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

[guanophore]

I don’t need to worry about original sin that has been taken care of.
Does it not say Repent and be baptized? Yes or No
Where does it say in the Bible “original sin?”

This post is a confirmation of what I noted earlier, that rejection of infant baptism reflects a deficient understanding of the nature and treatment of original sin.

How do you think original sin was “taken care of”?

Yes, the Bible records that all those who are capable of repentance are called to do so. The Bible is also clear that we are to raise the children in the fear and discipline of the Lord. Since those who are born again cannot “see” the kingdom of God, it would seem to be common sense that this is the place to start making disciples of them.

When Paul writes “in Adam, all sinned”, he is not talking about personal sins, but the fallen state in which we are born.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not a condition for which we to blame, but we are responsible for what is necessary to cure it. God has provided the “bath of regeneration” and the “circumcision made without hands”.

Do you deny that the Apostles understood baptism as a replacement for circumcision?

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.

Actually, that is not true at all. In addition to the Scripture that relates baptism to circumcision, we also draw from Jesus instructing the Apostles not to hinder the children from coming, the faith of the Centurion healing his servant, and the friends that let the paralytic through the ceiling to be healed.

However, it is not necessary for us to “justify” any of our faith from the Bible. None of the Catholic faith originates in the Bible. The Catholic faith was whole and entire for centuries before the Bible was formed. The Source of our faith is Jesus, through the Apostles. We receive our faith, and we see that faith reflected in the pages of the Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

I was Catholic

I don’t think so, rev kev.

You do not seem to understand some of the most basic Catholic Teaching.

Even if you chose to depart from it, and embrace the heretical views that you now have, if you had been properly catechized, you would be able to at least articulate the postiion of the Church.

Perhaps I am wrong, and what you are really doing here is playing as if you don’t know as an evangelistic device.

 

[guanophore]

Now starts the name calling by saying you were and continue to be “ignorant” of my x-faith. Now I have not said anything that disrespects you. But you are showing the loving way Catholics are. If we disagree with the CC we are ignorant.

Not necessarily. Iti s possible that you are purposefully defiant and in deliberate heresy. It is kinder for us to think that you just don’t know any better.

I don’t go by doctrin like you do.

This is a very true and honest statement. You lack the nobility of the Bereans, because you do not receive the Apostolic message with eagerness. Instead, you attempt to extract it from scripture in separation from the Apostolic source.

 I don't deny the sin nature of man, we all have that.

Our tendency toward sin isn ot sin itself.

Where in the Bible does it say we need to be baptized to wash away original sin?

When Scripture says be baptized, washing away your sins, we understand that it means both personal and original sin.

How did you imagine we are cleansed of it?

The Apostles commanded baptism to wash away sins. They taught that baptism puts us to “death” with Christ. union with Him in his death and resurrection, our slavery to sin is broken.

Man is always in a fallen state, even after being baptized. It called Sin, and we all sin.

No baptized person HAS to sin anymore. In baptism, we are infused with the power of the HS. When we choose to walk with that Spirit, we have the power to choose not to sin. This is what it means to be set free from slavery to sin.

One of the most dangerous of the modern innovations about sin is that we can’t live without doing it. This is a grave error.

Once we are in Christ, we are no longer slaves to our fallen state.

Let me re-phraise it. You have to used the house hold thing to say that infants were baptized. Is that all that you have to go on to say infants were baptized?

No, we have the infallible teaching of the Apostles preserved by the power of the HS in the Church, who has been baptizing infants since the first century.

Mark 16:16 “Anyone who believes {only a person of the age of reason can believe, infants can’t} and is baptized will be saved…”

Acts 2:38 “…Each of you must turn from sin and turn to God {only a person of the age of reason can turn from sin and turn to God, infants can’t} and be baptized…for the forgiveness of sins.”

Where do you find the “age of reason” in scripture? What make syou think that children cannot believe? If they cannot, then why did Jesus say the Kingdom was made of such as them?

If you do not baptize then you are not born again in Christ.

I don’t think this is true. Jesus gave us baptism as the normative means of being born again of water and Spirit. However God is not constrained by the Sacrament. He can regenerate whoever He wants, however He likes. As at the house of Cornelius,when He regenerated the believers to make a point to Peter.

 

[elvisman]

The Jesus you know would make a baby get baptized to be able to see the Kingdom of Heaven?

Yup.
Just as the Father I know made babies get circumcised in the OT. Why do you all keep glossing over the fact that they were commanded to do this in the OT?

It’s a shame that people like you would disobey him out of some bizarre sense of spiritual pride instead doing what he commanded.

Just as a parent or guardian must feed a child ant teach a child that cannot do for himself, so must we baptize that child so they can share in the Kingdom of God.

 

[elvisman]

My mind, heart and soul are open.
I don’t reject the children. I just don’t see the infant thing, just like you don’t see the of age thing.

You absolutely do.
You don’t feel that they are worthy of the Kingdom of God until they choose it.
You are exactly like those disciples who tried to chase them away until Jesus rebuked them for doing so.

Judging by your words, your heart IS closed to God. It appears to only be partially open on YOUR terms, NOT his.

Unfortunately, you fail to understand the purpose of Baptism. People like you falsely assume that it is merely an “outward sign of an inward change”. You fail to understand that it cleanses us from original sin.

What Christ did on the cross pay for the sins we commit.

 

[Dokimas]

Yup.
Just as the Father I know made babies get circumcised in the OT. Why do you all keep glossing over the fact that they were commanded to do this in the OT?

It’s a shame that people like you would disobey him out of some bizarre sense of spiritual pride instead doing what he commanded.

Just as a parent or guardian must feed a child ant teach a child that cannot do for himself, so must we baptize that child so they can share in the Kingdom of God.

You remind me of the atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins that believe those who teach Christian values to children are ‘brainwashing them’ thus abusing them. You seem to think those who do not believe in infant baptism are hurting our children even though we believe Paul who told us to bring up our children in the nurture and admonision of the Lord, which we try to do and I’m sure (name removed by moderator)erfectly, speaking only for myself.

 

[guanophore]

To make your statements, you have to make two assumptions: 1 that Jesus meant water baptism

More than an assumption, certainly. We have received this teaching from the Apostles. But you are right,that we read the NT in the light of what they taught.

That is why we understand it differently than you.

The Apostles never separated the water from the HS. That is why Peter IMMEDIATELY ORDERED WATER for the house of Cornelius, and why he emphasized to the other Apostles that water COULD NOT BE WITHELD from those who manifested the Spirit.
That is why they called it the “bath of regeneration”. There is nothing about water that can regenerate a person. Only the HS can do that.

-and 2 that God isn’t loving, caring, merciful and gracious enough to take an infant to Heaven if it dies without being baptized.

No, Doki. We don’t make this assumption at all. In fact, we make the OPPOSITE assumption about those who die without baptism. We commend their souls to a loving creator. However, since He instructed us to baptize them, we do so.

• I’m not will to make those assuptions, especially the second one. My God, IMO, is loving enough, caring enough, merciful enough and gracious enough towards infants that He’ll, in a twinkling of an eye, take them to Himself.

Of course this is true, but we also know that we are separated from God by sin the moment we are conceived. We also know that God’s love will not necessarily get one into heaven. God loved the world enough to send His own son to die that we might be saved. In spite of His boundless love, we know that not all are saved, and not all will go to heaven. As He said, “he who does not believe is condemned already”. Being condemned is the default state in which we are conceived.

The same place He uses the term ‘Trinity’.

It is interesting that you have accepted this teaching from the Church that baptizes infants. How do you know that this doctrine is true, when it comes from those who you think “made mistakes” about what the Apostles taught?

The disciple knew Jesus had the Words of Life. The Bible is a collection of Words of Life. It’s very important for the growth of believers. Not to mention I’ve heard of people coming to Jesus by reading the Bible.

Indeed but many today do not come to the Church to which Jesus entrusted those Words of Life. They attempt to read the Holy Scriptures in a state of separation from those who penned them. People can come to Jesus in a variety of ways. He founded the Church to instruct and to guide them.

1. Incorrect. Most likely the whole paragraph.

Really? You think a Body can live when it is disconnected from the Head?​

2. We’re agreed. But with a small ‘c’.

Why did they refer to themselves that way?

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.

4. Looking to see where the verses you told me to look in says what you said It says. I don’t see what you see. So we disagree.

Who do you think Jesus was talking to when He promised they would be led into all Truth? Since we are in agreement that no individual has the promise to be 100% right, who else could He be addressing except the Church?

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?

You have made a false assumption, Doki, and thus, have arrived at a false conclusion.
Catholics do not attempt to force Scripture into a role it was never meant to have (authority and source for all belief and practice). However, in our respect and regard for the inerrant and inspired Word of God, we respect it for what it is, which is a reflection of our faith.

Many important songs are based on the Bible because the Bible itself is based upon Catholic faith. The NT was written entirely by Catholics, and there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

 

[elvisman]

I was Catholic

I don’t think so, rev kev.

You do not seem to understand some of the most basic Catholic Teaching.

Even if you chose to depart from it, and embrace the heretical views that you now have, if you had been properly catechized, you would be able to at least articulate the postiion of the Church.

Perhaps I am wrong, and what you are really doing here is playing as if you don’t know as an evangelistic device.

I have to agree with Guan here.
**You seem to have been Catholic in name only because you have absolutely no grasp on Catholic teaching. **

Consequently, you left for only one of two reasons:
1. Spiritual laziness due to poor catechesis.
2. Lack of faith due to poor catechesis.

Those are the only reasons anybody would ever leave the truth.
Everything else is simply an excuse.

 

[Dokimas]

**You absolutely **do.
You don’t feel that they are worthy of the Kingdom of God until they choose it.

Doki: It’s realy too bad you continue to misreprestent what others say. If it wasn’t serious, it would be laughable.

You are exactly like those disciples who tried to chase them away until Jesus rebuked them for doing so.

Doki: Your theology on the issue seems to chase all unbaptized babies away. Kev includes all babies in the Kingdom of Heaven, thus your destortion and misrepresentation of Kev’s theology on this issue.

Judging by your words, your heart IS closed to God.

Doki: WRONG and very judgemental. It appears to only be partially open on YOUR terms, NOT his.

Unfortunately, you fail to understand the purpose of Baptism. People like you falsely assume that it is merely an “outward sign of an inward change”. You fail to understand that it cleanses us from original sin.

Doki: It’s you who seem to miss it’s the Blood of Jesus that cleanses us from sin and NOTHING else.

What Christ did on the cross pay for the sins we commit.

Doki: And our sin nature.

 

[elvisman]

You remind me of the atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins that believe those who teach Christian values to children are ‘brainwashing them’ thus abusing them. You seem to think those who do not believe in infant baptism are hurting our children even though we believe Paul who told us to bring up our children in the nurture and admonision of the Lord, which we try to do and I’m sure (name removed by moderator)erfectly, speaking only for myself.

Absolutely. When you get right down to it - you ARE hurting them.

Why would you withhold this new birth, this cleansing of original sin from your child?

 

[Dokimas]

Absolutely. When you get right down to it - you ARE hurting them.

Why would you withhold this new birth, this cleansing of original sin from your child?

Wrong question: the real questions are: Why do you keep misrepresenting what is said? Aren’t you concerned about making false statements about others?

 

[guanophore]

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.

What you are suggesting is that Jesus left His Church orphaned, without guidance, casting about in the dark. You are claiming that He did the very thing He said He would NOT do!

There is a difference between individuals missing the mark (not getting it right) and the Church missing the Mark. If Jesus was not able to keep the Church on track supernaturally, then what happened to the powerful Jesus we see portrayed in the book of Revelation? Did He just get bored, and wander off?

Also, how do you dispense with the scriptures that equate baptism and circumcision?

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophone: “However, since He instructed us to baptize them, we do so.”​

Could you please remind me where Jesus said this?

 

[Dokimas]

What you are suggesting is that Jesus left His Church orphaned, without guidance, casting about in the dark. You are claiming that He did the very thing He said He would NOT do!

There is a difference between individuals missing the mark (not getting it right) and the Church missing the Mark. If Jesus was not able to keep the Church on track supernaturally, then what happened to the powerful Jesus we see portrayed in the book of Revelation? Did He just get bored, and wander off?

Also, how do you dispense with the scriptures that equate baptism and circumcision?

You and Elvis have many things in common and one of them is misrepresenting or misstating what others are saying or believe.

 

[elvisman]

It’s realy too bad you continue to misreprestent what others say. If it wasn’t serious, it would be laughable.

Hey – I call’em like I read’em.

Your theology on the issue seems to chase all unbaptized babies away*. Kev includes all babies in the Kingdom of Heaven, thus your destortion and misrepresentation of Kev’s theology on this issue.*

**Not at ALL. It is merely obedience to God. God calls ALL to Baptism and I MUST obey ****HIS **will – not yours.

WRONG and very judgemental***.***

Not judgmental at ALL. I am judging a person’s WORDS (fruits) – which I am called by Scripture to do (Titus 2:15, Ephesians 5:11, John 7:24, 1 Cor. 2:15, I Tim. 5:19-20).

Study your Bible, friend.

It’s you who seem to miss it’s the Blood of Jesus that cleanses us from sin and NOTHING else***.***

Jesus’ blood REDEEMED us (paid for) – it didn’t SAVE us. We must COOPERATE with his redekmptive grace in order to be saved.
Man – it’s no WONDER you can’t grasp the importance of Baptism . . .

And our sin nature***.***

We will ALWAYS have a sin nature and a proclivity toward it (concupiscence) until we make it to heaven and are sanctified. Jesus paid for our SINS.

 

[elvisman]

Wrong question: the real questions are: Why do you keep misrepresenting what is said? Aren’t you concerned about making false statements about others?

You keep accusing me of misrepresenting.
Care to show me HOW I’ve done this?

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

No one follows perfectly what the Holy Spirit intends for us. You must admit, or at least you should, that even the CC has things in its history that it wishes never happened, therefore, those things that should never have happened shows we don’t always follow exactly the Holy Spirit’s leading. The CC is not exempt, either.

That’s because men are fallible The church is infallible.

Matthew

 

[Dokimas]

You keep accusing me of misrepresenting.
Care to show me HOW I’ve done this?

Simple: just notice the statements you make just before I tell you you are misrepresenting.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s because men are fallible The church is infallible.

Matthew

The church is people; people make mistakes. Jesus the leader don’t lead incorrectly; us, His followers, don’t always follow correctly.

 

[guanophore]

Water: being born.

This is another modern American Evangelical innovation. It was invented to combat the sacramental nature of Catholic Teaching.

The Hebrews never associated birth with water, but always with blood. The reason that the mother had to make an offering for cleansing was because of the blood from birth, not the water. In the Hebrew culture, blood is the salient feature of birth.

Joh 1:13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

No “water” in this description about human birth. No “water” anywhere in Scripture about human birth.

It is one of those anti-Catholic tradtitions you have inherited from your anti-Catholic spiritual ancestors.

2nd = I’m not that up on that part of the law for the Hebrews.

Now might be a good time. I would start with Jos 5:9 And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you

Why was Israel under reproach?

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.

I think I asked you how you dispense with the Scripture that equates them. I look forward to your reply.

I also look forward to your explanation of how a Body can live when the Head has been separated.

The Bible doesn’t speak of the ‘C’ church because it wasn’t around when the letters of the NT were written.

Another modern American fairy tale. On the contrary, the term “catholic” is used to describe the NT Church because there was only one Church, and it was Catholic. The same word was used until 1054.

What you are suggesting is that Jesus was too weak or disinterested to correct them.

You are saying that the Church which called itself Catholic was able to produce the Bible infallibly, but did not really “exist” in order to do so?

All standards in the Bible are for all of us. Leaders are, however, held to a higher level of accountability.

This is just a dodge, Doki. the failure of any mention in scripture of an “age of accountablity” has nothing to do with leadership or accountability.

What has happened is that you have added to scripture.

He never left the church. Heb 13:5

I am glad we are in agreement on this point. Now, if we can just get past how that church is recognized!​

We leave Him and we sometimes misunderstand.

Yes, this is true for every individual. the Church, however, cannot leave Him, because otherwise the Church would cease to exist. He is her Head, and the HS is her soul. Without the divine elements, there would be no Church. The Church is much more than “the body of believers on earth”. It is the divine elements of the Church that make her infallible, not the human.

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.

it is statements like this that reveal a deficient understanding of the Church. People are prone to error, but the Church is not, because her Head is Christ, and He is not “prone to error”.