Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

[miknik5]

I mean sorry Paul. What I scanned over it seems this encyclical was for future priests and clergy and future doctors of the church

Could you show me where this was publicly distributed and announced to all men

Or could you at least show with evidence that this encyclical was meant for laymen (laity) parishioners as well and that these higher ups made it known to all men

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I mean sorry Paul. What I scanned over it seems this encyclical was for future priests and clergy and future doctors of the church

Could you show me where this was publicly distributed and announced to all men

Or could you at least show with evidence that this encyclical was meant for laymen (laity) parishioners as well and that these higher ups made it known to all men

An encyclical is by definition a letter addressed from one bishop to other bishops, which is then relayed to their parishioners.

In the case of this encyclical, it was followed by much activity in promoting the use of vernacular Bibles, including a new translation into English, the Jerusalem Bible, to which JRR Tolkien contributed.

However, there had previously been English language Roman Catholic Bibles. The Douay Rheims is actually older than the KJV (although most people use an 18th century revision of it).

 

[miknik5]

This is desirable, but not always possible, for example, with illiterate people or those incapable of reading, or those who are mentally disabled, et cetera.

The reading of scripture is desirable but not a prerequisite for individual salvation; it contains instructions on how to save. Most of the early Christians were illiterate and had to have the scriptures read to them.

Oh. I never said reading the WORD of GOD is a prerequisite at all but neither is one leaving their spiritual wellbeing in the hands of their church elders

 

[Philip_B]

They didn't prevent people from reading TGE WORD of GOD They just didn't stress the importance of reading THE bible WORD of GOD
And most relied on
The church to be their middleman interpreter instead of knowing the WORD of GOD for themselves

There are a range of factors that came to bear on this issue.

1. General levels of literacy were quite low - and in a pre-industrial revolution era - there was little need for members of the general population to read - and little need for them to read anything anyway.
2. The value of a copy of the Bible, given that pre-printing press they were handwritten, was probably more like a house than a car, and probably a much better house than most people lived in.
3. There was an awareness that the text could be misunderstood or misconstrued and there were many who believed that the Church had a responsibility to expound the scriptures in a way that people would understand the true message.

In a sense then I suggest that the changes in technology and circumstance have a big impact on what makes a sensible approach. In the midst of an illiterate population it makes little sense to tell them to read the Bible. Most principal Churches had a copy of the Bible at the Lectern and those who could read had access to the text. I believe that most of us believe that the Church still has a guardianship role in relation to the sacred text of scripture to ensure that the true and lively message of salvation is rightly proclaimed.

 

[MarysSon]

They didn't prevent people from reading TGE WORD of GOD They just didn't stress the importance of reading THE bible WORD of GOD

And most relied on
The church to be their middleman interpreter instead of knowing the WORD of GOD for themselves

The Church isn't a "middleman".
It is the Body of Christ (Col. 1:18) with Supreme, God-given Authority.
WHATEVER the Church ordains on earth will also be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

- The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (2 Tim. 3:15).
- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
- Jesus equated His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

Middleman, indeed . . .

 

[Philip_B]

Yes. The Catholic Church does not verbally encourage or discourage its parish to read THE WORD of GOD. I didn't mean that they verbally discourage but they do not instruct that it is very IMPORTANT to know THE WORD of GOD for oneself either They don't but should mention to its parishioners that they should. And they don't

I do feel that this is changing. Most catholic devotional books I have seen, include passages of scripture, and indeed most of the great Catholic prayers are well anchored in scripture. The recitation of the Psalms in the offices of the Catholic Church are extensive. I do think it is important not to invest scripture with some sort of magic, and I have certainly heard some declarations that try to lock God up in a Book. It is the true and living Christ in whom our salvation is invested and attained, and the Scriptures attest to and bear witness to this.

The reformation churches have staked a great deal of their claim in the accessibility of scripture in the vulgar tongue (The language of the people) and have advocated daily reading of the same. This has meant that often there members are more biblically literate than member of the traditional unreformed Churches.

I know my Catholic God Mother was very excited to tell me that their parish was going to have a Bible Study group, which I think does reflect that the winds of change you see as valuable are afoot.

 

[miknik5]

The Church isn't a "middleman".
It is the Body of Christ (Col. 1:18) with Supreme, God-given Authority.
WHATEVER the Church ordains on earth will also be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

- The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (2 Tim. 3:15).
- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
- Jesus equated His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

Middleman, indeed . . .

Only those led by HIS SPIRIT should teach and instruct

The "church" is made up of those who know who and what they worship as well as those who simply do lip service to THE NAME

There is a difference between the outward structure of a "church building" and the TRUE CHURCH

And CHRIST will not be coming to claim one denominational church because there are mixed in Amongst all denominations two peoples

Those who outwardly profess CHRIST but inwardly upon the heart where HE sees that outward profession before men do not truly profess CHRIST

HE knows who belongs to HIM now and Durant need the help of church officials in directing HIM

Sorry

HE's THE HEAD of HIS OWN BODY
THAT IS HIS CHURCH
THAT IS HIS BRIDE
Not limited to any outward denominational name

 

[miknik5]

There are a range of factors that came to bear on this issue.

1. General levels of literacy were quite low - and in a pre-industrial revolution era - there was little need for members of the general population to read - and little need for them to read anything anyway.
2. The value of a copy of the Bible, given that pre-printing press they were handwritten, was probably more like a house than a car, and probably a much better house than most people lived in.
3. There was an awareness that the text could be misunderstood or misconstrued and there were many who believed that the Church had a responsibility to expound the scriptures in a way that people would understand the true message.

In a sense then I suggest that the changes in technology and circumstance have a big impact on what makes a sensible approach. In the midst of an illiterate population it makes little sense to tell them to read the Bible. Most principal Churches had a copy of the Bible at the Lectern and those who could read had access to the text. I believe that most of us believe that the Church still has a guardianship role in relation to the sacred text of scripture to ensure that the true and lively message of salvation is rightly proclaimed.

I appreciate your input
But CHRIST thanked God for hiding the YRUTH from the learned and revealing it to babes

No one has the right to decide who GOD will call by HIS VOICE and lead by HIS SPIRIT to ALL Truth

 

[miknik5]

An encyclical is by definition a letter addressed from one bishop to other bishops, which is then relayed to their parishioners.

In the case of this encyclical, it was followed by much activity in promoting the use of vernacular Bibles, including a new translation into English, the Jerusalem Bible, to which JRR Tolkien contributed.

However, there had previously been English language Roman Catholic Bibles. The Douay Rheims is actually older than the KJV (although most people use an 18th century revision of it).

Paul

I, when I have time, will read this encyclical

I don't expect you to do my homework

 

[Philip_B]

I appreciate your input. But CHRIST thanked God for hiding the YRUTH from the learned and revealing it to babes. No one has the right to decide who GOD will call by HIS VOICE and lead by HIS SPIRIT to ALL Truth

I am not sure I understand the point, save that naturally I would concur that God Calls, God Speaks, and God's Holy Spirit Leads us into all truth.

 

[miknik5]

I am not sure I understand the point, save that naturally I would concur that God Calls, God Speaks, and God's Holy Spirit Leads us into all truth.

I am not sure I understand the point, save that naturally I would concur that God Calls, God Speaks, and God's Holy Spirit Leads us into all truth.

You don't understand that GOD is not impressed by supposed high credentials?

Thst GOD chose the foolish and the lowly things of the world and the things that aren't (held in high esteem) to shame the things that are and that hold themselves in high esteem?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

None of those posts answered my question in it's fullness. A general statement of "ALL" in Acts 10 could mean everyone hearing Saint Peter speak or (as I prefer) everyone who heard, believed and is witnessed reacting to in some manner (worship) as having received the Holy Spirit. I can accept either assertion, but either way the question dodged several times now remains unanswered.

If we say everyone present, which it says includes the centurians extended family and his friends, then it seems rather necessary we would be including children and most likely infants too. And I am OK with including all of those. My point in asking as I did, was how can we invision a toddler or infant making a sincere confession of having faith? We could hear an older child making such a confession, but as children are not fully mature, in what sense could we imagine such confession must be taken as sincere as we would an adult? (not that adults could not be deceptive).
But more importantly for my point as well, if we accept all meant everyone present including those just mentioned, then we must also accept ALL meant all of those present were also Baptized. Which means babies, toddlers and young children too. Which likewise I not only accept, but as a Catholic would endorse doing so and believing Saint Peter would as well.

So claiming ALL means ALL is OK, but one needs to be consistent, so the same ALL were Baptized. The Scripture does not mention a "profession of faith". It mentions the Spirit falling on "all" those that heard Saint Peter's sermon and that something then occurred that witnesses could see that indicated those particular people had the same Spirit they had. Was it a sinners prayer, was it a "profession of faith" we don't know for sure, but it was something. So if we claim ALL were Baptized because they "professed their faith" then that means any babies, toddlers and children present too were Baptized because of some "profession". So my question was and still is, how exactly did that part of ALL, the children and infants, "profess their faith" or even consent to belief to then get Baptized because of that "profession"?

And even if one prefers my understanding that has only those that heard and believed would have the Spirit fall on them in a manner that caused them to behave, speak or something that could be witnessed by others, I am not in saying that limiting what happens next with Baptizing to just that group of people. IOW some of those that believed reacted in a manner indicating that belief because the Spirit entered and moved them to act, but that does not mean the Spirit had to move everyone believing those words to react. I do not see how I can limit belief to only those who visibly reacted to having received the Spirit. Neither would I see it necessary to say the Centurion would not want, even insist that infants and small children be Baptized or that Saint Peter would deny them simply because someone witnessing might say, you know I did not see this one or that one reacting to the same Spirit we have - which obviously they could not subjectively do with children below some reliable age of presumed understanding.

So this reply, to cut and paste your prior posts, did not address these questions about your view.

 

[Philip_B]

You don't understand that GOD is not impressed by supposed high credentials?

Thst GOD chose the foolish and the lowly things of the world and the things that aren't (held in high esteem) to shame the things that are and that hold themselves in high esteem?

Clearly we are talking at cross purposes here, because I have no problem with what you are suggesting here, at all.

 

[redleghunter]

Indeed, they stopped the ordinary folk from reading it for a long time in history

I think we should add historical perspective.

Here's a general outline on keeping 'the ordinary folk' in perspective.

Jesus and His disciples were raised hearing the TaNaKh in synagogue, and perhaps were given an honor now and then to actually read from a scroll. As we see in Luke 4 Jesus reads from a scroll of what we know as Isaiah 61 today. So we know they learned the Hebrew Scriptures and there were at least community copies of the TaNaKh as well. The materials needed to copy and have your own copy in 1st AD Judea and Galilee would not be in the family budget. Perhaps the more observing Jews obeyed Torah by writing the Decalogue on their door post, and binded on hand, and as frontlets between their eyes (Deuteronomy 6).

We know after Pentecost as the apostles expanded beyond the Jews to Samaritans and Gentiles, the Gospel was preached by mouth. The apostles also later taught, exhorted and encouraged churches with written letters, where most of the letters contained direct words of Christ and also direct words from TaNaKh. Once again, many of the instances we see in Acts is of preaching centered on places of Diaspora Jewish worship. They would have the scrolls necessary no doubt for them to search the "Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." (Acts 17)

The only figure in the NT which seems to be the 'bookish' type and carried volumes of information around seems to be Paul when he says, "Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments." (2 Timothy 4)

After the NT era, I would not see any change to the cost of having your own set of scrolls or codex for home use. Perhaps the more wealthy members of the church would be able to do so, but until the printing press and low cost of producing books in volume, the local church would be the place for all to gather and hear/read (if they could as in the West the Bible was in Latin) the Holy Scriptures.

My take is there was not a huge conspiracy to keep people dumb and happy by keeping the Bible from them through the centuries leading up to the printing press and Reformation. I think it was a matter of economics. It was not cheap.

If there was one area that the Church in the West could have done better and did to some degree keep people ignorant to the Holy Scriptures was the refusal to provide copies in the vernacular. A peasant farmer can over years of teaching pick up the liturgy in the Latin, but probably could not read the Latin. Of course such a peasant probably could not read at all, but there would be artisans, merchants and other professions that could have benefited reading Scriptures in their native language.

 

[miknik5]

None of those posts answered my question in it's fullness. A general statement of "ALL" in Acts 10 could mean everyone hearing Saint Peter speak or (as I prefer) everyone who heard, believed and is witnessed reacting to in some manner (worship) as having received the Holy Spirit. I can accept either assertion, but either way the question dodged several times now remains unanswered.

If we say everyone present, which it says includes the centurians extended family and his friends, then it seems rather necessary we would be including children and most likely infants too. And I am OK with including all of those. My point in asking as I did, was how can we invision a toddler or infant making a sincere confession of having faith? We could hear an older child making such a confession, but as children are not fully mature, in what sense could we imagine such confession must be taken as sincere as we would an adult? (not that even adults could be deceptive).
But more importantly for my point as well, if we accept all meant everyone present including those just mentioned, then we must also accept ALL meant all of those were also Baptized. Which means babies, toddlers and young children too. So claiming ALL means ALL is OK but one needs to be consistent, so the same ALL were Baptized. The Scripture does not mention a "profession of faith", it mentions the Spirit falling on those that heard Saint Peter's sermon and that something then occurred that witnesses could see that indicated those people had the same Spirit they had. Was it a sinners prayer, was it a "profession of faith" we don't know for sure, but it was something. So if we claim ALL were Baptized because they "professed their faith" then that means any babies, toddlers and children present too were Baptized. So my question was and still is, how exactly did that part of ALL "profess their faith" or even consent to belief to then get Baptized because of that "profession"?

And even if one prefers my understanding that has only those that heard and believed would have the Spirit fall on them in a manner that caused them to behave, speak or something that could be witnessed by others, I am not in saying that limiting what happens next with Baptizing to just that group of people. IOW some of those that believed reacted in a manner indicating that belief because the Spirit entered and moved them to act, but that does not mean the Spirit had to move everyone believing those words to react. I do not see how I can limit belief to only those who visibly reacted to having received the Spirit. Neither would I see it necessary to say the Centurion would not want, even insist that infants and small children be Baptized or that Saint Peter would deny them simply because someone witnessing might say, you know I did not see this one or that one reacting to the same Spirit we have - which obviously they could not subjectively do with children below some reliable age of presumed understanding.

So this reply, to cut and paste your prior posts, did not address these questions about your view.

Really?

Because GOD's WORD never said an accountable age and older?

Those whose hearts were moved?
A child is closer to GOD than any of us are
(Their angel always sees their father's face in heaven

 

[MarysSon]

<staff edit>
Because the Bible doesn't say he was saved.
Salvation is not a one-time, slam-dunk event. It is a process and I presented Scripture verses to support this. THIS is what the Bible says about salvation:

The Scriptures assure us that we as Christians are ALREADY SAVED (Rom. 5:1, 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8)

This is Initial Salvation – God give us the initial grace to believe.
This is what Cornelius had before being baptized.

However, because Salvation is a LIFELONG process – it ALSO says that I am BEING SAVED (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, 7:1, Phil. 2:12, Heb 12:14).

This is Ongoing Sanctification – God is sanctifying us throughout our life as we cooperate with his grace.

Because of this, I have the hope that I WILL BE SAVED (Matt. 24:13, Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).

This is Final Sanctification/Salvation – We die and go to heaven having endured to the end.

Was Cornelius saved before he was baptize?? that all depends on what YOU call "Saved".
I just gave you the Biblical definition.

Rom. 8:24
For in this HOPE we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Really?

Because GOD's WORD never said an accountable age and older?

Those whose hearts were moved?
A child is closer to GOD than any of us are
(Their angel always sees their father's face in heaven

Again, no one, especially a Catholic or Saint Peter would be denying a child or even an infant Baptism. I also agree that because of a relative and comparitive lack of sin, children would be in that sense only, closer to the heart of God. So the question is still remains unanswered, unless the claim ALL "professed their faith" was meant to be understood as that would not be required of infants or children. So by this response are we then assuming your view of Baptism is more in line with that of Catholics then?

 

[stuart lawrence]

Because the Bible doesn't say he was saved.
Salvation is not a one-time, slam-dunk event. It is a process and I presented Scripture verses to support this. THIS is what the Bible says about salvation:

The Scriptures assure us that we as Christians are ALREADY SAVED (Rom. 5:1, 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8)

This is Initial Salvation – God give us the initial grace to believe.
This is what Cornelius had before being baptized.

However, because Salvation is a LIFELONG process – it ALSO says that I am BEING SAVED (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, 7:1, Phil. 2:12, Heb 12:14).

This is Ongoing Sanctification – God is sanctifying us throughout our life as we cooperate with his grace.

Because of this, I have the hope that I WILL BE SAVED (Matt. 24:13, Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).

This is Final Sanctification/Salvation – We die and go to heaven having endured to the end.

Was Cornelius saved before he was baptize?? that all depends on what YOU call "Saved".
I just gave you the Biblical definition.

Rom. 8:24
For in this HOPE we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?

Cornelius either was, or was not in a saved state when he received the Holy Spirit.

You must know if a person has received the Holy Spirit they are in a saved state. Christ lives in them and they in Christ.

So why can you not simply say you accept that?.

Its obvious isn't it!

You would have to admit you can be in a saved state without firstly being baptised I water. And that you cannot admit for it contradicts your churches teaching.
so all you do is deflect and evade, deflect and evade, deflect......

 

[redleghunter]

During the Mass, we read a passage from the OT and 2 from the NT, including a Gospel reading. In a three-year period - virtually the ENTIRE Bible is read and reflected during Mass.

I've heard this before and did a little checking. In a three year period a Catholic does hear/read a good chunk of the Bible. However, not the entire Bible....not even close. Again, this is Mass and not a Wednesday night Bible study included. The below is from a poster at Catholic Forums:

The readings for Sunday Mass are repeated every three years. The reading for Weekday Mass are repeated every two years. The following table, based on my own calculations (and therefore likely not entirely error-free), will give you an idea of about what percentage of the Bible, Testament, or each individual book of the Bible, you might hear read at Mass over the course of any three-year period, based on the number of verses read. (Note: All optional Mass readings were included. Also, a verse was counted even if only part of verse is used.)

Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays



Entire Bible (35478). . . . . . 14% (5035) . . . 30% (10722)
Old Testament (27524) . . . 6% (1663) . . . . 18% (4830)

Genesis (1532) . . . . . . . . . 8% (123) . . . . . 27% (420)
Exodus (1213). . . . . . . . . . 10% (127) . . . . 20% (245)
Leviticus (859). . . . . . . . . . 1% (8). . . . . . . 5% (41)
Numbers (1288. . . . . . . . . 1% (17). . . . . . 6% (82)
Deuteronomy (959). . . . . . 5% (52). . . . . . 13% (123)
Joshua (657). . . . . . . . . . . 2% (10). . . . . . 7% (43)
Judges (618). . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 8% (51)
Ruth (85). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 25% (21)
1 Samuel (809) . . . . . . . . . 3% (24). . . . . . 19% (153)
2 Samuel (695) . . . . . . . . . 3% (21). . . . . . 15% (107)
1 Kings (816). . . . . . . . . . . 4% (31). . . . . . 19% (158)
2 Kings (719). . . . . . . . . . . 1% (14). . . . . . 16% (118)
1 Chronicles (943) . . . . . . 1% (6). . . . . . . 1% (9)
2 Chronicles (821) . . . . . . 2% (18) . . . . . . 3% (26)
Ezra (280) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 8% (21)
Nehemiah (405) . . . . . . . . 2% (9) . . . . . . 5% (20)
Tobit (245). . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 32% (79)
Judith (340). . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 3% (9)
Esther (272) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . 6% (15)
1 Maccabees (921). . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 6% (53)
2 Maccabees (556). . . . . . 2% (12) . . . . . 7% (38)
Job (1060). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% (17) . . . . . 8% (87)
Psalms (2524) . . . . . . . . . . 26% (648) . . . 50% (1263)

Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays

Proverbs (914). . . . . . . . . . 3% (24). . . . . . 6% (56)
Ecclesiastes (222). . . . . . . 2% (4). . . . . . . 15% (34)
Song of Songs (117) . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 11% (13)
Wisdom (436) . . . . . . . . . . 11% (50). . . . . 25% (109)
Sirach (1372). . . . . . . . . . . 4% (54) . . . . . 16% (226)
Isaiah (1281). . . . . . . . . . . 15% (192). . . . 26% (335)
Jeremiah (1364) . . . . . . . . 32% (43). . . . . 12% (165)
Lamentations (154). . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 5% (8)
Baruch (213). . . . . . . . . . . 13% (27). . . . . 22% (46)
Ezekiel (1255) . . . . . . . . . . 4% (48) . . . . . 14% (172)
Daniel (530) . . . . . . . . . . . 1% (7) . . . . . . 38% (204)
Hosea (196) . . . . . . . . . . . 7% (13). . . . . . 19% (38)
Joel (73) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16% (12). . . . . 44% (32)
Amos (146) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% (13) . . . . . 35% (51)
Obadiah (21) . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 0% (0)
Jonah (48) . . . . . . . . . . . . 13% (6) . . . . . . 90% (43)
Micah (105). . . . . . . . . . . . 4% (4) . . . . . . 23% (24)
Nahum (47). . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 15% (7)
Habakkuk (56). . . . . . . . . 9% (5). . . . . . . 18% (10)
Zephaniah (53) . . . . . . . . 15% (8) . . . . . . 25% (13)
Haggai (38) . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 45% (17)
Zechariah (211) . . . . . . . . 2% (4). . . . . . . 12% (25)
Malachi (55). . . . . . . . . . . 22% (12). . . . . 36% (20)

I guess Obadiah gets no loving.

Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays

New Testament (7954) . . . . . . 42% (3372) . . . . 74% (5892)

Matthew (1071) . . . . . . . . . . . 58% (623) . . . . . 87% (936)
Mark (678). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61% (412) . . . . . 97% (656)
Luke (1151) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60% (690) . . . . . 89% (1026)
John (878) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62% (545) . . . . . 95% (833)
Acts of the Apostles (1006) . . 18% (182) . . . . . 52% (525)
Romans (433). . . . . . . . . . . . . 26% (114) . . . . . 53% (230)
1 Corinthians (437). . . . . . . . . 40% (173) . . . . . 59% (259)
2 Corinthians (256). . . . . . . . . 21% (53). . . . . . 50% (127)
Galatians (149) . . . . . . . . . . . 28% (41). . . . . . 60% (89)
Ephesians (155) . . . . . . . . . . . 59% (91). . . . . . 91% (141)
Philippians (104) . . . . . . . . . . 47% (49). . . . . . 71% (74)
Colossians (95) . . . . . . . . . . . 37% (35). . . . . . 68% (65)
1 Thessalonians (88) . . . . . . . 44% (39). . . . . . 74% (65)
2 Thessalonians (47) . . . . . . . 36% (17). . . . . . 62% (29)
1 Timothy (113) . . . . . . . . . . . 18% (20). . . . . . 53% (60)
2 Timothy (83) . . . . . . . . . . . . 30% (25). . . . . . 67% (56)
Titus (46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17% (8). . . . . . . 61% (28)
Philemon (25). . . . . . . . . . . . . 32% (8) . . . . . . 56% (14)
Hebrews (303) . . . . . . . . . . . . 26% (80). . . . . . 62% (188)
James (108). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29% (31). . . . . . 92% (99)
1 Peter (105). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37% (39). . . . . . 81% (85)
2 Peter (61) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% (11). . . . . . 33% (20)
1 John (105). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30% (31). . . . . . 100% (105)
2 John (13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . . 46% (6)
3 John (15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . . 27% (4)
Jude (25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . . 28% (7)
Revelation (404) . . . . . . . . . . 14% (55). . . . . . 41% (165)


Source links for Todd Easton posts:

Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Reading the Entire Bible in 3 Years at Mass?

Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Reading the Entire Bible in 3 Years at Mass?

Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Reading the Entire Bible in 3 Years at Mass?

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! (2 Timothy 4:1-2)

 

[miknik5]

Again, no one, especially a Catholic or Saint Peter would be denying a child or even an infant Baptism. I also agree that because of a relative and comparitive lack of sin, children would be in that sense only, closer to the heart of God. So the question is still remains unanswered, unless the claim ALL "professed their faith" was meant to be understood as that would not be required of infants or children. So by this response are we then assuming your view of Baptism is more in line with that of Catholics then?

How can it be. I was water baptized as an infant but wasn't baptized until I was 39

My view is the same as Paul's however. That children are sanctified by their believing parents