One Core Difference Between Christians and Catholics

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040918' date='Aug 10 2006, 08:19 AM']
The problem here is you folks believe it is the baptism that makes on born again when it is not.

Throughout the Bible, baptism always FOLLOWED salvation.

There is NOT one infant in the entire Bible being baptized.

Newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins.

[font="Lucida Console"]Act 8:12 [u]But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,[/u] they were baptized, both men and women.[/font]

I was baptized when I was nine days old, as a catholic, I was NOT born again whatsoever. I did not know God in my heart, and was only taught the false doctrines of Catholicism which were not life changing. I know that later when I was born again, that Jesus Christ changed my life and I became a new creature in Christ.
[/quote]

You should take this one step at a time since two issues need to be separated (baptism as salvific and infant baptism). However, once the former is properly understood it logically leads to the latter.

First, baptism does not always follow salvation since baptism is a part of salvation:

Acts 2:38: "Then Peter said unto them, [b]Repent, and be baptized[/b] every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [b]for the remission of sins[/b], and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Unless the remission of sins is not a part of salvation, sounds like your interpretation would do better if it tried to reach a complete understanding instead of ignoring texts that conflict with your view.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Budge]

[quote]

You should take this one step at a time since two issues need to be separated (baptism as salvific and infant baptism). However, once the former is properly understood it logically leads to the latter.[/quote]

Why do they need to be seperated? I dont see any two issues that need to be seperated.

Your sentences really are hard to read, they seem all convoluted like you are seeking to make things far more complicated then they really are.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Budge, your quote falls short in view of the command of Our Lord. He doesn't mention conversion before Baptism in Matthew 28. He mentions preaching and baptizing...and only those two. This is Christ's general instruction.

Now, it seems logical that adults must have faith to be baptized. Otherwise, they would not want to be baptized and the baptism would be invalid. Now, since only adults would understand the letters St. Paul was writing, and not infants, it makes sense to assume that his letters were addressed to the adults in the community. Since adults must will to be baptized, then it is understandable that he mentions repentance first, so that they may repent and, repentant, seek Baptism.

Now, this is not the case for infants. Infants cannot will as adults can. Therefore, they cannot repent (nor do infants have personal sins to repent). Nor can they claim Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. He is nevertheless their personal Lord and Savior regardless of whether or not they can ask for it. Now, as with every issue regarding infants in this life, the parents make the choice. This is also consistent with the Old Covenant. Infant boys never said, "I want to be in the Abrahamic covenant," and yet they were circumcized and regarded within the covenant. God seems to be saying that parents have that kind of authority over their children.

Now, since Christ Himself mentions Baptism and nothing else, that must be the most important instrument of salvation.

Further, no one can argue that children were not supposed to be baptized. The Church is being conservative baptizing them in the first place...God said to baptize "every living creature." That includes babies.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040958' date='Aug 10 2006, 11:23 AM']
Why do they need to be seperated? I dont see any two issues that need to be seperated.

Your sentences really are hard to read, they seem all convoluted like you are seeking to make things far more complicated then they really are.
[/quote]

How about Acts 2:38 -- can you understand that? Or is the KJV translation "really hard to read"? I figure you'd be KJV only. My mistake.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Yo Budgie! (and anyone else wanting to dismiss the validity of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium in keeping the Deposit of Faith...)

Gots a question fer ya....Which Gospel was Paul's favorite?

answer below:
























None of them! They weren't even written until after he was dead! So...how did the early Church transmit the teachings of Christ until they were written?

Answer: orally....in other words...TRADITION! duh....


Next question: How many books did Jesus put into the Bible?

Answer: none! He wrote NOTHING DOWN that has survived. The canon was developed over time, in accordance with SACRED TRADITION (there's that T word again...) and the books that were incloded in the Bible were finalized centuries AFTER the death of the Apostles.

One more fer ya: So who decided what books made it into the Bible?

Answer: the MAGISTERIUM of the Church, assisted by the SACRED TRADITION of the entire Church. Bet ya didn't know that more books were rejected than accepted into the Bible...


Last question: how can you proclaim to know the fullness of SCRIPTURE, when you reject the TRADITION that wrote it, and the MAGISTERIUM that interpreted it to put it together into the BIBLE?

Answer: ya can't unless yer blind, crazy, or have very faulty logic


BTW - don't even get me started on the 'Apocrypha'...Luther and his contemporaries also wanted to throw out James and Revelation, ....guess ya gotta be a Cafeteria Christian to make sense of that one....

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040872' date='Aug 10 2006, 10:35 AM']That is definitely saying that the church is superior to scriptures.
[font="Arial Black"]
95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, [u]sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.[/u] Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."[/font]
[/quote]Actually, taking the words at face value, it is not saying that the Church is superior to Holy Scriptures. It says that they all work together, guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040918' date='Aug 10 2006, 12:19 PM']The problem here is you folks believe it is the baptism that makes on born again when it is not.

Throughout the Bible, baptism always FOLLOWED salvation.

There is NOT one infant in the entire Bible being baptized.

Newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins.

[font="Lucida Console"]Act 8:12 [u]But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,[/u] they were baptized, both men and women.[/font]

I was baptized when I was nine days old, as a catholic, I was NOT born again whatsoever. I did not know God in my heart, and was only taught the false doctrines of Catholicism which were not life changing. I know that later when I was born again, that Jesus Christ changed my life and I became a new creature in Christ.
[/quote]
"Baptism now saves you". So says St. Peter. Not "Baptism followed by salvation", not "Baptism followed by good works", not "Baptism followed by faith", but "Baptism now saves you".

In other words, there is something about the rite of Baptism itself that communicates whatever it is that "saves" you.

You say that "newborn infants cannot repent, believe, or confess their sins". But here, you become what you condemn, a Christian who believes in salvation through works. Is God's grace not free? Can he not save a child before they are able to do anything? Or must they make themselves righteous before he can communicate his saving grace to them?

Perhaps, just perhaps, he chooses to save them first, and after saving them, to sanctify them. Do some fall away after he saves them? Of course. St. Paul already warned about this:

[quote]Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, ...let us strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.

--Hebrews 4[/quote]
Faith precedes baptism for an adult in the same way an engagement precedes a wedding. Because an adult has rational faculties, he is must first choose whether he wants to be saved or not, the same way someone must choose whether they want to get married or not. But until the actual ceremony, you are not married, and until you are baptized, you are not saved, or so says St. Peter in his epistle. But nobody asks children if they want what is good for them. Nobody asks an infant if he wants food, nobody asks a toddler if he wants vegetables. They give it to them because they know that is what is good for them, that is what is needed.

The wonder of God's grace is that it is SO free that he has given us a means to communicate it before someone can even ask for it. He chooses to save us first, THEN sanctify us. Baptism is the planting of the seed. Without the seed, there is no plant to grow. The planting of the seed (baptism) comes before all else, and then God lets that plant grow. Through a person's own fault, they may let that seed wither away and die, but God is willing to take that chance, because he came that we might have life, and have it to the full.
[quote]And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.

--Mark 10[/quote]
Interestingly, in this passage, Jesus does not ask the little children for their permission to lay his hand of blessing upon them.

God bless.

[Aloysius]

The bible claims entire families were baptized: this includes their children of all ages. The middle eastern culture did not have your modern american attitude towards personal choice: if a man was converted to Christ and saved then he must have his wife and children saved as well; and so it was conducted from the earliest days of the church.

It has always been an abuse to postpone baptism. Like Constantine who knew he couldn't live up to it so he didn't want to be baptized until his death bed. But good Christians who trusted the Lord's command of baptizing all nations and salvation coming from being born of water and the spirit baptized their children as early as possible.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1041038' date='Aug 10 2006, 02:24 PM']
Actually, taking the words at face value, it is not saying that the Church is superior to Holy Scriptures. It says that they all work together, guided by the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]
exactly

it doesn't say it's superior to scriptures.

i asked you to quote where it says it's superior to scriptres.

i told you, that you wouldn't be able to find it.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040918' date='Aug 10 2006, 10:19 AM']
There is NOT one infant in the entire Bible being baptized.
[/quote]

Well, duh, in order to have infant baptism, the parents have to first be Christians, right? So you have to start somewhere, right? And Aloysius posted that entire famlies were baptized.


[quote name='Budge' post='1040918' date='Aug 10 2006, 10:19 AM']
Newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins.
[/quote]

OK, what sins did newborns commit, and if they died, would they go to hell? (EVERYONE: please let BUDGE answer this! I want to hear his (her?) answer)

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1041185' date='Aug 10 2006, 06:23 PM']
(EVERYONE: please let BUDGE answer this! I want to hear his (her?) answer)
[/quote]
i'm itching to answer this.

but i too would like to hear his response.

i guess i'll just wait

Edited August 11, 2006 by ReinnieR

[Justified Saint]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't hear anymore from her on this thread. Once the serious rebuttals and evidence start piling up, its like a great escape act -- cut and run!

That is typical behavior for a troll (aka internet terrorist).