What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Johann]

Seems like you are just following someone else's personal interpretation of Scripture, upon which all Protestantism is based upon, and that Scripture condemnts in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

That aside, "belief" is not mere intellectual assent. That has been condemned. Even Satan believes in Christ from the stand point of intellectual assent that He exists. Belief in this sense permeates one's being and actions. It dictates how we live our lives.

Yes-correct me with Scriptures since when it comes to "baptism" it is like the Liberals and Democrats--far left and far right, right?

2Pe 1:20 thisG3778 DPro-ANS touto τοῦτο firstG4412 Adv-S prōton πρῶτον knowing,G1097 G5723 V-PPA-NMP ginōskontes, γινώσκοντες, thatG3754 Conj hoti ὅτι anyG3956 Adj-NFS pasa πᾶσα prophecyG4394 N-NFS prophēteia προφητεία of ScriptureG1124 N-GFS graphēs γραφῆς of its ownG2398 Adj-GFS idias ἰδίας interpretationG1955 N-GFS epilyseōs ἐπιλύσεως notG3756 Adv ou οὐ is.G1096 G5736 V-PIM/P-3S ginetai. γίνεται.

Correct here, now what about baptism? Regenerational?

 

[Johann]

You can bracket the debate as you see fit, but personally I see no need to limit the discussion that way. I am interested in your opinions on these Scripture verses. Why would I not be interested in early church father opinions on the same topic?

Well we are sitting with a problem then, correct?


Early Church Fathers' Views on Baptism (1st and 2nd Centuries)

The early Church Fathers, writing in the first and second centuries, provide valuable insight into the understanding and practice of baptism in the early Christian community. Their writings indicate that baptism was seen as a vital sacrament associated with regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and initiation into the Christian faith.

1. The Didache (c. 50-100 AD)
The Didache, also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," is one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament. It offers practical instructions on Christian living, including baptism:

"Concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Didache 7:1-3)

The Didache emphasizes the Trinitarian formula and flexibility in the mode of baptism, showing its significance and centrality in early Christian practice.

2. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107 AD)

Ignatius, a prominent early Church Father and bishop of Antioch, wrote several letters that discuss various aspects of Christian theology, including baptism. He regarded baptism as essential for salvation and incorporation into the church:

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit. He was born and was baptized so that by His passion He could cleanse the water." (Letter to the Ephesians 18:2)

Ignatius emphasizes the sanctification of water through Christ's baptism, indicating that baptism was seen as a means of grace and purification.

3. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD)
Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, provided a detailed description of baptism in his writings. He highlighted its significance in regeneration and new birth:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water." (First Apology 61)

Justin's explanation indicates that baptism was understood as a means of regeneration and forgiveness of sins, performed in the name of the Trinity.

4. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD)

Irenaeus, a significant theologian and bishop, spoke about baptism in the context of Christian initiation and regeneration:

"And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith." (Against Heresies 1.21)

Irenaeus explicitly refers to baptism as "regeneration to God," reinforcing its role as a crucial sacrament for entering the Christian faith and receiving new spiritual life.

Conclusion
The early Church Fathers consistently viewed baptism as an essential sacrament associated with regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and initiation into the Christian faith. They emphasized its Trinitarian formula, its necessity for salvation, and its role in sanctification and new birth. The writings of the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons collectively demonstrate that the early Christian community held baptism in high regard, seeing it as a transformative and grace-filled act central to the Christian life.
Additional Insights from Early Church Fathers on Baptism
While the previously mentioned early Church Fathers provide foundational insights into the early Christian understanding of baptism, additional writings from other early Fathers further elucidate the significance and theological depth of this sacrament in the early Church.

5. Tertullian (c. 160-220 AD)
Tertullian, an early Christian author from Carthage, wrote extensively about Christian practices, including baptism. He is one of the first to use the term "sacramentum" to describe baptism, emphasizing its sacred and covenantal nature:

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life... In a like manner, therefore, do we, too, after the ancient practice, make trial of the power of the waters, confident that it is that which washes away the sins of the flesh, and that which drowns the old man in us, that we may be able to rise above the new." (On Baptism, Chapter 1)

Tertullian highlights baptism's power to cleanse sin and its symbolism of dying and rising with Christ, reinforcing its regenerative aspect.

6. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD)

Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian theologian and teacher, wrote about baptism as a necessary step towards salvation and spiritual illumination:

"When we are baptized, we are enlightened; being enlightened, we are adopted; being adopted, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal... This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing: washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly." (The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)

Clement describes baptism as a multifaceted sacrament that grants grace, forgiveness, and spiritual enlightenment, marking it as a transformative event in the believer's life.

7. Origen (c. 184-253 AD)

Origen, an early Christian scholar and theologian, also wrote extensively on baptism, emphasizing its necessity and spiritual benefits:

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew there is in everyone innate strains of original sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Commentary on Romans, Book 5)

Origen's reference to infant baptism indicates the early Church's understanding of baptism as essential for all, including infants, for the cleansing of original sin and incorporation into the faith.

8. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258 AD)
Cyprian, a bishop and early Christian writer, argued for the necessity and efficacy of baptism in his letters, particularly in the context of debates about the validity of baptisms performed by heretics:

"For as baptism is one, and belongs to the Holy Spirit, and to us there is but one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one baptism, so whatever is performed by them is profane, nothing is holy, nothing is true, but whatever they do is all a counterfeit and false, according to what the Lord says by Jeremiah: 'Do not listen to the words of the false prophets, for they are visionaries of their own heart, and not from the mouth of the Lord.'" (Letters, 72.2)

Cyprian stresses the unity and sanctity of true baptism within the Church, rejecting any baptisms performed outside the orthodox Christian community as invalid.

Summary
The additional insights from Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage reinforce and expand upon the early Church's view of baptism as a critical sacrament for regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and initiation into the Christian faith. These Fathers highlight various dimensions of baptism, including its covenantal nature, its role in spiritual illumination, its necessity for all believers (including infants), and its exclusivity within the true Church. Their writings collectively underscore the theological depth and central importance of baptism in early Christian practice and belief.

Question-should I believe in them or the Scriptures?

Just to inform you we are not allowed to discuss the Triune Godhead

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Just Scripture and no early fathers or Catholic writings/teachings.

Why should I follow your man made tradition of "Bible alone" theology? You wanna play scripture tennis? Fine.

If we want to look around Scripture for non-baptismal “washing” or “water” references, we can also just as easily find passages that connect baptism and “washing” or baptism and salvation. All thoughtful, educated Christians agree that a key part of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics is comparing Scripture with Scripture: especially the relatively less clear by the relatively more clear passages. Thus, we can also find the following passages (RSV, as throughout):

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Here, “wash away” is still metaphorical in a sense, yet the removal of sins is quite real indeed, and the baptism is literally one of water. This backs up the Catholic / Orthodox / Lutheran / high Anglican view and runs counter to the Reformed position.

Another passage again utilizes prototypes of the Old Testament that are literally fulfilled in the New testament (a common motif) and connects literal water to baptism and baptism in turn to salvation:

1 Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,​

​

John 4 is a different context altogether. He was talking to the Samaritan woman at the well and contrasting the real water of the well to the metaphorical “living water” (4:10) of salvation. Because it is a typical Hebraic compare and contrast use of language and example, we know that “water” in the second sense is figurative for salvation itself; whereas in John 3:5 this is not evident as the meaning, in context, at all. It stands alone, not as part of a plain metaphorical / parabolic application.

John 7:38 is also clearly metaphorical, hearkening back to the Old Testament theme of water as indicative of salvation itself, rather than a means of salvation (e.g., Jer 17:13: “the LORD, the fountain of living water”). But again, both things can be true. We need not pit them against each other. We don’t have to “consistently” maintain that Jesus is not becoming metaphorical in these other two passages. He clearly is. I’m saying that it it not so clear that the “water” of John 3:5 is metaphorical, like these other instances. The meaning depends on context. It’s silly to think that we have to interpret Scripture the same way for every passage, as if there are no different uses of words.

John 4 is a different context altogether. He was talking to the Samaritan woman at the well and contrasting the real water of the well to the metaphorical “living water” (4:10) of salvation. Because it is a typical Hebraic compare and contrast use of language and example, we know that “water” in the second sense is figurative for salvation itself; whereas in John 3:5 this is not evident as the meaning, in context, at all. It stands alone, not as part of a plain metaphorical / parabolic application.

John 7:38 is also clearly metaphorical, hearkening back to the Old Testament theme of water as indicative of salvation itself, rather than a means of salvation (e.g., Jer 17:13: “the LORD, the fountain of living water”). But again, both things can be true. We need not pit them against each other. We don’t have to “consistently” maintain that Jesus is not becoming metaphorical in these other two passages. He clearly is. I’m saying that it it not so clear that the “water” of John 3:5 is metaphorical, like these other instances. The meaning depends on context. It’s silly to think that we have to interpret Scripture the same way for every passage, as if there are no different uses of words.

Moreover, if we are to search out “nearby” chapters, there is also John 1, which is mostly about John the Baptist, whose primary ritualistic behavior was to baptize people. Jesus, then, may have been partially or totally referring back to John’s baptism in his comment to Nicodemus. 17 verses later we read:

John 3:22-23 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. [23] John also was baptizing at Ae’non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.

So we have John baptizing in the very same chapter, and two chapters back the text is mostly about John the Baptist. At first it looks like Jesus Himself was baptizing, too. But here the beauty of comparing Scripture with Scripture is again apparent:

John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John [2] (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), [3] he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

It looks like John 3:22 refers to Jesus’ followers baptizing, and not He Himself. In any event, baptism is all over the place: in John 1, 3, and 4. Thus, we can say that contextual similarities highly suggest that “water” in John 3:5 most likely refers to baptism.

continued...

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Moreover, if we are to search out “nearby” chapters, there is also John 1, which is mostly about John the Baptist, whose primary ritualistic behavior was to baptize people. Jesus, then, may have been partially or totally referring back to John’s baptism in his comment to Nicodemus. 17 verses later we read:

John 3:22-23 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. [23] John also was baptizing at Ae’non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.

So we have John baptizing in the very same chapter, and two chapters back the text is mostly about John the Baptist. At first it looks like Jesus Himself was baptizing, too. But here the beauty of comparing Scripture with Scripture is again apparent:

John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John [2] (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), [3] he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

John 3:22-23 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. [23] John also was baptizing at Ae’non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.

So we have John baptizing in the very same chapter, and two chapters back the text is mostly about John the Baptist. At first it looks like Jesus Himself was baptizing, too. But here the beauty of comparing Scripture with Scripture is again apparent:

John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John [2] (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), [3] he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

It looks like John 3:22 refers to Jesus’ followers baptizing, and not He Himself. In any event, baptism is all over the place: in John 1, 3, and 4. Thus, we can say that contextual similarities highly suggest that “water” in John 3:5 most likely refers to baptism.

As I’ve always said, Catholics can consult all of Holy Scripture without any reluctance at all, because it supports us wherever we go in the Bible. We have a better explanation of single passages, and a better counter-explanation of texts used to try to overthrow Catholic doctrines and beliefs. I’ve been specializing in “Bible and Catholicism” now for over 25 years, and I know this to be the case from countless personal experiences, in interacting with opposing arguments and the biblical text. The present case is another example of it. Our view simply makes more sense; has more plausibility. I’m learning tons of stuff, as I always do when I study the Bible and defend Catholic doctrines.

A further argument can be made, too. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and some in that party had rejected John’s baptism:

Luke 7:29-30 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; [30] but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

Let the reader judge, having seen both sides. This is the beauty of dialogue. You, the reader (yes, you!) doesn’t get just one biased, partisan interpretation (which is true of both of us: Reformed and Catholic), but two arguments side-by-side (one being directly answered), thus allowing you to see strengths and weaknesses of each, and to make up your mind (if undecided) in a much more informed manner.

Moreover, it should be enough that from front to back the Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith and not by works (cf. Romans 4:1-12 and Ephesians 2:8, 9), so unless we want to say the Bible contradicts itself, we must rule out immediately any salvation by water baptism interpretation.​

I deal with this claim below. It’s a false dichotomy.

Steve does manage to make some rather fanciful further contextual arguments, but they are quite speculative, and therefore, weak and insubstantial. He argues in various ways that regeneration is an act of God, not man. We agree, of course. We never dreamt that it was anything else. All we do is submit to it. It’s no more our work, than a prisoner’s acceptance of a pardon is his work. He simply has to sign on the dotted line and walk out a free man. He didn’t earn it; it’s a free gift. We have to have water poured on us and emerge a regenerated soul.

Is that our work? No; it’s ultimately God’s grace, given through the sacrament. He willed that baptism would be the normal means of regeneration. But this silliness of making out that absolutely anything we do is a dreaded work, which then invariably reduces to the infamous “works salvation” (Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies, which the Catholic Church condemned 1400 years ago) is not biblical at all. The Bible teaches that we cooperate with God and that an act can be simultaneously His as well as ours:

source

 

[BreadOfLife]

In Heaven…? Uh no.


Well aware you pray TO DEAD PEOPLE.

Uhhh, YES, in Heaven (Rev. 6:9-11).

There are no "Dead people" in HeavenIn Heaven, there are NO dead people. ALL have been made PERFECT (Rev. 21:27) and are ALIVE in Christ - and they intercede o our behalf (Rev. 5:8).
In fact - tjey're more alive that YOU are . . .

Well aware Scripture teaches to PRAY TO God FOR others.

James 4:16… pray one FOR another…

James 6:16
The prayer of a RIGHTEOUS person has great power as it is working.

Everybody is Heaven has been MADE righteous and perfect in christ (Rev. 21:27).
YOU need to explain Rev. 5:8 if it is not intercession by those in Heaven.

 

[Johann]

I deal with this claim below. It’s a false dichotomy.

Not so--

1. Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

This passage clearly states that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works, which some interpret as including rituals such as baptism.

2. Romans 10:9-10
"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Paul emphasizes that confession and belief are the requirements for salvation, with no mention of baptism in this context.

3. John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Jesus focuses on belief in Him as the key to eternal life, without specifying the need for baptism.

4. John 5:24
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."

Jesus speaks about the promise of eternal life to those who hear and believe, with no mention of baptism.

5. Acts 16:30-31
"And he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

Paul and Silas tell the Philippian jailer that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is the means to salvation, without mentioning baptism as a requirement.

6. Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

Paul emphasizes that justification comes through faith in Christ and not through works, which could be interpreted to include ritual acts such as baptism.

7. 1 Corinthians 1:17
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect."

Paul indicates that his primary mission is to preach the gospel rather than to baptize, suggesting a distinction between the gospel message and the act of baptism.

Conclusion
These passages collectively emphasize faith in Jesus Christ as the central requirement for salvation, without explicitly mentioning the necessity of water baptism. They form the basis for the theological stance that while baptism is an important act of obedience and public declaration of faith, it is not a prerequisite for salvation. This view holds that salvation is a result of God's grace received through faith alone.

Thanks
J.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Summary
The additional insights from Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage reinforce and expand upon the early Church's view of baptism as a critical sacrament for regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and initiation into the Christian faith. These Fathers highlight various dimensions of baptism, including its covenantal nature, its role in spiritual illumination, its necessity for all believers (including infants), and its exclusivity within the true Church. Their writings collectively underscore the theological depth and central importance of baptism in early Christian practice and belief.

Question-should I believe in them or the Scriptures?

First, you have to prove these giants of the early Church contradict scripture, before finding excuses to disbelieve them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

1. What priest friend?
I have only one?

2. Yes. The story about the feeding of the 5,000 was explained incorrectly.
This is why the CC IS IN TROUBLE.

No - that priest is in trouble for misrepresenting the Gospel.
Much like when YOU misrepresent Christ's Church . . .

3. Not only is the CC upset about how you represent her,,,
but God is too.

I realize that t is embarassing to get exposed for lying - so my advice to YOU is to stop lying.
Disagree if you must but leave it at that so I won't hane to expse you . . .

Jesus wanted unity.
He wanted His disciples to love each other.

Yes, sy, WHY are you separated yourself from is Church?

You don't know anything about love.
So you don't know God either.
1 John 4:8

An YOU don't know TRUTH - so you don;t know Christ (John 14:6).

 

[BreadOfLife]

There’s all kinds of good reads these days. Your head must be so full of commentary that you can’t even obey Acts 2:38. What a mess.

Soooo, is it that you can't show me how the 7 Deuterocanonical Books sonegow “contraduct" the rest of Scripture? OR, is it that yoiu don't even know the names of the Books??

Once again - why do you adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

 

[Johann]

First, you have to prove these giants of the early Church contradict scripture, before finding excuses to disbelieve them

1. Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

This passage clearly states that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works, which some interpret as including rituals such as baptism.

2. Romans 10:9-10
"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Paul emphasizes that confession and belief are the requirements for salvation, with no mention of baptism in this context.

3. John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Jesus focuses on belief in Him as the key to eternal life, without specifying the need for baptism.

4. John 5:24
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."

Jesus speaks about the promise of eternal life to those who hear and believe, with no mention of baptism.

5. Acts 16:30-31
"And he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

Paul and Silas tell the Philippian jailer that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is the means to salvation, without mentioning baptism as a requirement.

6. Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

Paul emphasizes that justification comes through faith in Christ and not through works, which could be interpreted to include ritual acts such as baptism.

7. 1 Corinthians 1:17
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect."

Paul indicates that his primary mission is to preach the gospel rather than to baptize, suggesting a distinction between the gospel message and the act of baptism.

Conclusion
These passages collectively emphasize faith in Jesus Christ as the central requirement for salvation, without explicitly mentioning the necessity of water baptism. They form the basis for the theological stance that while baptism is an important act of obedience and public declaration of faith, it is not a prerequisite for salvation. This view holds that salvation is a result of God's grace received through faith alone.

The flesh counts for nothing--my words are spirit and life--no mention of baptismal regeneration--Case closed.

You can huff and puff but I stand on solid foundation, Scriptures, not the early fathers.

J.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

No - that priest is in trouble for misrepresenting the Gospel.
Much like when YOU misrepresent Christ's Church . . .

I realize that t is embarassing to get exposed for lying - so my advice to YOU is to stop lying.
Disagree if you must but leave it at that so I won't hane to expse you . . .

Yes, sy, WHY are you separated yourself from is Church?

An YOU don't know TRUTH - so you don;t know Christ (John 14:6).

Blaming the whole church for what some priest allegedly said is GOSSIP.
We Catholics have a mechanism for dealing with such nonsense.
First, one must write down what the priest actually said.
Second, one must show the priest what he actually said, and have him agree that is actually what he meant.
Third, one must report this allegedly errant opinion with several witnesses to the bishop.
Then it is the bishops problem, not the laity.
But this is rarely done. Gossip is preferable when one has a rebellious attitude.
It's really annoying.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Paul rebaptized 12 men that were not baptized properly since Acts 2 and the beginning of the church. They were baptized other than in the name of Jesus and had to be baptized in the name of Jesus.
Just like you.

You were baptized other than in the name of Jesus and you need to be baptized in the name of Jesus.
Argue with Paul not me.

Pail Baptized then with the Baptism of Christ because they had ONLY been Baptized with the Baptism of John. The Baptism of Christ is a ONE TIME deal (Eph. 4:5-6).

According to Jesus Chriust Himself - THIS is how it is done:
"...In the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT: (Matt. 28:19).

YOU were baptized by your OWN authority - by ivolking Jesus only.
I was Baptized in the name of (by the AUTHORITY of) Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19).

WHY do you dosobey Jesus??

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

1. Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

This passage clearly states that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works, which some interpret as including rituals such as baptism.

I've already explained the false notion of the Pelagian heresy that you are repeating over and over again.

2. Romans 10:9-10
"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Paul emphasizes that confession and belief are the requirements for salvation, with no mention of baptism in this context.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

3. John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Jesus focuses on belief in Him as the key to eternal life, without specifying the need for baptism.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

4. John 5:24
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."

Jesus speaks about the promise of eternal life to those who hear and believe, with no mention of baptism.

5. Acts 16:30-31
"And he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

Paul and Silas tell the Philippian jailer that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is the means to salvation, without mentioning baptism as a requirement.

6. Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

Paul emphasizes that justification comes through faith in Christ and not through works, which could be interpreted to include ritual acts such as baptism.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

7. 1 Corinthians 1:17
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect."

Paul indicates that his primary mission is to preach the gospel rather than to baptize, suggesting a distinction between the gospel message and the act of baptism.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

Conclusion
These passages collectively emphasize faith in Jesus Christ as the central requirement for salvation, without explicitly mentioning the necessity of water baptism. They form the basis for the theological stance that while baptism is an important act of obedience and public declaration of faith, it is not a prerequisite for salvation. This view holds that salvation is a result of God's grace received through faith alone.

The flesh counts for nothing--my words are spirit and life--no mention of baptismal regeneration--Case closed.

Your mind is closed.

You can huff and puff but I stand on solid foundation, Scriptures, not the early fathers.

J.

Why your automatic disdain for the ECF??? Is it because your private views are misaligned with theirs??? So you want to handcuff me by sticking to the ridiculous unworkable "Bible alone" theology?? I did that, but it didn't satisfy you.

I'm still waiting for evidence the ECF contradict scripture, which you haven't done. Just airhead rejection. You need to state which of the 40,000 theologies represent your "solid foundation". You haven't done that either.


solid foundation

 

[Johann]

I've already explained the false notion of the Pelagian heresy that you are repeating over and over again.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

View attachment 47712

Your mind is closed.

Why your automatic disdain for the ECF??? Is it because your private views are misaligned with theirs??? I'm still waiting for evidence the ECF contradict scripture, which you haven't done. Just airhead generalizations.

No disdain for the ECF but concerned for their erroneous teachings on baptism-and you have NOT addressed the Scripture references I have given you-
1. John 1:12
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name."

This passage emphasizes receiving Christ and believing in His name as the means to become children of God.

2. John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Belief in the Son is directly connected to having everlasting life, with no mention of baptism.

3. John 6:47
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."

Jesus again underscores belief in Him as the key to eternal life.

4. Acts 10:43
"To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Peter speaks about belief in Jesus as the basis for the remission of sins.

5. Acts 13:38-39
"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Paul preaches that belief in Jesus leads to justification and forgiveness.

6. Acts 16:31
"So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is presented as the requirement for salvation.

7. Romans 1:16-17
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'"

Paul asserts that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.

8. Romans 3:21-22
"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference."

Righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

9. Romans 4:5
"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."

Faith, not works, is accounted for righteousness.

10. 1 John 5:1
"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him."

Belief in Jesus as the Christ is linked to being born of God.

Conclusion
These scriptures reinforce the idea that faith in Jesus Christ is central to salvation. They collectively emphasize belief, faith, and receiving Christ as the means by which individuals are saved, justified, and granted eternal life, without explicitly mentioning the necessity of water baptism in the context of salvation.

Paradoxical, ain't it? Now we can do this in a cordial, respectful manner, or forbear, meaning case closed.
J.

You HAVE to address the Scripture references without mentioning water baptism or even regenerative baptism, so far you are resorting to ad hominem not answering clearly and concisely

The Pelagian heresy, named after its founder Pelagius, was a theological controversy in the early Christian Church that centered on issues of original sin, human nature, and divine grace. Pelagius, a British monk who lived in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, taught doctrines that were later condemned as heretical by the Church. Here are the main points of Pelagianism and the reasons it was deemed heretical:

Core Beliefs of Pelagianism
Denial of Original Sin:

Pelagius argued that human beings are born innocent and without the stain of original sin inherited from Adam. He believed that Adam’s sin affected Adam alone and did not corrupt human nature or impose a sinful condition on his descendants.
Free Will and Human Ability:

Pelagius emphasized the importance of free will, maintaining that humans have the innate ability to choose good over evil without the necessity of divine grace. According to Pelagius, people could achieve moral perfection through their efforts and decisions.
Grace and Salvation:

While Pelagius acknowledged the existence of divine grace, he saw it primarily as a helpful aid rather than a necessity for salvation. He believed that grace facilitated moral improvement and supported human will but was not essential for overcoming sin or achieving salvation.
Role of Christ:

Pelagius taught that Christ’s role was primarily to provide a perfect example for moral living and to offer teachings that guide humanity. Christ’s sacrifice was seen more as a demonstration of love rather than a necessary atonement for human sinfulness.
Condemnation and Response
The teachings of Pelagius were met with strong opposition from many Church Fathers, most notably Augustine of Hippo. Augustine argued that Pelagianism undermined key Christian doctrines about sin, grace, and salvation. Key points in the condemnation of Pelagianism include:

Doctrine of Original Sin:

Augustine and other critics insisted that all humans inherit original sin from Adam, resulting in a fallen nature that inclines them toward sin. This doctrine underscores the necessity of divine grace for salvation.
Necessity of Grace:

Augustine emphasized that human free will is impaired by sin, and only through God’s grace can individuals be regenerated, overcome sin, and attain salvation. Grace is seen as indispensable, not merely an aid.
Christ’s Atonement:

Critics argued that Pelagianism diminished the significance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, which they believed was essential for the redemption of humanity from the bondage of sin.
Key Councils and Declarations
Council of Carthage (418 AD):

This council formally condemned Pelagianism, affirming the doctrines of original sin and the necessity of divine grace for salvation. Several canons were issued, rejecting Pelagian teachings.
Council of Ephesus (431 AD):

The ecumenical Council of Ephesus further condemned Pelagianism and confirmed the earlier decisions of the Council of Carthage. It reinforced the orthodox position on original sin and grace.
Conclusion
Pelagianism was condemned as heresy because it contradicted the fundamental Christian doctrines of original sin, the necessity of divine grace, and the redemptive work of Christ. The heresy posed a significant theological challenge by suggesting that human beings could achieve righteousness and salvation through their efforts. The Church’s response, particularly through the writings of Augustine and the decisions of various councils, reaffirmed the necessity of grace and the transformative power of Christ’s atonement for salvation.

Even Ol' Pelagius was in error, and you want to attribute his error to me?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

No disdain for the ECF but concerned for their erroneous teachings on baptism-and you have NOT addressed the Scripture references I have given you-
1. John 1:12
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name."

This passage emphasizes receiving Christ and believing in His name as the means to become children of God.

2. John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Belief in the Son is directly connected to having everlasting life, with no mention of baptism.

3. John 6:47
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."

Jesus again underscores belief in Him as the key to eternal life.

4. Acts 10:43
"To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Peter speaks about belief in Jesus as the basis for the remission of sins.

5. Acts 13:38-39
"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Paul preaches that belief in Jesus leads to justification and forgiveness.

6. Acts 16:31
"So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is presented as the requirement for salvation.

7. Romans 1:16-17
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'"

Paul asserts that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.

8. Romans 3:21-22
"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference."

Righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

9. Romans 4:5
"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."

Faith, not works, is accounted for righteousness.

10. 1 John 5:1
"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him."

Belief in Jesus as the Christ is linked to being born of God.

Conclusion
These scriptures reinforce the idea that faith in Jesus Christ is central to salvation. They collectively emphasize belief, faith, and receiving Christ as the means by which individuals are saved, justified, and granted eternal life, without explicitly mentioning the necessity of water baptism in the context of salvation.

Paradoxical, ain't it? Now we can do this in a cordial, respectful manner, or forbear, meaning case closed.
J.

You HAVE to address the Scripture references without mentioning water baptism or even regenerative baptism, so far you are resorting to ad hominem not answering clearly and concisely

The Pelagian heresy, named after its founder Pelagius, was a theological controversy in the early Christian Church that centered on issues of original sin, human nature, and divine grace. Pelagius, a British monk who lived in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, taught doctrines that were later condemned as heretical by the Church. Here are the main points of Pelagianism and the reasons it was deemed heretical:

Core Beliefs of Pelagianism
Denial of Original Sin:

Pelagius argued that human beings are born innocent and without the stain of original sin inherited from Adam. He believed that Adam’s sin affected Adam alone and did not corrupt human nature or impose a sinful condition on his descendants.
Free Will and Human Ability:

Pelagius emphasized the importance of free will, maintaining that humans have the innate ability to choose good over evil without the necessity of divine grace. According to Pelagius, people could achieve moral perfection through their efforts and decisions.
Grace and Salvation:

While Pelagius acknowledged the existence of divine grace, he saw it primarily as a helpful aid rather than a necessity for salvation. He believed that grace facilitated moral improvement and supported human will but was not essential for overcoming sin or achieving salvation.
Role of Christ:

Pelagius taught that Christ’s role was primarily to provide a perfect example for moral living and to offer teachings that guide humanity. Christ’s sacrifice was seen more as a demonstration of love rather than a necessary atonement for human sinfulness.
Condemnation and Response
The teachings of Pelagius were met with strong opposition from many Church Fathers, most notably Augustine of Hippo. Augustine argued that Pelagianism undermined key Christian doctrines about sin, grace, and salvation. Key points in the condemnation of Pelagianism include:

Doctrine of Original Sin:

Augustine and other critics insisted that all humans inherit original sin from Adam, resulting in a fallen nature that inclines them toward sin. This doctrine underscores the necessity of divine grace for salvation.
Necessity of Grace:

Augustine emphasized that human free will is impaired by sin, and only through God’s grace can individuals be regenerated, overcome sin, and attain salvation. Grace is seen as indispensable, not merely an aid.
Christ’s Atonement:

Critics argued that Pelagianism diminished the significance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, which they believed was essential for the redemption of humanity from the bondage of sin.
Key Councils and Declarations
Council of Carthage (418 AD):

This council formally condemned Pelagianism, affirming the doctrines of original sin and the necessity of divine grace for salvation. Several canons were issued, rejecting Pelagian teachings.
Council of Ephesus (431 AD):

The ecumenical Council of Ephesus further condemned Pelagianism and confirmed the earlier decisions of the Council of Carthage. It reinforced the orthodox position on original sin and grace.
Conclusion
Pelagianism was condemned as heresy because it contradicted the fundamental Christian doctrines of original sin, the necessity of divine grace, and the redemptive work of Christ. The heresy posed a significant theological challenge by suggesting that human beings could achieve righteousness and salvation through their efforts. The Church’s response, particularly through the writings of Augustine and the decisions of various councils, reaffirmed the necessity of grace and the transformative power of Christ’s atonement for salvation.

Even Ol' Pelagius was in error, and you want to attribute his error to me?

You are arguing against most of what we agree on, and a waste of my time.

 

[Johann]

POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

What makes you so cock sure you are not in error??

1. Post-Christ
Context: Refers to the period after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (c. 4 BC – 30/33 AD). This period is marked by the early spread of Christianity and significant changes within the Jewish community.

2. Post-Temple
Context: Refers to the period after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. This event had profound religious, cultural, and political implications for the Jewish people.
Significance: The destruction of the Temple ended the central place of worship and sacrifice in Judaism, leading to the rise of Rabbinic Judaism, which focused more on the study of Torah and synagogue worship.

3. Canon of Scripture
Context: Refers to the collection of sacred books that a religious community regards as authoritative scripture. For Jews, this primarily refers to the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), which Christians refer to as the Old Testament.
Jewish Canon: By the late 1st century and into the 2nd century, there was a need within the Jewish community to solidify and define their sacred texts, especially in the absence of the Temple.

4. False Prophet (Akiva)
Rabbi Akiva: A prominent Jewish sage and one of the leading figures in Rabbinic Judaism during the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. He played a crucial role in the development of the Mishnah and the establishment of Jewish legal and religious traditions.
False Prophet Claim: In Christian perspective, some view Rabbi Akiva as a false prophet because he supported a messianic figure whom Christians do not recognize as the true Messiah.

5. False "Christ" (Kokhba)
Simon bar Kokhba: Leader of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD) against the Roman Empire. Many Jews, including Rabbi Akiva, believed him to be the Messiah who would deliver Israel from Roman oppression.
Messianic Proclamation: Rabbi Akiva declared Simon bar Kokhba as the Messiah, calling him "Bar Kokhba," which means "son of the star," referencing a messianic prophecy from Numbers 24:17.
False Messiah: From a Christian perspective, Bar Kokhba was seen as a false messiah because he did not fulfill the messianic prophecies as Christians understand them, particularly those fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

Integration and Significance
Canon Formation Post-Temple: The destruction of the Second Temple necessitated a reorganization of Jewish religious life. The process of defining the Jewish canon of scripture was influenced by various factors, including the need to preserve Jewish identity and faith after the Temple's loss.

Rabbi Akiva's Role: Akiva’s support for Bar Kokhba as the Messiah reflects the intense messianic expectations among Jews during this tumultuous period. His influence in Rabbinic Judaism and endorsement of Bar Kokhba played a significant role in Jewish history.
Christian Perspective: Christians view this period and the figures involved (Akiva and Bar Kokhba) through a lens that emphasizes the fulfillment of messianic prophecy in Jesus Christ. Consequently, they see Akiva's proclamation and the Bar Kokhba revolt as misguided attempts to identify the Messiah.


The phrase "POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE 'Christ' (Kokhba)" encapsulates a critical moment in Jewish history from a Christian perspective. It highlights the Jewish response to the destruction of the Second Temple, the subsequent canonization of Jewish scriptures, and the significant, yet ultimately unsuccessful, messianic movement led by Simon bar Kokhba, endorsed by Rabbi Akiva. This period underscores the divergent paths taken by Judaism and Christianity in their understanding of messianic fulfillment and religious authority.

 

[Johann]

You are arguing against most of what we agree on, and a waste of my time.

Agree-a waste of my precious time without a rebuttal from you on the given "waterless" verses you refuse to address. Matter of fact I don't agree with anything you have to offer.

 

[Johann]

I've already explained the false notion of the Pelagian heresy that you are repeating over and over again.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

Already addressed, that you ignored.

View attachment 47712

Your mind is closed.

Why your automatic disdain for the ECF??? Is it because your private views are misaligned with theirs??? So you want to handcuff me by sticking to the ridiculous unworkable "Bible alone" theology?? I did that, but it didn't satisfy you.

I'm still waiting for evidence the ECF contradict scripture, which you haven't done. Just airhead rejection. You need to state which of the 40,000 theologies represent your "solid foundation". You haven't done that either.

View attachment 47713
solid foundation

Hmm--I see another moron with emojis-forgetting context and the recipients.

 

[RedFan]

And my hope for sitting back and watching a debate ends badly.

 

[Augustin56]

Yes-correct me with Scriptures since when it comes to "baptism" it is like the Liberals and Democrats--far left and far right, right?

2Pe 1:20 thisG3778 DPro-ANS touto τοῦτο firstG4412 Adv-S prōton πρῶτον knowing,G1097 G5723 V-PPA-NMP ginōskontes, γινώσκοντες, thatG3754 Conj hoti ὅτι anyG3956 Adj-NFS pasa πᾶσα prophecyG4394 N-NFS prophēteia προφητεία of ScriptureG1124 N-GFS graphēs γραφῆς of its ownG2398 Adj-GFS idias ἰδίας interpretationG1955 N-GFS epilyseōs ἐπιλύσεως notG3756 Adv ou οὐ is.G1096 G5736 V-PIM/P-3S ginetai. γίνεται.

Correct here, now what about baptism? Regenerational?

Well, Democrats are a lot of things, but far right isn't one of them. Democrats are liberal, at best, and Marxist at worse. Currently, I think they're leaning towards the latter.

That aside, the Truth admits to neither left nor right. It just "is." Either we are in the truth, or we are out of the truth. Period.

Jesus didn't write a book and codify it as Scripture in the 4th century to spread His truths. He didn't create a bible-reading method to spread His truths, either. He founded a Church. One Church, which has existed from the beginning of Christianity. St. Paul, in 2 Thes. 2:15, refers to both the oral and written traditions (teachings) of Christ.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

The New Testament was written FROM the oral traditions (teachings) of Christ. SOME of what the Apostles and their successors taught orally was written down, and SOME of that was decided worthy of being called Scripture...in the late 4th century at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, where the Catholic Church prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance and analyzed over 300 documents, letters, etc., coming up with the 27 that we all agree on as the New Testament today. Some documents, for example, that they were sure would make the cut were left out, like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. It is by the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church, given her by Christ, that we have a New Testament today.

And, in his letter to Timothy, 1 Tim 3:15, he refers to the Church as the "pillar and bullwark of truth." What is a pillar and bullwark? Like a castle and defense. So the Church defends Christ's truth.

Historically, St. Paul can ONLY have been referring to the Catholic Church since there was NO OTHER Christian Church at the time that he wrote this. The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. and Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century, and has continually splintered into literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations (and counting) since. That cannot be the grounding of truth and unity that Christ intended.

You might find the following video helpfull. It's by Dr. John Bergsma, a former Protestant pastor, with a doctorate in Scripture. He is now Catholic, and he discusses some of the issues he overcame in making the switch.