Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

I am coming back. I thought the owner would take care of the thread but as it did not happen so, I am participating with he rules formulated. No debate, just formulation of my point of view.
The other participants may do whatever pleases them.
I find this format challenging.
Let's see what happens.

I put the following distinctions before: the Traditions that can be changed or variable and the Traditions that cannot be changed, for they constitute the Core of the Catholic Church.

First and foremost I think it is the Pope.

What does the Pope have to do with Tradition? why is it in the first place?

In the first place, because God wanted it so. God could imagine and want a Democratic Church ruled by synods and Councils, like the Orthodox Church. But God did not want it so and Jesus Christ told so very clearly. He stated that Peter was the rock on which He would build HIS church. 3 times Peter betrayed Jesus and 3 times, after the resurrection, Jesus Christ ordered him to look after HIS sheep.

Now, there are many things in the Bible that are not true for they depend on human evolution. It was done that way in the Bible, now it has changed and it is done the other way.

Yet, the Papacy is unique. That the Papacy has survived 2000 years it must be a sign of God. No other Institution survived this way. No Company, no religion, no Monarchy, no Human Structure.

Besides, if the Papacy was always a model for good governance, we would say that the Church always chose the best of the best and so survived for the Church had good leaders.

But what we see is the reverse. There were Popes with all kinds of sins. Popes who did not make the Glory of the Lord shine on them.

Yet, I repeat, yet, the papacy survived and it is stronger than ever. To attribute it to human perseverance, or luck, or evil, or whatever, is not to see humankind as a whole.

Some exceptional structure must demand exceptional creator.

Who is God.
to be continued-ad maiorem dei gloriam

Clearly said:

Root of Jesse asked in post # 18 “Thank you. What traditions do you think we have that are different from those the earliest Christians held? And what do you find as missing? And what are pre-mortal traditions? Please explain? “


The Roman Catholic claim of following “tradition” has only minimal advantage over a hypothetical “sola scriptura” since both principles are abused in the creation of theology. For example : The Roman congregation creates new traditions which did not exist in early Judao-Christianity; has also altered authentic early traditions which did exist in early Judao-Christian religions (admittedly, other christianities may have lost such traditions altogether); and they have also abandoned some authentic early christian traditions altogether. Thus, when one says they follow “tradition”, the claim has no strength if the “tradition” is an incorrect or altered tradition.

1) The Creation of new and unauthentic Christian traditions by the Roman Congregation :

We’ve discussed the creation of a tradition of popes claiming “apostolic powers”. This tradition seems to have been created as a lever for supremacy as the early roman congregation vied for pre-eminence among other congregations.


2) Alterations of authentic early Judao-Christian tradition by the Roman Congregation :

We’ve already discussed the changes in the eucharist and in the practice of baptism by the roman congregations.

A good example of subtle changes in early tradition by romans which is almost lost to other christianities is the doctrine of a place to which the spirits of the dead go for a preparation of sorts (purgatory). Though the roman congregation kept some of the doctrinal subtleties (i.e. a place of preparation and learning and change), they’ve lost many details of this world and it’s tradition as a place where all spirits went before resurrection. To the roman congregations credit, some christianities have abandoned or lost this doctrine altogether though restorationists (e.g. the LDS) also still possess this doctrine.

3) Early Judao-Christian traditions which have been lost or abandoned by the Roman Congregation :
An important loss to Roman theology are the early doctrines concerning the pre-mortal existence of spirits of men and occurrences prior to creation are largely abandoned by the roman congregation. The importance of such doctrines to the early Judao-Christians is that almost all of the important questions and answers regarding God’s purposes and the nature of mortality are defined during this time period.

For examples : The early traditions regarding the “war” in heaven, the nature of and origin of evil; lucifer’s fall from heaven and his motives for his rebellion and ill will toward adam and eve and their children; the reason for the early Christian concern with morality and repentance; the expected fall of man and the redemption of mankind in a morally improved state, and other profound questions of religion all have their origin and explanation within this time period.

Without a correct understanding of such principles, subsequent speculations spin off in different directions than they do in the early context of pre-mortal existence. Thus, even subsequent speculations arising from restorational theologies who retain these traditions will tend to evolve along more correct lines than christian theologies who have no knowledge of these important time periods.


Clearly
eiactwih

Click to expand...

Well, you say we've created, changed and dropped traditions, but we really have not. I've shown you where the office of the pope is in Sacred Tradition, and while his temporal role has changed over 2000 years, his place in the Catholic Church has not changed. Neither has the Tradition of Purgatory. And neither has the tradition of pre-histoy. I'm not going to debate them, this is statedly not a debate thread.

Clearly said:

Root of Jesse : I was considering which among examples of doctrinal innovations were important and considered another roman innovation that I think is important due to the religious harm it causes to the more authentic doctrines of the earliest christianity. That is : the damnation of infants to a form of hell who simply died without baptism or infants who do not "accept jesus".

I think many counterfeit religious theories and practices created by theologians and religionists may have little negative impact on christianities who adopt them. However, whether the roman congregation created or if they simply adopted the belief from another congregation, I believe the later adoption of the doctrine of damnation of the innocent infant is another example of a doctrinal innovation which causes religious confusion and harm to the christian cause.

When individuals investigating christianity, confront the inherent injustice in such doctrines, they may dismiss christianity entirely due to such simple and singular errors in doctrine rather than spend time seeking authentic christian doctrines which are more just.

Clearly

twtztztb

Click to expand...

Well, this was never Sacred Tradition, nor was it really 'tradition'. It was an attempt to understand how unbaptized babies are dealt with when they die. Since we know we worship a merciful God, we know He would never send one of his creations to hell through no fault of their own. The question was, could they go to heaven if they weren't baptized.

Root of Jesse said:

The question was, could they go to heaven if they weren't baptized.

Click to expand...

Yes.

So, I talked about the Pope, as, I would say, the Tradition Number One. If we can speak this way.
With the Pope, Tradition stands, without the Pope, every Tradition will fall into crumbles. We have the Anglicans, who are so Traditional by nature, being English on it origin. We have the Eastern Orthodox who are the closest to the Catholic Church but its Traditions.
But neither accepts the Pope. And without the Pope, there is not Tradition. Every tradition may fall to ground (I hope not) and no Tradition is guaranteed to stand the violence of times. As the greeks used to say: Chronos eats his own children. Time devours what time Has built. But for the Church built around the Pope, Chronos or Time has no power, for this Church is divine and will stand forever and ever, for it is eternal.

In the Bible, it is clear as water that Jesus said that on the top of Peter(the rock) He would build His Church. Some argue that the Church is built in Jesus Christ but Christ said that HIS CHURCH is built on Peter. And 3 times after resurrection ( to compensate for his 3 betrayals) made Jesus the command to shepherd His Flock. Well, one can say that it is not in Scripture, but it is there as clear as water. You need a lot of distortion to say that this is not a command of Jesus. And if one argues that this is no proof, I may argue that nothing the Bible says proves anything.

But the main argument I posed was the argument of time. 2000 years of Papacy is much papacy. It is too much. It is not according to human parameters. No Institutions stands that much in one piece with 1 billion followers. This seems a petty argument but for me it is the best argument. Religion not something to be discussed, it is to be lived. It is not something to be promised, but to be fulfilled. It is not somebody praying, but somebody meeting. You may promise: "I will be with you till the end of times!" and if your Organization disappears in 500dC, it was a vain promise. St. Paul thought that the end of the World was in His time, but reality makes us seen He was wrong. So many Messiahs foresaw so many prophecies and they were wrong. The Papacy stands: either by chance or by God's power. Chance is unsustainable: you should show something similar in the History of the World. Never saw a men prophesying that He would be crucified, resurrected and created a Church that would last til today. So, the living proof of Papacy's support on God's will is its existence Itself.

After 300 years of persecution, after the invasion of the Barbarians, the Dark Age, and the acculturation of the Barbarians, after all the heresies of the 1st Millennium after the scandal of having 3 Popes, after the corruption of the Borgia, after the Reformation which slit Christendom in two, after the encounter with Science with Galileo, after the sins of Inquisition and the worst of all, the Slavery of the Black People, after Trent, and the nationalisms and Garibaldi, after the earthquake of Vatican II, with bad and good popes, with Superstars like John Paul II or timid ones like Benedict XVI, the Church is ready to face the III Millennium, with or without Europe, with or without America, but a true Universal Church under Shepherd. This glorious journey through the centuries was not made by men, the some of the scandals that I put were enough to destroy a human Entity. It is a Epic Divine Enterprise. And if God is with us, who will be against us? (I am not talking about me, who is zero, but about the papacy)

tbc
AMDG

WinBySurrender said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that, WBS. Are you saying, then, that any unbaptized person, if they're unbaptized through invincible ignorance (say an aborigine in the Amazon), is welcome in heaven?

Root of Jesse said:

It's not as simple as that, WBS. Are you saying, then, that any unbaptized person, if they're unbaptized through invincible ignorance (say an aborigine in the Amazon), is welcome in heaven?

Click to expand...

That's what's wrong with infant baptism. The child doesn't have a clue what's being done. On the other hand, when reaching the age of understanding and making a decision to follow Christ, no one would be baptized "in ignorance." Oh, I'm sure insincere people have been baptized, but that isn't in ignorance. That's passive-agressive rebellion.

WinBySurrender said:

That's what's wrong with infant baptism. The child doesn't have a clue what's being done. On the other hand, when reaching the age of understanding and making a decision to follow Christ, no one would be baptized "in ignorance." Oh, I'm sure insincere people have been baptized, but that isn't in ignorance. That's passive-agressive rebellion.

Click to expand...

If you're saying that there's something wrong with infant baptism, you're saying that the Bible is wrong.
When Peter baptized 3000 men and their families, there were children there...

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse :
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The context of my comments was a comparison between a hypothetical “sola scriptura” versus simple “tradition”.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sola scriptura, (if it actually exists), doesn’t seem to work since it allows multiple interpretations from the same text and settles few important arguments.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Simply holding to prior tradition doesn’t work unless the tradition is authentic and accurate and, many early traditions are lost to modern Christianity entirely and often simple speculative reasoning forms the doctrines where no tradition exist.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
In the context of Roman Catholicism, My point is not to denigrate or debate on any personal level. But rather to offer examples of why the theory of “tradition” doesn’t work in Roman Catholicism any better than a hypothetical "sola scriptura" has worked.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I was offering examples of the Roman congregations creation of inaccurate traditions, of the changes to authentic traditions which lessen their value to the degree they are inaccurate and incorrect; and the roman congregations complete lack of some traditions which lead to inaccurate theology and creation of more inaccurate traditions. Doctrinal confusion from “inaccurate” tradition has no advantage over the doctrinal confusion of “sola scriptura”. (By the way, I believe all churches suffer similar problems - i.e. I am not singling out the catholics, but simply using them as an example...)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1) I offered examples of new traditions created by the catholic congregation. For example, the tradition that the congregational Bishop Titus was given apostolic power over all other apostles was an entirely new tradition to early Christianity that NEVER existed in any text or congregation in earliest Judao-Christianity but rather, it was a tradition created at a later time than the occurrence was supposed to have occurred. One may debate WHY Romans created this tradition, but it is obvious historically, that it was a created tradition and was not part of original Christian tradition.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you remember, you were never able to offer any period appropriate data supporting this tradition of apostolic power in a bishop, but rather you speculated as to WHY there WASN’T data supporting this tradition. Unless you have discovered data since last we discussed the creation of this tradition, we don’t need to revisit speculations as to why no data exists to support this claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I mentioned damnation of unbaptized infants (i.e. exclusion from heaven, regardless of the type of “punishment” they receive) as another created doctrine. This tradition seems to have resulted from speculation based on later reasoning and logic and has no early historical equivalent in Judao-Christian doctrine. The adoption of this doctrine by the influencial romans was not a “neutral” occurrence, but the doctrine was frequently adopted by many protestants as well. Non Christians and agnostics often point to such unjust doctrines as evidence that the Christians believe in an unjust God and subsequently reject him. It is in this way that some unauthentic and created traditions do great harm to the Christian cause and simply holding on to such “traditions” perpetuates such consequences.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]2) I also mentioned that some Roman traditions were based on authentic early Judao-christian traditions but have evolved away from their earliest version.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Though the catholics are faulted for their belief in Purgatory, THAT tradition is certainly based on authentic early doctrine which its detractors are simply unaware of. In the case of this world of spirits, the modern catholic tradition has retained the early base doctrine, but simply changed in details regarding purgatory; it’s inhabitants and details as to its nature.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you remember, I defended this catholic principle as a base principle, regardless of the fact that the catholics version is different than the original. However, I also realize that this tradition is incorrect to the degree that it has changed from the original doctrine. The original tradition is certainly authentic, but the version the modern Roman congregation adapted and adopted is not the same as the early version. Thus, the principle of “tradition alone”, does not prevent doctrinal error.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]3) I also mentioned that Roman Catholic doctrine lacks some of the very important early Judao-Christian traditions which form part of the framework for early Judao-Christian theology.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I used the example of pre-creation existence of spirits as an example of this point. The question you asked in post #18 “[/FONT]And what are pre-mortal traditions? Please explain?” reflects my claim that catholic tradition lacks many early Judao-Christian traditions . One has to turn to restorational Christianity (e.g. the LDS church) or to early Judao-Christian history (e.g. early judao-Christian texts) to learn about the earliest doctrines.




THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE PRE-CREATION CONDITIONS AND MANKIND

Pre-mortal existence of Souls was one of several authentic early doctrines whose abandonment has caused endless headaches, confusion and arguments among philosophers and theologians that the Christian Saints of former days were not subject to before the doctrine was abandoned.


I do not think many restorationists and historians fully understand and appreciate the immense contextual value of a return to this doctrine and what sort of theological compensatory distortions occur in its absence for Christianities who've abandoned it.


Many of the greatest existential questions concern the pre-mortal period of time. Without a knowledge and understanding of THIS time period, one cannot understand in context many of the greatest controversies and the most profound and sublime doctrines of Christianity.

For example an understanding of what went on before the creation of the earth concerns such things as :

1) The original purpose and plan of God and conditions under which he decided to initiate his creation have to do with this time period. Modern Christian theories that have no contextual knowledge of such events will have less contextual understanding of such things. When Luther was asked his opinion as to what God was doing BEFORE creation, he said to have quipped in reply : "Making a hell who ask those sorts of questions" (paraphrased). However, the ancient christianities HAD some knowledge of what was going on and how it related to current creation and it's conditions.

2) The most profound considerations concerning the origin of evil relate to conditions Prior to creation of the earth. Simply put, philosophers ask "Why did God Create such Evil" and suffering if he could have accomplished the same purpose without evil? (i.e. if he "omnipotent"). This is important since the critics of religion have legitimate curiosity regarding such issues and are unsatisfied with many modern theories regarding this subject. The critics of religion often have legitimate reason for their criticisms.

3) The nature of the devil and his fall from “heaven” has to do with the Pre-mortal time period. The origin of evil and it’s manifestations by another powerful agent having free will (lucifer) produces profound questions for anyone trying to understand why God allows Lucifer such rein on earth.

Even the prophet Sedrach asked God “If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? ” (Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7) Abraham also, asked God “How then, since he [Lucifer] is now not before you, did you establish yourself with (him)? “ (The Apocalypse of Abraham 20:5-7). Agnostics have a right to have authentic answers to such questions as well. The best contextual answers are to be found in pre-mortal/pre-earth creation conditions.

4) The nature of and issues underlying the “war in heaven” have to do with the pre-creation period. Virtually ALL of the facts surrounding this this controversy and the reasons underlying it are found in early Judao-christian texts that begin their considerations with the time period in which the controversy took place; the pre-creation/pre-mortal time period.

5) The role of the Fall of man in God’s plan has much to do with events PRIOR to Adam having been placed in the Garden. Modern christianities who have little understanding of pre-mortal issues often view the atonement of Jesus as a hastily prepared “plan B”, necessitated by a crafty Lucifer who scuttles God’s “plan A” for Adam in a Garden of Eden. The ancient christians, having a more complete understanding that the fall of Adam WAS part of the pre-mortal/pre-creation plan did NOT feel that God was "duped" by Lucifer, but that all had proceeded according to the original plan of God as they understood it.

6) The underlying reasons why some individuals are born into apparently arbitrary and unjust life scenarios are placed into a more understandable context by the greater data provided by conditions during the pre-mortal existence.


Arbitrariness, capriciousness and unjustness are consistent complaints that some individuals make about God since the world God created is not fair (if there are no other conditions which justify it). If God creates men ex-nihilo at an instant, and places some into conditions where they live happy lives and hear of Jesus and are ultimately “saved” and yet creates other men and places them into terrible and torturous conditions where they die before hearing of Jesus and ultimately suffer eternal punishment for not living laws they were never exposed to is seen as arbitrary and unjust. Without a consideration of events PRIOR to life, then some lives cannot make proper sense. Christianities who lack such knowledge are suffer the same disorientation individuals experience when coming into a movie that is more than half-over. The current situation doesn't make the same sense as when one is aware of what went on before they entered either the movie, or life itself.

Knowledge of the pre-existence gives us much greater insight into controversies which have plagued non-pre-existent Christianities for over 1700 years. Many of these millennia-long debates are neatly answered, simply by a return to the early doctrines.



This is part of the immense value of a restoration to early Christian Salvational doctrines. The Roman Catholic congregation cannot teach early authentic doctrines and details that they are unaware of. If they HAD been aware of these details in an earlier stage of their speculations and creation of doctrines, I think their theology would have evolved along different, more historically accurate lines.



A COMPARISON OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONS TO THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE CONDITIONS UNDERLYING MORTALITY

As an example comparison between the tradition of roman catholicisms’ current traditions and the earliest judao-christian traditions from the earliest sacred texts, perhaps you and I can offer a comparison for forum readers.


1) Will you describe the Roman Catholic tradition regarding the origin of man’s spirit from it’s consciousness to birth and what determines the moral and mental characteristics a spirit is born with

2) Will you describe the current catholic tradition regarding relationship of the spirit of mankind to God the Father and the Father’s reason for creating the world and inhabiting it with a mankind who has fallen from their initial moral perfection of the garden

3) Will you describe the current catholic tradition regarding details about the fall of Lucifer and his motives and reason for engineering the fall of Adam and eve and his continuing to war against God

[FONT=&quot]
I will then describe the earliest Judao-Christian traditions regarding these same principles. We can compare them for their coherency and explicative values.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse, I thank you for your diligence and willingness to describe roman catholic traditions for comparisons. You are one of the most diligent individuals and I very much respect your information and your position. I hope I do not come across as abusive or snotty. That is not my intention.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]twacfuoi
[/FONT]

Root of Jesse said:

If you're saying that there's something wrong with infant baptism, you're saying that the Bible is wrong.
When Peter baptized 3000 men and their families, there were children there...

Click to expand...

Show me the passage that says the children were baptized. Or for that matter, that says their wives were baptized?

Ok, here's the thing, Clearly: There is tradition, with a small t, and Sacred Tradition, with a capital T, otherwise known as Apostolic Tradition.
Apostolic Tradition, with the teaching authority given the apostles, is what tells us how to interpret the Bible. That's it.

Everything else is man-made tradition, and can change, or be better understood. For example, the question regarding what happens to unbaptized children is something that was explained with 'limbo', but that wasn't an actual doctrine of the church. It was an attempt to explain how unbaptized innocents would be handled in heaven. We know they aren't in hell, because you have to knowingly commit grave sin to go to hell, and an unbaptized child would not fit that criterion. We know they're not in heaven because they're not baptized. Hence, limbo. We now understand that God is merciful and would not deny heaven to a created being who was not baptized.
Regarding Titus, I don't think he was ever a bishop 'over all the apostles'. He was Bishop of Crete. He accompanied Paul to Jerusalem. But he wasn't 'over all the apostles'.
If you're talking about apostolic power conferred to bishops, the role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases. There is plenty of evidence of this in ECF writings.
Regarding purgatory, I don't believe our doctrine is any different than that of the early Church. I don't believe we contradict what you term pre-mortal condition of souls either. "Before you were in the womb, I knew you", says the LORD. The reason for creation of mankind is so that we may know, love, and serve God. All creation points us to God, and is available for mankind's use. Lucifer fell because God gave the angels a choice at their creation, to be with Him forever, or to be against him forever. The angels had free will once. I'm not sure why Lucifer engineered the fall of Adam and Eve, other than that he was trying to subvert everything God did.

WinBySurrender said:

Show me the passage that says the children were baptized. Or for that matter, that says their wives were baptized?

Click to expand...

It's implied. Show me a passage that says we shouldn't baptize children or women.

Root of Jesse said:

It's implied. Show me a passage that says we shouldn't baptize children or women.

Click to expand...

I didn't say women shouldn't be baptized. I'm simply saying that there is no passage indicating women were baptized that day. It was a way of showing that you can't know if children wee baptized. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized, as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him.Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection. With this in view, infant baptism is not a biblical practice.

• An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ.
• An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ.
• An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes.

The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism, as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? It doesn't. Therefore, infant baptism is unbiblical.

WinBySurrender said:

I didn't say women shouldn't be baptized. I'm simply saying that there is no passage indicating women were baptized that day. It was a way of showing that you can't know if children wee baptized. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized, as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him.

Acts 2
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 6
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
​

Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection. With this in view, infant baptism is not a biblical practice.

• An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ.
• An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ.
• An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes.

The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism, as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? It doesn't. Therefore, infant baptism is unbiblical.

Click to expand...

Where does it say it has to be by immersion?

WinBySurrender said:

I didn't say women shouldn't be baptized. I'm simply saying that there is no passage indicating women were baptized that day. It was a way of showing that you can't know if children wee baptized. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized, as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him.

Acts 2
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 6
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
​

Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection. With this in view, infant baptism is not a biblical practice.

• An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ.
• An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ.
• An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes.

The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism, as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? It doesn't. Therefore, infant baptism is unbiblical.

Click to expand...

Does the infant stand up there by him/herself? The parents answer for the child, that's why it's so important that the parents be aware of what they're committing the child to.

Root of Jesse said:

Does the infant stand up there by him/herself? The parents answer for the child, that's why it's so important that the parents be aware of what they're committing the child to.

Click to expand...

And that isn't proof for you that the infant can't make the decision, that the parents have to "make the decision" for him or her? That's even more unbiblical than infant baptism! You can commit to raise a child in a Christian household, and that's what we Baptists call "infant dedication." But no one can "make the decision" for you to be saved!

WinBySurrender said:

And that isn't proof for you that the infant can't make the decision, that the parents have to "make the decision" for him or her? That's even more unbiblical than infant baptism! You can commit to raise a child in a Christian household, and that's what we Baptists call "infant dedication." But no one can "make the decision" for you to be saved!

Click to expand...

It is your opinion that infant baptism is unbiblical. But it is not historically accurate. There is nothing in the Bible that says children should not be baptized. There's lots of things that are not in the Bible, but we hold them to be valid. You, for example, believe that you must accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, but that's not Biblical, either. Neither are altar calls. (Note, I'm not saying that they're not valid practices, just that they aren't Biblical). The fact is that there's nothing in the Bible that speaks of immersion being necessary, and there's nothing in the Bible that speaks of infant baptism as being invalid.

Root of Jesse said:

It is your opinion that infant baptism is unbiblical. But it is not historically accurate. There is nothing in the Bible that says children should not be baptized. There's lots of things that are not in the Bible, but we hold them to be valid. You, for example, believe that you must accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, but that's not Biblical, either. Neither are altar calls. (Note, I'm not saying that they're not valid practices, just that they aren't Biblical). The fact is that there's nothing in the Bible that speaks of immersion being necessary, and there's nothing in the Bible that speaks of infant baptism as being invalid.

Click to expand...

The very word itself means "to submerge or immerse in water" so to say that immersion isn't necessary is to deny the meaning of the word.

baptize (baptizo) - Online Bible Study Tools

Still, it is an outward testimony of what has occurred within, and if one is not baptized it will not affect his salvation. But the one thing in my post you didn't deal with is the child's ability to make a decision. That remains as a stalwart argument against infant baptism, as someone who can't make the decision certainly can't testify about it.

WinBySurrender said:

The very word itself means "to submerge or immerse in water" so to say that immersion isn't necessary is to deny the meaning of the word.

baptize (baptizo) - Online Bible Study Tools

Still, it is an outward testimony of what has occurred within, and if one is not baptized it will not affect his salvation. But the one thing in my post you didn't deal with is the child's ability to make a decision. That remains as a stalwart argument against infant baptism, as someone who can't make the decision certainly can't testify about it.

Click to expand...

I did deal with it. The parents and Godparents make the decisions for the child, just as they make the decisions for everything else in the child's life.

But if you would like to allow your children to do whatever they want however they want, so be it.

The Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently than Protestants (who cannot agree among themselves, either), teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults.

We also know that Christian baptism is the replacement for the rite of circumcision, which was done to infants, mostly.

Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No. Three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33)

I hope I've answered your question thouroughly enough.


Baptism is not only