? for former Catholics

To all:

Catholic Convert said Christ died on the cross for the Church. You argued that he did not, but died for all.

So why aren't Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, atheists, and agnostics going to heaven? You just said he died for all? Or, is it for all in the Church, directly (Catholics) or indirectly (non-Catholic Christians)?

 

I love how you make this stuff. First you propogate that Catholics have to earn their way into heaven through works (other threads), and now, all it takes is Baptism to be in Heaven? I sure wish you'd make up your mind on which heresy you wish to propogate, because you can't have it both ways this time.

Furthermore, a Catholic Baptism is equal and the same to any other Trinitarian Christian baptism, so I don't know why you decided to pretend like there is a difference here. Or was it just for effect?

You're right; your baptism is valid regardless of your unbelieving family. Again, I suppose since your family is Catholic and they are not "believers," that this applies to the universal Catholic Church. I mean, what other reason was there to say this? You sure are into your attacks these days, Jason.

Question why you will not trust in his interpretation first.

Furthermore, why are you so into the bare minimum of faith? Is simpler better? Faith is simple while understanding can be greatly increased. Don't confuse faith with understanding.

Jason,

Thanks for restating what has always been the case, that a valid, Trinitarian Christian baptism is necessary for salvation. However, you fully neglect that God is sovreign and infinitely merciful. You also forgot to read the pages of the catechism, where Church doctrine is clearly taught, that there are exceptions to this, including those who desired Baptism but had not the opportunity to receive it, at no fault of their own, and infants, who again, did not receive baptism at no fault of their own. We commend them to God's mercy. We make no pronouncements about them, for that is not our place.

Where, in Catholic doctrine, does it say we condemn them to hell? I'm sure you must have that passage ready to post for me to read.

 

You don't understand the concept of dieing for all...If muslims, hindus, bhuddists, atheists and agnostics or anyone who change their hearts to believing in Jesus Christ they will go to heaven...but until that confession comes from the heart then they will not go to heaven. But also they have to see what is different in what they believed before, to what they believe the Word of God says for them now....You can't, lets say for an example, by changing your heart to Jesus and still attend satan's church because you will never be fed with the word of God. This should bring one right out of there to a bible believing church. That is where it is our responsiblity to teach new babes in Christ how to follow Jesus. Not with man's materials but through God's Word...

 

"Furthermore, a Catholic Baptism is equal and the same to any other Trinitarian Christian baptism, so I don't know why you decided to pretend like there is a difference here. Or was it just for effect?

You're right; your baptism is valid regardless of your unbelieving family. Again, I suppose since your family is Catholic and they are not "believers," that this applies to the universal Catholic Church."

 

Sorry, I posted before I wrote my reply! As a Baptist, I would say that infant baptism is no baptism. We are saved when we repent of our sins, turn to Jesus, recieve His forgiveness and are forgiven. We own him as our Lord and follow Him. An 8 day old child has not repented, asked for or recieved forgivness etc. They have no faith, have not understood the gospel or anything. Infant baptism would be called a spiritual zero except that, in later years, people who have been sprinkled falsely assume that (independant of any act or wish on their part) they are members of the church, saved etc. As such, infant baptism is positively harmful. It deludes people who have not repented, confessed or asked God to save them into thinking that they are Christians. This is horrible.

 

Sorry, I posted that without my reply! As a Baptist, I would say that infant baptism is no baptism. You are saved when, in response to the work of the Holy Spirit in convicting you of sin, you repent and in faith ask Jesus to be your Lord. You are then born again, recieve forgivness of your sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and become a new creation, a child of God. Dropping water on a baby does none of this. The baby does not repent, desire to follow Jesus or anything. As the old Waldensians used to note, most babies cry when the water hits them - it is not what they want. I would therefore say that infant baptism is a spiritual zero, except that in later years, its recipients falsely believe that due to this involuntary act performed on them without their knowledge or consent, that they are now Christians, and so do not need to repent or ask Jesus into their lives. For this reason, I see infant baptism as an active spiritual negative. It keeps people from Jesus. It is horrible.

 

Computer skills really on the blink tonight!! I thought my first reply hadn't made it.

 

Hey GS, ever hear the term 'leading with your chin'? How about 'swinging with your eyes closed'?

1. I am only RESTATING what a catholic said, as I did in other threads.
2. I didn't make it up, I repeated it.
3. I don't want it both ways, I want all to agree and realize it only takes God.

This is a very ignorant statement.

Firstly, Which is better the simple salvation of grace or the complex salvation of the law?

Secondly, faith and understanding are not equivalent ideas to equate to each other. Faith is the belief in that which we cannot see. Understanding is the intellectual knowledge accumulated through a lifetime of study. You don't need faith to understand, and you surely don't need to understand to have faith. It helps both ways, but it not a requirement.

Lastly, faith IS simple. Anyone trying to make faith complex is leading you down the broad road to hell.

I am not the one confusing faith and understanding.

Do you read all the posts or just mine? I mean, if you read all of them you will see that I was actually SHOWING this point. A fellow catholic of yours said something stupid and I was SHOWING him how his statement didn't work. Again, do you read all of the posts? Knee Jerk reactions to supposed anti-catholic posts are not a good way to try and prove points, you will continually get caught in your own statements.

In Christ,
jason

 

Brother Aussie --

Sorry. You are dead wrong, both scripturally as well as unitively:

Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Baptism places one into the kingdom of God, the Church,(Matt. 21: 33-46) which is the Body of Christ according to Scripture. There is simply no need to understand what you are doing to be entered into the covenantal kingdom. If what you are saying is true, then the Jews had a better covenant that Christians do, for their infants, upon circumcision, were made members of the kingdom of God with all the rights accorded to such. We see further evidence of this in that even the infants were allowed to partake of the Passover as soon as they could chew and swallow, yet the Passover meal was for believing Jews only.

How can you then say that under the Old Covenant, children were brought into the kingdom and yet under the New Covenant, which is a "better covenant which speaks of better things" they are denied membership until they can "make a decision for Jesus" or some such the like?

Salvation is being IN CHRIST. It is not intellectual assent to a bunch of facts. It is being IN HIM and baptism is that means by which, through GRACE (remember? undeserved favor?) the infant is included in the covenant by and through the faith of the parents. The Pharisees had tremendous doctrinal knowledge, but they were far from the Lord. Intellectual knowledge does not equal salvation. Some of the nastiest atheists around know more Bible than both of us put together, but such knowledge is used to their destruction.

Yes, it is harmful to baptize a child if that is all you do for that child and then do not live the Christ life before them. If they do not see total commitment from the parents, they will assume that baptism is the only thing they have to do to obtain eternal life, and probably grow up to be what our priest calls "baptized pagans." But that is not the fault of baptism, it is the fault of the parents who do not take their responsibility seriously.

Knowledge does not unite us to Christ. Baptism does. Salvation is unity with Christ, not a formula repeated by rote. Infant baptism is a great witness for the grace of God, since the child can do NOTHING (thus eliminating the idea of salvation by works) but receive the grace of God through the Sacrament which the Lord left with the Apostles.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

"There is simply no need to understand what you are doing to be entered into the covenantal kingdom."

Thanks for replying. I do not accept infant baptism as an acceptable form of baptism, but clearly Jesus does not condemn children. He blessed them, but (unlike adults) he did not baptise them. I found your comments quoted above to be concerning, and have a few references to interact with them.
Romans 10:2-4. Their zeal was ineffectual as it was not based on correct knowledge.
Romans 10: 14-15. They cannot be saved unless the hear and believe.
Acts 8:31. The eunuch needed to understand what he was reading, then he believed and was baptised. Philip did not say, you dont need to understand or believe, I'll do that on your behalf, just get in the water.
Are you really saying that ignorance is an acceptable basis for salvation?
Througtout Acts, they preach, argue and try and convince people of the gospel. Was this all unnessesary?
All the best, Colin

 

Hi Colin,

It doesn't matter whether Jesus did or didn't baptize children when he didn't baptize adults. Jn 4:2 - "although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples"

Here's a Protestant publication on the issue that might be sobering:
http://www.issuesetc.com/resource/journals/kastens.htm

By the way, would you happen to know where Thursday Island is?

God bless,

Carson

[ April 23, 2002, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Thanks for replying. I do not accept infant baptism as an acceptable form of baptism, but clearly Jesus does not condemn children. He blessed them, but (unlike adults) he did not baptise them.

Of course He didn't baptize them. He was under the Old Covenant!!!!

Baptism as the entrance into the New Covenant didn't start until the book of Acts and after our Lord's Crucifixion.

As for your comment on the need to understand the Gospel in order to be saved:

Answer me this -- true story.

A couple has a retarded child with an IQ of about 50. Child is able to communicate on a rudimentary level, but cannot conceptualize. Therefore, the child cannot really put together the concepts of sin, redemption, and the work of Christ on the Cross.

How is this child to be saved under your soteriology?

I remember when I was in a Baptist church there was a couple just like this who AGONIZED over this. I be interested in yer answer for them and all others who face this situation.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

To the best of my knowledge, Calvin taught that infants at one to two years showed signs of concupiscence, which is, to him, personal sin, and if they wouldn't repent (which they obviously were unable to do), they would go to hell.

 

Hi there, thanks for the replies. Thursday island is in the Whitsundays, a beautiful group of islands just off the coast at the start of the Great Barrier Reef.

Before discussing the theology in detail, I should say that that I have always believed that God has a special love for children and the simple. As I dont believe that baptism saves, denying it to infants in no way impacts upon their eternal destiny. In the Jewish Passover, the father puts his prayershawl around a child who is simple and asks the questions on his behalf. I see the enfolding grace of God around such. I should also say that I do not worship saints, and while Calvin is welcome to join the debate through his writings, his oppinions carry no special weight. It is in his area of choice of women that we probably agree the most; I too married a Baptist girl.

Infant baptism does not replace circumcision. When Paul is arguing in Galatians with the circumcision party, he does not say, "foolish Galatians, your baptism has replaced circumcision" rather Paul contrasts faith with circumcision. In saying that someone does not need to believe, but that they are saved by circumcision, you are opposing the apostolic doctrine. We are saved by faith, by believing the preached word, and by trusting in Jesus for our future. As a baby cannot do any of this, they are not fit candidates for baptism.

Think about this. Are we saved by faith (as Paul says) or are children a special case? If children are not a special case, then imagine Paul arriving in some village and preaching the word. Some believe and ask to follow Jesus, some are unsure and want to discuss further, while some reject what they hear. Does Paul baptise the lot, saying, "you dont need individual belief or consent, you are all now Christians by dint of your baptism"? If it is only those who believe who are saved, (as is the unanimus testimony of Acts), then I am not the only one saying that children come under a special covering of grace. Indeed, as I said earlier, I believe that a child is harmed spiritually by "baptising" them, as they will grow up thinking they belong to Jesus when they have never asked him to be their saviour. How can they be saved without a believing response to the message they hear?

 

Think about this. Are we saved by faith (as Paul says) or are children a special case?

Like all other Baptists, you have absolutely no concept of the New Covenant, how it works, its type/antetype fulfillments, or even how it relates to our salvation.

A covenant has 5 very specific qualities which are seen in Scripture. They are:

T = Transcendence of God

H = Hierarchy

E = Ethics

O = Oaths and Sanctions

S = Successsion

The issue of faith involves the second concept, that of hierarchy. We see this evident in the Old Covenant when the adult male enters the covenant on behalf of the entire family. It is his faith which acts on behalf of all others in the family and enters them into the kingdom, INCLUDING HIS INFANT CHILDREN WHO CANNOT BELIEVE!!

This same principle of hierarchy and organic familial unity is seen in Romans 5:12 and is the basis of our being born in a state of separation from God. Adam's act of sin separated all mankind from God. Why? Because in the principle of hierarchy, he was the covenantal head and as such acted on behalf of his entire family.

I would challenge you to prove to me from Scripture that the infant child who was circumcized was not a member of the kingdom because he couldn't "accept Jehovah God as my personal Lord and Savior."

Just one example will do nicely.

If children are not a special case, then imagine Paul arriving in some village and preaching the word. Some believe and ask to follow Jesus, some are unsure and want to discuss further, while some reject what they hear. Does Paul baptise the lot, saying, "you dont need individual belief or consent, you are all now Christians by dint of your baptism"?

You are mixing apples and oranges here in a desparate attempt to prove your point. Those who can talk and reason are responsible to act in faith. Those who cannot reason have a covenantal head to act upon their behalf and best interest. The faith of the father is good enough for the child until the child comes to the point of either rejecting or accepting for himself the covenant which the father made.

Furthermore, baptism is an act of faith in the One Who told us that we must be baptized for the remission of our sins. Without faith, one would not submit to being baptized into Christ.

If it is only those who believe who are saved, (as is the unanimus testimony of Acts), then I am not the only one saying that children come under a special covering of grace.

Right. That covering is called the "covenantal head" or parent. The faith of the parent suffices for the child. So belief is important, but in a covenantal paradigm, one may have belief for another if the latter cannot reason and is in a familial covenant relationship.

Indeed, as I said earlier, I believe that a child is harmed spiritually by "baptising" them, as they will grow up thinking they belong to Jesus when they have never asked him to be their saviour.

I don't find the wording "ask Him to be your Savior" anywhere in the Bible except by the most twisted of exegesis. If such was taught by the Apostles, then you must show why they did not teach this "asking Jesus into your heart" to succeeding generations of believers, since the testimony of the writers of the Early Church is unanimous that baptism both saves one and makes one part of the kingdom of God, the Body of Christ. How did that happen?

Can they be saved without a believing response to the message they hear?

Of course. It's called GRACE!!! Remember? And I notice that you very artfully dodged my question about the retarded child.

My suggestion to you is to get Ray Sutton's book on the Covenant of God -- THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- Dominion by Covenant, read it, and then follow it up with Scott Hahn's series on tape -- THE COVENANTAL KINGDOM. You will then have a very good understanding of both the framework (Sutton) and the beauty (Hahn) of the covenant as well as the type/antetype fulfillments between the two. What you are suggestion pits the covenant against itself, making the old administration the enemy of the new.

Oh, and BTW -- if baptism has not replaced circumcision as the sign/seal of the New Covenant, then what has? Remember, a covenant is NOT a contract. It is when two people are joined so as to become one flesh. Whenever this is done, there is the shedding of blood. Where is the blood in your ritual? Believing neither joins one to Christ nor does it make one participant in the shedding of blood as does baptism.

Romans 3: 6 says that when we are baptized, we become PARTAKERS OF HIS DEATH. Thus, when we are baptized, we enter into that blood relationship which is the heart of a covenantal relationship. A man can make a contract and break it, which is the basis of the Old Covenant, but the New Covenant is more and better in that we are entered into a unitive and personal relationship with God through BLOOD ("The LIFE of the flesh is in the blood....."). By entering into a blood/death union with Christ by baptism, we are made partakers of both His death and the new resurrection life. Only a blood union can accomplish this. Mere "faith alone" is insufficient to do such.

It is dangerous to teach people that all they have to do is have "faith alone" in Christ and they will be eternally saved. Luther did this and by the time he died, Germany was an open cesspool of immorality because the peasants took A (I am saved forever) + B (No sin I commit will sever my relationship with Christ because of A) and came up with C (wicked and immoral living while claiming to be believers).

Proper teaching of the baptismal relationship, on the other hand, is a spur to holy living. It is important to teach the child that his baptism is an oath (sacramentum in Latin) which binds him to Christ. Breaking that oath by sin can destroy that covenant relationship (remember - covenants are breakable since they are relationships and not ironclad contracts). Breaking the covenant relationship results in eternal death.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

[ April 25, 2002, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

Hi Colin,

Did you know that Whitsunday comes from "White Sunday" and refers to Pentecost Sunday?

I'm going to work most of the summer in an apostolate w/ a priest from Thursday Island.. His name is Fr. Hillary, and from what I've heard, he's an incredible guy.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Colin,

You wrote, "As I dont believe that baptism saves"

1 Peter 3:18-21 - "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.."

I've heard every way around this passage, so you really don't have to present your case, but I still think that the stark contrast between what you believe and what the verse says at face value is enough to catch one's attention.

 

Carson,

I think you reading too much into, and neglecting parts of the passage.

1. Note the word 'sense'. It doesn't say you actually have remission of sins through baptism, only the sense of this.

2. Note the word appeal. The baptism doesn't save you (was one saved via circumcision?), it is the appeal to God for the remission of sins which saves us.

In both cases, baptism doesn't save anyone. Rather, the ritual of baptism is either a sense of proof of God's forgiveness or it is a way for us to appeal to God to forgive our sins...both explain why it is necassary to do it.

Here are some commentaries, which you will probably ignore:

M Henry
JF & B
David Guzik
John Gill

Coffman

This last one is interesting because it almost appears catholic in position, but if you read closer it shows a true biblical position. That the sacrament of baptism is needed for a person, but it can also be an empty ritual. Empty if the person does not go with an appeal to God (hmmm...children?)

Anyway, do with it what you will.

In Christ,
jason (deciding more and more everyday I need a true baptism as a knowing appeal to God for my salvation...the one sacrament I don't have)

 

Dear Ed,
No one disputes that under the old covenant, children were included. In many ways it was a physical covenant involving physical promises and was passed on to physical children. The new is unlike the old, however. You cant just change a few names and then back to business as before, get the old forms, crossout "circumcision" and pencil in "baptism", "high priest" and pencil in "pope", etc. That would simply be the old covenant by a slightly different name. The new covenant is radically different. It is a spiritual covenant, and we enter it by new birth, not by coming out of the right womb.

You are right when you say, "Without faith, one would not submit to being baptized into Christ." This however rules out infant baptism, as they are given no choice in the matter, but are forced to submit. Acts 13:39, "everyone who believes is justified"

I am not going to defend Luther, who retained infant baptism as a nessesary requirement for a state church. A Godly church is comprised of people who individually have been born again and wish to follow Jesus, not of people who were dunked without their consent as babies.

On a slightly different tack, as long as a baptism is properly performed, does the Catholic church consider that the faith of the parents is important? That is, if the parents do not believe, but their child is properly baptised by a priest, is that child still considered to be saved and to be a Catholic?
Have fun, Colin

 

No one disputes that under the old covenant, children were included.]

Thank you. Now.....for the record, since the New Covenant is said to be a "better covenant speaking of better things" according to Scripture, suppose you tell me how leaving our children OUT of the kingdom is better than the Old Covenant which included them from the eighth day onward?

Remember, the first believers were JEWS. They were not a bunch of American (Or Aussie) guys standing around saying "Well, what's next?" They came to the revelation of Messiah with certain foundational precepts which had been built into their understanding. One of these was the understanding of covenant. They would have approached this FULFILLMENT of all that they had been taught in a covenantal format, especially since Jesus Himself taught that there was a New Covenant, right?

Now....do you really think that these Jews, who were trained to bring their children into God's kingdom via a covenantal sign/seal would have accepted as being from God a lesser covenant which excluded their children? Get real. They would have left Peter standing there holding his KJV AV 1611 in his hands!!!

I think if you are honest about the type/antetype fulfillments we see all through Scripture, you will admit that they would have immediately asked "Well, what about circumcision" (Hmmmmm.....I think that question did come up somewhere, didn't it...proving my point about their covenantal mindset). And the answer given to them would have told them that the New Covenant also had a new sign/seal of entrance into the kingdom.

Circumcision was a prophetic sign/seal. Every time a baby boy was circumcized, it pointed to several things: Messiah would be cut off in the flesh, blood would be shed, and Messiah would be a male (which answers the question -- why weren't girls circumcized). To continue circumcision in the New Covenant would have been, in effect, to demonstrate symbolically that Jesus who is called the Christ, was an impostor.

You cant just change a few names and then back to business as before, get the old forms, crossout "circumcision" and pencil in "baptism", "high priest" and pencil in "pope", etc.

Good grief, man. Don't they teach you Baptists about types and fulfillments from Old to New Covenant? Of course you can. It's called fulfillment. Remember the Passover Lamb? Why do you think that we call Christ the Lamb of God? Man, I am stunned at that statement!! (And the pope is NOT a High Priest and no one has ever called him that....you need to get some clarity on Catholic terminology).

That would simply be the old covenant by a slightly different name..

Ahhhhhh....see, here's your problem right here. There is only ONE covenant, not two. The covenant of God, eternal from the foundation of the world, pre-existing before there was ever even a world. You have the erroneous view that there are two? (or maybe seven?) different covenants. There are not. It is one covenant with a different adminstration when Christ fulfills the types of the Old.

In the Old Covenant we see the Passover Lamb. This type is fulfilled in Christ as our Passover. In the Old Covenant we see a threefold priesthood: priesthood of believers, mediatorial priesthood, and the High Priest. That continues in perfected form now inasmuch as believers are priests unto God, (1 Peter 2: 9 -- notice the type/antetype fulfillment between Ex. 19:6 and 1 Peter 2: 9) there were established mediatorial priests for the sins of the people, (John 20: 23) and the Great High Priest in Heaven.(Heb. 9 & 10)

The new covenant is radically different. It is a spiritual covenant, and we enter it by new birth, not by coming out of the right womb.

Sorry, wrong again. Study carefully Matthew 21: 33-46 and you will see this. In the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, Christ prophesies the coming destruction of the Hebrew nation in AD70. According to the parable, this is the time that the covenant is taken from the Jews and given to the Church, which is called the "new nation" in the parable. There is no indication in this parable of any sort of change in the vineyard (the kingdom) in which is changes from an earthly, visible reality to a "spiritual" and unseen" reality. It continues. All that changes is the administration of it -- taken from the Jews PERMANENTLY!!! and given to the Church FOREVER!!! (Thus skewering the silly notions of premillenialism)

You also might want to consider 1 Tim. 3:15 and ask yourself how an unseen and spiritual Church can be the "pillar and ground of truth" when no one can either see or hear it? How does an unseen Church have any witness among the nations? The Old Covenant kingdom was seen by all in the Middle East. Jerusalem sat upon seven hills as a beacon of light (though sadly corrupted by the Pharisees) to all who would learn of the true and living God. Now, once again you make the New Covenant worse than the Old Covenant in presenting a kingdom which cannot be seen by men and thus offers no visible testimony to them. Everything we do in the Catholic Faith has testimony to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord and the effacacy of that death for sinners. The testimony of the one true Church our Lord left behind is heard in the single voice of the Catholic Catechism which spells out the teachings of the Lord through the work of the ordinary Magisterium and the popes in council through the ages.

The testimony of the "invisible church" however, is not so clear. Just go to any pagan village where there are three dozen various missionaries of differing Protestant denominations and try to find out what the truth is regarding Christ. If a pagan was to interview them all, he would go away completely confused as to how to get saved, how to get to Heaven, who Jesus is, etc. Where, I ask you then, is the single voice of 1 Tim 3: 15, the pillar and foundation of truth?

I understand what you are saying, because I used to passionately believe in the same things you are saying. But further study of the issue of the covenant has led me to see that only the universal faith, contained in the Orthodox and Catholic faiths, fulfills that covenantal understanding.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed