the church

[Right Divider]

Yes. That seems to be a logical necessity.

That is a fair request.

What's your stance on infant baptism?

That is it gross ignorance of what the Bible teaches.

Even during Christ's earthly ministry to Israel it was always "believe and be baptized".

Acts 8:12-13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:12) But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (8:13) Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 18:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(18:8) And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
​

During this dispensation of the grace of God, there is no water ceremony at all.

Eph 4:3-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:3) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (4:4) [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (4:6) One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all. (4:7) But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
​

This ONE baptism is DRY, it has NO WATER at all. It is a SPIRIT baptism.

1Cor 12:12-14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:12) For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. (12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (12:14) For the body is not one member, but many. ​

Believe the Word of God and get into the body.

 

[glassjester]

That is it gross ignorance of what the Bible teaches.

Alright. And you have been led by the Spirit, to understand that Scripture is against infant baptism. Is that right?

 

[Right Divider]

Alright. And you have been led by the Spirit, to understand that Scripture is against infant baptism. Is that right?

Yes and you should join us.

 

[glassjester]

Yes and you should join us.

Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists (and many non-denominational Christians) all practice infant baptism.

They believe the Spirit has led them to understand that Scripture supports this practice.


Either they are wrong in their sincere belief that the Spirit led their understanding.
Or you are wrong in your sincere belief that the Spirit has led you.

Which is it? And how do you know?

 

[Right Divider]

Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists (and many non-denominational Christians) all practice infant baptism.

Who cares? Truth is not determined by what these people do.

They believe the Spirit has led them to understand that Scripture supports this practice.

They are wrong.

Either they are wrong in their sincere belief that the Spirit led their understanding.
Or you are wrong in your sincere belief that the Spirit has led you.

Which is it? And how do you know?

They are wrong because they do not take God's Word at His Word.

I noticed that you neither responded to the scripture that I gave you, nor used any to support your statements here. That's very telling of your position that people's opinions are more important than God's Word.

 

[glassjester]

They are wrong because they do not take God's Word at His Word.

But they do. They truly believe.

Are you questioning the sincerity of every Christian that truly believes there is Scriptural support for infant baptism?

I noticed that you neither responded to the scripture that I gave you, nor used any to support your statements here. That's very telling of your position that people's opinions are more important than God's Word.

If I were to provide you with the teachings of the Catholic Church, you would simply dismiss them, and the authority the Church has to teach. Instead, I provided you with examples of other Sola Scriptura Christians who claim to have come to a Spirit-led understanding of Scripture that supports infant baptism.

 

[Right Divider]

But they do. They truly believe.

No they do not. It does not matter how sincere their "belief" is, if they are sincerely wrong.

Are you questioning the sincerity of every Christian that truly believes there is Scriptural support for infant baptism?

No, I am not questioning their sincerity. I am questioning their understanding of scripture.

If I were to provide you with the teachings of the Catholic Church, you would simply dismiss them, and the authority the Church has to teach. Instead, I provided you with examples of other Sola Scriptura Christians who claim to have come to a Spirit-led understanding of Scripture that supports infant baptism.

You provide nothing but opinions and AGAIN do not refer to SCRIPTURE in any of your responses.

You have NOT shown a SINGLE scripture that "supports" infant baptism.

 

[glassjester]

No they do not. It does not matter how sincere their "belief" is, if they are sincerely wrong.

No, I am not questioning their sincerity. I am questioning their understanding of scripture.

Indeed. But not your own?
Is it even possible for you to misunderstand Scripture?

You provide nothing but opinions and AGAIN do not refer to SCRIPTURE in any of your responses.

You have NOT shown a SINGLE scripture that "supports" infant baptism.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that faith must precede baptism - only that "he who believes and is baptized will be saved."

Paul compares baptism to circumcision, as you know. Circumcision, being performed on infants born to Jewish parents, or performed on adult converts (rare). When, then, should the "new circumcision" be performed?

Throughout the Acts of the Apostles, entire households were baptized.
That, inevitably, must have included children of all ages.

1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism now saves us. Do infants not need to be saved? All are born with sin, after all.

What effect, if any, do you believe baptism has on a person? And why should that effect be withheld from infants?


Still, this level of specificity is tangential to the main point of the discussion.

I do not intend to convince you to baptize an infant, but only to highlight the fact that two people can truly believe they are led by the Spirit (example: you vs a Methodist) and by Scripture alone, to opposite understandings of Scripture. You could both appeal to Scripture to defend your beliefs, and still have no way of knowing who has been misled, and who has arrived at true Christian doctrine.

This is a consequence of Sola Scriptura, which is itself, unbiblical.



...or do you appeal to an infallible authority, just as I do? Is there someone that you believe God has prevented from being misled in his understanding of Scripture?

Someone who is incapable (because of God's guidance, not his own human abilities) of wrongly believing a false doctrine?

Could that someone be you?


So...

Is it possible that you believe false doctrine?
Or does God prevent you, always, from doing so?

 

[Right Divider]

Indeed. But not your own?
Is it even possible for you to misunderstand Scripture?

Sure, I could be wrong. In this case, I am not.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that faith must precede baptism - only that "he who believes and is baptized will be saved."

Apparently, you never even bothered to read the posted scripture that I gave you.

Acts 8:12-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(8:12) But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,they were baptized, both men and women. (8:13) Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 18:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(18:8) And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.​

BOTH of those show believing PRECEDING water baptism!

Paul compares baptism to circumcision, as you know. Circumcision, being performed on infants born to Jewish parents, or performed on adult converts (rare). When, then, should the "new circumcision" be performed?

More opinion! Water baptism is NOT a "new circumcision".

Throughout the Acts of the Apostles, entire households were baptized.
That, inevitably, must have included children of all ages.

This was always associated with Christ's ministry to the circumcision (i.e., Israel).

1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism now saves us. Do infants not need to be saved? All are born with sin, after all.

What effect, if any, do you believe baptism has on a person? And why should that effect be withheld from infants?

In the body of Christ it serves NO purpose whatsoever. Your RCC has so confused the ministries of Christ and His twelve apostles of the twelve tribes and Paul's ministry as the apostle of the gentiles, that you confuse anything and everything.

Still, this level of specificity is tangential to the main point of the discussion.

I do not intend to convince you to baptize an infant, but only to highlight the fact that two people can truly believe they are led by the Spirit (example: you vs a Methodist) and by Scripture alone, to opposite understandings of Scripture. You could both appeal to Scripture to defend your beliefs, and still have no way of knowing who has been misled, and who has arrived at true Christian doctrine.

This is a consequence of Sola Scriptura, which is itself, unbiblical.

That fine because I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. So if you thought you were going to lead me down another rabbit hole, you are mistaken.

...or do you appeal to an infallible authority, just as I do? Is there someone that you believe God has prevented from being misled in his understanding of Scripture?

There are only two infallible authorities: God and His Word.

Someone who is incapable (because of God's guidance, not his own human abilities) of wrongly believing a false doctrine?

Could that someone be you?

So...

Is it possible that you believe false doctrine?
Or does God prevent you, always, from doing so?

You can attempt to place your RCC on a pedestal as this one infallible source, but I've compared them with Word of God and found that they have failed to teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

 

[glassjester]

You can attempt to place your RCC on a pedestal as this one infallible source, but I've compared them with Word of God and found that they have failed to teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Do you believe that God prevents you from believing false doctrine?

 

[TulipBee]

"The Apostles chose men to assist them, imparting to them greater or less powers. Before leaving a place, they chose a successor with full powers (Acts 14:22).

Acts 14:22 (AKJV/PCE)
(14:22) Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
​

Your "version" of that verse does not at ALL resemble the ACTUAL verse.

That was my point.

The REAL verse says nothing about choosing OR imparting powers of ANY kind.

Paul & Barnabas appointed presbyters for them in each of the churches, not Peter. Catholic writers often speak of "the primacy of Peter" and "the primacy of the Pope." However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, "And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy..." Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in*all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope!

 

[glassjester]

Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in*all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope!

Christ has all authority! Yes!

Does He even have the authority to give others authority?

...or does Christ not have the authority to do that?

 

[Right Divider]

Do you believe that God prevents you from believing false doctrine?

So AGAIN you ignore the actual discussion and the scripture presented and go back to playing your games.

That's really all you can do since your RCC doctrine is so bad.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul & Barnabas appointed presbyters for them in each of the churches, not Peter. Catholic writers often speak of "the primacy of Peter" and "the primacy of the Pope." However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, "And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy..." Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in*all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope!

I have no interest in your MONOLOGUE.

The point still stands that YOUR quote of that verse is NOTHING like the actual Word of God!

Get with the program.

 

[TulipBee]

Christ has all authority! Yes!

Does He even have the authority to give others authority?

...or does Christ not have the authority to do that?

not to forgive sins, please notice the following quotation from a Catholic source:

"Christ conferred upon the Apostles the power to forgive sins: 'Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, they are forgiven.' (John 20:23). St. Paul mirrors the faith of the Apostolic Church when he writes: 'God hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.' (II Cor. 5:18).

"As the inheritors of the power and authority of the apostles, the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church exercise the ministry of reconciliation, forgiving penitent sinners in the name of Jesus Christ." (The Faith of Millions, pp. 71-72)

"Did Christ intend that THIS POWER should BE EXERCISED BY THE APOSTLES ALONE?

"No, Christ intended that this power should be exercised also by their successors, the bishops of church." (My Catholic Faith, p. 107)

"Christ had given the Apostles full powers to choose successors, when He gave them the powers His Father had given Him (John 20:21).

"It was the command of Christ that the Apostles should have successors to continue the Church, which He said would last till the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20). Without successors to the Apostles, the Church would have no rulers, and being unorganized would never have lasted." (Ibid., p. 107).

As one can see from he above, Catholics claim that the present day bishops and priests in the Catholic Church are successors to the apostles, being inheritors of their power and authority. This cannot be true. The Catholic bishops and priests were not promised the power from on high nor commanded to wait in Jerusalem to receive it (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8). They have no authority because they are not inspired of the Holy Spirit nor are they eyewitnesses of Jesus (John 20:22-23; Acts 1:8, 21-26). They cannot prove their authority by speaking in tongues, prophesying and working miracles (2 Cor. 12:12). They are not the chosen ambassadors who were selected to deliver God's message or "the faith" to mankind (Eph. 3:3-4; Jude 3). Moreover, they cannot be successors to the apostles and prophets because the only infallible succession to them are the inspired writings (2 Pet. 1:15; 3:1; 2 Tim. 3:14-17).

The words of Christ quoted by the above Catholic writers were addressed the apostles only. They were not addressed to Catholic bishops and priests and it is sinful and wrong to apply the passage to them. This is done repeatedly in the Catholic Church as they try to prove their man made doctrine of successors. It was done by the above Catholic writers as he made reference to John 20:21-23; Matt. 28:20 and 2 Cor. 5:18. None of the passages made mention of successors nor referred to successors. They referred to the apostles and prophets only, and to apply them to anyone else is to twist and pervert the word of God. The wrath of God rests on all those who do such (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9; Rev. 22:18-19).

 

[TulipBee]

I have no interest in your MONOLOGUE.

The point still stands that YOUR quote of that verse is NOTHING like the actual Word of God!

Get with the program.

alright

 

[glassjester]

You can attempt to place your RCC on a pedestal as this one infallible source,

The pedestal upon which I place the Church, is the very same pedestal on which you've placed yourself.
I believe the same thing about the doctrinal authority of the Church, that you believe about your own doctrinal authority.

If you believe it is possible for the Holy Spirit to guide you to only true doctrine, why is it so far-fetched for me to believe that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to hold only true doctrine?

but I've compared them with Word of God and found that they have failed to teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Thereby making yourself the highest interpretive authority on Scripture.
Ultimately, it is your own understanding that you appeal to, as infallible.


"The Holy Spirit leads His Church to only true doctrine." = Papal Infallibility

"The Holy Spirit leads me to only true doctrine." = Personal Infallibility

 

[Right Divider]

alright

So you're OK with completely mis-quoting the Bible?

 

[TulipBee]

So you're OK with completely mis-quoting the Bible?

thought you wanted to drop it since you didnt want to disscuss whatever with me. im not ok with my sources misquoting the bible but sometimes i dont understand thier reasons why. dont worry, i made note of what you said.

 

[Right Divider]

The pedestal upon which I place the Church, is the very same pedestal on which you've placed yourself.

Absolute nonsense and another of your petty lies.

I claim that God and His Word are the only true authority today. Whereas, you claim that there is another organization that has this authority.

I believe the same thing about the doctrinal authority of the Church, that you believe about your own doctrinal authority.

Once again, a lie.

If you believe it is possible for the Holy Spirit to guide you to only true doctrine, why is it so far-fetched for me to believe that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to hold only true doctrine?

One again, RCC doctrine does NOT match with what God's Word says. It simple to see, but you prefer your RCC over God's Word.

Thereby making yourself the highest interpretive authority on Scripture.
Ultimately, it is your own understanding that you appeal to, as infallible.

Nope.

"The Holy Spirit leads His Church to only true doctrine." = Papal Infallibility

"The Holy Spirit leads me to only true doctrine." = Personal Infallibility

I made no such claim.

God's Word STANDS and your RCC perverts it to their own ungodly doctrines for power and profit.

All you do is make bold claims without a shred of scriptural support.
You do not understand Christ's earthly ministry with and through the twelve apostles.
You do not understand Christ's current ministry through that other apostle, Paul.

You refuse to discuss doctrine based on the Bible, but instead throw it out and claim that your RCC makes doctrine by its own authority.