In this short exchange, Art quickly disposes of the objections to infant baptism, and then watches in astonishment as this Protestant divides the word of God. Art's comments are in blue.
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:
[Acts 2:38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Acts 2:39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
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:
Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages Rom 16:26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith -- Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory for evermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
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:
2 Pet 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 2 Pet 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 2 Pet 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 2 Pet 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate