-
Comment -
The best evidence against the Big Bang is the existence of Polonium Halos.
American physicist Robert V. Gentry's research shows that rocks known as Precambrian granites were created almost instantly as a part of the creation (as recorded in Genesis 1:1) and "are not the product of the evolution of the earth."
He says "the Big Bang version of primordial polonium is without any scientific basis."Comment -
Here is how the Big Bang is often presented:
Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.
There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?
If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?
Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.
This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.
This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.
So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.
However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.
Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.
The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says: "matter cannot be created or destroyed"
Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says: "Everything tends towards disorder"
So rather than the chaos (big bang) becoming ordered (our universe), just the opposite would be true.. And it is. Our complex universe is wearing down, and becoming more chaotic...
Paul was aware of this when he wrote his letter to the Hebrews: Everything ".. waxes old like a garment" (quoted in both Psalm 102:25-27, and also Hebrews 1:10-12).
"This verse "anticipates the famous second law of thermodynamics, or law of entropy, indicating that everything in the physical universe is growing old and wearing out. God created everything in the beginning, winding it up like a great clock, so to speak. Because of sin and the curse, however, it has been running down and "perishing" ever since. Jesus also said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away" (literally, "are passing away") (Matthew 24:35)" - Waxing Old, like a Garment by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Things wear down. Nothing gets better by itself.
If I told you that thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in, you would think this was absurd to say the very least.
Yet in essence this is what the Big Bang theory teaches.
Now I know that anyone with kids might say that a tornado ripped through their room - but the tornado did not create their room. It only created the mess that is throughout the room. Will the mess ever get cleaned up? Yes, but it will not cleaned up by itself.
Even if millions of years of tornados did somehow randomly land in a complex pattern thus assembling your room, this would still not explain where the trees came from that were made into the lumber.
It would not explain who planted, or cut the trees, or even how the trees grew.
You see, such theories do not give an absolute answer of truth. They only serve to cause people to become distracted and lose sight of the larger picture of the Creator and who God is. Satan is a master of deception and distraction. He wants you to lose sight of Christ, and focus on impossible things.
The Big Bang theory also teaches that in another 80 to 100 billion years, all of the matter that makes up our Earth and solar system will become compressed again, drawing in on itself and fold up once again into a tiny dot.
A Big Bang is said to occur every 80 to 100 billion years.
If the Big Bang theory is true, then I sure hope Jesus comes back soon, otherwise we�re all going to get squished!
As absurd as the "Big Bang" theory is, it is widely accepted because the only other choice is a Divine Creator. And some people will believe the most ridiculous theory, rather than even entertaining the possibility that there could be a Creator.
As I see it, there are only 2 choices. Either someone created the Earth, or the Earth created itself.. (despite all the known Laws of Science saying it couldn't have happened this way).
Now there are those who say that maybe God used the "big bang" to create the world.
Well, God is God, and he can do anything he wants but scripture tells us that this is not how he created.Comment -
I agree with almost every post you have made in this thread, but your idea of what Catholicism is, is shockingly wrong. Catholics do not worship Mary, they pray through her, just like any other Saint, but Mary is especially closer to God as she is the Mother of God. Catholics do not worship idols, another false statement. Third, the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, which he built, while Protestant Churches were built by MAN. Jesus built his Church upon Peter, the rock, and gave him the keys to his Body here on earth, and said whatever Is binding on earth shall be binded in Heaven. The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church, and this is proven as no Pope in over 2000 years since Peter has contradicted the Churches teachings on faith and morals. Yes, there have been bad popes, but we are human and we are subject to win. Despite the bad Popes that have existed, they have never altered the Churches teaching on faith and morals. This is what is means when it is said that Popes are infalliable. It means that their teachings on faith and morals are, not that they themselves cannot sin. Jesus' Church (Roman Catholic) is here to bind all nations into His Universal (Catholic) Church. Protestantism is a Catholic Monk taking a Catholic idea out of a Catholic book. The Holy Magesterium is here to interpret the Bible guided by the Holy Spirit. The thousands and thousands of Protestant denominations proves that when it is left up to humans, to make their own interpretations of what the bible means, it serves to further divide us. For example, one sentence can have many meanings and can be interpreted in many ways. Like the following: I never said to give footy4Jesus Money. That can mean different things depending on what word is stressed. That is why the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, which is here to make it clear to us and to unite us. Every other denomination has broke away from the original Church, Which he founded upon Peter, and where we can trace our apostolic succession to the First Century. with no interuptions until the present day. Jesus would not build a Church, give it the keys, and not guide it to teach truthfully the Word of God.Comment -
Seaweed, God doesn't have a mother and you're not suppose to pray to Mary or any other saint. Just read the Bible and show me one verse that proves me wrong.Comment -
Pronk, Jesus is God incarnate in Jesus. Jesus is God. Not sure how you do not understand the trinity. As Jesus is one person of the three person trinity of God. Virgin Mary, was the mother of Jesus, and is therefore the Mother of God. "Hail Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death Amen". We do not pray to Mary, we pray to her so that she can pray for us to God. It's like if your friend is sick and he asks you to pray for him. He is not worshiping you, but askinng for your prayer, just like we ask Mary.Comment -
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).*
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.*
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.*
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s*human*nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human*nature*of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the*person*of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to*persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the*person*of Jesus Christ, and the*person*she gave birth to was*God.*
The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified*person*of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two*separate*and distinctpersons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.*
Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.*
The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.*
*
Irenaeus
"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).*
*
Hippolytus
"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World*1 [A.D. 217]).*
*
Gregory the Wonderworker
"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies*1 [A.D. 262]).*
"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).*
*
Peter of Alexandria
"They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria*[A.D. 305]).*
"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops*12 [A.D. 324]).*
*
Methodius
"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna*7 [A.D. 305]).*
"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).*
*
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures*10:19 [A.D. 350]).*
*
Ephraim the Syrian
"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise*1:20 [A.D. 351]).*
*
Athanasius
"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God*8 [A.D. 365]).*
*
Epiphanius of Salamis
"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored*75 [A.D. 374]).*
*
Ambrose of Milan
"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins*2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).*
*
Gregory of Nazianz
"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest*101 [A.D. 382]).*
*
Jerome
"As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus*2:10 [A.D. 401]).*
"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah*3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).*
*
Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation*15 [A.D. 405]).*
*
Cyril of Alexandria
"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt*1 [A.D. 427]).*
"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius*[A.D. 430]).*
"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius*[A.D. 430]).*
"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).*
*
John Cassian
"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius*2:2 [A.D. 429]).*
"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).*
*
Council of Ephesus
"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union*[A.D. 431]).*
*
Vincent of Lerins
"Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness would have*two*sons of God,*two*Christs,—one, God, the other, man; one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ" (The Notebooks*12[35] [A.D. 434]).*Comment -
I wonder if Jonas Salk found time to debate which saint to pray to or which fairytale God was the right one while he was curing polio.Comment -
I knew I would take some heat for that from fellow Catholics, and I'm ok with that. I'm not here to argue that Catholics are not christian, but there are plenty of things in Catholicism that are un-biblical. One other practice I failed to mention is infant baptism. Baptism is an act one must decide for himself and it involves full body immersion. Not the forced sprinkling of holy water at a young age where they don't accept Jesus as their savior themselves. It is also not the water which saves you. We are saved by grace through faith alone. To argue that one must be baptized to be saved starts to dabble into salvation through works which is not biblical.You mention how the catholic church is His church and protestant churches are not but that is simply not true. If you read through Pauls letters it becomes pretty clear that he was against different denominations forming and it is sad that this is what happened. But what he also argued is that the church is not a building. It is not an institution which the catholic church has become. It is the body of Christ, all of us as fellow believers. If you are a believer, you are Christian. Simple as that. Whether you feel led by God to attend a Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic church or whatever, it shouldn't matter what the name says on the side of the building as long as it is a church that is based entirely on scripture taking nothing out of it or putting other stuff in. To say that the Catholic church is part of Jesus church body I am fine with, but to say that it is his only church is not biblical. The church should not be an exclusive club. That is what cults do. The international church of Christ, Jehovahs witness, Mormons, and some individual churches within a legitimate denomination do this. It only serves to confuse and manipulate people where they may soon reject God due to their bad experiences thinking all churches are that way when they are not.Comment -
I attend a Catholic university myself. I also live in a heavy Catholic neighborhood. So when I see statues of Mary in peoples lawn, Mary decals all decked out on their trucks and cars, Catholics asking if I pray to Mary at work ( I do construction), and just seeing everything Mary, you cant tell me that Mary is not worshiped by Catholics. Maybe not all do, but many of them do practice what is called Maryology. Their belief is that because Jesus was born pure and without sin, then that must mean Mary was too. There isn't anywhere in the bible you can show me that says this. It is only superstition. I also saw a lot of Catholics wearing a St. Christopher necklace when I was deployed in the military like its some good-luck charm. The only person you should be praying to is Jesus who is God. Mary and Christopher, Peter, Paul, and all the other mortal men the Catholic church decided to put on a pedestal above other believers cannot save you. They are not God and they are dead. I'm not saying they weren't Godly people anointed by Him and they shouldn't be looked up to, but your salvation does not hang on such things.Last edited by Footy4Jesus; 02-09-14, 04:27 PM.Comment -
[QUOTE=Footy4Jesus;21115966]I knew I would take some heat for that from fellow Catholics, and I'm ok with that. I'm not here to argue that Catholics are not christian, but there are plenty of things in Catholicism that are un-biblical. One other practice I failed to mention is infant baptism. Baptism is an act one must decide for himself and it involves full body immersion. Not the forced sprinkling of holy water at a young age where they don't accept Jesus as their savior themselves. It is also not the water which saves you. We are saved by grace through faith alone. To argue that one must be baptized to be saved starts to dabble into salvation through works which is not biblical.You mention how the catholic church is His church and protestant churches are not but that is simply not true. If you read through Pauls letters it becomes pretty clear that he was against different denominations forming and it is sad that this is what happened. But what he also argued is that the church is not a building. It is not an institution which the catholic church has become. It is the body of Christ, all of us as fellow believers. If you are a believer, you are Christian. Simple as that. Whether you feel led by God to attend a Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic church or whatever, it shouldn't matter what the name says on the side of the building as long as it is a church that is based entirely on scripture taking nothing out of it or putting other stuff in. To say that the Catholic church is part of Jesus church body I am fine with, but to say that it is his only church is not biblical. The church should not be an exclusive club. That is what cults do. The international church of Christ, Jehovahs witness, Mormons, and some individual churches within a legitimate denomination do this. It only serves to confuse and manipulate people where they may soon reject God due to their bad experiences thinking all churches are that way when they are not.[/QUOTE
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.*
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). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a*
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . 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."*
*Comment -
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 belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such 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).*Comment -
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).*
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even*infants*to him" (Greek,*Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word*brepha*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." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But 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. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?*
*Comment -
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.*
*
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.*
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.*
*
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).*
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.*
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.*
*
Catholics From the First
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis*10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).*
*
No Cry of "Invention!"
None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?*
But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.*
Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.*
It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).*Comment -
OMG, a faithful catholic debating religion with a protestant fundamentalist, wish I could say this is going to be fun but it is so old so very trite it is simply annoying. Hey guys you're both wrong.
Seaweed, maybe you shouldn't mention bible/catholic in the same sentence because according to most bibles the Catholics do a ton of stuff wrong, not just a couple a ton. You think Martin Luther didn't make a great case. He did, that is why so many people converted many giving their life. However, like I said it is old, trite and ridiculous.Comment -
Where is sprinkling holy water stated as baptism anywhere in scripture? baptism is by immersion in water. It acts as a symbol of obedience, openly displaying your commitment to other believers. As Christians we are taught by Jesus and his apostles to be baptized, and as we are to follow by Jesus example, he was baptized so we should obediently follow his lead.
I'm sure you've heard of the argument that the thief who died on the cross next to Jesus was saved and was never baptized. I've debated this with Church of Christ members who are very adamant that it is baptism which saves you, but I don't get a clear answer on how the thief was an exception other than Christ had not yet died. This doesnt hold up well when you compare it to countless scriptures where salvation is through faith in Christ not through works. A works-based salvation was of the Old Testament and was next to impossible to achieve. This is why we were given His Son and a new covenant was made between us and God. This doesn't mean a Christian is not called to good works, but it should be something that comes natural for a Christian anyways and their salvation doesnt hang on it. If works were necessary for salvation, then how would we know how much works gets us into heaven? Would some works be more saving than others? And what about some people who are disabled or otherwise unable to do good works like others can? Salvation is given to anyone who asks. Seems too easy. But it was made that way for us, and most people have a hard time even doing just that (asking God for forgiveness and confessing your belief in Him).
You are right that it is not scriptural for baptism to be reserved for adults only. It is open to anyone who believes. The definition of an adult varies from culture to culture and some people mature faster than others so to set an age requirement would be more dogmatic than pragmatic. People need to decide for themselves whether they are to follow God the rest of their lives or live apart from him. Your parents cant decide this for you. My 10 year old daughter has actually just recently decided she wants to be baptized, and her decision was her own without any persuading from me. I think it is great that she wants to do this, but beforehand I want to make sure she knows why we get baptized, what it means, and that she isn't doing this for anyone else but herself. We are meeting with the minister to discuss these things before she goes through with the act of baptism. Its not something that needs to be done immediately for salvation like the Church Of Christ believes, and it doesn't have to be done by a Church of Christ member or other denomination that believes such things in order to be valid. As long as a fellow believer who has been baptized themself does it and according to scripture, a person should be able to choose who they want to baptize them. There is no need for infant baptism because children are already under the wing of God(Matthew 18:6-10) and you don't need to be baptized to gain salvation.Comment -
of*baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they*wash themselves*[baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So*baptizo*can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.*
A similar range of meanings can be seen when*baptizo*is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."*
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was*poured out*on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit*falling*upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of*baptizo*is broad enough to include "pouring."*
*Comment -
Read this:. To understand what Christian baptism entailed, we must examine not what the word meant in other contexts, but what it meant and how it was practiced*in a Christian context.*
*
Inner and Outer Baptism
One important.aspect of Christian baptism in the New Testament is the clear relationship between being baptized with water and being "baptized with the Holy Spirit", or "born again." This tract is primarily concerned with the*mode*of baptism, not its*effects*[Footnote: For more on the relationship between baptism and rebirth, see John 3:5; Acts 2:38, 19:2–3, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21; and also the Catholic Answers tract*Baptismal Grace.]; but even non-Catholic Christians must admit that the New Testament clearly associates water baptism with Spirit baptism and rebirth (even if they do not interpret this relationship as cause and effect).*
Right from the beginning, as soon as the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost, water and Spirit went hand in hand: "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).*
In Acts 10:44, the first Gentiles to whom Peter preached received the Holy Spirit even before their water baptism. This is always possible, for God is free to operate outside the sacraments as well as within them. In this case it was fitting for the Spirit to be given before baptism, in order to show God’s acceptance of believing Gentiles. Even under these circumstances, however, the connection to water baptism is still evident from Peter’s response: "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47).*
Still later in Acts, when Paul found people who did not have the Spirit, he immediately questioned whether they had received Christian water baptism. Upon learning that they had not, he baptized them and laid hands on them, and they received the Spirit (Acts 19:1–6).*
These passages illustrate the connection between water and Spirit first made by Jesus himself: "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).*
Earlier we saw that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" was depicted as "pouring." But these passages show that the "baptism" or "pouring" of the Spirit is itself closely related to water baptism.*
This provides some balance to the Fundamentalist argument that only baptism by immersion adequately symbolizes death and resurrection with Jesus. It is true that immersion*bestrepresents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling (cf.*Catechism of the Catholic Church*1239). (Immersion is actually the usual mode of baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.) On the other hand,*pouring*best represents the*infusion*of the Holy Spirit also associated with water baptism. And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing signified by baptism. No one mode has exclusive symbolical validity over the others.*
*
Physical Difficulties
After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.*
Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).*
Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.*
What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command. The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.*
*
Baptism in the Early Church
That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the*Didache,*a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.*
The*Didache*was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the*Didache*reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.*
The testimony of the*Didache*is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch*[A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius,*Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).*
Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus*69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On*Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."*
*
Ancient Christian Mosaics Show Pouring
Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.*
Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.*Comment -
Second thought forget itComment -
Thought this was a discussion on the movie "Prometheus" My bad!!!
Carry on
Comment -
Seaweed, you make a good argument that baptism does not have to be restricted to full body immersion and it makes sense that it doesn't have to be if immersion by water is not possible given that circumstance . After all, it is only a ritual, an outward act professing to others an inward change, and it is not the act of baptism that saves you. So go ahead and pour a pitcher of water over your head and call it baptism I guess. But from the bible, baptism was performed by immersion. Jesus was baptized by immersion (Mark 1:10) Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 describes the act of baptism as burial, coming up a new creature in Christ. Sprinkling is not a burial and full body immersion fits this picture more clearly. Phillip baptized the church in Ethiopia by Immersion ( Acts 8:38). It would only make sense that we follow Jesus lead and be baptized by immersion in water, not a sprinkling. It is the baptism of the holy spirit that really matters, and this happens at the moment one accepts Gods Son into their heart. Many have argued with me that you cant receive the Holy Spirit without water baptism because Jesus did not receive the Holy Spirit until he was baptized (Matthew 2:16). But the Holy Spirit was poured out to us when Jesus blood was spilled, and it is through Jesus that we receive the Holy Spirit, not from chlorinated tap water filling a pool.Last edited by Footy4Jesus; 02-09-14, 06:04 PM.Comment -
Archie, to be truthful my friend I read only a few comments, honest to God. Plus, I don't get too involved in this religion stuff. But, when "the champ'" says he wants to kill all catholics well of course I bust his balls and expose him, if he said all protestants or all jews or all muslims I would do the same.
And btw it wasn't anti Catholic it was kill all the Catholics, little different no??Comment -
Yeah, those small differences Sea were responsible for the deaths of probably millions. When christianity was as old as islam is now christians were killing each other over every small difference. I call it the evolution of religion, muslims will stop this crap someday it simply takes time and that is the price humanity pays for having different gods or maybe even one god.Comment -
Don't know anything about this as you know I take sabbaticals sometimes for months from this place, and when I do I don't even read the comments. I then come back to have some laughs and annoy some individuals. Religion and politics wow! Irony is the people that discuss both often haven't one single clue about either. No namesComment -
It is very nice indeed, and I do agree that these things should not separate us, driving us apart. Paul and his fellowship wrote about this a lot. The problem is less with how there are so many different denominations of the Christian faith and more with how quarrels are in between them on who is more right or wrong. You and I may have our disagreements on the bible, but as long as you can back up your argument with scripture I'm all for it. Catholics are christian, and so are protestants, but not all protestants are the same as some don't live wholly by the bible. If only Christians could all get along and quit fighting between people already saved, imagine how much wasted time could rather be spent on bringing those who are unsaved to Christ.
Galatians 5: 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
Titus 3:9-11 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
Titus 3:1-2 Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men
Titus 1:7-9 For a bishop[a] must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
2 Tim 2:16-17 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,
1 Tim 6:20-21 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.Grace be with you. Amen.
1 Tim 6:3-5 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings[a] of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself
1 Tim 3:8-11 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise,their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
1 Tim 2:8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;Comment -
Not all passages of the Old Testament are to be taken literal. The Catholic Church makes it clear. People did not have the same literary techniques at that time. For walking on Water, If Jesus is God, wouldn't an all powerful and all knowing God be able to do such a thing?Comment
