We are not imposing Salvation on our children. We are giving them the gift of eternal life. They still have the choice to accept Christ or reject him. Once Saved, Always Saved is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Anyone can freely leave the fold at any time.
Since the Greek word translated baptize is “baptizo” and that Greek word means “to make whelmed”… and given that John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan river (which was deep)… I think it is a stretch to assume John did not immerse the Jews. Given the circumstances and the definition of the word “baptizo” it is a stretch to consider they splashed, washed, or poured the water.
The Apostles did though baptize and make disciples of Jesus…
I’m sorry, but that is interjecting you’re preconceived interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 into Matthew 28:19.
That seems like a contradiction to me. To say that you are giving your children eternal life, then to say they have the liberty to choose.
No, it most certainly is not futile!! Far from it; the gift of Christian baptism is the greatest gift a parent can give a child, for it imparts such grace to the soul, that the child is forever changed.
A sainted Baptist? All I can say is, he must not have been a very good Baptist.
If that Child is forever changed (against his/ her will) what is it then that happens when / if they later accept Christ? Are they changed again, or were they never changed to begin with?
Matthew 28:19, 20 says that a certain level of sophistication is a prerequisite for baptism…
Infants and toddlers do not have the mental capacity yet to understand “all things Jesus commanded”, and this teaching was commissioned to be done BEFORE baptism… the primary topic of the Great Commission is “teaching”, and that teaching is to be followed by “baptizing”.
Unless you are baptised with water and the Holy Spirit you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
No, baptize has more than one meaning. It also means to pour. You can’t insert the “it only means this, so you must do that” into this word simply because it fits your theory.
OK, I thought you meant John the Baptist only made disciples of Jesus.
But you do the same thing here:
Then I assert that water baptism was used to make disciples of Christ AFTER the Resurrection.
No, it’s a sign of our love and protection for them.
never said it wasnt. But what about children. Are you saying that they are going to hell faith is required. You cant say that they go to hell because they dont have faith. So obviously faith isnt the only means of salvation now is it. Just like baptism is not the only means of salvation. ITs a process
I got the point you must be born again.
I love how you twist scripture. It says to get to heaven you must be born of WATER AND SPIRIT! read it again and again. It does not just say Spirit as you sugest.
I’ve not attacked your character. Had I done so, you’d find me saying things like, “You’re a stupidhead.” All I attacked last night was your claim that you replied to all my posts, and that you’ve substantiated your arguments.
If you’d taken time to read my posts, you’d see that I did so while complaining about your posting style.
I think the only person whose credibility is damaged is you, who’ve that that every accusation I’ve made is true: even now, you reply not to my biblical/grammatical arguments, but to my complaints about your argument style.
Surely you jest! I’ll do you a favor: I’ll quote some of my arguments that you’ve never, ever, replied to:
It’s worth noting here that you didn’t even so much as quote that challenge in your reply.
A grammatical argument ignored:
You said that the Eunuch was baptized with the baptism of Jesus (the suffering, etc.) and I replied with this, and got no response:
It’s worth noting, at this point, that in the same posts in which I made these comments, I also indicated two strawman arguments you stood up as well, and yet you still accused me of misusing the term and claim you haven’t made any.
Completely ignored!
Utterly ignored.
I made that argument multiple times (and made it again last night) and yet you’ve never answered it.
No reply.
Is this an attack on my character?
In post #3, you replied to my post #2, and didn’t even quote the two things I asked that you prove.
Toward the end of last night, you posted this, which is an argument I already addressed in post #44 to which you never responded.
It’s a verifiable fact that I’ve had answers for al your claims: just read my replies to your posts and compare them to the originals.
Offended? Who said I was offended? I was only scoffing at your credulity, to believe that you’re arguing on the foundation of Scripture rather than on the foundation of your interpretation of Scripture, as if we Catholics here do not know the Scripture ourselves.
That’s not fideism. Look it up. Fideism is the belief that faith cannot be supported by reason. When I tell you that you are not supported your faith by reason, I’m not accusing you of fideism: I’m accusing you of being irrational. Only if I accused you of making the claim that faith cannot be supported by reason would I be accusing you of fideism.
How is it a cop out? I can point to 2,000 years of Church tradition, the earliest apostles, and an utterly consistent and parsimonious interpretation of Scripture on this point. You have pointed to nothing of the kind, and you expect me to accept your argument?jemfinch:
That’s a cop out, and lazy apologetics. You have proven nothing against my arguments with that statement, which is why I don’t think you have a good argument.
I’m not going to post all my arguments again to make up for your lack of reading skills. They’re already there. Re-read them if you care to reply to them.
I’ve believed the truth of the necessity of baptism for salvation since before I was ever Catholic. I was “excommunicated” from a (baptist) high school Christian group because I couldn’t be kept quiet about it. So don’t even pretend that I “have no truth other than what the Catholic Church gives” me.
Let’s be absolutely clear on this point: it is not a cop out to point out the hilarious inadequacies of your claims. It’s just argument. You claim that you’ve got a deeper analysis of Scripture than 2,000 years and billions upon billions of Christians, not to mention the majority alive today, all have. That’s preposterous on the face of it, and it’s not a “cop out” to point that out.
“Proven” wrong? When you can’t even reply to the most serious arguments presented to you here, you claim to have “proven wrong” the Tradition of the Church since the Apostles? When you can’t even handle my arguments, you claim to have “proven wrong” the arguments of the early Church fathers and pillars of faith like Aquinas? Your arrogance, apparently, is limitless.
Unless you’ve been granted some special charism to read minds and hearts of people you don’t even know, perhaps you should refrain from making claims about their emotional motivations.
More like, “It takes a lot more than a Baptist with a big head to prove wrong an institution that’s been defending itself rationally, biblically, and historically for 2,000 years.”
You give no historical support for your interpretation of the Bible. You give no evidence that any Christians prior to the seventeeth century held your interpretation. Surely, if you are correct, there should be some evidence to defend yourself.
Tell me what the earliest Christians said about the verses you quote. Tell me what the Church has historical said about the verses you quote. If you can’t, then you clearly don’t understand the context of the verses you quote.
Who wants the thread closed? I’d rather see you attempt to reply to the arguments presented against you.
Yeah, because I’ve replied satisfactorily to every claim of yours and you’ve not replied to any of the hard claims I’ve made. Because I’ve defended my statements with grammatical, biblical, and historical arguments, and you’ve done no such thing.
Yeah, I’m just trying to save myself some dignity, because I lost I would think that if this is a different Baptism, then the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostle John to explain the difference, instead of letting millions and billions of Catholics throughout the ages to misconstrue this type of baptism.
Havent you heard the Holy Spirit has given us the bibleapologist John. To explain the difference on the forums 2000 years later.
I originally wrote, “Holy Spirit would guide John…”, but I realized I needed to add “Apostle” as to prevent further confusion.Havent you heard the Holy Spirit has given us the bibleapologist John. To explain the difference on the forums 2000 years later.
Where? I missed the post proving that Whitsitt is an erroneous historian.
And can you please answer this post, too, bibleapologist? I realize you have many posts to get to, but I think the idea that Catholics wear a badge of the Anti-Christ deserves some attention. If you’d like, I can start a new thread on this topic. Just let me know.