re: Pope, we must avoid rigid ideologies

quote:

---

The article I linked clearly demonstrates biblical support for the notion of the Primacy of Peter and all of Christianity agreed with this for over Fifteen Centuries before man invented Protestants.

---

That's what you think.

quote:

---

You and Foo are here to make war on the Catholic Church, period. Both of you condemn the theology of the Church. Neither of you are Catholics and yet you post here all about Catholics - and always in the same vein - that Catholicism is bad.

---

I held my digital tongue for many pages because I wasn't going to get involved here. I joined in when a factual error was stated about Acts 15.

With that said, I'm not making war against Catholicism. Catholicism has made war against the truth of God's word and is leading countless people towards damnation by providing a false gospel that teaches that man has to add something to what Christ has already done, which ironically, was the subject of Acts 15 that got me involved in this discussion in the first place. I'll war against that as I do all other ideologies and beliefs that lead people astray, but even more so as it gives people a false sense of security under the name "Christian".

quote:

---

Boom ! There it is
Paul’s words. Baptism replaced circumcision which is performed on infants.

---

The notion that baptism somehow replaces circumcision so that authorizes it to be done on infants is downright comical. Unlike circumcision under the old law, in every case of baptism in the New Testament, belief and repentance are commanded as prerequisites...things that am infant can't do.

quote:

---

The notion that baptism somehow replaces circumcision so that authorizes it to be done on infants is downright

---

Don’t tell me , tell Saint Paul.
You are arguing with Paul not me.

quote:

---

More like truth is revealed with time.

---

But the new revelations always tend to lead the flock away from traditional Christian beliefs instead of reinforcing them.

quote:

---

As far as it being Biblical...I'd like to see one example from Scripture of an infant being baptized.

Just one.

---

I'd rather focus on Catholics as this is a thread about them, but I'll provide a brief explanation.

First, what forms my view on this position is the totality of Scripture. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant just as circumcision was the sign of the old covenant. Circumcision was given to infants prior to being able to express personal faith, because the sign wasn't a sign of salvation, but of covenant participation and blessing from God, as children of believers are holy (1 Cor. 7:14) because of their parents. The sign of the covenant is more broad now rather than more narrow. Girls receive the sign now. Removing the sign from children is more narrow rather than less.

Next household baptisms followed the same model as household circumcisions in the OT (Gen. 17). God commanded all males within the households of His people to receive the sign. Likewise in the NT, entire households received the sign. Lydia and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16) had their households baptized upon their conversion. The story of the Philippian jailer is most compelling to me because it says that he and his entire household rejoiced because of his faith; it doesn't say that they rejoiced because they all believed.

quote:

---

In addition, every single example of baptism being commanded in Scripture is prefaced by a command to believe and repent...things that am infant can't do. Every. Single. One.

---

Aside from household baptisms, I agree. The reason for it is that children are baptized as a covenant sign given to them because of their parents whereas adult baptisms are done because of the faith of the individual, themselves (just as the sign of circumcision was given to adult males when they joined the community of faith in Israel, and then the sign was given to their male children and members of their house). The reason why it's all adult baptisms in the NT (again, apart from households) is because the adults had to be converted first so that their children would be holy, and baptism for new converts is done after a profession of faith. Once the adult is baptized, their children also receive the sign of the covenant.

I should add that just as baptism doesn't save adults, it doesn't save children, either. It's a sign of God's grace upon an individual that they bear the name of the family of God (baptized in the name of God, Father, Son, and Spirit) and will receive the promises given to God's people if they trust in Christ's saving work on their behalf by faith. When my church baptizes infants, there is a call to the parents to raise their children in the Lord, teaching them and preaching the gospel to them, so that they may one day profess faith in Jesus Christ, themselves.

I agree with everything you said (beautifully stated btw), except for this part

quote:

---

baptism doesn't save

---

This directly contradicts scripture.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this (Noah's family being saved through water) now saves you" 1 Peter 3:21

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved..." Mark 16:16

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" Acts 2:38

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:27

"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" Romans 6:24

Yes I realize these are proof-texts, but the Bible is replete with examples of baptism playing a key part in justification. This is probably why, alongside real-presence, baptismal regeneration was the most widely believed doctrine in all of pre-reformation history, more so than even the Trinity.

quote:

---

Whats hard for me to understand is that you seem to accept the churches decisions that are recorded in scripture but reject everything that the church decided after scripture was closed.
The church did not cease to exist.
It had real world problems that needed clarification. Those problems were addressed and are part of recorded history.

---

Protestants like myself keep telling Catholics like you that the ultimate divide between us is about ultimate authority: does the final authority rest with God and His word, or with the church? Protestants say it rests with God in His word while Catholics say--either in word or in practice--that it's the church.

I believe that only God's word is infallible and inerrant. I don't believe that Popes (speaking ex cathedra or otherwise) or Councils are infallible. That's why I judge all decisions by the word of God.

And yes, where the church rules within its derived authority, she should be regarded by faithful Christians. I'm not anti-church. On the contrary, I believe every Christian should join themselves to a local body as part of a faithful church. I believe that at some point, Rome ceased being a true church of Jesus Christ and at this point in time, her authority is null.

quote:

---

I will admit. This current pope validates your concerns about (trusting man’s decisions )
He(Francis) and many accomplices within the church are in direct conflict with god himself.
Therefore it would seem prudent to avoid Catholicism.

---

I agree with this assessment, but not because of this Pope alone. While Rome continues to teach another gospel, she is a false church and should be avoided.

You know when people say they didn't leave a political party, the political party left them? That's what the Reformation was about: the church left the truth and the Reformers were seeking to reclaim it elsewhere. I believe that holds true today.

quote:

---

This pope Is in error but it is 2000 years of church teaching that testify to his error. We have the clear continual teaching to protect us from Francis.

---

I'd suggest being careful with this. There is nearly 2,000 years of teaching within the catholic (little 'c') church, but not all teachings is nearly 2,000 years old.

Recall that Paul in particular spent a decent amount of time in his letters combatting heresy and false teaching within the church that existed while he and the other Apostles were still alive. There has been a long time since the Apostles went into glory, and a long time for more false teachings to be taught and even accepted.

quote:

---

But Jesus said wolves would come and scatter the flock.
For the average person to know (the truth) is damn near impossible without years of prayer and study.

---

I agree and disagree at the same time. God has gifted men throughout the years to be able to open His word and explain it clearly to the faithful. Elders/Pastors exist today for that very purpose. But these men aren't given some extra, divine insight due to their office. They are taught how to study God's word using principles taken from the Bible, itself.

There is nothing special about the men in this office, in and of themselves, that makes them more worthy to teach; they are called because they have been trained and have met the qualifications called out by Scripture. The average lay person hasn't spent that sort of time in study, but they could. That's why Protestantism emphasizes that even everyday Christians should have their own copies of the Bible and spend time reading it and studying it, so that they can hold their shepherds accountable when wolves pretend to be shepherds. Instead of saying "well, I guess what they are saying must be right because they have the authority and knowledge and I don't", we can say, "that goes against God's word" and get the wolf out.

Recall that the office of elder/bishop has qualifications given in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 where men from the congregation are to be selected and tested. A ruling elder (as we call them) doesn't even have to go to seminary, but may simply be one who is exemplary in godly character and has a good understanding of the biblical faith to be able to teach it and defend it.

quote:

---

So many Catholics want so badly to become Protestant.

---

How did this absurdity become a reality? I think it began with the Protestant Reformation and culminated in a convergence of one fundamentally flawed concept (Justification by Faith Alone) and one dangerous and evil doctrine we call Moral Relativism (sprinkled with an unhealthy dose of Socialist Marxism).

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict) was right when he warned us Moral Relativism poses a serious threat, not only to the Church, but to the survival of mankind as well. Simply put, with this decision to bless gays - our pal Jorge Mario Bergoglio has brought us closer to unprecedented disaster. So as far as this absurdity applies to Catholicism, what is the disaster? The dismantling of centuries of the pursuit of truth by Holy Men and Women, including (but not limited to) Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas, Gregory, Theresa of Avila, John Paul II and so many others. Interestingly, I read where one of Bergoglio's disciples (Wilton Cardinal Gregory) was crowing about the fallacy of Catholic 'Holy Tradition".

What can we do to fight this threat? Pray the Rosary.