BELIEVING IN JESUS IS NOT ENOUGH - The Most Holy Trinity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ส.ค. 2024
- Jesus, the Son of God, revealed God to be a Trinity of Persons. Therefore, is it enough for a "Christian" to say they have "accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior", or is there more required of us as a matter of professing faith in the God Jesus revealed?
Enjoy my homily for Trinity Sunday.
❤ I understand 🙏 thank you AMEN!
Amen.
Thank you dear Fr. William for making my Catholic Faith even more meaningful and vibrant and helping me walk on this pilgrim journey as a disciple of Jesus carrying my daily cross in the footsteps of my Lord and Master; Jesus Christ.
I am truly being blessed to listen to what you are sharing. Thank you Fr William . Gob bless.
Thank you for sharing these words with us father William.
th-cam.com/video/wzNJPgDdpR0/w-d-xo.html
Eleven I did not call him my father, but thank you for thank you for the quote.
Believing in Jesus Christ alone is enough, because believing in Jesus means you are doing the will of the Father and you have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you. The apostles knew more than we do today and they lived to do the will of Jesus Christ which pleased God the Father, and they all had the Holy Spirit in them. They baptized in the name and authority of Jesus Christ and they were not rejected by the Father. No one will be rejected or be considered inadequate if they believed in Jesus Christ the Nazarene. For whoever believes in Jesus also has the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is no other name given that man should be saved but the name of Jesus Christ. He alone has pleased God and for that matter is exalted highly in heaven and among his people.
Believing in Jesus is NOT enough. We still need to believe in the God he revealed and obey his commands - one of which was not to baptize in his name, but "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (read the conclusion to Matthew).
Fr. William Nicholas but it is not possible for a man to be in Christ and be apart from the Father and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus Christ is Lord-which he is-and is exalted in heaven above all things, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, while the Holy Spirit is working in his children on earth, then he is enough. For he said, “if you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish and it will be done. By this my Father is glorified...John15:7,8. Our hope in this life is only found in Jesus Christ, which also means that he is the center piece. In John 14:6 Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” Jesus Christ is enough and we cannot have Jesus by himself. He is the complete package. He comes with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
You are correct, but your progression is not. Jesus shows us the way to the Father. Ergo, it doesn't end with Jesus. If we believe in Jesus then we obey His commands and we also believe in the Triune God he revealed. You can't call yourself a believer in Jesus without also believing in the God He revealed, as He revealed it.
David Patterson amen!
Fr. William Nicholas Jesus isn’t enough? Wow. How blasphemous! You are lukewarm! You are mixing works with the finished work of Christ.
Amem! in the beginning you made me laugh too, but then: the all video was full of Grace! Thank you. 3 Hail Marys for you.
I like this topic very much Believing In Jesus is not Enough. Like by going to Mass every Sunday is not enough too .we have to work out our Salvation in order to enter into the kingdom of God. Not easy. I always put this in my heart that my Fait May never fail me . 🙏Thank you Fr. Bill
Father you aree suuupeeerrr...and the God who made youuu is great....
Amen to this! From a Lutheran who has grown up with the Apostles Creed every Sunday.
Hello dear Father! Haha your Homily made me laugh ! The intonation you made was so sweet ! Thank you for sharing Father and as always, my prayers are always with you from afar 🕊🥰
Never diminish the power of belief by grace alone for salvation.
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Acts 16:31 E
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
Hehe.. Thank you father.. GOD BLESS us and your homily...
😅😅😅sarcastically funny... God The Father, The Son, n The Holy Spirit bless u Father.. (i say it with an answer tone) 😍 🙏🔥💖 will always pray for u n all priest ..
Dear Brother, if you are in the Chicagoland speaking I would be honored to join with you.
Peace to you.
Like a person a single human being with a mind body and soul which are one but distinct
Most insightful. Thank you.
Father I have a question. Do you have a website with your sermons written out? I have family in Peru and they are in need of more catechizing material. I would love to have your sermons and translate them into Spanish for them to read. Or could you recommend some material that I could give to them over the internet?
Sorry, but I don't write out my homiiles. You are welcome to transcribe them and translate them if you wish. Thanks for your comment.
Cool
Ty for the fullness of truth in this video
Why is God a trinity of persons? Why did he chose 3 instead of 2, 4 or 7, the number of divine perfection? Granted, it is a mystery. But it is not forbidden to try to understand it, albeit very imperfectly. I believe it has to be that way. Because everything ( natural and supernatural ) might be considered basically, intrinsically TRINITARIAN. God is pure and absolute LOVE. From that viewpoint, the Father is the lover, the Son is the beloved one and the Holy Spirit, the love that results from that relationship and binds them. I am not the first to affirm that viewpoint...God is also pure and absolute THOUGHT. From that viewpoint, we can try to understand the Trinity using the well-known sentence of the French philosopher Rene Descartes ( 1596-1650 ) JE PENSE, DONC JE SUIS ( I THINK, SO I AM ).
St John-Paul II, who had been for some years professor of philosophy, once wrote in one of his books ( I can’t remember which one )
that we should actually reverse that sentence. But he didn’t provide any more comment...Then let’s do it...So the sentence becomes:
JE SUIS, DONC JE PENSE ( I AM, SO I THINK ) where AM, the verb TO BE, is God the father, the supreme BEING, source of all beings;
The « I », Jesus incarnated, capable of saying « I » to you and me; and that consciousness of being, that I AM, is the essence of THOUGHT.
In other words, in both realities, the SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON.
This fundamental trinitarian reality, although this will appear somewhat far-fetched, may even apply to the physical world. For example
consider Einstein’s well-known theory of relativity E=MC2, where E (Energy) would be the Spirit, M (Mass or Matter) Jesus incarnated and C (Light) the light seen at the end of the tunnel in NDEs experiences, God the Father...Moreover, if we rewrite the equation in
E/E=MC2/E, we end up with the equation 1=MC2/E. In other words, MC2/E become the 3 indivisible components of ONE and UNIQUE REALITY that we call GOD...Naturally all of this is mere speculation. The kind we do at 3.33 AM when we try desperately to go back to sleep...If we are among the elect, we will have all of eternity to deepen our understanding of these mysteries and it will certainly be mind blowing....
I see where you are going. I agree as a non RC, However, intellectual accent of the Trinity is not necessary prior to being born again as Jesus told Nicodemus. The first jews at Pentecost did not Comprehend the Triuneess of Yahweh. I see it as the process of sanctification of the Believer. As one grows from ignorance of the things of God to a deeper walk with the God Man Jesus the Christ the Holy Spirit teaches more and more of the fuller testimony of Yahweh.
The Holy Catholic Church is the Saints of the one body called the Church. Catholic as Universal not Roman Catholic.
Apostolic is the revelations provided by the apostles of Yeshua. His Bride will be of many denominations and those cast out will be from many denominations, the false brethren who use God and love self and things. Our idolatrous majority.
We come to the Throne of Grace deplete of goodness full of darkness as beggars relying on Jesus’ completed sacrifice on Calvary and the Empty tomb of victory. His righteousness not ours!
Jesus never told Nicodemus to be "born again." That was Nicodemus' misunderstanding - "How can a person be born again?" (John 2:4) Jesus told him he must be "born from above" (John 3:3) and (when Nicodemus misunderstood) "born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5) but never "born again."
The apostles on Pentecost may or may not have understood the trinity, but Matthew obviously did when he quoted Jesus as saying "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19) as did Paul in at least one of the salutations (2 Cor 13:13) of his Epistles, just to name two instances.
Luke 14:8-10 please explain
Read the entire passage, Luke 14:7-11, and it's pretty self explanatory. Pretty much Jesus says not to presume one's own greatness, but let others lift you up. Otherwise you risk humiliation when others pull you down.
Can you please give me the references where Jesus himself "revealed the trinity to us..".?.thanks
On numerous occasion in John's Gospel Jesus states that "The Father and I are one" but they are two distinct persons, in that Jesus also, in John's Gospel, refers to His mission to "do the will of the Father". Even the opening of John refers to Jesus who is the Word who is God, revealing God to those who have never seen God. Jesus also states that he and the Father will send the Spirit to guide His Church.
Finally, a the conclusion of Matthew (28:29) Jesus commands to Baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The word "Trinity" is nowhere in the Scriptures. It is a theological term to refer to what Jesus revealed about God - Three distinct persons in one God-head.
I believe I cover this in the homily if you listened to it.
@@fr.williamnicholas955 but father this oneness..if we read from verse 23..it's oneness in purpose..bc we know Jesus disclaimed any type of divinity.."I can on my own authority do NOTHING ".."why callest me good (leave aside god )..there's none good but God ".."and this is eternal life..that they may know you..the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you've SENT.."moreover this "one" in John 10:30..if it's oneness in omnipotent. .omniscient..all knowing ..then we've to apply it to the disciples too..bc same John stated in c17:..20-22 " that they all may be ONE as thou father are in me..and I in thee..that they (disciples ) also may be ONE in us..I in them..thou in me..that they may be made perfect in ONE. ...like a sausage. .do we accept the twelve to be gods too?..
@@fr.williamnicholas955 secondly..why it's not found in the old testament..none of the prophets are aware of it..Moses didn't teach it.."hear o Israel the Lord your God is ONE.."there's no other before my face"..finally..the only verse which some hint about trinity is john c5 :7.."for there are three that bear record. ."..it has been thrown out as a fabricated verse by 32 scholars. .christian scholars of the highest eminence back by 50 church denominations. .
No part of the Scripture can be used to contradict another part. You have to (1) learn how to read Scripture correctly and (2) reconcile the different parts. When Jesus prays that "they all may be one" he is speaking of the unity of the Church, his followers reflecting the unity that is the Godhead.
Also, you can't deny the line "the Word was God" and "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us and we have seen his glory, the glory of an only Son coming from the Father." Put it all together and what do you get? Jesus is God the Son, SENT by God the Father, who revealed God as God is."
Finally, God did not reveal EVERYTHING to Israel. This plan is a process of forming humanity, through His people and it was not done all at once. God revealed what he revealed in the Old Testament, and through Jesus in the New Testament. Even Jesus said he came to fulfill the prophets and the law, and to his disciples Jesus said "many prophets had longed to see what you see but did not see it and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."
As for passages that have been "thrown out" by "scholars", that is an example of human beings, who do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, deciding for themselves what is authentic, and conveniently throwing out that which they cannot or will not accept.
@@fr.williamnicholas955 my respect father. .let's start with John 1:1..firstly it's not the words of Jesus..these words came from philo..a Greek philosopher..decades before the birth of Jesus..which John or whoever wrote it bc it's "according to john"..secondly it make no sense to say "god was with god" it makes two gods..you ought to know Greek..the basis of your religion..the manuscripts were in Greek as the thora in Hebrew..first time the word God occurs in this verse it's "hothios "..means "The God".stands for God almighty..the second word "god" is tonthios".means "a god "..meaning any god ..it's not a proper name..it should've a small g..but every English translation puts a capital G for both words..they created a different meaning. .it's not a honest translation..Paul said in Corinthians "the devil is the god of this world"..they gave a small g..you see..they played fast n loose with the scripture..same in the OT..God speaks to Moses "..behold. .I've make you a god to pharaoh. .and Aaron is your prophet "..again Moses got a small g..!..I'd asked myself why..why did the other gospels didn't record these extravagant verses concerning Jesus? .
imagine telling god face to face your theology....
He would probably say: "Well done! You listened to my Beloved Son!"
the Trinity is supported in Holy Scripture but dont support the catholic church
@@alexm7627 I'll just hedge my bets with the Church founded by Christ - the oldest and highest standard of Christianity there is (unless you are Eastern Orthodox, then it's a tie).
+Fr. William Nicholas the roman catholic institution isnt the original Church... its just a denomination
Despite repeated persecutions by the government, a vibrant Christian community existed in Rome after apostolic times. Those early Roman Christians were just like their brethren in other parts of the world-simple followers of Jesus Christ.
Things changed drastically when the Roman Emperor Constantine professed a conversion to Christianity in AD 312. He began to make changes that ultimately led to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. He issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which granted freedom of worship throughout the empire. When doctrinal disputes arose, Constantine presided over the first ecumenical church council at Nicaea in AD 325, even though he held no official authority in the churches. By the time of Constantine’s death, Christianity was the favored, if not the official, religion of the Roman Empire. The term Roman Catholic was defined by Emperor Theodosius on February 27, 380, in the Theodosian Code. In that document, he refers to those who hold to the “religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter” as “Roman Catholic Christians” and gives them the official sanction of the empire.
The fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church are really two branches of the same story, as the power was transferred from one entity to the other. From the time of Constantine (AD 312) until the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, the emperors of Rome claimed a certain amount of authority within the church, even though it was disputed by many church leaders. During those formative years, there were many disputes over authority, structure, and doctrine. The emperors sought to increase their authority by granting privileges to various bishops, resulting in disputes about primacy within the churches. At the same time, some of the bishops sought to increase their authority and prestige by accusing others of false doctrine and seeking state support of their positions. Many of those disputes resulted in very sinful behavior, which are a disgrace to the name of Christ.
Just like today, some of those who lived in the leading cities tended to exalt themselves above their contemporaries in the rural areas. The third century saw the rise of an ecclesiastical hierarchy patterned after the Roman government. The bishop of a city was over the presbyters, or priests, of the local congregations, controlling the ministry of the churches, and the Bishop of Rome began to establish himself as supreme over all. Though some historians tell these details as the history of “the church,” there were many church leaders in those days who neither stooped to those levels nor acknowledged any ecclesiastical hierarchy. The vast majority of churches in the first four centuries derived their authority and doctrine from the Bible and traced their lineage directly back to the apostles, not to the church of Rome. In the New Testament, the terms elder, pastor, and bishop are used interchangeably for the spiritual leaders of any church (see 1 Peter 5:1-3 where the Greek root words are translated “elders,” “feed,” and “oversight”). By the time Gregory became pope in AD 590, the empire was in a shambles, and he assumed imperial powers along with his ecclesiastical authority. From that time on, the church and state were fully intertwined as the Holy Roman Empire, with the pope exercising authority over kings and emperors.
@@alexm7627 From the early second Century the Church has been referred to as CATHOLIC. Check the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (2nd c) in his letter to the Smyrneans. Since then the term has been applied to any church that can trace its succession of leadership to the Apostles, which existed before the collapse of the Roman Empire. (Theodosius applied it later, but the term was lined to the Church long before).
Actually, the unity of the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire was in name only. A number of Holy Roman Emperors fought with the Pope over authority in the Church which the Church succeeded in keeping separate from the temporal authority of the Holy Roman Emperor.
You read in Scripture, particularly the Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (and, here again, in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch) how the diaconate and presbyterate were tied to the bishops, who succeeded the Apostles (again it existed far earlier than the fall of Rome).
If the Son comes from the Father, this means that the Father, ALONE, is the ONLY TRUE ORIGIN of all, rather than the three Persons of the Trinity as a single God, thus they surely cannot be co-eternal.
God portrayed as a bird ? I thought it was blasphemy...yes, as a dove, of course a dove doesn't sit down, has this something to do with the fact that He is doesn't own a throne in heaven ?
If apostles creed is about One Catholic Church meaning Roman Catholic I take issue.with. Catholic means in the sense one Universal church that is based on faith not works for salvation. Today the church is full of wheat and tares. The holy bride the wheat , without the tares, false brethren who wants to add to the grace and mercy of the work of Christ on the cross. Filthy rags of righteousness, idolatrous by nature.
The term "Catholic" means universal in a sense that the Church is open to all people of faith, but also that it's teachings are universal -- applicable to all people everywhere, regardless of whether or not they receive or accept them. The Roman Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches) are the oldest 'denominations' of Christianity and work to maintain the totality of Christ's teachings without deviation or exception. Has it done so perfectly - that won't happen until the kingdom of God is ushered in at last - but they try to be faithful, despite "Filthy rags of righteousness" (which, note, I am not arguing with you on that), human frailty/corruption, and they, in faith, rely on the guidance of God always.
As for Faith vs. Works - one feature of the Catholic Church is that it does not teach either/or, but BOTH/AND. It is faith that saves. But as St. James points out, if it is not Faith that LEADS to Good Works, it is not the faith that saves and is, in fact, a faith that is dead (James 2:14-26). There are also multiple places throughout the Old and New Testaments (Psalm 11(10):7; Matt 25:31-46; Rev 15:13, 20:12 to name a few) that affirm the importance of Good Works and that we will ultimately be judged on them.
Fr. William Nicholas Dr Michael Heiser “Unseen Realm”. Refers to faith that saves as Believing Loyalty.
Why was Luther condemned as heresy for rekindling “Righteous live by faith?
Did the RCC fall into a place of evil with the whole indulgence thing?
@@bradbrown2168 The issue with indulgences was the abuse of them. The Church still has indulgences and they are a very good thing when done as they are supposed to be done. First of all, they are not "tickets to Heaven" or "get out of Hell free cards". Here it is in a nutshell:
When we sin, we make a deliberate choice contrary to God's law and Christ's teaching. In some cases we go out of our way to make that choice. The idea of indulgence is that as part of atonement or to deepen our spiritual life (whether we sin or not) we go out of our way to do something (specifically directed by our bishop for a set period of time or for a special occasion) aimed at deepening our spiritual life, our relationship with God and our commitment to live his Gospel. That could be a pilgrimage to a holy site, a devotion of prayers, yes, a donation to a charity or to the Church; however, it is ALWAYS done with the inclusion of going to Confession and going to Mass and receiving Communion - it is never done to the exclusion of these Sacraments. For example, during a Holy Year of Mercy called by the Pope (2015), there were churches designated by the local bishops that had, what were called, "holy doors". Sounds contrived, but the idea was people went out of their way to make a pilgrimage of sorts to those churches, pass through those holy doors (all the while reminded of the Mercy of God and the mercy we should exercise), and then go to Confession and Mass. Those who did so received a plenary indulgence. The actions were not in and of themselves, but had a particular spiritual reflection, purpose and direction attached to it. In this case, the Mercy of God and our own call to show mercy.
Now to Martin Luther. Following the renovations of the Vatican (Michelangelo Raphael and Bernini's work) the Church was in debt and needed to raise funds. They attached an indulgence to making a monetary donation to the Church. So far so good, even if a bit suspicious. However, abuses arose, which took advantage of (rather than correcting) religious superstitions for the sake of raising more funds (for example, you'll go to hell; a loved one will go to hell, or spend less time in purgatory if you don't pay; don't go to Confession, make a donation if you want your sins forgiven, etc.). The abuses became common and too involved to go into detail here, but Luther objected to the ABUSES of indulgences.
With the rise of nationalism in Europe, the abuses by religious leaders and corruption within administrations, as well as the bloated egos of many involved on all sides, it developed into a perfect storm that led to the Reformation - the rise of Protestantism and the Reformation of the Catholic Church to put an end to the abuses.
A result of the Protestant reformation came the disagreements regarding theological teaching. Factions had honest debates and disagreements; some disagreed if only to further separate themselves from the Catholic Church. One of these debates was over the issue of righteousness by faith, which (Catholic take), as St. James puts it, is not a faith that saves if it is not a faith that leads to good works. Obviously the debate continues.
There is, of course, much more too all of this, but I've already gone too long. Hope this makes sense.
(P.S. Feel free to post to the community section of my channel. Might be a better forum for discussions like this)
Born of water:physical Born from above is sequential to born of water. It is a rebirthing
In the Spirit. Born again is a legitimate dynamic translation that shares a sequential event.
Repent and believe on the Gospel. Mark 1:6
First century jews would not understand Roman Catholic parsings.
No, "what is flesh begets flesh" is physical birth. "Born of water and the spirit" and "what is spirit begets spirit" is spiritual birth (not re-birth). Physical birth is once as is spiritual birth. Neither can be done a second time, which is why Baptism is celebrated and received once.
It may be a legitimate translation, but it still remains Nicodemus' MISUNDERSTANDING which had to be corrected by Jesus (who apparently must continue to do so to those who continually misunderstand).
'Now when they heard this...they said to Peter and the other apostles, 'Brothers, what should we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent and be BAPTIZED..."' (Acts 2:37-38) Baptized, not "born again", and Jesus said: "Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the HOLY SPIRIT." (Matt 28:19) Not, baptize in the name of Jesus. So the concept of God as Trinity is not a Catholic parsing, but based solidly in Scripture.
+Fr. William Nicholas to be Born Again means to be a new creation in Christ so the term is what it means, and how is infant baptism a thing? they arent willingly accepting Christ
@@alexm7627 New Creation is New Creation. "Born again" is Nicodemus' misunderstanding that needed correction by Christ Himself. Wouldn't worry about the infants. If their parents do their job, they will be adequately prepared to automatically accept Christ. If they don't, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes when they face the God who gave them said children to bring to Christ.
+Fr. William Nicholas born again IS the New Creation
@@alexm7627 "Born again" are the words of Nicodemus that Jesus corrected as ERRONEOUS. Let it go!
As a Non RC, i find any traditions not rooted in the Scriptures to be superfluous.
It loads up the simple call of repentance and belief to weigh down the faithful with mans”traditions. Perhaps the crux in sola scriptura vs sola ecclesia.? Peter as first pope?
He got his tail handed to him by Paul. The leader of the Jerusalem church was the half brother of Jesus, James the Just. Pete is recorded to be central at Pentecost but no such apostolic superiority is recorded of him.
Peter as the rock and foundation as chief authority where voting by bishops determine succeeding Popes is silliness to me. And a poor exegetical attempt to original passage..
How does a person cross from darkness of sin to the salvation in Christ? Is there a simple sermon that I could hear that lays out what a person needs to be saved? To have peace with God?
Brad Brown the traditions existed for hundreds of years before the Scriptures were there . They were handed down orally from one generation to the next starting with the apostles. This is what Jesus said he wanted. He said “when they hear you, they hear me”.
Why did the leaders of the Roman Catholic church changed or twisted the Ten Commandments of God in order to deceive their members?
At what age was Jesus Christ baptized and what was the reason? Who taught the false doctrine of baby baptism?
The Catholic Church did not change or "twist" the Ten Commandments. The Catholic Church has always numbered the Commandments according to the Decalogue in the Book of Deuteronomy (Chapter 5). Most Protestants take their numbering from Exodus 20. The Jewish faith numbers them differently as well. No deception, just different traditions of the same Commandments.
No idea of the age of Jesus at Baptism.
Infant baptism is not a doctrine, but was the Church's pastoral response to the reality of high infant mortality at a time when Baptism was received after the age of reason (age 7). In fact, high infant mortality did not cease to be a factor until the 19th century.
The doctrine, on the other hand, combines Baptism with Confirmation - the Sacrament of the receiving of the Holy Spirit [which distinguished Jesus' Baptism from the Baptism John preached. This is also seen in the Acts of the Apostles in which the Holy Spirit came down upon all who were Baptized by the Apostles and, in the case of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10), right before (Acts 10:44-48)]. Traditionally, because of this, the two Sacraments (Baptism and Confirmation) are celebrated together, but for pastoral reasons, due to danger of death in infants and children, infants were baptized at infancy while Confirmation was, and still is, received at an older age.
Confirmation is traditionally received after the age of reason. if someone wishing to be Baptized is over the age of reason, then both Sacraments are received together.
Hope this answers your questions.
Dexter Quismorio
First off tbe Catholic Bible shows the ten commandments of Moses.
2nd. The diciples bauptised entired families. Paul bauptised entired house holds. Christians always bauptised entire house holds. House holds have children
3rd we did not have a Bible until 382. Christians were doing what tbe previouss Christians did because that is what the diciples of Jesus did.
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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 2:38-39 KJVA
Dexter Quismorio False doctrine of baby baptism? Show me the verse that prohibits children from being baptised. Jesus said in the gospel of Luke “Now they were bringing even INFANTS to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15-16).
Dexter Quismorio Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.