Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by wildtimes


Sorry wild that i don't no how to embed the bits i need from your post to say you are right on what you are saying.

I am a Protestant and belong to the Church of Ireland and we do say "i believe in one God the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of sins, the forgiveness of sins the resurrection of the body etc etc" and when i was confirmed we also believe that the wine and bread are the body and blood of Christ.

So really my church is right up beside the Catholic church its just we don't have statues and such we just pray to God and we can also ask Jesus for guidance from his father, i remember my friends nearly fainting when they came to my church and heard us saying the Catholic bit it was like are we in a church or chapel cos if its a chapel me ma will kill me lol.

I found the C of I a none bigoted church it was a sin to speak ill of any other religion and my dad wouldn't be long cuffing my ear if i said anything about a Catholic it was love your neighbours and turn the other cheek etc.

So like you said very wisely not all Protestants are bad and against the Catholic church. My children all went to a mixed school and it was one i am proud to say i helped start up and its still going strong with children coming out with high grades.

Sorry if i have driveled on a bit my brain fell asleep an hour ago as it is 2.40am but i enjoyed the read so much i had to write something or i would forget about it in the morning. Your a very wise person i gave you a wee star just to say thank you and i wish i could embed as i think i might have went awol in some of this post lol.
night night all

If you want any more info about what we do and don't say i will try my best to remember if you give me a word or two that you think is right.

reply to post by wildtimes


My children where all baptized at 6 weeks old all four of them and confirmed at 13 i hope this helps to,

reply to post by ballymoney50


You're fine, sweetie. Thanks for posting!!
I know what you're saying.

reply to post by wildtimes


After reading your post again i left a few words out in my creed lol as i said i'm pooped so sorry

reply to post by ballymoney50


No problem, dear. I'm glad you've joined us here at ATS! re (edit: that was the cat pitching in with the 're')
It's not even my thread, but, thanks for participating! Your thoughts and opinions are welcome!!
I'm pooped, too.... and about to log off for the night.

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville


Can you show a verse that deals with an unbeliever being baptized?

Originally posted by wildtimes
It's been established right here in this thread that babies/households were baptized in the first wave of Jesus' ministry according to Paul and other NT 'scripture'!

Well, to be honest, it's a supposition that "households" included infants. It might have, it might not have, we have no way of knowing.

That's one of the problems with Sola Scriptura -- scripture can be maddingly non-specific. I am of the mind that, if it isn't specific, then it doesn't matter, so I have no problem with the fact that I was baptized as an infant, and did the same for my daughter.

If it reflected something that was important, something that was critical to salvation, then it would be a lot clearer.

reply to post by wildtimes


Please explain how it's begging the question when my claim was a negative. Exactly how do I prove a negative?



The only thing that can refute what I said would be if someone could find a verse where a NT Christian did baptize an unbeliever.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The only thing that can refute what I said would be if someone could find a verse where a NT Christian did baptize an unbeliever.

This entire thread has dealt with the subject.
I'm not gonna hold your hand while you re-read it. It clearly shows how entire families were 'baptized' during the first 'generation' .....
you never even looked at Isidore's links, did you?
You did not read the Catholic Answers answer to your misinterpretation, did you??

Why does that not surprise me?

If you had, you'd stop with this line of argument.

But, no. I know you don't want to look further than your mindset....ala "la la la I can't hear you!"....which is way more your style.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by wildtimes
It's been established right here in this thread that babies/households were baptized in the first wave of Jesus' ministry according to Paul and other NT 'scripture'!

Well, to be honest, it's a supposition that "households" included infants. It might have, it might not have, we have no way of knowing.

That's one of the problems with Sola Scriptura -- scripture can be maddingly non-specific. I am of the mind that, if it isn't specific, then it doesn't matter, so I have no problem with the fact that I was baptized as an infant, and did the same for my daughter.

If it reflected something that was important, something that was critical to salvation, then it would be a lot clearer.

Well I generally hold to the idea that we should speak where the Scripture speaks and be silent where it's silent.

reply to post by wildtimes

This entire thread has dealt with the subject.

Then kindly point out that verse that was provided showing that an unbeliever was baptized. And the clear implication of Cornelius's household is that they believed after Peter's gospel presentation to them.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I suppose that would depend on your definition of a believer as it applies to baptism.

You seem to be ignoring where I've given you verses (more than one I might add) that specifically say infant baptism was common practice.

So you're translation of baptism requires belief. Got it. What if the parents believe? Is that not enough for the infant?

More evidence from my same source:

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

I guess I don't understand. I've provided several scriptural references, yet you still don't want to even remotely consider that "believer's baptism" is false?

Again, define a believer in regards to baptism. No questions this time, "rabbi."

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Which is exactly what I've shown you in regards to infant baptism!

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

I suppose that would depend on your definition of a believer as it applies to baptism

Believing the gospel. Baptism is the public display of one's identification with Christ in the gospel message.

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Which is exactly what I've shown you in regards to infant baptism!

You certainly did not. You took an Esigesical approach with the OT, presupposed that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is true, and tried to conclude that baptism and circumcision were nearly the same thing.

Do you have a NT, post Pentecost, verse showing where any apostle or Christian person baptized an unbeliever?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Well I generally hold to the idea that we should speak where the Scripture speaks and be silent where it's silent.

For your perspective, my friend, that is an excellent approach to take.

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville


None of those verses mention baptism of an infant or unbeliever. The person commenting is arguing from prejudicial arbitrary conjecture. Do you know the difference between "Exegesis" and "Esigesis"?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Then kindly point out that verse that was provided showing that an unbeliever was baptized.

Yes, Isidore DID show you!!!
So, even after she, and I, said 'read this' to get an answer to your question....you still didn't do it, did you?

Did you?
Did you look at the linked answers to see the response?

No, you didn't.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Well I generally hold to the idea that we should speak where the Scripture speaks and be silent where it's silent.

For your perspective, my friend, that is an excellent approach to take.

That's why I hold to a believer's baptism. And hold that baptism is not mandatory for salvation. Simply on the latter because the thief on the cross was not baptized and the Word States that God is not a respecter of persons. If He allowed the thief to be saved w/o baptism and no one else that would make that verse untrue.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Then kindly point out that verse that was provided showing that an unbeliever was baptized.

Yes, Isidore DID show you!!!
So, even after she, and I, said 'read this' to get an answer to your question....you still didn't do it, did you?

Did you?
Did you look at the linked answers to see the response?

No, you didn't.

None of those verses she showed said an unbeliever was baptized.

There was conjecture that there were, but conjecture isn't exegesis.