Some More Protestant Quotes

[Joolye]

About the true church:

It was only after the Diet at Worms that the reformation was moved to outside of the Catholic Church. But even then, the Reformers did not believe they were starting a new church; they believed they were reforming the true Church.

On believer's baptism:

As for baptism itself, nowhere in the New Testament are infants specifically said to be baptized. Moreover, every example of baptism in the New Testament occurs after someone places their faith in Christ.

Also, baptism is a symbol of dying and rising with Christ. Only baptism by immersion fits this description (Rom 6:1-4).

Some things to think about.

[Uncle Gus]

Do you think Peter baptised 5000 men _and their families_ all by total immersion, one at a time all in one sitting? *cough* I doubt it. They sprinkled them with water, whole groups at a time.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Here are a lot of things to think about (I copied this straight from ScriptureCatholic.com because I figure you won't go there):

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

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 - the people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This proves 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." This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. 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. 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.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33.

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3- we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.

Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 6-10 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.

[M.SIGGA]

Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics do baptize by immersion if you didn't know this Joolye - and all mainline Protestant demoninations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans) ''sprinkle,'' pour, or use immersion depending on the church and the pastor. Whether the water is poured, sprinkled, or a person immersed, the important factor is that the person is baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - grace is not denied in a valid baptism.

I don't see your immersion-only connection with Rom 6:1-4. I'm not a Baptist and I would really like to understand your church's interpretation - Please respond.

[cmotherofpirl]

About the true church:

On believer's baptism:

Some things to think about.

THe important parts of baptism are the water and the words.

Nowhere does the bible specify how many drops of water = valid baptism,

Paul says baptism replaces circumcision. Babies at 8 days old are are not consulted about their faith.

[VeraMaria]

;)

[INRIWarrior3]

Also, baptism is a symbol of dying and rising with Christ. Only baptism by immersion fits this description (Rom 6:1-4).

Joolye,

You need to look at a document called "The Didache" (Gk), "The Teachings", (Eng). This is a document that contains teachings of the twelve apostles though some of the work has been lost. It deals with many issues of faith that prove that the Catholic faith (though the Church was not called Catholic until St. Ignatius of Antioch "coined" the term later on) was held from the beginning. So on the valid method of baptism it says this:

Regarding baptism, baptize thus. After giving the foregoing

instructions, 'Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Spirit (Mt 28:19) in running water. But, if you have no running water, baptize

in any other; and if you cannot in cold water, then in warm. But, if the one is

lacking, pour the other three times on the head 'in the name of the Father, and

Son, and Holy Spirit.' (Willis 384)

The Fathers of the Church held this belief as evident in my source which I will fully cite at the bottom of the post. This teaching does make sense geographically: if one has no access to a river, lake, pond, ocean, etc. how can one be baptized by immersion? Therefore, as the teachings of the apostles states, a pouring is a valid baptism.

Regarding infant baptism:

1)Acts 10: Cornelius' entire household, relatives, and friends were baptized

by Peter; if an infant wasn't baptized then, a child was for sure.

Moreover, every example of baptism in the New Testament occurs

      after someone places their faith in Christ.

Cornelius didn't. Cornelius was a righteous Gentile who never heard of Christ. He had a vision of an angel that told him to summon Peter. Peter came to preach (Peter witnesses to Cornelius about Christ) to Cornelius and his family and friends and ends up baptizing them because "the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word." (Acts 10:44) Peter then replies, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?" (Acts 10:47) Peter then baptizes them all. Never did Cornelius profess faith in Christ because he never heard the message of Christ until Peter preached to him; remeber, Cornelius was a Gentile and therefore didn't hear the word of God in Christ.

2) The Fathers of the Church never denied an infant baptism.

St. Augustine (354-430): "Whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament (baptism) shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ." (Willis 393)

Heres my source (I recommend this book for all who wish to learn about the faith of our Early Fathers):

1. Willis, John R., S.J.. "The Teachings of the Church Fathers." New York: Herder

and Herder. 1966.

Hope this helps, God bless you in discerning the true Church.

INRIWarrior3

Edited November 4, 2003 by INRIWarrior3

[Katholikos]

Joolye wrote:

About the true church:

QUOTE

It was only after the Diet at Worms that the reformation was moved to outside of the Catholic Church. But even then, the Reformers did not believe they were starting a new church; they believed they were reforming the true Church.

Joolye, do you agree with the statement you quoted (above) that the Catholic Church is the True Church?

[Jake Huether]

Joolye wrote:

About the true church:

QUOTE 

It was only after the Diet at Worms that the reformation was moved to outside of the Catholic Church. But even then, the Reformers did not believe they were starting a new church; they believed they were reforming the true Church.

Joolye, do you agree with the statement you quoted (above) that the Catholic Church is the True Church?

Yeah, I found that a bit of a contradiction.

How could they believe they were reforming the "true Church". If it was the True Church, then they must have missed the "the gates of hell will not prevail".

And if you honestly believe that they reformed it, then why is it still being "reformed".

And if it is still being reformed now, then why, for 1500 years did it not need reforming?

As I said before, "what a mess".

[Katholikos]

Joolye wrote:

On believer's baptism:

QUOTE

As for baptism itself, nowhere in the New Testament are infants specifically said to be baptized. Moreover, every example of baptism in the New Testament occurs after someone places their faith in Christ.

Also, baptism is a symbol of dying and rising with Christ. Only baptism by immersion fits this description (Rom 6:1-4).

-------------------------------

Joolye,

John Smyth founded the Baptists in Amsterdam in 1609 and rebaptized himself (he was an Anglican). The original Baptists, later called General Baptists, were English Separatists. They practiced baptism by infusion (pouring), a method borrowed from the Mennonites, from whom they sprang. Smyth left the Baptists shortly after he founded them and became a Mennonite. The Baptists excommunicated Smyth, left Amsterdam, and returned to their native London, led by Thomas Helwys.

Even the Baptists did not immerse their members until 1644, when the Immersion Baptists broke away from the Particular Baptists (split 1638) and the original (General) Baptists, founded in 1609. So, during their first 35 years of existence, baptism was conferred by pouring.

Baptism by immersion only was not practiced in the early Church, as you can read in the Didache, posted on this thread by INRIwarrior3. The NT implies that it was not practiced, as was demonstrated on this thread by Uncle Gus.

Next to my computer is a textbook, Understanding the New Testament by Howard Clark Kee, a Methodist. This book was used at Arizona State University for my New Testament History class. I'm looking at page 338, on which a photograph appears with the following caption:

QUOTE The oldest baptistry [reconstruction] ever found was in a tiny chapel at Dura Europus, on the Euphrates River in Northeastern Syria. The walls of the chapel, which was destroyed in A.D. 258, were covered with paintings of biblical scenes, traces of which are still visible. The person to be baptized stood in the shallow pool and had water poured over his head. (Yale University Art Gallery, Dura Europus Collection) END QUOTE (bold added for emphasis)

Other than an interpretation of the Bible that millions of Christians and thousands of denominations do not share, and which your own denomination did not practice until 1644, what evidence can you present that baptism by immersion only was taught by the Apostles and practiced in the early Church?

I agree that it's something to think about!

Not only is baptism by immersion only/for believers only not taught by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, very few Protestants restrict baptism to "believers only" and even fewer to "immersion only."

This is definitely a minority opinion, Joolye. Check it out.

Edited November 4, 2003 by Katholikos

[IcePrincessKRS]

Can't beat historical facts!

Thanks Likos for always giving us the TRUTH!

[Katholikos]

Can't beat historical facts!

Thanks Likos for always giving us the TRUTH!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Edited November 5, 2003 by Katholikos

[Uncle Gus]

John Smyth founded the Baptists in Amsterdam in 1609 and rebaptized himself.

No he didn't. He may think he did, and he may have even performed the ritual, but he was already baptised. There is one baptism.

This isn't a dig at you, Katholikos, but at the idea of each church having it's own baptism.

[Anna]

About the true church

It was only after the Diet at Worms that the reformation was moved to outside of the Catholic Church. But even then, the Reformers did not believe they were starting a new church; they believed they were reforming the true Church.

Of course, it doesn't really matter what they believed, just because someone believes something, it doesn't make it so...

And, since the re-formers were fallible, they believed wrong.

Their new churches were founded by fallible men, whereas the True Church, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ established a hierarchical order of authority in His Church. No man had the authority to usurp that.

Luther basically appointed himself pope of a new church...as did the rest of the reformers. They certainly knew when they broke away that they were no longer united with the Roman pontiff! They even referred to those who stayed onboard the Catholic Church as "papists." By their own admission, they rejected the authority Christ established.

They did not have any authority whatsoever to steer the bark of Peter...so they simply jumped ship and began paddling in a sea of error!

As for baptism itself, nowhere in the New Testament are infants specifically said to be baptized. Moreover, every example of baptism in the New Testament occurs after someone places their faith in Christ.

Was Jesus asked if He wanted to be circumcized? Christian baptism is a mark of Faith, just as circumcision was to the Jews.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).

The historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5).

His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of having a right to his kingdom. He asserted such a right even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe). The Greek word brephe means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.

notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.

Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?

Also, baptism is a symbol of dying and rising with Christ. Only baptism by immersion fits this description (Rom 6:1-4).

Just a symbol. You don't have to literally fall into water and be lifted up again. Edited November 5, 2003 by Anna

[notbilln]

I think what Joolye was trying to get at is that the reformers beliveved that they were spitting off of the church and creating something they thought the Church should have been all along.

That's so obvious of a statement,that it doesn't really merit too much discussion other than to point out the numerous biblical refernces to the "one body". So if you want to change the body, you have to do it from within, in order to remain part of the one true church.