Lol… mothers generally do! Some even convert.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hi. I'm a former Catholic and now non-denominational follower of Christ
- Thread starter Mur
- Start date
I always washed my children too. A bath always helps.
The flesh profits nothing.
Babies get wet and have done nothing, thought nothing, learned nothing, changed nothing except maybe the way they smell.
With no physical understanding, much less spiritual, I don’t know what kind of change you see besides getting physical dirt off.
The Bereans searched the Scriptures not the oral traditions. You should do some Scripture searching and get your own teachings straightened out. You are suggesting exactly the opposite of what Scripture says.
So you are engaging in theatrical verbiage which for the sake of the discussion is lying, or you injured your eyes and should have hung a sign on the baby saying “don’t watch infants at baptism, blindness may result”
Come on, really?
If the Bereans were scripture alone, they would not even have listened to Paul who was giving them pure Apostolic Oral Tradition.
They would not have even given ear to Paul at all.
Protestants would have rejected Paul at this stage. The Bereans weren’t comparing Paul’s teaching to their copy of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All they had was Old Testament writings.
Protestants would have rejected Paul’s teaching as unscriptural.
The Jews were never “ Scripture alone “, Christianity was never scripture alone. It was only the 1500s, when the heresy first appeared by its New Oracle Apostle Luther.
They searched the Scriptures to see if Paul was telling them the truth.
It is plainly written that way. Read your Bible again.
You are old enough to remember what was in their libraries?
For someone in desupernaturalised christianity it is hard to accept I know. But this is nothing compared to the many other spiritual events I have experienced.
What I’ve come to realise is that for many people Scripture is still on the page, the events described in it are not part of their true genuine reality, spiritual experiences are to be sneered at harder than an atheist would.
If Scripture is just to you a dry, legal, contractual document to argue over, great, sneer to your hearts content.
I have experienced the visible help of Angels, am I casting a Pearl here?
If it hasn’t happened to you, it never happened, is that your faith filled mindset.
I think many people think of the supernatural events in the Bible as some kind of alternate reality, wholly disconnected from their own. I had this out with cessationists not so long ago. Denying the supernatural possibility automatically removes faith, which then fulfils their reality.
It’s only possible in the Biblical alternate reality, not their reality today.
“However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”
It’s getting less likely, supernatural experiences are getting sneered at by alternate reality Bible believers.
So the Bereans heard Paul’s preaching and then broke out a full set of the Gospel writings to see if what Paul was saying was true.
Great.
You seem to have cataloged their library for them. You tell me.
But you missed the point.
The point is that the Scripture is the final authority between the preacher and the Word.
You have it backwards. The Bereans validated what Paul taught with Scripture. They didn’t accept the teaching of a stranger without verification. Oral tradition is a game of telephone. It is only as trustworthy as the people who keep repeating it.
I’m not denying the supernatural. I’m suggesting that fiction and the stuff that you see after a few communion bottles are not trustworthy.
All the Bereans had was the Old Testament writings, so they couldn’t compare what paul was telling them, they could only see where prophecy was fulfilled. But only if they accepted Apostolic Oral Tradition.
You are ignorant.
Oral Tradition is guarded by The Holy Spirit. It’s how it works,
“The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and make you remember all that I have said to you.”
The Spoken Word of God abides forever, Apostolic Tradition is handed on by living memory in the Church.
Protestantism’s rejection of the Apostolic Tradition was the beginning of their scattering, because they replaced the Tradition of The Holy Spirit with human traditions when interpreting Scripture.
So Catholics relying on The Oral Tradition of The Holy Spirit have the same interpretations and doctrines from Scripture after 2000 years.
Baptismal Regeneration.
” ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).
“When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).
Infant Baptism
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
Compare this to the fracturing in Bible alonism after just 500 years, and you see what is much more reliable is the Apostolic Tradition to interpret scripture.
That’s why Catholics can go far back in time and share the same beliefs.
Catholics are Apostles interpretation of Scripture.
Protestants are human interpretations of Scripture.
There are many spiritual things I haven’t shared with people here, because of this kind of mocking. It would be casting pearls out to be trampled.
Scoffers, mockers and sneerers are never held in a good light in scripture.
Let’s not over complicate the subject. If this baptism was as traditional as nearly every other infant baptism, your stunningly brilliant child would have been dressed something similar to this…
It would not take much sunshine to make this poor kid blind anyone.
Your perception of the miraculous is inconsistent. It is no more a miracle that white clothes are bright than that healthy grass is green. It is the way God made everything to be in the first place. It is not miraculous or supernatural that life works the way God intended for it to naturally operate.
Absolutely! I don't find popes, cardinals, archbishops, priests (save that all Christians are priests) monseigneurs and all the other nonsense (we don't find Bishops either in the sense that they exist in the Church of Rome).
Rome puts a whole human paraphanalia between the believer and Christ.
The Baptism was done by a father secretly on his baby son, in a bathroom sink at home.
His wife was very anti christian but he had converted without her knowing. Talking to his priest about how he could bring the baby to baptism at the Church without his wife knowing, the priest told him that he was spiritual head of the family and he could baptise the baby himself.
I arrived at his house and he was out at the shops. His wife invited me in and I sat in the lounge waiting.
She went out of the room and came back holding the baby, and I could not believe what I was looking at. She was holding the baby like everything was normal. I nearly blurted out ‘has the baby been baptised?’ . But I stopped myself remembering how rabidly anti Christianity she was.
So I had to sit there trying to make small talk, while the baby radiated light and Joy like the sun.
When my friend came home, he had forgotten to get milk, so he was turned around and sent back. I said I would go with him.
That’s when I asked him if the baby had been baptised because to me that’s the only thing I could think of, and he was stunned, because no one on the planet knew. I told him what I saw.
Just before he went out he baptised the baby quickly without his wife knowing.
He had been worried whether he had been done it right the whole time. After I told him what I saw completely independently, it totally confirmed it for him.
God is Good. I was by God’s Grace just a confirmation for him.
So I don’t care what heresy has taken you in. I know, Baptism is Regeneration and is valid for infants.
You miss a lot of things in Scripture, because you don’t understand it.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
So you suppose.
There is a great gulf of difference between the Apostles understanding of Scripture, and the many human understandings of scripture in Bible alonism.
Catholics have simply held to the Apostles understanding of Scripture for 2000 years.
Not like the thousands of human twisted interpretations of scripture, with human founded churches in last 500 years.
All traditions of men.
So Bible alonism was breaking from the Apostles interpretation of Scripture to human interpretation of scripture, and human founded churches.
John Smyth after leaving the Church of England decided that credo Baptism was to be his new doctrine, so pure human interpretation, pure human tradition.
John Smyth was not an Apostle, he was a false teacher the Apostles warned about.