Beatles fans will totally get this. I’m pretty sure that song was Yoko’s fault.
—
Question evolution — a terrific overview of the problems of Darwinian evolution. Even many atheist scientists concede how the evidence opposes it.
—
This is more of a time saver than a money saver, but my daughter’s Chase checking account lets you scan checks with an iPhone app to deposit them. That is very convenient. I hope my credit union does the same as well. Just another example of technology doing more to save time and energy (think of all the trips to the bank!) than Greenpeace ever dreamed of.
—
—
From the “That’s going to leave a mark!” category, see How to think like a Roman Catholic. Here’s a sample:
Now, let’s begin.
To see if you think like a Roman Catholic, what is your response to each of the the following pictures (the “proper” Romanist responses are indicated below each image).
Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.
_______________________________
Veneration.
_______________________________
Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.
_______________________________
Veneration.
—
Good points by James about the reasoning for a believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism.
—
10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam — It is more important than many people realize.
—
“Christian Yoga” = oxymoron — My former church had yoga classes. I think it is great to encourage believers to fellowship and exercise together, but there are only about a thousand other workout programs one could use besides yoga. There is nothing wrong with some of their specific moves. I’m pretty sure that if cats and dogs had lawyers they would have copyrighted the cat stretch and upward / downward dog moves a long time ago. But taken as a whole yoga is explicitly religious.
—
Eternity Matters 
I don’t get the Beatles album joke. BUT, I had a great laugh at the PP cartoon because it is sooooooo true. But my wife noted that the connection of breast cancer to abortion would show the lie of PP’s concern for said cancer anyway!
LikeLike
I think the Catholics are really taking it on the chin here lately. The way Rush Limbaugh showed their compromise with Democrats over the years really weakened their ability to stand against King Obama and his dictates. Hopefully, they will see that when Jesus said, “you cannot serve God and mammon,” that… He actually meant it.
LikeLike
I looked at all four pictures and immediately said, “Idolatry.” But then, I am a Protestant and bow to nothing. My God is invisible, after all, and I don’t worship symbols or statues.
“The way Rush Limbaugh showed their compromise with Democrats over the years really weakened their ability to stand against King Obama and his dictates. “
Yeah, that too.
LikeLike
Re: Infant Baptism points…
The first reference to Romans 6 is neither for or against infant baptism, and can be applied to all ages if you understand what is being explained rather than drawing a conclusion from to who it is being explained.
“Can an infant say he has died and risen with Christ to new life? Can an infant say he can “walk in newness of life.” This is what Paul connects with Christian baptism.”
I cannot find any necessity to say anything with regard to a valid baptism in St. Paul’s words.
Can you?
Confusing what baptism does and what what we perceive is being done is not a winning argument.
The second point is not clear to me… Matthew 28: 19-20? Really? Not supportive of infant baptism? Baptize ALL Nations? I guess if you don’t want to find baptism for ALL, you will only see for SOME.
It make a big difference if you think baptism is an ordinace and symbolic rather that the scriptural teaching that it is a means of receiving God’s grace in response to your faith.
LikeLike
Tom, it is a stretch of the Scriptures to include infant baptism: the only subjects delineated are always specified as adults [the only possible exceptions include the “household” baptisms, which do not specifically include or exclude infants, so could go either way; individual baptisms are always of adults, and the “households” could be only adults and older children who also believed, or use the term “household” in a generic sense and it does not force every individual in the house to be included, but just most of the household in general].
Even your “all nations” is a stretch, in that it does not mean to baptize every individual in every single nation, but is logically restrained by the context to refer only to adults [teach first, baptize second, and teach more; it’s a little difficult to baptize infants who have been taught, considering they can’t even understand the teaching]. Besides, if you are to insist that Christians are to baptize ALL nations, and all people in all nations, then you should be force-dunking (or sprinkling or pouring water on them if that’s your belief) people whether they believe or not, so that we can fulfill the command to baptize “all nations”. I don’t think you would go that far, so you yourself recognize that baptizing “all nations” is limited in adults at least to those who believe, and that Jesus isn’t implying that those who can object should be baptized against their objections. Besides, there are two ways “all” can be used (I think the Greek has two different words to distinguish them, though it’s only one word in English), and that can mean “all without exception” or “all without distinction”. I would almost be willing to bet that “all nations” is the latter and not the former.
I also note that baptism is in the NT referred to as analogous to circumcision in the OT. Some paedo-baptists have taken this to mean that infants of believing Christians should be baptized, just as (male) infants of Jews were to be circumcised; however, I would note that circumcision was something that was done after the child was born, and baptism in the NT is always in the context of those who have been “born *again*”. Therefore, I would say that baptism is something that should be done to newborn Christians, not to a Christian’s newborn. John in the first chapter of his gospel points out that those who were called sons of God and who believed on Jesus were born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” I would put forth that baptizing infants as if that is what makes them born again, and/or added to the kingdom of God, or whatever terminology you would choose, would deny this verse, making being born again dependent on the will of man, because it is the will of man that is at work at the baptism of infants.
LikeLike
Baptism now saves you.
(but not children)
Could your argument be used for any other denial of orthodox Christian doctrine?
You really work to hard to deny God’s gift to those who would most benefit.
You stretch to exclude by an argument of silence on the subject. Does the fact that many of the earliest Church fathers acknowledged infant baptism as in being in accord with the teachings of “The Way” make you think?
Is baptism an symbolic act of obedience or a work of God upon his children?
LikeLike
I will answer more fully in a bit (it’s 4:30 a.m. my time, and I’m up with a sick child), but I would ask you specifically, Do you believe that baptism has any effect on someone who undergoes it unwillingly? [other than to make the person wet] Do you go around baptizing people in the hopes of saving them and getting them into heaven?
LikeLike
I pray your child will be granted health soon!
Baptism is God’s saving work on us through our faith. How do you see anyone “unwilling” having saving faith?
If you go to the faith of an infant. Only God can decern the truth here. We are not that perceptive to distinguish. Yet I would submit that the faith of the little ones is exactly what Jesus has pointed us to…
To say that a child must not be baptized is to deny rather than to affirm. I won’t play God with the salvation of a child who can’t speak for himself.
LikeLike
Tom,
So are you saying that if a baby isn’t baptized and it dies, it will not be saved because it wasn’t baptized? Can you show that from Scripture?
LikeLike
Glenn, you ask what I meant. You assume what I meant and attempt to corner me all before I answer your first, reasonable question. Shame on you.
No I am not saying that an unbaptized infant is condemned or saved exactly because this point is not specifically made in the scriptures. As a faithful Christian I have hope that our just God will find saving faith in the heart of a child.
More emphatically, God made no promise that an unbaptized child IS saved or IS NOT saved. Who are we to make unsupported claims. Who are you to claim a child is not to be baptized?
In the very thoughtful points brought forth by Kathy, I would note that there seems to be agreement that infant baptism in not prohibited and there are “stretches” that may very well support infant baptism (The command of Jesus: …baptize all nations… and the baptizing of households in concert with Jesus’ view of children …whosoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all!). Here the scriptural evidence point to God’s desire that we baptize all. The other side of the argument is not supported at all and only lack of evidence is used as evidence.
Regarding symbolic baptism… Christ commands the Apostles to make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching.
A command of Christ is not a suggestion wrapped in symbolism. To say otherwise is truly foolish.
LikeLike
If baptism does not save a child, as I have been told it does by Romanists – as well as by other paedo-baptists – then what is the point of baptism of a child? Just because something is not found in Scripture as proscribed, that doesn’t mean it is okay or even blessed by God – that is called arguing from silence. I can claim a child is not to be baptized because, for all the claims about “nations” and “everyone” meaning inclusive of babies, there is no biblical justification for that approach. I’m certain if baptizing babies was done, we would probably have some mention of it. Another argument from silence, but at least more logical.
Scriptural evidence is that we baptize all – following their conversion to the Christian faith. The baptism is indeed symbolic of that faith and is a public profession, which is why it is commanded. But nowhere do we find a command to baptize unbelievers, which a baby and small child are because they lack the capacity to believe or even reject. To say otherwise is what is foolish.
LikeLike
‘How do you see anyone “unwilling” having saving faith?’ — exactly my point. Yet you are calling for the baptism of infants who are not willing, and indeed have no knowledge nor understanding of what is happening. You seem to be calling for this on the basis that an infant *might* have faith (though imperceptible to human eyes); what is the basis for forcing an infant (who cannot stop you) from undergoing baptism on the basis that he *might* have imperceptible faith, but *not* forcing adults (who likewise might have faith imperceptible to you) to undergo baptism? I presume that by “baptism” you include sprinkling or pouring water, and not just the Biblical immersion; why do you not go out into a crowd of people on the street and start sprinkling them with water, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost”?
In the Bible, baptism is always accompanied by and preceded by faith, and baptism is the outward evidence of the inward change in the person’s life; as I said before, Christian baptism is to the newborn Christian (i.e., born again Christian) what Jewish circumcision was to the newborn Jew. What change has happened to the newborn, or will happen to the baby because of baptism? History is evident that the answer is “not much”, considering how many people today and through the centuries have been baptized as infants and gone on to become as worldly and sinful as those who have never even heard of Christ nor baptized, showing themselves to be nothing but the children of wrath. To say that millions of people have been properly baptized as infants and is “God’s saving work through our faith” (even though infants have no discernible faith), is to make a mockery of Christianity and of baptism.
The onus is not on those of us who practice believers’ baptism to prove that infants should not be baptized; it is on those of you who practice non-believers’ baptism to show that people who exhibit no faith (infant or adult alike) should be baptized unwillingly just in case they have invisible faith (a concept not in the Bible, btw).
LikeLike
Reread what you said: “The onus is not on those of us who practice believers’ baptism to prove that infants should not be baptized; it is on those of you who practice non-believers’ baptism to show that people who exhibit no faith (infant or adult alike) should be baptized unwillingly just in case they have invisible faith (a concept not in the Bible, btw).”
Non-believer?
Exhibit no faith?
Invisible faith?
You cannot tell who is a believer from a non-believer. Only God knows for certain.
By their works WE shall know their faith… God knows already.
All faith is invisible. Not in the Bible? You are in great error. No one but God sees/knows the faith that saves. You are regurgitating the doctrine of man. Attempting to usurp the Gospel of Jesus with the gospel of man. You have God’s Word. Believe it! Don’t edit it. You are defending a false teaching.
LikeLike
Tom, I think we’d agree that only God really knows the heart of a person. But the Bible does teach to judge those in the church and it is common sense that babies can’t make those assessments.
LikeLike
Babies can’t judge? That is the next attempt to defend a man made doctrine? No soap.
LikeLike
A baby has no ability to choose to follow Christ or even reject Christ. A baby has not developed thought processes that far. If you think otherwise, then you can’t have been around too many babies! It is YOU who regurgitate the doctrine of man – the doctrine of Rome.
LikeLike
My children are better, but I’m worse — fever for the past couple of days. When I feel better, I will write more but right now my head aches from just sitting up, much less attempting to comprehend all that has been said and make a reasonable answer.
Fwiw, I seem to be in great agreement with Glenn, so his responses may be acceptable as my responses; when I get back to 100% mental clarity, I will review and make sure that is the case, and may or may not write more as necessary.
Oh, and I’m not a Reformer; I’m Baptist, which preceded and was not part of the Reformation. As such, I do not follow the Pope, nor consider the Catholic Church as something that needed “reforming” and if they just “reformed” would be a-okay, so don’t necessarily follow the Reformers as well. I highly respect their stand, especially considering they hazarded their lives for what they believed to be the truth, but they also persecuted and killed Baptists for *their* stance. I prefer to judge everyone by the holy Word of God, and consider that since all men are fallible, we need to read everything that people have said, from the older church fathers to bloggers on the internet today, and everyone in between, and consider whether it measures up to a Scriptural stance, rather than just “appeal to authority” and act as though if somebody (outside of the Bible) said it, then it must be so. So if I post a link to an article, it is because I don’t feel a need to “reinvent the wheel”, not because I believe someone to be infallible.
LikeLike
Well said, and hope you are better soon!
LikeLike
Get Well!
Much of Baptist doctrine is post reformation. Especially the American Baptist.
The original reform was to return to the historic, biblical orthodox faith.
Does someone out there think I am a papist? What else do you get wrong working from assumptions?
I will concede the expressed desire to hold fast to the Word of God but when you take clear writing and shrug it off (command: baptize all nations) as a stretch I must take other claims of biblical discernment with a grain of salt.
I will not beat this dead beast any more. Suffice it to say that to baptize infants shows an understanding of inclusiveness of the Gospel (for all – even infants) and does not proclaim an exclusive Gospel (no babies allowed into the kingdom of heaven). If this statement is discordant to you, maybe your Gospel message is bound too tight.
I let scripture interpret scripture and when an unclear passage is found I look for a clearer passage to “clear” thing up.
Also I am inclined to see God’s gracious work in all believers… and their children. That is what baptism is … God’s work upon us. Why deny this to children. No Christian would knowingly deny their child a gift from God. That IS baptism.
http://wittenbergmedia.org/2011/07/12/got-baptism-onepoint-oh/
http://wittenbergmedia.org/2011/07/22/got-baptism-too-point-oooohhhh/
LikeLike
Tom, I recommend this article by Matt Slick, which does a much better job of explaining the real intent of the passage than I could do:
http://carm.org/baptism-and-1-pet-321
The point is, baptism in and of itself has no value. It is a symbol of our faith and why we are baptized.
LikeLike
Mark 16: And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
No value? It is God coming to us with his Grace. He touches us. He died for us. He doesn’t want us to assume what He does for us has no value. You dismiss so much that is Gospel!
Zwingli and Calvin really screwed up man’s appreciation for the one religion where God comes to save us and work through us, not where we do for God.
Christians can’t reach to God for approval. Rationalism and sophistry lead to an abridged Word of God. Let God do what He does and stop insisting that He won’t do what He has not revealed. That is arrogant.
LikeLike
No, baptism in and of itself has no value. If a person isn’t a Christian, baptism is no more than a bath. The passage you just threw out like confetti does not support your contention.
God does not save people just because they are baptized – you will not find that in the Bible.
LikeLike
“Baptism has no value” is contrary to scripture. Are you fighting a loosing battle? You look to the scriptures to support your doctrine and that is backwards. Look to the scriptures to find the doctrine you can teach.
“God does not save people just because they are baptized – you will not find that in the Bible.”
(And that is why I never said or insinuated that to be so. False accusation by inference?)
Y’all really would do well to stop spending time defending a heterodox doctrine.
LikeLike
Read the context: Baptism has no value to one who isn’t a Christian already. Even then, the only value is symbolic of the conversion to Christ. Baptism does not give salvation to one who does not believe.
I don’t look to Scripture to support “my” doctrine. I get my doctrine FROM the Scriptures and not from some man sitting on a throne in the Vatican.
LikeLike
Nor do I get my doctrine from Rome. What is your point? Are you obsessed with being anti-Rome to the exclusion of the clear reading of scripture just because Rome taught some things right (at some point)?
You make assumptions about the nature of my doctrinal background and you miss the mark all the time. You must understand the Bible the same way (extrapolating evidence you, yourself provide).
LikeLike
Tom,
Well, you are correct in that I assumed you are Romanist because of your staunch support for their teachings, your defense of the idolatry of which this post exposed.
I am anti-Rome as well as anti- any corruption of the Gospel, twisting of Scriptures for man’s doctrine etc. Rome is no more a target for me than any other false belief system.
Supporting the idolatry as you have would lead most people, I think, to assume a Romanist background. However, I can also posit Eastern Orthodoxy, since they are also idolaters in the same way.
I don’t have a problem with the CLEAR reading of Scripture; I have a problem with the traditions which have crept in and have become doctrines for so many false belief systems.
LikeLike
“No, baptism in and of itself has no value.”
Wrong.
“If a person isn’t a Christian, baptism is no more than a bath.”
A person who isn’t a Christian (with faith by God’s Grace) does not get baptized. He is taking a bath. Not an ineffective baptism.
Ssssssssswing and a miss!
LikeLike
I started a new thread below, because this one is getting hopelessly narrow.
[As for my health – I’m a little better, but still not able to tackle all the particulars of the previous comments, so I may come back to them in a day or two.]
LikeLike
Glenn’s comment below should suffice for a more lengthy response from me on the topic.
I’m reminded of the saying, “Never read a Bible verse” — i.e. don’t read a verse by itself, but consider the context, and consider also the entire Bible. In this case, I would say, “never read a Bible phrase”; if you read just certain phrases out of context, you will have a deeply flawed/skewed theology. In fact, you can “prove” from the Bible that there is no God, if you read just a phrase here and there; but if you read merely the entire verse you see the phrase “there is no God” is preceded by, “the fool hath said in his heart”.
In like manner, if you read to the end of the verse that says “baptism now saves you”, you’ll see that it discusses not only the allegorical nature of baptism, but mentions that baptism is, “the answer of a good conscience before God”. An infant cannot be willingly baptized, not comprehending what is going on; an adult can be willingly or unwillingly baptized. In the case of willing baptism, I can see that the person being baptized may have his conscience involved; but in the case of a person who has not asked to be baptized (infant or adult), I fail to see how being dunked (or otherwise “baptized”) can involve the person’s conscience at all.
In answer to your final question, baptism is a symbolic act of obedience — the symbolism is that baptism (being immersion — the Greek word “baptidso” literally meaning “to dip”, but transliterated as “baptism” by those who would sprinkle or pour water on those being baptized) is analogous to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, symbolizing that our old/sinful man has died and been buried, but our new/spiritual man has risen and is alive. As Glenn’s link points out, Cornelius (and the Ethiopian eunuch, and all the others mentioned in the Bible) received baptism as a symbolic act to show what had already taken place, not to effect any change. The change was before, and baptism signaled that change.
The fact that many early leaders in the church did or did not do something does carry weight with me; however, they were also fallible humans, so just because they believed something does not mean it was necessarily true. We should still judge them by Scripture, rather than judge the Scripture by them.
LikeLike
Kathy says: “The fact that many early leaders in the church did or did not do something does carry weight with me; however, they were also fallible humans, so just because they believed something does not mean it was necessarily true. ”
So this is how you support your flawed argument… Disregard the early church fathers as “carry no weight” and “fallible” after rambling on about how some modern and I imagine fallible, apologist makes a narrow point for the symbolism of baptism. Your credibility is bottoming out.
Do you also thing that “This is my body… This is my blood… do this…” is symbolic?
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were instituted by Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins (salvation) not a memorial snack. You reformed types are really hate God’s omnipotence. You are all but saying that when the Son of God says do something he really doesn’t mean do, just kind of do… False teaching writ large. Fits your world(ly) view though.
LikeLike
Hi Tom,
I think you may have misunderstood Kathy. She specifically said that the church fathers do carry weight, but you replied, “So this is how you support your flawed argument… Disregard the early church fathers as “carry no weight””
Re. “This is my body . . .” When He spoke that He was with them in the room. Whatever they ate was bread and wine. He did not take part of his body. They were symbols. Important symbols, but symbols. Holding that view does not mean we aren’t taking Jesus seriously.
LikeLike
You are very correct. Thank you for pointing that out.
Kathy, I am sorry for misrepresenting your statements. No excuse. I apologize.
Tom
eMatters… Going back to the Marburg Colloquy of 1529, to suggest that “This is My Body” is symbolic is narrow, self serving and denies the clear words of Christ. Do not tell me what he didn’t do, or say. Read what He did and believe He is truthful even if you don’t understand how God can do what he does. He is God! Trust Him. Have faith. That what taking His body and blood is all about. Faith that what he instituted (The Lord’s Supper) is for us, for the forgiveness of sins. Your lack of faith here may weaken you faith elsewhere. Doubting the clear scriptures harms the Gospel comfort.
LikeLike
Hi Tom — I don’t follow. You are implying that I didn’t read what He did and believe it is truthful. You are incorrect.
I think we’d agree that we don’t know exactly why God can do what He does, but that doesn’t prove your point or mine.
“He is God! Trust Him. Have faith. ”
I do, on all three counts. Again, that doesn’t prove your point or mine.
“Your lack of faith here may weaken you faith elsewhere. Doubting the clear scriptures harms the Gospel comfort.”
Sounds kinda judgmental. If I interpret it differently then it is possible that I’m wrong, but that is no reason for you to claim a lack of faith on my part.
Please read your comment again and consider how I could have said the very same things to you, and how they would have equally little value in the conversation.
LikeLike
Tom, Citing someone from the 16th century as justification for Romanist belief in transubstantiation is a bit ridiculous. I’d prefer to stick to what Scripture says. As Neil pointed out, at the Last Supper Jesus gave them real bread and real wine as symbols. I wrote an article about the unbiblical and idolatrous nature of the Romanist Mass here:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-eucharist-unbiblical-and.html
LikeLike
Glenn, you are showing your inability to comprehend what your read. I never once gave support to transubstantiation. That is your invention. You are a good apologist but seem to have your doctrines confused. The Marburg Colloquy did not involve papist doctrine. It certainly showed that man will easily grasp what he can understand before he will accept God’s word at face value.
LikeLike
Tom, I very much comprehended what you said in that give and take with Neil. What you described is transubstantiation. You said, “to suggest that “This is My Body” is symbolic is narrow, self serving and denies the clear words of Christ.”
If you are not discussing Romanist transubstantiation, or even Lutheranism’s consubstantiation, then how else is it not symbolic? The Marburg Colloquy is still nothing more than man-made doctrine developing ideas from the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation. The issue was whether or not Christ’s body was truly present. The fact is that it is NOT. Christ at the Last Supper was there in physical person while he had the bread and cup with him – the bread and cup were not his physical body and blood!
LikeLike
Kathy and Glenn:
This article
( http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar56.htm )
expands and clarifies much of what I have been offering you in the truthful, orthodox view of infant baptism. Do read it in its entirety and reflect upon this scriptural viewpoint. The expansive glory of the Bible as the Word of God is brought before you if you let the scriptures GIVE you Gospel teaching rather than you TAKE as Gospel what you have been taught.
God’s Peace be with you.
Tom
Kathy, is your kid-o feeling better? I hope so.
LikeLike
Tom, this article does nothing but give the same tired arguments you have been giving. Romanists and those who failed to totally reform Romanism as they made new Protestant denominations all continued with these excuses as to why a baby should be baptized, yet baptism is everywhere seen in Scripture as the symbol of one’s belief. If you don’t have the belief, then the baptism is meaningless.
LikeLike
Not Romanist. Not tired. Biblical and hard to understand if your pride blinds you. You are anti-Rome before Christian and that hurts your view of scriptures. The reformation was to bring the Church back to its pure orthodox biblical foundation and scrape away the unbiblical accretions added by Rome. The radical reformers (Calvin, Zwingli, and beyond) used man’s reason to distance themselves and their churches from Rome not to bring the Christian faith back to the pure Gospel. This is fact.
Just when you say you are Bible believing, and you don’t even believe the plain words given us by the Apostles and Christ himself, you are not being honest. This is your tradition over scripture just like the papists. Deal with it.
LikeLike
Tom,
No, it is NOT biblical. So it is MY pride that “blinds” me to accepting Romanist doctrine (yes it was Rome and sister Eastern Orthodoxy which originated the practice – not the Bible) but it is not YOUR pride which holds to man’s traditions?!?
I know what the Reformation was supposed to do, but it really didn’t; it merely cleaned up much of Romanism but kept much more unbiblical components of it. There is nothing wrong with using “man’s reason” to return to Biblical teachings – that’s what God gave us reasoning ability for – DISCERNMENT!
I am the one in this discussion between you and me who does indeed follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles without added Romanist doctrines. Deal with it.
LikeLike
Do you discern that “This is my body… this is my blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins…” is just symbolic?
You are fighting against the history of the orthodox Christian Church (papist errors aside). You really are a good Christian Apologist but you are very limited in understanding doctrine.
LikeLike
Glenn says: “I am the one in this discussion between you and me who does indeed follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles without added Romanist doctrines. Deal with it.”
Foundering is a sure sign of need to admit error. Baptize All Nations! Can get around it except to redefine its plain meaning.
Don’t forget to hate romanists some more.
By the way, do you hate (in a proper “Get thee behind me Satan” kind of way) Catholics, their church or the papacy?
LikeLike
The string is getting congested above so I am going to respond to THREE comments by Tom;
Tom
I am not at all limited in understanding doctrine, even doctrines of man. The Christian church did not originally see the bread and cup as being literally body and blood, nor did they originally see it as Christ’s presence. Yes, it is indeed symbolic – the original version being the very proof. Christ was sitting there holding the elements which were literal bread and wine. They were to be representative of his body and blood. They could not at that time be his body and blood.
God gives all of us the faith to believe; we must exercise that faith and accept God’s provision of a savior. A person who is not a Christian is exactly what a baby/infant is because they don’t have the ability to make rational decisions about spiritual matters. So baptizing them is of no value. You are the one who did the swing and miss (you are so cute – not)
I am not the one foundering. YOU are the one who started the “deal with it” which I threw back at you. So it must have been you foundering to say that to start with. Baptize all nations has nothing to do with forced baptism on people who do not believe. The intent of the passage is to bring people to the Lord and THEN baptize them. It is your idea of what baptism is about which lead to Romanists forcing baptism on children all around the world as the Spaniards, Portuguese, et al went around conquering native peoples.
You have falsely accused me of “hating” Romanists; typical liberal charge. I hate false teachings the way God hates false teachings – I don’t hate people.
LikeLike
I have now read the entire thread (with my full understanding – yay for feeling better [I haven’t been sick this whole time, but have had to play catch-up on life, so didn’t have time before now]), and don’t really have anything to add. Glenn said about what I would have said; his arguments didn’t sway/persuade you, so I doubt putting them into my own words would make any difference.
My last question remains unanswered, which you may not have seen since I put it in a new thread:
You said, “A person who isn’t a Christian (with faith by God’s Grace) does not get baptized. He is taking a bath. Not an ineffective baptism.”
Can you tell me how you distinguish between an effective baptism and a bath, in the case of a child too young to ask to be baptized?
LikeLike
Speaking of Catholics and Planned Parenthood, but going off on a different tangent, I thought I’d share this link debunking the myth that 98% of Catholic women use birth control, just in case anybody would find it useful. Obviously, it’s skewed to near insanity on its face, because how many nuns and post-menopausal women are on birth control? (And I daresay that more than 2% of Catholic women would fall into those two groups.) I can forgive the exaggeration of “all Catholic women” to mean “all Catholic women of reproductive age”, because that would seem an obvious restriction given the context; but how they arrive at the 98% figure is by two extremely skewed methods.
1) They only count those who are “at risk for an unintended pregnancy”, which means they don’t count anyone who is pregnant, postpartum, trying to get pregnant, not having sex for the past 3 months, and possibly also those who have been sterilized, gone through early menopause, had a hysterectomy for medical reasons, or are neither actively trying to get pregnant nor actively avoiding pregnancy.
2) They include many nominal Catholics. According to the results, over 2/3 of the respondents would not be eligible for communion (don’t go to mass every week, I think it said), so may be representative of the average “Catholic” (i.e., in name only) but not representative of the average *Catholic* (i.e., true believer).
Just as an example, a friend of mine (raised in a very conservative Christian household, father a Baptist preacher, etc.) strayed away and among other things started living with his girlfriend who had been raised a “Catholic”. At a family reunion (mostly conservative Christians), when it came out, the young lady was surprised at the negative reaction it generated, and when she was privately apprised of what was the problem — namely, that sex before/outside of marriage was rather looked down upon in the Bible, her reaction was, “Ohhhh, really???” She never knew, even though that’s one of the core Catholic doctrines. But then, that’s not surprising considering she had only gone to church a few times in her life; yet she still counted herself as Catholic.
[Btw, I agree with you about the idolatry/veneration.]
LikeLike
I’ll bet the Catholic Church counts her as Catholic too. There’s no formal defection process any more.
LikeLike
Note that the statistic includes women who have ever used birth control. Made a mistake in college and haven’t used birth control in fifteen years? Welcome to the 98%. Use birth control for (Catholic acceptable) health reasons, such as to prevent transmission of a deadly disease to your spouse? 98%. Used the Pill for acne or cramps? 98%.
Also, if you look closely, the stat is 87%, not 98%; the 2% is women who use Natural Family Planning.
As I keep snarking, the statistic basically says, “98% of women who have violated the Catholic teachings on sexuality [i.e. having sex but actively avoiding pregnancy] have violated Catholic teachings on sexuality.” In other related news, 100% of people who fail to live up to the standards of vegetarianism have eaten meat or fish in their lives.
Final part of the rant: I’ve spent my life using 100% effective, 100% free birth control. Not sure why I should pay for some other woman’s good time in bed – religious exemptions or not. Or rather, I shouldn’t have to work for a religious institution to avoid paying part of the cost for another couple’s romp.
LikeLike
Roxanne – your last paragraph is perfect!
LikeLike
When a Catholic kneels to pray in front of a statue of a “Saint,” he/she is praying with that saint to God. It is similar to kneeling down with someone in church praying for the same intention. Idolatry is exhibited in the first picture because we assume they are praying to the golden statue. Please do not assume that is what Catholics are taught to do. All Catholics should know, but not all do, that we are not supposed to worship the “Saints,” including Mary. It is very common for non-Catholics to make this mistake about Catholic prayer.
LikeLike
Would you please demonstrate from Scripture where this is a proper practice; i.e., praying ‘with” a dead person?
LikeLike
Re Catholicism, (not anything to do with this article however) here is an excerpt from the article cited by Rush (which I think Timothy speaks of).
It’s a long article, but this quote is from the best part. You can pick up reading at the picture of Francis Perkins, a black and white picture of a woman during the 1930’s on the right side, if you don’t have time to read it all. Very insightful this, both on protestant denominations and the Catholic church confusing government handouts with charity.
LikeLike
Forgot to leave the link:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil
LikeLike
another quote from the article as it quotes a Cardinal that you might appreciate Neil:
“Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.”
LikeLike
Great quote, thanks!
LikeLike
With this logic I guess we can assume that this Cardinal would be fine with aborting homeless people.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why anyone who understands economics and the idea that nations are sovereign nations would equate being an ‘undocumented worker’ with being elderly or poor. Then again, if millions of ‘undocumented workers’ were to stream into Vatican City, it might bring home the problems with unfettered immigration.
If we lived in Eden, I would be all for treating ‘undocumented workers’ as if the source of their problems were like being disabled or elderly. But we live in a world in which billions of people would love to be American, but America can’t absorb billions of people. The flow of uneducated people across the border drives down wages for our own poor, sick, disabled, elderly, or marginalised. It increases crime, illness, illiteracy, and poverty. Should we develop a ‘path to citizenship,’ these people will all find themselves out of jobs; they are only being hired because businesses don’t have to pay them minimum wage or give them benefits. Make them citizens, and their 8th-grade educations (on the average) will render them permanently helpless and impoverished in America, with little hope of getting ahead.
LikeLike
Tom,
You said, “A person who isn’t a Christian (with faith by God’s Grace) does not get baptized. He is taking a bath. Not an ineffective baptism.”
Can you tell me how you distinguish between an effective baptism and a bath, in the case of a child too young to ask to be baptized?
LikeLike
PNC.COM let’s me use an Android app on my Android phone to scan in checks to deposit.
There is a limit ($1000 per check, $2000 total per month), but it is still pretty sweet!
LikeLike
CRAP,PNC bank I meant.
LikeLike