Infant Baptism, Sola Scriptura, and Other Sundries.

[Will]

Interestingly enough, I chose to discuss Sola Scriptura on my own blog this weekend, and discuss it in light of Sacred Tradition(Catholicism) and(what I like to call) Soloism(Taking Sola Scriptura to the extreme and using it to justify strange doctrines).

[JerryNumbers]

I posted back an forth to some RCC members for about 2 years, they would always give this verse to prove that solo scripture was wrong and we had to listen to the pope for God spoke thru him and anything the pope declared was gospel.

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thess 2:15 (KJV)

Them they would claim that this verse proves that I cannot know what the Scriptures teach, that I have to have the RCC to tell me what they mean.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

And it amazes me, they call Mary the Queen of heaven and the mother of God and that thru her one can be saved.

The RCC is one messed up mess and its so sad they are leading many souls to hell.

I must say, in that 2 years I learned quite a bit about Roman Catholicism, its just another one of those isms!

[JJJ4given]

The requirement was clearly first given by John the Baptist for being baptized.

Matt. 3:6-8
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
7

[lettheredeemedsayso]

1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Why do you think Paul said this?

[JerryNumbers]

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 10:17 (KJV)

Its so simple, why the confusion? Faith comes by hearing the Word preached, not by being baptized. Baptizing never saves a soul. there is an oder to everything. Paul was sent to preach the Word of God. Baptizing is secondary, but none the less it has an important place in being the first step of obedience after repentance.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:41 (KJV)

They that gladly received the Word, repented were baptized. No where does it give any other order in the Bible. All one has to do is study the word, the rightly divide the Word.

In the great commission Jesus gave the order in which to do things.

Go, teach, baptize.

You have to go to them before you can teach them. When you get to them you teach them, but if they do not repent, you don't baptize them, if you did that would clearly violate other Scriptures. NO ONE is baptized before repentance.

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 (KJV)

Even Peter makes this plain, your baptized because you have repented.

And Phillip make it clear.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38 (KJV)

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:12 (KJV)


NO infant can repent, for they cannot understand.

[lettheredeemedsayso]

Thank you Bro Jerry. I was getting the feeling that some people were getting confused that is why I brought it up.

Have you ever noticed that after the Book of Acts that water baptism is only mentioned because there seems to be a problem in the church with it?

[JerryNumbers]

Yes I have, a preacher pointed that out several years ago.

[JJJ4given]

If you follow what Paul is saying in Corinthians you will see that he is not negating baptism but is addressing an issue with some of them thought they were better because they were baptized by John, and some thought they were better because they were baptized by Apollos.

Paul also specified right before that that he did baptize some, but that wasn't HIS main purpose in going there. His purpose was for spreading the gospel. He was in no way negating the necessity of baptism. Not a necessity for eternal life but a necessity for walking in newness of life. If Paul had come to the conclusion that baptism wasn't necessary for anything then he wouldn't have baptized those he did as mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:14 and 1:16.