S
Seraphim73
Guest
It was universally practiced for 1500 years. No reason to put it down.
- Status
E
eltoro89
Guest
Indeed, and still the most widely practiced form of baptism in the world.
A
andrewstx
Guest
S
Seraphim73
Guest
In fact everyone except the Protestants, and indeed some Protestants, practice infant baptism.
B
Blain1
Guest
S
Seraphim73
Guest
E
eltoro89
Guest
I have to echo seraphim. To me, this whole non denominational movement is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I’m not insinuating that you are ignorant, I don’t believe that to be the case. The very fact that you are here illustrates otherwise.
What I mean by that, is the nondenominational movement is predicated on the belief that sola-scriptura and sola fide are valid, but it’s taken a step further because not only do they make the error in those judgements, they then have no further guiding compass with which to draw ANY conclusion. If everyone is free to call themselves by what ever they want and to form their own theology based on what htey believe is in their heart, then how do we determine where to draw the line?
I think many non-denominational protestants believe that they are doing something new, that they are being more enlightened by not being attached to a label. The truth is, taking the bible and forming your own assumptions based on it is nothing new at all, that’s why there are like 33,000 protestant denominations.
I feel like I’m being really blunt here. I’m not trying to be, it’s just… this thinking is dangerous.
What I mean by that, is the nondenominational movement is predicated on the belief that sola-scriptura and sola fide are valid, but it’s taken a step further because not only do they make the error in those judgements, they then have no further guiding compass with which to draw ANY conclusion. If everyone is free to call themselves by what ever they want and to form their own theology based on what htey believe is in their heart, then how do we determine where to draw the line?
I think many non-denominational protestants believe that they are doing something new, that they are being more enlightened by not being attached to a label. The truth is, taking the bible and forming your own assumptions based on it is nothing new at all, that’s why there are like 33,000 protestant denominations.
I feel like I’m being really blunt here. I’m not trying to be, it’s just… this thinking is dangerous.
po18guy
Well-known member
You heard about Catholics baptizing infants, hmmmm?
Did that person also tell you about the:
Eastern Orthodox,
Oriental Orthodox,
Anglicans,
Lutherans,
Presbyterians,
Methodists,
certain Nazarenes,
United Church of Christ (UCC),
Moravian Church,
Metropolitan Community Church,
Wesleyans,
Episcopalians, and
Reformed churches?
Who also baptize infants?
I am guessing probably not. The Evangelical and Fundamentalist world doesn’t talk about that very much. So, rather than ask Catholics, why not first ask non-Catholics for their reasons?
P
Porknpie
Guest
Blain, do you attend a weekly Church service or are you staying away from organized religion?
Not sure about the word hate but the gist of what you say is very Catholic.
Great. Per the subject of the thread, the earliest Christians baptized babies.
Amen
The best that we can do is to follow his command to love one another.
It’s Traditions, not traditions: the faith handed down from the apostles. The bible actually says that we we are to call “no man father”, not just the Pope.
But we do understand that Jesus was making a point here about the pharisees, that they were building themselves up. It was a hyperbole. He’s wasn’t saying not to call anyone 'father", certainly not your own father.
Similarly, with Mary. No where in the bible does it say that we should not or can not pray to Mary (thereby asking for her intercession for us to God). In fact, the bible says that we should pray for each other. In doing so we build up the Body of Christ and show love for one another. The saints in heaven are in a unique position … .they are righteous… and the prayers of a righteous man avail much. Mary is not just any Saint, she is the Mother of our God. And what son would refuse to listen to his mother?
J
JoeT777
Guest
A baby can’t sin; sin must be a voluntary immoral act. It’s been my experience that infants don’t have ‘voluntary’ acts, nor do they even have a concept of moral. A baby can receive the punishment of another’s sin simply from being born. Take for example a child who is born during a war. His King and ruler then loose the war and the entire nation is made to pay reparations. We can be assured that a baby never picked up a weapon and conducted war, yet he will be part of the punishment, maybe for a life time. The child doesn’t bear the guilt, he never lifted a finger yet he receives the punishment. It’s in this sense that we say every person born after Adam has this original sin.
Original sin is a privation of an original justice; or as some say a privation of grace. Prior to the fall, Adam stood before God as a just man. Adam had no need of salvation as he was created good, he was sanctified. Original justice accompanying Adam’s creation was a moral quality or habit that perfectly joined Adam’s will to an enlightened understanding of the will of God. Justice is inexplicably joined to the other Cardinal virtues; justice gives the rights to honorable prudence, temperance, and fortitude in moral acts. All acts are for the glory and honor of God, thus without justice any act is avaricious. It could be said Adam ‘abided’ in God, much like we are invited to abide in Christ partaking in the Eucharist. [John 6:57]. [Notice the use of the words virtues, honor, justice, etc. these have give spiritual strength]
We find then that the original man was created with a soul that was perfectly joined to the intellect and united with the will of God, overflowing with the knowledge of truth; the intellect functioned in the light of God’s will disciplining the lower appetites through reason alone. This original man could ‘reason’ why he should honor God, be just, be prudent, and be strong in his virtuous graces simply because he knew God, spoke with God, and befriended by God. However, because of an unjust act (you might say an act of war) we now bear the just punishment for the sin of one man.
Baptism then becomes a washing away of punishment allowing us to receive sanctifying grace (we are marked with the seal of faith, saved as others say). But, all of those virtuous strengths that Adam once had are not necessarily restored all at once; we’re left with ‘disordered desires’, (there is a big word for this disorder, “concupiscence” - I have to look it up every time). Baptism opens us to other actual graces wherein the means are provided to overcome concupiscence through the sacraments of the Church.
St. Paul compared the seal of Baptism to the seal of circumcision, an indelible mark. Jewish fathers had responsibility to have their sons circumcised by the 8th day after birth. It was a mark that identified the child a member of the community. Likewise, the seal of Baptism is a responsibility of the parents as well as an indelible mark identifying the child as a member of the Kingdom of God, something that will never be taken away - however in sin he can surrender it.
JoeT
Z
zz912
Guest
Welcome.
I can understand your confusion, as I grew up Baptist and we didn’t have infant baptism.
A good way to understand it is to reflect on EXACTLY what Jesus meant by His creation of the New Covenant. For several thousand years, God prepared His people to be ready for the New Covenant, by giving them first the Old Covenant. How were Israelites made members of the Old Covenant? They were circumcized, and this was done when they were 8 DAYS old. Did those babies agree to the covenant or make a personal declaration? Of course not. Their parents made it for them. Their entrance into the Old Covenant was actually completed when the actual circumcision was completed, not before. It wasn’t done by feeling, prayer, or declarations. Their entrance was actually enacted by the event happening.
So how are we made members of the New Covenant? Scripture tells us it is by baptism, which now saves us. So the question is this: Is the New Covenant more restrictive than the Old Covenant, or is it more open to everyone? Easy answer, it is open to everyone. So we should expect that entrance into the Covenant would be at least as open as the entrance into the OC. Since the OC allowed entrance at 8 days old, why should infants NOT be baptized in the New Covenant?
Z
zz912
Guest
Ask as many questions as you like. There are no questions you can ask which have not already been asked and will be happily answered again! (Do make sure though to separate your questions into separate threads to each topic can be thoroughly discussed and answered and so no question is left unattended or unanswered.
As others noted, nope, we don’t worship Mary nor the Pope. To do so is idolatry and severely condemned and forbidden in Catholicism. Many are confused however because we pray to saints in Heaven asking them to pray for us to God, just as many people ask others here on earth to pray for them (Catholics do this as well too). You can see examples of saints bringing our prayers to God in the Book of Revelation in chapters 5 and 8.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Very good answer!
I don’t think many who call themselves “Christians” as opposed to some denominational branch REALIZE that they are in actuality a mutated form of the Baptist denomination.In fact, what is sad, is that these “Christians” know more wrong information about the Catholic Church, than they do right information about their own sect. They believe they are just “Bible Christians” but their particular non-denominational sect is in reality very much a denomination. One that denies all sacraments, the ministerial priesthood, and organized hierarchical visible churches. They ALL have this in common, and they are usually denoted as “Evangelicals”, “Born agains”, “Fundamentalists”, “Bible Christians”, or just plain “Christians.”
They have no idea how their “denomination” came to be, nor do they care (but if they do, it is a very good indicator of a desire for Truth.)
A
andrewstx
Guest
Apparently Blain has left the room. I fail to understand his “Lone Ranger” Christianity. Did he baptize himself? How is that possible? Does he give himself Holy Communion?
po18guy
Well-known member
Such astute and self-generated sources of expertise as CARM teach that baptism is no longer necessary for salvation. They, of course, ignore Christ and take Paul’s words out of context to arrive at that derailing of the Gospel. As to communion, well it is merely symbolic. They say that drinking blood was a sin. OK, so why then did Christ command us to symbolically sin? Isn’t that the same as lusting after someone else? If you can commit adultery in your heart by lusting, then you can also commit sin by symbolically drinking blood. Poor souls! They are doing the best they can with what they have - which amounts to no more than their personal opinions. Their theology is a mile wide, but only an inch deep. We can only pray for them.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Po,
They (that other anti-Catholic website) also twist St. Peter’s words. Scripture can not be any clearer. 1 Peter 3 below:
And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for[a] a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Here’s what they say:
1 Pet. 3:21 is not teaching us that baptism is what saves us. Rather, it is showing us that the water symbolizes a spiritual cleansing through the power of the Holy Spirit gained through Christ’s victory over death. It is the person’s appeal to God that saves the soul–not the washing of water upon the body.
But of course this goes against 2,000 years of not only Latin Catholic but Eastern Catholic and Orthodox teaching.
And they certainly don’t want to hear about what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church said some 1,800 years ago:
“And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit…Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258).
Baptism being salvific is very much in contradiction to their theology of baptism being symbolic only. A newer theology of man born some 500 years ago.
PnP
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Yes, the reformers that were riding on Martin Luther’s doctrines, thought they would go ALL THE WAY, with Luther’s “Faith Alone,” much to Luther’s antagonism and dismay. But with his doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, it was the natural progression, albeit unintentional. They have lost Faith in everything except the Bible (so far.)
Ultimately, these Bible only Christians will doubt the Bible because of the Historical/Critical exegesis, so much in vogue right now, and then they will have nothing. It is the continuation of the natural progression begun by the reformers. All of it is the unintended consequences of the derailing of Christianity by the reformers.
po18guy
Well-known member
I refer to their leader as “Slick Matt” If you step upon a slick mat, you will fall.
- Status