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

[adrift]

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.

I am sorry that I left you the impression that you said the Church was infallible. What I said is that you hit upon the reason WHY that was so. Everyone claims to have the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit was only promised to His Church.

Polycarp was first century martyr. A direct pupil of the apostle John, Polycarp lived between 70 and 155 A.D.

9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?

Note he says that he was a Christian for 86 years which means he would have been baptized as an infant.

 

[Dokimas]

I am sorry that I left you the impression that you said the Church was infallible. What I said is that you hit upon the reason WHY that was so. Everyone claims to have the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit was only promised to His Church.

Polycarp was first century martyr. A direct pupil of the apostle John, Polycarp lived between 70 and 155 A.D.

Note he says that he was a Christian for 86 years which means he would have been baptized as an infant.

I love Polycarp’s quote. I would hope I could make the same statement if someone tried to force me to reject Jesus. I did not see where he said he was baptized as a child. I understand your beliefs mean you must interprets Polycarp to have been baptized as an infant. BTW, do you find it interesting Polycarp said he was already saved before he was in Heaven. Seems we are saved in this live, according to Polycarp.

 

[guanophore]

NO! You did not finish that verse. It also speaks of people ‘far off’. IMO, that speaks to the understanding that baptism wasn’t just for the present repenters but for all those that repented after for all times, including their children.

I agree. But how do you derive from that passage that, had the listeners had their children in their arms at the time, they would not be admitted for baptism?

It does have the sense of “your children, and your children’s children”. However, where do you get that it does not apply to children immediately?

 

[PeaceSerenity]

I love Polycarp’s quote. I would hope I could make the same statement if someone tried to force me to reject Jesus. I did not see where he said he was baptized as a child. I understand your beliefs mean you must interprets Polycarp to have been baptized as an infant. BTW, do you find it interesting Polycarp said he was already saved before he was in Heaven. Seems we are saved in this live, according to Polycarp.

He was born in AD 69 which means that when he died in the year AD 155, he was 86 years old. In order to have been a Christian for 86 years, he had to be baptized as an infant

155 = 69 - 86

 

[Dokimas]

I am sorry that I left you the impression that you said the Church was infallible. What I said is that you hit upon the reason WHY that was so. Everyone claims to have the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit was only promised to His Church.

Polycarp was first century martyr. A direct pupil of the apostle John, Polycarp lived between 70 and 155 A.D.

Note he says that he was a Christian for 86 years which means he would have been baptized as an infant.

There is some discrepancy as to when Polycarp was born and died. Born in 69 or 70 AD. Died maybe as late as 167AD. This makes more sense making him 97 when he died. This would make him 11 when he started to follow Jesus.

 

[lastinline]

Hmmm…

(3*sqrt76.9cubed/1.23e3)+.743-PI! (apple of course)

 

[Dokimas]

I agree. But how do you derive from that passage that, had the listeners had their children in their arms at the time, they would not be admitted for baptism?

It does have the sense of “your children, and your children’s children”. However, where do you get that it does not apply to children immediately?

Acts 2:
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”​

The promise is the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is an order to receive the gift. First must be to repent. This promise is for those Peter was speaking to remembering the qualifier - Repent. Peter said this promise would apply to their children and those afar off (those coming in the future). The same qualifier would be for anyone to be givent he gift - repent. When the children repented, the promise would be theirs. The verse doesn’t give the order be baptized then later repent (when you’re older).

 

[Dokimas]

Hmmm…

(3*sqrt76.9cubed/1.23e3)+.743-PI! (apple of course)

How could we have gotten by without such wisdom.

 

[lastinline]

How could we have gotten by without such wisdom.

I was thinking the same thing!

 

[Dokimas]

I was thinking the same thing!

Saving best until lastinline.

 

[Dokimas]

I was thinking the same thing!

I was noticing your prophile. Interesting: you live in a song. I saw what you are after 5 PM; wondering what you are before 5PM? Glad to see you’re not interested in cow plops (unless you’re a zoologist - or poopologist).

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

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. **

The point I am trying to make is that the Apostles did not separate the Action of the HS from the ritual water bath. That is why it is called the “bath/washing of regeneration”. The water itself cannot regenerate (cause to be born again) anyone. Only the HS can do that. Jesus chose to accomplish this THROUGH WATER. That is why the Apostle says “baptism…now saves you”.
"Guanophore:

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.

Well, either Jesus kept His promises to lead the Church into all Truth, or He did not. It is really quite outside of any one persons’ opinion, don’t you think?
"Guanophore:

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.**

Peter was not teaching, but behaving hypocritcally. In fact, he was acting against the infallible teaching that he himself had given to the Church! God showed Peter that the Gentiles were to be part of the Church. Peter then communicated God’s plan for the Gentiles to the other Apostles. The council of Jerusalem then made an infallible decree about the Gentiles. Though Peter knew the infallible Truth that had been revealed to the Church, he was not acting in accordance with it. He was withdrawing from the Gentiles to keep from making waves with the Jews. Paul confronted him on it.

This is a good scriptural example of the gift of infallibility. It means that fallible humans can define eternal truth from God. This does not mean they can necessarily act perfectly in accordance with the Truth that has been revealed. Infallibility does not mean impeccability. Infaliiblility does not mean the individual people are without error. It meanst hat the doctrine (Teachings of Christ) preserved in the Church are without error. How can anything that comes from God be erroneous?

**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.**  ;)

Perhaps you have imagined this definition in your own mind so that you can reject the claims of the Church, but this is not how the Church defines it. The gift of infallibility for the Church means that the Church will not make errors when teaching in doctrine and morals. It does NOT mean that the people doing the teaching cannot make mistakes.

If you were to relinquish your personal definintion, and look at the Church claims objectively, considering their definition, how might that change anything?
"Guanophore:

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.

Oh, it was not an assumption. It was my take on your post. Since you did not include the quote markers in your reply, I was not able to locate it. It came across as looking for a church that had those qualities.

 

[guanophore]

 **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.**

So you have the authority to evaluate what is heresy so long as it is a “salvation issue”?

 **WRONG**.   **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.**.

No, I do not. In order to qualify as a heretic, one must have received the Apostolic faith, then willfully departed from it. For most of our separated brethren, this is not the case. They have received doctrines that have departed continuiously for the last 500 years. Only the original reformers can be charged with heresy.

It is clear that you have never received the Apostolic faith.

Does being a heretic mean one has to do it consciously? Or is it the teaching that is heretical?

Yes. Heresy requires willful, conscious, obstinant denial. I just don’t see how you can qualify.

The doctrine itself represents a heresy. Just like the Mormon’s idea that there is not three persons in one God is a heresy.

 **If what is true?**

I would like to strongly urge you to start using the quote references. If you click on the little blue triangle next to the quote, it will take you back to the spot where it came from. It is a good way to keep track of the conversation.

  If the Truth is not found in their writings (do**n't throw out the baby with the bathwater**), then all the first generation of the Apostles fell away from the faith immediately.  **

If you agree that there may be something valid in the writings of the early fathers, how do you account for the fact that they practiced infant baptism? How do you account for the fact that there was no outcry from the Church, as there was every other time someone departed from Apostolic practices and doctrines?
Dokimas;6506966:

 Wrong; however there were false teaching going around during the first century

**

Exactly. If Jesus did not give the Church the ability and responsibility to discern the difference, how can you trust anything you hear or read? How can you trust your bible?

 ** If you believe baptizing babies [or not baptizing babies] is an apostate teaching.  I'm NOT willing to entertain that judgement.**

In fact, you have espoused it. The reason the Catholic Church baptizes infants is because this is the teaching we received from the Apostles.

If the Church went off the rails after the book of Revelation was written, and the last Apostle died, then there was mass apostasy. All the Churches founded by the Aposltes and all their successors, all over the known world baptized infants from the first century until the 1600’s. That is a lot of apostasy, don’t you think? This is why I think you must believe Jesus was weak, or disinterested. He was unable to convince people of good faith, who claimed to be His followers, that they were doing something He did not approve.

  **What are you speaking about?**

You can follow the links from the quotes back to see what is being quoted, and it’s context. I have not been able to do this with your posts, because you do not include them.

  **NOT TRUE**

. ** We are all prone to error**. Some error has eternal consequences and many do not habe eternal consequences

I agree with both of these statements. This is the reason that the church needs the gift of infallibility. However, you have not answered my question. If the second generation of Chrsitians were all baptizing infants, then they either departed from the Apostolic Teaching, or the Apostles taught them wrong.

In either case, the powerful Jesus that appears in the book of Revelation is gone somewhere, or lost his nerve, because the corrections He gave to the Church He could no longer give? He was unable to pursuade His Church that they were getting off the rails?
He lost His ability to appear to anyone, or to get through to the prophets and teachers that He did not approve of infant baptism? For 2000 years!?

/** Romans 14 weaker vs stronger believers.**

**Both are totally accepted by Jesus but the stronger are cautioned against judging the weaker. **

So, what are you saying here? The stronger believers overpowered the weak, departed from Apostolic Teaching by beginning to baptize infants as soon as the last Apostle died?

Or, are you saying that weaker followers baptize infants because they don’t know any better, and that is “ok” with Jesus?

 

[adrift]

There is some discrepancy as to when Polycarp was born and died. Born in 69 or 70 AD. Died maybe as late as 167AD. This makes more sense making him 97 when he died. This would make him 11 when he started to follow Jesus.

Do you have a resource for this?

 

[guanophore]

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”​

The promise is the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is an order to receive the gift.

No, there is an instruction given to the persons’ who asked the question. Peter preached, and those that heard were convicted. They asked him what they must do to be saved. He instructed them to repent.

The promise was made for them, and their children. Children need not/cannot repent.

However, Peter said “be baptized EVERY ONE”.

those who can repent, need to do so, but the promise is not witheld from their children just because they are too young, any more than circumcision was withheld from the children of Israel. Adults had to convert and decide to be circumcised. Parents brought their children, who were circumcised based upon the parents’ faith.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you.
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

The slaves and the children are included in the household.

First must be to repent.

Indeed, the adults who posed the question must.

This promise is for those Peter was speaking to remembering the qualifier - Repent. Peter said this promise would apply to their children and those afar off (those coming in the future). The same qualifier would be for anyone to be givent he gift - repent. When the children repented, the promise would be theirs. The verse doesn’t give the order be baptized then later repent (when you’re older).

Not this verse, certainly, but there is a wealth of Apostolic instruction that relates to living a life of continual repentance after baptism. Children are to be brought up in the discipline and fear of the Lord. In the OT, this began with circumcision, in the new, with Baptism.

 

[lastinline]

I was noticing your prophile. Interesting: you live in a song. I saw what you are after 5 PM; wondering what you are before 5PM? Glad to see you’re not interested in cow plops (unless you’re a zoologist - or poopologist).

No no no…I live where the deer and the canteloupe play!!!

And don’t make fun of poopology! It’s a 7 year college course. I can tell you where any kind of poop came from just by looking at it. Squirrels…bears…deer…American rhino. I can even tell the difference between male and female mole scat!

 

[Dokimas]

So you have the authority to evaluate what is heresy so long as it is a “salvation issue”?

No, I do not. In order to qualify as a heretic, one must have received the Apostolic faith, then willfully departed from it. For most of our separated brethren, this is not the case. They have received doctrines that have departed continuiously for the last 500 years. Only the original reformers can be charged with heresy.

It is clear that you have never received the Apostolic faith.

Yes. Heresy requires willful, conscious, obstinant denial. I just don’t see how you can qualify.

The doctrine itself represents a heresy. Just like the Mormon’s idea that there is not three persons in one God is a heresy.

I would like to strongly urge you to start using the quote references. If you click on the little blue triangle next to the quote, it will take you back to the spot where it came from. It is a good way to keep track of the conversation.

If you agree that there may be something valid in the writings of the early fathers, how do you account for the fact that they practiced infant baptism? How do you account for the fact that there was no outcry from the Church, as there was every other time someone departed from Apostolic practices and doctrines?

Exactly. If Jesus did not give the Church the ability and responsibility to discern the difference, how can you trust anything you hear or read? How can you trust your bible?

In fact, you have espoused it. The reason the Catholic Church baptizes infants is because this is the teaching we received from the Apostles.

If the Church went off the rails after the book of Revelation was written, and the last Apostle died, then there was mass apostasy. All the Churches founded by the Aposltes and all their successors, all over the known world baptized infants from the first century until the 1600’s. That is a lot of apostasy, don’t you think? This is why I think you must believe Jesus was weak, or disinterested. He was unable to convince people of good faith, who claimed to be His followers, that they were doing something He did not approve.

You can follow the links from the quotes back to see what is being quoted, and it’s context. I have not been able to do this with your posts, because you do not include them.

I agree with both of these statements. This is the reason that the church needs the gift of infallibility. However, you have not answered my question. If the second generation of Chrsitians were all baptizing infants, then they either departed from the Apostolic Teaching, or the Apostles taught them wrong.

In either case, the powerful Jesus that appears in the book of Revelation is gone somewhere, or lost his nerve, because the corrections He gave to the Church He could no longer give? He was unable to pursuade His Church that they were getting off the rails?
He lost His ability to appear to anyone, or to get through to the prophets and teachers that He did not approve of infant baptism? For 2000 years!?

So, what are you saying here? The stronger believers overpowered the weak, departed from Apostolic Teaching by beginning to baptize infants as soon as the last Apostle died?

Or, are you saying that weaker followers baptize infants because they don’t know any better, and that is “ok” with Jesus?

Anyone that says Jesus is not the Christ is, according to the Bible, an anti-christ. I’d say that person is heretical in teaching, wouldn’t you?

The rest I’ll not bother commenting on nor will I read at this time because there really doesn’t seem any way to say what I believe without some destortion (as you’re first question implies a destortion of what I said) or without going round and round and round. At this time, I’d rather just be your friend and let it be at that. Invite me to go to church with you and I’d love to. Let’s go for a coffee and I’d love to (milk, no cream or sugar - NO fancy coffee either). Let’s go and seek those who don’t know Jesus and tell them about Him. The rest of this stuff is too much for my pea brain to do over and over and over again.

 

[Dokimas]

No no no…I live where the deer and the canteloupe play!!!

And don’t make fun of poopology! It’s a 7 year college course. I can tell you where any kind of poop came from just by looking at it. Squirrels…bears…deer…American rhino. I can even tell the difference between male and female mole scat!

I know where you live and that’s in a song called, ‘Home on the Range’.​

Female chat is higher pitched … oops that’s scat. Sorry.

 

[adrift]

I love Polycarp’s quote. I would hope I could make the same statement if someone tried to force me to reject Jesus. I did not see where he said he was baptized as a child. I understand your beliefs mean you must interprets Polycarp to have been baptized as an infant. BTW, do you find it interesting Polycarp said he was already saved before he was in Heaven. Seems we are saved in this live, according to Polycarp.

Not quite what he said.

can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?

Jesus has saved us. He is our savior. That doesn’t mean we are saved before he was in heaven. Before Jesus died on the cross the relationship between God and man had been damaged. That had to be repaired. That repair is the salvation that Polycarp is speaking. Our relationship is restored but not assured. Remember Paul said that he works out is salvation in fear and trembling.

In the Founding of Christendom by Warren H. Carroll, he says that in 155 or 156 he was martyred at a festival honoring the emperor in Smyrna. He acknowledges that there is a debate with the majority in favor of 155. So although you can argue a later date, it is a minority view.

 

[adrift]

I know where you live and that’s in a song called, ‘Home on the Range’.​

Female chat is higher pitched … oops that’s scat. Sorry.

I was puzzled by his reference and wondered if he deliberately said canteloupe (cantaloupe) instead of antelope.