from that link you posted.. a quote from Cardinal Newman post-Catholic conversion: Incorrect! The statement disproves the doctrine of infant baptism. [/FONT]
I will agree that no where in the Bible is it explicitly instructed to Baptize infants. Neither is it stated that only adults should be Baptized. There are several instances, however, that would support the logic that Baptism is available for anyone. The first among them being from Luke's gospel "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16). I don't know how the King James renders that line so here is the Greek. Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha Brepha is the Koine Greek word for infant. Now I know that line does not speak of Baptism per se, but it does support my logic, that none should be withheld from Christ. In (Col. 2:11–12).Paul tells us that Baptism is the new cicumsision. Adults were not circumsied. In Acts Luke wrote this: "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15) It does not say the adults of the household. Later Luke told of the the Philippian jailer whom Paul 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). In Corinthians Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16). Given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
The Roman Church was founded by Peter. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, and thus leader of the Church. Thus the successors of Peter were leaders of the Church. Jesus commissioned Peter in a special way. Peter's successor's carry the same comission. I could cite several second century refrences to the primacy of the Roman see. As to your point that Rome gained primacy politcally, I would argue the opposite. Rome continued to be the primary Christian see even as the city and empire crumbled and Constantinople became the most important city in the world.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Lord of all! Your pitiful God bows before his noodly goodness! Muahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
By the way, just from personal experience, losing my religion and faith in God was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I have never been happier, and I honestly feel that a burden has been lifted from my shoulders. I see life for what it is, not as some preparatory phase for a cosmic people's court. Going to church three times a week for 18 years (Baptists suck, btw) has indoctrinated me with the knowledge and security that I don't reject God out of ignorance of His teachings. I can wax theology all day long. I reject God because his story doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. Faith is not proof of anything, and I ain't about to live my life according to the words of an ancient book that has been translated 100 bajillion times. Just like I wouldn't start worshipping the moon because it's written on a Pyramid. And when you think about it, that's all you got if you are a Christian. Except your pyramid is a collection of letters that has been translated and rewritten countless times. It's wonderful living in the real world instead of one where the boogeyman's gonna get ya. Rawr!
It is for me, I am not wasting anymore of my time on him. Let someone else shed some light on his soul. I made the point 500 times and it's still the same. Ray Charles is blind AND DEAD, even he can see it. I don't begrudge him his religion, but he should NOTICE secular history and the differences that are obvious...... The blind follow the blind ...... Proudly I might add. :dis:
Usually, KJV is the most literate translation from the Greek. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God"[/FONT] None should be "withheld"... true. However belief is a prerequesite for baptism, straight out of the mouth of Jesus. The Church actually agrees, and that is why they have set up the system of "godparents" to "confer faith" upon the infants. Ridiculous man-made tradition that shows a lack of faith in God. Biblically men were not judged...even in Old Covenant times... until they reached the age of reason. The Jews who refused to obey God's command to enter the land of Canaan were condemed to die in the wilderness except for those under the age of 20.. Circumcision...of the heart! as proof of faith. (Incidentally circumcision continues to be done to each American male routinely. For what reason? I dunno). Being that Scripture is silent in exactness, prudence demands not adding to the scriptures with man-made tradition. No doubt once upon a time some scholars asked the question, "What happens when young children die?" and instead of having faith that God could not possibly condemn a person before the age of reason.... creating all of these extrabiblical regulations.
Even if your statement is true, (and the line of scripture that defends it can be interpreted differently) the Church has lost its way eons ago. It no longer (if ever) taught the central truths of New Covenant Christianity 1) Jesus died and rose again, in fulfillment of the scriptures, for all sin of man 2) Those who believe in him were died and rose (born again) spiritually 1 Cor 15:22, Romans 6:10-11, Romans 8:10, Col 2:13, Col 2:20 3) We are dead to the Law and sin.. and alive in Christ (see previous) I have questioned priests on this very issue. THey say to me "Even if you disagree with the Church on issues, you can still remain a member." Why would I want to go back and get bondage and death ministered to me? Why would I want to (col 2:20-23) subject myself to ordinances? Paul's letters indict the Church on so many issues. Holding fast to the tradition of men, teaching different gospels such as doing works + faith, elevating Jewish believers over Gentiles, etc.
