• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Protestant and Catholic theological differences.

pearl

Well-Known Member
In 1 Cor 1:16 and Acts 16:15,33, baptism of "whole households", with no mention of excluding babies.
Scriptures do NOT say... "Whole households were baptized EXCEPT the infants"! IF..
Deeje
if Jesus did not want infants baptized he would have said so!

There is much reference to using the inclusive term 'household' from Hebrew Scripture.
Genesis 7:1 "Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation." (Note in this instance that the word "you" is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah's righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)


Genesis 12:17 "But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife."

Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

Deuteronomy 14:26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household."

Joshua 24:15 "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1 Samuel 25:6 "And thus you shall say to him who lives inprosperity: 'Peace be to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have!"

These passages speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household. Joshua, cited above, even takes responsibility not only for his own serving the Lord, but for his family's as well.

And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:

Genesis 50:7-8 "So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father's house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen."

1 Samuel 1:21,22 "Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, 'Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.'"

The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term "house" presumed otherwise.

The phrase "he and his (whole) house" denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children. In no single case is the term "house" restricted to the adult members of the house, though on the other hand children alone may be mentioned when the whole house is meant. Whilst slaves are very often not reckoned as part of the "house," the inclusion of the children is taken for granted. The Old Testament repeatedly lays special emphasis on the very smallest being reckoned in.

To quote Joachim Jeremias

I have not found in secular Greek usage any examples of "house" referring to "adults exclusively." As regards the phrase of the type "[So and so] and his house" no literary examples are found in the dictionaries generally in use.... In view of the dissimilarities of the New Testament phrase "he and his house" to secular Greek ... and its agreement with Old Testament usage ... there can be no doubt that it represents a heritage from biblical language.

In other words, the phrase "and his house" in the New Testament is clearly borrowed from the Old and meant to cover the same territory. it is irrelevant that children are not specifically mentioned in the household baptisms of the New Testament.

Even if it could be historically proven that every household baptism of the New Testament was -- by some fluke -- a baptism of a household with no very young children -- even that would be irrelevant. The point of the household language is that children, if any, are included unless explicitly excluded. If the Holy Spirit had meant to exclude children from baptism, the Scriptures would have to say, "[So and so] and his household were baptized, all who were at an age of understanding and could credibly profess their faith." Or "[So and so] was baptized and -- there being no young children in the household but only such as were of an age and actually believed -- the entire household were baptized with him.

Matthew 10:12-14 "And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet."
Luke 19:9 "And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham'"
John 4:53 "So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, 'Your son lives.' And he himself believed, and his whole household."
Acts 2:38-39 "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.'"
Acts 10:2 "[Cornelius was] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always."
Acts 11:14-18 "'[Peter] will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.' And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.'"
Acts 16:14-15 "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' So she persuaded us."
Acts 16:31-34 "So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."
Acts 18:8 "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Note well that Paul refers back to this event in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as the baptism of "Crispus." It is clear that in Paul's mind, to baptize "Crispus" is necessarily to baptize the members of his household under his headship as well.)
1 Corinthians 1:16 "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other."

2 Timothy 1:16 "The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain."
Hebrews 11:7,9 "By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.... By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise."
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
There is much reference to using the inclusive term 'household' from Hebrew Scripture.
Genesis 7:1 "Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation." (Note in this instance that the word "you" is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah's righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)


Genesis 12:17 "But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife."

Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

Deuteronomy 14:26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household."

Joshua 24:15 "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1 Samuel 25:6 "And thus you shall say to him who lives inprosperity: 'Peace be to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have!"

These passages speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household. Joshua, cited above, even takes responsibility not only for his own serving the Lord, but for his family's as well.

And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:

Genesis 50:7-8 "So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father's house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen."

1 Samuel 1:21,22 "Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, 'Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.'"

The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term "house" presumed otherwise.

The phrase "he and his (whole) house" denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children. In no single case is the term "house" restricted to the adult members of the house, though on the other hand children alone may be mentioned when the whole house is meant. Whilst slaves are very often not reckoned as part of the "house," the inclusion of the children is taken for granted. The Old Testament repeatedly lays special emphasis on the very smallest being reckoned in.

To quote Joachim Jeremias

I have not found in secular Greek usage any examples of "house" referring to "adults exclusively." As regards the phrase of the type "[So and so] and his house" no literary examples are found in the dictionaries generally in use.... In view of the dissimilarities of the New Testament phrase "he and his house" to secular Greek ... and its agreement with Old Testament usage ... there can be no doubt that it represents a heritage from biblical language.

In other words, the phrase "and his house" in the New Testament is clearly borrowed from the Old and meant to cover the same territory. it is irrelevant that children are not specifically mentioned in the household baptisms of the New Testament.

Even if it could be historically proven that every household baptism of the New Testament was -- by some fluke -- a baptism of a household with no very young children -- even that would be irrelevant. The point of the household language is that children, if any, are included unless explicitly excluded. If the Holy Spirit had meant to exclude children from baptism, the Scriptures would have to say, "[So and so] and his household were baptized, all who were at an age of understanding and could credibly profess their faith." Or "[So and so] was baptized and -- there being no young children in the household but only such as were of an age and actually believed -- the entire household were baptized with him.

Matthew 10:12-14 "And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet."
Luke 19:9 "And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham'"
John 4:53 "So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, 'Your son lives.' And he himself believed, and his whole household."
Acts 2:38-39 "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.'"
Acts 10:2 "[Cornelius was] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always."
Acts 11:14-18 "'[Peter] will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.' And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.'"
Acts 16:14-15 "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' So she persuaded us."
Acts 16:31-34 "So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."
Acts 18:8 "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Note well that Paul refers back to this event in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as the baptism of "Crispus." It is clear that in Paul's mind, to baptize "Crispus" is necessarily to baptize the members of his household under his headship as well.)
1 Corinthians 1:16 "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other."

2 Timothy 1:16 "The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain."
Hebrews 11:7,9 "By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.... By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise."
pcarl good to meet you.. Thank you for the info! I think God would have made it very clear if he did not intend infants to be baptized! The Old Testament infants were Circumcised on the eighth day after they are born! If they are not Circumcised they are NOT a member of the community!

Col 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,

Baptism IMMERSES us INTO Jesus we are IN HIM after baptism!
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
I began to think that the visions of Mary and miracles performed through prayer to her could have been the works of Satan to push the Catholics further away from devotion to Jesus and towards devotion to Mary. Maybe devotion to the RCC, an organisation, and it's teachings instead of to Jesus.
Maybe it is the same with prayers to or through any saint.
The division between Catholic and Protestant seems to have widened since the Reformation imo and the RCC seems to be an agent in it by making dogmas based on tradition which it surely knows the Protestants cannot accept.
Then of course we have those Protestants who have gone so far from the RCC that they see it as Babylon the Great of Revelations etc and say Catholics are not Christian.
Interesting stuff. A strategy by Satan to divide and conquer maybe. Whatever it is there is certainly a lot of distrust and animosity to Rome these days.

Brian2 good to meet you... I add to your post.... To be in Protest they the Protestant MUST reject the Holy Catholic Church otherwise they have no excuse for trying to "Form anew" the Church Jesus built on rock not on sand! Protestant's MUST believe Jesus failed to establish a church, that they NEED to come to Jesus' rescue to form what Jesus lost! AS IF...
Brian2 as if Satan somehow overpowered Jesus that Satan took from Jesus his holy body and that Jesus could not establish his Holy Church because he lost it to Satan! They believe that they must come to the God' rescue to RE-FORM what Jesus lost!

The Protestant MUST reject the scriptures... to remain in PROTEST against the One Church Jesus built on ROCK not on sand!
Scriptures that say.. "Jesus is ALWAYS WITH his church to the end of time"
Scriptures that say.. "Jesus will send the Holy Spirit to guide his church into ALL Truth!"
Scriptures that say.. "The Holy Spirit with come to remain FOREVER with his church"!
Scriptures that say.. “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.!”
Scriptures that say.. "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink"!
Scriptures that say.. "3000 were ADDED top the body of Jesus by Baptism"!
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Even if it could be historically proven that every household baptism of the New Testament was -- by some fluke -- a baptism of a household with no very young children -- even that would be irrelevant. The point of the household language is that children, if any, are included unless explicitly excluded. If the Holy Spirit had meant to exclude children from baptism, the Scriptures would have to say, "[So and so] and his household were baptized, all who were at an age of understanding and could credibly profess their faith." Or "[So and so] was baptized and -- there being no young children in the household but only such as were of an age and actually believed -- the entire household were baptized with him.

The baptism of infants provides no salvation for them. This is because it is not the "act" of baptism that saves but the "reason" for it. One had to be a disciple of Christ, and they had to have made a decision of their own volition to become a Christian. Infants cannot make a decision to serve Christ, and no one can make that decision by proxy.

Baptism requires full immersion, just as Jesus demonstrated. It is a symbolic 'death' to ones former life and a 'raising up' to do God's will first in life. Sprinkling water serves no purpose, and you cannot immerse an infant....it would be child abuse.

Children are covered under their parents standing with God...even if only one of them is a believer.

The apostle Paul wrote.....1 Corinthians 7:12-14...
"....if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. " (NRSV Catholic Edition)

God considers the children "holy", (not subject to punishment in hell or anywhere else) if they have even one believing parent who is imparting knowledge of God to their children.

Doesn't that make more sense? As if God would punish an innocent baby for something that wasn't its fault....:(
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
The baptism of infants provides no salvation for them

It is only through baptism that one may be included as a member of Christ's body, the Church, why deny a small child entrance? (let the little children come to me) And it has been the practice of the Church since long before the Reformers appeared on the scene, the instruction of which dates to 215, the actual practice probably earlier. I find it amusing when people try to use Scripture against the Church when that very Scripture was taken from the Church.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I wouldn't be surprised if the protestants moved further from the RC when the idea of getting all doctrine from the Bible developed more.
It is interesting to wonder where many of the traditions of the RC church came from.
It is tradition turned into dogma that had to be believed to be a Catholic which is one thing that turned me away from the RC church. It is sort of like adding to the gospel message.
I don't think that one of those traditions is that the mother of Mary was a virgin however. That would mean that Jesus had no blood link to David at all and could not be his descendant.
Early USA goes through a long period of dreary, long agricultural life in which many are so busy all the time that they don't have time for things like sports or going to libraries and cannot afford books. They might have had only a bible, and they are scraping out a life just surviving. They have no conveniences and must work constantly. Out of this arises many bible-only cultures which insist that everything should come from the B I B L E. I think this is where the churches completely depart from tradition.

That isn't the whole story. There are also the Quakers coming from Europe who throw almost everything away wholesale. Its not the entire story, but its where this bible-only assumption comes from. When all you've got is a bible you tend to think its got everything.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
The baptism of infants provides no salvation for them. This is because it is not the "act" of baptism that saves but the "reason" for it. One had to be a disciple of Christ, and they had to have made a decision of their own volition to become a Christian. Infants cannot make a decision to serve Christ, and no one can make that decision by proxy.

Baptism requires full immersion, just as Jesus demonstrated. It is a symbolic 'death' to ones former life and a 'raising up' to do God's will first in life. Sprinkling water serves no purpose, and you cannot immerse an infant....it would be child abuse.

Children are covered under their parents standing with God...even if only one of them is a believer.

The apostle Paul wrote.....1 Corinthians 7:12-14...
"....if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. " (NRSV Catholic Edition)

God considers the children "holy", (not subject to punishment in hell or anywhere else) if they have even one believing parent who is imparting knowledge of God to their children.

Doesn't that make more sense? As if God would punish an innocent baby for something that wasn't its fault....:(

Deeje Right off you prove you are mixed up..(your words) .One had to be a disciple of Christ, I point out to be a Disciple you must be Baptized not the other way around! Baptism MAKES Disciples!
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them....
Disciples are made by BAPTISM!

The infant was made a member of the Jewish nation by Circumcision! Colossians 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Deeje If baptism was only for adults why didn't Peter teach NOT for infants!?
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.

Deeje Children can't sin so they do NOT need to repent to be baptized!
Deeje Who said Baptism needs to full immersion!? Not the scriptures NOT the early Christians! It is IMMERSION into Jesus NOT into water! If you are IMMERSED into the Holy Body of Jesus then God would be your father! 3000 were ADDED to the Body of Jesus the first day of Pentecost! 3000 were IMMERSED into the Body of Jesus the first day of Pentecost!

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and 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.

How do you hinder an infant from coming to Jesus?! HOW? The only way to hinder them is to refuse to IMMERSE them into Jesus! NO PLACE....
Deeje no place do the scriptures say "Do not baptize infants"! Refusing to baptize infants is a MAN MADE TRADITION! Teaching "baptism by full immersion" is not in the scriptures it is a Man Made TRADITION!

Christians have ALWAYS baptized infants!
Irenaeus
He [Jesus] 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 . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit(Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

The Didache
After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
The baptism of infants provides no salvation for them. This is because it is not the "act" of baptism that saves but the "reason" for it. One had to be a disciple of Christ, and they had to have made a decision of their own volition to become a Christian. Infants cannot make a decision to serve Christ, and no one can make that decision by proxy.

Baptism requires full immersion, just as Jesus demonstrated. It is a symbolic 'death' to ones former life and a 'raising up' to do God's will first in life. Sprinkling water serves no purpose, and you cannot immerse an infant....it would be child abuse.

Children are covered under their parents standing with God...even if only one of them is a believer.

The apostle Paul wrote.....1 Corinthians 7:12-14...
"....if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. " (NRSV Catholic Edition)

God considers the children "holy", (not subject to punishment in hell or anywhere else) if they have even one believing parent who is imparting knowledge of God to their children.

Doesn't that make more sense? As if God would punish an innocent baby for something that wasn't its fault....:(

I add to your post #64...You said... God considers the children "holy" !
I answer this way... Yes infants are holy but they are still descendants of Adam, the first perfect man! Adam was perfect but he made the free will choice to sin! No one forced Adam to sin! His sin cause corruption in God' PERFECT creation! Adams sin means his descendances (all of us) are born outside of the Garden, all are born outside of Paradise! The Infant is still Adams descendant until he is Re-formed into Jesus!
Deeje The Infant is Adams descendant until he is re-born! The Infant is Adams descendant until he is adopted into God' holy family!
The waters of Baptism does just that.. The Mother forms the child; holy Church forms us into good Christians (Christ followers) Jesus sends the Gift of fire; Jesus sends the newly baptizes a GIFT the Holy Spirit! Thus TWO parents form the child "Bride & Groom" Church & Jesus/God.
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism IMMERSES us into the ONLY Child of God; Jesus, we are adopted children of God because we are IMMERSED into Jesus! IF...
Deeje if you are IN Jesus then logic alone should tell you God is also your father and Mary would then be your mother! You would be in the GENERATIONAL family of Mary!
46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation
.

This is PROPHESY... As soon as the prophesy was spoken by Mary the Generations of Mary have Honored her (Mary) as Blessed! Mary is my mother because I am IN Jesus her son! Jesus honors Mary his mother thus I also honor her; for 2000 years Catholics have Honored Mary our Mother as Blessed! This PROPHESY is held true by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church Jesus' bride!
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
It is only through baptism that one may be included as a member of Christ's body, the Church, why deny a small child entrance? (let the little children come to me) And it has been the practice of the Church since long before the Reformers appeared on the scene, the instruction of which dates to 215, the actual practice probably earlier. I find it amusing when people try to use Scripture against the Church when that very Scripture was taken from the Church.

If you read the scriptures, they will tell you that those who came to Christ were firstly "drawn" by God after hearing the message that Jesus and his apostles and disciples preached. (John 6:44; 65) They had to learn about what it meant to become a dedicated servant of God through Christian baptism (as Jesus was) so they had to become disciples first, and then confirm that by publicly being baptized. So they were to "make disciples" and then "baptize them".

1 Corinthians 7:12-14...
"....if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. " (NRSV Catholic Edition)

The apostle Paul shows us that the children of believers' are covered by their parents' standing with God. They are considered "holy" in those circumstances. There was no need to baptize infants.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Please tell me how an infant repents of sins they have committed.....what a load of nonsense.

I don't think you have any idea what it meant back then to "Receive the gift of the holy spirit".
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
The apostle Paul shows us that the children of believers' children are covered by their parents' standing with God. They are considered "holy" in those circumstances. There was no need to baptize infants.

They are not baptized out of need, but a welcoming to Christ's communion. Since the practice of baptizing whole households is long gone, there is no reason to deny entrance to infants and children.
The baptizing of infants is also on the faith of their parents, and may be refused if faith is lacking.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
They are not baptized out of need, but a welcoming to Christ's communion. Since the practice of baptizing whole households is long gone, there is no reason to deny entrance to infants and children.
Why would you think that they are denied by God because someone failed to sprinkle water on a baby?
Is there some reason why you avoid mention of full immersion baptism? It is only for those who can comprehend what baptism means...and it must be the same kind of baptism as Jesus himself underwent.

It is not the act of baptism that saves anyone....it is what their baptism signifies and that is an acceptance of Christ as your savior and a commitment to living your life by the laws of God from that day on. An infant cannot make a decision like that and no one can become a Christian by proxy. If the children of believing parents are covered by their parents' standing with God, then please tell me why an empty gesture has any meaning to God?

The baptizing of infants is also on the faith of their parents, and may be refused if faith is lacking.

We can take the lesson from the story of Noah....how many babies survived the flood....who was responsible for their deaths....? God?...or their parents?
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
If you read the scriptures, they will tell you that those who came to Christ were firstly "drawn" by God after hearing the message that Jesus and his apostles and disciples preached. (John 6:44; 65) They had to learn about what it meant to become a dedicated servant of God through Christian baptism (as Jesus was) so they had to become disciples first, and then confirm that by publicly being baptized. So they were to "make disciples" and then "baptize them".

1 Corinthians 7:12-14...
"....if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. " (NRSV Catholic Edition)

The apostle Paul shows us that the children of believers' are covered by their parents' standing with God. They are considered "holy" in those circumstances. There was no need to baptize infants.

To believe what you do you MUST reject the scriptures.... Peter told the people that they just killed the "author of life"! They ask "What should we do"? Peter replies "Be Baptized you will receive the Holy Spirit"!
Deeje It is just this simple... Nothing about.... were firstly "drawn" by God after hearing the message that Jesus and his apostles and disciples preached......
Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Wait it continues...
Peter PREACHES. Peter warns and PLEDS with them... "Save yourselves" those that accepted the message of the church were SAVED by baptism.. 3000 were ADDED to Jesus' body by baptism!
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Deeje you say: John 6:44 tells you that you must be drawn by God! Yes it does read the next verse 45 it tell you "God will TEACH!"
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.
Deeje From verse 45 down to verse 59 God is in fact TEACHING!
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

1 Corinthians 7: 12-14 children of believers' are children of the Baptized. They are legitimate not *******!
You forget the Very early church baptized infants! You cannot post scriptures that say "Do NOT baptize infants"?! You refuse to answer when asked "How do you stop little children from coming to Jesus"!?
Deeje The FACT IS "Do not baptize infants" is a "Man made TRADITION"! It is NOT scriptural!
It was unheard of in the early church the only question about infants was WHEN to baptize them; first day born or on the eighth day (Like circumcision!) It was NEVER a question as to IF they should be baptized!
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Please tell me how an infant repents of sins they have committed.....what a load of nonsense.

I don't think you have any idea what it meant back then to "Receive the gift of the holy spirit".
Deeje I hope all is well.. You asked a good question.... Tell me how an infant repents of sins they have committed ?!
First they have no sins, they are descendance of Adam! They are born outside of God' family! Baptism ADDS us to God' holy family by IMMERSING us into the Body of Jesus; God "ONLY Child"!
Who said infants have to speak to be saved?! Scriptures are very clear: Whole households were baptized! You cannot read any scriptures that say: Whole Households were baptized except infants"! NONE! Not baptizing infants is a "Man Made Tradition"!

Scriptures say: "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins"! Deeje NOT one verse can be found that tell you there were INFANTS in the crowd being address about baptism! NONE!
LOOK... Peter is talking to a crowd; Peter is not talking to infants his message to the Crowd of Adults is; "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins"! Do your read in the scriptures of Peter addressing a crowd with INFANTS among them?! NO! Clearly it is Adults that need to repent! Clearly it is adults (those above the age of reason) that need to repent!
Deeje Do babies have sins? NO. So why would they need to repent!? They still need to be Baptized to receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit!

*Babies are sinless!
*Adults that have repented are sinless! Both start as SINLESS the next step is to be IMMERSED into the body of Jesus for BOTH adult & infant!
LOOK..
Verse #1 is all about being saved by Baptism!... 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Verse #2 is about Children being Baptized! 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.
Verse #3&4 is about being baptized and saved (Present tense) 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Smack dab in the middle between verse #1 and verse # 3&4 is verse #2 about BAPTISM for children! Peter did not mention Children for the fun of it.. He included them in his message about salvation!

I point out... All man made churches reject the ONLY Church Jesus formed saying "Jesus failed we MUST re-build the Church Jesus lost!" They all want to go back to the first century to be the true church! The Early Church baptized infants!

Irenaeus
“He [Jesus] 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 . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Deeje Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or “the circumcision of Christ”: “In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).

Jesus was brought a Paraplegic on a mat by four men! Jesus said... "Their Faith saved the paraplegic"! Faith of the Parents is enough for the Infant to be accepted into God' family!
Deeje I asked you "How can you stop little children Infants from coming to Jesus? "Do not hinder them"! How; today is it possible to stop them from coming to Jesus?!
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
To believe what you do you MUST reject the scriptures.... Peter told the people that they just killed the "author of life"! They ask "What should we do"? Peter replies "Be Baptized you will receive the Holy Spirit"!

You honestly believe that people fronted up to be baptized as Christians who had no idea what their baptism signified? Are you serious?
Jesus has spent three and a half years preaching his message to the people...they knew who he claimed to be and they saw his miracles.....on this basis they were baptized...in full knowledge of what they were doing.

Your approach is to spout scripture without any acknowledgment of what the context or the rest of scripture has indicated.

No babies were sprinkled with water.....nor was anyone else. That is NOT baptism. You cannot fully immerse an infant because they have no idea that you aren't trying to drown them.....do you get that?

Deeje It is just this simple... Nothing about.... were firstly "drawn" by God after hearing the message that Jesus and his apostles and disciples preached......
Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

John 6:44; 65...
"No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day."
"And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.


Do you ever read the Bible or do you just parrot off what you have been told by your church? I too was one of those once....but not any more. I am an avid Bible student with 50 years of study under my belt......what about you?

Wait it continues...
Peter PREACHES. Peter warns and PLEDS with them... "Save yourselves" those that accepted the message of the church were SAVED by baptism.. 3000 were ADDED to Jesus' body by baptism!
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
"Those who accepted his message were baptized"......did you underline this bit to ignore it? They had to accept the message before baptism....and then they came to the Jordan River to be fully immersed because that is what baptism actually is.

Deeje you say: John 6:44 tells you that you must be drawn by God! Yes it does read the next verse 45 it tell you "God will TEACH!"
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.
Deeje From verse 45 down to verse 59 God is in fact TEACHING!
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

It takes a special kind of blindness to say what you have said and not see the contradiction....:rolleyes:

They heard the message, God opened up their hearts to the truth and they were baptized......no infants among them. A child had to be of an age mature enough to understand what their baptism signified.

1 Corinthians 7: 12-14 children of believers' are children of the Baptized. They are legitimate not *******!
Good grief man...what is that supposed to mean?

You don't listen, do you? If there were children in the family who were baptized, then they were old enough to understand the reason for their baptism......

You forget the Very early church baptized infants!
The very early church (post 1st century) was already being infiltrated by the weeds that Jesus spoke about.
There were no baptisms of infants ever recorded in the scriptures. You could not baptize a baby without endangering its life.

You cannot post scriptures that say "Do NOT baptize infants"?! You refuse to answer when asked "How do you stop little children from coming to Jesus"!?

No child is prevented from coming to Jesus...you are allowing your emotions to run amok. The young children were covered under their parents' standing with God, and when they were of age to dedicate themselves to God by an understanding of what Christian baptism actually meant, then the children could be baptized.

Deeje The FACT IS "Do not baptize infants" is a "Man made TRADITION"! It is NOT scriptural!

Allow me to correct your statement.....infant baptism is NOT scriptural....it is a man made tradition. Please get your facts straight. There was no "infant" baptism.....older children perhaps, but no water sprinkled on babies was ever going to be a baptism with someone else making promises to God that in a great many cases were not kept. It was, and still is, a pretty meaningless ritual for the majority.

It was unheard of in the early church the only question about infants was WHEN to baptize them; first day born or on the eighth day (Like circumcision!) It was NEVER a question as to IF they should be baptized!

Address the full immersion question...you keep avoiding it.

Circumcision has nothing to do with baptism. It was performed on the eighth day because the clotting agent Vitamin K is at its highest on the eighth day after birth. And the baby boys were too young to remember the pain of the procedure.
It was a Jewish requirement, written into the law, but not incumbent on Gentiles. There was no command for Christians to be circumcised. Jews had not heard of baptism until John.

As for post #74.....sorry but you repeat your nonsense to the point where its not worthwhile replying....
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Why would you think that they are denied by God because someone failed to sprinkle water on a baby?

Never stated that, it is a false assumption on your part.

Address the full immersion question...you keep avoiding it.

Anyone may receive baptism by immersion in the Catholic Church by choice.

Adult Baptism by Immersion - Bing video

Catholic Baptism Immersion - Bing video children

It was the practice of the early church to baptize children, however, I realize you as a JW are not allowed to consider even the earliest writings and practices in Christianity, or anything outside the Watchtower box.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: 'Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already-established custom.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
You honestly believe that people fronted up to be baptized as Christians who had no idea what their baptism signified? Are you serious?
Jesus has spent three and a half years preaching his message to the people...they knew who he claimed to be and they saw his miracles.....on this basis they were baptized...in full knowledge of what they were doing.

Your approach is to spout scripture without any acknowledgment of what the context or the rest of scripture has indicated.

No babies were sprinkled with water.....nor was anyone else. That is NOT baptism. You cannot fully immerse an infant because they have no idea that you aren't trying to drown them.....do you get that?



John 6:44; 65...
"No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day."
"And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.


Do you ever read the Bible or do you just parrot off what you have been told by your church? I too was one of those once....but not any more. I am an avid Bible student with 50 years of study under my belt......what about you?


"Those who accepted his message were baptized"......did you underline this bit to ignore it? They had to accept the message before baptism....and then they came to the Jordan River to be fully immersed because that is what baptism actually is.



It takes a special kind of blindness to say what you have said and not see the contradiction....:rolleyes:

They heard the message, God opened up their hearts to the truth and they were baptized......no infants among them. A child had to be of an age mature enough to understand what their baptism signified.


Good grief man...what is that supposed to mean?

You don't listen, do you? If there were children in the family who were baptized, then they were old enough to understand the reason for their baptism......


The very early church (post 1st century) was already being infiltrated by the weeds that Jesus spoke about.
There were no baptisms of infants ever recorded in the scriptures. You could not baptize a baby without endangering its life.



No child is prevented from coming to Jesus...you are allowing your emotions to run amok. The young children were covered under their parents' standing with God, and when they were of age to dedicate themselves to God by an understanding of what Christian baptism actually meant, then the children could be baptized.



Allow me to correct your statement.....infant baptism is NOT scriptural....it is a man made tradition. Please get your facts straight. There was no "infant" baptism.....older children perhaps, but no water sprinkled on babies was ever going to be a baptism with someone else making promises to God that in a great many cases were not kept. It was, and still is, a pretty meaningless ritual for the majority.



Address the full immersion question...you keep avoiding it.

Circumcision has nothing to do with baptism. It was performed on the eighth day because the clotting agent Vitamin K is at its highest on the eighth day after birth. And the baby boys were too young to remember the pain of the procedure.
It was a Jewish requirement, written into the law, but not incumbent on Gentiles. There was no command for Christians to be circumcised. Jews had not heard of baptism until John.

As for post #74.....sorry but you repeat your nonsense to the point where its not worthwhile replying....

Deeje No scriptures say "Do not baptize infants!" If God did not want infants IMMERSED into Jesus' Holy Body he would have said so... Fact is; Jesus said "Do NOT hinder infants from coming to him"! To refuse to IMMERSE the infant into the body of Jesus is to stop them from coming to Jesus!

Scriptures......
"Go into all nations making disciples BAPTIZING!".. Baptism makes DISCIPLES! All nations have INFANTS, does not say "All nations EXCEPT Infants"!
"39 The promise is for you and your children.." Peter is talking about BAPTISM for saving children, does not say: baptize children except infants!
"3000 were ADDED to the body of Jesus by baptism"! Baptism IMMERSES Christians into the body of Jesus, again nothing about "NO INFANTS"!
"WHOLE Households were baptized" does not say "Whole households were baptized except infants.."!
Deeje If God did not want infants baptized he would have said so in the scriptures! Christians have always baptized infants!

THERE IS NO SCRIPTURES SAYING "DO NOT BAPTIZE INFANTS"!

Your words.. The very early church (post 1st century) was already being infiltrated by the weeds that Jesus spoke about.
Okay: SCRIPTURES PLEASE.. until you post the scriptures proving your statement it is just your wish; it is YOU putting words into God' mouth!

The words of Jesus.... "I will sent the Holy Spirit to be with you FOREVER"! Jesus did sent the Holy Spirit FOREVER at Pentecost!
The words of Jesus.... "I am with you ALWAYS to the end of the world"! ALWAYS means he will never abandon his Church, it means he is still with his Holy Catholic Church!
The words of Jesus.... "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth"! ALL TRUTH means the Watch Tower is outside of truth, he could not have said this to mean the WT it was not around!
The words of Jesus.... "He who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me and God the father"! Your church in protest against Jesus' Catholic Church must be rejecting Jesus & God!
The words of Jesus...."I will build my church on ROCK (not on sand) it will never fail!" The Watch Tower rejects these words of Jesus as lies from the mouth of God!
The words of Jesus...."I die for the Church, I love the church, the Church is HOLY without blame"! Your words: Church has weeds Jesus built on sand he failed!

The Church Jesus established is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church; Cannot be another... There was no others until the great Protest 1500 years after Jesus!
All man made churches (Thousands of them) (yours included) claim to have the only truth but not two of the thousands teaches the same.

Scriptures... "From AMONG you (Church) will come false teachers"! For this PROPHESY to be true the CHURCH Jesus established still exists to this day it could not have failed! For this PROPHESY to be true; The Watch Tower started by a man CANNOT be the Church, to say different you MUST reject the scriptures!!

You say... "Total immersion in water"! Total immersion is not practical; The Eskimo has no water! Many places are very arid!
There is NO scriptures that say "Total immersion". Total immersion is another man made TRADITION! Total IMMERSED INTO The Holy Body of Jesus YES not into water!
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Anyone may receive baptism by immersion in the Catholic Church by choice.

How does that address the baptism of infants? Sprinkling water on a baby’s head is not genuine baptism for all the reasons already stated. It does not consecrate a baby to Christ because it is not the personal decision of the child, who may well choose to be an atheist in the future....? It has to be their choice.

It was the practice of the early church to baptize children, however, I realize you as a JW are not allowed to consider even the earliest writings and practices in Christianity, or anything outside the Watchtower box.

LOL.... and what you believe in nothing outside the “Catholic Box” is it? All I am seeing is excuses for something that the scriptures are pretty clear about.....you cannot baptize an infant, nor can you commit them to Christ if it is not their own will.

What we JW's determine as truth comes from scripture and there are no infant baptisms recorded in the Bible. The apostle Paul stated why they were not necessary. Why does your church dismiss scripture in favor of its traditions? Isn’t that what Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees for?

Matthew 15:7-9...Jesus said....
"You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:

8 ‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,

teaching human precepts as doctrines.’” (NRSVCE)

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: 'Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already-established custom.

Do you know who wrote the Didache?
Do you know why it s not part of the Bible canon?
Do you understand that scripture is God’s word and not the product of any man or any church?

2 Timothy 3:16-17...
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work."
Scripture lacks nothing so it does not need to be added to.

Certain currents of early “Christian” church thinking actually deviated from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. For example, contrary to the practice instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the author of The Didache advised the passing of the wine before the bread. (Matthew 26:26-27) Why?

As you mentioned, this writer also stated that if no body of water was available to perform baptism by immersion, pouring water on the head of the baptism candidate would suffice. (Mark 1:9-10; Acts 8:36, 38)

The same text encouraged Christians to observe such rituals as obligatory fasting twice a week and recitation of the Our Father exactly three times a day. (Matthew 6:5-13; Luke 18:12)

It was prophesied by Peter who said....

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep." (2 Peter 2:1-3)

Why add to scripture as if it lacked something?

"Destructive opinions" introduced "secretly" have divided the church and introduced 'licentiousness' and all manner of disgraceful behavior, bringing Christianity into disrepute. It was this very situation that brought about the Reformation.....but instead of uniting Christianity, it simply created more divisions. This was all foretold and it results in what Jesus declared at Matthew 7:21-23....

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’"

No one wants to be on the receiving end of that!
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Sprinkling water on a baby’s head is not genuine baptism for all the reasons already stated. It does not consecrate a baby to Christ because it is not the personal decision of the child, who may well choose to be an atheist in the future....? It has to be their choice.

Would you care to take a guess as to how many Atheists were baptized as adults? Age is no guaranty to future beliefs.

LOL.... and what you believe in nothing outside the “Catholic Box” is it? All I am seeing is excuses for something that the scriptures are pretty clear about.....you cannot baptize an infant, nor can you commit them to Christ if it is not their own will.

No where does Scripture state 'do not baptize infants'. Catholic box? Its not Catholics who discourage or even forbid higher education, but it is Catholics who encourage dialogue and scholarship with other religions.

What we JW's determine as truth comes from scripture

What you fail or more likely refuse to comprehend is that Christianity, as a practicing, worshiping community existed prior to the writing of that Scripture. Maybe you would like to explain about the founder of your religion and all the false predictions.

Do you know who wrote the Didache?
Do you know why it s not part of the Bible canon?
Do you understand that scripture is God’s word and not the product of any man or any church?

The Didache, (teaching of the Twelve Apostles) dates from the beginning of the 2nd century. It is not included in the Canon because its existence was not known at the time the Church finalized the Canon. Again you have it backwards, Church first, NT followed.

Certain currents of early “Christian” church thinking actually deviated from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. For example, contrary to the practice instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the author of The Didache advised the passing of the wine before the bread. (Matthew 26:26-27) Why?

In the ninth and tenth chapters of the Didache are found the well known eucharistic prayers, but the precise place and meaning of these prayers is not clear. Only the short sentences that appear at the end point more clearly to the Eucharistic celebration. It may be that these prayers maybe referring to a material meal, for one reason the offering of the chalice first, nowhere found in the whole history of the liturgy nor in the accounts in the NT. There are differences within the Biblical texts themselves, Mt, Mark and Luke, Paul differ widely in the particulars, including the words Jesus pronounced over the bread and wine. All this may be explained by the varying texts not representing the actual words spoken by Jesus, but the actual liturgical usage of the primitive Christian communities, each shaping and developing its own redaction of the tradition. in Luke and Paul the remark "after the meal" is introduced before the consecration of the chalice, missing in the other accounts.

Why add to scripture as if it lacked something?

There is no addition to Scripture, but the passing to each generation as a living tradition, no matter what Christian belief system one belongs to.

No one wants to be on the receiving end of that!

Or Mt 7:1
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Didache, (teaching of the Twelve Apostles) dates from the beginning of the 2nd century. It is not included in the Canon because its existence was not known at the time the Church finalized the Canon. Again you have it backwards, Church first, NT followed.
And this is especially an Achille's heal for the JW's. If the Church supposedly had been corrupted and therefore no longer truly Christian, then how does one explain the historical fact that it was that exact same Church that selected the canon of the Bible that they also use?
 
Top