Catholic Faith Crisis

Acts 8:37 is a verse that has been put into question by many translators. Some Protestant Bibles (such as the NIV and the ESV) put it in the footnotes or none at all. The context of the verse that's missing in many other translations today is the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip. The verse Acts 8:37 is often rendered as: 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. (KJV) The verse has been missing in some translations for some reason. Some say it's because it a footnote that was mistakenly added. Yet, one can't deny the context can't support infant baptism. Even the GNT used by many Catholics today doesn't use it as a support for infant baptism. Instead, we read a believer's baptism even without the verse. 34 The official asked Philip, “Tell me, of whom is the prophet saying this? Of himself or of someone else?” 35 Then Philip began to speak; starting from ...

As a former Roman Catholic, I was told that I didn't need to get baptized or that I was still a Roman Catholic because I wasn't baptized yet in a born-again Christian congregation. I was asked as to why did I desire to get baptized by immersion when I was already baptized as an infant? Some say that I'm a Roman Catholic by the virtue of infant baptism. Some Roman Catholics are too scared to leave their religion because they were baptized as infants. They say that they will remain Roman Catholics because they were baptized as infants. I just find the logic baffling as to how they declared themselves Roman Catholic because they were baptized as infants. Acts 2:38 is frequently cited straight out-of-context to defend infant baptism. Yet, Acts 2:41 says that first, the people believed before they were baptized. Baptism always follows repentance from sin and unbelief to believing in Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior. Unfortunately, infant baptism ignores the fac...

I remembered a baptism chapel had a mural of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist. However, biblical baptism has usually been by immersion. Even Roman Catholic translations of the Bible can't support infant baptism.  Consider these verses about baptism: Matthew 3:17  As soon as Jesus was baptized, He came up out of the water . Then heaven was opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God coming down like a dove and lighting on him. Then a voice said from heaven, This is my own dear Son, with whom I am pleased.  Acts 8:37-39  The official ordered the carriage to stop, and both Philip and the official went down into the water , and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took Philip away. The official did not see him again, but continued on his way, full of joy. You can see that baptism in the Bible has always been by immersion. What is the other prerequisite? We need to get together with Peter whom Catholics c...

The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation starts with infant baptism. Catholic Answers defines infant baptism as follows: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth (CCC 1250). The very idea that people are born again in baptism is nowhere in the Scriptures. They do try to justify it with Luke 18:15-17 to say that infants need to be baptized when Jesus touched the infants. However, there is the presumptuous insertion of infant baptism there. I don't even read it one bit that someone there was baptized as an infant. Acts 16 doesn't eve...