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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have heard all this before but if you look at the context of the verse, His mother AND brothers…And ALL HIS sisters live right here among us. They were his blood brothers and blood sisters his siblings.
They were members of an extended family that had close kinship ties. Yes, they all grew up together like siblings. None of those other children came from the womb of Jesus’ mother.

Does it make any sense to take this verse in isolation from all the other references about these people?
 
Well you don’t have a clue why I left the CC. You are just assuming the reasons you gave are correct but you are wrong I have a good grasp of the CC teachings I don’t agree with some of them. Just because I don’t agree with them don’t mean I don’t know them. I am far from Spiritual laziness and I have more faith then you could never imagine. The CC teaches that Mary was ever virgin, that is a bunch of malarki. They teach that they are the true church founded by Jesus himself. I disagree. You claim that Jesus did not have siblings. I believe he did. And so on. I won’t insult you because I’m a better man than that. If you feel the need to then go ahead and show everyone what kind of Catholic the CC put out.
Rev I have been called a lot of things because I believe like you. Still go to CC cause hubby does. God Bless you, and have a great weekend.
 
Guanophore in black; Doki in color

It is quite above individual proclivities. You see, no individual can claim “right” doctrine apart from the Apsotolic Teaching that has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS. When individual Catholics embrace the Apostolic Teaching, then we can have the assurance that we are “right”. But it has nothing to do with us as individuals, except that we have been willing to conform ourselves to the Deposit of Faith.

So what you’re saying is you are correct and I am wrong. Well at least we understand what you think.

All who fail to do that, including individual catholics, have departed from the Apostolic Teaching.

Yes. That includes Catholics. The Truth is not a matter of individual opinon, but of what has been revealed by God. **Agreed that truth is not a matter of your opinion, your churches opinion or MY opinion. **

Do you really believe that God would reveal something to you individually 2000 years after the fact that is opposite of what He told His Apostles? ** No I don’t believe God reveals anything to me differently that He told His disciples. That’s not the question, IMO. The question is who understands God’s intentions on the issue of infant baptism**?

We can all, as individuals, be wrong. **And the church (including the CC) is made up of individuals. ** That is why it is so important to cling to the teachings just as they have been handed down to us through people who like you and me are prone to misudnerstanding. There are as many individual interpretations of scripture as there are belly buttons. Sounds like there must be much confusion in the CC if your last statement is correct. 😃
 

Col 2:gh faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.​

Notice Paul says circumcism HAPPENED to these gentile Christians in Colosse, not circumcision of the flesh but circumcism of the heart. So, if baptism replace circumcism, why did Paul teach both circumcism and baptism happen to the Colosse?​

.
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
What is Paul saying? He says they were circumcised not administered by hand. Now you say that is it of the heart but Paul isn’t saying that for he goes on to say
Code:
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Paul is saying the circumcision is baptism.

Psalms 51 is an indication that we are born with sin.

It is this sin that is taken away by Baptism.

Jesus said not to prevent children from coming to Him. He said such was the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus said you must be born again. Born again how? Water and Spirit. He didn’t say that you were already born but you had to be born again. He didn’t say that you first had to believe either.

Jesus said to baptize all there has not been one verse presented that makes an exception.

How did the first Christians behave? They baptized their babies. No where is there evidence of the first Christians saying that they shouldn’t.
 

Col 2:.
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made **without **hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.​

Notice Paul says circumcism HAPPENED to these gentile Christians in Colosse, not circumcision of the flesh but circumcism of the heart. So, if baptism replace circumcism, why did Paul teach both circumcism and baptism happen to the Colosse?
What do you think it means when it says “the circumcision of Christ”

What do you think happened to the Christians?

If the passage is not referring to going under the water (being buried with Him in baptism) then what does that mean?

Paul taught that baptism is the circumcision of Christ.
  • Note it is Christ that does this kind of circumcism.

Indeed, the Apostles’ taught that Jesus is the baptizer. When we baptize in His name, He sends His HS to seal the soul of the person being baptized. It is a supernatural and irrevocable mark.​

Therefore, this is not about baptism replacing circumcism, IMO.
Please help me understand what it is about, then. I am lost as to another way to understand the passage.
 
HMMM that would be a novel idea.
I think both sides have been providing the same arguments for the past 50 pages of conversation, it’s actually surprising some people have the stamina to do that.

The problem is, there’s not that many arguments to be made. They’ve all been made, rejected by the opposing sides, and now we’re just yelling at each other for fun. nice :rolleyes:
 
I think both sides have been providing the same arguments for the past 50 pages of conversation, it’s actually surprising some people have the stamina to do that.

The problem is, there’s not that many arguments to be made. They’ve all been made, rejected by the opposing sides, and now we’re just yelling at each other for fun. nice :rolleyes:
true so true
 
I think both sides have been providing the same arguments for the past 50 pages of conversation, it’s actually surprising some people have the stamina to do that.

The problem is, there’s not that many arguments to be made. They’ve all been made, rejected by the opposing sides, and now we’re just yelling at each other for fun. nice :rolleyes:
Isn’t this what the forums are for?..LOL I do not really think is that funny; rather sad because it shows some know God and many do not; just as god said it would be, which is bitter-sweet. But God, if He chooses can change the few into many more…amen
 
"Guanophore:
Indeed. This is why the Church needs the gift of infallibility. Only God can lead the Church into ALL TRUTH. 👍
Code:
  **Disagree.  They don't necessarily follow.**
Please help me to understand this.If men can do infallible acts without divine intervention, then why did Jesus have to send the HS to lead into all truth?

If men can remember everything He has said, why would they need the HS to help them?

Where in scripture do you find evidence that men can act infallibly without supernatural intervention?
"Guanophore:
Not the sin nature, per se. Concupiscence, or the tendency toward sin is one of the effects of the Fall. We are far off from God from the moment we are conceived because we are all born in Adam. Not until we are born again into Christ, the 2nd Adam, are we brought near to Him.
So you are speaking of the sin nature
.

No, I am speaking about original sin. The sin nature is the result or the outcome of original sin. Until we are delivered from it, we are hellbound.
"Guanophore:
Code:
The context of the NT is the Catholic Church.It cannot be properly understood outside of it's context.
Disagree with your understanding of the universal church.
** Could that be this is why you don’t properly understand**? 😃

It is the main reason for the differences between those who have received the Apostolic faith from the persons authorized to preach it, and those who have attempted to extract the faith from the pages of Scripture. The NT cannot be separated from the belief system of those who penned it, and those beliefs are found in the Catholic Church.
"Guanophore:
In the quote I posted above, it is clear that Jesus washed the Church in WATER AND WORD. This is a reference to baptism and preaching/teaching.
Thanks for sharing your understanding.
Please reciprocate by sharing yours. What water of washing do you think is referred to here?

When Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles, He told them “unless I wash you, you have no part in me”. This is why the Apostles did not separate the water from the supernatural action of the HS joining the washed person into Christ. To be circumcised is to be brought into the covenant of God. The “circumcision of Christ” is done with water not a knife.
Thanks for your opinion
.

I appreciate your courtesy, but it is not my opinion. This is the faith of the Apostles that has been infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS.

I recognize that I as an individual may be in error, just as Peter as an individual was in error with his hypocritical actions. However, the Teaching of the Church cannot be wrong because it comes from Christ.
Code:
**Though people that are prone to misunderstanding**
.

Exactly! that is WHY we need the gift of infalliblity. We are so prone to misunderstanding that we can never find Truth without divine intervention. 😉
"Guanophore:
What good is a lovey dovey emotional experience, if you are separated from the Truth?
Code:
  **Are you purposely misunderstanding what I said or is it by mistake? **
It is most likely that I misunderstood what you said. That was my perception of what kind of church you were seeking.
Code:
**Have you notice I believe you to hold to wrong understanding AND I've never said you hold to heretical teachings?**
** That would be unfair of me. Didn’t Jesus say something about doing unto others …?**

Yes, I do notice that, and I am sure it must be very difficult, since I am sure you believe that I have.

I also want to be clear that I am not accusing YOU of heresy. It seems clear that you believe what you do in all sincerity, and you do not realize how far your beliefs have departed from what the Apostles believed and taught.
"Guanophore:
Disobedience to what? How did Joshua correct the problem? The answer to this will give you an idea of why the shadow and figure of the OT is so important.
Code:
**If you bring forward that discussion into another post, I'll try to understand your point.**
I understood you to say that you were not aware of any consequences for failure of the Israelites to circumcise.

v** What I said, if we’re remembering the same conversation, was that Jesus and the Church are the same.**

If that is true, the the Church could have no error at all.
**Have I said the CC is in apostacy? **
That is how I understand your stance on the Early FAthers. If the Truth is not found in their writings, then all the first generation of the Apostles fell away from the faith immediately. If they did not receive the sacraments from the Apostles, and began baptizing infants in contradiction to what the Apostles taught, then they were in apostasy.
Have I said Jesus has abandoned His church?
Yes. If He did not lead them into all Truth, then what other reason is there? Either they all abandonded the faith they were taught, or He abandoned them. Is there another way to explain your position that their practices departed from what He taught?
 
and there goes that temporary peace, I knew it couldn’t last long 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top