All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Infant baptism
Views: 1063
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Sharon,
No disrespect, but all that you have stated is basically a repost of the same information using different sources to post that material again that is not proof, but assumptions. I have said my piece and see us now beginning to go in circles. I am not interested in circular debate and thus will step aside unless something new comes up.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
Permalink Reply by Yael Levi-Bénédict on
-
Great point Sharon!
-
-
Permalink Reply by ScribeD on
-
Yael, here is the problem: when you begin to reduce or remove the primacy of Scripture, (or to hold up anything at an equal level) you open the door to heresy and watering down of the The Faith at every level. Papal dogmas and church writings are replete with contradictions, both to themselves and to Scripture. Yet, they are held up as equal (and even superior) to Scripture.
Consider just one: Papal statements condemned Galileo for opposing "church" authority and the "church's" position on the nature of the orbits of planets. The Pope would have had Galileo put to death, if he could. But the "church authority" was wrong, however. They were wrong in regard to Columbus also. Scripture never said anything about the earth being flat, not about earth being the center of the universe - instead the Bible reveals facts that are consistent with science today. There are numerous statements in Scripture that show the Bible revealing that Earth is a sphere hanging in empty space and that the earth travels. Had the Pope simply been familiar with his Bible, he would never have condemned Galileo.
Man-made teachings do not match up to Scripture. Do not trust them. Trust in the Word of God.
-
-
-
Hi Scribe,
I am not following man-made rules. I simply do not subscribe to the anarquism of sola scriptura, where every individual can claim to have their own 'correct-free-of-error' interpretation, rather than submitting to an authoritative body ( such as intended by Jesus) as their teaching guide.
On your comment: Papal dogmas and church writings are replete with contradictions, both to themselves and to Scripture. Yet, they are held up as equal (and even superior) to Scripture.
This only proves that you either haven't read the catholic teachings and are making a statement based on pre-conceived ideas, or if you have read, you have not devoted enough time/efford to really study them.
-
-
-
Actually, Yael, it's you who are mistaken. If you are not aware of the contradictions then you haven't really read much of Papal writings and Roman Catholic Councils. Vatican II completely threw out so many "hallowed" practices of the Catholic church that it still has many Roman Catholics very hacked off. Some refuse to accept it. The decisions of the Council of Trent would make your hair light on fire.
Believe it or not, I have a library full of Catholic books and writings. None of them ever led me to the light, as the Bible did. I'm no expert, but I have a fairly sound understanding of a good portion of them.
Furthermore, Scripture is the Word of God. This is either true, or the entire Christian faith is a sham. Papal Bulls and Vatican councils can never be held to such a standard. Anyone familiar with the Bible would rather be lit on fire than accept the traditions of the church above and over the Word of God.
There are two things that Christianity rests on as absolutes:
1. The Resurrection.
2. The unique and special Divine Inspiration of sacred scripture.
If you don't understand that these two things are the cornerstone and the keystone of Christianity, then you have been instructed incorrectly.
In so far as any Church Father or Catholic Priest of the Catholic church agrees with Scripture, we will have agreement. As soon as they try to modify, or improve their teachings in favor of another tradition, I depart. I stand with the Word and the Word alone if necessary.
I pray for you that you will come to such conviction. My faith rests entirely on the Word. Nothing else. If every person departs from this, I will not. If I have a belief that Scripture corrects, I will alter my belief (I have done so many times).
I can tell you this: there is a dark night of the soul that comes to everyone who chooses to live in Christ. It is a point where you walk through the valley of the shadow of death, on your own, where you can find nothing to hold on to and nothing to comfort you in this world. If you rely, in that moment, on the words of other people to strengthen your faith and give you hope, you are lost and may not return. Your soul becomes the property of another - either the institution or some philosopher, and often of the devil himself. If you don't believe me, read Mother Teresa's diary.
Only the Word of God can shepherd you through that time and give you the strength to know that you know that you know who your Savior is. Nothing else and no one else will give you strength, no other power can save you in that moment. When you come through that, you will either be pure as gold or as useless as dross.
If you could only understand how many priests and nuns and lay people I have met who have come from the Roman institution, who once trusted in the Pope as their mediator; who then finally came to really and truly trust in Christ, the Christ of the Word of God. People who became "born again" by Holy Spirit. I have heard them tell me in tears "I thought I was a believer" and "I trusted in the institution of the Roman Church", only to find that they [Vatican and the Pope] were no more qualified to shepherd me than a blind man is qualified to lead another blind man.
It is the Word of God that is the light that guides you through that dark night. God so identifies with his Word that one entire Gospel account speaks of The Son of God as being "The Word" incarnate [become human flesh]. Do you see what I am saying? The Bible is your Savior. Not Rome. Not the priest, not the early Fathers. Not your teachers, no mere human. You are saved as you agree and trust and obey the word of God, or you are lost. Period.
Show me one Priest who walks in the power of the Spirit, who has actually been the instrument of a miracle in the Name of Jesus and I'll talk with him. I'll guarantee you, he would be one who walks and lives in the Word. And I'll guarantee you: he has been reprimanded for teaching and following the word.
You are right, though: Scripture is a blueprint for anarchy - and anarchy of the Spirit, against the kingdoms of the flesh. God is a radical transformer who empowers the weak against the strong. He chooses foolish people and makes them wise, and takes the outcasts to make them leaders. God does not wait for the agreement of organizations of men to approve His plans. He confounds the thinking of "the wise" and casts them out.
Go, dear Yael and learn of Jesus. Read him, without trusting Blind Men to tell you what Jesus means. Read Jesus, read His Word and let it transform you.
Forget about all of this other nonsense.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Sharon Theresa Theil on
-
Amanda,
You clarified that for me and truly thank you. I was like...huh? Jesus is the only Savior! It makes perfect sense now. In fact, I'm going just delete that post because it is very uncharitable.
Sharon
-
-
-
Sharon, there are so many ways and so many places that this is confirmed in Scripture, it amazes me that you don't understand it. Would it offend you less if I said “The Bible is God”?
Please Sharon, I plead with you... read these quotes from the Bible about itself!
Matthew 7:24-2824 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
Luke 8:11-15This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.
Luke 8:18Therefore consider carefully how you listen.
Proverbs 30:5“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever.”
Jeremiah 13:10These wicked people, who refuse to listen to my words, who follow the stubbornness of their hearts and go after other gods...
Matthew 4:4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”
Luke 11:28He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Luke 8:21He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
John 1:1 (excerpted for emphasis)“...the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made...”
John 1:14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Can you not see? Can you not understand, Sharon? It's not me that you are banging your head against! It's the Word of God that you are disagreeing with!!
Jeremiah 13:10
These wicked people, who refuse to listen to my words, who followthe stubbornness of their hearts and go after other gods...
-
-
-
Scribe,
I sincerely apologize for my rude and impertinent post. I truly admire your passion for Sacred Scripture and for Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us walk together in peace.
Sharon
-
-
-
Hi LT,
Thanks for your comments.
1- The word for household in Greek is OIKOS and it refers to a household made up of parents, children and servants or slaves, if any. Now, I cannot prove that the oikos mentioned in the bible had any children or infants in them, but I would like to ask you the same question: Can you prove that there weren't any children?
All I can do is use reason and common sense to ponder on this issue, keeping in mind that we are talking 2000 years ago. Marriages of those days had the basic purpose of constituting a family, unlike modern society where people, sometimes not even of the same sex, don't get married but just move-in together for a number of reasons other than forming a family. Those people we read about in Scriptures, especially converted jews, considered marriage a covenant and having a child to be a blessing, something that they would hope and pray for. Marital relations among religious jews implied procreation.9Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
2- I am sorry I am not sure which passage I used either, as there are so many... Anyhow, you objected to Col 2: 11-12 because you are concerned about the issue of faith, which I think is unfortunate because this is an argument often used for the rejection of infant baptism that was based on the secular philosophy of the sixteenth century, which assured man's individuality, and was not the result of a new Scriptural inquiry.
However, since you don't accept history as a base for any argumentation in matters of religion, let us recourse to Scriptures to verify if indeed God, by his power and might, could or would enable an infant to receive the gift of faith:
"Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breast." (Psalm 22:9) - Here God is causing an breasfeading infant to trust, to believe.
"And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42) - Here we are warned if we cause a child to stumble ( in his/her faith) we will be held accountable
"For behold, when the sound of your greeting [Theotokos] reached my ears [Elizabeth], the baby [John the Baptist] leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:44) - Here we see the Holy Spirit of God working on both mother and baby, who through faith are respectivelly prompted to praise God and leap with joy.
3- The Graces of Baptism: The Gift of the Holy Spirit. I would not dismiss all other Scriptures that confirm baptismal graces because Cornellius, alike the Apostles, was empowered and fortified in his faith by the Holy Spirit more than once!
Remember, before Pentecost the Lord breathed onto the Apostles and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit, those whose sins you forgive are forgiven...."Then at Pentecos they received the Holy Spirit yet again... Does it mean that before Pentecost they had no faith, or that that had not been baptized? I am confused! I've presented various passages where it is clearly stated things such as "baptism now saves you..., be baptized for the forgiveness of sin..., you have been baried with Christ in baptism..., etc...
Therefore, I wouldn't cling onto this because both the catholic and orthodox churches have what they call the profession of faith, or Chrism, which takes place at age 12 and the child professes faith in Jesus as Lord and fully receives the gifts of the spirit...
4- Given all the arguments I've already presented in this forum I could ask you the same thing: Please show me ONE verse that clearly says it is forbiden, wrong or not acceptable to baptize infants OR that anything said in Scripture about baptism is NOT applicable to infants!
To mind mind those in favor of Infant baptism have a strong case LT, lets face it!
All you can argue is that infants can't make an act of faith (which I have already refuted). I can counter-argue that if Baptism is the New Circumcision, as Paul CLEARLY says it is, then alike circumcised babies, baptized babies are not required to make an act of faith. The faith of the parents are enough for God to include the infant in His convenant!
You can argue that there isn't a verse perscribing infant baptism. I can counter-argue that there is no clear reference but strong evidence (the household point) that says it does!
Then I can present the early fathers writtings. And you have nothing else!
- Origen's (185-254 A.D.) view of baptism is direct and transparent:
"For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit."
- Polycarp stated at his martyrdom (167/8 A.D.) that he had been in the "service of Christ" for eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from Polycarp's life make it likely that eighty-six years was his age from birth. Joachim Jeremias, in The Origins of Infant Baptism, concludes the following from these facts: "This shows at any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. If his parents were pagans at his birth, he would have been baptized with the 'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' support a baptism soon after his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years'...for which there is no evidence at all."
- Justin Martyr gives still another testimony to the practice of infant baptism by stating that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age had been disciples of Christ from childhood.
- A very early Christian teacher, Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), wrote the following:
"He came to save all through Himself-all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord."
Thanks for debating and God Bless!
Yael
-
-
-
Yael,
Thank you for being civil in this discussion, though we do not agree in this area.
1- The word for household in Greek is OIKOS and it refers to a household made up of parents, children and servants or slaves, if any. Now, I cannot prove that the oikos mentioned in the bible had any children or infants in them, but I would like to ask you the same question: Can you prove that there weren't any children?
I do not have to prove they were not present. I have all of Scripture to draw from and find the absence and silence regarding such an important doctrine alarming. The Bible clearly shows adults being baptized after professing faith, but where is there clear and compelling evidence from Scripture that they baptized infants? How can one build a doctrine when there is an absence of at least one proof verse?
All I can do is use reason and common sense to ponder on this issue, keeping in mind that we are talking 2000 years ago. Marriages of those days had the basic purpose of constituting a family, unlike modern society where people, sometimes not even of the same sex, don't get married but just move-in together for a number of reasons other than forming a family. Those people we read about in Scriptures, especially converted jews, considered marriage a covenant and having a child to be a blessing, something that they would hope and pray for. Marital relations among religious jews implied procreation.I am not debating whether they had kids before or after the text we read in Scripture, but whether one can prove an infant or child too young to understand the message was present at that given time.
2- I am sorry I am not sure which passage I used either, as there are so many... Anyhow, you objected to Col 2: 11-12 because you are concerned about the issue of faith, which I think is unfortunate because this is an argument often used for the rejection of infant baptism that was based on the secular philosophy of the sixteenth century, which assured man's individuality, and was not the result of a new Scriptural inquiry.
Please give me several of the text that make the specific point your were driving at. I am not arguing 16th century philosophy. I am addressing your view based on the Word of God. The issue of faith is of upmost importance. Understanding where baptism fits in regarding faith is a core issue in this discussion. No one is saved without faith. Faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Baptism before one is saved serves no valid purpose, nor supported by Scripture. Even the baptisms that John performed was a baptism of repentance.
However, since you don't accept history as a base for any argumentation in matters of religion, let us recourse to Scriptures to verify if indeed God, by his power and might, could or would enable an infant to receive the gift of faith:
"Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breast." (Psalm 22:9) - Here God is causing an breasfeading infant to trust, to believe.
This verse speaks of predestination, not baptism. At the time this psalm was penned by David I assume He is old enough to know the Lord and to see God’s hand at work throughout his life. Now, explain how God calling David to fulfill His purpose opens the door for the church to baptize infants?
"And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42) - Here we are warned if we cause a child to stumble ( in his/her faith) we will be held accountable
How does this tie into baptism? How little are the little ones who are recognized as one’s who “believe?” If they believe, then they are not trusting in the faith of another.
“For behold, when the sound of your greeting [Theotokos] reached my ears [Elizabeth], the baby [John the Baptist] leaped in my womb for joy.” (Luke 1:44) – Here we see the Holy Spirit of God working on both mother and baby, who through faith are respectivelly prompted to praise God and leap with joy.
Again, how does this tie into baptism. John was predestined to be the one born to go before the Lord calling in the dessert. An angel came and made this proclamation. Is John an example of everyday birth, or the unique work of God to fulfill His plan? In fact, this text speaks against one of your views. You see the Holy Spirit being given at baptism, but John is being moved by the Spirit of God.
3- The Graces of Baptism: The Gift of the Holy Spirit. I would not dismiss all other Scriptures that confirm baptismal graces because Cornellius, alike the Apostles, was empowered and fortified in his faith by the Holy Spirit more than once!
Did he receive a gift of the Holy Spirit before He was baptized?
Remember, before Pentecost the Lord breathed onto the Apostles and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit, those whose sins you forgive are forgiven...."Then at Pentecos they received the Holy Spirit yet again... Does it mean that before Pentecost they had no faith, or that that had not been baptized?
What is the purpose of Pentecost? Why were they told to tarry?
4- Given all the arguments I've already presented in this forum I could ask you the same thing: Please show me ONE verse that clearly says it is forbiden, wrong or not acceptable to baptize infants OR that anything said in Scripture about baptism is NOT applicable to infants!
The question is not can one baptize an infant, but of what value before God would there be in doing something that is not commanded in Scripture to do? Many today are baptized as an infant believing that is good enough, but the Scripture speaks clearly about baptism that follows faith and is an act of personal faith.
To mind mind those in favor of Infant baptism have a strong case LT, lets face it!
It is your opinion that you have a strong case. We have strongly rejected your view and put up Scriptural reasoning to refute the position, while at the same time giving Scriptural backing for baptism following faith.
All you can argue is that infants can't make an act of faith (which I have already refuted).
You have not refuted anything. You gave two verses that show God using two people whom He predestined to fulfill specific Biblical prophecy. How does this tie into infants being baptized?
I can counter-argue that if Baptism is the New Circumcision, as Paul CLEARLY says it is, then alike circumcised babies, baptized babies are not required to make an act of faith.
Your argument fails because you think that circumcision required in the Old Testament is in every way similar to the New Covenant teaching. In this assumption you see the 8th day being the answer in both covenants when no such teaching is revealed. You miss an important aspect in the OC compared to the NC. A child was born into the nation of Israel and the mark identified them as part of that family line. A child today is not born-again until they come to faith and are actually born-again. Then they take on the new family name. We may be born to Christian parents, but we are not part of the family of God until we are born-again. Then we are baptized. At this point let me ask this, do you believe that the church has replace Israel?
The faith of the parents are enough for God to include the infant in His convenant!
You can argue that there isn't a verse perscribing infant baptism. I can counter-argue that there is no clear reference but strong evidence (the household point) that says it does!
You misuse the English language here. You do not have strong evidence, you have assumptions.
Then I can present the early fathers writtings. And you have nothing else!
The Word of God and the Holy Spirit have always been enough and will always be enough.
Lord Bless,
LT -
-
-
Hi LT,
A- You said: I do not have to prove they were not present. I have all of Scripture to draw from and find the absence and silence regarding such an important doctrine alarming. The Bible clearly shows adults being baptized after professing faith, but where is there clear and compelling evidence from Scripture that they baptized infants?
B - Then you said: The Word of God and the Holy Spirit have always been enough and will always be enough.
C- And: You misuse the English language here. You do not have strong evidence, you have assumptions.
D - And: The Word of God and the Holy Spirit have always been enough and will always be enough.
I will start with the statement C and define the word evidence in English - although this is not my native language, diccionaries are at hand:
Evidence according to most diccionaries mean:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
2- Signs or indications of something
Now let us look at the word assumption:
1- The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; supposition; unwarrantable claim.
I believe what I have been trying to do is to provide 'evidence' rather than take things for granted, or assume them. I tried to provide various verses and explain my understanding of them, which by the way did not come out of my own mind, but through the reading of major scholars and ancient Christians on those Scriptures. I have NO intention to come up with my own personal doctrines. I want to be guided in my new faith by those with authority to do so.
Therefore, since the scriptural 'evidence' that I have used in this discussion seem to have been compelling enough for Christians in earlier times, the problem here may be a matter of interpretation or judgement, I don't know. But we should keep in mind that in those days - I mean before Bible Alone or Anabaptism were 'invented' - Christians were also listening to the elders/fathers - which as shown, did teach infant baptism -and not only submitting to what they could 'prove' with scriptures.
Then on statement B you seem to imply that I am neglecting or ignoring Scriptures to make my case, which is not correct. I love scriptures and revere them as the word of God, so what is written there is imperative for building up and guiding my faith. This is why I said that apart from Scriptures I also had the writtings of the fathers to support my views, because I did use scriptures to motivate my point and you didn't accept them as valid.
The main difference between how you and I read the word of God may be that I read something like this:
“If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized”. (Acts2:38)
And I ponder: Well, here Peter is saying: If you (who are listening to me) repent (of your sins) you get yourself and those who are part of you (your children) and yours ( your servants/slaves) baptized. In this sentence he is implying that repentence is for those he is talking to, but he is not indicating that they should go home and wait until their children are mature enough to repent and then get baptized. He didn't say that! He said: "If YOU repent, get your children and servants baptized". Meaning, those over whom you have authority and are responsible for.
But you seem to be looking for something like this: If you repent, be baptized and baptize your children and family/servants.
For instance, when I read about the jailer who converted, for exemple, I think: OK, he was a poor jailer and he and all his were baptized, this could mean that he, along with at least another two persons, were baptized. Since he was poor it was unlikely that he had any servants, so the two other people could be a wife and a child or children in case all his meant more then two persons.
So I think, surely his family was baptized and it is likely, that there were children among them.
Then I look at the case of Lydia. She also baptized with her household, which again, most likely included kids, because people in those day did not practice contraception and marriage meant having children.
And I think, well this may well be an evidence of baptism of children and infants. What did the ancient church say about it? Then, I read their writtings, such as the one quoted below and indeed I find evidence that they did baptize kids:
Origen: I take this occasion to discuss something which our brothers often inquire about. Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Of what kinds? Or when did they sin? But since "No one is exempt from stain," one removes the stain by the mystery of baptism. For this reason infants are baptized. For "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." (Homily on Luke 14:5).
Then I conclude: Well, infant baptism is not an 'invention' of Catholics, as Scribe put it. But just something that people believed in before the reformation or more precisely, before anabaptism thinking!
Then if one invests more time looking for historical data one will find out that there are countless infant graves in Europe, especially in Rome, where people would write:
Sweet Tyche lived one year, ten months, fifteen days, Received [grace] on the eighth day before the Kalends. Gave up [her soul] on the same day. (Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, Vol. I number 1531)
Irene who lived with her parents ten months and six days received [grace] seven days before the Ides of April and gave up [her soul] on the Ides of April. (ILCV I:1532)
To Proiecto, *neophyte infant, who lived two years seven months.
The word baptism was sometimes was substituted by "received grace," "made a believer" or "neophyte" (newly planted "used to mean "newly baptized") - Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries; Revised Edition (Abilene: ACU Press, 1984) .
Then you went on saying: How can one build a doctrine when there is an absence of at least one proof verse?
This is not true. Sharon and I have presented many verses to make our point. As explained above.Then on Statement D - You proudly say that the word of God and the Holy Spirit have always been and will will always be enough for you. This sounds very pious and noble, but not practical, since no book even the bible is self-explanatory. But more than that, because the Bible itself does not claim to contain the entire Revelation:
25Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25
12“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. John 16: 12-13
And since there are so many conflicting views within protestant branches we can use reason to conclude that all those speaking contradictory to one another cannot possibly be being guided by the Spirit of Truth, since there is ONE truth!
Finally, on circumsicion you said "Your argument fails because you think that circumcision required in the Old Testament is in every way similar to the New Covenant teaching."
You are mistaken, I do not think that the circumcision required in the Old Testament is in every way similar to the New Covenant teaching, I think circumcision is a prefeguration of Baptism as a mean of entering a New covenant with God. Before one entered it as part of a Nation of God, after that one enters this covenant as member of the family of God, as adopted children.
And to save space on this forum, allow me to answer Scribe:
1- I do not regard the father's writting as equivalent to Scriptures. I regard them as evidence for ancient christians practices, also called apostolic teachings.
2- I am not saying scriptures are insuficient regarding infant baptism. I am saying that they only provide evidence for it, but not proof. Alike in the case of the Holy Trinity.
3- Baptims by immersion or srpinkling. I cannot speak for all churches, but in the case of the Catholic church, Catechism says that the preferred way is by immersion, but sprinkling is just as valid:
1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head. (CCC 1239)
[Prophecy] Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. Ezekiel 36:25
God bless!
3-
-
-
-
Yael,
We still disagree. You are making assumptions and have not provided any proof regardign this topic. As I said to Sharon, we have entered into circular debate. I have said my piece and have nothing further to say unless you present something new or of value to discuss.
BTW, in the definition you left out what they considered proof. It would be helpful if you gave the whole definition:
ev·i·dence
( µv"¹-d…ns) n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. Law ev·i·denced ev·i·denc·ing ev·i·denc·es 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove. 2. To support by testimony; attest.
Idioms: in evidence 1.
Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets. 2. Law ¶videntia ¶vid¶ns ¶vident-obvious; See evident ] from Latin As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence. [Middle English from Old French from Late Latin The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. v. tr. (American Heritage Dictionary)Lord Bless,
LT
-
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
