image

The concept of infant baptism to the Roman Catholic Church is a series of false doctrines knotted to form a whole which is that of going to heaven or not. It is tied to a place of no suffering after death called Limbo, “original sin,” and sprinkling of water on body parts especially the forehead – all contrary to what the Bible says. In the end as always, there is money paid. But there is no more Limbo as one brave Pope Benedict XVI pronounced. So why carry on with infant baptism?

The reason why Catholics institute infant baptism is the belief that an unbaptized child will go to limbo. Limbo is supposedly a place where there is no suffering.

image

And the reason why a child cannot go to heaven if not baptized is because of the doctrine of the “original sin.”

image

And because it may be too risky for an infant to be baptized by immersion, the practice of pouring or sprinkling water in baptism was invented.

image

Imagine, for convenience they are willing to disobey the sacred manner exemplified by Christ in His baptism.

MATTHEW 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

If we meticulously study the history or the doctrines of the RCC, its precepts and practices, we will be traveling in time as far as the Middle Ages and discover that these invented doctrines and practices were instituted a thousand years after the death of the last apostle.This clearly defines for us through history that these are man-made doctrines!

One invention was necessitated by another and so on and so forth. The pack of lies support each other. Thus, the Bible says:

TITUS 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

If we may notice, the Jews are the authorities for salvation.

JOHN 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

But the apostles, who were taught directly by Christ, set a limit on what a Christian must believe in and be part of his faith. That limit is that Christians must learn from the Apostles not beyond what was written. Repeat: Not beyond what was written.

I CORINTHIANS 4:6
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Logically and biblically, before the end of the first century, all Christian doctrines were completely taught and adhered to and practiced by early Christians. Although, the circumcision of a male child is a covenant between God and Abraham, the Apostles did not make it a necessary burden for salvation. They emphasized only four important doctrines as dictated by the Holy Spirit, excluding circumcision. These are abstaining from: 1) Pollutions of idols; 2) Fornication; 3) Things strangled; and 4) Blood.

THE ACTS 15:1-2, 19-20, 28-29
1 And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well, Fare ye well.

Emphatically, the Apostles with the instruction of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, practically and factually, omitted Old Testament practices of the Jews. This was to make Christians believe and practice only the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and not those under the Law of Moses.

THE ACTS 13:39
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

If even the teachings and the Law of Moses which came from God were nullified by the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles, how can we accept precepts, teachings, doctrines, invented by the Catholic Church that are “non-Jew?” Consider that Jews were authorities of faith and salvation but Jewish fables were commanded by the Apostles to be rejected by Christians!

TITUS 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Let us focus on the inventions of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Let us analyze scientifically, mathematically, and biblically their doctrine of the “original or inherited sin.” We begin with the three definitions of sin in the Bible:

First, transgression of the law.

I JOHN 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Second, any act not done in faith.

THE ROMANS 14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Third, the knowledge of doing what is not good and the intentional inaction of what is good.

JAMES 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

None of these definitions of sin apply to a child, especially to a newborn baby.

HEBREWS 5:13
For every one that useth milk is unskillfull in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

The human society (Of course, not all are Catholics) believe that there is a universal consideration of age in evaluating what a human does or what is done to him. There is then universal human common sense when it comes to age! Veritably, Catholic priests do not have this common sense!

Isn’t this what their doctrine of infant baptism over the years manifest? Despite the fact that Pope Benedict XVI, speaking ex cathedra, said there is no Limbo after all, they continue with their senseless baptisms. Here’s the meaning of ex cathedra from Oxford Dictionary –

image

Meanwhile, let us read these exchanges from Twitter where a Catholic priest grossly displays his ignorance about Baptism. Steve Shott believes that when Christ said, Go and baptize all nations, he did not refer to any age.This indicates the shallow understanding of Catholic authorities on the meaning and essence of baptism.

A child is devoid of understanding if he is still a child. At that age he has no capacity for making any covenant with anyone, least of all God.He cannot understand yet what it is that baptism binds him to do. But Shott mentions Matthew 28:19. –

Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

image

Steve Shott was being asked if Christ ordered child baptism. Was he answering the question correctly?

image

Being a child can be a “disadvantage”as when one is not allowed something like baptism (in the true church). But there are times it is an advantage as for example in what is referred to as infancy defense in crimes. His age protects him from being liable for crime on the notion that the minor mind is not capable of forming criminal intent.

Infancy is a criminal defense, descended from British common law, that attempts to disprove liability for a crime by reason of the defendant’s very young age. Under the assumption that minors are incapable of forming criminal intent in the same manner as adults, the common law infancy defense traditionally bars the prosecution of children under the age of seven for crimes and presumptively precludes the prosecution of children aged seven to fourteen years under the adult criminal law system. Contemporary statutes in United States criminal law, however, hold that children in the latter age group are eligible for prosecution through the juvenile justice system. (Ref: http://www.lectlaw.com/mjl/cl032.htm)

The original sin, also called ancestral sin, has Catholic origins. History records that “the concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. At that time this Catholic Bishop was dueling with certain dualist Gnostics. (Ref: “Original Sin,” Wikipedia) Biblically speaking, the original sin of the original man was turning away his ears from listening to God to listening to his wife.

GENESIS 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

How can a baby have such “original sin”? The truth is, “SIN IS NOT INHERITED.” What sin our ancestors have done is not passed on to us. There is no such thing as original sin. The Bible assures us that the iniquity of the father shall not be borne by the son. God is just. As a baby, he has no sin at the time he is being baptized. Even if he sins, as he grows older like an unmarried like a Catholic priest, he won’t be able to pass anything down!!!

EZEKIEL 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

How pitiful to think that Catholics, who possess many good things of this earth, would let their offspring inherit their sins! Is that a good thing to do – ever?

PROVERBS 19:14
House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD.

Adam, the original man, who committed “the original sin,” did not pass it to Abel.

HEBREWS 11:4
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Abel was not baptized and so were Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Baptism was instituted only by the Father at the time of John and the Lord Jesus Christ.

JOHN 1:31-32
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Although the Israelites were allegorically baptized with Moses in water and the clouds, baptism was not instituted until the coming of John.

I CORINTHIANS 10:1-2
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

If the doctrine of the Catholic Church that claims universal supremacy were universally applied, all infants and children since time immemorial that died without baptism would all be going to limbo! Imagine that! But Christ speaking of universal facts and spiritual truth opened the gates of heaven to all children of all dispensation!

MATTHEW 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

MATTHEW 18:3
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Of the more than 260 popes in the Roman Catholic Church, I consider only one having the guts to think and that is Pope Benedict XVI. He declared that limbo is non-existent and that infants and children will go to heaven without being baptized! Could this be the reason he later resigned or was forced to resign? Was he seeing through the errors of the Roman Catholic Church? If the doctrine of infallibility “ex-cathedra” is true, can it be that only Benedict XVI was speaking the truth about infant baptism and limbo, and all the more than 260 were wrong? For almost a thousand years they taught Catholics of the existence of limbo and original sin that may bar a child from entering heaven.

I do not expect a logical and reasonable answer from Catholic priests. None of them can answer this because none of them can speak “ex-cathedra” – unlike the pope. I, therefore, expect an answer from a pope.

image

The Bible is a complete reference for the doctrine of salvation.

II TIMOTHY 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

In Christ, not even a letter of the alphabet is lost.

REVELATION 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

When He said, “I am Alpha and Omega, he is also beta, gamma, delta, epsilon….” The fullness of things and salvation is in Christ for the Father is pleased that all fullness dwell in Him.

COLOSSIANS 1:19
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;

The book of Acts is a record of all Christian acts and faith – COMPLETE!

LUKE 1:1-3
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

THE ACTS 1:1-2
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

And it is evident that there was no infant baptism that was recorded in the Book of Acts. The foolish Catholic priest asked, “Where can you show me that the apostles forbade infant baptism?”

image

Such a foolish question! But I am giving a logical and a biblical answer.

The disciples, who have the right to baptize, baptized only a believing person, not an infant!

THE ACTS 8:36-38
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.

We will continue these discussions. I have to park here. Expect more on baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and a broader depth discussion on original sin and other collateral matters.

The reasoning of Shott – really a “bad Shott” – is that that there is no age mentioned in Matthew 28:19. That is not how to construe the Bible and its meaning. The verses are not islands by themselves. Did he read the next verse following it? We will prove biblically then beyond any shadow of doubt that there is a consideration of age in Matthew 28:19-20.

More to come, God willing.

Advertisements