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

[Dokimas]

continuation of my last post…

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. ** In context of what you’re saying and the topic, does the priest wash the feet of infants while during baptism? If not, this makes no sense to me. **

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. Again, thanks for your opinion. BTW, I’m not saying that in a kind way of telling you you are wrong. Opinions can be correct.

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. Peter’s teaching at at least one point was fallible. If he was the leader of the church (and I don’t think the Bible teaches us that) then your statement doesn’t make sense to me.

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. Infallibility means never making mistakes. Only God can make that claim. The church can not. God does keep bring us back. He promise there’d always be at least a remnant.

It is most likely that I misunderstood what you said. That was my perception of what kind of church you were seeking. Best NOT to make assumptions.

**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. WRONG. It’s not my place to judge heresy on such issues as those we are discussing. I don’t see them as heretical. They are non salvation issues, IMO. I understand why you might think that of me because you obviously have not problem thinking I’m heretical, of course, I could be wrong..

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. Does being a heretic mean one has to do it consciously? Or is it the teaching that is heretical? ** BTW, looks like I may have been wrong if you truly don’t see me as heretical.** Then it seems we see each other is similar light.

If that is true, the the Church could have no error at all. If what is true?

That is how I understand your stance on the Early FAthers. Wrong ** If the Truth is not found in their writings (don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater**), then all the first generation of the Apostles fell away from the faith immediately. Wrong; however there were false teaching going around during the first century. 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. ** If you believe baptizing babies [or not baptizing babies] is an apostate teaching. I’m NOT willing to entertain that judgement.**

Yes. If He did not lead them into all Truth, then what other reason is there? What are you speaking about? Either they all abandonded the faith they were taught, or He abandoned them. NOT TRUE. Is there another way to explain your position that their practices departed from what He taught? ** We are all prone to error**. Some error has eternal consequences and many do not habe eternal consequences. ** Romans 14 weaker vs stronger believers.** **Both are totally accepted by Jesus but the stronger are cautioned against judging the weaker. **

 

[Dokimas]

I wondered when we would get to this.

You have two points here.

1. Are the people of the Old Testament saved differently from the the New?
   Both are saved by the grace of the cross. [BAg]reed.

That does not mean that there are not differences. Jesus said I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. So there must be a difference. For one, we are under a different covenant. ** But it’s ALL grace and mercy of our God**.

1. Does Baptism have anything to do with salvation? Can the OT people be baptized?

1 Peter 3:
20
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21
This prefigured baptism,which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

According to Peter, baptism saves.

According to Jesus, you will not attain the kingdom without it. Says one understanding, which may be correct or may be incorrect, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

No. What I said was that anyone who departs from the Deposit of Faith that was once for all given to the Church has, to some degree, departed from the Truth. How far one departs may vary. Truth is much beyond what you and I think, or how we might perceive the evidence. the Truth is above all of our perceptions and opinions.

The Church is not at liberty to have “opinion”. the Church has been charged with maintaining the divine revelation, and therefore is not privileged to formulate opinion instead. The doctrine of the faith was imparted by Jesus to the Apostles, and they entrusted it to their successors.

While the Church may publish opinions on current events, when it comes to the doctrines of the faith, this cannot be done. The Church is not free to depart in any way, for any reason, at any time from what was entrusted to her by the Apostles.

Whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what has happened. You have reached the conclusion that God has revealed something to you (that baptism should not be offered to those who cannot repent and believe) that is opposite to what the Apostles believed and taught.

The Aposltes understood God’s intentions for baptism, and they left this understanding with the Church as part of the once for all deposit of faith.

While this is a true statement, it reveals a very deficient understanding of the nature of the Church. The church is much more than the compliment of individual believers now on earth. It is this deficient veiw of the church that often makes it impossible for our separated brethren to accept the gift of infallibility.

No Doki. the Teachings of the Apostles are not preserved by a few fallible individuals. They exist in the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which is inspired and inerrant like the scriptures. God does not allow His revelation of Himself to be dependent upon the misunderstanding of a few individuals.

Indeed, I think any modern poll will confirm this. Most American Catholics do not understand their faith, and most of them are in blatant rebellion against the teaching of the Church. I assert that the majority who call themselves “Catholic” are actually Protestants, but don’t realize that they have excommunicated themselves.

I’m not going to make comment on each of your points. It should be clear what both of our positions are. I must say you are very articulate and able to communicate very well the teachings/opinions of the CC. You have had some difficulty understanding me; that could be because I’m not very articulate or that you have preconceived ideas of what I must think; most probably a combination of the two.

 

[Dokimas]

Oh boy, here we go again another person who doesn’t know what salvation is. Just show me I am wrong by answering a simple question. How can I be saved according God of the Christian Bible?

When you use 1Peter and he tells you it is not the water that washes away dirt, you have to be blind to know he is trying to say he is specifically going out of the way to say he is not speaking of water baptism. The Ark was closed by who: God; AKA sealed by the HS and in god and escape the wrath through Christ, what is the wrath, the WATER…this is theonly example I will addresss in your post because if you can’t see something that simple; then where can one begin until you are visited by the HS, which you have not been based on this post and i’m tired of dealing with people pretending to know the word of God because the more they talk about it the more they prove the word of God when He said the natural man…ect. I do not condemn you; He works in a life on His timetable, but just don’t make the mistake of being self deceived, which if you honestly believe you have an understanding of the Word of God; you are self deceived at this moment in time and as mean as this sounds to you; my heart desires that you know God and more importantly that God knows you, but that is His call but He does give the Christian the ability to discern and you are easily discernible. You can take it two ways as offensive or as a challenge to reach out to God and pray He reaches out to you.

MS

It appears to me the tone here is condescending. I’m not sure that’s a good or right tactic to take. Would be good to share wisdom and truth without an attitude.​

When you share the Word you have good understanding often. When you personally attack, you negate the good you have communicated. Remember honey not vinagar.

I guess I should take the log out of my own eye.

 

[tweetymom]

adrift:
And? I do not go to please my husband, I go because that is his choice and I respect him. I worship God whereever I go. If I chose to go else where it would be fine with hubby, I chose to go to church with him.

 

[Dokimas]

And? I do not go to please my husband, I go because that is his choice and I respect him. I worship God whereever I go. If I chose to go else where it would be fine with hubby, I chose to go to church with him.

Sounds wonderful to me. ​

Very glad to make your aquaintance. :extrahappy:​

Glad you’re posting on CAF. ​

God bless you and hubby.

 

[tweetymom]

Sounds wonderful to me. ​

Very glad to make your aquaintance. :extrahappy:​

Glad you’re posting on CAF. ​

God bless you and hubby.

Thank you God Bless you and your family

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t read all the postings on this subject and probably will be making points already made.

1. There ae strong cases for baptizing babies but also for not baptizing babies. The debate existed within my family circle of mixed faiths.

 2. I argument for infant baptism has been well-stated already. Personally, I have been pleased to see Catholicism move away from the old tradition, which was that babies had to be baptized asap, otherwise if they should die they could not go to heaven. Limbo now has been classified as one acceptable school of theological thought, but not a dogma, as most people once thought it was.

 3. If we follow the example of Jesus, of course, he was an adult who most likely was immersed. Protestants who follow 'believers' baptism' cite his example.

 4. Remember, of course, that while some Protestants - notably Baptists - do not baptize infants, most Protestants do, whether Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, etc. In some denominations the decision is left to the parents.

 5. My own view is that God is far less concerned about the age and manner of baptism than more critical things. We are not - in my mind - saved by baptism, by sacraments, by church affiliation, by doctrinal purity, etc., but by the grace of God through faith.

 

[adrift]

Which one, Adrif? I’d like to look at it and if I’m being unkind I’d like to offer an apology. Thank you for your help.

The exchanges between you and Elvisman are unkind and unnecessary;. I mean the both of you. The one I responded to was IMO was a call to have others be unkind as well. It worked. Others did responded in an unkind manner. Including me. The discussion does not need personal attacks. You loose even if you are right. So I am sorry if I have crossed that line. I understand how hard it is to toe it.

 

[adrift]

Originally Posted by adrift View Post
Can the OT people be baptized?

They were under a different Covenant and were circumcised. Circumcision has been replaced under the New Covenant with Baptism.

Says one understanding, which may be correct or may be incorrect, IMO.

Truly you confuse me with this. I am not sure of what you are trying to convey. I was quoting Peter. Are you saying that his understanding may or may not be correct?

 

[adrift]

I haven’t read all the postings on this subject and probably will be making points already made.

Welcome to the discussion. I think you have summarized well

 2. I argument for infant baptism has been well-stated already. Personally, I have been pleased to see Catholicism move away from the old tradition, which was that babies had to be baptized asap, otherwise if they should die they could not go to heaven. Limbo now has been classified as one acceptable school of theological thought, but not a dogma, as most people once thought it was.

Catholicism has not moved away from the tradition of baptizing asap. Parents are the ones who have neglected their duties. Jesus said that you would not enter heaven without being baptized. He did not mention any exceptions.

 3. If we follow the example of Jesus, of course, he was an adult who most likely was immersed. Protestants who follow 'believers' baptism' cite his example.

As an infant Jesus was circumcised. Circumcision has been replaced with baptism. It is not clear from scripture if he was immersed. You say it is likely but I have heard others argue that it was unlikely.

 4. Remember, of course, that while some Protestants - notably Baptists - do not baptize infants, most Protestants do, whether Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, etc. In some denominations the decision is left to the parents.

What a good point.

 

[Dokimas]

I haven’t read all the postings on this subject and probably will be making points already made.

1. There ae strong cases for baptizing babies but also for not baptizing babies. The debate existed within my family circle of mixed faiths.

 2. I argument for infant baptism has been well-stated already. Personally, I have been pleased to see Catholicism move away from the old tradition, which was that babies had to be baptized asap, otherwise if they should die they could not go to heaven. Limbo now has been classified as one acceptable school of theological thought, but not a dogma, as most people once thought it was.

 3. If we follow the example of Jesus, of course, he was an adult who most likely was immersed. Protestants who follow 'believers' baptism' cite his example.

 4. Remember, of course, that while some Protestants - notably Baptists - do not baptize infants, most Protestants do, whether Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, etc. In some denominations the decision is left to the parents.

 5. My own view is that God is far less concerned about the age and manner of baptism than more critical things. We are not - in my mind - saved by baptism, by sacraments, by church affiliation, by doctrinal purity, etc., but by the grace of God through faith.

Thank you for your unput. I must say I ‘love’ #5.

 

[Dokimas]

The exchanges between you and Elvisman are unkind and unnecessary;. I mean the both of you. The one I responded to was IMO was a call to have others be unkind as well. It worked. Others did responded in an unkind manner. Including me. The discussion does not need personal attacks. You loose even if you are right. So I am sorry if I have crossed that line. I understand how hard it is to toe it.

I tend to respond in kind. That’s not the right way, but most likely my sin nature popping up, sorry to say.

 

[Dokimas]

They were under a different Covenant and were circumcised. Circumcision has been replaced under the New Covenant with Baptism.

Truly you confuse me with this. I am not sure of what you are trying to convey. I was quoting Peter. Are you saying that his understanding may or may not be correct?

What I was saying, if I remember the original post, is that you or I may not have understood Peter’s meaning. Peter wrote as the Holy Spirit gave him ability and in the words of the 1st century.

 

[Dokimas]

Welcome to the discussion. I think you have summarized well

Catholicism has not moved away from the tradition of baptizing asap. Parents are the ones who have neglected their duties. Jesus said that you would not enter heaven without being baptized. He did not mention any exceptions.

As an infant Jesus was circumcised. Circumcision has been replaced with baptism. It is not clear from scripture if he was immersed. You say it is likely but I have heard others argue that it was unlikely.

What a good point.

I take it you did not like Roy’s #5?

BTW, Jesus was circumcized and baptized. Seems one could not replace the other if He (and His disciples and all male Jew converts to the Messiah) had both done to Him.

 

[adrift]

What I was saying, if I remember the original post, is that you or I may not have understood Peter’s meaning. Peter wrote as the Holy Spirit gave him ability and in the words of the 1st century.

Yes.

Thank you for clarifying.

Of course, you have hit on exactly why Jesus would have left us with an infallible Church. Without it we would be blind not fully being able to trust in God.

 

[adrift]

I take it you did not like Roy’s #5?

BTW, Jesus was circumcized and baptized. Seems one could not replace the other if He (and His disciples and all male Jew converts to the Messiah) had both done to Him.

Why would you say I did not like #5?

Jesus was born into the Old Covenant. He came to fulfill it. Jesus brought the New Covenant. It was His will that all be Baptized. The Old Covenant was fulfilled and ushered in the New. Jesus baptism by John was not the same as the Baptism that Jesus brought. Read the scriptures of Jesus’ baptism.

I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.

Jesus was perfect and didn’t need to be baptizes that is why John objected.
To say that baptism could not replace is to misunderstand the two covenants, I believe.

 

[guanophore]

"Guanophore:

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?

Bad people can do good deeds. Mofia people often give lots of money to the church.

I am not talking about “good deeds”, Doki, I am talking about acting without error - infallible acts. When bad people do good deeds, they are not acting in ALL TRUTH as a person does when they are under divine intervention.
"Guanophore:

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

Who said men remember? We don’t proving we are not infallible.

The issue here is whether the Church founded by Christ can be infallible when she holds doctrine delivered to her by Christ. I said they can do this because of divine intervention. Jesus sent His HS to the Church, to remind them of what He told them. It is this HS that enables the Church to act infallibly when defining doctrine. You said that the gift of infallibility had nothing to do with defining the True Doctrines of the faith. So I asked you to explain how it could possibly be done apart from divine intervention. You just made my point again here. Since men are fallible, they MUST have divine intervention in order to accomplish a supernatural act, such as defining the true doctrines of the faith.

Where in scripture do you find evidence that men can act infallibly without supernatural intervention? ’

I can’t nor did I say it could happen.

Then do you accept that it does happen WITH divine intervention? Do you believe God has the power to prevent people from making a mistake?

**Adam was the original sinner; we have a sin nature passed down from him.  I'm not sure what the 'argument is here'.**

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. See my last comment, please.

The issue is the status of the eternal soul, or the nature of original sin. Catholics baptize babies because the apostles taught that everyone born into the world is under the death sentence of Adam. They taught that baptism washes away all sin, original, and personal. We don’t beleive babies can commit personal sin (it requires an act of the will) but that they are “condemned already” because they are in Adam. Baptism breaks the bond to Adam, and unites them to Christ.
"guanophore:

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.

** IMO, the Holy Spirit is the authorizer**. ** **

Yes, of course. Jesus was given all authority, and He sent the Apostles in His authority. He committed the message to them, then He told them to wait until they recevied the HS, then they went out to preach. They passed this authority on to their successors, until the present day. Many persons have departed from the authority of the Apostles, gone out and preached their own version of the message, believing that they were also authorized by the HS. The Apostles called them heretics.
Dokimas;6508163:

However, Paul cautioned us that not many should be teachers because teachers will be judged more severely for wrong teaching, leading people astray by their teaching. It’s one thing to lead ourselves astray, it’s another to lead others in the wrong direction.

Anyone who is acting outside the authority appointed by Christ is going in the wrong direction.

It’s a spiritual washing of the conscience by the Word and it is applied by the Holy Spirit.

It’s NOT ritual.

I do agree that the Apostles were made clean by the Word that Jesus spoke to them. However, He took physical water, and engaged in a RITUAL foot washing with the PHYSICAL water, telling the disciples that if they did not participate, “you have no part in me”. Why did He use PHYSICAL WATER IN RITUAL WASHING and equate it to having a part in HIm?

They were already “clean”.

What “part” in Him were they lacking prior to the ritual?

 **Anyone can have a ritual done to them.  Only by faith will God deal with the conscience.**

Indeed it is true that anyone can have a ritual “done to them”. Howeever, what Jesus did for the Apostles with the washing in water REQUIRED their participation. It was not done “to” them, but with them.

In the same way, baptism requires active participation. For infants, the participation comes from the parents and godparents, just as the active participation in circumcision for infants came from the parents.

For adults, baptism has always requried a profession of faith. This what is meant by “be baptized, washing away your sins, calling upon His name”. The candidate enters the water of baptism calling upon His name. Baptism is not valid without a profession of faith.
[/quote]

 

[Dokimas]

Yes.

Thank you for clarifying.

Of course, you have hit on exactly why Jesus would have left us with an infallible Church. Without it we would be blind not fully being able to trust in God.

I’m sorry I gave you the impresson I thought the church was infallible. The church body is humans and as all humans are prone to error, so the church is fallible. Thank God the Holy Spirit is infallible and is patient with us. Of cource we won’t get it perfect until Heaven, according to Paul in 1 Cor 13, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

I am not talking about “good deeds”, Doki, I am talking about acting without error - infallible acts. When bad people do good deeds, they are not acting in ALL TRUTH as a person does when they are under divine intervention.

The issue here is whether the Church founded by Christ can be infallible when she holds doctrine delivered to her by Christ. I said they can do this because of divine intervention. Jesus sent His HS to the Church, to remind them of what He told them. It is this HS that enables the Church to act infallibly when defining doctrine. You said that the gift of infallibility had nothing to do with defining the True Doctrines of the faith. So I asked you to explain how it could possibly be done apart from divine intervention. You just made my point again here. Since men are fallible, they MUST have divine intervention in order to accomplish a supernatural act, such as defining the true doctrines of the faith.

Where in scripture do you find evidence that men can act infallibly without supernatural intervention? ’

Then do you accept that it does happen WITH divine intervention? Do you believe God has the power to prevent people from making a mistake?

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. See my last comment, please.

The issue is the status of the eternal soul, or the nature of original sin. Catholics baptize babies because the apostles taught that everyone born into the world is under the death sentence of Adam. They taught that baptism washes away all sin, original, and personal. We don’t beleive babies can commit personal sin (it requires an act of the will) but that they are “condemned already” because they are in Adam. Baptism breaks the bond to Adam, and unites them to Christ.

Yes, of course. Jesus was given all authority, and He sent the Apostles in His authority. He committed the message to them, then He told them to wait until they recevied the HS, then they went out to preach. They passed this authority on to their successors, until the present day. Many persons have departed from the authority of the Apostles, gone out and preached their own version of the message, believing that they were also authorized by the HS. The Apostles called them heretics.

Anyone who is acting outside the authority appointed by Christ is going in the wrong direction.

It’s a spiritual washing of the conscience by the Word and it is applied by the Holy Spirit. It’s NOT ritual.

I do agree that the Apostles were made clean by the Word that Jesus spoke to them. However, He took physical water, and engaged in a RITUAL foot washing with the PHYSICAL water, telling the disciples that if they did not participate, “you have no part in me”. Why did He use PHYSICAL WATER IN RITUAL WASHING and equate it to having a part in HIm?

They were already “clean”.

What “part” in Him were they lacking prior to the ritual?

Indeed it is true that anyone can have a ritual “done to them”. Howeever, what Jesus did for the Apostles with the washing in water REQUIRED their participation. It was not done “to” them, but with them.

In the same way, baptism requires active participation. For infants, the participation comes from the parents and godparents, just as the active participation in circumcision for infants came from the parents.

For adults, baptism has always requried a profession of faith. This what is meant by “be baptized, washing away your sins, calling upon His name”. The candidate enters the water of baptism calling upon His name. Baptism is not valid without a profession of faith.

I’m sure you have a good idea how I’d respond. We aren’t really getting anywhere here. I respect your position, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions. I am encouraged by the ‘spirit’ of charity you display as you discuss witht he likes of me. Thank you.