any former mormons out there?

[christianley]

Ah, and also a Biblical and Church Historian and scholar. While it is true, (see, it’s ok to agree with YOU once in a while) that immersion was the predominant method for centuries, it was NOT THE ONLY ONE, even as New Testament events allude to, such as how did St Paul Baptize his jailer and cell mates, was a font or river running through his cell? Aspersion was practiced, especially with people who could not be immersed safely, like the very old, sick, children, or in cases of no large amounts of water available. But these Baptisms were never considered invalid, only by YOU and Joe and Moroni. The Western Church adopted it more and more out of need than anything else. Form and matter remained the same, but you wouldn’t know anything about that. What’s a sacrament to you, you use that term so loosely. Go look up the Catholic definition of a Sacrament, the Church that utilized them from the beginning of Christ’s ministry, but don’t suppose to explain here what is and isn’t a valid Sacrament when your ‘church’ doesn’t even know the meaning of it. You baptize people in proxy of the dead, with the dead able to accept or reject it. Scan that in you ‘search engine’ and get back to me on that one, will ya!

He could find one for that in 1 Corinthians 15:29:

“Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?”

 

[artist3189]

He could find one for that in 1 Corinthians 15:29:

“Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?”

Yes, I am aware of this passage and of the difficulty it has created with the Church fathers over the centuries, since no large evidence outside of this one passage, exists for this as a widespread practice. Paul may have simply been addressing a practice done around Corinth, no one knows, and it is what it is. The early church had a lot of different things going on depending on the culutre of the area. But the idea is, that a souls sits aware, waiting to ACCEPT or REJECT this baptism. Baptism is a Sacrament of Divine Grace. What is the point of the living accepting it for them only to have the dead reject it. If you do it in proxy, is the gift of grace given to that person or not? Baptism is once and final. Do the sprits of the dead have the free will to reject that which is given by God freely and stay outside of God grace and love? And why would they? Paul’s quote alludes to something more and it has never been shown to be anything other than a small incident to which he refers here. But again, it is what it is. But why reject it? Where is this theology from?

 

[christianley]

Yes, I am aware of this passage and of the difficulty it has created with the Church fathers over the centuries, since no large evidence outside of this one passage, exists for this as a widespread practice. Paul may have simply been addressing a practice done around Corinth, no one knows, and it is what it is. The early church had a lot of different things going on depending on the culutre of the area. But the idea is, that a souls sits aware, waiting to ACCEPT or REJECT this baptism. Baptism is a Sacrament of Divine Grace. What is the point of the living accepting it for them only to have the dead reject it. If you do it in proxy, is the gift of grace given to that person or not? Baptism is once and final. Do the sprits of the dead have the free will to reject that which is given by God freely and stay outside of God grace and love? And why would they? Paul’s quote alludes to something more and it has never been shown to be anything other than a small incident to which he refers here. But again, it is what it is. But why reject it? Where is this theology from?

You just asked if he could find something. He can.

 

[zerinus]

Polycarp knew the apostles. He was baptized as an infant when the apostles were still alive. I think the case is closed unless you are asserting that the apostle John and other early apostles were apostates.

I don’t expect you to understand; but I expect Nan to understand.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

That is a recent innovation. It has not always been the doctrine. Otherwise, why baptize infants anyway?

Oh, really? How about you cite me the Catholic source that backs you up?
(Hint: it doesn’t exist.)

In the primitive church infants were not baptized. That false sacrament became popular after the apostasy had gotten its hold.

Is an infant a member of the family? Do households have infant members? Did the Jews circumcise infants?

If infants are not to be baptized, why then does scripture say:

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

Col 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The New Testament is about as close as I think we can get to seeing what the primitive church did or did not do. But if you want to see what next generation of the primitive church REALLY did, read this: Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

In those days baptism was performed exclusively by immersion; and if you immerse an infant most likely you will kill him. An infant doesn’t know how to hold its breath while being immersed in water. He will try to breathe, and fill his lungs with water, and end up being dead!

zerinus
Obviously, you’ve never taken a Red Cross first aid class. The actual human physiology is this: if an adult and an infant are both trapped underwater, the infant has a higher survival chance than the adult because infants naturally close their mouths and cease breathing efforts. It’s a natural muscle reaction after spending nine months in the (guess what?) fluid-filled womb.

There are numerous recorded cases of infants and toddlers being trapped underwater for over 10 minutes who recovered immediately and completely. In cold water boat and car accidents, infants trapped underwater for up to 20 minutes recovered quickly and completely, while the adults they were with suffered permanent brain damage or died after only four minutes.

Childhood drownings are not due to breathing responses, but because children get trapped more easily than adults in places where they are unable to climb or swim out.

There are NO recorded cases anywhere of immersion baptism drowning an infant. There are, however, billions of mothers (myself included) who take their infants swimming and bathe those same infants without drowning them.

Honestly, Z, you’re getting more amusing all the time. Thanks for the good laugh.

Nan

 

[Nan_S]

Zerinius might want to read this:

issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm

Infant baptism seems to have been the norm from early in Christian history. Polycarp was born in 69 A.D. and was baptized as an infant. That’s a pretty early testament to infant baptism if you ask me.

Thanks for the absolutely superb link.

Z says he was laughing hysterically about it, but that must be because he didn’t actually read it. The only kind of hysterical anti-Catholic laughter your link generates remembles that of the demon in The Exorcist. http://www.smilieland.com/graphics/redhot.gif

Oh, I forgot. Silly me. Everything done after the last apostle died was part of the Great Apostacy… Hmm, wasn’t that the Apostle John dying in the 90s? And Polycarp was born some 25 years earlier? That would mean that … ohmygoodness… infant baptisms were practiced BEFORE the great apostacy???

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Oh, really? How about you cite me the Catholic source that backs you up?

Sure I will. These are from the link that Christianly had given:

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. . . .”

Augustine (354 - 430), writing about this time in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, declares, . . .

He further states, “If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” And again, “Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ.”

Is an infant a member of the family? Do households have infant members? Did the Jews circumcise infants?

If infants are not to be baptized, why then does scripture say:

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

Col 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The New Testament is about as close as I think we can get to seeing what the primitive church did or did not do. But if you want to see what next generation of the primitive church REALLY did, read this: Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

When it says “household” and “family” were baptized, it does not have to include infants. It means adult members of the family. Their cats and dogs were also part of the “household”. Did they baptize their cats and dogs as well? If I said that “Missionaries came to my house today and taught the gospel all of my family,” does that mean that they taught it to new born infants as well? How ridiculous can you get.

It’s a natural muscle reaction after spending nine months in the (guess what?) fluid-filled womb.

A baby in the womb is not only surrounded by fluid, but its lungs are also filled by the same fluid. Why would it need to close its mouth for anything?

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Thanks for the absolutely superb link.

Z says he was laughing hysterically about it, but that must be because he didn’t actually read it. The only kind of hysterical anti-Catholic laughter your link generates remembles that of the demon in The Exorcist. http://www.smilieland.com/graphics/redhot.gif

Oh, I forgot. Silly me. Everything done after the last apostle died was part of the Great Apostacy… Hmm, wasn’t that the Apostle John dying in the 90s? And Polycarp was born some 25 years earlier? That would mean that … ohmygoodness… infant baptisms were practiced BEFORE the great apostacy???

Nan

You are very much mistaken my dear lady. The earliest quotes given in that link, from Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, do not prove infant baptism. Here they are:

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3).

This does not prove that he was baptized as an infant by a long shot.

Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1:15).

Neither does this one, by any stretch of the imagination. All our kids in the LDS Church are “disciples of Christ” since childhood. They learn about Him, and learn how to obey Him, in nursery and Primary before they become adults. That don’t mean they were baptized in infancy.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

This don’t prove infant baptisms neither. We too believe that all mankind, including infants, are saved through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. That don’t mean that they are baptized in infancy. You guys must be getting really desperate to propose such silly evidences for your false arguments.

Those quotes that really do teach infant baptisms, and teach that infants cannot be saved without baptisms, come from a much later period, when the Apostasy had become more firmly established.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

A baby in the womb is not only surrounded by fluid, but its lungs are also filled by the same fluid. Why would it need to close its mouth for anything?

zerinus

I had an immersion baptism as an adult. They didn’t hold me under water. It was a quick dip. Certainly not long enough to cause drowning. Do Mormons actually hold people under water for some period of time during their invalid baptisms?

 

[Allweather]

When it says “household” and “family” were baptized, it does not have to include infants. It means adult members of the family. Their cats and dogs were also part of the “household”. Did they baptize their cats and dogs as well? If I said that “Missionaries came to my house today and taught the gospel all of my family,” does that mean that they taught it to new born infants as well? How ridiculous can you get.zerinus

I’m being more amazed every day, Zerinus, at how ridiculous YOU and your handlers can get in your own arguments. Cats and dogs. Indeed.

And Mormon missionaries don’t teach the Gospel. They don’t know the gospel, so how could they teach it to anyone?

We all know what household means. You Mormons are confused because you are hardheaded and refuse to submit to proper ecclesiastical authority, that established by Jesus upon the Apostles who, through succession and through bishops and Popes, for 2000 years and going have passed the true gospel of Jesus Christ on to us.

This hardheaded refusal, combined with sinful carnality, is what has caused Mormons to fall into such obnoxious behaviors as polygamy, a practice Mormons still uphold and expect to practice again someday. Earlier, Zerinus gave a rather passionate defense of Mormon polygamy, during which he made the following statement to me in #485:

""That is completely false. “Renouncing polygamy” was not a sign of “changing doctine”. The doctrine remains valid. Only the praqctice has discontinued in keeping with the law of the land. That is not changing scripturte or doctrine.

zerinus""

So you see, ladies, Mormon men are still thinking about polygamy. Mormon women, that little returned missionary you’ve got your heart set on? Imagine him in bed with other women, because that’s what HE’S thinking about.

 

[christianley]

I had an immersion baptism as an adult. They didn’t hold me under water. It was a quick dip. Certainly not long enough to cause drowning. Do Mormons actually hold people under water for some period of time during their invalid baptisms?

Mormons have witnesses there to make sure you are completely immersed – even your clothes. If a person’s clothing floats to the top they have to do it all over again. They don’t hold people under the water for long.

When I was baptized into the Catholic Church I knelt in a baptismal font and the water was up the my neck. The priest then took water and poured water over my head three times (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). I was completely soaked and completely wet when I stepped out of the baptismal font. The babies are immersed except for their heads and water is poured over their heads. The symbolism of going down into the grave, being washed and being resurrected out of the grave is perfectly preserved in the ceremony in my parish.

 

[Allweather]

Yes, and Mormons aren’t alone insisting on immersion baptism as the only type that could be considered valid. Zerinus’ arguments seem to me exactly, or at least very, very similar, to typical Baptist (protestant) arguments in favor of immersion-only. Having been a member of this type of Protestant church, I know that this is one of their attacks upon Catholicism, as well as other Protestant churches that practice non-immersion, if only as an option, as Catholics do. So, this isn’t really about baptism, but is an attack on Catholicism.

Besides, this is an argument that has been going on for centuries, and was settled long, long ago to everyone’s satisfaction. Mormons and Protestants: still reinventing the wheel, and yet coming up with something rather square.

 

[zerinus]

Mormons have witnesses there to make sure you are completely immersed – even your clothes. If a person’s clothing floats to the top they have to do it all over again. They don’t hold people under the water for long.

When I was baptized into the Catholic Church I knelt in a baptismal font and the water was up the my neck. The priest then took water and poured water over my head three times (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). I was completely soaked and completely wet when I stepped out of the baptismal font. The babies are immersed except for their heads and water is poured over their heads. The symbolism of going down into the grave, being washed and being resurrected out of the grave is perfectly preserved in the ceremony in my parish.

That is a weird kind of symbolism of burial. Do Catholics bury people with their heads sticking out of their graves?

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Yes, and Mormons aren’t alone insisting on immersion baptism as the only type that could be considered valid. Zerinus’ arguments seem to me exactly, or at least very, very similar, to typical Baptist (protestant) arguments in favor of immersion-only. Having been a member of this type of Protestant church, I know that this is one of their attacks upon Catholicism, as well as other Protestant churches that practice non-immersion, if only as an option, as Catholics do. So, this isn’t really about baptism, but is an attack on Catholicism.

Besides, this is an argument that has been going on for centuries, and was settled long, long ago to everyone’s satisfaction. Mormons and Protestants: still reinventing the wheel, and yet coming up with something rather square.

Even most Protestants baptize infants. They understand there is a union of Christ and the individual in baptism which is even important for innocent infants. In the case of Mormonism it is only an excuse for inventing an apostasy that really never happened.

As for Zerinius, he simply isn’t credible as a Mormon apologist. I will simply try to ignore his postings from this point forward.

 

[Allweather]

That is a weird kind of symbolism of burial. Do Catholics bury people with their heads sticking out of their graves?

zerinus

Bam! Mormon logic according to the Zerinus Team. Or, was it Zeromus?

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

Baptism is a covenant between God and His people, no different than circumcision between the Jews and God was under the old covenant, infants were circumsized on the 8th day receiving the old covenant, obviously they were not making a “heart felt decision” to live for Yahweh, or to make a decision to enter into the covenant, no it was done for them at birth, but later they would need to prove their commitment by living out the covenant they received at birth. Also any slaves or travelers with the Jews could be circumsized and receive the covenant essentially just by proxy of being in the household of a Jew and through no decision of their own. What is the big deal about infant Baptism? All the reasons as to why not, and insiting on complete immersion sound very pharasaical.

History is definitely on the Catholic position of infant Baptism as are the scriptures, I wouldn’t fret too much, my daughter is being baptized on February 10th where she will enter into Christ’s Church, and I will be the proud Papa…

 

[Allweather]

Even most Protestants baptize infants. They understand there is a union of Christ and the individual in baptism which is even important for innocent infants. In the case of Mormonism it is only an excuse for inventing an apostasy that really never happened.

That is true, but there are some Protestant denominations, especially the evangelicals and fundamentalists, which are the fastest-growing and most influential in the U.S. today, who make immersion baptism one of the key features of their attacks upon Catholicism, as well as upon their Protestant brethren who allow for non-immersion. You are absolutely right in saying that the only reason Mormons make such a big deal out of it is to try to make a case for the UNIVERSAL apostasy.

As for Zerinius, he simply isn’t credible as a Mormon apologist. I will simply try to ignore his postings from this point forward.

Also true. The Zerinus Team puts on a good show, but the performance has no depth. It is all pornography and jokes, “Take my wife, please!” And when a Mormon says, “Take my wife, please!” you can be sure he really means that literally, LOL.

 

[truthsilence]

Congratulations, Ecce_homo.

 

[artist3189]

You are very much mistaken my dear lady. The earliest quotes given in that link, from Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, do not prove infant baptism. Here they are:

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3).

This does not prove that he was baptized as an infant by a long shot.

This don’t prove infant baptisms neither. We too believe that all mankind, including infants, are saved through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. That don’t mean that they are baptized in infancy. You guys must be getting really desperate to propose such silly evidences for your false arguments.

Those quotes that really do teach infant baptisms, and teach that infants cannot be saved without baptisms, come from a much later period, when the Apostasy had become more firmly established.

zerinus

Someone help me here, I am really confused, Zerinus uses a quote above which states that Polycarp “was baptized since he was an infant” and Zerinus says it DOESN’T prove that Polycarp was baptized as an infant? Did I misread that? Now that is really confusing. Zerinus stated that ‘infant baptism’, was a recent innovation, exactly what’s does ‘recent’ mean? 10 years ago, 50 years ago, 1500 years ago, 1900 years ago? He quotes Justin Martyr who simple states “from childhood”. Then Z. says, it doesn’t PROVE infants were baptized, but neither does it DISPROVE it, but surely it points more proof than disproof, yes? Besides, baptism became the New Covenant version of circumcision, which was always done on infants. I can’t see why the LDS would stand so adamantly on this subject when all antidotal and most concrete information points to infant baptism being done if they so choose. There certainly was no rule against it. And as far as it as it being used for the remission of sin, if you don’t subscribe to the fall of Adam as the introduction of sin into the world for ALL mankind, and Christ as the only one fully born without sin, then I guess you can dismiss that doctrine. As for me, I can’t begin to understand Gods plan,so why take that chance! The Church has the divine grace through the Holy Spirit, the teaching authority, and the wisdom of understanding. Every person on earth has there own opinions, including Zerinus, but that’s ALL they are. Good luck with that

 

[christianley]

Someone help me here, I am really confused, Zerinus uses a quote above which states that Polycarp “was baptized since he was an infant” and Zerinus says it DOESN’T prove that Polycarp was baptized as an infant? Did I misread that? Now that is really confusing. Zerinus stated that ‘infant baptism’, was a recent innovation, exactly what’s does ‘recent’ mean? 10 years ago, 50 years ago, 1500 years ago, 1900 years ago? He quotes Justin Martyr who simple states “from childhood”. Then Z. says, it doesn’t PROVE infants were baptized, but neither does it DISPROVE it, but surely it points more proof than disproof, yes? Besides, baptism became the New Covenant version of circumcision, which was always done on infants. I can’t see why the LDS would stand so adamantly on this subject when all antidotal and most concrete information points to infant baptism being done if they so choose. There certainly was no rule against it. And as far as it as it being used for the remission of sin, if you don’t subscribe to the fall of Adam as the introduction of sin into the world for ALL mankind, and Christ as the only one fully born without sin, then I guess you can dismiss that doctrine. As for me, I can’t begin to understand Gods plan,so why take that chance! The Church has the divine grace through the Holy Spirit, the teaching authority, and the wisdom of understanding. Every person on earth has there own opinions, including Zerinus, but that’s ALL they are. Good luck with that

I think the problem is that Polycarp states he had been a Christian for 86 years, not that he had been baptized 86 years before. It’s probably a valid point.