SALVATION

[Valletta]

I am still amazed how the clear command and instructive of Lord Jesus and His Apostolic Writers are laid aside, and explained away, whenever or wherever it disagrees with traditions and teachings of others who claim to be Christians. I say this not only of the RCC but any Church sect or denomination that does likewise.

​

What are you talking about? Nothing was "explained away." You asked me a question and I gave you a straight answer. Perhaps an example from the Bible will help. Catholics consider the Bible the Word of God.

The Conversion of Lydia​

11 Setting sail therefore from Tro′as, we made a direct voyage to Sam′othrace, and the following day to Ne-ap′olis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is the leading city of the district[b] of Macedo′nia, and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days; 13 and on the sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer;[c] and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyati′ra, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. Acts 16:11 RSVCE

 

[AbbaLove]

C.E.? You should stay away from any publication that does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. I have said things I should not have too, you can always pray to God for forgiveness and apologize to the priest and tell him you have learned that Paul, as per Corinthians below, recommended celibacy:

Do you not believe a Protestant spiritually born again Christian can equally receive forgiveness directly from our Lord and Savior ... without needing to receive forgiveness from a Catholic priest?

Do you believe one's NT SALVATION resulting in a glorified body and eternal life is not possible via the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... without the assistance of a Catholic priest?

Getting the impression that the OP and possibly you view true "SALVATION" via the RCC; whereas you view Protestant "salvation" as questionable? Correct me if wrong that the OP used all CAPITAL letters in bold as more symbolic of RCC SALVATION than that of a Protestant Salvation (or salvation). Lets not kid ourselves that both you and the Op have a Catholic bias.

 

[setst777]

setst777 said:
According to Lord Jesus' Gospel Commission for all nations, does a person first have to become a disciple before being baptized?

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

And so, is baptism just for repentant believers [disciples]?

Acts 2:37-38 (NRSVCE) 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

No, there is no explicit requirement in the Bible. But the Catholic Church for almost 2000 years has required at least one adult in a household to first accept Jesus Christ before baptizing infants in the family.

I am still amazed how the clear command and instructive of Lord Jesus and His Apostolic Writers are laid aside, and explained away, whenever or wherever it disagrees with traditions and teachings of others who claim to be Christians. I say this not only of the RCC but any Church sect or denomination that does likewise.

Romans 16:25-27 (NIV) 25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the {{{prophetic writings}}} by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith – 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Colossians 2:2 My purpose is that they may have the full riches of COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING, in order that they may know the Mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may DECEIVE YOU BY FINE-SOUNDING ARGUMENTS. . . 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on HUMAN TRADITION and the basic principles of this world – RATHER THAN ON CHRIST

Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

2 Corinthians 1:13 (NIV) 13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Do not go beyond what is written.

What are you talking about? Nothing was "explained away." You asked me a question and I gave you a straight answer. Perhaps an example from the Bible will help. Catholics consider the Bible the Word of God.

The Conversion of Lydia​

11 Setting sail therefore from Tro′as, we made a direct voyage to Sam′othrace, and the following day to Ne-ap′olis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is the leading city of the district[b] of Macedo′nia, and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days; 13 and on the sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer;[c] and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyati′ra, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. Acts 16:11 RSVCE

Your straight answer lays aside the clear command and Gospel Commission of Lord Jesus to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.

There is nothing in the account of Lydia and her household, that they did not become disciples of Lord Jesus before being baptized; rather, you are reading your own tradition between the lines of God's Holy Word your own doctrines of men.

Only those who become disciples of Lord Jesus may be baptized in the name of Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:1-5 (NRSVCE)
1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples.
2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?”
They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 Then he said, “Into what then were you baptized?”
They answered, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them

To "believe" in Lord Jesus is to become His disciple - follower of Lord Jesus.

Acts 11:26 (NRSVCE) ... and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called “Christians.”

Only believers (disciples) are baptized into Christ Jesus.

That is a command that came from Lord Jesus.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

 

[Valletta]

To "believe" in Lord Jesus is to become His disciple - follower of Lord Jesus.

Acts 11:26 (NRSVCE) ... and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called “Christians.”

Only believers (disciples) are baptized into Christ Jesus.

That is a command that came from Lord Jesus.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

At Antioch pagans indeed used the name for followers of Christ as "Christians." You quote a lot of passages from the Bible, and all of those passages are true and I agree with them all, but then you give your own personal interpretation which is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible. The passages you quoted show adults accepting Jesus Christ and then being baptized, and other passages show that whole households were baptized. Lydia's faith was enough for any and all infants in her household to be baptized. This is because, as per the Bible, Baptism replaced circumcision, and, as with circumcision, the faith of the parents was enough for an infant to be circumcised. Jesus fulfilled what was in OT times, there is nothing in the Bible about Jesus restricting salvation for infants. John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. RSVCE As I said, Jesus wanted the children to come to Him. There is NOTHING in the Bible stating that "households except for infants" were baptized.

 

[setst777]

At Antioch pagans indeed used the name for followers of Christ as "Christians." You quote a lot of passages from the Bible, and all of those passages are true and I agree with them all, but then you give your own personal interpretation which is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible. The passages you quoted show adults accepting Jesus Christ and then being baptized, and other passages show that whole households were baptized. Lydia's faith was enough for any and all infants in her household to be baptized. This is because, as per the Bible, Baptism replaced circumcision, and, as with circumcision, the faith of the parents was enough for an infant to be circumcised. Jesus fulfilled what was in OT times, there is nothing in the Bible about Jesus restricting salvation for infants. John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. RSVCE As I said, Jesus wanted the children to come to Him. There is NOTHING in the Bible stating that "households except for infants" were baptized.

Baptism demonstrates an individual commitment to die to sin, and then to rise to a new life of following Lord Jesus.

• We are buried with Christ in baptism, representing a commitment to die to the old life of sin.
• We rise from the water, representing a commitment to follow Lord Jesus into a new life of righteousness.
• By this Gospel Faith, which is represented in Baptism, we share in the resurrection of Lord Jesus.
• Baptism represents the salvation we possess by faith in Lord Jesus - dead to sin, alive in Christ.
• Babies cannot do that.

Romans 6:1-5 (WEB) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection

The Passage I quoted (Acts 19:1-5) reveals to us that baptizing has no benefit to anyone unless a person first believes in Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:1-5 (NRSVCE)
1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples.
2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?”
They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 Then he said, “Into what then were you baptized?”
They answered, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them

In the Gospel of the New Testament, a person's faith cannot save anyone else, and Baptism represents salvation (Romans 6:1-5).
Each person is either saved or condemned depending on how they, personally, respond to the Gospel.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

You are assuming that babies in the household are baptized for someone else's faith. That is not a Gospel teaching.

According to Lord Jesus, the Gospel is a call for a response of repentance preached to all nations (Luke 24:44-46).

Luke 24:46-47 (ESV) 46 “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

And repentance must lead to discipleship, "make disciples of all nations."

Only disciples of Lord Jesus are baptized.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Baptism represents the salvation that the believer possesses after being called by the Gospel - having believed, they are now dead to sin, and alive in Christ, being his disciples.

Household of Lydia

Therefore, those in the household of Lydia, because of Lydia's testimony, also believed, and were baptized.
That has to be the case, because the command of Lord Jesus is to baptise disciples.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was only baptized after first hearing the Gospel and believing in Lord Jesus (Acts 8:35-36).

Babies cannot repent and believe in Lord Jesus, therefore, baptizing infants does nothing for them.
A baptism that is not in response to repentance and faith in Lord Jesus is of no value.

Nevertheless, babies are not accountable for sins they cannot commit, because they have no knowledge of sin.
In addition, no person is guilty for the sins of Adam; but rather, each person is guilty before God for his own sins (Romans 5:13).

Romans 5:13 (WEB) For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law.

Matthew 10:14 (WEB) But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said to them, “Allow the little children to come to me! Don’t forbid them, for God’s Kingdom belongs to such as these.”

 

[Valletta]

Baptism demonstrates an individual commitment to die to sin, and then to rise to a new life of following Lord Jesus.

• We are buried with Christ in baptism, representing a commitment to die to the old life of sin.
• We rise from the water, representing a commitment to follow Lord Jesus into a new life of righteousness.
• By this Gospel Faith, which is represented in Baptism, we share in the resurrection of Lord Jesus.
• Baptism represents the salvation we possess by faith in Lord Jesus - dead to sin, alive in Christ.
• Babies cannot do that.

Romans 6:1-5 (WEB) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection

The Passage I quoted (Acts 19:1-5) reveals to us that baptizing has no benefit to anyone unless a person first believes in Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:1-5 (NRSVCE)
1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples.
2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?”
They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 Then he said, “Into what then were you baptized?”
They answered, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them

In the Gospel of the New Testament, a person's faith cannot save anyone else, and Baptism represents salvation (Romans 6:1-5).
Each person is either saved or condemned depending on how they, personally, respond to the Gospel.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

You are assuming that babies in the household are baptized for someone else's faith. That is not a Gospel teaching.

According to Lord Jesus, the Gospel is a call for a response of repentance preached to all nations (Luke 24:44-46).

Luke 24:46-47 (ESV) 46 “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

And repentance must lead to discipleship, "make disciples of all nations."

Only disciples of Lord Jesus are baptized.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Baptism represents the salvation that the believer possesses after being called by the Gospel - having believed, they are now dead to sin, and alive in Christ, being his disciples.

Household of Lydia

Therefore, those in the household of Lydia, because of Lydia's testimony, also believed, and were baptized.
That has to be the case, because the command of Lord Jesus is to baptise disciples.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was only baptized after first hearing the Gospel and believing in Lord Jesus (Acts 8:35-36).

Babies cannot repent and believe in Lord Jesus, therefore, baptizing infants does nothing for them.
A baptism that is not in response to repentance and faith in Lord Jesus is of no value.

Nevertheless, babies are not accountable for sins they cannot commit, because they have no knowledge of sin.
In addition, no person is guilty for the sins of Adam; but rather, each person is guilty before God for his own sins (Romans 5:13).

Romans 5:13 (WEB) For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law.

Matthew 10:14 (WEB) But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said to them, “Allow the little children to come to me! Don’t forbid them, for God’s Kingdom belongs to such as these.”

The examples you are giving are of adults. The Catholic Church, for almost 2000 years now, even before the Gospels were written, first requires non-Christian adults to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior before they are baptized. We agree on adults. That households were baptized is also in the Bible. The Bible does not say "households except for babies." If you understand the Bible you understand that Baptism replaced circumcision, where the faith of the parents was enough for the baby to be baptized. Jesus did not take a step backwards and deny babies salvation through Baptism. As 1 Peter explains, Baptism saves us. Your idea that Jesus wants to deny babies Baptism is simply not in the Bible. In fact, babies are members of households and households of Christians were baptized.

 

[AbbaLove]

Baptism demonstrates an individual commitment to die to sin, and then to rise to a new life of following Lord Jesus.

Babies cannot repent and believe in Lord Jesus, therefore, baptizing infants does nothing for them

True Christianity is not based on the religious traditions of a specific denomination ... rather true Christianity is based on one's Spiritual relationship with Christ. A spiritual relationship that is equally available whether one is a born again Protestant Christian or a Catholic Christian

GOD'S SALVATION is equally available to Protestant Christians as well as Catholic Christians that put their devotion and love of Christ before their devotion to a specific Christian denomination that believes they are God's foremost chosen people. This contentious religiousity results in a disunity within Christendom ... it shouldn't be so and yet the RCC maintains they are God's foremost chosen church.

The Op may NOT believe that GOD'S SALVATION is just as equally available to those that see the necessity of the Protestant Reformation ... as are those that consider themselves faithful to the RCC and the necessity of their Pope as the Vicar of Christ.

 

[fhansen]

The Op may NOT believe that GOD'S SALVATION is just as equally available to those that see the necessity of the Protestant Reformation ... as are those that consider themselves faithful to the RCC and the necessity of their Pope as the Vicar of Christ.

The opening post was not about distinguishing between denominations first of all but only about distinguishing between whether or not a justified person becomes righteous in some manner and must now live accordingly: doing good, overcoming sin, obeying the commandments, etc.

However, as some have erroneously argued here that such is not the case, that future sin cannot separate one from God after they come to believe IOW, then this already tells me that there are differences in beliefs generated by different interpretations of Scripture and that the ancient churches in the east and west along with the early, um, fathers, at least have the basics down right while not everyone does..

Whether you know it or not you are standing in as the Vicar of Christ whenever you make your definitive pronouncements on truths of the Christian faith. But He’s not necessarily standing behind you- and each and every one of your interpretations. Other believers quite sincerely and plausibly may well disagree on Scriptural understanding.

 

[AbbaLove]

At Antioch pagans indeed used the name for followers of Christ as "Christians." You quote a lot of passages from the Bible, and all of those passages are true and I agree with them all, but then you give your own personal interpretation which is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

You do likewise ... "your own personal interpretation which is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible."

Jesus restricting salvation for infants. John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirsit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. RSVCE As I said, Jesus wanted the children to come to Him. There is NOTHING in the Bible stating that "households except for infants" were baptized.

One should not conclude that babies were baptized unless near death as is the following report among the Sioux.

Jesuit missionaries Fathers Michel Guignas and Nicholas de Gonners were only allowed to baptize a few sick babies and elderly Dacotah Sioux at Fort Beauharnois (Lake Pepin in the upper Mississippi). Father Michael Guignas is credited with establishing St. Michael the Archangel, the first Catholic chapel in Minnesota in 1727 (within the French palisaded fortification). Guignas was disapoointed being unable to baptize more Sioux as they were suspicious of what to them was a strange religion (taken from "Jesuit Relations" of New France).

I have a large original size copy of the fort plat (3'x3') drawn by Guignas showing the location of the chapel, trading houses, gun powder storage, sleeping quarters, palisqdes and the two (kitty-corner) defensive tower platforms. The plat drawn on site by Guignas and kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris after his return trip to France.

French explorers did report that the Sioux believed in a Great Spirit or Great Mystery (Wakan Tanka) as well as a "trickster."

 

[setst777]

The examples you are giving are of adults. The Catholic Church, for almost 2000 years now, even before the Gospels were written, first requires non-Christian adults to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior before they are baptized. We agree on adults. That households were baptized is also in the Bible. The Bible does not say "households except for babies." If you understand the Bible you understand that Baptism replaced circumcision, where the faith of the parents was enough for the baby to be baptized. Jesus did not take a step backwards and deny babies salvation through Baptism. As 1 Peter explains, Baptism saves us. Your idea that Jesus wants to deny babies Baptism is simply not in the Bible. In fact, babies are members of households and households of Christians were baptized.

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?

According to Lord Jesus and the Apostles, a person must first repent and believe to be baptised.

Only disciples of Lord Jesus are baptized.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

That is the command of Lord Jesus.

Can you show me where Lord Jesus commanded that babies also are baptized, before becoming a disciple of Lord Jesus?

 

[AbbaLove]

Whether you know it or not you are standing in as the Vicar of Christ whenever you make your definitive pronouncements on truths of the Christian faith.​

Is that your Catholic definitive pronouncement on this confirmed Christian of faith?
Surely you jest or just maybe you're more of a Liberal Catholic ​

An apologists' counterargument would go like this: the Pope and the bishops are the ones who have been ordained by Jesus Himself to continue His mission here on Earth. As the “Vicar of Christ,” the Pope exercises a vicarious function, replacing Jesus as the visible head of His Church on earth, (His Body).​

Vicar of Christ
​

The title is now used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops, and more specifically, was historically used to refer to the Bishop of Rome (the pope).​

Catholic Answers ... Vicar of Christ​

 

[Valletta]

According to Lord Jesus and the Apostles, a person must first repent and believe to be baptised.

I don't want to go around in circles. You keep on stating an interpretation, a conclusion you have made. The fact is that Jesus and the Apostles do not explicitly address the baptism of infants. Here you say a "person," trying to include infants. Jesus and the Apostles simply don't make an explicit reference. But the Bible does say that, households were baptized, and households include children. As I pointed out, Baptism replaced circumcision. In circumcision, like Baptism, the faith of the parents was enough. There is not even an indication in the Bible that Jesus did not want to recognize the faith of the parents for Baptism. Here is an historical description from Hippolytus, circa 215 A.D. See point 21:

"The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there
are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or
someone else from their family. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome

https://www.stjohnsarlingtonva.org/Customer-Content/saintjohnsarlington/CMS/files/EFM/Apostolic_Tradition_by_Hippolytus.pdf

 

[setst777]

I don't want to go around in circles. You keep on stating an interpretation, a conclusion you have made. The fact is that Jesus and the Apostles do not explicitly address the baptism of infants. Here you say a "person," trying to include infants. Jesus and the Apostles simply don't make an explicit reference. But the Bible does say that, households were baptized, and households include children. As I pointed out, Baptism replaced circumcision. In circumcision, like Baptism, the faith of the parents was enough. There is not even an indication in the Bible that Jesus did not want to recognize the faith of the parents for Baptism. Here is an historical description from Hippolytus, circa 215 A.D. See point 21:

"The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there
are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or
someone else from their family. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome

https://www.stjohnsarlingtonva.org/Customer-Content/saintjohnsarlington/CMS/files/EFM/Apostolic_Tradition_by_Hippolytus.pdf

I am not giving you my interpretation; I am quoting the Gospel Command of Lord Jesus (Mathew 28:19-20) and the Apostle Peter (Acts 2:38).

But you are giving me your interpretation of your doctrine that Lord Jesus never commanded. The Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul, and all other prophets, never teach or instruct that baptism is not just for believers, but is also for infants. Shortly, I will discuss your use of “household,” which is your sole "evidence" for your interpretation.

The Gospel teaches us that believers are saved (John 3:14-18).

John 3:16 (NRSVCE) 16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

Does "everyone" include infants, according to the Gospel? Where does Lord Jesus ever make an exception to the means by which God saves us, which is by faith?

Baptism is for believers (disciples) according to the Gospel command of Lord Jesus - with no exceptions given for infants (John 3:16).

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Since Lord Jesus does not mention "infants," can we presume that even those who are not disciples of Lord Jesus can also be baptized, without corrupting the clear command of Lord Jesus?

Household / Infants

You brought up verses that discuss that a "household" was baptized, which you say includes infants.

I agree that "household" can include infants, but not necessarily.

Let's look at a particular incident in which an "entire household" was forgiven, saved and baptized, and see if infants could possibly be included, according to the Gospel preached by Peter.

Acts 11:12-15 (NRSVCE)
12 The Spirit told me to go with them and not to make a distinction between them and us. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 He told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; 14 he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved.’

What was the "message" Peter preached to the entire household so they could be saved?

Acts 10:42-27 (NRSVCE)
42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone {{{who believes}}} in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
44 While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all [the entire household] who heard the word. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

The "entire household" heard the Message about how "everyone who believes" is forgiven. They all received the Holy Spirit. And so, they [the entire household] were then baptized. Do infants hear the Gospel and believe in Lord Jesus to be saved?

Didn't Peter plainly and clearly proclaim that "everyone who believes" is forgiven?

Notice that the Gospel that they (the entire household) heard from Peter was that forgiveness of sins is for those who believe, not infants.

Acts 10:43 (NRSVCE) 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone {{{who believes}}} in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

Peter spoke these words to the "entire household" as the Gospel by which we they are forgiven, saved and baptized, and by which they all (the entire household) receive the Holy Spirit.

Please make note again that:

"All the prophets testify" that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins.

How can you say infants are also included in baptism by which they are saved, when all the prophets, including Peter, testify that: everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins?

Acts 2:38 (NRSVCE) 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Valletta]

I am not giving you my interpretation; I am quoting the Gospel Command of Lord Jesus (Mathew 28:19-20) and the Apostle Peter (Acts 2:38).

But you are giving me your interpretation of your doctrine that Lord Jesus never commanded. The Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul, and all other prophets, never teach or instruct that baptism is not just for believers, but is also for infants. Shortly, I will discuss your use of “household,” which is your sole "evidence" for your interpretation.

The Gospel teaches us that believers are saved (John 3:14-18).

John 3:16 (NRSVCE) 16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

Does "everyone" include infants, according to the Gospel? Where does Lord Jesus ever make an exception to the means by which God saves us, which is by faith?

Baptism is for believers (disciples) according to the Gospel command of Lord Jesus - with no exceptions given for infants (John 3:16).

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Since Lord Jesus does not mention "infants," can we presume that even those who are not disciples of Lord Jesus can also be baptized, without corrupting the clear command of Lord Jesus?

Household / Infants

You brought up verses that discuss that a "household" was baptized, which you say includes infants.

I agree that "household" can include infants, but not necessarily.

Let's look at a particular incident in which an "entire household" was forgiven, saved and baptized, and see if infants could possibly be included, according to the Gospel preached by Peter.

Acts 11:12-15 (NRSVCE)
12 The Spirit told me to go with them and not to make a distinction between them and us. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 He told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; 14 he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved.’

What was the "message" Peter preached to the entire household so they could be saved?

Acts 10:42-27 (NRSVCE)
42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone {{{who believes}}} in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
44 While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all [the entire household] who heard the word. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

The "entire household" heard the Message about how "everyone who believes" is forgiven. They all received the Holy Spirit. And so, they [the entire household] were then baptized. Do infants hear the Gospel and believe in Lord Jesus to be saved?

Didn't Peter plainly and clearly proclaim that "everyone who believes" is forgiven?

Notice that the Gospel that they (the entire household) heard from Peter was that forgiveness of sins is for those who believe, not infants.

Acts 10:43 (NRSVCE) 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone {{{who believes}}} in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

Peter spoke these words to the "entire household" as the Gospel by which we they are forgiven, saved and baptized, and by which they all (the entire household) receive the Holy Spirit.

Please make note again that:

"All the prophets testify" that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins.

How can you say infants are also included in baptism by which they are saved, when all the prophets, including Peter, testify that: everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins?

Acts 2:38 (NRSVCE) 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

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.

 

[fhansen]

Is that your Catholic definitive pronouncement on this confirmed Christian of faith?
Surely you jest or just maybe you're more of a Liberal Catholic ​

I have no idea where one should get either jesting or liberalism out of anything I've said but once one is honest enough with themselves to see through the fallacy intrinsic to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura then they will know that every person who privately interprets the bible and claims by that to know fully all the tenets of the Christian faith is fooling themselves.

An apologists' counterargument would go like this: the Pope and the bishops are the ones who have been ordained by Jesus Himself to continue His mission here on Earth. As the “Vicar of Christ,” the Pope exercises a vicarious function, replacing Jesus as the visible head of His Church on earth, (His Body).​

The pope doesn't replace Jesus; he stands in as His representative, His mouth piece, particularly when controversies arise. It's a charism, a necessary gift so that the church can maintain a unity of faith. And, again, whenever anyone makes pronouncements about the truths of the Christian faith, or the truth or falsehoods of another person's or church's truth-claims, they are acting in that same role.

 

[AbbaLove]

I don't want to go around in circles. You keep on stating an interpretation, a conclusion you have made. The fact is that Jesus and the Apostles do not explicitly address the baptism of infants. Here you say a "person," trying to include infants. Jesus and the Apostles simply don't make an explicit reference.

Wht you fail to mention is that the pope and now even the bishops are considered the Vicar of Christ and as such have the authority to baptise infants being the authority over Christ's church (ekklesia) on earth (which is Catholocism).

Neither you or the OP make a point of explaning the authority of Catholic bishops and the pope to do whatever they consider the best interests of Christ's church (Catholocism) on earth. Because of your silence on their church authority siggests that you don't agree that the Catholic bishops and pope should be the Vicar of Christ as stated by the RCC ...

Catholic Answers ... Vicar of Christ​

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honor and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ.​

It's very possible that the OP doesn't believe the pope should have ultimate say over the Church of Christ on earth as the Vicar of Christ.

 

[fhansen]

Wht you fail to mention is that the pope and now even the bishops are considered the Vicar of Christ and as such have the authority to baptise infants being the authority over Christ's church (ekklesia) on earth (which is Catholocism).

The RCC considers true church to subsist in Roman Catholicism, but also in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. And, incidentally, it's not only the "Vicar of Christ" whom you're arguing with when it comes to infant baptism (or when it comes to the "father" and other issues for that matter), but the whole church including the EO and the early fathers. While the bible isn't explicit one way or the other about this practice the bible doesn't need to be, and, itself acknowledges that not everything that was taught or that Jesus said and did was necessarily even recorded. The church received and practiced the faith before a word of the new testament was written and as far as history is concerned we can only conclude that infant baptism was part of those beliefs and practices from the beginning, when the church was still a persecuted minority. And many Protestant denominations continued this practice as well.

Going by Scripture alone we end up with a variety of opinions on the matter. We have some arguing for infant baptism with the faith of the family and community standing in for the infant until they're old enough to confirm or deny the baptismal vows for themselves, while others argue for believer's baptism only while others yet for the necessity of rebaptizing once the person comes to faith for themselves. And all of these believing that baptism is necessary for salvation in response to what Jesus both modeled and commanded, with a few others back in the day denying baptismal regeneration. And all dividing from each other and starting new churches for these and other differences of interpretations, and with no acknowledged centralized voice to resolve such controversies. There are many contradicting beliefs that can be plausibly argued from Scripture either way.

 

[fhansen]

It's very possible that the OP doesn't believe the pope should have ultimate say over the Church of Christ on earth as the Vicar of Christ.

So...do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Whether or not the Catholic Church is right, guaranteed by the charism of infallibility regarding faith and morals, a gift which only assures that error on those matters won't enter the church, or whether or not the eastern churches are likewise right or wrong on the same matters, or the ECFS, is not the concern of the opening post. The concern is: what does God expect of us?

 

[AbbaLove]

... once one is honest enough with themselves to see through the fallacy intrinsic to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura then they will know that every person who privately interprets the bible and claims by that to know fully all the tenets of the Christian faith is fooling themselves.

.It's obvious the pope can't believe in Sola Scrfiptura. Truth is in the eye of the pope and his bishops when it comes to what's best for Catholocism (RCC - Church of Christ).

The pope doesn't replace Jesus; he stands in as His representative, His mouth piece, particularly when controversies arise. It's a charism, a necessary gift so that the church can maintain a unity of faith. And, again, whenever anyone makes pronouncements about the truths of the Christian faith, or the truth or falsehoods of another person's or church's truth-claims, they are acting in that same role the pope and his bishops?

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.

 

[fhansen]

.It's obvious the pope can't believe in Sola Scrfiptura. Truth is in the eye of the pope and his bishops when it comes to what's best for Catholocism (RCC - Church of Christ).

Of course not-he knows the foolishness of the idea. The Christian faith is not about biblical exegesis first of all, as if the best exegete wins, at least until a better one comes along. Going by Scripture alone, expert biblical scholars argue all day long with each other about the same points we may argue here, or which divided the Reformers from each other early on. The church uses the bible constantly in supporting its views, as others do, but it also understands that one cannot expect to fully know the faith apart from the church and its lived experience, from the group that received the faith at the beginning and preserved it and wrote the new testament and later assembled it as canon, among other things.