What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?

The allegation was made (on Catholic Answers Forums) that the Baptist church is found in the early church. That is completely contrary to the facts of history from the authentic and verifiable writings of the Early Church Fathers. The following documents same.

If the Catholic Mass is not in line with how the early church worshiped (and supposedly the Baptist church is?) then please explain to me that why St. Justin Martyr describes their sacraments and worship as follows and why Baptist services are nowhere anything like this.
CHAP. LXV.--ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS. But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.(3) There is then brought to the president of the brethren(4) bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

CHAP. LXVI.--OF THE EUCHARIST. And this food is called among us Eukaristia(5) [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.(6) For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,(7) this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

CHAP. LXVII.--WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRISTIANS. And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday,(1) all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability,(2) and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given,(3) and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

JUSTIN MARTYR, FIRST APOLOGY Ch 65 Sacraments & Mass

All of this was written by a man who paid with his life for the faith and nothing he writes remotely looks like modern Baptists...nor ancient Baptists for that matter. They simply did not exist in the 2nd century Christian Church.

Refuting: "Is a Catholic Christian an Oxymoron?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Catholic at CAF I'm sure I'm not the first Catholic to have come across this horribly inaccurate and misleading tract by "evangelist" Mike Gendron. (see it here: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/ro...m/RC1299W2.htm ) I'm in the process of debunking it myself, and I'd love some help. I think in particular the part about the anathemas and merit might be tricky ones that I could use more experienced apologists' aid. Also, does anyone know if an apologist has already done this? Thanks, and God bless,

Ankerberg is just another a-C and Gendron makes his living off his a-C propaganda. I refuted one of his articles on my blog and will be happy to help dismantle this one as well. He's really not very good.

Quote:

Others, who know the official teachings of the Catholic Church contradict the essentials of the Gospel, would say "yes." We propose that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron for two reasons: 1) we are what we believe, and 2) it is impossible for anyone to believe two opposing views simultaneously. I recognize that there may be some Christians attending the Catholic Church but if they have believed the Gospel they are no longer Catholics. Let us consider some of the contradictory beliefs between Catholics and Christians.

This is just his typical rhetorical jive talk.

Since Catholics do not hold two different positions..he's inferring something that is untrue. It's called making a specious argument and it's dishonest of any professing believer to use it.

Quote:

Authority A Christian believes Scripture has authority over church. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). By setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience (2 Cor. 4:2). A Catholic believes the Church has authority over Scriptures. The manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church, which exercises the divinely conferred commission, and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God (CCC, para. 119).

Here, he's correct about what we believe, but he is wrong as to what Christians believe. Firstly, that position is unique to only some of the professing communities, and even then there is much disagreement as to what they mean by the terms they use. Sola Scriptura means different things to different people that one encounters.Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers explains it this way.

MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY

By JAMES AKIN

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Gaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, "[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians." . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. `Written' and `unwritten' indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

Furthermore, as has been show many times, the first passage that eh cites does not support the scripture as sole and final authority, it concerns the inspiration of the scriptures and their usefulness in many areas, but that is all, as any objective reader will see. His second passage is circular reasoning and a prime example of why we should reject SS. In construing it with this passage he has made every individual with a Bible in hand an authority unto themselves, which why SS is so pernicious. This allows for (and has resulted in) the cascading myriad of errant teachings that are prevalent with nearly all the modern post reformation step children today. An excellent example of its bad fruit.

Quote:

Justification A Christian is justified once by faith because justification is a permanent declaration by God (Romans 8:30). However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:5). A Catholic is justified repeatedly by sacraments and works because he loses the grace of justification each time a mortal sin is committed. The sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification (1446).

Here he actually misrepresents the Catholic teaching very badly. This ties into the error of OSAS/Eternal Security of the Believer and actually flies in the face of very specific New Testament teaching like Matthew 7:22 and Luke 13:24 (see context in all references please).

Quote:

Regeneration A Christian believes he is regenerated at baptism of the Spirit. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Cor. 12:13). God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth (2 Thes. 2:13). A Catholic believes baptism of water imparts divine life, the water of Baptism truly signifies our birth into the divine life (694).

Here again he is in serious error. I have a couple of blog articles that probably deal with this as well as is needed. Here are the links. Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel" and Baptism~ Necessary or Not?.

Here again, Gendron's error is in fundamental Christian doctrine, and not in what the Church teaches, which is one reason that Catholics and n-Cs disagree on these matters to begin with.

Quote:

Salvation A Christian is saved by God’s unmerited grace. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9). A Catholic is saved by meriting the graces needed for salvation. We can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for the attainment of eternal life (2010).

Here I'll take his statements apart separately because there are so many errors. In checking I find that the best refutation of this is found in the context of the very CCC reference that he cites. Here it is. As is typical of Gendron, he uses a reference and makes allegations that taken at a cursory glance might deceive his readers This is why it is important to check every source.

Quote:

A Christian is saved for good works. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Eph. 2:10). A Catholic is saved by good works. The sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation (1129).

Here again he oversimplifies his attack in a specious way. Most of us have had this argument with various n-Cs/a-Cs and know it as the "Catholics save themselves by their works" bit. We also know that that is definitely not what we believe nor what the Church has ever taught, though Gendron would like to deceive his readers into believing it. As with every such misstatement it is wrapped around a kernel of truth, the problem for Gendron is that here again, his problem is not with Catholicism but with the fundamental teachings of the New Testament that the Christian Church has always taught. I think John Martignoni's excellent MP3 Bible study on Sola Fide is the best response to this. Here's the link. Sola Fide - Salvation By Faith Alone? and his notes are here.

Quote:

A Christian is saved for all eternity. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance. (Eph. 1:13-14). A Catholic is saved until a mortal sin is committed. Those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell (1035).

Here again the problem is not with Catholic teaching but fundamental New Testament Christian teachings that the modern post reformation step children like Gendron have departed from. Once more, I will turn to another of John Martignoni's fine MP3 Bible studies in which he refutes this serious error. Once Saved, Always Saved?, and again, his notes are here.

Quote:

A Christian believes salvation is offered to those outside the church. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us (2 Cor. 5:20). A Catholic believes salvation is offered through the Church. Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. Anyone refusing to enter it or remain in it cannot be saved (846).

This one again is one that most of us who do any apologetics have dealt with many times, and of course Gendron speciously cites the CCC and fails to offer context. Instead, he should have been honest and cited CCC 830 - 848 which my link here will correctly explain.

Quote:

A Christian is purified by the blood of Jesus. The blood of Jesus...purifies us from all sin (1 John 1:7). A Catholic is purified by the fires of Purgatory. They undergo purification in Purgatory, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030-31).

Here again, he's speciously misrepresenting Catholic teaching so as to intentionally deceive his reader. Most knowledgeable and faithful will recognize this as the complete lie that it really is, and that the church has not ever, does not now, and will not ever, teach something like this. There are a couple of sources that i will use to refute him here. One is the following article from my blog. Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory and the following from CA's own library.
Purgatory

The Roots of Purgatory (Fathers*)

Quote:

Saints and Priests A Christian becomes a saint when the Spirit baptizes him into the body of Christ. And He gave some...for the equipping of the saints...the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-12). A Catholic becomes a saint only if the Pope canonizes them. This occurs when he solemnly proclaims that they practiced a heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace (828).

Here again he totally misleads his readers as to what we believe. He chooses to ignore the preceding context of the Catechism, but in refuting him on this I certainly won't.
II. THE CHURCH IS HOLY

Quote:

A Christian is a priest. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God (1 Peter 2:9). A Catholic needs a priest. Catholic priests are said to be apostolic successors and guarantee that Christ is acting in the sacraments to dispense divine life (1120-1131).

He grossly misinterprets all of this, (Hey, beginning to see a pattern here my friends? ) He can only make this specious case of his by deflecting his readers from the context of his citations, (one wonders if any bother to check them) he should have included CCC 1119 which says, "1119 Forming "as it were, one mystical person" with Christ the head, the Church acts in the sacraments as "an organically structured priestly community."36 Through Baptism and Confirmation the priestly people is enabled to celebrate the liturgy, while those of the faithful "who have received Holy Orders, are appointed to nourish the Church with the word and grace of God in the name of Christ."37" and 1132, which reads (and refutes his allegation) "1119 Forming "as it were, one mystical person" with Christ the head, the Church acts in the sacraments as "an organically structured priestly community."36 Through Baptism and Confirmation the priestly people is enabled to celebrate the liturgy, while those of the faithful "who have received Holy Orders, are appointed to nourish the Church with the word and grace of God in the name of Christ."37"

Quote:

The Lord’s Supper A Christian believes the Lord’s Supper is a memorial. Do this in remembrance of me (1 Cor. 11:24-25). A Catholic believes the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice...the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner (1367). A Christian receives Jesus once, spiritually, in the heart. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12). God... put his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee (2 Cor. 1:22). A Catholic believes he receives Jesus physically, frequently, in the stomach. The body, blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained in the Eucharist (1374-78).

Here again...he shows that his problem is not with just the Catholic Church but with the New Testament as well as the clear writings of the early church on the Eucharist. I deal with this in the very first article on my blog.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural. Simply stated, Gendron is dead wrong about both what Christians have believed for 2,000 years as well as his opposition to it.

Quote:

Condemnation A Christian is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. Over 100 anathemas have been pronounced against Christians by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent and Vatican II. These condemnations are still in effect today and can only be lifted if a Christian returns in submission to the authority of the pope.

Again, with the specious arguments. The Christian Church has leveled anathemas against every heresy to come down the pike in all of its 2,000 year history beginning in the New Testament and they were right to do so. The Church has done righteously in condemning the heresies that Gendron preaches and has displayed here in this tract. He was supposedly a Catholic prior to entering into his new career as an anti-Catholic evangelist who now sells himself as an expert on our most holy faith and gets paid for doing so. That's a real shame IMO. I think the New Testament speaks about this kind of person somewhere...

Quote:

A Catholic is condemned by the Word of God. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day (John 12:48). If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:8; cf. Context of verses 6-9).

Yet what did Our Lord tell His apostles? Luke 10: [16] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." , and I've already shown in a post above who Galatians 1:8 actually applies to.

Quote:

These thirteen teachings and traditions of Roman Catholicism demonstrate that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron. They also affirm how manmade traditions nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:7-13).

But as you have just seen, is Gendron telling the truth about either Christian doctrine or the Catholic Church?

Quote:

There are many Evangelicals and Roman Catholics who are unaware of how diametrically opposed Catholic dogmas are to the Word of God.

No...in fact there are many people who are not aware of the fact that they are being deceived into terrible error by men like Mike Gendron and John Ankerberg who put forth erroneous teachings of men and label them as Christian doctrine.

Look again at the refutation of this online tract of Gendron's. Has he told the truth? Has he misrepresented the Catholic Church's teachings? Has he asserted as Christian doctrines things which the Bible and the Catholic Church do not teach or agree with and that the Church has labeled as heresies?

Quote:

The truth must be told. Catholics who presume they are Christians must be lovingly confronted with the truth.

Yeah.. right...

The rest is just polemics. I think he's done enough damage to his position.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Blackie

Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel"?

It is my own opinion that the majority of non-Catholic salvation messages actually present a different and deficient gospel than that of the New Testament, the early church and the Catholic Church for the last 2,000 years.

I believe that the essential "way of salvation" verses that are used in a great many non-Catholic evangelistic messages have been ripped from the pages of the Word of God and bandied about in the last 500 years to further a different and oversimplified deficient Gospel that anyone who sits down and reads the New Testament for themselves without some non-Catholic preacher breathing down their neck every Sunday and Wednesday will soon discover is not the same Gospel of salvation.

I have read the Word of God many times and that is why I am a Catholic. The salvation message of the Catholic Church is in line with the teachings of the New Testament, and I believe that the salvation message of the majority of non-Catholics is some different gospel, condemned by St. Paul and leads to something that I have dubbed "Christianity Lite".

This is the result of much internet discussion with a variety of non-Catholics which spawned the following post here on Apocalypsis. How Is A Catholic Saved?
Read your New Testament from cover to cover and see what the teachings are concerning salvation and then compare the various non-Catholic "ways" and "plans" of salvation with what you have read and see if the Holy Spirit does not show you the deficiencies and differences between the two.

They stop far short of what the New Testament Gospel is while the teachings of the Catholic Church are in fact right in line with it.
I would suggest that the context of the New Testament does not teach the Reformed doctrine and that (as I have stated before) their's is a different and deficient gospel.

If no works are involved in our salvation, then how do you explain the Gospel message preached on the day of Pentecost (under the influence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit no less!) in Acts 2:37-38.
[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
[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.

How do you explain the message delivered to St. Paul himself (especially since you assert that it is his teachings that convince you of the reformed position) in Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Obviously, from the message there, baptism is key to salvation and does indeed wash away and forgive sins. The reformed teachings contradict this in spite of the plain sense of the scriptures.

If our works have no merit with regard to our salvation, why then does Our Lord plainly tell us that we will be judged and either welcomed into the Kingdom of God or cast into hell based upon them in Matthew 25: 31-46
[31] "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
[35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
[36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
[37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
[40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
The Gospel today is (and should be!) the same as that preached by the apostles in the New Testament. (See Acts 2:37-38 and 22:16 as well as John 3:5) If what is preached is not the same then that (IMO) would qualify as "a different gospel".

I, like many many Catholics, have heard and seen allegations that ours is a different gospel, but having read the Word of God carefully and prayerfully many times over many years, and comparing the messages of those who make those allegations to the salvation message of the Catholic Church alongside the New Testament, I have found that just the opposite is true.

If, as I suspect, you have read the New Testament all the way through, (more than likely many times over) you can understand what I mean when I say that the Gospel of salvation is actually the topic throughout and I submit that it is the Gospel that is preached by the Catholic Church that accurately aligns with that and not the one of the reformers or their modern step children.
Galatians 1:[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
Blackie

The Case For Infant Baptism

I noticed in someone's forum profile that they asserted that only adults are baptized in the Bible.

The imperative is the fact that Jewish babies were circumcised on the 8th day by the command of God and since Paul & Peter both compare baptism to circumcision, that we see the type and example. The fact that the parents had the child circumcised as an entrance into their faith and professed their faith on behalf of the child while accepting the responsibility of seeing that they were raised in their faith, carries over into Christianity. It's as scriptural as "Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." The more relevant passages are those that show that entire households were baptized, which implies that people of all ages were included. If God commanded that babies be brought into the faith in the OT, why would that logical and family oriented practice cease with the coming of the Messiah? ALL Christianity is about family...that's about as NT as it gets.

If you think that one has to make a profession of faith to enter the Kingdom of God, but then don't believe that baptism is crucial for salvation, there is something scripturally wrong with your belief...yet the NT is almost adamant about that.

I do not believe that "only adults are baptized in the Bible" is accurate, and here is a good article that explains why.

Quote:

Infant Baptism (Link) Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway. As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven. Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "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 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "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" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Some apparently feel that the early church did not baptize infants, but that can be disproved by reading the historical citations if the following article. Early Teachings of Infant Baptism (Fathers *) and from the very early account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (a disciple and friend of St. John as well as bishop of the Church in Smyrna) in which Polycarp plainly says the following when the proconsul tries to get him to deny Christ because of his old age. He shows that he was infant baptized.

Quote:

CHAPTER 9 (LINK) 9:1 But to Polycarp, as he entered the arena, there came a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and play the man, O Polycarp. And the speaker no man saw; but the voice those of our people who were present heard. And when he was brought in there was a great tumult, when men heard that Polycarp was apprehended. 9:2 Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists! 9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?