A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[elvisman]

If the Bible isn’t important, why read parts of it each Mass? If It’s not important why are so many songs sung at Mass based on the Bible?

The Bible IS important as it is part of the Word of God.

**NOWHERE does it say it encompasses ALL of the Word of God. **
**In fact, it says just the opposite *(**2 Thess 2:15, ***Luke 10:16, 2 Thess. 3:6, **2 Tim. 2:2, ****1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14).

 

[elvisman]

Thanks for your opinion.

Thanks for your curt but empty answer.
What does this mean to YOU (John 16:12-15)?

 

[RockyRoad]

I didn’t say that circumcision was required by Christ. It WAS required by the Mosaic Law.

**That notwithstanding - we leave what happens to unbaptized **children to the mercy of God. We also leave the fate of unbaptized but willing adults to the mercy of God as well - *just *as we do those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth.

And my friend. We are in absolute agreement. Unfortunately I think this thread has taken a turn for the worse. Some don’t believe in infant baptism…many do. But we do agree that unbaptized babies and aborted babies can be in heaven. I think that is the main concern we have for those unbaptized. It shouldn’t devolve into a battle about where in Bible it does or doesn’t require infant baptism. It seems as though it’s become such a stickler that people are starting to become pretty nasty about it.

All things the CC teaches which I fully accept…but are hard to find in the Bible…sometimes. We just shouldn’t let this get this far. The anger is clearly showing. I don’t think anyone means to let it happen…but it’s happening.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. With your great knowledge of the church…try taking some of this to the muslim threads…you would be of great witness there.

God bless
Rocky

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Answer the questions without asking questions. So far the questions has been being dodged. Answer the questions

I DO NOT THINK SO! It has been answered numerous times,so how about swallowing your PRIDE and answer my question:

Where does scripture explcitly restrict baptism for ONLY adults who can reason?

**Revkevin: There are many examples of adults being baptized there is not one example of a infant being baptized.

I still didn’t hear a yes or no **

You do not read very well do you? I explained why adults were baptized.Yes I know the Bible mentions adults being baptized because they were CONVERTS…hello! But where does it say it is ONLY for adults?

And there not ONE example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.”

Excuse me? Not ONE example of an infant being baptized? So what you are telling me,the term household by St.Paul excluded infants and very young children?

And I didn’t hear from you either.Where is baptism RESTRICTED for adults only?

You play the game very well. You expect Catholics to answer you and it has been,but when you are asked to answer you come with more absurd excuses.

 

[Nicea325]

**I see you can’t answer a simple yes or no and how did you turn around apply my own words towards me? The household thing don’t bother me. That is all Catholics can go by to justify infant baptism from the Bible. **

Likewise,because you still have failed miserably to show me where the Bible restricts baptism to age-reasoning adults ONLY.

And your example of adults being baptized does not bother me at all either,because no where does it restrict it to them alone.And?

And that is all Baptists can go by to JUSTIFY ADULT-ONLY baptism or a ‘believers-only’ baptism. Oh and they must be adults ONLY.

 

[Loboto-Me]

14 Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit. (Matt 15)

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces” (Matthew 7:6)

 

[elvisman]

And my friend. We are in absolute agreement. Unfortunately I think this thread has taken a turn for the worse. Some don’t believe in infant baptism…many do. But we do agree that unbaptized babies and aborted babies can be in heaven. I think that is the main concern we have for those unbaptized. It shouldn’t devolve into a battle about where in Bible it does or doesn’t require infant baptism. It seems as though it’s become such a stickler that people are starting to become pretty nasty about it.

All things the CC teaches which I fully accept…but are hard to find in the Bible…sometimes. We just shouldn’t let this get this far. The anger is clearly showing. I don’t think anyone means to let it happen…but it’s happening.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. With your great knowledge of the church…try taking some of this to the muslim threads…you would be of great witness there.

God bless
Rocky

Thanks.

The point of the Catholic position is that doctrines don’t have to be explicitly taught in the Bible. They can be implicitly taught. Many Protestant doctrines such as Sola Scriptura aren’t even implicitly taught, let alone explicitly - yet they are accepted as being in perfect harmony with Scripture.

I think that this thread IS necessary because the Catholic position is that ALL are called to Baptism and salvation - not just adults. The Scriptures are clear on this.**

**As I asked before - where does it say that adolescents should be baptized or children at this random "age of reason" I always hear about from my Protestant friends? **

Every baptism in Scripture - if you are only true to the letter and not the heart of Scripture - was performed on adults.

 

[Dokimas]

**First of all - Jesus and his Church *cannot ***be separated. Agreed The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Agreed In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus identifies this Body - the Church - with his very self.

If you diminish the teachings of the Church - you diminish Christ himself. Disagree. Until Heaven, there’s a pretty big difference between Jesus and His church. Jesus is infallible; His church is not.

Luke 10:16 - "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

Secondly, what is a small "c" Catholic? The universal church or the catholic church. A general name for all true believers grouped together in the Body of Christ. ‘Church’ mean called out ones. We are called out from the world and into His Body.

Lastly, if Jesus was not telling the Church that she would be guided to ALL truth - what do YOU think Jesus meant in John 16:12-15?

John 16:
12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
15 "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Remember the Holy Spirit (the One who would bring back to remembrance what Jesus said and teach them) was not yet given to the disciples. This was refering to Pentacost and following. Remember some of the NT were written by a few of these men Jesus spoke to here.​

Read through Acts and you’ll see that even the NT apostles sometimes didn’t get it exactly right. Peter was rebuked by Paul. Many wanted the new converts to be circumcized. This was wrong teaching that had to be corrected. (Note: in correcting this wrong teaching, it WAS NOT mentioned that baptism was taking the place of circumcism.)​

I have not found anywhere where it says anyone is perfect in their understanding.

 

[elvisman]

**First of all - Jesus and his Church **

**cannot be separated. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus identifies this Body - the Church - with his very self.

Agreed

Here you agree that the Church and Christ are the same and cannot be separated.

If you diminish the teachings of the Church - you diminish Christ himself.

Disagree. Until Heaven, there’s a pretty big difference between Jesus and His church. Jesus is infallible; His church is not.

Here – you** refute**** what you said above about Jesus and his church being the same and inseparable. There IS NO big difference between Jesus and his Church. **
God doesn’t change so what makes you think he will change when we’re in heaven?

 

[elvisman]

Agreed
Here you agree that the Church and Christ are the same and cannot be separated.

Dokimas:
Disagree. Until Heaven, there’s a pretty big difference between Jesus and His church. Jesus is infallible; His church is not.
Here – you** refute**** what you said above about Jesus and his church being the same and inseparable. There IS NO big difference between Jesus and his Church. **
God doesn’t change so what makes you think he will change when we’re in heaven?

 

[elvisman]

The universal church or the catholic church. A general name for all true believers grouped together in the Body of Christ. ‘Church’ mean called out ones. We are called out from the world and into His Body.
WHERE** does it say this in Scripture – that there is a small “c” Catholic Church and a Capital “C” Church?**
Since you and other Protestants hold Catholics to this standard PLEASE show me where it says this in Scripture.

Dokimas:

John 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
15 "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Remember the Holy Spirit (the One who would bring back to remembrance what Jesus said and teach them) was not yet given to the disciples. This was refering to Pentacost and following. Remember some of the NT were written by a few of these men Jesus spoke to here.​

Read through Acts and you’ll see that even the NT apostles sometimes didn’t get it exactly right. Peter was rebuked by Paul. Many wanted the new converts to be circumcized. This was wrong teaching that had to be corrected. (Note: in correcting this wrong teaching, it WAS NOT mentioned that baptism was taking the place of circumcism.)
Yes** – the Apostles got it wrong when they trusted in their own feelings. The Holy spirit eventually led them into TRUTH. **

**A ****perfect **example of this is when there was the problem with the Judaizers who wanted new believers to be circumcised and to hold to precepts of the Old Law. What happened next? They convened at the Council of Jerusalem and settled the matter.

It is YOU who needs to read Acts 15 where the Apostles wrote “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities…”

In John 16:12-15, Jesus is telling the Apostles that they Holy Spirit would guide them to ALL truth about the things that were coming – NOT just at Pentecost.
What makes you think that the Holy Spirit would abandon the Church after that?

I have not found anywhere where it says anyone is perfect in their understanding.

**And I already told you that ****NOBODY **is withour error. the Church, however, is NOT a person.
It is the Body of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Ok I’ll give you Luke 18 as “brephos.” Now the word not only means infant but it also means an infant {prop. unborn} baby, young child, infant.
So if you want to use the word brephos just remember what it means, unborn, baby, young child. So it could mean anyone of these not just infant.

Doesn’t sound like any of them have reached “the age of reason”.

 

[kepha1]

**I see you can’t answer a simple yes or no and how did you turn around apply my own words towards me? The household thing don’t bother me. That is all Catholics can go by to justify infant baptism from the Bible. **

We have much more than the household thing, Nicea, as you know. Infant baptism doesn’t need justifying. What needs justifying is why infant baptism has been rejected. Infant baptism has always been the norm in Christianity. Rejection of infant baptism is based primarily on the denial of the sacramental principle and the abandonment of the doctrine of Original Sin. Rejection of infant baptism is a man made tradition.

Evangelical Protestants of the “low church” or non-denominational variety especially, oftentimes exhibit an antipathy to matter as a conveyor of grace (or “blessing”). In other words, they tend to deny the sacramental principle. This hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism. Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians frequently express the notion that matter is a step down, a “reduction” of Christ’s Atonement: Matter vs. Spirit. Catholics (and Orthodox and many Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that the truth is quite the contrary, both prima facie and when examined in scriptural and reasoned depth.* for the rest of the article, I urge you to read *http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/sacramentalism.html

 

[Dokimas]

First of all - what do you think he meant by Water?

Secondly - what would God have done if a male Hebrew wasn’t circumcised?

Water: being born.​

2nd = I’m not that up on that part of the law for the Hebrews. I do believe your question has nothing to do with this discussion because baptism is not the replacement for circumcism, IMO, as I look at the Bible on the issue.

 

[Dokimas]

Here you agree that the Church and Christ are the same and cannot be separated. That’s not what I agreed to.

Here – you** refute**** what you said above about Jesus and his church being the same and inseparable. They are NOT the same**. There IS NO** big difference between Jesus and his Church. **
God doesn’t change so what makes you think he will change when we’re in heaven? He never changes.

 

[Dokimas]

WHERE** does it say this in Scripture – that there is a small “c” Catholic Church and a Capital “C” Church?** ****The Bible doesn’t speak of the ‘C’ church because it wasn’t around when the letters of the NT were written.

**

Since you and other Protestants hold Catholics to this standard PLEASE show me where it says this in Scripture. **All standards in the Bible are for all of us. Leaders are, however, held to a higher level of accountability.

Yes** – the Apostles got it wrong when they trusted in their own feelings. The Holy spirit eventually led them into TRUTH. **

 

[Dokimas]

In John 16:12-15, Jesus is telling the Apostles that they Holy Spirit would guide them to ALL truth about the things that were coming – NOT just at Pentecost.
What makes you think that the Holy Spirit would abandon the Church after that?

He never left the church. Heb 13:5​

We leave Him and we sometimes misunderstand.

 

[kepha1]

Water: being born.​

2nd = I’m not that up on that part of the law for the Hebrews. I do believe your question has nothing to do with this discussion because baptism is not the replacement for circumcism, IMO, as I look at the Bible on the issue.

Nobody is saying baptism replaces circumcision. John Calvin regards circumcision anagogically as the anticipation of baptism.

In Acts 16:15,33, 18:8 (cf. 11:14), and 1 Corinthians 1:16 it is stated that an individual and his whole household were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children.

Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38, Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Galatians 3:14,29).

It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Romans 4:11).

Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, cf. Matthew 19:14).

Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25, Romans 2:28-9, Philippians 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God’s grace just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.

Paul . . . adds that the Colossians had been buried with Christ through baptism [Col 2:12]. By this he means that baptism is today for Christians what circumcision was for the ancients. John Calvin

Therefore, this view was held by the three major branches of the early Protestant movement: Calvinist, Lutheran, and Zwinglian. In all likelihood, such arguments could probably be found in Anglican and Methodist writings as well (since they, too, accept infant baptism). It would be denied, of course, by the Anabaptists (and the later Baptists), who espoused believer baptism for those persons attaining the age of reason only.
Baptism and its Parallel With Circumcision (John Calvin)

 

[Dokimas]

COLOR=blue]NOBODY

is withour error. the Church, however, is NOT a person.
It is the Body of Christ.​

Seeing that the church is made of people it can be prone to the error of the people leading it, as protestants know first hand.

 

[guanophore]

Protestant bibles do not have it in there because Protestants do not believe that baptism saves souls. You would have to look in a Catholic Bible to see what I’m saying.

I don’t think this is true. I have 27 translations, and they all say the same thing. It is like
the words “this is My Body”. They don’t understand what is written in the same way we do, because they are separated from the Apostolic Tradition.