit, The Blessed Virgin Mary, all the Angels and Saints in Heaven. If you believe you are at the end of your path, you might want to check the road you have been walking on.


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

SBG said:


> And he is on so many accounts.
> 
> Seriously...the Bible is a spiritual book and has to be spiritually discerned.



Just for Good measure, I don’t think you could spiritually discerned yourself out of a paper bag.


----------



## SBG (Apr 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> Just for Good measure, I don’t think you could spiritually discerned yourself out of a paper bag.





Hey...now you are in the same club as Dbone!

BTW, you have to be Spirit filled to understand discernment...you wouldn't understand.


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Jason,
> 
> Do you think that you can interpert scripture?
> 
> DB BB



Good question. There are some things that yes we can discern for ourselves. However St. Peter does warn 



> 2 Peter 3:16
> In them (St. Paul’s letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.




St. Peter does not say that they mean too distort, but that they are ignorant and unstable. How many of us can say that at some point we have not been ignorant of scripture?

I study; when I come upon a passage that I do not understand I pray to the Holy Spirit and look to the deposit of faith that has been with us for 2000 years.  I look at what did the Saints had to say, what did the ECF have to say, what does the Catechism say. I will talk to my Priest or Deacon. I would guess that you all do much the same, though you look to different sources.


----------



## SBG (Apr 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> I study; when I come upon a passage that I do not understand I pray to the Holy Spirit and look to the deposit of faith that has been with us for 2000 years.  .



That's your problem...you don't trust entirely in God almighty for the answer. When the answer isn't what you like, you go to a source that over the years has been wrong thousands of times. 

It's okay in this council; no it's not in the next council; wait change that again says this council........

I'll accept what the Lord has to say on it, not men that obviously lack in spiritual discernment.


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

SBG said:


> That's your problem...you don't trust entirely in God almighty for the answer. When the answer isn't what you like, you go to a source that over the years has been wrong thousands of times.
> 
> It's okay in this council; no it's not in the next council; wait change that again says this council........
> 
> I'll accept what the Lord has to say on it, not men that obviously lack in spiritual discernment.




See WTL another self appointed pope


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

SBG said:


> That's your problem...you don't trust entirely in God almighty for the answer. When the answer isn't what you like, you go to a source that over the years has been wrong thousands of times.
> 
> It's okay in this council; no it's not in the next council; wait change that again says this council........
> 
> I'll accept what the Lord has to say on it, not men that obviously lack in spiritual discernment.



You can lie to yourself and to others that you have never asked your Pastor about certain passage or ask your Mother and Father what St. Paul meant in a certain verse, but someday your lie will find you out.


----------



## SBG (Apr 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> See WTL another self appointed pope



Sorry the truth gets under your skin agamania. But there is one thing about the truth: It will set you free if you let it. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## SBG (Apr 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> You can lie to yourself and to others that you have never asked your Pastor about certain passage or ask your Mother and Father what St. Paul meant in a certain verse, but someday your lie will find you out.




Is that another copy and paste, or is it original thought with the names changed to protect the innocent?


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

SBG said:


> Is that another copy and paste, or is it original thought with the names changed to protect the innocent?




No but this is...


Sorry the truth gets under your skin SBG. But there is one thing about the truth: It will set you free if you let it. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 23, 2008)

Ya'll try to refrain from getting too personal please

PJason, Just for arguments sake and to stir this pot a little more, since you say the Catholics are right and the Protestants are wrong. What would you say about all of the great movements of God that have taken place under the banner of Protestantism(i.e. the Great Awakenings, revivals, certainly 100's of thousands of souls saved)?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 23, 2008)

No, dont do it. Not gonna do a child any good. He is still gonna have to do the same thing every one else did when he is old enough to be saved. He needs to be old enough to understand right from wrong and old enough to feel the conviction of God. Not held accountable for anything until he is old enough to understand. Same goes for mentally ill people, how can they be held accoundable for something they dont comprehend?


----------



## PJason (Apr 23, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Ya'll try to refrain from getting too personal please
> 
> PJason, Just for arguments sake and to stir this pot a little more, since you say the Catholics are right and the Protestants are wrong. What would you say about all of the great movements of God that have taken place under the banner of Protestantism(i.e. the Great Awakenings, revivals, certainly 100's of thousands of souls saved)?



Actually I have never said Protestants are wrong, misguided.

I would say as it has been stated before that other Churches and ecclesiastical communities contain some of the Truth, but only the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Truth.


----------



## PJason (Apr 24, 2008)

WTL said:


> PJ,
> 
> I want to make some comments and ask you some questions. First of all, I came out of the catholic church. There is probably nothing you can tell me about it that I don't already know very, very well.



If it was the case that you know the Catholic Church "very,very well" you would never have left. I am sorry you were not properly Catechized.




WTL said:


> You're trying to get by on semantics. The catechisms state that the pope has "full, supreme, and universal power over the church." Oh, really? How can someone who isn't "head" of the church have full power over it? I thought that one who is head over anything is the one who has full power? I must tell you, PJ, there have been some pretty wicked popes thru the years. Others haven't used their "infallible" brains. JPII bowed down to and kissed the Qu'ran, a book which calls Jesus an outright liar by saying that He was never crucified or resurrected. John tells us in 2 John 9-11:
> 
> "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.



Yes there have been wicked Popes no makes claims otherwise. St. Peter the first Pope denied Christ. If you belong to a Church without sinners please share its location, or is it only for the perfect sinless Christians



WTL said:


> I'll get back to the popes later, but let's talk about Peter. You feel that he is the real rock, but we know that Cephas means petros (stone), whereas the rock that the church is built upon is called "Petra" (massive rock). Let's see who the real rock is:
> 
> Deuteronomy 32:4- 'He (God) is the Rock (tsur), his work is perfect...'
> 
> ...




If you could remind us all did Christ speak Greek? Or was it Aramaic? How many words for rock in Aramaic?




WTL said:


> Being that you brought it up, What do you think the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' refers to? Also, what is the ability to 'bind and loose'? What is the ability to 'remit' or 'retain' sins? Before you answer, let me provide a verse for you and see if you agree:
> 
> Mark 2:7- 'who can forgive sins but God only?'



You seem to think I do not believe God forgives sins. Well you would be wrong I do believe God alone forgives sins. However we are told to confess our sins to one another. We are also told that St. Peter was given the power to forgive sins or retain sins. Now how can St. Peter or the Apostles who were later given the power to do same (please note how St. Peter is always first among the Apostles) forgive sins if they were not to hear the sins of others. God knows our sins already why are we told to confess? Or would you like Martin Luther like to throw the Letter of James because it does not fit into your box.

You have also missed the fact that no where in the Scripture are we told to confess only to God?




WTL said:


> I would say that Peter revealed those keys while he was here:
> 
> Acts 2:21- 'And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'
> 
> ...




Neither St. Peter nor St. Paul were perfect, so what is your point? 

The Gospel was not something written down was and is the good message of Jesus Christ in Greek εὐαγγέλιον. The Word for the matter is not a what, not something you can carry around in your backpack. The Word is a who.



> John 20:21
> 
> (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."






> Matthew 9:6-8
> Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?
> But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he then said to the paralytic, "Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home."
> He rose and went home. When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to men




Yes that is correct notice it does not say to a man but to men.





> Acts 20:18
> Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices.




That could not have meant they confessed could it? 




> 1 John 1:9
> If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.




Confess to whom? Do you think God does not know our sin? Maybe James can help?




> James 5:15-16
> 
> Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.




So have you done this lately? I mean it is in God’s Word “Confess your sins to one another”. When was the last time you confessed? 







WTL said:


> Aside from all of this, what Scripture do you cling to which makes you think that works are going to save you, PJ? James 2? Remember that Romans 4 clarifies that. Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness before God...not his works. If you believe that works are going to save you, it's like you taking a cool glass of water (grace), and putting a drop of strychnine (works) in it and swishing it around before you drink it. You either accept the grace, or you try to make it on your works. I hope you make the right decision.



As with Abraham work must be in faith and not outside of faith. 



> Romans 2:6-13
> For he will render to every man according to his works:  to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.  There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.





> 1 Cor 3:15
> 
> Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
> If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
> If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire






> 2 Cor 5:10
> 
> For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body







> Romans 2:13
> 
> For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified






> Phil 4:17
> 
> Not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit.



An awful lot of talk about doing good, works, and fruits here, but oddly no mention anywhere in the Bible of faith alone. Sorry yes there is 



> James 2:24
> You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


Works do not save us. Faith justifies initially but works perfect and completes our justification.


----------



## SBG (Apr 24, 2008)

PJason said:


> See WTL another self appointed pope



Nah, I understand, accept, and rest comfortably in God's doctrine of grace.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2008)

PJason said:


> Actually I have never said Protestants are wrong, _"misguided"_.
> 
> I would say as it has been stated before that other Churches and ecclesiastical communities contain some of the Truth, but only the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Truth.





Lord help us !!


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

WTL said:


> Again, an infant doesn't have the capability to "fear" God.
> 
> And every instance of baptism in Acts is accompanied by belief and repentance. An infant isn't capable of it.



There are many instances of "entire households" being baptised in the bible, which would have included children.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

PWalls said:


> ....
> Here is my opinion: Protestantism is man's response to seeking truth in Scripture instead of simply following dogmatic and man-made tradition that leads away from the truths within Scripture. Going to God directly instead of relying on man-created doctrine in self-serving heirarchal structures.
> 
> I apologize if that offends. It is strictly my opinion.



Joseph Smith went directly to God too.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Ya'll try to refrain from getting too personal please
> 
> PJason, Just for arguments sake and to stir this pot a little more, since you say the Catholics are right and the Protestants are wrong. What would you say about all of the great movements of God that have taken place under the banner of Protestantism(i.e. the Great Awakenings, revivals, certainly 100's of thousands of souls saved)?



What defines a "Great Movement?"  Jim Jones?  David Koresh? Joseph Smith?  Their members had "Great Awakenings."


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> There are many instances of "entire households" being baptised in the bible, which would have included children.



children ok, but toddlers
reason being, no one is saved unless convicted and drawn by God.

what good is baptism without conviction?


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

Spotlite said:


> children ok, but toddlers
> reason being, no one is saved unless convicted and drawn by God.
> 
> what good is baptism without conviction?



Nowhere in the bible does it say that children / toddlers are to be excluded.  An entire household would include toddlers  or infants.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> What defines a "Great Movement?"  Jim Jones?  David Koresh? Joseph Smith?  Their members had "Great Awakenings."



Acts 2 is "one" of the many "Great Movements" ever recorded.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Nowhere in the bible does it say that children / toddlers are to be excluded.  An entire household would include toddlers  or infants.



No you cant exclude them, matter of fact it doesnt exclude anyone, it is for as many as far off as the Lord may call, but you cant put the cart before the horse. Let God do his work, then baptize them.

If your going to do that for the babies, why dont you go to the prisons and line them up and have a baptism pow wow? (you wont, because you know it does no good without God)


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> What defines a "Great Movement?"  Jim Jones?  David Koresh? Joseph Smith?  Their members had "Great Awakenings."




Oh come on... you gotta be kidding me. You mean you're not supposed to drink the kool-aid. 

Seriously, not people having a great awakening. The Great Awakenings. Very different. 

But if you wanna go there, will you say all the good that has come from Protestantism is in reality no good, because its not Catholic?


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Oh come on... you gotta be kidding me. You mean you're not supposed to drink the kool-aid.
> 
> Seriously, not people having a great awakening. The Great Awakenings. Very different.
> 
> But if you wanna go there, will you say all the good that has come from Protestantism is in reality no good, because its not Catholic?



There is a lot more Catholic in Protestantism than you think.  Not too terribly different if you really boil it down.  Some just focus on some scriptural differences.  Similar to people having a favorite color or food, it is still a color and still a food, no matter what you pick.

Do not ever drink Kool-Aid, especially the red one.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

Spotlite said:


> Acts 2 is "one" of the many "Great Movements" ever recorded.



Joseph Smith has been pretty succesful too.

Yes, Acts 2 was, and it did not exclude children of any age.


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.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 24, 2008)

What happens if you believe as a catholic that you have discerned by way of the Holy Spirit that is something different from the Vatican?

Do you just throw away what was given to you by the Holy Spirit or do you keep it and go against the Vatican?

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> 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.


 

Ohh, look... REPENT came first.... 

Tell me how can a child repent? An infant, one that has no understanding of good or bad...

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> What happens if you believe as a catholic that you have discerned by way of the Holy Spirit that is something different from the Vatican?
> 
> Do you just throw away what was given to you by the Holy Spirit or do you keep it and go against the Vatican?
> 
> DB BB



The custom is to nail it to the church door.




I have not run across that problem.  How would a Protestant handle that?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Joseph Smith has been pretty succesful too.
> 
> Yes, Acts 2 was, and it did not exclude children of any age.
> 
> ...


Pay real close attention to your own quote, first thing they had to do was repent......................(notice they had been pricked in their heart when they ask Peter what they needed to do)

A baby cant do that.

The promise is for everyone, as many as the Lord our God shall call, not as many as we dunk.

Who is Joseph Smith


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Ohh, look... REPENT came first....
> 
> Tell me how can a child repent? An infant, one that has no understanding of good or bad...
> 
> DB BB



opps, sorry BB, you beat me to it.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Ohh, look... REPENT came first....
> 
> Tell me how can a child repent? An infant, one that has no understanding of good or bad...
> 
> DB BB



Read verse 39 again.  "..and to your children..."


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> The custom is to nail it to the church door.
> 
> I have not run across that problem. How would a Protestant handle that?


 
So if you were to nail something to the church door, what would happen to you, for being a desenting catholic? Would you stop being a Catholic? Would you be excommunicated?  Would you be burned at the stake for heresay? etc...

I am not a protestant... I am a Baptist.... formerly called the AnaBaptist... I believe we are the one true Bride of Christ.

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Read verse 39 again. "..and to your children..."


 
I believe that is meant to mean, you are responsible to pass what you have experienced down to your children, be a good witness unto them and they will likewise be Saved.

DB BB


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Read verse 39 again.  "..and to your children..."



Dawg, your children in verse 39 have to do the same thing you did in 38. Yes, it is promised to them, the Jews and the Gentiles, but they have to repent first. A child can not repent until they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong, how can they be sorrow for something they dont understand, how can they understand unless they are taught?

 Any other way, there would be no reason for us to train up our children the way they should go, we could just dunk them and not ever worry about it.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So if you were to nail something to the church door, what would happen to you, for being a desenting catholic? Would you stop being a Catholic? Would you be excommunicated?  Would you be burned at the stake for heresay? etc...



I have not had that dilemna.  But yes, if I felt that strongly, I would nail it to the church door, or discuss it with a Bishop, or a priest and explain it.  

Additionally, if I really felt that strongly, then I would leave the church.  But I can say that my church has been good to me, has taken care of me, and I have prayed over things and am quite comforted in my faith and the path of my particular denomination.  I have personal things that have occurred that reassure me, that God is present in my life and that Catholicism is where I am supposed to be.  Believe me when I say I have done a lot of reading on other denominations and their core beliefs, but am no expert in them.  



Double Barrel BB said:


> I am not a protestant... I am a Baptist.... formerly called the AnaBaptist... I believe we are the one true Bride of Christ.
> 
> DB BB



I have always considered "Baptists" as Protestants.  Are they not?


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I believe that is meant to mean, you are responsible to pass what you have experienced down to your children, be a good witness unto them and they will likewise be Saved.
> 
> DB BB



It doesn't say that.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I have always considered "Baptists" as Protestants. Are they not?


 
Not in my belief. 

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Not in my belief.
> 
> DB BB



BAPTISTS:

Comprise the largest of all American Protestant denominations, with 37 million members, in 30 bodies; the largest body is the Southern Baptist Convention, with 15 million: 901 Commerce St., Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Worldwide: 45 million. 

http://www.religion-cults.com/Christianity/Protestant/P-Denominations-1.htm#BAPTISTS


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> BAPTISTS:
> 
> Comprise the largest of all American Protestant denominations, with 37 million members, in 30 bodies; the largest body is the Southern Baptist Convention, with 15 million: 901 Commerce St., Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Worldwide: 45 million.
> 
> http://www.religion-cults.com/Christianity/Protestant/P-Denominations-1.htm#BAPTISTS


 

There is a difference... just google Anabaptist and you will find a slew of information.... but not all is true information... much like ya'll say about the Catholics History and misunderstandings...

edited to ad: Not all Baptists come from Anabaptist background either... So to lump all baptist together in one big pile is not accurate....

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> There is a difference... just google Anabaptist and you will find a slew of information.... but not all is true information... much like ya'll say about the Catholics History and misunderstandings...
> 
> edited to ad: Not all Baptists come from Anabaptist background either... So to lump all baptist together in one big pile is not accurate....
> 
> DB BB



Well I will be doing some more reading then

I thought you were a Calvinist?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 24, 2008)

Isn't this fun?


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Isn't this fun?



Just getting warmed up again


----------



## PJason (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Not in my belief.
> 
> DB BB



There is more documented history to back up the Trail of Tears then there is to back up The Trail of Blood.


----------



## PJason (Apr 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> What happens if you believe as a catholic that you have discerned by way of the Holy Spirit that is something different from the Vatican?
> 
> Do you just throw away what was given to you by the Holy Spirit or do you keep it and go against the Vatican?
> 
> DB BB



2000 years of the Deposit of Faith hand on from Christ to Apostles and through His Church verses me. I will take St. Peter's warning to heart.



> 2 Peter 3:16
> In them (St. Paul’s letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.




What do you do when you and your Pastor disagree about doctrine? 

Say infant baptism you say no way he says yes. You both believe you are being lead by the Holy Spirit who is right? Do you take him to the Church? Or do you just find one that agrees with you?


----------



## redwards (Apr 24, 2008)

PJason said:


> .....
> Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?......


Everyone?....Can you say that your statement is an absolute truth...no exception...to "instantly' being baptized after "learning" of Jesus.

I "learned" of Jesus way before I "accepted" Jesus into my heart.

Even after I "accepted" Jesus it was some time before I was baptized,
'cause back in the 1950's, the church I went to with my father, mother, brothers, and sister, had no baptismal pool. 
Me and all other individuals who had accepted Jesus during the year were all baptized the same afternoon in my grandfather's pond.

So, you know, that really brings up a question of another sort.
What if one of us (those of us who had to wait until we could be baptized) had died before we were baptized. 
Would the one(s) who possibly might have died still have gone to heaven? 

Please don't bother to answer that question in this thread though...
'cause I'm really , ...I wonder though if Luke and his fiance got their problem worked out? 

Seems as though HIS question has really been lost in this bit of conversation in HIS thread don't you think!


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 24, 2008)

PJason said:


> There is more documented history to back up the Trail of Tears then there is to back up The Trail of Blood.



Sorry, but that is so true it is funny

No harm intended


----------



## PWalls (Apr 25, 2008)

PJason said:


> I would say as it has been stated before that other Churches and ecclesiastical communities contain some of the Truth, but only the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Truth.



Opinion only.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 25, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Joseph Smith went directly to God too.



So you don't?


----------



## Bones (Apr 25, 2008)

Baptist are not Protestants we were never part of the Roman Catholic Church.

Bones


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 25, 2008)

PWalls said:


> So you don't?



Absolutely.  I just haven't felt the urge to start a new church


----------



## PWalls (Apr 25, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Absolutely.  I just haven't felt the urge to start a new church



The "Church" was started along time ago when the Catholic religion was not so lenient on that direct communication with God. The iron grip was a little too tight. So, the dogmatic and man-held doctrine of the RCC created its own offspring.


----------



## PJason (Apr 25, 2008)

Bones said:


> Baptist are not Protestants we were never part of the Roman Catholic Church.
> 
> Bones




Prove it


----------



## PWalls (Apr 25, 2008)

PJason said:


> Prove it



Burden of proof is on the prosecution. 

Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## PJason (Apr 25, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Burden of proof is on the prosecution.
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist.



You would like me to prove that the Baptist where never part of the Catholic Church


Sure here’s all the evidence





> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...





But wait there’s more




> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow after all that convincing evidence how could anyone believe otherwise






























The joke is there is no proof that there were Baptist before  Protestantism. shhhh! Lets see if they get it


----------



## huntmstr (Apr 27, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Jason,
> 
> Do you think that you can interpert scripture?
> 
> DB BB



Following that logic, how can you quote scripture in defense of an argument if you can't interpret it to suit your purposes. In order to understand something you must read or listen, take it in, decipher it (interpret) and understand.  If you take out the interpretation, it's simply empty words with no more meaning than if I said to you a jumbled sentence of random words. You can't look at the words on a page and expect the meaning to come to you through some spiritual intercession.  You have to think about what is being said and understand it based on how you perceive it to be intended.  If there was no interpretive step, we could all hold the Bible to our faces and obtain it's knowledge through some spiritual osmosis. Sounds like metaphysical spirituality to me... I think that's called Christian Science.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Well I will be doing some more reading then
> 
> I thought you were a Calvinist?


 

As you will read you will come across calvin in the anabaptist...  I am more calvinist than armenian...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

PJason said:


> There is more documented history to back up the Trail of Tears then there is to back up The Trail of Blood.


 

There may be... but the Trail of Tears happened around 1838...well after the printing press was invented... I would think that certain entities couldn't control the written history that was recorded at that time... but a lot of the persecution that was delt out by all denomintations of Christianity was done well before the normal everyday person could read or even write... makes it much easier to control what information is recorded and what information is given to people of all denomintations....

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

PJason said:


> 2000 years of the Deposit of Faith hand on from Christ to Apostles and through His Church verses me. I will take St. Peter's warning to heart.


 
So you think just because it is in the deposit of faith it is not falliable? Do you not think that there is at least one thing in that deposit of faith that you do not agree with? Have you read all 2000 years of information, or do you just take it as it is given to you?



PJason said:


> What do you do when you and your Pastor disagree about doctrine?
> 
> Say infant baptism you say no way he says yes. You both believe you are being lead by the Holy Spirit who is right? Do you take him to the Church? Or do you just find one that agrees with you?


 
First off I know my pastor wouldn't agree with infant baptism... and if he did then it would not be at a Baptist church... hence reason enough to leave and find one that believes as close as possible to what I believe...

Now if it is a minor debate about minor doctorine... maybe about women's head coverings... some say her hair is her covering while others say they need to wear a hat or a piece of fabric to cover their head... that to me is minor... As for my house, the ladies practice external head coverings... a piece of fabric or a hat...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

huntmstr said:


> Following that logic, how can you quote scripture in defense of an argument if you can't interpret it to suit your purposes. In order to understand something you must read or listen, take it in, decipher it (interpret) and understand. If you take out the interpretation, it's simply empty words with no more meaning than if I said to you a jumbled sentence of random words. You can't look at the words on a page and expect the meaning to come to you through some spiritual intercession. You have to think about what is being said and understand it based on how you perceive it to be intended. If there was no interpretive step, we could all hold the Bible to our faces and obtain it's knowledge through some spiritual osmosis. Sounds like metaphysical spirituality to me... I think that's called Christian Science.


 

I think PJason knew I meant with Prayer and Meditaiton and the ability given by the Holy Spirit to understand... but I am sure I should have stated that in there...  my apologies...

DB BB


----------



## huntmstr (Apr 28, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> First off I know my pastor wouldn't agree with infant baptism... and if he did then it would not be at a Baptist church... hence reason enough to leave and find one that believes as close as possible to what I believe...DB BB



So following that logic, you have _chosen_ to believe in a certain way.  I think you just answered the post about free choice, as well as give validity to any form of Christianity, to religion of any faith for that matter, that anyone practices.  In fact,  you have validated all our points of view in one fell swoop.  Bravo!!

Either that, or you have condemed your eternal soul to ****ation at the presumptive nature of your supposition that you should have the right to choose how to worship God and not follow how God has told you to worship.  I guess it's all a matter of interpretation. 

(stated with tongue firmly planted in cheek)


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

huntmstr said:


> So following that logic, you have _chosen_ to believe in a certain way. I think you just answered the post about free choice, as well as give validity to any form of Christianity, to religion of any faith for that matter, that anyone practices. In fact, you have validated all our points of view in one fell swoop. Bravo!!
> 
> Either that, or you have condemed your eternal soul to ****ation at the presumptive nature of your supposition that you should have the right to choose how to worship God and not follow how God has told you to worship. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation.
> 
> (stated with tongue firmly planted in cheek)


 

So God told you to say hail mary's? God told you to specifically to baptize infants? God told you to specifically confess to Priest? God told you to believe in Purgatory? etc...

I have chosen, only because God as allowed me the understanding of Truth. I don't believe in Free will. I believe that God knows everything, past, present and future. Therefore He knows what you are going to do before you do it what you are going to say or type before you do it...etc...

My belief is backup by doctorine, backed up by The Holy Bible, if I didn't have the conviction of the Holy Spirit that the doctorine is Truth, then I wouldn't believe the way I do. God has allowed me to believe the way I do of His loving grace and mercy.

DB BB


----------



## huntmstr (Apr 28, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So God told you to say hail mary's? Yes, Jesus did give us instruction to pray to Mary, His mother, for guidance and intercession.God told you to specifically to baptize infants? Catholic Baptism is the promise of the parents of a new born child to raise that child in the traditions of the Catholic Church.  The child takes teh sacrament of Confirmation when he becomes of age to accept our faith of his own accord.God told you to specifically confess to Priest? The Catholic Church believes their priests are the servents of God on earth, ordained by Him to do His earthly work. God told you to believe in Purgatory? etc...
> 
> I have chosen, only because God as allowed me the understanding of Truth. I don't believe in Free will. I believe that God knows everything, past, present and future. Therefore He knows what you are going to do before you do it what you are going to say or type before you do it...etc...  You believe... what makes your belief any better or more valid than mine?  because you say it's so?  Because you BELIEVE you have the scriptures, doctrine and Bible all figured out.  That is a pompous and egotistical point of view.
> 
> ...



So by your own words, I too have been given the understanding of the Truth by God, and thereby I choose Catholicism.  The Catholic Church has doctrine, and our religion is backed by the Holy Bible as well.  If you ask Muslims, they believe they have doctrine and the true word of God.  

You need to remeber to practice tolorence and humility.  Just because you think  YOUR WAY is GODS WAY, doesn't mean it's Gods ONLY WAY.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

huntmstr said:


> You need to remeber to practice tolorence and humility. Just because you think YOUR WAY is GODS WAY, doesn't mean it's Gods ONLY WAY.


 
That is like the Pot calling the Kettle Black... Maybe we both need a good dose of Tolorence and Humility.

I never said that you were not saved, I never said anyone on here was not saved, I believe God Saves whom He wants... The proof of which is seen in that saved person's life.

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

I need to add something....

The only way anyone can be Saved is through the Blood of Jesus Christ!  That is the restriction I put on Salvation, that is the Only way a person can be saved.

DB BB


----------



## huntmstr (Apr 28, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> That is like the Pot calling the Kettle Black... Maybe we both need a good dose of Tolorence and Humility.
> 
> I never said that you were not saved, I never said anyone on here was not saved, I believe God Saves whom He wants... The proof of which is seen in that saved person's life.
> 
> DB BB



I never once questioned your belief or your values. I have not called into question your ability to practice as you so choose.  And I have espoused, repeatedly in my posts, that I am of the opinion any man can come to God in any way he sees fit.  That there is but One GOD and that all praise and thanks be unto Him.  I have told you I am Catholic... I have not tried to convert you to it; only to understand it as I understand your faith.  In fact, all christian religions stem from Catholicism.  So I am well acustomed to it. I have had the luxury of studying most religions during my formative years and have come to accept and understand the differences between them; their nuances and subtleties.  I accept all men for who they are, not for how they worship. If that is not tolorence and humility, then I don't know what is.


----------



## huntmstr (Apr 28, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I need to add something....
> 
> The only way anyone can be Saved is through the Blood of Jesus Christ!  That is the restriction I put on Salvation, that is the Only way a person can be saved.
> 
> DB BB



Then that is your limitation, not mine.  Because I believe that both the Jew and the Muslim have a place in heaven along with me and with you, as does the hindu, the budhist, the taoist and any person who worships God, under any name.  He is still GOD, THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, LIGHT OF THE WORLD.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

huntmstr said:


> In fact, all christian religions stem from Catholicism.


 
This is were we differ, at least on this point I am sure there are other differences... As you have probably read I do not believe that all relgions came from Catholicism. I have just started studying the history of Chrisitanity and have found some interesting things...

Maybe I am mis-reading your posts just like you are mis-reading mine, I don't mean to come off intolerant... I was finding your replys to my posts very intolerent by putting words into what I was typing, and I will admit that gets under my skin quicker than anything... Infact I had a boss that I quit a wonderful job over because of his insatiable need to analyze everything that you said and then try and turn it around back on you...

I know somethings just don't translate well using the medium in which we are using to communicate... If you have found me to appear as intolerant, I apologize, for that is not the case... I enjoy hearing others beliefs, and systems of worship...

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 28, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I need to add something....
> 
> The only way anyone can be Saved is through the Blood of Jesus Christ!  That is the restriction I put on Salvation, that is the Only way a person can be saved.
> 
> DB BB



Kind of paralleling Radical Islam ......names are different, but the games the same....


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

huntmstr said:


> Then that is your limitation, not mine. Because I believe that both the Jew and the Muslim have a place in heaven along with me and with you, as does the hindu, the budhist, the taoist and any person who worships God, under any name. He is still GOD, THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, LIGHT OF THE WORLD.


 
With all due respect, it is not my limitation. It is God's limitation..

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one....

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Kind of paralleling Radical Islam ......names are different, but the games the same....


 

Ok I totally missed that one....  

DB BB


----------



## huntmstr (Apr 28, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> With all due respect, it is not my limitation. It is God's limitation..
> 
> We may just have to agree to disagree on this one....
> 
> DB BB



God knows no limitations, no bounds.  God is limitless.  Only man is limited... in his abilities to communicate, to achieve and  to comprehend.  And I cannot and will not presume to know God's mind and make a statement that puts my  beliefs above anyone elses.  My beliefs are my limitations. Yours are your limitations.  If we both believe in our hearts that we are following God's will and that we are guided by the Truth and the Holy Spirit, then how can we both be wrong?  I say to you, that we are both right... you for your beliefs and I for mine. Fact is, we both believe.  That is what is important.  

You make three lefts, I make three rights, we both end up in the same place at the same time.  Were either of us wrong?  No, we just chose different paths and achieved the same objective.

And we can still be neighbors and love eachother, knowing that we are Christians first in the service of God.  How we choose to worship God is not important to God, so long as we worship Him and Love One Another.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 28, 2008)

huntmstr said:


> Fact is, we both believe. That is what is important.


 

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 28, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Ok I totally missed that one....
> 
> DB BB



I figured you did


----------

