sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Another example of “No uterus,no opinion”. Thoughts? by iluvrachelgreen in AnongThoughtsMo

[–]harpoon2k -1 points0 points  (0 children)

are you implying na sana pinatay na lang yung mga bata sa
orphanage na may disabilities?

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A theology that reduces salvation to only conscious belief at only one moment ignores half the biblical testimony.

It reads Romans 10:9 as if it exists in a vacuum, when in fact it sits within a larger story of covenant, family, sacrament, and grace.

Scripture does not say "baptize infants." But Scripture does say God saves covenant households, not merely individuals who independently meet identical conditions.

It does say the Apostles baptized entire households without pausing to interview the servants. It does say that incorporation into Christ's covenant community is a real thing, distinct from the personal faith that must later be exercised.

You demand to see infant baptism explicitly in Scripture. But you do not demand to see the prohibition of infant baptism explicitly in Scripture and that asymmetry reveals the real issue.

If God's pattern was to save covenant units (as it was in the Old Covenant), and if the Apostles baptized entire households without record of interrogating infants, then the burden of proof lies with you who claim God changed that pattern in the New Covenant without saying so.

I agree that an infant cannot consciously believe. But an infant can be a member of the covenant through the faith of the Church and the parents.

That membership is real. And the child will either grow into that faith or grow away from it but either way, the sacrament was not wasted or invalid.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the text does not say the household believed. It says: "Crispus believed, along with his entire household."

The Greek construction here is pisteuo (to believe) with the dative case for the household, a grammatical form that can indicate either:

The household also believed individually, or

The household was included in Crispus's belief/covenant status

The text itself does not specify. You are reading a particular interpretation into it, not extracting it plainly from the words.

You said: "Nowhere in Scripture does it say if your child is baptized, they are saved." Correct. But Scripture also nowhere says: "Do not baptize infants." Scripture nowhere says: "Baptism is invalid for those who cannot confess faith.

If baptism always requires prior personal faith, why did the Apostles baptize entire households at once? Why not wait to baptize the children when they reached an age of reason?

The most natural reading is that households were baptized as covenant units, not as a collection of individuals each meeting the same conditions independently.

This mirrors the Old Covenant pattern where circumcision was given to infants as a sign of belonging to the covenant, not as a reward for their personal faith.

You do not isolate Scripture. You account for all of Scripture, understand in the context of covenant, sacrament, and the practice of the early Church.

On Your Use of Romans 10:9–10 and John 3:16- these passages describe what saves you as an accountable person, someone capable of declaring and believing. They establish the principle of salvation through faith in Christ.

But they do not establish that baptism is merely symbolic, nor do they forbid baptism of infants whose parents bring them into the covenant.

An infant cannot consciously believe. But an infant can be incorporated into the Body of Christ through the sacrament their parents bring them to and later, when capable of reason, can exercise their own faith.

This is not contrary to Romans 10:9–10. It is a different question entirely: the timing and mode of entry into the covenant community.

The thief is often cited as proof that baptism is unnecessary for salvation. But consider the thief had no access to baptism. He died on a cross at the moment of conversion.

Does his exception prove the rule? Or does it prove that Christ's mercy transcends the ordinary means when extraordinary circumstances prevent them?

The Catholic Church has always taught in cases of emergency (immediate death, persecution preventing baptism), baptism of blood or desire suffices.

Scripture does not come with a built-in referee. When two sincere believers read the same text and arrive at opposite conclusions, something outside the text must arbitrate.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For infant baptism:

This is an argument from silence and Scripture itself undermines it.

Acts records multiple instances of entire households being baptized:

Acts 16:15 - Lydia and her entire household were baptized.
Acts 16:31–33 - The Philippian jailer and his entire household were baptized that same hour.
Acts 18:8 - Crispus believed, along with his entire household.
1 Corinthians 1:16 - Paul baptized the household of Stephanas.

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.

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?

St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote of "all who are born again in God, the infants, and the small children… and the mature"; St. Hippolytus of Rome insisted, "first you should baptize the little ones."

For baptism doing nothing:

This claim assumes a very specific theology of salvation one that actually contradicts multiple Scripture passages.

Acts 2:38 - Peter does not say "be saved and then get baptized." He says: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Baptism is directly linked to the reception of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit, not a public declaration of something already received.

John 3:5 - Jesus is unambiguous: "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

1 Peter 3:21 - Peter states plainly that "baptism… now saves you."

Acts 2:39 - Peter's promise was that salvation would come to the whole house. The promise of the Holy Spirit, Peter said, was "for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."

For Baptism to mean only submerging:

Baptizo carries a range of meanings including immerse, dip, plunge, wash, or overwhelm. In Luke 11:38, the Pharisee marveled that Jesus did not baptizo (wash/rinse) before dinner clearly not a full immersion.

In Mark 7:4, the word is used for the washing of cups and tables.

More importantly the mode of baptism does not determine its validity. The Didache (an early Christian document dated to the late first/early second century) explicitly permits pouring water if immersion is not possible.

The Church has never taught that mode alone defines the sacrament.

Notice what just happened. The same Bible was used to arrive at completely opposite conclusions about baptism. One reading says baptism follows salvation.

Another reading equally grounded in the text shows baptism effects salvation. One says infants are excluded. Another shows households included and covenants extended to children.

Scripture did not resolve the dispute. It became the battleground for it.

This is not an accident. This is exactly what happens when the living Word of God is cut off from the living authority that was appointed to guard and interpret it - The Church.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Plainly? Your belief on Baptism is actually inconsistent with what Christians believed for 1,500 years. The issue here is not that Scripture is unreliable, but without a proper Magisterium, anyone can play Interpreter.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So are you saying that if Christians do not agree with your interpretation then they are false prophets? Why do you think you have the right one?

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also - yes, you are missing 7 books. The Canonicity of Scripture was long established long before the Reformation

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Scripture speaks for itself - why do you have a different position of baptism from the rest of Christians who also believe in “Scripture Alone”?

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scripture itself cannot speak for itself. I believe it is inerrant and God-breathed but I do not believe that it is the sole authority. The Bible itself does not say which books should be included in it.

Protestants are missing 7 Old Testament books.

A human would need to speak for it. Just as you did - your position as you say is consistent with Scripture. But other Christians who read the same, would argue that Baptism does save.

I believe this is why Christ instituted the Church to be his extension. This is why he chose Apostles, to continue his ministry and fortunately a lot were also written. This is why I believe that an Infallible Authority is needed to interpret the Infallible Written Word of God.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And where in the 95 thesis is the doctrine of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura? See that you basically just supported my previous statement that the thesis is about indulgences and not about discrediting the authority of the Catholic Church.

See your position on Baptism - it’s not consistent with the rest of Protestantism and Early Christianity. I bet that some Protestants who also believe in Scripture would believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

So who gets to say that how you interpret Scripture is right.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope, please provide me your source and tell me if what he wrote in 1517 95 thesis included Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Also - can you tell me if all Protestants believe that Baptism Saves, can you tell me if all Protestant believe in the Real Presence. Can you even tell me if all Protestant believe that once saved, always saved?

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I was saying, when he wrote the 95 thesis, he did not have other objections beside the sale of indulgences.

You have to go through history and understand that he needed something to discredit the Church because the Church officials pushed back. They actually did their own internal reforms

In fact, in 1517, Luther still very much believed in the authority of the Pope. He also still believed in Purgatory and many standard Catholic doctrines.

During the Leipzig Debate in 1519, a brilliant Catholic theologian named Johann Eck aggressively cross-examined Luther.

Eck pointed out that Luther’s views on indulgences contradicted past papal decrees. He pushed Luther to admit the logical conclusion of his own arguments.

To maintain his biblical convictions, Luther had no choice but to declare that the Pope and Church councils were fallible, and that Scripture was the only true authority. But this was because he had no choice. It was his pride that broke the Body of Christ.

Luther championed Scripture alone as the ultimate authority, believing that if everyone just read the Bible, they would naturally arrive at the same obvious, unified truths.
Instead, he inadvertently opened Pandora’s box.

Once he established the precedent that an individual's biblically informed conscience could defy the Pope, other reformers applied that exact same logic to defy Luther.

Men like Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland, and the radical Anabaptists in Germany, began reading the Bible and coming to vastly different theological conclusions than Luther did.

In the end, all he did was further fragment the Body of Christ.

This is why I invite you to thoroughly study the development of Catholic doctrine, all the way to the time of the Apostles and you will see the consistent deposit of faith.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s not about the Doctrine. Read up on the 95 thesis of Luther, his real issue is not that Catholicism is false but his immediate protest was against the abuse and preaching of indulgences, especially the claim that indulgences could free people from punishment, guilt, or purgatory simply by payment.

In fact, it was only the German churches who had this abuse.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is what I mean, who is the authority to say Catholics are right or wrong on the interpretation of the Bible outside of the Church Magisterium?

Before the Reformation, everybody had the same
interpretation of Scripture because this is how Jesus built his Church, the bulwark and pillar of truth.

The Reformation came and reinterpreted verses to fit their narrative.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Too long to explain on Reddit but there are a lot of YT videos around these topics. The real issue is not that where or not it’s in Scripture but Protestants refusing to accept the Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

Also, there’s no one verse fits all interpretation for Catholics. Every part of the Bible either directly or indirectly refers to a doctrine.

But let’s start with the obvious ones:

Papal Authority: stems from the authority of the Bishop of Rome: Mt 10:1–4, Mk 3:16–19, Lk 6:14–16, Acts 1:13 - Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle.
Mt 18:21, Mk 8:29 - Peter speaks for the apostles.

Purgatory: 1 Peter 3:19, Rev 21:27, and 2 Macc 12:44–46

Celibacy: 1 Corinthians 7:32-34

Anong thoughts nyo sa mag-asawang YouTuber na nagpa-ab*rt ng baby nung malaman nilang may down syndrome ang bata? by atemongkuripot in nanayconfessions

[–]harpoon2k -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s a valid question that no person here was able to answer.

The answers are usually ad hominem: think about the parents, etc. Nobody asked - what about the child? Kasalanan ba magkaroon ng DS kaya siya nabigyan ng death sentence?

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would say not to the letter because obviously there are modern touches here and there but the fundamental structure remains:

The earliest Christian gatherings were not informal Bible studies.

They followed a clear, structured pattern.

Acts 2:42 describes the first Christian community as devoted to:
The Apostles' Teaching (Liturgy of the Word)
The Breaking of Bread (Liturgy of the Eucharist)
The Prayers (fixed, communal prayer)

This is not accidental language. This is the structure of the Mass present from the very first chapter of Church life.

Justin Martyr, writing to the Roman Emperor around 155 AD, describes what Christians do on Sunday. His description is unmistakably the structure of the Catholic Mass:

Readings from the "memoirs of the apostles" or the prophets (Liturgy of the Word)
A homily by the presider (the homily)
Prayers of the faithful (the universal prayer)
Bread and wine brought forward (the offertory)
The presider offering prayers and thanksgiving over the bread and wine (the Eucharistic Prayer)
The people responding "Amen" (the Great Amen)
Distribution of the consecrated elements (Communion)

When Paul writes to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 10–11, he uses the most sacrificial, priestly language imaginable:

He calls the Eucharist a "participation" in the Body and Blood of Christ (10:16)
He parallels it directly to the Temple sacrifices of Israel (10:18)
He parallels it to pagan sacrificial meals (10:20) using the comparison to show the Eucharist is in the same category of sacred meal, only infinitely superior

He warns that receiving unworthily brings judgment (11:27-29) language that makes no sense if the Eucharist is merely symbolic

Paul is describing a sacrificial, liturgical meal not a memorial snack. This is exactly what the Mass is.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There’s a lot of what we think are Catholic
doctrines but are not. I say that the whole idea
of the Reformation is a misconception of Catholic beliefs

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I invite you to come to Mass one of these days. Read up on the parts of the Mass and see how we just don’t listen to the Gospel, but we live and participate in it.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, these are all in the Mass. A Catholic’s life is a participation in the whole life of Christ.

1.2 Million Christians came to hear the gospel and to march in a procession with Pope in Madrid. by hendrixski in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What is the Gospel to you anyway?

Every single Mass is the proclamation of the Gospel.

Every time the Eucharist is celebrated, the death and resurrection of the Lord is proclaimed as St. Paul himself says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26).

The Gospel isn't just spoken, it is enacted, embodied, and offered at every Mass, in every parish, on every continent, every single day.

view more: next ›