Christianity and Paganism - What is the Truth?

[saved by grace]

Yes. Origen was a heretic.

Yes. There is zero evidence in the Bible for infant baptism. What we know is that the scriptures supercede Origen and Hippolytus. One thing that is obvious in studying history is that pagan cultures added their own practices on top of the Bible. These traditions are always subservient when they conflict with the Bible. Infant baptism is a clear example of a practice added by others outside of Scripture. The teaching is anathema to God's word in regards to redemption and adoption by God.

What is your authority to say Origen was a heretic? He said the tradition of baptizing infants is from Tradition. What reason would he have to lie? When entire households were baptized in Scripture, how do you infallibly know that infants weren't included?
Why did both Luther and Calvin, who went by the bible alone, believe it was in Scripture? Baptism replaced circumcision which Paul calls the "circumcision of Christ" in Col. 2:11
Speaking of baptism Peter says the promise of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit was also "to your children".
How much evidence do you need? The Trinity isn't mentioned in Scripture so why do the words "infant baptism" have to be?
Why do you believe everything that is true must be in written scripture? Calvin asked his critics to show them one scripture which allows women to receive the Lord's Supper. It's not in the bible yet women are allowed. What not infant baptism which has always been practiced.

 

[saved by grace]

Dead do not pray!

The members of the body of Christ in heaven are dead?

 

[HankD]

Obviously you were taught wrong. I've seen old Catechisms and none of them taught what you just said. You should have done your own investigation.There is nothing in 1 Tim 2:5 that is opposed to what the Catholic Church has always taught. We are all secondary mediators just like Moses when he was a mediator between God and Israel. In Luke 16 Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and poor man and Abraham is asked to intercede and ask Lazarus to plead with a man's brothers on earth so that they might repent. Apparently Jesus has no problem with the intercession of those in heaven on our behalf.

I was child when I was taught catechism for First Holy Communion and was NOT ALLOWED to question anything. I came from an old world Italian community although my mother was Jewish.

Abraham refused mediation.

Its not OK according to NT scripture when it comes to salvific mediation.
But let the readers decide.

From your posts I deduce you are a brother in Christ.

Godspeed.

HankD

 

[saved by grace]

I was child when I was taught catechism for First Holy Communion and was NOT ALLOWED to question anything. I came from an old world Italian community although my mother was Jewish.

Abraham refused mediation.

Its not OK according to NT scripture when it comes to salvific mediation.
But let the readers decide.

From your posts I deduce you are a brother in Christ.

Godspeed.

HankD

I don't see where Abraham refused mediation. He said, " If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead'
He didn't refuse to do it. He just believed it wouldn't do any good. If this were not allowed he would have said he's not allowed to do that sort of thing. Remember, It is Jesus who is giving the parable.

Please consider that Paul said, " Be conscientious about how you live and what you teach. Persevere in this, because by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you." 1 Tim 4:16

Paul said you can "save" yourself and others. Did Paul mean we could "save" in the same way that Jesus did? No..... But all members of the body of Christ can "save" others by prayer and witness and proclaiming Jesus. The saints in heaven save in the same way. That doesn't oppose that there is one mediator Jesus Christ.

 

[HankD]

I don't see where Abraham refused mediation. He said, " If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead'
He didn't refuse to do it. He just believed it wouldn't do any good. If this were not allowed he would have said he's not allowed to do that sort of thing. Remember, It is Jesus who is giving the parable.

Please consider that Paul said, " Be conscientious about how you live and what you teach. Persevere in this, because by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you." 1 Tim 4:16

Paul said you can "save" yourself and others. Did Paul mean we could "save" in the same way that Jesus did? No..... But all members of the body of Christ can "save" others by prayer and witness and proclaiming Jesus. The saints in heaven save in the same way. That doesn't oppose that there is one mediator Jesus Christ.

Agreed for the most part but I cant bring myself to ask a departed brother or sister who has gone on to glory for intercession. Others in family or church no problem.

HankD

 

[MennoSota]

What is your authority to say Origen was a heretic? He said the tradition of baptizing infants is from Tradition. What reason would he have to lie? When entire households were baptized in Scripture, how do you infallibly know that infants weren't included?
Why did both Luther and Calvin, who went by the bible alone, believe it was in Scripture? Baptism replaced circumcision which Paul calls the "circumcision of Christ" in Col. 2:11
Speaking of baptism Peter says the promise of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit was also "to your children".
How much evidence do you need? The Trinity isn't mentioned in Scripture so why do the words "infant baptism" have to be?
Why do you believe everything that is true must be in written scripture? Calvin asked his critics to show them one scripture which allows women to receive the Lord's Supper. It's not in the bible yet women are allowed. What not infant baptism which has always been practiced.

You are making huge assumptions about the Phillipian jailers family to include infants. The text and the whole of scripture doesn't support such an interpretation.
The attempt to equate infant baptism with circumcision is not supported by the text.
All you have is a couple of people, 200 years removed, making a claim that has no biblical merit.
As for Luther and Calvin, like us all, they were a product of their cukture. They were not always correct in their views. Both promoted the merger of church and state, which is a terrible idea. Luther compromised on communion so as not to irritate the princes. Luther's comments about Jews are head shaking.
If the scriptures actually had anything to say about infant baptism you could make an argument, but the silence is unmistakable. Such a teaching of salvation via infant baptism has zero merit.

 

[MennoSota]

The members of the body of Christ in heaven are dead?

What biblical passage teaches that the saints in heaven pray for the saints on earth?
Hebrews 12:1 certainly does not teach such a thing.

 

[Adonia]

What biblical passage teaches that the saints in heaven pray for the saints on earth?
Hebrews 12:1 certainly does not teach such a thing.

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints......"

Ah, the prayers of the saints! Who are the saints praying for - the souls on earth? The souls in heaven? What are their prayers? Who knows - any of my questions could be true.

 

[MennoSota]

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints......"

Ah, the prayers of the saints! Who are the saints praying for - the souls on earth? The souls in heaven? What are their prayers? Who knows - any of my questions could be true.

Those are the saints on earth who have been crying out to God in their tribulation. All who have been called and chosen by God are saints. You don't have to wait for specific signs and other prescribed traditions required by the Roman church to be a saint.

 

[Adonia]

Those are the saints on earth who have been crying out to God in their tribulation. All who have been called and chosen by God are saints. You don't have to wait for specific signs and other prescribed traditions required by the Roman church to be a saint.

I sort of like the idea of singling out those who have lived extraordinary lives for God. Yes we are all saints, but some stand out from among the rest of us and the Church which has the power to bind and loose things rightfully holds them up as an example for the rest of us.

 

[MennoSota]

I sort of like the idea of singling out those who have lived extraordinary lives for God. Yes we are all saints, but some stand out from among the rest of us and the Church which has the power to bind and loose things rightfully holds them up as an example for the rest of us.

Of course they do. Hebrews 11 bears that out. But, the prayers of the saints in Revelation are not those in heaven, but those who are crying out to God on earth.

 

[saved by grace]

Agreed for the most part but I cant bring myself to ask a departed brother or sister who has gone on to glory for intercession. Others in family or church no problem.

HankD

Your departed brother or sister in glory are members of the Body of Christ. The apostles, Paul, Mary, Martha, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob are all members of the Body of Christ and what does Paul say about the body? He tells us that we cannot say to a member of the Body of Christ, " I have no need of you"

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ……For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body.
If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our un-presentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together, if one member is honored, all rejoice together.” 1 Corinthians 12:12-26

 

[saved by grace]

Of course they do. Hebrews 11 bears that out. But, the prayers of the saints in Revelation are not those in heaven, but those who are crying out to God on earth.

In Rev 5 the twenty four elders are receiving the prayers of the saints on earth. John gives the imagery of incense. Each elder is holding a bowl of incense which are the "prayers of the saints". Notice, these prayers did not go directly to God. in Rev 8 an angel is also receiving the prayers of those on earth and their prayers did not go directly to God. This is a clear depiction of intercession.

 

[saved by grace]

You are making huge assumptions about the Phillipian jailers family to include infants. The text and the whole of scripture doesn't support such an interpretation.
The attempt to equate infant baptism with circumcision is not supported by the text.
All you have is a couple of people, 200 years removed, making a claim that has no biblical merit.
As for Luther and Calvin, like us all, they were a product of their cukture. They were not always correct in their views. Both promoted the merger of church and state, which is a terrible idea. Luther compromised on communion so as not to irritate the princes. Luther's comments about Jews are head shaking.
If the scriptures actually had anything to say about infant baptism you could make an argument, but the silence is unmistakable. Such a teaching of salvation via infant baptism has zero merit.

I disagree. First of all you are disregarding the context of the first century when every convert was a Jew and Jews had their infants circumcised to enter into God's covenant. When Peter stood up and told the Jews to be baptized can you image the uproar had Peter told the Jews that their children would have to wait to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Acts 2: 38
We are baptized into the Body of Christ. To refuse a child entrance into the New Covenant would have been disturbing to the Jews. It wouldn't have made any sense. The New Covenant would have not been better than the Old.
Secondly you think that everything must be in written Scripture. That's not the case. The Scriptures themselves don't make that claim. The people would have seen the apostles baptizing infants. There was no need to go into elaborate detail. Infant baptism and the method of baptizing, immersion and pouring water, are a part of the tradition that the Word of God written commands us to hold on to.

 

[MennoSota]

I disagree. First of all you are disregarding the context of the first century when every convert was a Jew and Jews had their infants circumcised to enter into God's covenant. When Peter stood up and told the Jews to be baptized can you image the uproar had Peter told the Jews that their children would have to wait to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Acts 2: 38

You are arguing from silence and conjecture.

We are baptized into the Body of Christ.

Water baptism does not save anyone. Water Baptism is a symbol of what God has done in bringing you from death to life in Christ.

To refuse a child entrance into the New Covenant would have been disturbing to the Jews. It wouldn't have made any sense. The New Covenant would have not been better than the Old.

Again you are using conjecture as your argument. Had infant baptism been of such importance the writers of the Bible would have told us. God himself would have told us. Not once do you find infant baptism talked about in the Bible. You are adding a different gospel to God's word.

Secondly you think that everything must be in written Scripture. That's not the case. The Scriptures themselves don't make that claim. The people would have seen the apostles baptizing infants. There was no need to go into elaborate detail.

There is absolutely a need. More than Jews were being saved. Other cultures that didn't baptize were being saved. The silence on infant baptism shows you that salvation does not take place via water baptism. You are arguing from conjecture.

Infant baptism and the method of baptizing, immersion and pouring water, are a part of the tradition that the Word of God written commands us to hold on to.

The word of God gives no commands in regard to infant baptism. Tradition, in this case, has lead to a heresy, which gives false hope to millions of people who are still dead in their trespasses and sins.

 

[Adonia]

You are arguing from silence and conjecture.

Water baptism does not save anyone. Water Baptism is a symbol of what God has done in bringing you from death to life in Christ.

Again you are using conjecture as your argument. Had infant baptism been of such importance the writers of the Bible would have told us. God himself would have told us. Not once do you find infant baptism talked about in the Bible. You are adding a different gospel to God's word.


There is absolutely a need. More than Jews were being saved. Other cultures that didn't baptize were being saved. The silence on infant baptism shows you that salvation does not take place via water baptism. You are arguing from conjecture.


The word of God gives no commands in regard to infant baptism. Tradition, in this case, has lead to a heresy, which gives false hope to millions of people who are still dead in their trespasses and sins.

You completely ignore the real power that was given to the new Universal Christian Church by God Himself. If it declares that infant baptism is okay then it is. There is no heresy here in what the Church proclaims.

 

[MennoSota]

You completely ignore the real power that was given to the new Universal Christian Church by God Himself. If it declares that infant baptism is okay then it is. There is no heresy here in what the Church proclaims.

There is no "real power" given to the church at Rome. You are adding that without any biblical support.
The church at Rome is not infallible and is gravely mistaken regarding infant baptism. Many millions of people are in hell because they placed their faith in infant baptism and a church confirmation class rather than in the shed blood of Jesus for their atonement and pardon.
Such a heresy that infant baptism saves should be outright rejected as incompatible with biblical teaching.

 

[HankD]

There is no "real power" given to the church at Rome. You are adding that without any biblical support.
The church at Rome is not infallible and is gravely mistaken regarding infant baptism. Many millions of people are in hell because they placed their faith in infant baptism and a church confirmation class rather than in the shed blood of Jesus for their atonement and pardon.
Such a heresy that infant baptism saves should be outright rejected as incompatible with biblical teaching.

Perhaps this passage has been dealt with?

From the Douay-Rheims (Catholic version):

Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said: See, here is water: What doth hinder me from being baptized?
37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

How can infants qualify for baptism when Phlilip required that which an infant cannot produce:

And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

HankD

 

[saved by grace]

You are arguing from silence and conjecture.

Water baptism does not save anyone. Water Baptism is a symbol of what God has done in bringing you from death to life in Christ.

Again you are using conjecture as your argument. Had infant baptism been of such importance the writers of the Bible would have told us. God himself would have told us. Not once do you find infant baptism talked about in the Bible. You are adding a different gospel to God's word.


There is absolutely a need. More than Jews were being saved. Other cultures that didn't baptize were being saved. The silence on infant baptism shows you that salvation does not take place via water baptism. You are arguing from conjecture.


The word of God gives no commands in regard to infant baptism. Tradition, in this case, has lead to a heresy, which gives false hope to millions of people who are still dead in their trespasses and sins.

You said that water baptism doesn't save anyone. Then why does Peter says, "baptism now saves you?' Peter knew we are saved by grace yet Peter can say baptism saves because that is how the grace that saves is given to us.

Jesus says. " he who believes AND is baptized will be saved" . Jesus could have said he who believes is saved and "then" is baptized but He didn't. You are the one saying that.

The idea that baptism is a symbol is arguing from silence and conjecture.
The Trinity is important yet the apostles never mention it. Does that mean it isn't true? That's the Mormon's and Oneness Pentecostal argument against it. You can't just blow off Tradition. Nowhere does the bible say not to hold on to what was passed down after the first century. That seems important. Why didn't they mention that?

The Jews would have been outraged had their children not been allowed to be baptized. Romans 6:5 says we are united to Christ in baptism. In Galatians 3:27 he says we have been baptized into Christ. To deny Jewish infants the right to be baptized into their Messiah would have cause a mass exodus from Christianity.

 

[saved by grace]

Perhaps this passage has been dealt with?

From the Douay-Rheims (Catholic version):

Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said: See, here is water: What doth hinder me from being baptized?
37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

How can infants qualify for baptism when Phlilip required that which an infant cannot produce:

And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

HankD

Scripture also say that whoever believes in Him has eternal life. Infants can't believe in Him, therefore they are going to hell?

Belief would only apply to adults not infants. A Jewish infant did not have to believe to be circumcised. That was done based on the faith of the parents. Baptism is no different. You are also missing the point that we are in a Covenant with God. A New Covenant. Jews were circumcised to be in the Old Covenant. How does one become a member of the New Covenant? Baptism which Col. 1:24 calls the circumcision of the Messiah.