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

[rev_kevin]

What is coming to Christ, rev?
This is about Many disciples desert Jesus. God choses us before we chose him. It means that God reveals truth to us, lives within us, and then enables us to respond to that truth.

What translation is that, rev? It says the same thing but the wording is completely taking liberty with the Greek. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and **that not **of yourselves, it is the **gift **of God.

New living translation. Grace is a gift from not not faith.

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev If you don’t agree with some you are anti Catholic and much worse like me. But I consider it a blessing Love ya Rev

Hi tweetymom
You are so right.
I was discusted by what he said to you. It was uncalled for. But you are a strong woman and can handle what some through at you.
God bless

 

[TriuneUnity]

New living translation. Grace is a gift from not not faith.

Both are a gift from God, rev. It doesn’t say that only grace is a gift from God… it says “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” “That” means anything antecedent to what came before it, which is both grace and faith.

As for coming to Jesus, yes, it certainly means his disciples not deserting him. However, he says twice in that chapter that we cannot come to Christ unless we are drawn by the Father, or that it be granted by the Father. Coming to Christ is faith, for he says that in coming to him he will “raise him up on the last day.”

Your notion of faith being some inner power that resides in the soul is thoroughly semi-Pelagian.

 

[rev_kevin]

Hell.

So you are saying that God will send them to hell when he created them that way. He created then just to send them to hell.

No, He can’t. Can a courtroom judge have mercy on a murderer and set him free “because he wants to?” What would you call a judge who let a killer go free, even though he was convicted? God is a judge who will by no means aquit the guilty.

So God can’t do what he wants. When did he give up his authority?

His character of justice still remains, rev. He is still perfectly holy, just, and righteous. The New Covenant doesn’t “soften” His justice against sinners.

It does if one is incapable of understanding. Really what kind of God do you think he is? You are picturing him as a evil God with no mercy.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I sure don’t remember/QUOTEBaptism is to remove sin,Confirmatopm is a Seal of the Holly Spirit a gift of the Father

 

[rev_kevin]

Both are a gift from God, rev. It doesn’t say that only grace is a gift from God… it says “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” “That” means anything antecedent to what came before it, which is both grace and faith.
For by grace {a gift from God} you have been saved through faith {a belief a trust not a gift} and that not of yourself is a gift from God {grace}
Grace: Favor. God;s free and underserving love that never quits. Grace is a gift of God. God’s free and unmerited favor toward sinful humanity.
Gift: Present. offering, favor. A present from people to people. A sacrifice from people to God, anything given voluntarily or at no cost. that which is given from God. enabling of empowering his people.
Faith: Belief, trust. reliance, loyalty, or complete truse in God, A system of religous beliefs.

As for coming to Jesus, yes, it certainly means his disciples not deserting him. However, he says twice in that chapter that we cannot come to Christ unless we are drawn by the Father, or that it be granted by the Father. Coming to Christ is faith, for he says that in coming to him he will “raise him up on the last day.”
God choses us then its up to us to follow.

Your notion of faith being some inner power that resides in the soul is thoroughly semi-Pelagian.

 

[tweetymom]

Hi tweetymom
You are so right.
I was discusted by what he said to you. It was uncalled for. But you are a strong woman and can handle what some through at you.
God bless

When we are unkind to others it is very discusting to God and I do mot think He is pleased.

 

[rev_kevin]

When we are unkind to others it is very discusting to God and I do mot think He is pleased.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It does if one is incapable of understanding. Really what kind of God do you think he is? You are picturing him as a evil God with no mercy.

You are reverting to an ad hominem fallacy.

So you are saying that God will send them to hell when he created them that way. He created then just to send them to hell.

God did not create them to be sinners. Are you now blaming God for man’s iniquity? God created Adam and Eve holy and righteous. They chose to rebel, and we are imputed with their rebellion and their wicked natures. This has no bearing on how God created us. Your error on the subjects of Baptism draws you further into heterodox thinking. How a little yeast levens the whole lump!

So God can’t do what he wants. When did he give up his authority?

No, He can’t do what He wants. God acts according to His character, which is perfect, holy, and just. Justice is not arbitrary. God is bound by His own nature as a God of order, reason, and the Law. The Law demands that its requirements be met with absolute perfection. If those requirements are not met, God is bound to execute His justice against that individual even though He weeps over the death of the wicked. Ex. 34:7: "keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Nahum 1:2: The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

God, in His mercy, out of pure love and gracious, chose to exact His wrath against His Son in our place. We receive that mercy in Christ alone by grace alone, through faith alone. Apart from Christ, we are still in our sins. God cannot punish those who are in Christ because Christ has been punished for them. If God saves someone outside of Christ, then God is not upholding the Law, which means He would be a lawbreaker. So, where is that verse about those not in the household of faith receiving salvation?

 

[rev_kevin]

You are reverting to an ad hominem fallacy.
I was just wondering but you won’t answer.

God did not create them to be sinners. Are you now blaming God for man’s iniquity? God created Adam and Eve holy and righteous. They chose to rebel, and we are imputed with their rebellion and their wicked natures. This has no bearing on how God created us. Your error on the subjects of Baptism draws you further into heterodox thinking. How a little yeast levens the whole lump!
So you’re saying that God did not create the mentally challenged? Which is what I asked. That they chose to rebel. Did they chose to be that way? If not then who made them like that? My error, as you say, is because I don’t see baptism the way do. And because I don’t see baptism the way you do it draws me further into heterodox thinking. I quess you are the only authority on baptism and the rest don’t know what they are talking about because the don’t agree with you.

No, He can’t do what He wants. God acts according to His character, which is perfect, holy, and just. Justice is not arbitrary. God is bound by His own nature as a God of order, reason, and the Law. The Law demands that its requirements be met with absolute perfection. If those requirements are not met, God is bound to execute His justice against that individual even though He weeps over the death of the wicked. Ex. 34:7: "keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
Since when is God not able to do what he wants? He’s God he can do what ever he wants to do.
I see that you like quoting the OT and not the NT which is the New Covenant, the new law. Why is this?

Nahum 1:2: The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

God, in His mercy, out of pure love and gracious, chose to exact His wrath against His Son in our place. We receive that mercy in Christ alone by grace alone, through faith alone. Apart from Christ, we are still in our sins. God cannot punish those who are in Christ because Christ has been punished for them. If God saves someone outside of Christ, then God is not upholding the Law, which means He would be a lawbreaker. So, where is that verse about those not in the household of faith receiving salvation?

 

[TriuneUnity]

rev_kevin:
So you’re saying that God did not create the mentally challenged? Which is what I asked. That they chose to rebel. Did they chose to be that way? If not then who made them like that? My error, as you say, is because I don’t see baptism the way do. And because I don’t see baptism the way you do it draws me further into heterodox thinking. I quess you are the only authority on baptism and the rest don’t know what they are talking about because the don’t agree with you.

Of course He created the mentally challenged. He did not create sin, though. Man chose to rebel and now suffers the consequences. That would be Adam and all of his posterity, which includes men, women, children, the disabled, etc. All have sinned, and apart from Christ, will suffer the consequences of that sin.

Since when is God not able to do what he wants? He’s God he can do what ever he wants to do.

So if God wanted to lie, He could? If He wanted to sin, He could? If He wanted to break His covenant, He could?

I see that you like quoting the OT and not the NT which is the New Covenant, the new law. Why is this?

So the Old Testament doesn’t reflect God’s moral character? Where in the new covenant does God say that unbelievers will receive salvation?

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. - Rom. 2:12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. - Rom. 5:12

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction - Rom. 9:22

Is that new covenant enough for you?

 

[Loboto-Me]

TriuneUnity does not have the same beliefs as Catholics in terms of where babies or those through no fault of their own have not been baptised go if they die before baptism, but we do both believe in infant baptism to cleanse the sins of Adam from the souls, babies and adults alike.

We as Catholics leave the unbaptised souls to Jesus’ mercy, and suspect that He takes them to heaven because Jesus said to let the little ones (that would mean those who are mentally incapable too) come to Him.

Ut oh! here’s a disagreement about infant baptism by one of our early Church fathers!!! Oops!

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Now, I see that the First Fathers have been ignored, that the fact that Jews circumcised their unbelieving, faithless babies at 8 days old as well.

You see, faith was never necessary for babies to be circumcised, but for adults who were being circumcised, faith was necessary.

Acts 21
21 Now they have heard of thee that thou teachest those Jews, who are among the Gentiles, to depart from Moses: saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor walk according to the custom.

Acts 2
38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

 

[rev_kevin]

So you’re saying that God did not create the mentally challenged? Which is what I asked. That they chose to rebel. Did they chose to be that way? If not then who made them like that? My error, as you say, is because I don’t see baptism the way do. And because I don’t see baptism the way you do it draws me further into heterodox thinking. I quess you are the only authority on baptism and the rest don’t know what they are talking about because the don’t agree with you.

Of course He created the mentally challenged. He did not create sin, though. Man chose to rebel and now suffers the consequences. That would be Adam and all of his posterity, which includes men, women, children, the disabled, etc. All have sinned, and apart from Christ, will suffer the consequences of that sin.
I did not say that they did not have sin nor did I say that God created sin. But I just can’t see God damning the mentally challenged or infants to Hell. Sorry don’t see it that way.

So if God wanted to lie, He could? If He wanted to sin, He could? If He wanted to break His covenant, He could?
He can do what he wants. But he is a God who won’t lie, sin or break his covenant. That don’t mean he can’t do what he wants to do.

So the Old Testament doesn’t reflect God’s moral character? Where in the new covenant does God say that unbelievers will receive salvation? You honestly believe that God would damn those who are unable of understanding or unable to have faith. My God won’t.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. - Rom. 2:12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. - Rom. 5:12

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction - Rom. 9:22

Is that new covenant enough for you?
You just don’t see that God will not condemn those kind of people.

 

[Dokimas]

So tell me were the jewish babies that were circumcised agreeing to the covenant of God? Oh my goodness, they should have waited until the age of reason for these children to agree to a covenant because according to you the covenant doesn’t apply unless people know what they’re getting into. The jews had no problem entering their babies into a covenant, why would the converted jews have a problem with entering their babies into the new covenant?

What you are doing is playing mind games with yourself, you’re not using common sense and applying it to the times. That’s the trouble with relying on the bible alone, everything has to be written down word for word so that it could be understood.

On top of everything else, the early church fathers are not even studied! Why do you even deny history?

Surely the covenant was for the whole of the children of Israel, not for individuals.​

The least painful time to get circumcized is 8 days old. I wonder if God knew this whe He told them to do it to an 8 day old?​

Maybe I’m playing word game. I’m trying to use common sense. Wish more would take your advice.​

I accept history. I know it can be destorted a little or a lot. I also know that it can be slanted depending upon who’s writing it.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Surely the covenant was for the whole of the children of Israel, not for individuals.​

The least painful time to get circumcized is 8 days old. I wonder if God knew this whe He told them to do it to an 8 day old?​

Maybe I’m playing word game. I’m trying to use common sense. Wish more would take your advice.​

I accept history. I know it can be destorted a little or a lot. I also know that it can be slanted depending upon who’s writing it.

As you witnessed, I wrote that post in frustration, I stand by what I said, but I honestly take back the personal aspect of that post, I’m sorry.

I’m glad that at least you’re willing to at least look at the church fathers and the historical aspects, that’s all I ask.

I forgot to add that yes the covenant was for the whole of the children of Israel, as was the new covenant was for the whole of humanity

 

[TriuneUnity]

He can do what he wants. But he is a God who won’t lie, sin or break his covenant. That don’t mean he can’t do what he wants to do.

Yes, it does. It means He cannot sin. God cannot do anything which contradicts His holiness. That includes letting unforgiven sinners into heaven.

You honestly believe that God would damn those who are unable of understanding or unable to have faith. My God won’t.

Because it seems the only attribute that God possesses to you is “niceness.”

Can you provide Scripture that says they cannot have faith?

You just don’t see that God will not condemn those kind of people.

Can you provide Scripture to back this up?

And Baptists accuse Roman Catholics of leaning on the traditions of men!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Surely the covenant was for the whole of the children of Israel, not for individuals.

That is why the burden of proof in this discussion is on Baptists, Dokimas. As Loboto-Me eloquently argued, the God of the Old Covenant always dealt with the Jewish community as a whole. This included their infants. Baptists have to proof that God has ceased to interact with His people as a covenant community that includes the children of believers and has instead reverted to individualist notions that have been developed post-Enlightenment. The Church has always, everywhere, and at all times baptized the children of New Covenant believers.

 

[Dokimas]

As you witnessed, I wrote that post in frustration, I stand by what I said, but I honestly take back the personal aspect of that post, I’m sorry.

I’m glad that at least you’re willing to at least look at the church fathers and the historical aspects, that’s all I ask.

I forgot to add that yes the covenant was for the whole of the children of Israel, as was the new covenant was for the whole of humanity

I didn’t notice your frustration. I’m sorry if I caused you to be frustrated. I seem to have that effect on others. Just ask my wife and daughters.​

The New Covenant was only for those who put their faith in Jesus, the one Who’s Blood paid the price for the NC.

 

[Dokimas]

That is why the burden of proof in this discussion is on Baptists, Dokimas. As Loboto-Me eloquently argued, the God of the Old Covenant always dealt with the Jewish community as a whole. This included their infants. Baptists have to proof that God has ceased to interact with His people as a covenant community that includes the children of believers and has instead reverted to individualist notions that have been developed post-Enlightenment. The Church has always, everywhere, and at all times baptized the children of New Covenant believers.

I don’t think anyone can prove that God has ceased to interact with His people Israel. Paul said they are still God’s.​

I’m not disputing the CC has always baptized infants. I would, however, say the NT church did not baptize infants nor did it tell us to do so.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity does not have the same beliefs as Catholics in terms of where babies or those through no fault of their own have not been baptised go if they die before baptism, but we do both believe in infant baptism to cleanse the sins of Adam from the souls, babies and adults alike.

I should clarify, Loboto, that I do not believe that all children apart from Baptism will be condemned, but that all children apart from faith in Christ will. My argument with rev was centered around the necessity of faith and union with Christ in order to be justified from sin. God, however, can choose to give faith to whomever He wishes, whenever He wishes. This is especially true in the case of new covenant parents.