SALVATION

[fhansen]

Are you not aware that the RCC (pope & bishops) doesn't consider the churches born of the Protestant Reformation to be the "Church of Christ" (RCC). The RCC is NOT lax when it comes to affirming that "the pope is supreme universsal primacy" of the "Church of Christ" (RCC) on earth.

The CC considers most Protestants , depending on beliefs, to be part of the same true church, even if imperfectly joined to it. It also considers salvation to be open to them nonetheless. Not all Protestants, OTOH, view the Catholic Church in the same good light.

 

[AbbaLove]

The concern is: what does God expect of us?

In other words one doesn't need to be a proponent of Catholicism to receive God's SALVATION.

The problem is when you made it known in this thread that you consider yourself as also a "Vicar of Christ" (last paragraph of post # 1248) which can come across as your own definitive pronouncements (believing your interpretation of scripture (infant baptism) is better than another's; especially if your's is in line with that of the pope (RCC) ... even if his interpretation is just as valid (correct). Thus you wouldn't consider him to be a "Vicar of Christ" when a different interpretation than that of the pope (RCC) even if it is a valid interpretation.

 

[fhansen]

In other words one doesn't need to be a proponent of Catholicism to receive God's SALVATION.

This is true, even if the Way there may not be as clear. In any case the church acknowledges and values Christian faith wherever it may be found.

The problem is when you made it known in this thread that you consider yourself as also a "Vicar of Christ" (last paragraph of post # 1248) which can come across as your own definitive pronouncements (believing your interpretation of scripture (infant baptism) is better than another's); especially if your's is in line with that of the RCC ... even if his interpretation is just as valid (correct). Thus you wouldn't consider him to be a "Vicar of Christ" when a different interpretation than that of the pope (RCC) even if it is a valid interpretation.

The difference is that I came to find myself in agreement and in communion with the Church and its vicar-we're not asked for blind obedience. A related difference is in having history and lived experience, which I came to appreciate, on the church's side. And that's how it should be. And there cannot be two conflicting correct interpretations. I was quite anti-Catholic as a Protestant. It was only when I looked at Catholic teachings for myself, especially on the basics of justification/salvation, that I became impressed with them.

And at the end of the day, yes, we are each individual beings who must, within and for ourselves, determine what is truth and what is not, from wherever it may come, hopefully as we give ear to the voice of God, the Holy Spirit speaking and guiding.

 

[setst777]

I agree with every single Biblical passage you quote. However, if I say, everyone who flew to Iceland yesterday is healthy and well, that does not mean that no one else in the world is healthy and well.

How does your example of "Iceland" justify others besides believers from all nations to be baptized and saved, according to the NT Gospel.

I have no idea how the example of "Iceland" has anything to do with the worldwide Gospel that Peter proclaimed, and which the entire household heard and by which they all had to believe to be forgiven, saved, and baptized according to that Gospel Commission.

Correct me if I am misrepresenting you, but what I am understanding from you is that, if a command or directive in Scripture identifies who is saved and baptized, then you feel your Church has the right to add to that "command" others besides believers who can be baptized and saved.

Why not use that logic for any command, directive, or teaching in the Bible or anywhere else? But by doing so, you undue the whole meaning and purpose of the commands, directives, and teachings.

For instance, if your employer directed you to work 8 hours to be paid for 8 hours work, that does not mean you have the right to expect 8 hours pay for 4 hours work just because your employer never mentioned 4 hours. Yet, that is the kind of irrational logic you are using.

Using your logic, why could you, or anyone, not also say that anyone who does not believe can also be baptized and saved?

If Lord Jesus and the Apostolic Writers preached a Gospel Message to all nations that specifically states that one must repent and believe in Lord Jesus, following Him, to be saved and baptized, then how is it you feel your church has the right to add others besides believers to that command?

 

[AbbaLove]

Another difference is in having history and lived experience on the church's side.

Messinic Judaism has its history (the Feasts of the LORD) and tradiitons that they hold sacred. You can probably understnd why Messianic Jews are not fond of Catholicism (RT or supercessionism) having superseded the Jewish people as God's chosen people. Although the RCC (hopefully) has finally realized they were a tad too hasty in their pronouncement.

And that's how it should be. And there cannot be two conflicting correct interpretations.

So you have bought into the misconception that the bishops and pope of the RCC are in the best position to have the correct interpretation of scripture including one's born again experience and SALVATION.

I was quite anti-Catholic as a Protestant. It was only when I looked at Catholic teachings for myself, especially on the basics of justification/salvation, that I became impressed with them.

At some point in your journey you will come to the realization that true Christianity is not a religion. Rather true Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ Jesus.

From the perspective of Catholicism your current thinking is that the more converts you can bring into the sway of Catholicism the more will be your heavenly reward(s).

 

[fhansen]

Messinic Judaism has its history (the Feasts of the LORD) and tradiitons that they hold sacred. You can probably understnd why Messianic Jews are not fond of Catholicism (RT or supercessionism) having superseded the Jewish people as God's chosen people. Although the RCC (hopefully) has finally realized they were a tad too hasty in their pronouncement.

Why would that be? The promises to Abraham included the fact that all nations would be blessed through him. God's primary goal for the chosen people was ultimately to bring the Savior of the world to us all, Jew and gentile alike.

And unless we're willing to rewrite history, Messianic Judaism simply did not carry the Christian torch down through the centuries.

So you have bought into the misconception that the bishops and pope of the RCC are in the best position to have the correct interpretation of scripture including one's born again experience and SALVATION.

Testimonial's of "one's born again experience and SALVATION" still often involve a variety of beliefs.

At some point in your journey you will come to the realization that true Christianity is not a religion. Rather true Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ Jesus.

I didn't say it was about religion per se. Catholicism simply testifies to the truths of the faith, introducing one to the true God and helping them nourish that relationship along the way. That's what the early disciples did.

From the perspective of Catholicism your current thinking is that the more converts you can bring into the sway of the RCC the more will be your heavenly reward(s).

Nah, the heavenly rewards thing is more of a Protestant focus in my experience. We just want people to know God and His Son.
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Can you show me in Scripture where Lord Jesus or the Apostles taught, or by example, that Baptism is also for babies who never repented or believed in Lord Jesus first?

There are only two passages of Scripture which uses the word "baptize" and specifically states who can be baptized.

1) Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

• Jesus' divine commission is to "baptize the nations"—and there never was a nation without infants.
• Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all. All Human souls are intended for baptism.
• Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women and children & infants.
• Baptists and American Evangelicals exclude what Jesus has included.
• The command, therefore, to baptize all nations, is a command to baptize the youngest child as well as the oldest man.
• According to Jesus, there is no age or intellectual developmental requirement given for baptism.
• There is nothing in the Jesus' command that says a certain minimum level of teaching must have been carried out before being baptized.

2. Acts 2:38-39 “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. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

• Here we have two categories of individuals to be baptized: 1) Adults who must repent 2) Their children who do not have to.
• This then is the pattern for household baptisms in the Book of Acts. Adults who must repent and their children who do not have to.

 

[setst777]

There are only two passages of Scripture which uses the word "baptize" and specifically states who can be baptized.

1) Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

• Jesus' divine commission is to "baptize the nations"—and there never was a nation without infants.
• Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all. All Human souls are intended for baptism.
• Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women and children & infants.
• Baptists and American Evangelicals exclude what Jesus has included.
• The command, therefore, to baptize all nations, is a command to baptize the youngest child as well as the oldest man.
• According to Jesus, there is no age or intellectual developmental requirement given for baptism.
• There is nothing in the Jesus' command that says a certain minimum level of teaching must have been carried out before being baptized.

2. Acts 2:38-39 “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. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

• Here we have two categories of individuals to be baptized: 1) Adults who must repent 2) Their children who do not have to.
• This then is the pattern for household baptisms in the Book of Acts. Adult who must repent and their children who do not have to.

In Matthew 28:19, only disciples are baptized.

In Acts 2:38-39, the "promise" is for everyone who repents and is baptized. That is the context to those who are presently hearing the Gospel from Peter. Peter says that this "Promise" is even for their children, and all those who are afar off. That does not mean that unbelievers can also be baptized, whether they be infants or not.

Acts 2:37-38 (WEB)
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.

The Gospel, that Lord Jesus commissioned and commanded is to make "disciples" of all nations, baptizing "them" (disciples).

Who are we to go against the Great Commission of Lord Jesus?

 

[David Lamb]

There are only two passages of Scripture which uses the word "baptize" and specifically states who can be baptized.

1) Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

But note those words, "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;" If you claim that those two verses teach that babies should be baptized, then do you also believe that babies can be disciples, and can be taught to obey Christ's commands? Incidentally, most if not all people who don't agree with baptism of babies don't say, "Only adults should be baptized," but that only believers, of whatever age, should be baptized.

 

[FenderTL5]

But note those words, "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;" If you claim that those two verses teach that babies should be baptized, then do you also believe that babies can be disciples, and can be taught to obey Christ's commands?

I tend to think that's the very core of the practice. A child is baptized into the Church, taught the way it it should go, brought up in the faith, made a disciple so that when he/she is old they will not depart. Baptize ->teach.

Incidentally, most if not all people who don't agree with baptism of babies don't say, "Only adults should be baptized," but that only believers, of whatever age, should be baptized.

I understand where you are coming from, I was raised Independent Baptist, but baptized at a very young age (pre-teen). The tradition I was brought up in taught baptism was unnecessary but merely an act of obedience, but yes only for those who were already saved.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Gospel, that Lord Jesus commissioned and commanded is to make "disciples" of all nations, baptizing "them" (disciples).

In Matthew 28:19, only disciples are baptized.

Ain't buy'in what your sell'in.

The command is to make disciples which is a verb (μαθητεύσατε) and a verb CANNOT BE BAPTIZED. KNOW YOUR GRAMMAR. A nation is a noun which can be baptized per Jesus' command. And the object to making disciples is "all nations" How is this to be done? By baptizing and teaching them. The Greek here is straight forward and simple.

Under no circumstance will the Greek grammar allow a verb to be a substitute for the object of the sentence. – the object of baptism and of teach is “nations/gentiles”.... Not “disciples.” You should know this stuff. Maybe if you diagrammed out the sentence you would be able to understand this.

But this is fairly typical Baptist and American Evangelical beliefs. Butcher the Greek.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In Matthew 28:19, only disciples are baptized.

But note those words, "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;" If you claim that those two verses teach that babies should be baptized, then do you also believe that babies can be disciples, and can be taught to obey Christ's commands? Incidentally, most if not all people who don't agree with baptism of babies don't say, "Only adults should be baptized," but that only believers, of whatever age, should be baptized.

I follow the text and grammar of the NT. I don't follow Baptist and American Evangelical theology. In diagrammed form

We only have two prescriptive passages in the NT on who is to be baptized. JESUS SAYS TO BAPTIZE NATIONS.... AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A NATION WITHOUT INFANTS.

Acts 2:39 allows children to be baptize regardless of age. I follow the text....not baptist presuppositions.

 

[David Lamb]

I follow the text and grammar of the NT. I don't follow Baptist and American Evangelical theology. In diagrammed form
View attachment 356561
We only have two prescriptive passages in the NT on who is to be baptized. JESUS SAYS TO BAPTIZE NATIONS.... AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A NATION WITHOUT INFANTS.

Acts 2:39 allows children to be baptize regardless of age. I follow the text....not baptist presuppositions.

To me that misrepresents the Baptist position. The verse in question says:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

The first disciples were told to make disciples (the Greek word apparently means "learners" or "pupils") of all nations. Then they are to baptize them, those who have become disciples. This fits with what happened later in Acts when the Ethiopian asked Philip for baptism. We read:

“Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."” (Ac 8:37 NKJV)

The jailer at Philippi and his household were the same:

“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.” (Ac 16:34 NKJV)

They were believing disciples before being baptized. We look in vain in the bible for any mention of adult "godparents" promising on a baby's behalf to renounce the devil, etc.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

To me that misrepresents the Baptist position. The verse in question says:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

The first disciples were told to make disciples (the Greek word apparently means "learners" or "pupils") of all nations. Then they are to baptize them, those who have become disciples. This fits with what happened later in Acts when the Ethiopian asked Philip for baptism. We read:

“Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."” (Ac 8:37 NKJV)

The jailer at Philippi and his household were the same:

“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.” (Ac 16:34 NKJV)

They were believing disciples before being baptized. We look in vain in the bible for any mention of adult "godparents" promising on a baby's behalf to renounce the devil, etc.

Your post conflicts with Acts 2:39. Remember there are two groups of people in Acts 2. Adult males and the promise is to their children. The jailor's household was baptized (all those living under one roof regardless of age) following Peter's sermon...and to YOUR children as an example to follow.

Additionally, Acts 8 is DESCRIPTIVE account of the 8-9 specific baptism in the Book of Acts. It is not prescriptive. Only Matthew 28 and Acts 2 are PRESCRIPTIVE.

Furthermore, the term "believers baptism" is a misnomer. It should be called "professors baptism." No pastor today baptizing anyone really knows if adults are true believers due to the fact only God can see the heart. Psalms 116:11 states "All men are liars." How many adults over the centuries have lied to be apart of the Church in unbelief ?

Infant baptism is the truest form of all baptisms as it is impossible for an infant to lie. The Psalmist is correct: "All men are liars."

You keep using Acts 8:37 for your argument. This verse is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts...a fact known for centuries. I flat out reject Acts 8:37 as canonical Scripture. But Baptists and American Evangelicals will try to use any lame brain argument to "EXPLAIN AWAY" the historical practice of infant baptism.

 

[David Lamb]

Your post conflicts with Acts 2:39. Remember there are two groups of people in Acts 2. Adult males and the promise is to their children. The jailor's household was baptized (all those living under one roof regardless of age) following Peter's sermon...and to YOUR children as an example to follow.

But Acts 2:39 says:

“"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."” (Ac 2:39 NKJV)

Can a baby, who is too young to be able to speak, be described as "called by God"? (I should stress that I'm in no way denigrating God's power).

As for the jailer's household in Philippi, we are specifically told that all his household had believed:

“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.” (Ac 16:33-34 NKJV)

There is no mention of adult "godparents" believing on behalf of the supposed babies, and I suggest that babies are not in a position to believe for themselves.

Additionally, Acts 8 is DESCRIPTIVE account of the 8-9 specific baptism in the Book of Acts. It is not prescriptive. Only Matthew 28 and Acts 2 are PRESCRIPTIVE.

I cannot think of anywhere where we are told specifically that babies were baptized, or that anybody was baptized without belief.

Furthermore, the term "believers baptism" is a misnomer. It should be called "professors baptism." No pastor today baptizing anyone really knows if adults are true believers due to the fact only God can see the heart. Psalms 116:11 states "All men are liars." How many adults over the centuries have lied to be apart of the Church in unbelief ?

Of course that is entirely possible. I don't myself understand why anybody who doesn't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ would want to be a member of His church.

Infant baptism is the truest form of all baptisms as it is impossible for an infant to lie. The Psalmist is correct: "All men are liars."

If it's impossible for an infant/baby to lie, it's impossible for him/her to believe.

You keep using Acts 8:37 for your argument. This verse is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts...a fact known for centuries. I flat out reject Acts 8:37 as canonical Scripture. But Baptists and American Evangelicals will try to use any lame brain argument to "EXPLAIN AWAY" the historical practice of infant baptism.

But Acts 8:37 isn't the only place in the bible where baptism is preceded by belief. Are you suggesting that the Ethiopian did not believe? If he didn't, why ever would he desire to be baptized?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Can a baby, who is too young to be able to speak, be described as "called by God"? (I should stress that I'm in no way denigrating God's power).

Absolutely. What about the examples of Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Both were filled by the Holy Spirit, both regenerated, both were given faith within the womb. Faith is a gift of God regardless of age. Study your Bible! I am so happy I am not a Baptist.

If it's impossible for an infant/baby to lie, it's impossible for him/her to believe.

No. What about the examples of Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Both were filled by the Holy Spirit, both regenerated, both were given faith within the womb. Faith is a gift of God regardless of age.

Baptists have contempt for Jesus' words....Baptize nations.... and there was never a nation without infants. Baptist have contempt concerning Peter's sermon.... the promise of the forgiveness of sins.... is for YOUR CHILDREN.

 

[AbbaLove]

And unless we're willing to rewrite history, Messianic Judaism simply did not carry the Christian torch down through the centuries.

"Messianic Judaism" is generally understood today (in the MJ forum) with its beginning in the 1960s when primarily soul winning Baptists invited secular Jewish friends to their church resulting in conversion and being baptized as a "Christian."

However, it was only a matter of time when they formed their own Messianic congregations holding to Jewish traditions, e.g. Shabbat on the 7th day of the week (sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday) instead of Sunday and other Jewish traditions with a Rabbi. Also as Jews they were not fond of RT and supersessionism

This Messianic orgniztion (ONE FOR ISRAEL) is NOT adverse to being called "Christian" ...

Bless Israel With Yeshua

ONE FOR ISRAEL is an initiative of native-born Israelis on the forefront of high-tech media evangelism, proclaiming salvation to Israel, raising up spiritual leaders through ONE FOR ISRAEL’s Bible College and equipping them with the tools they need to transform our communities.

www.oneforisrael.org

They are not shy when it comes to letting it be known that One For Israel has the "largest Christian Library in Israel." Bill Bright of Campus Crusde for Christ was involved in its beginning.

Many of its testamonies are due to evangelicals (e.g. Baptists) witnessing ... I MET MESSIAH (Jewish Testimonies)

The testimonies will touch your heart. I have posted a few of these youtube testimonies on the MJ forum. However because they now consider themsleves a "Christian" their testomonies have never received a favorable comment on the MJ forum.

CF has informed Jewish members posting on the MJ forum that they are to consider themsleves "Christians" and must accept the Nicene Creed; however, easier said than done ... primarily due to the past history of the RCC toward Jews (RT and supersessionism) which is still prevalent in Catholicism being RCC is the Church of Christ with its pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
.

 

[AbbaLove]

Does one have to convert to Catholicism in order to receive GOD'S SALVATION

 

[fhansen]

Does one have to convert to Catholicism in order to receive GOD'S SALVATION

I remember the Jesus movement of Jewish young people in the 60's and 70's, and applauded it. Christianity IMO, is simply Judaism fulfilled. And that faith has been carried down through the centuries by the church without which any new movements with new horns to blow and their own particular spin on things, whether the Reformers or the SDAs or the Messianic Jews would not even now exist. I never thought of Jesus as Catholic or Italian, but as above all that, and in any case it was the gentile world mainly that took the ball and ran with it in the beginning. The Jews for the most part back in the day simply rejected Jesus as Messiah. It was necessary and ordained that the church would take the proclaiming of that message onto itself, which it did, and not just in the west by any means.

Good testimonies, BTW, always touch my heart-don't particularly care where they come from. And the RCC, itself, acknowledges that people are saved outside of the direct auspices of the church.

 

[David Lamb]

Absolutely. What about the examples of Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Both were filled by the Holy Spirit, both regenerated, both were given faith within the womb. Faith is a gift of God regardless of age. Study your Bible! I am so happy I am not a Baptist.


No. What about the examples of Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Both were filled by the Holy Spirit, both regenerated, both were given faith within the womb. Faith is a gift of God regardless of age.

Baptists have contempt for Jesus' words....Baptize nations.... and there was never a nation without infants. Baptist have contempt concerning Peter's sermon.... the promise of the forgiveness of sins.... is for YOUR CHILDREN.

Of Jeremiah, we read:

“"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."” (Jer 1:5 NKJV)

Nothing about him believing while he was in the womb, and the word translated "sanctified" there is taken by all the commentaries I have seen to refer to God setting Jeremiah apart to be a prophet when he was older.

The angel spoke of John's birth like this:

“"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” (Lu 1:15 NKJV)

Nothing about him believing as a baby.

I agree that faith is a gift from God.

I assure you that baptists do not have contempt for the words of Jesus; they understand them differently to paedobaptists, but that is not contempt. Regarding nations being baptized, who baptizes whole nations? That's not what Jesus said. The words are:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

Do we read of babies becoming disciples? "Baptizing them" refers to those who had become Christians, disciples of Jesus, and as I say, we don't baptize whole nations.

As for Peter and his preaching about the promise, here is the context:

“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."” (Ac 2:38-39 NKJV)

So the promise is for those who repent. Babies cannot repent. Yes, Peter says "your children", and if those children repent, tuning from their sins to God through Jesus Christ, they are recipients of the promise. There is no mention of the age of the children.