I wanted to discuss infant baptism, utilizing Acts 8:37 for my key verse that one must have a profession or sign of faith before baptism is to be ministered.

This a is POOR verse for debating such things. It says NOTHING about an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY of a personal profession of faith for Baptism. But even more important, it is one of the verses that is in the Textus Receptus but NOT in the modern critical texts (UBS$ & Nestle-Aland 25) which are based upon the earliest manuscripts. It is not included in any version of the RSV translation. You cannot establish a doctrine on the basis of a verse that is itself controversial.

In contradistinction to this we have the following UNDISPUTED verses that deal directly with Baptism:

Notice that Baptism is "to you and your children." This shows that Baptism for St. Paul was a covenant sign and that it applied to the children in a household. The same is true of circumcision which was the covenant symbol of OT. No one waited for the 8 day old child to make a profession of faith. He was part of a household of faith and was thus called by God.

In the Apostolic Church the primary thrust of evangelization was to men as the heads of households. This was fine for the first generation of Christians but it does not deal with the situation of children being raised in a Christian home. Believer baptism is a missionary practice not one suited to the Christian families. It would be wrong to make believer baptism the norm in light of the OT revelation and all that Jesus taught about the place of children in God's kingdom.

Furthermore, when we began to discuss a few other matters, Vin emphasized that he is a Christian, and not a "Paulist," and therefore the words of Christ are to be held in higher regard than the words of Paul, and all things must be interpreted according to the light of Christ's words explicitly. I tried to inform Vin of the inspired nature of ALL scripture (which he accepts) and that Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote these words:

This is the ending of Romans and St. Paul is NOT saying that HIS gospel is different from that of Jesus. St. Paul is saying that God's word is present both in the message that St. Paul brought and the preaching of Jesus. It does not imply supplementation or addition per se, merely equality.

We never really got much further, because my view of this passage is that a pre-eminence is laid by the Holy Spirit upon the doctrines of Christ that were revealed through Paul specifically.

So Vinny was right! Andrew is a Paulist and will ignore or contradict Jesus' own words when it suits his prot prejudices. Andrew gives more authority to St. Paul than to Christ and thus wrongly divides the word. This is a key element in the apostasy of the prot Deformation. They make every excuse imaginable to ignore, marginalize or contradict the words of My lord and Savior in order to suit their false doctrines.

The words of Jesus are the ipssimi verbi of God himself. While everything in Scripture is inspired of the Holy Spirit (OT & NT) there is a priority to the Gospels that makes them the key for a Christian understanding of the whole Bible. It is JESUS who is the Lord of history and the focus of God's self- revelation and no one else. Thus, anything St. Paul said must be judged in light of the words of Jesus, not vice versa. There is a primacy to the words of Jesus in the Gospels so that St. Paul's epistles must be seen as commentaries on the teachings of Christ and not given priority over them. That is the historic Catholic faith and I am glad that Vinny Lewis understands that. Andrews position can only be called sub-Christian and idolatrous because he would put the words of men before that of God. This is precisely what St. Peter warned about in his second encyclical: