"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
If you don't know what my point is, then please see Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17 for clarification.Byblos wrote:Don't know what your point is. 'of such' includes the 'of such' it references, i.e. children themselves. Otherwise the comparison is meaningless and contradictory.
Fortigurn wrote:If you don't know what my point is, then please see Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17 for clarification.Byblos wrote:Don't know what your point is. 'of such' includes the 'of such' it references, i.e. children themselves. Otherwise the comparison is meaningless and contradictory.
Mark 10:15 wrote: 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
What is clear is that one must be like a child to enter the kingdom of God. You take it to mean to the exclusion of children, which contradicts the premise of the statement. I do not see it that way.Luke 18:17 wrote:17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
All they say is that adults repented and were baptized. You ignore the fact that their entire households were baptized, and nothing is said of their repentance. It does not say that "true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith". Those are your words only.Fortigurn wrote:I see. Exactly what do those quotes mean then?puritan lad wrote:You gave nothing that said that "true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith". You simply assumed this.I already gave a list of quotes.
No you haven't. You only assumed thisFortigurn wrote: But I have given positive evidence against it. I have given:
* Evidence that baptism requires repentance and faith
...and their households.Fortigurn wrote:* Evidence that adults were baptized subsequent to confession
...and their households. Why is that so hard for you to understand? When one became a believer in the Bible, the entire household was in Covenant with God. In the OT, they were circumcised. In the NT, they were baptized.You would only need a single instance in the Bible of infant baptism to ruin my case, but you cannot find any. You would only need a single instance of the apostles teaching that infants are to be baptized, or that belief in the gospel, repentance and faith are unnecessary for baptism.
But overwhelmingly we find the opposite. We find all the evidence for faith and repentance preceding valid baptism, and no evidence for anyone being validly baptized without faith or repentance.
It 's a legitimate question. You claim that infants should not be baptized. How about a 1-year old? 2? 3? What's the magical age? How come the Bible doesn't mention the age.When why all those questions about which age children can be baptized at?
However, there is nothing in the Bible that says that all who have been baptized need to have repented...
Peter means exactly what he said. Did he make a mistake when he baptized Simon Magus? Peter did not say that "all who are baptized must have repented", or else the apostles would not have practiced household baptism.What do you think those quotes mean? When Peter said 'Repent and be baptized', did he really mean 'Some of you have to repent and be baptized, but some of you don't, and actually the whole thing's pretty optional'?
...(though with adults, I'll agree that there needs to be a profession of faith).
Adults...and their households. Now please show me a scripture that says that believing adults should not have their children baptized,On what basis do you acknowledge this is the case with adults, but insist that baptism does not require this of infants? Which passages can you provide which say that knowledge of the gospel, repentance and faith, are unnecessary for baptism? Where in the Bible is a distinction drawn between infants being baptized and adults, the way you distinguish between them?
You missed the point. If circumcision represents the same things that baptism does, on what basis do you allow infants one and not the other?You're comitting a logical fallacy here. Circumcision is representative of the same things which baptism is representative. That does not mean that those being baptized should be baptized under the same circumstances as those who were circumsized. We are told no such thing.
It is NT Circumcision. In the NT, it is applied to females as well, and I'm sure you are aware of.In any case, if you were right then only male babies would be baptized, and on the eighth day. But you don't want to believe that baptism 'is the NT Circumcision', you just want to pick and choose.
Where are the women Fortigurn? I don't see them. Please give a specific quote.Sure, Acts 2:44-46, and if you want to get really specific 1 Corinthians 11.Can you give me a specific example in the Bible where a woman was admitted to the Lord's Supper?
We're going around in circles here. Are you sure that there were no infants in the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16), or is that merely your assumption. It the Bible required a confession of faith for all members of a household before baptism, why does it not specifically say so?But I am not making an argument from silence. I have not argued 'infant baptism is wrong because there are no records of infants being baptized in the Bible'. I have pointed out that this is negative evidence, but I have also provided the positive evidence against the case.
You need to show me where they can't be born again. How do they get that way? The same way as everyone else, by the election of a sovereign God.I didn't ask you to show me that they need to be born again, I asked you to show me in the Bible where they are born again. Where are all the passages speaking of 'born again infants', and how they get that way?
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Romans 3:19)By the way, you're wresting those two passages, neither of which say that infants 'are sinful and evil, even before they are born'. The Bible says very plainly that sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), that sin is not imputed where there is no law (Romans 5:13), and that where there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:14). God does not condemn as transgressors those who have never known or transgressed His law.
That is the only way they can get to heaven, like David's infant did? Do you want to go in that direction?
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:28-29)Please show me where we are told that David's infant went to heaven. David went to where his infant went, and Peter tells us clearly that David did not go to heaven. The infant went into the darkness and silence of the grave, as Job says stillborns do.
Illegimate??? The couple is married. The Bible says that are "holy" (hagios), not "legitimate". They are legimate as long as the parents are married.* Verse 14: If it were not the case, your children would be illegitimate (not 'your children would burn in hell'), the issue is whether or not the children are considered legitimate, not saved
How many years later? Why was Elijah "plainly still alive and on the earth" when the letter reached Jehoram?2 Kings 2:11 says that Elijah was taken away into the sky in a whirlwind, but does not say that he ascended bodily into the place where God dwells. The sons of the prophets were certain that he had been taken away somewhere by God, but said nothing of him going to the heaven where God dwells (and neither did Elisha). Furthermore, Elijah sent a letter to king Jehoram years afterwards, so he was plainly still alive and on the earth (2 Chronicles 21:12).
Says Who?Another problem for you is that entry into the Kingdom of heaven takes place at the return of Christ, not before.
Maybe, my dear cultist, you can tell me. It's pretty clear what the Bible says. The Spirit returns to God until the resurrection. God doesn't want our breath.Really?Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are there now (Matthew 8:11).
Where does it say they are there now?Matthew 8:
11 I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,
Really? Prove it. Hell has ALWAYS been the teaching of the church. You, of all people, should know that. And there is no fire in any grave I've ever seen, but there was in Hell (Hades) tormenting the rich man (and not because he was rich, but that is another debate).As an aside, since hADES can mean 'the grave', you cannot assume that when it is used it means 'hell'. In this case it doesn't mean 'hell' either, because hell is a later Christian invention.
I guess Judas will be relieved to find out that Jesus was lying to him in Matthew 26:24. Annihilationism was the invention of Arnobius is the 4th Century, amazingly about the time Arius started his "Jesus is not God" nonsense. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun, even with heresies.Yes it's eternal punishment (the punishment lasts forever), but it is not eternal torment. It is eternal destruction, for Christ tells us that Gehenna is the place where body and soul are destroyed (Matthew 10:28).
The point is that Jews and Greeks both believed in a place of eternal punishment, thus Peter, John, and Jesus would have been purposely deceiving them if it were not so.* Homer's Odyssey and Plato's Gorgias (texts written in Greece 500-600 years prior to the New Testament era)
* The LXX (texts written by Jews 300 years prior to the New Testament era, and used by the New Testament writers)
Seriously, which are the relevant texts?
Then there's Cornelius and his household. I wonder if babies were speaking in tongues?Jac3510 wrote:PL - wrt households, what about Acts 18:8, "Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized." (NIV) Did infants believe?
As I have said, you are interpreting the texts backwards. First we must find out the conditions for baptism. Then we can determine who met them. You are assuming certain conditions for baptism from silence (or rather a lack of conditions for baptism), and then attempting to interpret these explicit statements as something other than what they say.puritan lad wrote:All they say is that adults repented and were baptized. You ignore the fact that their entire households were baptized, and nothing is said of their repentance.
When Christ says 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved, and he who believes not will be condemned', how do you interpret that?It does not say that "true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith". Those are your words only.
Scripture please.Why is that so hard for you to understand? When one became a believer in the Bible, the entire household was in Covenant with God. In the OT, they were circumcised. In the NT, they were baptized.
Yes, I gave them to you.Now do you have any scriptures that tell us that infants should not be baptized?
I have already been through this. It is not dependent on age, it is dependent on faith in Christ and repentance. If your 3 month old has faith in Christ, believes the gospel and repents, then baptize them straight away, I won't complain.It 's a legitimate question. You claim that infants should not be baptized. How about a 1-year old? 2? 3? What's the magical age? How come the Bible doesn't mention the age.
Great, so the answer to 'What must we do?' is 'Repent and be baptized'.Peter means exactly what he said.
No, because Simon believed. Are you suggeting that Simon was baptized without belief or repentance?Did he make a mistake when he baptized Simon Magus?
When the question is 'What must we do?', and the answer is 'Repent and be baptized', then how can you say that baptism does not require repentance?Peter did not say that "all who are baptized must have repented", or else the apostles would not have practiced household baptism.
Here's the problem - the passages speaking of households do not distinguish between infants and adults. They say nothing of infants at all. So I ask again, on what basis do you acknowledge this is the case with adults, but insist that baptism does not require this of infants?Adults...and their households.
Just because it represents the same thing (the cutting off of the flesh), does not mean that it is carried out in the same way.If circumcision represents the same things that baptism does, on what basis do you allow infants one and not the other?
Of course it's applied to females, which defeats your argument that it is the replacement of baptism.It is NT Circumcision. In the NT, it is applied to females as well, and I'm sure you are aware of.
I gave you a specific quote (Acts 2:44-46, all who believed). If you can't find the women in 1 Corinthians 11 you'd be the first commentator who can't (hint, start in verse 3).Where are the women Fortigurn? I don't see them. Please give a specific quote.
I am sure, because both Christ and the apostles taught that baptism is dependent on belief and repentance. Then there's the family of Cornelius, and the household of Crispus.Are you sure that there were no infants in the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16), or is that merely your assumption.
It requires a belief for each individual who is baptized. When Christ says 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved, and he who believes not will be condemned', how do you interpret that?It the Bible required a confession of faith for all members of a household before baptism, why does it not specifically say so?
Actually you're asking me to prove a negative, which is invalid. Not only that, but you haven't answered the question (of course, you can't). When you claim that infants can be born again, the onus is on you to prove your claim.You need to show me where they can't be born again.
Scripture please that 'the election of a sovereign God' is what saves, and not faith in Christ.How do they get that way? The same way as everyone else, by the election of a sovereign God.
Pretty clear to me also - those who are under the Law are guilty. This agrees with every verse I quoted (and I note you discussed none of them)."Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Romans 3:19)By the way, you're wresting those two passages, neither of which say that infants 'are sinful and evil, even before they are born'. The Bible says very plainly that sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), that sin is not imputed where there is no law (Romans 5:13), and that where there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:14). God does not condemn as transgressors those who have never known or transgressed His law.
Pretty clear to me...
Yes he was. The Law didn't apply to them of course, as Christians and Romans.Note: Paul was writing this to gentiles (Romans), in case you are wondering.
Ok, that shows people are judged when they are resurrected at the return of Christ, which is certainly what I believe (you don't, you believe they are already judged when they die)."Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:28-29)
They are legitimate as long as the marriage is considered legitimate by God. The issue under question (as I showed), was whether or not the converted believer was still considered legitimately married to the spouse who remained an unbeliever, and Paul says yes and the children are regarded as legitimate also.Illegimate??? The couple is married. The Bible says that are "holy" (hagios), not "legitimate". They are legimate as long as the parents are married.* Verse 14: If it were not the case, your children would be illegitimate (not 'your children would burn in hell'), the issue is whether or not the children are considered legitimate, not saved
Seven years, if I'm not mistaken.How many years later?
Because there's no mail service from heaven to earth.Why was Elijah "plainly still alive and on the earth" when the letter reached Jehoram?
Says the Bible.Says Who?Another problem for you is that entry into the Kingdom of heaven takes place at the return of Christ, not before.
The life breath returns to God until the resurrection. The life breath is in all flesh (including the animals). It is the 'breath of the spirit of life', it is not our oxygen. I've already shown that it goes to God at the death of all men (good or evil), and all animals, and it is certainly not an 'immortal soul'.t's pretty clear what the Bible says. The Spirit returns to God until the resurrection. God doesn't want our breath.
I believe you'll find that the teaching of the early Christians on the subject of what happens after death, as well as the issue of eschatological judgment, was far more diverses than you might think.Hell has ALWAYS been the teaching of the church. You, of all people, should know that.
"For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit the Truth of the resurrection and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls when they die are taken to heaven: do not imagine that they are Christians; just as one, if he would rightly consider it would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of the Genistae, Meristae, Galilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews, but are only called Jews, worshipping God with the lips, as God declared, but the heart was far from Him.
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.'
Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 80
Irenaeus:'Souls are not immortal, I do not say that all souls will die. Those of the pious will remain [after death] in a certain better place, and those of the unholy and wicked in a worse, all expecting the time of judgment.
In this manner, those which are worthy to appear before God never die; but the others are tormented so long as God wills that they should exist and be tormented. Whatever does or ever will exist in dependence on the will of God, is of a perishable nature, and can be annihilated so as to exist no longer. God alone is self-existent, and by his own nature imperishable, and therefore he is God; but all other things are begotten and corruptible. For which reason souls (of the wicked) both suffer punishment and die.'
Dialogue with Trypho
Hippolytus:Some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the prearranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption. They thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics, not admitting the salvation of their flesh, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens.
[...]
For they do not choose to understand, that if these things are as they say, the Lord Himself, in whom they profess to believe, did not rise again upon the third day; but immediately upon His expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on high, leaving His body to the earth.
But the case was, that for three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were, as the prophet says concerning Him: "And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them, to rescue and save them." And the Lord Himself says, "As Jonas remained three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth."
Against Heresies, Book V
It's late, but there's more. You cannot asset a monolithic believe in the modern doctrine of hell (as it stands today), in the early church.But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained.
Hades is a place in the created system, rude, a locality beneath the earth, in which the light of the world does not shine; and as the sun does not shine in this locality, there must necessarily be perpetual darkness there.
[...]
The righteous will obtain the incorruptible and unfading Kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous...
Thus far, then, on the subject of Hades, in which the souls of all are detained until the time God has determined; and then He will accomplish a resurrection of all, not by transferring souls into other bodies, but by raising the bodies themselves.'
Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe
I am not arguing that there is any fire in any grave. Certainly the Jews to whom that parable belonged believed that there was a place of firey torment, but it was in the same place as they believed everyone went - 'Hades' the underworld, not the later Christian 'hell'.And there is no fire in any grave I've ever seen, but there was in Hell (Hades) tormenting the rich man (and not because he was rich, but that is another debate).
Er, what has Matthew 26:24 to do with anihilation?I guess Judas will be relieved to find out that Jesus was lying to him in Matthew 26:24.
Christ beat Arnobius to it - he tells us that Gehenna is the place where body and soul are destroyed (Matthew 10:28). I guess that makes him the first heretic. But of course there were anihilationists prior to that (look at the Scriptural quotes in that presentation of mine, and do some reading on early Jewish beliefs).Annihilationism was the invention of Arnobius is the 4th Century, amazingly about the time Arius started his "Jesus is not God" nonsense. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun, even with heresies.
No they are not. A punishment can have an eternal effect.Besides, eternal punishment and eternal torment are the same thing.
I am not an Arian.This is why your fellow Arian Cultists like the JW's...
Could you explain how the first part of your sentence relates to the second? I see nothing but a non sequitur here.The point is that Jews and Greeks both believed in a place of eternal punishment, thus Peter, John, and Jesus would have been purposely deceiving them if it were not so.
I haven't read the whole thread so someone else might have addressed something in your article:Byblos wrote:bizzt wrote:SUGAAAAA wrote:I agree that Catholics are Christians, and although I come from a Catholic backround, I really havent studied the scriptures enough to really comment upon their beliefs and doctrines... But I believe Catholics are saved, but you dont necessarily have to be one to be saved.
Also, Catholics do not pray to Saints, let alone pray to them instead of Jesus...
What do you call this Prayer?
MARIAN PRAYER OF
SAINT BERNADINE OF SIENNA
(A.D. 1381-1444)
O Lady, since thou art the dispenser of all graces,
and since the grace of salvation
can only come through thy hands,
our salvation depends on thee.
Totally wrong. I would be surprised if this is still condoned by the RCC. I would NEVER utter such nonsense. There are misguided souls in every religion and denomination.
bizzt wrote:Or this one?
MARIAN PRAYERS OF
SAINT BONAVENTURE # 1
(A.D. 1218-1274)
O Mary, may my heart never cease to love you,
and my tongue never cease to praise you.
I see nothing wrong with this one, given that we believe Mary is very much alive in Christ and that she can intercede on our behalf; although the only intercessory prayer I attribute to Mary is 'Hail Mary', which is a collection of quotes from the NT directly attributed to her. Here's a link that references the scriptures from which it is derived:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/rosary_scripture.htm
I had an expert in Biblical languages and Greek manuscripts look into this verse for me. I asked if the "Catholic" translation was correct. This is what he said:Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Luke 1:28 "And coming to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace" (NAB: "highly favored one") [kecharitomene]! The Lord is with you."
Kecharitomene: favored by grace; suggests a permanent state of being "highly favored," thus "full of grace." God is infinite goodness. Mary is perfect created goodness, to the limit of her finite being.
Pope Leo XIII called Mary not only the 'Mediatrix of Divine grace', but also the 'co-Redemptress'. Look it up in Iucunda Semper Expectatione, 2. What do you say to that?Byblos wrote:Totally wrong. I would be surprised if this is still condoned by the RCC. I would NEVER utter such nonsense. There are misguided souls in every religion and denomination.
It's good enough; see here. The only ground for complaint is that it might be interpreted in an active way, as in 'Hail Mary, full of grace which thou hast to bestow' (which would be incorrect) rather than passively, as in 'Hail Mary, full of grace which thou hast received' (which is correct). According to the writer of the article referred to, Pope John Paul II (requiescat in pace) stressed Mary's passivity where this grace was concerned.Christian2 wrote:I had an expert in Biblical languages and Greek manuscripts look into this verse for me. I asked if the "Catholic" translation was correct. This is what he said:
No, The Catholic version is not correct.
Are you referring to the conversion of Francis Beckwith and Rob Koons?IRQ Conflict wrote:Thanks for that info Christian2, the RCC has done plenty to mislead good Christians, and I'm happy that more and more of their BS is coming to light.
I won't say anything since whatever I say is naturally biased. I will let Timothy George, a well known and respected evangelical, speak for me (I've quoted him before in another thread somewhere):Turgonian wrote:Pope Leo XIII called Mary not only the 'Mediatrix of Divine grace', but also the 'co-Redemptress'. Look it up in Iucunda Semper Expectatione, 2. What do you say to that?
If you have time please read the article. Both positions (Catholic and Protestant) regarding Mary are the opposite extremes. Somewhere in the middle is where I am.Timothy George wrote:It seems to many evangelicals that Catholic preoccupation with Mary obscures the preeminence and sole salvific sufficiency of Jesus Christ and thus leads many people away from rather than to the Savior himself. Good Catholics know, of course, that Mary is not the object of worship or the kind of adoration given only to God (latria), but rather of veneration (doulia), albeit of a special kind (hyperdoulia). But this distinction often seems to get lost at the local level.
Such concerns are not alleviated by the campaign of some Catholics a few years ago to have Mary officially recognized, perhaps even with another infallible dogma, as mediatrix of grace and co-redemptrix with Christ himself. Orthodox Catholics interpret such Marian titles in a way that they believe leaves intact the unique role of Jesus Christ as the mediator between God and man. No Protestant theologian could make this point more clearly than Vatican II: “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer . . . the Church does not hesitate to profess the subordinate role of Mary.”
I fail to see your point. Are you agreeing with Pope John Paul II? If so, I think this will shock you, I also agree with himTurgonian wrote:It's good enough; see here. The only ground for complaint is that it might be interpreted in an active way, as in 'Hail Mary, full of grace which thou hast to bestow' (which would be incorrect) rather than passively, as in 'Hail Mary, full of grace which thou hast received' (which is correct). According to the writer of the article referred to, Pope John Paul II (requiescat in pace) stressed Mary's passivity where this grace was concerned.Christian2 wrote:I had an expert in Biblical languages and Greek manuscripts look into this verse for me. I asked if the "Catholic" translation was correct. This is what he said:
No, The Catholic version is not correct.
. I don't know about Koons but at least Beckwith returned to his roots (and don't forget Scott HahnTurgonian wrote:Are you referring to the conversion of Francis Beckwith and Rob Koons?IRQ Conflict wrote:Thanks for that info Christian2, the RCC has done plenty to mislead good Christians, and I'm happy that more and more of their BS is coming to light.
). Rereading this thread, couldn't help but notice this never got a reply . . .Fortigurn wrote:Then there's Cornelius and his household. I wonder if babies were speaking in tongues?Jac3510 wrote:PL - wrt households, what about Acts 18:8, "Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized." (NIV) Did infants believe?
I believe what the word says, and since it says nothing about infants believing and being baptized, there's no case here for infants believing and being baptized.puritan lad wrote:If there were infants in the household of Crispus, then they believed, that is if you believe what the Word says.
It says the Holy Spirit fell on 'all those who heard the message', so I guess the babies must have been out of the room at the time.Regarding Cornelius, there is no argument to be made here. It does not say that the entire household spoke in tongues.
No they are not arguments from silence. It is not an argument from silence to ask 'There are no infants recorded as having been baptized in the entire Bible, so what is your evidence that infants believed and were baptized?'.Both are arguments from silence.
See this is where you start to be inconsistent. You want these 'entire households' to include infants, but you don't want Cornelius' 'relatives and close friends' and 'all who heard the message' to include infants. Your entire argument is based on making things up. No infants are recorded, so you just assume they were there. But when it's inconvenient for them to be there, you just assume they weren't there.The Phillipian Jailor was baptized, along with his entire household, because "he had believed in God." (Acts 16:34). Pretty clear to me (unless you use the wrong translation in the King James). The same is true with Lydia in Acts 16:14-15. Her entire household was baptized, because she believed.
No problem for me, because I'm not arguing for an age limit. I'm arguing that baptism was commanded for those who heard, understood, and believed. I see no evidence that any baby or infant has heard, understood, and believed the gospel message. I certainly see no evidence for this in Scripture. Face it, you're just holding on to one of several Roman Catholic leftovers which your theological forefathers just couldn't tear themselves away from.I see many passages that command baptism. I see none that provide an age limit. If you have some, please provide.
Why? I have the Bible.
If catholics are truly "christian" then why do they believe in the confessional or confessing their sins to a MAN instead of praying to God? The only way is through Christ, not a person.Byblos wrote:Brigham wrote:Where and what is the passage that Christians and Catholics disagree on, about the keys to heaven, and what are some opinions?
You say it as if Catholics are not Christian, they (we) are. The most fundamental differences have to do with the authority of the church, particularly the sole authority of the pope unto the church and interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences pertaning to salvation (by grace and works according to Catholics or by grace alone according to the reformers). There are many more differences but those are the most serious.
In my view, even the most serious differences are insignificant and immaterial to salvation. The fundamental truths are the same. IMO, Catholisism is sheltered under the umbrella of christianity.
God bless,
Byblos.
